I believe that this justification of School 2.0 is ill-founded and a bit apocalyptic (paranoia).

For instance, “What many teachers interpret as misbehavior or impulsivity (or ADHD) is a real physical change in the human brain.” I would want to see some hard evidence that the advent of digital natives has brought an evolution of the human BRAIN (or MIND for that matter).

The argument for “new ways of engaging content” was a cry of Dewey, granted the mode was different, but the arguments the same. Plato even said “Do not train children to learning by force and harshness, but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each.” There is nothing new under the sun.

This type of justification (I’m generalizing now) purports that knowledge is growing exponentially and spinning out of control. I’ve heard it said that we’re preparing students for a world that doesn’t even exist yet (duh)… one that we cannot even imagine. I have no argument here. As a young teacher, when I graduated high school, I had no idea that by the end of my college career the internet would contain massive social networking sites. Yet, is this so earth shattering?

For brevity, let me say that I just believe that the tools will change (and we should prepare students to use them… or be adaptive thinkers in order to learn the new ones).

BUT… students will still need to:
- listen and learn from others… especially those that really know what they’re talking about and not just talking out of their… ignorance (readin’)
- know how to communicate themselves clearly and effectively (‘writn’)
- and students need to know how to critically analyze patterns and make predictions (‘rithmetic)
Students will still listen to music, will still be perceived as misunderstood, will still assume that they are right most of the time, they will still talk to their friends, …. and they will still need to be taught to see that THE WORLD IS BIGGER then themselves… and that is why I believe that learning that is student-centered falls short.

School/Web/Classroom 2.0 is another great tool for students to learn about that great big world around them, so long as the focus is the growing of the child by bringing in something from outside.

I can’t think of a better justification to an administrator on the value of implementing these kinds of things than what you wrote.

There are a couple of videos I’ve seen this summer that pertain to the inclusion of web technology into education. I posted them on my blog. The first one “Pay Attention” can be accessed at:

http://www.soyouwanttoteach.com/2007/07/04/video-pay-attention/

From there, click on the link to “Did You Know”

You’ve just rehashed the major tenets of Knowles’ adult learning theory, but the reality is that all learners–even children–have always wanted to learn under these conditions. Why in the world wouldn’t they? Maybe kids didn’t “expect” or “demand” these things in the past, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t want them or shouldn’t have had them all along.

So when I read numbers 2, 3, and 4 in your list, I don’t see anything new except that the respect given to adult learners may finally be given to young learners, too.

I like your specific suggestions for how to implement these strategies, but regardless of the tools, teachers really should have been working this way and seeing their students as active, purposeful, engaged learners from the get-go.

I’ll point this post out next time I’m talking about blogging and technology in the classroom to my peers.

This is a great line, “The constructivist approach, as I see (read about) it, is more popular at the beginning of the school year than it is as testing approaches.”

To put it more bluntly: we allow students the time to make meaning and secure their understanding of a topic when we can, but then THE TEST comes and we throw our hands up, telling the students, “Don’t worry about understanding. JUST DO THIS FOR THE TEST!!” What a shame.

Good point, too, about the digital natives creating School 2.0 as they become teachers themselves. One thing to consider: People tend to fall back on the familiar. I fear that the digital natives, when some of them become teachers, will STILL have the temptation to teach the way they were taught, because it’s the only form of instruction they will have seen (if we don’t change things).

At some point, enough teachers will need to have the boldness to depart from “the way we’ve always done things.” There’s no guarantee that it will be us, or even them, who will get us to “the tipping point” where the way we do school makes a fundamental shift.