ID Meets IT Part 4: Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning has probably played a role in public education long before the radical new models shunning traditional learning spawned during the '60s. In its simplest form, cooperative learning is a small group of students working together on a specific task (Millis, 2002). This is something students have been doing in American schools since the time of the one-room schoolhouse. As part of some enjoyable self-assigned readings in preparation for future read-alouds with my baby girl, I've been blazing through the the Little House series and can recall several instances of cooperative learning that happened both out of necessity and out of intention. In one instance, the children were simply too poor have their own separate readers, so consequently they shared the materials and worked through the exercises together. In another, Laura Ingalls and classmates were working together on a recitation for the folk living in and around the little town on the prairie. Outside of the classroom, I would wager that cooperative learning has taken some shape or form since the first band of wandering neanderthals roamed the earth in search of mammoth meat.

Officially, "Cooperative Learning" proper differs from traditional small group work through its careful structuring designed to maximize the learning potential inherent in the possible interaction between students (Millis, 2002). And unlike the "natural learning" that occurs when members of a community simply work collaboratively on a common task, such as Almazo Wilder learning the ropes of farming by working along side his brother and Pa, cooperative learning results from highly structured situations (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).

The premise behind cooperative learning is simple: students learn better by interacting with their peers than by learning alone (Haller et al., 2000). The bold claim is not without evidence. Slavin stated that cooperative learning is "one of the most thoroughly researched of all instructional methods" (as cited in Millis, 2002).  Among the documented benefits are improved students achievement, interpersonal relationships, attitude and self-esteem.  Millis noted that this "enhanced learning" is conditional upon number best practices related the "structure" mentioned earlier. These key principles include heterogeneous grouping to maximize knowledge base and talents, individual accountability, criterion-reference grading, continuous monitoring, and formative assessments of progress.

Given these potential benefits, one would expect to find cooperative learning in nearly every classroom, yet I think that is seldom the case. Based on my experience as an elementary educator, I think this approach fall prey to number of barriers mentioned in my previous post. The key principles laid out by Millis, as well as number of other suggestions she recommends, require an intense commitment from the teacher in terms of detailed planning, as well as a deep faith by teachers that students can be trusted with taking responsibility for their own learning by working productively with their peers. I think many teachers fear that students will see cooperative learning as an opportunity to socialize rather than learn, though ideally the latter results from the forum. In addition, from my own experience with arranging what I believe to be potentially functioning groups, and from creating a second set of instructional materials because this approach is seldom incorporated into the materials I've been provided by my school (with the exception of what are feel are some excellent programs such as Investigations and Battle Creek Area Math and Science Center's Science Curriculum) and calls for a lot of time-consuming planning and structuring that many teachers simply don't have. 

Since this is ID meet IT, I feel it's necessary to address the translation of the approach to today's technology enhanced or fully online classroom. For classrooms with the luxury of 1:1 learning, the accountability and monitoring piece of cooperative learning can be facilitated through networked spaces such Moodle, Ning, Edmodo or even Facebook allowing teachers to easily access student work and provide feedback both in and out of the classroom. Since much of the communication aspect is done face to face, technology becomes an additional tool at the student's and teacher's disposal and can extend learning beyond the classroom.  For distance learners working entirely online, cooperative learning is certainly feasible with the plethora of online tools aimed at collaboration and communication, but poses additional challenges for both the instructor and student. Communication, especially among a small group, is certainly easier face-to-face than it is online. While there are a number of video conferencing tools such as Skype that can simulate this process, students and teachers need to place a certainly amount of effort into not only learning how to use these tools, but also focusing part of their attention on using these tools that could be directed towards their group. With the exception of incredibly well designed and supported tools, technology becomes a distraction to the conversations and collaborative effort rather than and enhancement.

Personally, I feel that cooperative learning both powerful and problematic. When I've used cooperative learning in my own practice, it was either because I had the desire to make learning more engaging for my students and the time to due so, or because I had the luxury of curriculum designed with cooperative learning in mind. Cooperative learning taps into a way of learning that humans have been using since the prehistoric hunt, the medieval apprenticeship, or life on the prairie. In fact, the classroom is one of the few places in which you will find a group of people not interacting and learning from one another; where columns and rows of students studiously working in quiet independence is likely to elicit praise from parents and administrators. I think Johnson summed it up when when he stated, "While it is never easy to implement, when all the critical elements are in place, it is very powerful."

Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., &  Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education 89(3), 285-293.

Millis, B. J. (2002). Enhancing learning and more! Through cooperative learning. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns To college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 27-35.

ID Meets IT Part 3: Guided Design

The 60's were apparently fertile ground in the transformation of Instructional D & D. The Guided Design process is linked both to the A-T approach and the PSI model with the inclusion of self-paced instruction, sequential lessons, and it's emphasis on mastery learning. What sets guided design apart from the others, however, is it's emphasis on real-world problem solving through cooperative learning.  Guided design does share some of the rigidity of the other models in this component, however, with its systematic, linear approach to solving  problems, be they convergent on single solution or divergent with multiple answers. Trivette (2005) neatly summarizes this model by providing it 4 major components:

1. a sequential process for mastering course content,
2. a team or small-group processing component, 
3. the provision of verbal or written feedback from the perspective of an expert in the field
4. the use of realistic problems to be solved.

The rational behind this model is not difficult to grasp, and seems just as relevant today is it did in 60s with it roots growing out of the field of engineering. If anything, the model's combination of an emphasis on self-motivation, team work, information gathering and problem-solving skills seem even more relevant today given the job market's shift from a manufacturing-based society to that of a knowledge-based one. As Wilson (2004) mentioned, these skills are often more valued by an employer than their content background and are a standard skill set looked for during the hiring process. It's also difficult to find a set of educational standards that don't include the direct mention of collaboration and problem-solving. Just take a look at the National Educational Technology Standards, the Partnership for 21st century Learners, and even the Common Core Standards that most states will be implementing in the coming years. Additionally, in a synthesis of the research on guided design, Trivette (2005) concluded that when the components above were included, it was likely to increase the learner's ability to retain instructional content, critically apply the content to realistic problems, and increase confidence in their learning ability while being generally satisfied with this type of instruction as well. 

So, given the convincing rationale behind this model and its apparently important skill set, one would think that guided design would be a common model used in schools. Although I can't speak for the upper grades, I can safely say that it's use at the elementary level in the schools I've worked in has been infrequent, and to be honest, is becoming increasingly rare despite what I believe to be a consensus among educators on the importance of these skills. One simple reason for this is high-stakes testing. While guided design incorporates self-instructional components to master prerequisite skills, the emphasis is on tackling complex problems through group deliberation, fact finding, decision making, and evaluation of results. All of which are undeniably important skills that unfortunately our standardized tests do not assess. Rather, they focus on a broad range of isolated skills that the individual student possesses and with the importance placed on these tests. This does not provide much of an incentive for teachers to take risks on methods that may not specifically help their students perform better on a test that could seen be tied to their evaluations and even their pay, especially if these method such as guided design present additional obstacles for teachers.

As a teacher, I've used guided design components on several occasions, particularly in math and science, but I've also frequently given into the temptation of teaching specifically to the test and its format, especially towards the end of the year when time is tight. Aside from testing, I think there are also a couple additional barriers that prevent teachers from having student tackle real-world problems through group-work. In schools where students have little experience working in groups, either in school or out, managing cooperative activities can be stressful and take a lot of preparation. The skills needed to work in groups also often need to be taught, which places and additional burden on teachers. Time for teachers is also limited, and with many teachers relying on district provided instructional materials that don't incorporate this model (as many prepacked curricula don't) teachers have little additional time to adapt these materials. There is also the worry that skills and content learning through this approach will be difficult for students to transfer to other contexts, including standardized tests. In summary, testing, time, and transfer pose problems for teachers, even though who see the benefits of adopting such an approach.

While this model was designed prior to the availability of the Internet and the number of tools for communication and collaboration available online,  I have come across this model in used in higher ed, though with about the same frequency as I've seen at the elementary level. Because my graduate education has consisted primarily of online coursework, this may have biased my perception. Wilson (2004) states that guided design can be either a monster or a miracle, the monster being a "complete collaborative breakdown" that can result from competition, conformity, lack of leadership, or time. While I've encountered a number of group projects and discussion over the years, group problem-solving tackling relevant, real world issues has been rare, not only because of the issues mentioned above, but because distance education provide an additional barrier with due to the asynchronous methods usually employed and the difficulty for students in collaborating online, either due to scheduling or lack of technical expertise. This is an additional worry for educators who fear Wilson's monster. Though, there are obvious constraints when considering guided design for web-based instruction, a number of web-based conferencing tools such as Skype, Dim Dim, Adobe Connect and Elluminate now make this feasible. 

Despite the infrequent use I've encountered with guided design, I feel that is a greater need for its incorporation in education. Not only because of the essential job skills it fosters, or the potential learning benefits found by Trivette (2005), but because of the potential for students to see perspectives and solutions beyond their own and because, as demonstrated by Wilson (2004), the group can often think of a solutions to a complex problem that is superior to what the individual come up with on their own. For educators interesting in incorporating this model, either online or off, careful planning, and possibly instruction, is need to prepare students for working in teams and to ensure that the work and credit is distributed equitably.  Additinal considerations need to be made by distance educators as well, including technical training for students on online tools for communication and collaboration listed here.

Trivette, C. M. (2005). Effectiveness of guided design learning strategy on the acquisition of adult problem-solving skills. Bridges , 3 (1), 1-28.

Wilson, P. N. (2004). Mutual gains from team learning: A guided design exercise. Cardon Research Papers in Agricultural and Resources Economics , 1-18.

The Etiology of LD

It's not difficult to understand the skeptic’s point of view as to the reality of LD as an actual disorder.  Skeptics have suggested that behaviors associated with LD could have been the result of a number of environment conditions, rather than some innate cause. For example, troubles with reading could simply have been attributed to lack of exposure to print at an early age, or students' lack of motivation, or student dispositions toward reading. In other words, it could easily have been argued that environmental conditions are just as plausible a reason for difficulties and that there is little reason to believe that child A doesn't have the same innate ability to learn how to read as child B. I’m sure I myself, and other educators I have known, have at some point in the past ascribed a child's lack of performance to his living conditions or lack of effort, rather than consider the possibility that their difficulties may actually be due to something physically taking place within the child's brain. These "causes" are so tempting to educators, and perhaps to researchers for other reasons, given how often we have seen first hand the impact a child's home life can have on their academic performance or dispositions. Perhaps the reason for suggesting that learning disabilities are the result of environment conditions rather than due to abnormalities in the physical brain may be due to the hope that improved conditions and interventions can improve the difficulties students have with learning. Attributing them to the brain is almost equivalent to admitting defeat. 

Today, however, there is evidence that neurological differences are likely to be the cause of these difficulties. That, in fact, there is something physically different about child A and child B that results in one having a more difficult time in learning to read than the other.  Although our book is a little dated given the speed of technological advance, the research done in neuroimaging, and in postmortem studies prior to this, have discovered structural and functional differences between patients with and without reading difficulties.  The evidence of heritability of disabilities provides additional evidence of the physiological cause of LD. In fact this physiological link between brain and disability seems well established, even at the time of these studies the studies in the text, Learning Disabilities: Foundation, Characteristics and Effective Teaching. It is likely that the most recent literature only confirms this link.

Although I know very little about brain development and the impact of environment on the developing brain, I wonder if there is yet still room for skeptics, even with the widespread acceptance neurological differences as the root cause of learning disabilities. Is it possible that while regional brain differences are the causes of learning disabilities, could environment factors affecting the growing child be the cause of these differences? In other words, how malleable is the growing brain? I'm aware of the concept of familiality, the greater likelihood of relatives having the learning disability, but couldn't these family members also be exposed to similar conditions causing an abnormal brain development, and subsequent disability? For example, I wonder what effects long-term dire poverty has on the development of the growing brain. Could child A have had the same reading ability as child B had he not grown up in severe poverty? An article in Science Daily, in addition to the improvement of reading ability of students with dyslexia, suggests that the brain is malleable to at least some degree, and that environmental conditions can impact brain functions. My concern isn't about the reality of LD, but rather that a sort of physiological fatalism may prevail, and that the emphasis on impersonal brain imaging may overshadow the real personal and dire socioeconomic conditions that can put children at risk of neurological dysfunction. In fact the textbook Learning Disabilities: Foundation, Characteristics and Effective Teaching only dedicates a single paragraph to environmental factors, despite this link. It make you wonder how many of these learning disabilities (as well as a host of other problems) may have been prevented, or corrected for, had more attention been directed at eradicating poverty and improving the living conditions of these children?

ID Meets IT Part 2: The AT Approach

Digging deep once again into the archives of instructional design, we come across another model of self-paced instruction: The Audio Tutorial (AT) Approach. Devised by Postlethwait in the early 60's, the AT approach initially utilized audio tapes to deliver supplemental lectures to students from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to assist them with complexity and pace of the material. Shortly afterward, the supplemental program evolved into a full blown system for delivering a complete instructional program via weekly "learning kits" that provided students with a set of audio instructions and the materials and media (photos, text, films, etc.) needed to complete the assigned activities.

Like the PSI model discussed in the previous post some features included in AT were small learning modules, frequent assessment,  an emphasis on doing rather than listening (despite the name), and student self-pacing (to a degree). However, the two models seem differ in two fundamental ways: pacing and people. Whereas the PSI model, or Keller Plan, allowed students move at there own pace throughout the entire course and under the condition of demonstrated mastery of the previous modules, the AT approach move students along on a weekly schedule, allowing them to spend as much or as little time as they needed to complete the week's unit. Beyond the independent study session, the AT approach also incorporates a social component (guest lecturers, small group work) to the classroom beyond the basic tutoring sessions of the Keller plan. It is the value added by the social component that I believe sets the AT approach apart from the PSI model. Granted, the inclusion of this component restricts students from truly moving at their own pace through the entire course, but I think that for many, the understanding that is gained from the unscripted conversations and exchange of ideas, viewpoints and experiences that take place when students interact, is worth it.

If you were to describe a rough sketch of this approach (learning kits complete with instructions and materials) to any elementary teacher, they would probably respond with something like this, "Oh, you mean centers." Though I'm ashamed to admit that I know many elementary teachers who deal exclusively in whole group, lecture style instruction even with younger children,  it's standard practice among elementary teachers to incorporate a set of independent activities at stations throughout the room for students to work on at their own pace. Some teachers even have centers that they change on a weekly basis, much like the AT appraoch. Of course these centers are not likely to involve the complexity and rigor of AT, but from the teacher's standpoint, they provide them with an opportunity to set students meaningful (albeit lower level) curriculum related tasks while they work more closely with a single child or a small group of students. The inclusion of small group tasks is often mirrored in centers as well, with students working as study partners or peer tutors. Due to the constraints on the complexity of task that students can work on independently, I don't see this approach moving beyond a supplemental role to classroom instruction, at least at the elementary level. However, when we make the leap to high school and especially college campuses, I believe this approach has already caught on in the form of virtual high schools and online courses and degree programs.

Despite this approach's origins in on-campus learning labs and audio cassettes, I can't help but see this model's broad adoption (wittingly or unknowingly) among distance learning courses I've taken at the college level, plus or minus a few components. The semi-self paced nature is especially appealing to older students, particularly those with full-time jobs and families to juggle, but the weekly format allows it to fit into the traditional academic calendar and incorporate collaborative or cooperative activities among students. In the majority of courses I've taken, a learning management system such as Moodle or Blackboard was used to organize content into weekly sessions complete with resources and actvities, or rather, an online "learning kit". The tasks assigned are often adaptable to the students' situation and learning preferences, provided the instructor allows options or choice. And moving through the course with an entire course still gives students the perception that they are part of a group, though from what I've read in the literature, this sense of community is harder to establish in an online course than its face-to-face counterpart. The weekly format also helps to regulate the amount of feedback and support the instructor is to provide, making the instructors job a little easier than keeping up with a classroom of students all scattered throughout the course material as in the PSI model.

Overall, I see this approach as a happy medium between the PSI model and the traditional lecture based classroom. With the AT approach, structure is given to students, but flexibility to accommodate learner's needs is allowed. Accommodations are still made for students' learning speeds, but learning doesn't become an isolated activity. I should note here, though, that some students, particularly those with cooperative group experiences, prefer this. My wife is currently working on her Masters online through Michigan State University and though most of the course follow the AT approach, with collaborative projects thrown in here and there, one of her favorite courses was a completely self-paced course with no student interaction. 

Beyond the standard use at the elementary level, virtual schools at the high school level, and online course in higher ed described above, I see the potential of the basic framework of AT (i.e. carefully structured "learning kits") to reach learners beyond the institutions in which they are created. Now that these "kits" can be digitized, they can made available online to anyone with an Internet connection and accessed by anyone who is passionate about learning. The Opencourseware movement, behind which academic powerhouses such as MIT, Stanford, and the University of Michigan have thrown their weight, now makes available high quality courses, including the materials in many cases, available freely on the web (sans instructor feedback and credit, of course). And with the rise of social networking applications, I can envision an number of self-organized learners, particularly in countries where access is limited, supplementing the instructional support missing from these "kits" to create true online learning communities. It would be fitting that a model originally designed to help struggling learners, could become a tool to empower those eager to learn,  yet struggling because of their lack of opportunity.

Kozma, R.B., Belle, L.W. and Williams, G.W. (1978) Instructional Techniques in Higher Education. Educational
Technology Publications, New Jersey.

Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). Research on audio-tutorial instruction: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 321-341.

ID Meets IT Part 1: A Classroom of One

This is the first post in a series of postings examining historical and contemporary instructional delivery and design models and their implications for instructional technology, hence the title, ID Meets IT.

Individualized instruction may be a familiar buzzword for today’s educators, but its historical roots extend deep into the educational soil.  At a time during social upheaval, cultural revolutions, and questioning of authority, it no surprise that in the early 60’s F.S. Keller devised an unconventional plan to address a problem many teachers still face today: why students refuse to learn. The Keller plan was a dramatic break from the traditional system of instruction in which the teacher delivered the same instruction, to the same group of students, and at the same time, same speed, same order.  Davis (2000) succinctly outlines the system as:

…a plan, which was designed to maximize learning by stressing achievement and positive reinforcement. This approach has come to be known as The Keller Plan, Self-Paced Instruction, or the Personalized System of Instruction. The key elements of the system are:
   •    Clear educational objectives.
   •    Small learning modules with associated achievement tests and immediate feedback
   •    Student self-pacing
   •    Positive reinforcement
   •    Student emphasis on doing rather than listening

Although Davis doesn’t explicitly state the rationale for why PSI will make students want to learn, it’s not too difficult to infer a primary reason. Students that traditionally have difficulty learning won’t be frustrated with unsuccessful attempts at keeping up. Likewise, students who excel academically won’t be bored with the slow pace.

While Keller’s plan was perhaps revolutionary at the time, personalized systems of instruction (PSI) have found several niches in today’s classrooms.  During my undergraduate years, I was a volunteer at the University of Michigan’s Family Housing Center assisting with an afterschool English program helping the children of foreign graduates students learn English. The system in place consisted students working at their own pace on small self-guided activities (games, worksheets, etc) contained within files folders. An assistant assessed their work immediately, a sticker was added to their progress chart, and they were allowed to select a new activity within their leveled range until all similarly color-coded unit activities were completed, after which they were allowed to move on to the next level. In my work as an elementary educator, I’ve personally used, and have known many educators who have also incorporated a watered down version of PSI into centers or individual seat work while the teacher works with a small group of students on a skill they’ve yet to master, on collaborative projects, or on small investigations in which supplies are limited. 

While I believe PSI still plays a limited, supplementary role in the classroom in terms of instructional delivery, one of the biggest trends I see in the re-emergence of PSI is in the field of educational technology. Technology takes the appealing aspects of PSI (self-pace, immediate feedback, emphasis on activity) and makes it both feasible and scalable.  K12, a primary vendor The Florida Virtual School, incorporates a series of self-paced modules for students to work through at their own pace with frequent assessment checks that are conditional for advancement to the next lesson.  On a side note, Moodle, an LMS that is probably familiar to anyone who has taken and online course at the university level, recently included the ability for instructors to include conditional activities. I’ve also seen PSI take a dominant foothold in elementary computer labs and middle schools concerned about standardized test scores. PSI based software packages such as Classworks, Waterford, Study Island and a whole slew of similar programs appeal to these schools because of their emphasis on mastery of specific, concrete, curriculum aligned objectives. Students move at their own pace, are immediately given feedback through quizzes or games, and teachers can easily monitor the progress of an entire class all working on separate skills, an incredibly difficult task in a normal classroom setting. 

Despite these advantages, PSI, both in technology based and traditional classrooms, is not without problems.  Any teacher with a classroom of 20-30 students knows how difficult it can be to monitor, support and provide feedback to students working on the same lesson, let alone 20-30 different lessons. And while technology provides a solution of sorts to this problem, the kind of feedback and support a machine can provide to a child or adult is severely limited. I’ve had the opportunity to both score and write assessment items for Pearson and for my district and quality items the assess higher order thinking skills are very difficult to write, especially when limited to closed responses such as the multiple choice and matching items found in these types of technology programs. The multiple assessment items required are not only difficult to write, but are also very time consuming, as is the preparation and management of a vast quantity of instructional materials. This is one of the reasons I think PSI has become more prevalent in the field of educational technology.

In addition, I also question Davis’ contention that PSI is suited to different learning styles. The very linear, lock-step oriented methods of PSI allow students to move at their own pace, but in the implementations of PSI that I have seen, they are still marching down the same path. Moreover, with the technology-based versions of PSI mentioned above, they are going it alone. PSI in an online environment can be a terribly isolating experience, and not just for distance learners working from computers at home. Walking into a computer lab with 30+ headphone-clad students sitting silently and staring at computers while they cycle through lessons is a somewhat disturbing experience.

A final point needs to be addressed and ties into the two points above. The division of instruction into small, frequently assessed units of distinct objectives, compounded with the method of assessment available through technology or the feasibility of creating assessments, and added to the fact that students will likely be working alone or with an ever changing small group, equals a severely limited range and type of activities (and activities are the emphasis) that can be performed by students. Modeling skills as they are likely to be applied in students’ personal lives or at some point in their careers seems to be a difficult task to ask of PSI. Moreover, while I’ve seen higher order thinking skills addressed in these programs or assessments, it is usually in such an isolated context that it is difficult to apply or transfer that skill into another setting.  

In conclusion, PSI has a place in education, but I would proceed with caution. PSI would be well suited to basic skill remediation or acceleration, but PSI models are a big investment, both online or off. PSI requires a big investment both in the time to develop materials or money to purchase them, and the manpower to monitor and support students or the technology that can do so. I see a lot of school districts seduced into technology packages that follow a PSI model because they are so laser focused on test scores that measure a discrete set of isolated skills, they are blinded to the wider view of how technology is increasingly being used in schools and in daily life to inquire, create, and connect. And online or off, it is these connections with people that further inspire us to create, to spark our curiosity and teach us the art of inquiry.

Shame of the Nation

 

Jonathon Kozol, National Book Award winning author of Savage Inequalities, once again visits the topic of inequity in America's public schools. Focusing this time on totalitarian teaching methods in urban districts and near apartheid levels of segregation, Kozol examines the growing divide between the haves and have-nots of our public schools and the waning hopes that the levels of desegregation and opportunity once envisioned in former times will one day be achieved.

One shameful and tragic irony that surfaces immediately in Kozol's work, is that to find some of the most segregated and unequal schools, one need only to look for those named after the leaders who fought so hard to against such conditions; leaders such as Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks, and Fannie Lou Hamer. In states such as Michigan, New York, Illinois, and California, once "bastions of progressive thinking" and homes for politically charged social movements, can now be found these same schools where rates of segregation are the highest in the nation.

The disrepair, unequal funding, and lack of basic resources in many of the schools from Savage Inequalities are still present, while new military style instructional methods and prisonesque management techniques have begun to emerge under the name of "urban education." In some instances, a form of classroom eduspeak has been imposed upon the natural language of children reminiscent of Orwell's 1984. And in this new era of No Child Left Behind accountability measures, subjects that are not directly tested on standardized exams have either been marginalized or dismissed entirely in these urban schools.

Thirteen years have passed since Savage Inequalities, yet Kozol's passionate voice continues to speak out loudly for those children whose voices are rarely heard. It continues to remind a nation of shameful truths that have been long been ignored. The true shame of the nation, as Kozol points out, is that "No matter how complex the reasons that have brought us to the point at which we stand, we have, it seems, been traveling a long way to a place of ultimate surrender that does not look very different from the place where some of us began."

Open Classroom 2.0

In the early sixties there was a new movement in education whose principles embodied creativity, collaboration, authenticity, individualism, and openness. Walls and doors were dramatically removed from classrooms so students could communicate with peers of all ages and share resources across the building. Teaching was tailored to individual students as they frequently pursued their own learning interests, worked in the community, and collaborated with peers on self directed learning projects. Teachers shifted their roles from learning directors to learning mentors and spent more time working with students individually and in small groups. This movement was called the Open Classroom. Sadly, the open classroom faded away and as standards-based curriculum and high-stakes testing have taken the forefront, one wonders if there is any hope for the principles the open classroom embodied. I believe there is.

Enter the Open Classroom 2.0. Once again walls will be removed, learning will be individualized, meaningful projects collaborated on, and resources shared as teachers and schools shift their roles to accommodate this new learning environment. This time the open classroom will extend far beyond the school building. It will extend across the country and across borders, connecting students and teachers in distant places to allow open communication, collaboration and meaningful learning. And it will be powered by a new technology movement that has come to be known as Web 2.0, which will provide educators and schools the tools they need to promote the principles embodied in the original open classroom.

Open Doors

In a typical day a Brewster Central School District in suburban New York, a high school math teacher posts the evening's homework assignment online, a concerned parent logs in to check up on her daughter's grades and attendance, the superintendent posts his monthly newsletter, a student updates her web portfolio with a recent reflection, and the PTA president posts the latest fund raising info for the evening's meeting. Meanwhile, over in White Plains, students are participating in videoconferences with students all over the world as they dialogue with other students about global issues and brainstorm ways they can take action. These are not hypothetical situations but actual events taking place in our schools.

Perhaps one of the most profound impacts this new digital movement will have on education is the ability to allow schools to open their doors to the community and far beyond. Teachers, students, parents and all stakeholders will have the ability to communicate and share information almost instantaneously, creating an open and transparent community like never before. Nor does this new open line of communication stop at the school district's boundaries. Students and teachers can now participate in the global classroom and share viewpoints, concerns, and ideas with their counterparts across the ocean. We are entering an age where distance is no longer a barrier and a classroom in a distant county can be as close as computer screen.

As schools open up their classrooms and prepare their schools to seize these new opportunities, we are beginning to see an impact on when, where, and how learning takes place. Learning is no longer limited to the school's building, schedule, or course offerings. Isolation of content areas and student participation is making way for cross-curricular group work. High tech classrooms are more likely to resemble offices at Google Labs than the rows, columns and teacher center classrooms of the traditional school. Schools are opening up to new possibilities.

Open Opportunities

In Fairfax Virginia, schools are taking advantage of the internet to offer their students opportunities previously unavailable. Students are choosing from classes never before offered at their school that can be accessed 24/7 and fit the scheduling and pacing needs of individual students. Mississippi is proposing similar self paced online programs while Michigan is making them a requirement for graduation. And it's not just the students benefiting. Teachers in Texas are also taking advantage of online opportunities for professional development through TexasStargate, and online portal of courses, tools and resources. At high tech high schools such as those in Philadelphia, Napa, Los Angeles, and San Diego schools are completely restructuring their learning environments to take advantage of opportunities that technology can offer. Lockers are replaced by individual student work stations, student teams are replacing content area courses, and the traditional rows and columns seating arrangements are being replaced by flexible and mobile classrooms where students can be seen collaborating in small groups on multi-disciplinary projects or preparing for internships in local businesses.

Open Source

The website at Meriwether Lewis Elementary in Portland, Oregon, was designed by the school's principal and is maintained and contributed to by the entire school. The school pays no licensing feeds, contracting costs, or a steep monthly payment for maintenance because WordPress, the blogging software that powers it, is free. On a much larger scale, Jim Hirsch of the 52,000 student in metropolitan Dallas is working on replacing all proprietary software for schools with free open source alternatives such as Linux and Open Office within the next five years; bad news for Microsoft but good news for tight budgets. And more than just software source code is being shared. MIT has recently made course content available online through their MIT OpenCourseWare for anyone wanting to take an MIT class without the MIT tuition. Meanwhile, new standards are being established for digital learning materials like SCORM used in online learning environments such as Florida's and Michigan's virtual schools.

What this means for schools is that educational technologies are becoming affordable options. It means that many of the open classroom principles made possible through new technologies can become a reality. It means that through sharing our collective resources, we can not only provide new opportunities, but can help make technology and education equitable for all schools.

These schools offer hope that the principles behind the original open class movement, principles such as collaboration, sharing, authenticity, individualism and openness are not lost, but are being rediscovered though a different movement taking place called Web 2.0. As Mark Prensky pointed out in his article Adopt and Adapt, schools are discovering old ways of doing new things and we've seen evidence of this as schools use new web technologies to breath new life into a old movement. "When will it happen?", he asks. It is happening now. And as open source, open doors and open opportunities give schools a glimpse of the world beyond their boundaries, classrooms will continue to open.

Afterword

The Open Classroom 2.0 is already taking place. The technologies of Web 2.0 are continuously being adopted and adapted to meet the diverse needs of our schools. But it equally important to consider to what end. Is bigger really beautiful, as Joel Barker ascribes to the Supertech way of thinking about technologies purpose. In my opinion, very few schools have the resources to think of technology in this way. In fact, scarcity is a common mode of existence for many schools, which have forced them to pursue and demand technologies that address this reality. They are looking into ways that can help their students compete and achieve in a global society, under the assumption that competition will be fierce because of limited economic opportunities. However, schools are also looking for technology to fulfill needs and nourish relationships within a local communityand have adapted web site technology to this end. Ultimately though, despite the ostensible purposes for these new technologies, I believe Joel Barker is correct in his assumption that underlying it all is the humanistic side of technology. The new tools, whether blogs, LMS, Open Source, or web apps, are all being used to develop the human potential, our students, towards a noble end.