Invisible Technology and How Much Can I Shift? Still more, apparently.

This week I've been thinking carefully about what kind of technology I should have in my classroom so that the learning cycle becomes seamless and fully integrated and so that this cycle truly reflects not just learning but what it means to be a learner in this age.

I put it out to the Twittersphere - tablet or laptop -  and received a global response as various people weighed in.   Over the course of these discussions I found myself yet again making an intellectual shift in my understanding of the purpose and structure of learning.

Three ideas are converging, deepening my understanding and ultimately reshaping my practice.

1. The idea of Singularity, that with technology we can intentionally and exponentially accelerate the creation and distribution of knowledge so that all have access and so that the urgent and pressing problems of our day can have all minds focused on solutions. Our job as educators is to create a structure so ideas and creativity can happen.

2. Rhizomatic learning - that everyone is a node of knowledge creation, that knowledge does not flow linearly and the human project is to create and spread knowledge. Our job as educators is to codevise a structure where the technology is so invisible that rhizomatic learning just happens.

3.  Subjectivites, a term coined by Michael Wesch,  is explained below better that I could ever paraphrase.  Our job as educators is to recognize what we are now teaching.

Posted by Prof Wesch

| November 3, 2011

As an alternative to the idea that we teach “subjects,” I’ve been playing with the idea that what we really teach are “subjectivities”: ways of approaching, understanding, and interacting with the world. Subjectivities cannot be “taught” – only practiced. They involve an introspective intellectual throw-down in the minds of students. Learning a new subjectivity is often painful because it almost always involves what psychologist Thomas Szasz referred to as “an injury to one’s self-esteem.” You have to unlearn perspectives that may have become central to your sense of self. (I wrote more about this here.)

Some of these “subjectivities” are clearly named within different disciplines. For example, in anthropology we simply call it “The Anthropological Perspective.” Sociologists have “The Sociological Imagination.” When I first considered this distinction between “subjects” and “subjectivities,” I realized that for me the content is really just a means to an end – the ultimate end being “The Anthropological Perspective.” For a long time I did not even realize this, and I constantly struggled to pile on content to make sure that I “covered the ground” necessary. It was only later that I realized that if I could inspire the proper perspective, the students would be gathering “content” to serve this powerful perspective for the rest of their lives.

So here’s my question to everybody: Within your own particular field, is there a particular “subjectivity,” perspective, or way of seeing and interacting with the world that you are trying to inspire in your students? In your mind, is this perspective more important than the “content” or “subject-matter” of the course? I would really be interested in hearing more about how this resonates or conflicts with ideas from other disciplines. If you have time, let me know what you think, and how you approach your own class.

 http://mediatedcultures.net/smatterings/subjects-or-subjectivites/

Astrophysicist, writer, blogger for the Huffington Post and director of the US National Center for Earth and Space Science Education http://ncesse.org/ had much to contribute. The fact that I can engage directly with someone so far removed from my own sphere of influence needs a mention.  That is the power of Social Media and twitter in particular to advance conversation and learning.

Jeff is in favour of tablets. I've captured some of the tweets out of order, but the rationale for tablets is still present. Tablets allow the above to happen.

I'll at some point reorder that conversation, but I didn't want to lose the thoughts it generated, so there it is. More food for thought.  More shifts to be made.