Comments on: Educon 2.2 Prenote: What is your innovation?

By: bhwilkoff

bhwilkoff — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:19:40 +0000

Don't feel like you are off the hook, though… A video summary would still
be awesome.

By: monika hardy

monika hardy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:17:44 +0000

a plan for a district innovation lab – in funk: http://monkblogs.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-dream-...
and in black and white: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AX3J8HwmX59wZ...

By: bhwilkoff

bhwilkoff — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:27:27 +0000

I am putting together my session tonight and tomorrow. If you have any
ability to record a video summary of what you are doing, go ahead...
otherwise, just send me some links and I will put them with the other
videos.

I'm so glad that you like what I'm doing. I think it is going to be a great
conversation. Talk to you soon.

By: monika hardy

monika hardy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:04:08 +0000

i love what you are doing.. i am so in.
when do you need this by?
i have our plan – an innovation lab for the district – in blog post form and in a more detailed google doc form… unfortunately, i have no time… until late tonight.. to possibly record me talking about it..
is a post an ok way to share this?

By: Eric Brunsell

Eric Brunsell — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:27:23 +0000

Thanks for the clarification Ben-
I am a science educator, so when I hear the word “theory” I interpret it to have a very specific meaning. I agree that public perception, including the perceptions of many policymakers, views the holy grail of education as having kids master the “basics” — even though the basics are know where near enough. They often view progressive education and the research supporting it as being “soft.”

One of the biggest challenges we face is that our “one size fits all” paradigm is very difficult to overcome. We talk a lot about differentiation and individualization, but that is very difficult to accomplish within the normal classroom structure. I hope your video challenge (and presentation) includes some discussion of how teachers create structures that allow for true individualization.

By: Ben Wilkoff

Ben Wilkoff — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:13:50 +0000

@Gerald

Innovation cannot come from nothing. I think that all true innovation is built upon what has come before. It is about making different connections or asking a better question. I don’t think it is arrogance that it requires to call yourself an innovator, but rather a level of respect for yourself that you are creating something. While it may not be new, it is still the act of creation.

I will definitely agree that important innovations are overlooked for a while, but I think that anyone who has something to say, should say it and be okay with standing behind it. Perhaps if I framed the question as “what are you trying to say in education” it would be easier, but I want to know what is working or is creating a unique experience for kids and not just what people are talking about. Innovation can be a failure too, but any educator who wants to be ordinary, clearly doesn’t respect the awesome power that we have to change the way that we learn.

By: Ben Wilkoff

Ben Wilkoff — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:27:22 +0000

I don’t think that it is immodest to state what you believe and realize that it is outside of the norm. I don’t believe that innovation is unique; I believe that it is a daily process for anyone who thinks critically about the world around them and does something about it. I think it is okay to be proud of that. Right?

By: Ben Wilkoff

Ben Wilkoff — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:25:36 +0000

@Eric
Alright, so I don’t really want to disrupt Educational Theory, especially not Connectivism. What I really want is to disrupt theories about education that much of the public have. I want to make sure that we are doing our job to create an innovative system that spins its theory from the every day practice of connected and authentic learning. I want the innovations to be felt within households and within schools so that our “current crop” of theory stands up to the heavy pressure of those who want to see it fail, those who believe it doesn’t really exist or that it can’t work. While I may see the fruits of learning through a just-in-time network of engaged individuals, true innovation is the only way that others will ever see it as well.

I hope that makes sense.

By: Gerald Aungst

Gerald Aungst — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:43:32 +0000

I agree with Paul for a couple reasons. I think when we’re looking from the inside at things we do (especially things other people may call “innovative”), we see all of the pieces and influences that led to the innovation, so it doesn’t seem to us very new or noteworthy. It also takes a bit of arrogance I think for someone to point to themselves and say, “Look at how I’m changing the field.”

We work in a field that promotes differentiation, but rewards uniformity of results. Being an innovator isn’t encouraged in the field, so even when we are doing innovative things, educators aren’t inclined to brag about it.

I also think that some important innovations seem small to the people doing them. They are undramatic, and so are not worth mentioning.

I hope that you are able to find people willing to brag a little about the little things that are making a big difference in their schools.

By: Eric Brunsell

Eric Brunsell — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:53:24 +0000

“engaged in disrupting the current crop of educational theory”

I always hedge a bit when I hear comments like this. We may be talking about disrupting the “system,” but we should be doing this at the expense of current “educational theory.” Which theory are you talking about? Social Constructivism? Connectivism? Conceptual Change Theory? We know a hell of a lot about how people learn. We also know a lot about how to teach (or build learning experiences). The challenge is applying what we know to the change the status quo.

With that said, I like your idea — I’m just critiquing the need to disrupt the “theory” instead of focusing on innovative synthesis of what we know about progressive teaching and learning.