The Networked Student

FutureWatch Reflection#1:

The “Networked Student” video presents a revised view of the roles of teachers and students in the 21st century classroom. This view is based on the learning theory of connectivism in which students take a more active role in planning their educational and professional careers. Connectivism hangs its hat on the notion that students can be empowered to take charge of their own learning while simultaneously building academic and professional networks that will serve them well beyond the years spent in the classroom.

The advent of the Internet in the 1990s has given rise to the next generation of web-based learning and communication software that surfaced in this current decade. These so-called “Web 2.0” tools are becoming an increasingly consistent presence in the social and academic realms of our society. Connectivism gives credence to the hope that tools such as hand-held PDAs (i.e. the iPhone, Blackberry, or WiFi MP3 players) used in conjunction with emerging web-based technologies (i.e. blogs, wikis, podcasting, RSS readers) will provide students with the tools needed to develop their own learning strategies and experiences.

Given the ideal situation in which a student would have access to all of the technologies noted above, he/she would then be able to learn any given subject by seeking out his/her own subject matter experts via the Internet. From there students would then be able to forge their own connections with subject matter experts while also participating in on-going dialogue with their student peers around the world.

What are the implications for teachers and school districts should connectivism indeed prove to be the wave of the future? The role of the teacher would shift from a more traditional role to one of a learning mentor or coach. The teacher of the 21st century connectivist classroom would become a teacher of information management, guiding students in locating relevant sources and helping them develop relationships with subject matter experts.

While there is undoubtedly tremendous upside to the benefits of the connectivist model one has to consider that any shift to connectivism in the classroom will be met with its share of obstacles. One major obstacle on the horizon would be the financial constraints facing schools since the arrival of the current economic crisis. What would it cost to ensure that the “networked” student has access to all of the tools of the connectivist trade? Sure, most schools have computers connected to the Internet, but are all these computers compatible with Web 2.0 tools? Can schools handle the costs of re-training teachers to act as learning coaches? What we are facing as an educational community is a risky investment opportunity at a time where risky investments are largely frowned upon. The proponents of connectivism would have to prove that connectivism is not only a worthy investment, but also an investment that could play a role in creating part of the solution to the current economic troubles facing our society.

Does SUTE suit you?

A response to Chapter 21 application question #1:

The Step-Up-To-Excellence (SUTE) methodology for successful whole-district change lists five essential factors that need to be present before launching any attempt at whole district improvement:

• Leaders who act on the basis of personal courage, passion, and vision.

• Leaders who view of their districts as whole systems and not a collection of individual schools.

• Leaders who understand the benefits of systemic redesign.

• Leaders and team members who have the professional knowledge, change-minded attitudes, and change-management skills.

• Districts who have the necessary human, financial, and technical resources to conduct systematic change.

The SUTE model requires that any district with designs on whole-district change should have a comprehensive mission statement in place that is up-to-date and tailored to meet the specific needs of the learning community. Since the arrival of our new superintendent in 2006, the Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) has focused much of its attention on modernization of school facilities (especially for the older schools in the district) and the implementation of professional learning communities. While these two focus areas cannot in itself be construed as “whole-district” change, it does represent an effort by the district to improve one key area described in the SUTE model, namely, having sufficient technical resources.


The upcoming school year will provide a unique test to SUHSD’s ability to maintain a common purpose and vision. This coming July marks the beginning of SUHSD new common calendar system. The common calendar at SUHSD is part of a larger effort to align the academic year calendars of high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools in the South Bay area of San Diego County. In fact, it could be stated that the common calendar is one aspect of a systemic redesign itself. Before the implementation of the common calendar high schools and middle schools of SUHSD operated on two separate calendar systems; traditional and year-round. It was hoped that the common calendar would help organizationally and financially. A constant challenge presented by the previously conflicting calendar systems was that there were two separate “Welcome Back” meetings to kick of the school year. These welcome back meetings gave SUHSD leadership a chance to remind its employees of the SUHSD mission statement as well as any unique initiatives or programs that the district wanted to focus on for the academic year. It was hoped that a common calendar would create a situation in which only one “Welcome Back” meeting was needed. However, due to state and district budget cuts, it was determined that these annual “Welcome Back” meetings would be one of the casualties of the districts directive to cut back on spending.

The common calendar should not have any effect on the leadership’s drive and vision for improving performance or systemic redesign, should the district deem redesign appropriate. However, it remains to be seen if the common calendar will either hurt or hinder SUHSD’s ability to meet the prerequisite conditions presented by the SUTE model.

Blog Reflection 1: The Multitasking Theory of the 2020s

The instructional theories of the 2020s and the 2030s will most likely be influenced by the fact that the current generation in our K-12 educational system is being trained from birth to be multitaskers. One need only spend a day in today’s classroom to see that students’ attentions are being pulled into many different directions at once. A student in any given classroom might be filling out a graphic organizer, listening to a teacher lecture, and checking his or her friends’ Facebook status updates all at the same time.

Granted, I am unaware of any current research that can accurately measure how much learning is actually going on in the minds of such students. Moreover, it must be assumed that most of the competing media swimming around their minds is not all geared towards learning the tasks put forth by their teachers. But should it be found that students who are multitasking in such a manner are performing comparably to their peers who are not multitasking, it would seem to fly in the face of many theories at the heart of cognitive load theory. Cognitive load theory postulates that learners have only so much space in our working memory that learners can devote towards learning new skills. If students are indeed learning while dealing with so many competing media or distractions, what are the implications of this in the future of instructional design?

With the advent of technology that is increasingly integrating Web 2.0 technologies with hand-held personal communication devices (such as the 3G Blackberries or iPhone) one must assume that students are being trained to be much more adept at multitasking compared to the students of their parents’ or grandparents’ generation. It will be interesting to see if cognitive-load theories change and adapt as the technologies that students use continue to evolve. I would guess that the development of such technologies will continue to accelerate as we move further into a post-industrial economic and educational model. Future instructional design theories will most likely take into account that learners of the 2020s and 2030s are increasingly able to integrate a variety of educational media into their learning environments. The challenge facing instructors in the future is how to extract the superfluous media streams our students crave while plugging in content that will aid in the learning process. Helping students to more effectively use their handheld devices to assist them with their learning (helping them learn the tasks we put before them) could prove to be a great boon to educators worldwide.

Upon further and more realistic reflection, I am confronted with two burning questions. Are students using these devices in class simply as a means to escape the drab realities of their classroom environments and, if that is true, would plugging in media pertinent to the learning tasks that they face eliminate the thrill of using such devices. Perhaps integrating their “toys” into the learning environment might push them into seeking alternative forms of distraction while in the classroom.