Education Innovation

Let's MOOC Together

If you have never heard of a MOOC is stands for Massive Open Online Course. Watch the video below and ask yourself, "Could this be the next wave of church and organizational collaborative learning? Could a MOOC generate Lateral Wisdom among churches, organizations, and teams distributed, but connected across the globe?

 

Journey to the 4th Dimension of Education: Teaching, Learning, and Collaboration in the Palm of Your Hand

Imagine, education (teaching, learning, and collaboration) in the palm of your hand. That is education in the 4th dimension. 

If you haven’t seen the Nokia video (Go Play- 4th Screen) on YouTube, you really should take a look. In the video Nokia shares the idea they call the “Fourth Screen.”

The First Screen was the movie screen. People gathered in the public space of the movie theater to see the world presented to them through the lens of the movie camera. History and entertainment were all brought to the big screen. People, together in public, were able to laugh, cry, cringe, cheer, and share emotions together.

Just as moviegoers watch together, so too, do students learn together in the classroom. But the First Screen and the classroom share some flaws. Both require the people it serves to come to it. Both function off a set schedule. A both limit their offerings. Choice, time, and location are the limitations of the First Screen and the classroom.

The Professional Learning Community model operates according to the principles of the First Screen. Members must be present together and obeys a set schedule. Professional Learning Communities are limited by time, location, and physical presence just as the movie screen (First Screen). 

The Second Screen was the television screen. People were connected to the outside world through a menu of television programs. People could learn about the world around them and talk about what they were watching. Television was able to reach more people. Those people required a greater variety of programming. But, instead of sharing the screen with the public, the Second Screen was shared in privacy of the home alone or with family and friends. Strangers were not part of the Second Screen experience like it was in the First Screen experience.

The Second Screen and the classroom still shared some limitations. The participant was required to be in front of the television in a fixed location, just as the student is required to be in fixed classroom. While television increased the choice and variety of its offerings compared to the movie screen, the content was still decided upon by others. Just as the variety of subjects and standards students are required to learn has increased, those subjects and standards are still decided upon by someone other than the student. So called experts controlled programming just as so-called experts control curriculum.

The Professional Learning Community shares some of the limitations of the Second Screen as well. Participants are required to be in fixed geographic locations and the meetings remain a largely private affair, limited to just the few team members. Fixed locations and small private membership are traits of the PLC and the Second Screen as well.

The Third Screen was the computer screen. The computer screen changed the way we work and play. The Internet allowed people from all over the world to pursue their particular interests and to form virtual communities on-line. The Third Screen allowed people access to more information than they could have imagined. It opened up access to new types of media and allowed people to participate in creating, sharing, and talking about all types of media. But, though they belonged to “communities” they were still virtual communities. Choice had never been greater and the ability to participate in the creation, consumption, commenting on, or collection of information and media was available to many.

The Third Screen seemed to be the penultimate in screen evolution. However, the Third Screen and the current model of 21st Century Education still share some limitations and flaws. Participants of on-line communities and students are still limited to access to the Internet access, either hard-wired or wireless. The Third Screen is limiting in that much of the community is virtual. No true person-to-person interaction. Virtual space will never match touch space in the most powerful aspect of human interaction. In education, the technology that exists for students is still limited by access for all, the need for the majority of students to be present in the classroom to use the technology, and for education to focus the technology on the individual instead of creating communities.

The Professional Learning Community lacks much of what the Third Screen provides. The Professional Learning Community model is not equipped, for good and for bad, for leveraging the virtual community as part of its work. While the PLC still maintains important touch space interaction, it does not benefit from what the “virtual” can bring to the work of the team. The virtual allows for expanding membership, for access to knowledge, data, expertise, and information from virtual members unbound by geographic limitations.

The Professional Networked Learning Collaborative is built around the idea that teams need to Know What Other Know (K.W.O.K.) and Wisdom Stewardship. Through the virtual connections of team members’ Personal Learning Networks the best knowledge can be shared (K.W.O.K.) and the best expertise can be accessed (Wisdom Stewardship) The Professional Networked Learning Collaborative makes use of what the Third Screen has brought to education.

The Fourth Screen, according to Nokia, is the screen that you take with you. The Fourth Screen allows the user to leave the virtual community behind and take the technology out into their actual community. The Fourth Screen allows the user to take advantage of the ability to create, share, collect, and comment, with their virtual or real community. It takes the user back in the realm of the First Screen, back out into the public.

The Fourth Screen is the Open Model of Education. Users and students can be in public, interacting with the world or their communities. They can exist in both virtual space and touch space. They can introduce their virtual community to their touch space community. And it can happen anywhere, at anytime. Choice, unbound by time and geography, accomplished with portable technology. Information and knowledge unfiltered by experts and content created, consumed, collected, and discussed without limitations. This is the Fourth Screen and this is the Open Model of Education. Learning at anytime, from anyone, in anyplace, and is meaningful to the student. It’s the fusion of the in person and in public First Screen, with the at home in private Second Screen, and the virtual space of the Third Screen. The Open Model of Education and the Fourth Screen are the future and it’s going to change everything.

The Fourth Screen is the future of what Professional Networked Learning Collaboratives can be as well. As video becomes a more pervasive and accepted part of our lives and the technology of video instant messaging and live streaming video continues to grow more powerful and more portable, the future is using cell phones to conduct Professional Networked Learning Collaborative meeting while simultaneously networking in useful outsiders via cell phone video. Most importantly the PNLC allows collaboration with members and virtual useful outsiders, thus expanding the membership and making the team less privatized. The ability to connect via portable technology allows the collaboration to take place anywhere that is meaningful and convenient for team members. Further, that virtual members connected via video can be literally carried into meetings, carried back into the actual community.

Education is changing, the evolution of education from the First Screen to the Fourth Screen and the Open Model of Education and the Professional Networked Learning Collaborative. Coming is the fusion of all 3 previous screens into the coming Fourth Screen model of teaching, learning, and collaboration…the 4th dimension.

The 4th way, that is most definitely Education Innovation.

Pirates and Edupunks Stick It to Big Education

Imagine Joey Ramone as your principal, a punk rock principal for a rock-n-roll school. Scary? It shouldn’t be. That is what you might get when you combine Matt Mason, pirates, punk rock, do-it-yourself, Edupunks, Big Education, and the Open Model of Education.

I previously blogged about author Matt Mason (Teach Students to be Pirates and Plagiarists?). According to Matt Mason, author of The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism, “The punk rock perspective is a subversive mind-set we can all use, especially now that we have equally subversive technologies.”

From the punk rock philosophy comes three separate ideas that will spell trouble for the future of education, but complement the Open Model of Education. Beware of pirates.

Philosophy 1: Do It Yourself (D.I.Y.)
“Today we live in a world where doing-it-yourself doesn’t seem that radical at all. We accept that anyone is capable of becoming a change agent.”

And that includes students. Students no longer need to wait for you to teach them what you think they need to know. Students can go create their own Personal Learning Networks of teachers, mentors, friends, and anyone anywhere who has something they want to learn. It's about choice, freedom, and change. Students crave it and with technology, they can get it. Our outdated notions of teaching students locked in a classroom will have to give way to the Open Model of Education that is focused on the student and their learning because, “Limitations suck.”

“It seems that ownership of the means of production—the backbone of capitalism—is falling into the hands of the masses. But soon the notion of ‘owning’ the means of production may itself be redundant.”

In other words, nobody owns teaching anymore. Nobody controls what students want or need to know. It’s now about the learning and that means nobody owns our students minds or bodies.  They get to learn from anyone, anywhere, at anytime, and for their own reasons, not yours.

“DIY is about becoming more independent. The more independent we become as a society, the more industries become decentralized. Indeed we may reach a point where there is no ‘industry’ left at all, in its place many vibrant local markets producing value, but not controlled exclusively by big players.”

We have Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Drug Companies, Big Tobacco, etc. But, I say we also have Big Education. Big Education is a system. It is not about the teaching or learning so much as it is about the supporting an organization that does many things other than teaching (maintains things, buys things, monitors things, pays for things, transports things, paints things, cleans things, trims things, builds things, repairs things, etc).

These things have nothing to do with learning, but have a lot to do with maintaining the system. The key here is that Big Education operates on the premise that learning takes place in certain place and from certain people. Big Education exists to support those places and those people, but in the end does a lot to support the organization itself.  Big Education is going to have to adapt to D.I.Y. learning.

Big Education is the “man.” And DIY is about sticking to the “man.”

Philosophy 2: Resist Authority
“Punk resisted authority and saw anarchy as a path to a brighter future. Punk capitalists are resisting authority, too--by leveraging new D.I.Y. technologies and the power of individuals connecting and working together as equals. This twin engine of the new economy is creating new ways all of us can live and work, leaving old system for dust. Technology + Democracy = Punk Capitalism”

Students are going to pirate their own education. You figured out the best way to teach subjects, now they are going to use your “best practices” for themselves. Teachers and professors have developed research based teaching methods for ensuring the best learning. Now, students and educational entrepreneurs are going to pirate those ideas and do it themselves. The Open Model of Education leverages technology and best practices to give learning and teaching anyone. They are not stuck in your system, following your rules they are following pirate rules, which means there are no rules.

Philosophy 3: Combine Altruism with Self-Interest
“Punk had high ideals—it looked aggressive and scary, but through its angry critique of society and subversion of it, it sought to change the world for the better.”

The Open Model of Education can look at little scary to someone who committed to Big Education. It takes their power away by changing the focus from teaching to learning. It allows students and other to pirate the best educational practices and methods and use them to meet their needs and interests.

But this is going to make education better. A focus on every student learning in manner and style that is uniquely best for that student. What could be altruistic than giving a person the best education possible? What could be more beneficial than giving every person a chance to succeed to their highest potential? As a country, is not in our best interests to ensure that our students receive the best learning possible? It is in our self-interest that we change. It is in our own self-interest that the students pirate “Big Education”.

“Pirates create positive social and economic changes, and understanding piracy today is more important than ever…”

Another term for this DIY learning is called Edupunk. Wikipedia describes it this way…

“Edupunk is an approach to teaching and learning practices that result from a do it yourself (DIY) attitude. [1][2] The New York Times defines it as “an approach to teaching that avoids mainstream tools like PowerPoint and Blackboard, and instead aims to bring the rebellious attitude and D.I.Y. ethos of ’70s bands like The Clash to the classroom.”[3] Many instructional applications can be described as DIY education or Edupunk.”

“Edupunk has risen from an objection to the efforts of government and corporate interests in reframing and bundling emerging technologies into cookie-cutter products with pre-defined application—somewhat similar to traditional punk ideologies. [6]

“The reaction to corporate influence on education is only one part of edupunk, though. Stephen Downes has identified three aspects to this approach:

    * Reaction against commercialization of learning
    * Do-it-yourself attitude
    * Thinking and learning for yourself [7]

Sticking it to the man. Sticking it to Big Education.

Edupunk rock pirates of the Open Model of Education, that's Education Innovation.

The Global Student - Old School vs. Bold School

Have you ever read something and have your entire concept about something change? That’s what happened to my thinking about high school after reading just the first few chapters of Maya Frost’s book The New Global Student: Skip the SAT, Save Thousands on Tuition and Get a Truly International Education. Maya started a revolution in my brain about what education could be.

High school is a whole new game. We have all heard that we should think globally and act locally. But Maya says, “The new global student is thinking and acting globally.”

Maya explains that the new global student is not locked into “old school” thinking, but will be released to find new possibilities for education through “bold school” thinking.

Old School: earnestly staying within the lines
Bold School: happily scribbling wherever you go

Old School: fretting about the obstacles blocking education reform
Bold School: celebrating our freedom to participate in an education revolution

Old School: seeing “global” as a brand of profitable ventures
Bold School: seeing “global” as an invitation to connect

Old School: mindlessly competing against others by doing the same old things
Bold School: mindfully doing things differently in order to maximize our greatest gifts

Old School: counting on others to help you step ahead
Bold School: relying on your own creativity to skip forward

Old School: going global by taking language classes or enrolling in an international school
Bold School: going global by gaining worthy experience abroad and generating visionary enthusiasm

Old School: letting our we’re-number-one mindset distract and disconnect us
Bold School: cheering for the global good by focusing on innovation and creativity

Students should being doing what is best for them, doing what maximizes their talents and who they are as people, and not locking themselves into what the system thinks is best for them.

Students going global and dropping “old school” limited thinking for “bold school” empowered thinking is Education Innovation at its best.

I can't recommend Maya Frost's book The New Global Student highly enough. It is excellent.

Recommended Reading:
New Globals blog

Maya Frost: The New Global Student

The New Global Student, by Maya Frost - Excerpt

Networks Change How People Learn--Does It Change How You Teach?

Take a look at this excellent SlideShare presenation on The Mico-Sociology of Networks by David Armano.

After you are done ask yourself if this is going to change they way you teach learners, reach learners, and connect with learners. Take a look at The Great 8 Catalytic Questions and the SlideShare below.

The Great 8 Catalytic Questions

1.    Your learners are creators of content not just consumers or your content. How does that change things for you?

2.    Your learners expect to share their ideas with others and have others share their ideas with them. How are you creating opportunities for your learners to share?

3.    The social circle of your learners is a path of teaching. Their circle is bigger than the classroom and bigger than the school. It may include people from all points on the globe. How are you accounting for this network? How can you leverage it for greater teaching and learning?

4.    If you have any sort of digital footprint, it is very likely that your students have seen parts of or your entire digital footprint. How are you preparing your self for educational brand management? How will you interact with students online outside of the classroom?

5.    Connections are the "new currency" of the 21st Century. How are you preparing your students to thoughtfully build, manage, and leverage this "new currency?"

6.    Your learners do not view the educational establishment as the only means of teaching. Their network is a means of teaching. There is a shift away from the classroom to the Open Model of Education. How are you preparing yourself for this disruptive shift in education?

7.    You are a filter. Are you filtering information for your learners and teaching them to do the same, or are you blocking information from your learners and showing them you don't trust them or understand their world?

8.    Do you see now that you are more important than ever? The network needs you. Your learners need you. What are you doing to equip yourself to be there for them?

The Micro-Sociology of Networks

View more presentations from David Armano. (tags: behavior human)

The Gift Of Failure: Failure Is An Option In The Open Model of Education

What do you get when you combine education with the books Here Comes Everybody and Wikinomics, with Lego, Saddleback Church, new ideas, a website for solving problems, failure, and a mining corporation? Let's put them in the Education Innovation blender and see?

Adding to my previous posts (1 and 2)  on what I call the Open Model of Education. Why is the open model so powerful? Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, discussed the advantages of open models. In this case, open source movements. Open source movements have several powerful advantages that education could leverage to improve itself. 

One advantage of the open source movement is that it is not an organization in the typical sense. It doesn’t have employees, it doesn’t make capital investments, and it doesn’t control resources. The advantage is that it highly tolerant of failure. Open source reduces the cost of failure because so many ideas are brought to the table.

“…open source relies on the ‘publish-then-filter’ pattern. In traditional organizations, trying anything is expensive, even if just in staff time to discuss the idea, so someone must make some attempt to filter the successes from the failures in advance. In open systems, the cost of trying something is so low that handicapping the likelihood of success is often an unnecessary distraction.”

In the Closed Model of Education that I have discussed previously, education is limited because the ideas that a school or district can consider can come from only a limited number of sources, usually teachers, administrators, and consultants. A great deal of thought must be put into the consideration of ideas because the time and cost of failure are so high. Time spent with meetings, staff training, and materials, has a cost. This means the filter for ideas is very high. Only those ideas that seem to have the most benefit will be implemented, though there is no way to know in advance that one of the ideas picked will bring the desired benefit, and one of the ideas left on the table could be the most effective and beneficial.

by Felipe Morin

The Open Model of Education draws its ideas from a greater number of sources, including, and most importantly, the student. A wider net is cast for ideas, more ideas are implemented, and the ones that work will receive more resources, while the ones that fail can be quickly dropped. Because resources are only directed at proven ideas, this model essentially allows failure to cost nothing. Failure for free. But the chance of coming upon a better idea is increased due to the shear number of sources and ideas.

“Open system, by reducing the cost of failure, enable their participants to fail like crazy, building on the successes as they go.”

The open system has the advantage of exploring multiple possibilities.

“…the idea is that for any problem or goal, there is a vast area of possibilities to explore but few valuable spots within that environment to discover. When a company or indeed any organization finds a strategy that works, the drive to adopt it and stick with it is strong. Even if there is a better strategy out there, finding is can be prohibitively expensive.”

Our current Closed Model of Education is clearly locked into a few strategies and models that drive everything. Teaching takes place at a designated place and time, and it provided by designated people.

The Open Model of Education blends the sources of teaching to focus on the learning of the student. Learning, as opposed to teaching, can take place anywhere, at anytime, and can be provided by many people. It is this system that can bring many more ideas to the table. The current education system judges many ideas on whether that idea fits within the current construct of the education system. If the idea does not fit, the idea is not adopted. Those ideas that are adopted have been severely filtered in the hopes on ensuring success.

Another consideration is that most of the sources of ideas have the same training, subscribe to the same "best practices", share many of the same experiences, and view education from the same perspective. In other words, education is almost too homogenous in its perspectives and mindsets. This the effect of limiting the number of fresh and original ideas that are brought to the table. Too much of the same.

The Open Model of Education, or Clay Shirky’s open system, allow for many more participants, lowers the filtering of ideas, and is much more tolerant of failure because of the flexibility of the system. Ideas that fail are dropped instantly, and new ones adopted. It would be hard to say that failed ideas are dropped as quickly in education. Usually failed ideas have personnel attached to them, causing union issues, and resources that have been purchased, and possible even capital costs. This makes ideas difficult to drop on a dime.

Further because the Open Model allows participants from many areas to participate, the chances of great ideas and solutions are increased. In the book Wikinomics: How Mass Collboration Changes Everything, the authors describe in detail how organizations from Lego to mining corporation Goldcorp have opened their systems to the public and reaped the benefits that come from this openness. Websites like Innocentive.com open problems up to others to help solve and give cash rewards. Could you imagine what would happen if education opened itself to the public and gave cash rewards for great ideas?  Saddleback Church says to its member, if you have an idea, let’s do it. They offer help where they can, but they allow the member to come up with and implement the idea. One member had an idea for a ministry from people struggling with addictions. That ministry has become a worldwide ministry called Celebrate Recovery. Other ideas went nowhere and failed. But in allowing many ideas, having a low filter, they hit upon one of the most successful ministry ideas in recent years. It is the organizational model and mindset that is described in Wikinomics and displayed in Goldcorp, Lego, and Saddleback Church that education should look to.

The Closed System of Education does not tolerate failure, therefore restricting the quality and quantity of ideas and the chance for a superior idea. The Open Model of Education is much more tolerant of failure which results in a greater number of ideas and a greater chance of finding the superior idea.

Catalytic Questions:

How might you come at this issue from a different direction to get a different response?  What underlying principles are at work here?

In what ways could you shake the thinking of those in the education establishment? What might this look like?

What examples could you substitute to get your message across?

In what areas do you see opportunity for developing more openness in your school or your district?

Who is going to resist these ideas? How can you prepare for and mitigate their resistance?

Who is going to support these ideas? How can you leverage their support of these ideas?

Where could you focus your energy and ideas to make change?

In what ways could you use the disadvantages for of the Closed Model as advantages for support of the Open Model?

If your school or district were to be transformed into an Open Model school or district, could you let go of the past and adopt the new way of thinking? Does you answer impact your thinking or support for either model?

What problems might more openness create?

What do you get when you combine education with the books Here Comes Everybody and Wikinomics, with Lego, Saddleback Church, new ideas, a website for solving problems, failure, and a mining corporation? Let's put them in the Education Innovation blender and see?

Adding to my previous posts (1 and 2)  on what I call the Open Model of Education. Why is the open model so powerful? Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, discussed the advantages of open models. In this case, open source movements. Open source movements have several powerful advantages that education could leverage to improve itself. 

One advantage of the open source movement is that it is not an organization in the typical sense. It doesn’t have employees, it doesn’t make capital investments, and it doesn’t control resources. The advantage is that it highly tolerant of failure. Open source reduces the cost of failure because so many ideas are brought to the table.

“…open source relies on the ‘publish-then-filter’ pattern. In traditional organizations, trying anything is expensive, even if just in staff time to discuss the idea, so someone must make some attempt to filter the successes from the failures in advance. In open systems, the cost of trying something is so low that handicapping the likelihood of success is often an unnecessary distraction.”

In the Closed Model of Education that I have discussed previously, education is limited because the ideas that a school or district can consider can come from only a limited number of sources, usually teachers, administrators, and consultants. A great deal of thought must be put into the consideration of ideas because the time and cost of failure are so high. Time spent with meetings, staff training, and materials, has a cost. This means the filter for ideas is very high. Only those ideas that seem to have the most benefit will be implemented, though there is no way to know in advance that one of the ideas picked will bring the desired benefit, and one of the ideas left on the table could be the most effective and beneficial.

by Felipe Morin

The Open Model of Education draws its ideas from a greater number of sources, including, and most importantly, the student. A wider net is cast for ideas, more ideas are implemented, and the ones that work will receive more resources, while the ones that fail can be quickly dropped. Because resources are only directed at proven ideas, this model essentially allows failure to cost nothing. Failure for free. But the chance of coming upon a better idea is increased due to the shear number of sources and ideas.

“Open system, by reducing the cost of failure, enable their participants to fail like crazy, building on the successes as they go.”

The open system has the advantage of exploring multiple possibilities.

“…the idea is that for any problem or goal, there is a vast area of possibilities to explore but few valuable spots within that environment to discover. When a company or indeed any organization finds a strategy that works, the drive to adopt it and stick with it is strong. Even if there is a better strategy out there, finding is can be prohibitively expensive.”

Our current Closed Model of Education is clearly locked into a few strategies and models that drive everything. Teaching takes place at a designated place and time, and it provided by designated people.

The Open Model of Education blends the sources of teaching to focus on the learning of the student. Learning, as opposed to teaching, can take place anywhere, at anytime, and can be provided by many people. It is this system that can bring many more ideas to the table. The current education system judges many ideas on whether that idea fits within the current construct of the education system. If the idea does not fit, the idea is not adopted. Those ideas that are adopted have been severely filtered in the hopes on ensuring success.

Another consideration is that most of the sources of ideas have the same training, subscribe to the same "best practices", share many of the same experiences, and view education from the same perspective. In other words, education is almost too homogenous in its perspectives and mindsets. This the effect of limiting the number of fresh and original ideas that are brought to the table. Too much of the same.

The Open Model of Education, or Clay Shirky’s open system, allow for many more participants, lowers the filtering of ideas, and is much more tolerant of failure because of the flexibility of the system. Ideas that fail are dropped instantly, and new ones adopted. It would be hard to say that failed ideas are dropped as quickly in education. Usually failed ideas have personnel attached to them, causing union issues, and resources that have been purchased, and possible even capital costs. This makes ideas difficult to drop on a dime.

Further because the Open Model allows participants from many areas to participate, the chances of great ideas and solutions are increased. In the book Wikinomics: How Mass Collboration Changes Everything, the authors describe in detail how organizations from Lego to mining corporation Goldcorp have opened their systems to the public and reaped the benefits that come from this openness. Websites like Innocentive.com open problems up to others to help solve and give cash rewards. Could you imagine what would happen if education opened itself to the public and gave cash rewards for great ideas?  Saddleback Church says to its member, if you have an idea, let’s do it. They offer help where they can, but they allow the member to come up with and implement the idea. One member had an idea for a ministry from people struggling with addictions. That ministry has become a worldwide ministry called Celebrate Recovery. Other ideas went nowhere and failed. But in allowing many ideas, having a low filter, they hit upon one of the most successful ministry ideas in recent years. It is the organizational model and mindset that is described in Wikinomics and displayed in Goldcorp, Lego, and Saddleback Church that education should look to.

The Closed System of Education does not tolerate failure, therefore restricting the quality and quantity of ideas and the chance for a superior idea. The Open Model of Education is much more tolerant of failure which results in a greater number of ideas and a greater chance of finding the superior idea.

Catalytic Questions:

How might you come at this issue from a different direction to get a different response?  What underlying principles are at work here?

In what ways could you shake the thinking of those in the education establishment? What might this look like?

What examples could you substitute to get your message across?

In what areas do you see opportunity for developing more openness in your school or your district?

Who is going to resist these ideas? How can you prepare for and mitigate their resistance?

Who is going to support these ideas? How can you leverage their support of these ideas?

Where could you focus your energy and ideas to make change?

In what ways could you use the disadvantages for of the Closed Model as advantages for support of the Open Model?

If your school or district were to be transformed into an Open Model school or district, could you let go of the past and adopt the new way of thinking? Does you answer impact your thinking or support for either model?

What problems might more openness create?

Institutional vs. Organic

What does the book Reimagining Church, the movie Say Anything, author Frank Viola, fictional character Lloyd Dobler, the Open Model of Education, Learning, Institutional Church, and the Organic Church have in common?  Into the Education Innovation blender they go.

I have been reading Reimagining Church: Pursuing The Dream of Organic Christianity by Frank Viola.

Frank juxtaposes what he calls the Organic Church with the Institutional Church. I am not writing in support of his thesis but rather something that is found in both the education system and the “institutional church.”

Let’s begin with Frank’s definition of the Institutional Church.

Institutional Church:
“…those churches that operate primarily as institutions that exist above, beyond, and independent of the members that populate them. These churches are constructed on programs and rituals more than relationships. They are highly structured, typically building-centered organizations regulated by set-apart professionals (‘ministers’ and ‘clergy’) who are aided by volunteers (laity). They require staff, building, salaries, and administration. In the institutional church, congregants watch a religious performance once or twice a week led primarily by one person (the pastor or minister), and then retreat home to live their individual Christian lives.”

So how does this relate to education you ask?

Here is the point from Frank..

“The ‘institutional church’ is a system—a way of doing ‘church.’ It’s not the people who populate it.”

That is too describes education, or what I call “Big Education.”

Big Education is a system. It is not about the learning so much as it is about the supporting an organization that does many things other than teaching.

Big Education….

Maintains things
Buys things
Monitors things
Pays for things
Transports things
Paints things
Cleans things
Trims things
Builds things
Repairs things
Orders things
Fills out things
Reports things
Budgets things
Plans things
Evaluates things
Fixes things
Drives things
Ships things
Collects things
Warehouses things
Meets to talk about things
Measures things
Replaces things

So many things that have nothing to do with learning, but have a lot to do with maintaining the organization.

The key here is that Big Education operates on the premise that learning takes place in certain place and from certain people. Big Education exists to support those places and those people, but in the end does a lot to support the organization itself.

Could the same be said about the Institutional Church?

So much of what a church does or what a school district does has no direct link to connecting with God or to learning.

Contrast the institutional church with what Frank calls the Organic Church.

Organic Church:
“An organic church is one that is naturally produced when a group of people have encountered Jesus Christ in reality (external ecclesiastical props being unnecessary), and the DNA of the church is free to work without hindrance.”

A similar definition might be used to describe learning.

Learning is naturally produced when a learner encounters something or someone he or she want to learn about. I call this the Open Model of Education, and it can happen anywhere, anytime, and does not require a school building. Maybe I should call it organic learning.

In the movie Say Anything, Lloyd Dobler said…
“I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.”

But do we want our schools and our churches do those things? Because they do lots and lots of those things that Lloyd Dobler wants to avoid.

Is that what they were meant to do? Is that their mission? Maybe. Maybe not.

It’s an interesting question. What would the answer mean to you, your church, or your school?

Asking the interesting question is Education Innovation.

Might I suggest:

Are we married to the mission or the methods?

Failure Is An Option In The Open Model of Education