More reinforcement

A blog link came through my LinkedIn feed today that caught my attention--the headline was, leadership is about to get more uncomfortable.  (Great, I thought--I'm not uncomfortable enough, yet).  I felt better after reading it and exploring the authors' ideas a bit--turns out, they are saying what I have been saying.  Hay Group directors Georg Vielmetter and Yvonne Sell summed up emerging trends and reinforced many of the points made in this blog and the Creighton Technology and Leadership class blogs in general.

Leadership is about to get more uncomfortable, with increased transparency, integration, complexity, and a faster pace of change.  There will be further blurring of the line between personal and professional. Command-and-control hierarchies are flattening.  Egocentric leadership will not find success; conversely, power will come from a focus on others:  "altrocentric" leaders will "draw strength and satisfaction from teaching, teambuilding, and empowering others," posit the authors in their July 1, 2014 Harvard Business Review blog.

While personally encouraging in that they tend to align in large part with my own preferred leadership approach, these megatrends (Vielmetter & Sell, 2014) mandate profound change in the large organizations that make up the fabric of our society:  governments, corporations, and large nonprofits that have traditionally employed a hierarchical structure and leadership approach.

I am going to take away (and keep) a techno-leadership quote that resonated:  "Leaders must acquire digital wisdom, even if they lack digital knowledge."


Vielmetter, G. & Sell, Y.  (2014).  Leadership 2030: The six megatrends you need to understand to lead your company into the future.  New York:  AMACOM.

Onward

I commandeered the somewhat unusual complimentary close "Onward," from my former high school band director (now a long-time friend, mentor, advocate, and colleague), who signed most of his correspondence to me that way. I find it captures a positive, forward-looking spirit and optimism, in both good times and bad. I use it frequently when signing emails and letters. It seemed the appropriate title for this first post-class post.

 I guess I have decided to keep this blog going--we'll see if it retains any readership, but, ironically, I have learned that that might not always be the point:

I came across a TED talk recently that sparked my interest and seemed so relevant to some of the privacy, ethics and values discussions that our cohort of classmates pursued over the course of our eight-week study of Technology and Leadership:  if the class were still in session, I would share it as a topic for commentary.  I've decided to share it, anyway, and invite commentary and discussion from, as Dr. Watwood refers to it, "the open web."

Social scientist Jennifer Golbeck shares her take on the phenomenon that "liking" curly fries on Facebook proved to be statistically correlated with high intelligence  (a phenomenon of homophily, and a random, intelligent, early curly fry liker) .  Reflect on the ramifications of that.  The business model for social media includes data mining more nuanced and more subtle than you might think.  This is a significant part of our new inter-connected reality--and connections that might not be obvious.

And, for the record, I LOVE curly fries.

Onward,
Patrick

Now What?

I'm not sure what the future holds, even after eight very forward-looking weeks, so I won't say that this is my last post for this blog. It is however, my last blog post for the class, Technology and Leadership, and an opportunity to sum up and make sense of the ways in which I have been affected.

As has been par for my experience in this program, learning has come not only from the instructor and materials, but so much from fellow students as well. I came to the course looking for support in implementing technology solutions towards effective 21st century teaching and learning, in my role as a secondary school principal. While, along the way, I did garner some of that, my ultimate takeaway is much larger: a realization of--and an early "coming to terms" with--the reality of our place in a time of profound and unprecedented societal revolution.

That we are inherently apt to form groups, and to function collectively, is not a new understanding. That advancing technology--the printing press, the telegraph, the telephone, cinema, the radio, television, computers, the internet--has progressively enhanced our ability to communicate and connect effectively and efficiently, is also not a particularly profound observation. But, as Shirky (2009) pointed out, and as we (collectively) explored in our shared blogs, the phenomenon of ubiquitous access, via mobile computing, to the internet (serving as an essential repository of the sum of recorded human learning, speculation, and creativity), and even more centrally, to one another, to form functional groups around any interest, purpose or goal, has ramifications that are profound indeed.

It is not so much that technology continues to advance in capacity according to Moore's Law, or that many aspects of our 21st century reality surpass what we imagined possible even two decades ago, as it is that through facile and constant access to the internet, more and more of us, globally, are simply and easily connected. Further, our connections--our comments, conversations, and choices--whether serious or trivial, picayune or profound are recorded and memorialized for posterity.

This changes everything.

I've been thinking about that a lot. I've tried to capture it with a variety of water metaphors (a flat lake, a tidal wave, a flood, a fast-flowing river). I have committed to making some changes in my approach to, and my relationship with, technology and social media. Collaboratively, we have raised a lot of big questions, rethinking, as Mike Wesch listed, copyright, authorship, identity, ethics, aesthetics, rhetoric, governance, privacy, commerce, love, family, and ourselves. I have not (nor have we, in any appreciable way, as a society) come up with answers--though, I/we certainly have discerned trends and directions.

Somehow, then, as a result of our exploration, our study, our conversation, and our reflection, I am not any more certain of anything. I am, however, more comfortable, and confident, within that uncertainty. So, the answer to the question in the title (A nod to the What? So What? Now What? reflection protocol, Borton, 1970), is, "I'm not sure, but that's OK!"

There is an apocryphally Chinese blessing/curse, "May you live in interesting times." Aren't we lucky, that we do?

While that last sentence had a nice final tagline feel, this closure post would be incomplete without the following: I would like to thank our instructor, Britt Watwood, for facilitating a journey that has been meaningful, worthwhile, very influential, and enjoyable. And, I would like to thank each of my colleagues here who have participated together--a significant example of the internet as a tool facilitating productive collaborations. Thanks, everybody.

Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch and teach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.

"You Better Start Swimmin' Or You'll Sink Like a Stone..."

The times they are a’changin.’  -Bob Dylan, 1964

The only constant in life is change.  -Heraclitus of Ephesus circa 500 BCE

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  -French proverb, epigram, “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose “ credited to Jean-Baptiste Aphonse Karr, 1849

This triptych of aphorisms sprang sequentially to my mind as I began to contemplate leadership implications of technological change, after reviewing the week’s materials (see list below), and each rings true, in its way, when applied to the topic. There is no denying we are in a time of profound societal change. Though the pace has hastened significantly, even exponentially--and though that is significant--a state of change is, and periods of rapid change are, nothing new. And, though technology changes how we do things, and changes some of what we do, our defining traits and basic qualities as humans remain essentially constant.

Among the takes on, speculations about, and views of the future we examined, Shirky's (2009) epilogue stood out for me. It summed up not only Here Comes Everybody, but also many of my personal gleanings from the course. In it, he embraced my recurrent water metaphor (I promise I had not been reading ahead!) as he aptly likened leading amidst our current technology revolution to paddling a kayak, as contrasted with driving a car: no reverse, no brakes, no control of direction, and minimal control of speed, but, if you are adept and alert, the opportunity to make minute course adjustments, avoid obstacles, and, with a little luck avoid capsizing (and risking injury or drowning).

That image describes:

• Publish then filter replacing filter then publish,
• Empower and influence replacing command and control,
• Networked wirearchy replacing rigid hierarchy, 
• Increased transparency and customization replacing privacy, anonymity, and genericism, and
• Fundamental changes to basic societal structures we are only beginning to glimpse.

These inescapable and monumental changes present a mandate to adjust how leaders view, approach, and accomplish their task--and at their very heart, provide impetus towards increased openness, authenticity, humility, cooperation, and collaboration.

The ultimate implications for leading during this change remain formative and largely undefined. However, there is one that resonates with primacy and immediacy. How it is phrased depends on if you align with the 30% of people the Pew Research Internet Project survey found to view anticipated future changes negatively, believing we will be worse off as a result-- in which case it is, "BEWARE," or, if you align with the 59% who anticipate the changes will be positive, leading to improved quality of life on the whole--in which case you can add a letter: BE AWARE! (I suppose the remaining 11% are neutral; to them, we say, "take a stand!")

Personally, I choose optimism, albeit cautious optimism. I have been an early adopter or early majority adopter (Rogers, 2003) of computing and mobile computing innovations.  I had a Palm Pilot in 1998, for example, and today my iPad has completely and effectively replaced a paper notebook/planner in my day-to-day practice.  However,  I am certainly not diving head first into the deep end, without checking for obstacles (see, I can't shake this water thing...); there are still so many legal, ethical, and even simply pragmatic issues and puzzles that need to be worked out. That said, I am making a commitment to make some personal changes: to throw a little bit of my erstwhile caution to the wind, to trust a little more, online, to be come a little more comfortable with less privacy, to embrace social media a little more enthusiastically, and to make more connections. Do I think that is a good idea? Does that make me happy? Here's the thing: I don't believe it even matters, because that is like asking if would I rather drive my car in the river.

Some materials considered this week:

Wikipedia List of Emerging Technologies

NExTWORK:  Kevin Kelly Video

Corning's A Day Made of Glass 1 and A Day Made of Glass 2

Google Glass Project and Tech Crunch

KPCB Internet Trends Slideshare

References:

Rogers, E. (2003).  Diffusion of innovation (5th Ed).  New York:  Free Press.
Shirky, C. (2009).  Here comes everybody. New York:  Penguin Books.

"You Are Only Cheating Yourself"

I remember teachers in elementary, middle, and high school invoking the titular refrain, with reference to plagiarism, "wandering eyes" during exams, overt cheating (e.g., preparing crib sheets, getting answers from others who took the exam earlier), or, congregating before class to "collaborate," (e.g., "hey, what did you get for number 16?") on assignments.  I was the kid, for the most part, that other students wanted to cheat "from." I tended to trust my own answers more than those of my peers, and don't remember ever being tempted to "borrow" answers or work. Also, I seemed to have a strong sense of "justice" on that front, and found cheating simply wrong. I did not want a part of it.

Somewhere along the way I stopped being "that" kid--these days, my peers are far more likely to "have it right." I am reminded of that as I collaborate with colleagues, daily, and certainly when I read and comment on other blogs here in our shared Netvibes space.  While I count myself fortunate to rub virtual elbows with a high-powered group, and to learn from and with a fine group of colleagues, I still have no desire to pass someone else's work off as my own, or to have an assessment reflect anything other than my own learning and effort.

Interestingly, looking at current studies and statistics, as summarized, for example in a recent New York Times article by Richard Perez-Pena, fewer students these days--far fewer, in fact--feel the way I did, and do. By the definitions above, as expanded to include technology, the majority of students cheat--and feel ethically justified in doing so (as exemplified here, in Jessica Lahey's Atlantic article).

I think part of what is going on, as students are less clear about what even constitutes cheating, is that the new realities Shirky (2009) delineated in Here Comes Everybody (new definitions of journalism, authorship, and publication, for example) are driving us to re-examine some very basic societal ideas.

As Perez-Pena pointed out, "the Internet has changed attitudes, as a world of instant downloading, searching, cutting and pasting has loosened some ideas of ownership and authorship. An increased emphasis on having students work in teams may also have played a role." (Now, look at me, I just pasted that quote right in to my blog...) Long before the proliferation of the internet, ethicists realized that computers changed things in a big way. Whether they generated wholly new problems as Maner (1980, described in Bynum, 2011) held, or simply put a significant twist on extant issues, as Johnson (1985, also in Bynum, 2011) posited, a new and significantly different reality is defined by these new technologies.

It would be easy to stand on a soapbox, and say, "Kids these days...." Or, to lament the decay of all that is good, right, and just, in the shadow of the (media-driven?, corporate-influenced?, socialist?, fascist?, immoral?, fill-in-your-favorite-scapegoat?) internet, and see the statistics that show more and more high school and college students cheating, and feeling justified in doing so, as a sad and unfortunate reflection of our current zeitgeist, and a broader societal reality--in corporate activity, advertising, politics, government, and other realms--that rewards results (ends) irrespective of honesty, integrity, and ethics (means).

That does not negate a very basic truth, as treated eloquently and succinctly by blogger Michelle Blake, that ultimately, lying and cheating, societal examples notwithstanding, are simply inferior to truth and hard work.

So, I'm back to (stuck with?) my water, water everywhere theme: surfing a wave of innovation and change, navigating a flat, flooded plane of information and ideas, and wanting a good compass.  Here is where the value of some of the basic Ignatian ideals that undergird our Creighton program becomes apparent:  we are called to pragmatically embrace innovation, but to reflect intentionally and incessantly upon both end and means, and to grapple, individually and collectively, with definitions of social justice, the greater good, and the importance, dignity, and worth of the individual.  Maybe a 450-year-old compass still points a true course, after the sea change.

That being said, as an educator, I respond to the statistical proliferation of internet-based cheating among students with a set of questions rather than with judgments, lamentations, answers or prescriptions:

•  Are we giving the right kinds of assignments and tests?
• Are we testing the right things, in the right ways?
• Are we rewarding the right things, in the right ways?
• Can we design assignments that utilize and capitalize on the tremendous resources available to our students, and that make "cheating" impossible or irrelevant?
• Can we, and should we, "fight fire with fire," and use existing and developing technologies like turnitin.com, and biometric IDs for test takers (or time-tested practices like in-person, oral exams) to minimize opportunity to cheat?
• And, to reference the title, WHO is being cheated, and how?

Bynum, T. (2011).  Computer and information ethics.  In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011 ed.)  Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/ethics-computer/

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.

A Tool For Good Or Bad

Today, in my school we rely on the internet in our daily operations, both instructional and managerial, to the degree that when access is interrupted there is an immediate and significant effect: while we do not grind to a complete halt, we absolutely find ourselves in "Plan B" mode--employing workarounds at best and postponing efforts at worst. That was not the case several years ago, but it is certainly the case now, as we have moved to take advantage of Internet based systems:

• Remotely hosted attendance, grades, discipline and health data in the student information management system. 
• Online curricular resources used interactively with students. 
• Google Docs for a wide variety of applications and collaborations. 
• Presentations such as Prezis. 
• Professional development and required trainings. 
• Webinars. 
• Government purchase card accounts and accountability processes. 
• Shopping and ordering resources and materials. 
• Collaborations with district support personnel and specialists, via email, Lync, (and the old fashioned telephone, as well). 

For many of these functions, there is no longer a non-internet alternative. Thus, it is sobering to think about the degree wo which we are dependent on reliable, fast, uninterrupted internet access. With respect to the tools, some work better, some less well, than their (non-networked, disconnected, analog) predecessors. for example, the student management system is notoriously slow to respond and update input, compared with earlier locally based systems.

In addition to providing a tremendous bank of global resources, ubiquitous internet access provides students and staff alike a source of distraction. Instead of being more efficient, effective, and productive, students (and staff) can chat and socialize surreptitiously, play games, shop, pursue personal email correspondence, and spend more time off task.

Shirky (2009) pointed out, the transactional cost of connecting and organizing in groups has plummeted, and thus latent groups have formed and continue to form--and that is true for all groups, whether they present a positive, negative, or neutral force. Students, and teachers in the organization, can connect, communicate and organize, to support each other in teaching and learning; they can also organize in ways that are self serving to subgroups, or that are caustic and detrimental to the function of the organization as a whole.

Ultimately, internet technology presents a tool. Just as a pencil can be used to create art or to deface it, internet access can be used towards furthering or diminishing individual as well as the greater good.

Our challenge as leaders is to find the way to consistently channel that use towards the good....





Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.

Last Week, Rivers; This Week, a Tidal Wave: What's With the Water Metaphors?

It's not just a new wave--it's a tidal wave!

Dr. Watwood warned, in his opening video post, that this course could be "transformational."  I have to confess, from interacting with the course materials, reflecting on them, and conversing both here in our class-related blogs, and with colleagues in my own non-virtual context (that I've heard referenced, in cyber-parlance, as "meatspace,") about them, I have had some of my basic, foundational assumptions tested.  It's not that I was unaware of, or unenthusiastic about, the tremendous opportunities (and challenges, and threats) that evolving technologies have brought and continue to bring, to my field of education and to the world at large.  It is more that I have just not taken the time to intentionally pause, until now, and deeply and carefully consider their awesome scope.

Over the past couple of years, I have spent considerable time reflecting on the structures, functions, and relationships that comprise my current (large, established, essentially hierarchical, admittedly bureaucratic, nobly purposed, rapidly changing) organization.  I have come to a deeper understanding, over the past couple of weeks, that the specific challenges we have been encountering and experiencing are not at all unique to our organization, or even to the institution of education. Instead, they are driven by a much bigger societal change tied to an internet-related communications revolution. The combination of ubiquitous access to information, and ubiquitous access to one another, globally, ushers a foundational change in the way in which humans interact with one another that is patently unprecedented  in scope.  As Shirky (2009) pointed out, the  resultant means, not only for collaborative production, but for collective action (choose your word, here, depending on your disposition and outlook: promises / threatens) to fundamentally redefine our organizations, our institutions, and our society at large.  "Social architect" Jon Husband described this phenomenon as the ascendance of "wirearchy," with a "champion and challenge" leadership dynamic, as it supplants our familiar Industrial Age hierarchical "command and control" dynamic.

This week, I am encouraged.  I am awed, and a little bit frightened, and daunted, but on the whole encouraged.  These big ideas reinforce the thinking and teaching of 21st century education thought leaders like Sir Ken Robinson, and Tony Wagner (both of whose messages have resonated with, and influenced me), and the leadership implications align favorably with my own leadership biases, preferences, and style.  Maybe, just maybe, I have something to offer in this fundamentally different future.

It's not that change is coming; it's here.  As individuals, and as organizations, we are faced not so much with a choice of whether to embrace or resist, like or dislike.  I see it more like a tidal wave:  we can let it crash on us, or we can figure out how to surf it.

Fellow educators, and those in other fields, I invite you to help expand this list, as we all think about that.

Strengths/Opportunities:  connectivity, access to curriculum, access, in fact to all kinds and all levels of information, ability to team and collaborate (as teachers, but more importantly as students) globally, access to experts, ability to own/self-pace learning, ability to publish, to create an authentic product...

Weaknesses/Threats:  connectivity (to the wrong things, and the wrong people...), privacy and safety concerns, loss of attention to human, non-virtual interaction (I'm thinking of a recent trip to a fast food restaurant where I saw four teenage students sit down in a booth together, pull out smart phones, and begin interacting--with their devices, not with one another, and it went on like that), information overload stemming from an inability to effectively filter, uncharted copyright, intellectual property, licensing and distribution issues...

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.

Navigating the Flood

revolution

Clay Shirky (2009, Chap. 4) said, "We are living in the middle of the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race," in a revolution in communications tools that eclipses previous revolutions (e.g., the printing press, the telephone, recorded media, radio, television). Further, he posited that increasingly ubiquitous access to internet social media, especially mobile social media, that turns "the former audience" into publishers, and then communities, is spurring a profound, unprecedented restructuring of society itself.

unfiltered

I carry in my pocket right now (it's an iPhone 4 and I'm still trying to figure out why young people keep telling me that it's an OLD device...) access to essentially the sum wisdom, knowledge and understanding of humankind. Also to the flotsam and jetsam of idle adolescent conversation from six years ago. Also contradictory, offensive vitriol on multiple sides of every issue, past, present and speculative. Also fiction parading as fact, and fact that seems fiction. And what's more, I can contribute to the fray--instantly and effortlessly--unfiltered. Just like everyone else. Shirky described this phenomenon as the change from "filter, then publish," the old order, to "publish, then filter," the new order.

not the sage on the stage

As an educator, I find the implications profound, though, I think a little reflection will lead anyone, in any industry or walk of life, to similar conclusions. The sea change, for education, is that dispensing knowledge or information is no longer relevant (see sentence one of paragraph two, above). Filtering, teaching and learning how to critically filter, the information--the fact from fiction, the authoritative from the seemingly authoritative, the credible from the incredible, the appropriate from the inappropriate, the meaningful from the meaningless--becomes primary, and a prerequisite to then critically thinking about, synthesizing, making meaning of, and positively contributing to that information and knowledge.

the ocean is flat

In the old order, information flowed as if in rivers--contained in manageable channels, kept from flooding or drying up by a system of content producers, publishers, editors that acted as dams, and following a predictable and understandable, if limited, course. Ubiquitous access, and "publish then filter" has flooded those rivers and created an undifferentiated ocean of information--another kind of flat world.

Indeed, a restructuring. Without a river to follow, I'm going to need a good compass (or GPS, to be more technologically apropos), to find where I'm headed, and to keep from going in circles. And, you know what? We are all in the same boat.

So my question for the week: what is that compass? 

implications for educational leadership

As a school leader, as well, my responsibility increasingly expands beyond dissemination of information and knowledge to the management of information (accurate or not) disseminated by others--students, teachers, parents, and community members. In my own career, web tools (we have only just begun calling them that) like Facebook, Twitter, and similar services have evolved from being distractions to be policed, to being viable and vital channels of communication and forums for community. This year, our tech system has lifted the block for Facebook access, and instead encouraged an official presence. As Ingvi Hrannar Ómarsson points out in a recent blog post (which I discovered when a colleague posted it to Facebook), embracing mobile computing and social media is a vital step for 21st century schools.

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin.

The Rath of Khan ?

Excuse the title.  We were charged with creating an interesting one, that "grabs."  I may well have missed the mark, but, as a self-confessed Star Trek fan, (and, as technology moves us, perhaps, toward a world that embodies Roddenberry's positive and hopeful ideals), that 1982 movie title (The Wrath of Khan) kept running through my mind this week, and I constructed the precarious metaphor of a chariot (a rath is a ceremonial Indian chariot) representing a flipped mastery approach and Khan Academy (and similar other platforms) whisking the learner, previously walking, ahead at a faster pace.

A free, world class education for anyone, anywhere.  

That is Khan Academy's audacious mission statement.  Salman Khan is a really smart guy, with three degrees from MIT and one from Harvard, who also happens to be personable, engaging, and remarkably good at breaking down and explaining things.  What began in 2006 with Mr. Khan interactively tutoring his cousin using Yahoo Doodlepad (an instant-messenger sketch pad, now outdated by other technologies), has evolved into a multimillion dollar nonprofit (is that an oxymoron?) that has delivered over 300,000,000 lessons.  The history and evolution is an interesting and inspirational story, synopsized aptly in Wikipedia as well as on the organization's own website, and covered by major media like CBS's 60 Minutes.

A quick way to get a good understanding of the tool, its creator, its evolution and its potential, is to watch Salman Khan's 2011 TED talk:

Even with use of hyperlinks (as is an asset and liability of this kind of forum), to broaden my reach, the primary challenge I felt preparing this week's post was paring down the issues and implications that sprang to mind, treating any one of which in an adequate fashion would exceed a reasonable word limit.  For example:

• The changing role of teacher ("not the sage on the stage but the guide at the side") in the 21st century, and the proliferation of a flipped mastery approach in classrooms worldwide.

• Broad, easy access to a wide variety of curricula as a "world flattening" phenomenon, and the eventual, if not immediate impact on the institution of education itself (not only K-12, but higher education, and especially with respect to cost/value of tuition).

• Cautions about concluding too much, too quickly--for example as in a balanced but cautious treatment, here:  http://esheninger.blogspot.com/2012/04/khan-academy-friend-of-foe.html, in another principal's blog (notably, one published for his expertise in leadership and technology).  Also, here, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-keith-devlin/khan-academy-good-bad-or-_b_1345925.html from a Stanford mathematician, and here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/parody-video-made-by-two-_n_1638460.html from a couple of middle school teachers.

So instead, I offer them as questions, and I look forward to your thoughts in the comments below, to the degree you are ready to engage in conversation.

I can offer a couple of personal experiences:  I have enthusiastically used the site (and the mobile iPad app as well) as a review of statistics concepts as I head into my dissertation, and earlier as I was preparing for the GRE as a general mathematics refresher:  I found the lessons to be helpful in just the ways and for just the reasons Khan references in his description in the TED talk.  My youngest son (age 11) has found similar success, though has required the adult guidance of my wife, who leads him through the "learning universe," and works with him.  Both commented that they enjoy the lessons, but also mentioned difficulties with  navigation between lessons, and with appropriately choosing "what's next."  My oldest son (17) is currently taking a second year calculus course via distance learning, and reports that the instructor has discouraged using Khan Academy (instead providing internal content--some self-produced and some selected from other sources), saying the Khan lessons sometimes used the "wrong terminology," for example.  Finally, while not using Khan's videos specifically, but with teachers creating their own in a similar vein, our district has been implementing a flipped mastery approach in some of our math classrooms--it is not a panacea, but I do see it as a very positive and successful development that empowers students.  I fully expect to see gains in math achievement as a direct result.

If you are pressed for time, I would encourage you to skip the hyperlinks, but do take time to watch the embedded video, and take a quick visit to the site itself, and choose and view a lesson that piques your interest, to get a good understanding of this tool's potential--both the potential presently being realized, and potential into the future.  Is it revolutionary?  I think in many ways it is.  Certainly, it is PART of a revolution.  Is it a great resource?  I think, inarguably, yes.  

What a Wonderful (Flat, Spiky) World...

I read Friedman's (2005) bestseller,  The World Is Flat,  or at least, I read most of it, a few years ago; though, I just reviewed the synopsis as assigned for this course.  His stories are vivid and compelling, and his conclusions and speculations are notable and convincing.

I read Florida's (2005) converse inclination, his Atlantic Monthly article, The World Is Spiky, this week for the first time.  His data is compelling, and his conclusions and speculations are notable and convincing.  (Wait, didn't I just say that?)

While searching for URLs for the links above, I also noticed numerous posted comparisons of the two titles:  they do invite comparison and analysis, don't they?  Well, here is my take.

They are both right.

When Friedman asserted, "the world is flat," he referenced the incredible leveling power exerted by the Internet today.  Incidentally, that's also what Shirky (2009) talked about in his TED talk about social media in the world today.  We can all be producers of media as well as consumers.  We can all be collaborators.  We can all be outsourcers; we can all be contractors providing services.  Globalization in the information age represents a flattening--a leveling of access.  The world is flat and getting flatter.

When Florida said, "the world is spiky," he backed his assertion with statistical data that showed concentrations of light energy, of patents, of population, and of scientific citations as spikes--indicating disparity of distribution.  Access to resources is not evenly distributed, after all, in practice.  Activity, productivity, and creativity stack in clusters.  The chart that is missing, and the one that I think would be the spikiest of all, is one charting distribution of individual wealth.  Wealth equates to many kinds of advantage, but certainly to the advantage of access to resources--and the ability to exploit and further profit from those resources.  This disparity continues to increase  in the US and globally.  By almost any measure, the world is spiky and getting spikier.

The reality that both statements are true is not so much a paradox as an example of another evolution that social connectivity and ready information access (e.g.,the Internet) has brought:  the supplanting of either/or thinking with "plus/and" thinking.  Thus:

The world is flat AND spiky.  Both ideas are valid. Hagel (2012) agreed, and said the next thing is connecting the spikes.  (That links to an interesting article that references both Friedman and Florida, and extends the ideas.)

I think similarly, in a way.  Optimist that I am, I feel hopeful and confident that the power of connectedness that comes with increasingly ubiquitous access to knowledge, information, and each other (flatness) will empower a leveling of disparities and inequalities (spikiness) towards social justice and the overall greater good.

Welcome

This is a first post, and simply a test post.
It will get better, I promise.  How much better, I'm not sure yet.