21st Century Educator

Being the silly season I had to post this…. Besides I wanted to try out the blog a video feature on youtube…. Quite amusing!!!

Well Graham and I have been at it over this whole authority of source and teach truth to students for quite some time now. No one else seems brave enough to weigh into the discussion so I thought I would try and bring it back to something that may be of some use to folk. I guess I need to start by stating that this is not a debate of if religion should be taught in schools so we have some form of basis to teach students. I guess my point earlier was that it is very hard to teach students values and issues of source and truth without having some form of solid foundation. So I am planning on starting by responding to Grahams lastest comments and adding some link back to the challenges and issues of learning and teaching in the 21st century.

Graham Said: So the decision makers are the ones telling us what goes? Or is it majority rules? What about the minority beliefs and opinions? Is a secular education system impossible or undesirable? You imply that it is impossible but I think that it should be something desirable worth working towards.

I Say: Once again a debate revolving around definitions of terms. However, I guess we need to have an understanding of what a secular education system would consist of? Where do we base our values from in a secular system? What are our core values? For example… Is it wrong to steal music online? Further more what about a site like allofmp3.com where a group of Russian buissness folk have found a loop hole in current international law which allows them to sell music online for as little as $1 for an entire album. They have set it up in a way where they are obeying all laws but it is obvious that the recording artisit is missing out on their royalties due to a loop hole. So what would a secular system teach students on this issue? Is this right or wrong? What does secularism say to copying someone elses IP to make it sound like your own. For example what if I steal David Warlick’s or Graham Weagner’s thoughts from their blog and post them as my own on my blog? Most would say that is wrong, but I had a group of students last year that were doing blogging that did the exact same thing and didn’t see what the problem was by simply just copied someone else’s comment. Doesn’t secularism say that right and wrong is what we believe it to be? If so that really makes things difficult for a child.

Graham says: As generally, kids don’t live in an isolated world, they acquire values in many ways that aren’t necessarily explicitly taught to them. I teach values every day to my kids through my actions, the way I interact with others, the way I treat them. Everyone has values – whether you or I believe them to be worthwhile, that’s another thing! I gained values from my teachers (well, maybe one or two of them) or I saw values I did not like.

I say: This is very true and is an important area for teachers to have a firm understanding of. Students will learn values explicitly and implicitly from the teachers, parents, media, peers etc etc. My issue is the explicit teaching of values that needs to be looked at very carefully. Children need to be taught some level of explicit values that are very clear on issues that they will face in life. An example would be the values of other peoples work orIP and what we as responsible learners do with that information. I would say there needs to be particular values that are very clearly spelt out for students to understand. If we fail to do this we create an environment that says whatever you think is ok is fine, don’t worry about how that effects anyone else just consider the overall effect and benefits for yourself. Realise it or not I think we are seeing a generation of students who are thinking along these lines. Could this be due to the lack of focus on explicitly teaching particular values? Obviously an issue for parents as well as teachers.

Graham Says: One of the meanings for absolute is “not to be doubted or questioned” – your argument is that you need absolute truths as a building block for values, as a basis for your actions in life. I disagree – I think absolute truth is impossible, because something that is absolute has to hold true for everybody in existence. That starts to become part of the metaphor about seeing things in black or white, or in different shades of grey. Surely an absolute truth would be so blindingly obvious that it would be impossible to disagree with. I’m struggling to think of one – maybe murder, but then war would be wrong and the death penalty would be wrong – I suppose I’m trying to say there are so many exceptions to any truth that truth itself has a very slippery meaning.

I Say: If this statement were true (there is no absolute truth) , it would imply that it is an absolute truth itself. And if this statement is an absolute truth, it would contradict its original statement and mean that the statement is in fact false. Therefore it is impossible to prove that there are absolutely no absolute truths. Furthermore, this gives reason to my argument for the need for a solid foundation of values needing to be taught to students. Your own comments here are that it is too hard to give meaning and understanding to these ideas. How then do we expect children to learn to make decisions and have discernment? I guess you need to work out what your worldview is and then answer many of these questions. For example if you take some of your questions from my personal worldview then I would say Murder is wrong and therefore the death penalty is wrong – then you would say that what about war and murder within the Bible – well my worldview would say that God is a sovereign God and He has a plan and a purpose for all that He does and has done. Now you can argue that worldview as something that is wrong and doesn’t make sense to you but all judgments by me in that situation have come from a firm foundation of what I believe to be true. The concept of what is truth to students is something that they will develop over time and something that I think can be taught implicitly and explicitly.

Graham Says: I couldn’t agree more, but I don’t think that these values need to fit into a category of any kind – you are right, they have been shaped by my life experiences. They are my worldview. Everyone’s worldview is totally unique even if they choose to align themselves to a particular belief system or chosen lifestyle – but perception is not something that is created, to me, it is your own personal worldview.

Once again Graham probably a mix up in definitions of terms. I personally think that a worldview that says I have my own truth and way of understanding the world as well as lifestyle to live is in essence humanism. But probably no use getting caught up in definitions once again. I would say we need to have this conversation and schools need to set out what values need to be taught in schools. It concerns me that we would get so caught up in the political correctness carry on and forget about teaching such important life skills. At the end of the day values are going to be taught to our students – do we want that to be the values of the media or something else? Information is so freely available to our students that we need to make sure that they have a skill set available to them that allows them to critically analyse and make wise judgments.

Once again, I thank Graham for his openness in all of this…. It is a great discussion.

Just finished up my presentation at a conference down here in Sydney.  Now taking some time out in the airport lounge to catch up on the blogs, emails etc etc….  Thanks to Graham Wagner who has continued a great professional conversation on the posts about Authority of Source and areas of 21st Century ethics.  It is a great professional discussion that is helping us both think. 

At the conference today I had a chance to meet a few of my blog/podcast subscribers all of which have encouraged me to keep up the work.  I will be doing a few podcasts over the holidays reflecting on the learning from this year.  And what a year it has been……

In the pipeline is going to hopefully be some interesting skype interviews that I would like to record and podcast.  I just heard about a site from a good mate who has made contact with its creator.  Just having a look at faqly.com This is certainly with a look at.  I hope to meet this guy over skype and start to look at some ways this could be used in education. 

Anywho - until next time have a read of Graham’s comment from the previous post and please feel free to join in our little conversation - a conversation worth having and one that is helping both involved to develop ideas and thoughts further. 

Back to the airport lounge 

technorati tags:moller, brettmoller

Blogged with Flock

Well the article from Time this week has got plenty of coverage on the edublogespher. It is a great read, which I highly recommend. As an Australian I found it fascinating that the US is finally realising that their students need to learn something other than US history. Wow - what a revelation - the world doesn’t revolve around the United States.

I was taken by a few parts of the story… I was interested to read about a school that is doing a few things differently…

Before opening the school seven years ago, principal Karen Kodama surveyed 1,500 business leaders on which languages to teach and which skills and disciplines. “No. 1 was technology,” she recalls. Even first-graders at Stanford begin to use PowerPoint and Internet tools.”

This is great but what is with the excitement in first graders using PowerPoint? Why does something like that excite people? To me “powerpointlessness” is something that died a long time ago that is just an annoying tool that adults use to bore audiences to tears. First graders using tools on the internet is great but what about some of the old school logo type programming. I just don’t understand why a child putting a PowerPoint presentation together is so exciting. If a first grader programmed a logo turtle to move through an obstacle course then I would be very impressed!!

The article also goes on to discuss a new from of literacy that we should be teaching students. Skills for life that help them discern information and become critical thinkers.

Stroud has posed this question to his class on the blackboard: “If truth is difficult to prove in history, does it follow that all versions are equally acceptable?”

What an amazing thinking exercise for students. Take them away from the proper gander that is media today and get them to THINK. This is the type of skills that students need for the information age. They know how to use technology - a 3 year old can work out how to make car sounds in PowerPoint - but as the article explains our university students don’t know how to discern information they find on the internet!!

A pilot study of the test with 6,200 high school seniors and college freshmen found that only half could correctly judge the objectivity of a website. “Kids tend to go to Google and cut and paste a research report together,” says Terry Egan, who led the team that developed the new test. “We kind of assumed this generation was so comfortable with technology that they know how to use it for research and deeper thinking,” says Egan. “But if they’re not taught these skills, they don’t necessarily pick them up.”

I have only touched the surface of this article. I do strongly suggest having a good read of it. So how do we bring our schools out of the 20th century? Simple…. Teach kids to think!! Teach them to be critical thinkers of all information….. Open their minds to other parts of our world - Letting them realise that they live in a global society. Furthermore, we need to have an understanding of how we nurture these students to survive in a global economy - what about 21st century ethics and values and a foundation of truth?

I recieved a great comment from Graham Wagner recently about a post I wrote a few months back in relation to teaching students the authority of source. The discussion got into an area of worldview and absolutes. It probably raise a few eyebrows but I am glad a few folk have engaged in the conversation. I believe this is a great conversation to have as we head into an amazingly complicated information age that is overwhelming so many teachers and educators. I have responded to Graham’s comment in this post raising some points on what I believe is important to consider. I thank Graham for his feedback and thoughts. I would say it has given me a reason to sit down and develop these ideas further. You may be interested in having a read of the origanal post first up. I have block quoted Graham’s response to the origanal post. Once again I stress this is an exercise in professional discussion not trying to proove who is right or wrong….. My responses are in italics…

Brett, I’ve been thinking about this post for a while and trying to pinpoint what it is that bothers me about some of the ideas you are putting out. Firstly, I am not a Christian so my worldview is not the one you refer to personally, although my childhood and school life centred around my parents’ denominational education choices. I personally think it is essential that church and state are kept separate, because as soon as religion starts imposing its worldview in education, there is no room for any other.

This is always an interesting point Graham, as it begins to point out the very often held view that there is such thing as no religion. Like it or not there will always be a predominant worldview imposed in our society. If it is not Christianity or any other main stream religion it will more than likely be humanism – Which in itself is a religion. My argument would be that it is impossible for us to separate religion and state as there is always going to be a set of values or beliefs held by those who make decisions in our society.

Look at the “intelligent design” movement in the US as a classic example of how “truth” can be presented as legitimate education.

I am not sure how this is an argument for your prior point. The intelligent design movement is based on scientific fact that is being taught in schools. You can not tell me that evolution is the only science of our existence that should be taught? Evolution is still a theory and if I am to teach children with an unbiased worldview or set of values I owe it to them to present all the scientific facts and theories. Your argument is set on not being bias to any one world view that I find it intriguing that you would suggest that the “intelligent design” movement somehow not be a legitimate scientific theory or fact that could be taught to students? The internet and other technologies allow children to search and learn more about others opinions and beliefs – which I actually believe is a wonderful thing. Our separation of church and state ideals would say cut children off from studying intelligent design as another theory of our existence – in fact the science of intelligent design Verse the science of evolution is a marvellous exercise that will get children thinking as long as both cases are presented fairly.

Look at the schools featured in Taliban ruled Afghanistan (the movie Kandahar featured some scenes showing their worldview teaching). When I was at school, this form of truth, referred to as doctrine, could not be countered by alternative points of view via a medium such as the internet - so my own skills of determining what beliefs or values I would hold in life were very slow to develop.

I agree with you here (mind you a comparison between Taliban school and Christian school would be extreme) – a Christian school or any educational institution that has a particular religion at its foundation is not doing any favours to students by censoring them from other philosophies in the world. Our students need to learn what else is out there. My argument in the earlier post was simply that if there is no absolutes in life then we have no way of coming back to a solid foundation to test all other philosophies on. You will test philosophies that come across in your world based on the set of values you hold in your life. However, if a student is not taught some set of values what have they got to base their opinions on?

Your absolute truth may or may not be mine - so as soon as that happens, it can’t be absolute for everyone else.

True but it is still absolute truth to me… I hold certain values as absolutes which form my basis for judging other philosophies. These absolutes have been developed over time as I have learnt and observed particular parts of life. Once again, my argument here is more along the lines of having some form of absolutes as a foundation.

My parents sought to impose their values based on their church worldview onto me, and through their choices tried to ensure that no other alternatives were discussed or acknowledged.

This to me is nothing more than religion for the sake of tradition – something that bugs me about many church groups - An idea that we must mask our children from all other forms of thinking and philosophies of the world. This creates nothing more than narrow minded young people that don’t know how to cope in the real world. They grow up either becoming bitter toward the church or having no basis to express their views and opinions. I personally believe that we need to give children a firm foundation of truth and then teach them about what other people and cultures believe and their reasons for their beliefs. Having done this myself during my tertiary studies I believe it helped me understand my faith much more clearly and gain a much broader perspective on the world. It also helped me have an understanding of absolutes and the values I have for my life.

So I worry when I see words like “they have no set of values ” because my thought is that it comes off sounding like that those of us who have declined religion have no values or cannot recognise truth.

I am sorry if my original post gave you this idea…. However, I find it very interesting to think that we can create a perception that truth can be something that can be manipulated to be wha ever it is we as humans want it to be. I am sure you have a set of values for life and core values that you bring into your educational world, however, those values will always be based upon a worldview or philosophy of some sort. It may be post-modernism or humanism or new age beliefs, either way your perception of truth and values are based on some foundation you have set in life through your own experiences.

To conclude – I am concerned that we don’t give children the opportunity to create a firm foundation of what they believe. Once we have done that we create opportunity for them to be real learners who are able to discern information and interact within an age of information that seems so overwhelming to many of us. Our schools need to make our students independent learners who have the ability to think for themselves and realise that all judgments of truth in their world will ultimately fall on their personal foundation of beliefs or worldview. I can not base my opinions of what is right and wrong or true on negative past experiences and I certainly hope that students will be educated enough to learn how to understand the world through critical thinking and thought processes rather than simple experience.

I always enjoy a good discussion on these areas. I think it is important as 21st Century educators to think throug these issues as we work out ways to deal with this information environment. Values education is seeming to be more and more important. Of course that raises the question of whose values then should be taught? Thoughts?!?!?!

Brett, I’ve been thinking about this post for a while and trying to pinpoint what it is that bothers me about some of the ideas you are putting out. Firstly, I am not a Christian so my worldview is not the one you refer to personally, although my childhood and school life centred around my parents’ denominational education choices. I personally think it is essential that church and state are kept separate, because as soon as religion starts imposing its worldview in education, there is no room for any other.

This is always an interesting point Graham, as it begins to point out the very often held view that there is such thing as no religion. Like it or not there will always be a predominant worldview imposed in our society. If it is not Christianity or any other main stream religion it will more than likely be humanism – Which in itself is a religion. My argument would be that it is impossible for us to separate religion and state as there is always going to be a set of values or beliefs held by those who make decisions in our society.
Look at the “intelligent design” movement in the US as a classic example of how “truth” can be presented as legitimate education.
I am not sure how this is an argument for your prior point. The intelligent design movement is based on scientific fact that is being taught in schools. You can not tell me that evolution is the only science of our existence that should be taught? Evolution is still a theory and if I am to teach children with an unbiased worldview or set of values I owe it to them to present all the scientific facts and theories. Your argument is set on not being bias to any one world view that I find it intriguing that you would suggest that the “intelligent design” movement somehow not be a legitimate scientific theory or fact that could be taught to students? The internet and other technologies allow children to search and learn more about others opinions and beliefs – which I actually believe is a wonderful thing. Our separation of church and state ideals would say cut children off from studying intelligent design as another theory of our existence – in fact the science of intelligent design Verse the science of evolution is a marvellous exercise that will get children thinking as long as both cases are presented fairly.
Look at the schools featured in Taliban ruled Afghanistan (the movie Kandahar featured some scenes showing their worldview teaching). When I was at school, this form of truth, referred to as doctrine, could not be countered by alternative points of view via a medium such as the internet - so my own skills of determining what beliefs or values I would hold in life were very slow to develop.
I agree with you here (mind you a comparison between Taliban school and Christian school would be extreme) – a Christian school or any educational institution that has a particular religion at its foundation is not doing any favours to students by censoring them from other philosophies in the world. Our students need to learn what else is out there. My argument in the earlier post was simply that if there is no absolutes in life then we have no way of coming back to a solid foundation to test all other philosophies on. You will test philosophies that come across in your world based on the set of values you hold in your life. However, if a student is not taught some set of values what have they got to base their opinions on?
Your absolute truth may or may not be mine - so as soon as that happens, it can’t be absolute for everyone else.
True but it is still absolute truth to me… I hold certain values as absolutes which form my basis for judging other philosophies. These absolutes have been developed over time as I have learnt and observed particular parts of life. Once again, my argument here is more along the lines of having some form of absolutes as a foundation.
My parents sought to impose their values based on their church worldview onto me, and through their choices tried to ensure that no other alternatives were discussed or acknowledged.
This to me is nothing more than religion for the sake of tradition – something that bugs me about many church groups - An idea that we must mask our children from all other forms of thinking and philosophies of the world. This creates nothing more than narrow minded young people that don’t know how to cope in the real world. They grow up either becoming bitter toward the church or having no basis to express their views and opinions. I personally believe that we need to give children a firm foundation of truth and then teach them about what other people and cultures believe and their reasons for their beliefs. Having done this myself during my tertiary studies I believe it helped me understand my faith much more clearly and gain a much broader perspective on the world. It also helped me have an understanding of absolutes and the values I have for my life.
So I worry when I see words like “they have no set of values ” because my thought is that it comes off sounding like that those of us who have declined religion have no values or cannot recognise truth.
I am sorry if my original post gave you this idea…. However, I find it very interesting to think that we can create a perception that truth can be something that can be manipulated to be wha ever it is we as humans want it to be. I am sure you have a set of values for life and core values that you bring into your educational world, however, those values will always be based upon a worldview or philosophy of some sort. It may be post-modernism or humanism or new age beliefs, either way your perception of truth and values are based on some foundation you have set in life through your own experiences.

To conclude – I am concerned that we don’t give children the opportunity to create a firm foundation of what they believe. Once we have done that we create opportunity for them to be real learners who are able to discern information and interact within an age of information that seems so overwhelming to many of us. Our schools need to make our students independent learners who have the ability to think for themselves and realise that all judgments of truth in their world will ultimately fall on their personal foundation of beliefs or worldview. I can not base my opinions of what is right and wrong or true on negative past experiences and I certainly hope that students will be educated enough to learn how to understand the world through critical thinking and thought processes rather than simple experience.

I haven’t posted for a while. I am beginning to slow down as we head into Christmas and school here finishes for summer holidays. I have one more presentation to give at a conference next week then a end of year report for work hopefully followed by some time off over Christmas.

I was reading this morning an article about the validity of social news networks. This article was referring to the popular site digg.com. Personally, I love digg and the way it allows users to decide what stories are worth reading. However, as this article states - these networks are being thrashed by corporation who pay readers to submit stories about their product and therefore creating an environment where certain products get much more attention than others. Apparently, paying a group of readers to digg stories, therefore creating more attention for your product is much cheaper than traditional online advertising!! Digg execs state that they have this under control and systems in place to stop these actions.

However, it does make me wonder how these types of networks are going to evolve in the coming years and if they will be able to defeat the corporate world. Furthermore, it raises issues of how we educate children to understand the power and therefore the validity of these networks. I think it once again is another example of how we need to be teaching students to critically think about the information they are consuming. What are the underlying basis of the infomration we receive - even on something like digg that has been designed as an area controlled by everyday users. I think it is important to remember that we live in a world that will use the way we engage in this new information environment in many different ways, all of which we may not approve of.

technorati tags:digg, brettmoller

Blogged with Flock