If you have not yet had an opportunity to read Johanna’s work, you can browse the entire book online and gain some valuable insight from our Q and A session.

Enjoy!

In the Introduction, you frame a brief yet persuasive argument for incorporating visual literacy into the classroom.  In your experience, how responsive are teachers to making visual literacy part of their students’ “daily educational landscape”?

Teachers and media specialists have been including visual literacy reflexively for a long time, in the way that they urge young readers to frame context and make sense of textual information through the accompanying imagery of illustrations. Art teachers try to pass that skill along, too, in the ways that they encourage students to interpret, and create, works of art. I think of those approaches as “traditional visual literacy”, and I believe that most teachers can identify with those techniques. The world of multimedia has broadened the concept of literacy-including visual literacy–exponentially. Today’s teachers have a full plate! They need to understand the relevance behind the concepts they are asked to embrace. If you teach teachers the why and how of visual literacy, they will find ways to incorporate it, because they will understand it’s place in the world of meaningful learning. It is my opinion that visually literacy training is a natural incorporation in project based learning initiatives and technology and information literacy courses. I hope to see more of it appearing in pre-service teacher training courses across the globe.

You have experience as an art teacher and library media specialist; how can teachers without those skill-sets become “visually literate”?  Does it require substantial professional development or can it simply be learned through practice and experimentation?

There are combinations of factors at work in knowledge gathering. If you reflect on your earliest remembrances, you may recall information gleaned through combinations of traditional and visual literacy. That osmosis might have taken the form of associating the familiar golden arches with French fries (visual literacy) or the letters O-A-K with a street sign that pointed the way home from the park (visual/textual literacy). My point is that there exists some inherent response within humans to meaning making through a range of literacies. But, for most of us, sophistry in those forms of communication requires learned skills, and thus, the teaching of those skills. That’s education.

In my book, I compare visual literacy training to reading instruction. I learned to read early in life, because I was able to make sense of the alphabet, it’s sounds, the assemblage of words, and connect that to meaning. I needed a teacher to spell out diphthongs, blends, and other anomalies of the English language in order to grow in traditional literacy. And I am absolutely certain that the required hours of reading courses were instrumental in preparing me to pass on, through sequential teaching and scaffolding of skills, the art of reading to my students. Visual literacy works the same way. While visual literacy is included in current literacy standards, there seem to be few formal training programs in visual literacy techniques for classroom teachers.

I think that many educators are acquiring visual literacy skills informally, through independent study such as that provided by the Center for Media Literacy (http://www.medialit.org/ ), and integrating what they learn into their classroom environment, with varying degrees of success. And, believe me, the success will vary! I could write a sequel to Engaging the Eye Generation entitled It Seemed like a Good Idea at the Time!

How does a school go about establishing a cohesive, spiral approach to literacy that follows a natural progression from kindergarten through fifth grade?

That’s such a great question! I have a very low tech, low cost response, based on my own experience as a media specialist. I unrolled two expanses of butcher paper (the kind we use to back bulletin boards), laid them across several 6-foot tables, and labeled the whole shebang “Literacy Skills”. I divided the paper into 6 parts, labeled each section vertically from K-5, and penned a question at the top of each swath of paper: “What do you want your students to know when they enter your classroom?” and “What do you expect them to be able to do when they leave?” Over the course of several weeks, classroom teachers dropped by and filled in the blanks. I measured their responses to national and state standards in literacy—using language arts standards, technology standards, and visual art standards—and shared those results with my faculty, filling some suggestions for gaps and scaffolding. When we came to agreement, I put it all together, and shared the results with my school community. That little piece of work formed the backbone of the multiple literacy work that we undertook through our media programs, and set the stage for an environment of collaboration and broad thinking about what literacy really means in our current age.

The text and still image examples that you provided were very powerful.  Does visual literacy extend to video? Have you tried any lessons/projects that utilize video in the classroom?

Moving from still images to digital story making to video production seems like a natural progression to me. My students and I began with our morning news show, which was, at its conception, a live broadcast interspersed with short video clips from students—interviews, announcements, and so on. Video became part of our wider classroom experience after we had worked with sequential stills for a while. We began with short, whole group projects, such videotaping a science experiment and outlining the scientific process. As the students gained skill with the production process, they began to collaborate on small video projects, such as the persuasive shorts described on page 113. Originally, we used Premiere Elements—it was smooth transition from Photoshop Elements, and included in the classroom pack we purchased. Later on, the district supplied each media center with a Mac and imovie. We submitted some of our work to the International Student Media Festival (www.ismf.net). Winning projects were uploaded to School Tube, courtesy of ISMF. Others were included in Best of Festival collections produced by the same entity. Adobe also came and made an educational short about the students’ work with Elements. You can view that at http://21centuryconnections.com/node/34

You address research in chapters four and five; at what age/grade level do you feel students should move from working with teacher-selected material to locating their own resources?

My fifth grade students participate in independent research projects. An essential part of that experience is locating, evaluating, and selecting their own resources. We dedicate some time to learning how to analyze resources in our media classes. It is an important aspect of giving students control over, and responsibility for, their own learning. That is foundational to the ultimate goal of creating life long learners. When students begin to select their own resources, I encourage them to “rate the resource” and explain why that particular source was effective or ineffective for their needs. And you know, they are not always going to select the best resources. Our philosophy about selecting resources is that “we have no failures, only successes we’re not too proud of.” When students have the skills to understand that a resource isn’t working for them, analyze the reasons, and make a deliberate substitution based on that analysis, they are heading in the right direction– acquiring a valuable skill It’s all about research and learning for understanding, versus “grab and copy” that students sometimes mistake for the research process. Like all authentic learning, it takes time.

I prepare students in the lower grades by providing a range of resources on a topic—for example, field guides in varying balances of textual and visual information, written on different grade levels, and let them select and evaluate the guide that is best for their personal use. In tandem with that is practice in making sure that students understand what they have read, and can communicate that information in a way that others can understand. Again, we are a talking about a literacy—information literacy. Like other forms of literacy, information literacy is a learned and sequential process.

Technology-facilitated learning often focuses on the appearance of the final product at the expense of establishing a meaningful process.  What advice can you give teachers in regard to ensuring a balance between the two?

My years in the field of visual art have left me well acquainted with this reality. As teachers, we are dedicated to student learning. Learning is process driven. Yet, skill and craftsmanship are part of that process. In addition, there is an art form involved in creating visual literacy, which means leans in favor of right brainers, and may tempt us to be subjective in our evaluation. After all, we know what we like! The rubrics that I describe in my book went a long way toward helping me, my colleagues, and my students find that balance between process and product, skill and art. When teachers and students work together to consider the multiple goals of a technology infused project, and spell out the objectives, they are creating, in effect, a road map for integrated, project based learning that will ultimately lead them to an excellent product. I consider revision and re-learning an important part of the process, so our rubrics always include a space marked “Not Yet”. That allows the student to go back and revisit some aspect of process that they may have failed to address, and to include that skill or concept in their final outcome. Each product will look different, because creative processes result in many outcomes, but the standards established for measuring will allow the students and teachers to stay on track, and analyze their work objectively. It’s important to remember that we are looking at this kind of learning through the lens of communication. Those “fuzzy shots” or jumping images a’la MTV can be richly communicative– if the student is able to explain the intention behind such “artistic” choices.

Many thanks to Johanna and Stenhouse Publishers for visiting Technology in the Middle and making this great opportunity available to educators everywhere!

Johanna’s book (which can be browsed in its entirety here) addresses the concept of literacy in the 21st century and shows educators how to update their curriculum to meet the needs of today’s learners.  Although the title indicates a K-5 focus, her approach to utilizing technology and visual media can be applied to a much broader audience.   Building from the premise that observation and creation jointly form the foundation of visual literacy, she clearly illustrates how traditional and visual literacy can be aligned to prepare students for the world in which they will need to be able to “decode, comprehend, and analyze the elements, messages, and values communicated by image.”

Anyone seeking to understand visual literacy, improve their instructional practice, and create authentic, engaging learning experiences would be well served to explore Johanna’s work.  As such, I would invite you to read the free online version of Engaging the Eye Generation and then submit questions for her to address (either by leaving a comment or via email) when her book tour stops here on March 9.

I’ll post more specific information/details regarding her visit as the date approaches, but in the meantime, enjoy the book and don’t hesitate to share any questions you  may have for Johanna.

Happy reading!

**Photo courtesy of Naddsy on Flickr (Creative Commons, non-commercial)

In his examination of aviation safety, Gladwell details the storied history of Korean Air, formerly one of the most dangerous airlines in the world.  Over a twenty year span it wrote off sixteen aircraft in serious incidents and accidents with a loss of over 700 lives.  Since 1997, however, it has not had a single fatal crash and today is among the safest carriers in the skies.  The reasons for the turnaround?  An understanding of communication, culture, and Geert Hofstede’s Power Distance Index.

As Gladwell explains, airplane crashes rarely happen as depicted on the silver screen.  In reality, the typical accident is not due to a lack of knowledge or skills, and involves seven consecutive human errors.  Furthermore, these errors are invariably due to a lack of teamwork and collaboration.  Iced wings, low fuel, or a broken glide scope will generally not lead to catastrophe unless there is a communication breakdown on the flight deck.  Mitigated speech, which Gladwell defines as “any attempt to downplay or sugar-coat what is being said” is what brings planes down, and Chapter 7 is full of examples of mitigated speech leading to disaster.  Deference to authority, while polite, is not always prudent…but it is predictable.

Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (PDI) is a measure of how close or how distant a relationship superiors like to have with their subordinates, and that subordinates like to have with their superiors.  In a study comparing the PDI of pilots from around the world, researchers found a strong correlation between countries/cultures with high a PDI and plane crashes.  In other words, when people don’t speak up, the consequences can be dire.  The United States has a relatively low PDI (40) and its domestic carriers enjoy a near-perfect safety record; American flight crews speak their mind.  But what of American educators?

While as a nation we may not feel comfortable accepting the idea that power is distributed unequally, to what extent do teachers and administrators play the role of high PDI aviators?  Our much-lamented state of education is not because teachers cannot teach or administrators cannot manage.  Granted, teacher preparation and professional development have been sharply criticized in recent months, but is this to say that we as a collective lack the knowledge and skills to provide our students a quality if not world-class education?

If you want to know what is wrong with our schools, have lunch at the typical faculty table.  Given the opportunity (i.e. in the absence of administrators), teachers will be quick to share their insight on everything from classroom management to standardized testing.  They understand where we have come up short as a profession, and they have viable suggestions for improvement.  Unfortunately, these ideas often stay in the lunch room because there is a high power distance between faculty and administration.

Administrators are expected to lead, and teachers are expected to follow.  When schools run into educational “turbulence”, do they look to their own ranks for solutions or wait for instructions from Central Office?  Even in schools where open communication is encouraged, how many teachers, faced with the issues of evaluation, tenure, and financial stability, assert themselves to close the relationship gap?  Though there are certainly exceptions, I daresay they are few in number.

If Korean Air can turn itself around, so can American education.  It will take more than narrowing a power index, but rethinking traditional roles and relationships, and working collaboratively toward a common goal, would go a long way toward improving our schools.  The next time you have an opportunity to “help fly the plane”, don’t hesitate to help chart the course.

Readicide

In case you missed Bill Ferriter’s news earlier this month over at The Tempered Radical, Stenhouse Publishing is offering an online sneak peak of Kelly’s new book, Readicide: How Schools are Killing Reading and What You Can Do About It.  The complete text, available here, offers an insightful and refreshing look at the state of reading in light of a culture of standardized testing.

Those interested in exploring Readicide in more detail are encouraged to join Bill and Kelly beginning January 18th for a four day asynchronous discussion of the book using VoiceThread.  I plan to participate and hope to get some teachers and administrators here engaged in conversations regarding what we can do to keep reading alive for our students.

Enhancing Online Safety and Online Technologies

As described on their site, “The Internet Safety Technical Task Force was created in February 2008 in accordance with the Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Safety announced in January 2008 by the Attorneys General Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking and MySpace. The scope of the Task Force’s inquiry was to consider those technologies that industry and end users – including parents – can use to help keep minors safer on the Internet.”

Their final report, available here, discusses the extent to which today’s technologies could help address online safety risks, with a primary focus on social network sites in the United States.  Those seeking an abridged view into the issue would be well served to consult the Executive Summary and Submissions from Social Networking Sites sections of the full text.

Enjoy your weekend, and happy reading!

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

At the risk of gross oversimplification, Disrupting Class can be distilled to the ideas that students need to be intrinsically motivated, schooling should be customized to match learning styles, and technology, which to date has not improved learning will, if deployed disruptively, allow students to maximize their individual potential. As they summarize the issue on their website,

“The biggest problem in the current education system is that not every student learns in the same, standard way, and yet schools standardize the way they teach and test. Using the computer as the delivery platform for learning has the potential to break the trade-offs between customization and affordability, which could ultimately allow students to learn in their preferred styles and at their preferred pace.

But another problem is that the huge investment in computers in schools over the past couple decades has delivered so little. The theory of disruption explains how computers can make the meaningful impact we describe above. They must be implemented disruptively by targeting at the outset areas where the alternative to computer-based instruction is nothing at all. Additionally, software makers will need to customize their offerings for different kinds of learners, because right now the programs that come out tend to be similar to the mainstream teaching methods.

And for all this to happen, there is another problem that must be addressed. The current business system is aligned to push down standardized textbooks and curricula; it’s not well suited to bringing in customized software solutions. A new business system must emerge to replace the current one so that students, parents, and teachers can all pull computer-based learning into the mainstream classrooms.”

Christensen envisions this disruption occurring in two stages.  The first stage, termed computer-based learning, utilizes software as a platform for learning in places and for courses where there are no teachers to teach.  The second and significantly more advanced phase, described as student-centric technology, requires the development of software that enables students to learn each subject in manners consistent with their type of intelligence and learning style.  While these stages and the notion of “disruptive innovation” are certainly enticing, they are not the panacea for modern education as some have asserted.

Computer-based Learning: Better than the Alternative?

The use of computer-based learning (specifically online courses) can, in a limited fashion, meet the needs of students who are constrained by their school’s curriculum.  However, a virtual environment is no substitute for a real-world learning experience.  Consider the Virtual ChemLab, which Disrupting Class describes as “infinitely better than many students’ alternative–which is nothing at all.”

While the site is certainly comprehensive, will “learning” chemistry through photographs, video clips, and virtual labware produce students who can think scientifically?  Can higher-order skills and processes be addressed and assessed through an interactive lesson?  Science is fraught with misconceptions and as John Bruer and others can attest, these can be very hard to correct in any setting.  Do the opportunities and benefits afforded by computer-based learning truly outweigh the risk of propagating low-level and potentially faulty knowledge?

This is not to say that computer-based learning is inherently bad, but it isn’t inherently superior to face-to-face instruction, even in a “monolithic” classroom.  To suggest otherwise, as the authors have done, negates the impact of the classroom teacher who, as Robert Marzano notes, has a  direct and major influence on learning.  An online alternative may be better than no alternative, but its limitations must be acknowledged.  Just as Microsoft’s Flight Simulator won’t prepare one for the rigors of actual flight, pointing and clicking reagents won’t unlock the complex relationships between matter and energy.

Student-centric Technology:

Student-centric technology, manifested as hardware and software that can tailor instruction to a particular student’s learning style, is at first glance an exciting concept.  In Christensen’s scenario, at some point in the not-to-distant future, non-programmers (i.e. students, teachers, parents, etc.) will be able to create and distribute modular, computerized “tutorials” on any number of topics.  In this new network of user-generated content, people will ultimately have the ability to “assemble [tutorials] together into entire courses whose approach is truly student-centric—custom-configured to each different type of learner.”

Pieces of this vision already exist thanks to the advent of Web 2.0, and it is true that we often learn better when we teach than when we listen to a teacher.  The issue of expertise, however, must be considered in this new student-centric model.  In How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice, M. Suzanne Donovan, John D. Bransford, and James W. Pellegrino make the following observations regarding novice and expert learners:

• Experts notice features and meaningful patterns of information that are not noticed by novices.
• Experts have acquired a great deal of content knowledge that is organized, and their organization of information reflects a deep understanding of the subject matter.
• Experts’ knowledge cannot be reduced to sets of isolated facts or propositions but, instead reflects contexts of applicability, i.e., it is “conditionalized.”
• Experts are able to retrieve important aspects of their knowledge with little additional effort.

While a novice may be able to construct a tutorial that benefits others with his/her dominant learning style (we’ve all encountered situations where a student was able to reach someone we could not), there are limits to what a novice can provide.  And while a teacher, the expert learner, can facilitate deeper understanding when working with students, the teaching-learning process could become more difficult as a result of novices selecting and learning from content created by non-experts.

A Missed Opportunity

The two points I’ve briefly illustrated here should not detract from the overall message of Disrupting Class or the many good ideas it contains; change is necessary if we are to prepare our students for an unknown future.  Disruptive innovation in the form of technology, however, is not the answer.  The stages/shifts that Christensen, Johnson, and Horn outline reinforce traditional course offerings with low-level knowledge and skills, largely place responsibility for the teaching-learning process in the hands of the students, and present technology as the solution to education’s shortcomings.  That approach is not a road map for the 21st century.

Education needs to become more individualized and student-centric, but the authors missed a terrific opportunity to emphasize how technology can facilitate those processes within a realistic, sustainable system.  Curriculum and instruction must evolve to include new skills and literacies that can only be acquired through the use of technology.  Online classes and user-generated tutorials will not revolutionize learning; real innovation will occur when we as a profession finally connect technology and pedagogy.