[Note: ETCJ associate editor Bonnie Bracey Sutton invited Chris Dede to submit this article. -Editor]

Educational transformation is coming not because of the increasing ineffectiveness of schools in meeting society’s needs – though that is certainly a good reason – but due to their growing unaffordability. We now see student-teacher ratios in some urban settings climbing to unworkable levels of 40 plus, even 60 pupils per class (Dolan, 2011; Dillon, 2011). This is not a temporary financial dislocation due to an economic downturn, but a permanent sea-change that has already happened in every other service sector of our economy.

Further, in K-12 schooling, our stellar illustrations of success are based on personal heroism, educators who make sacrifices in every other part of their lives in order to help their students. These are wonderful stories of saint-like dedication, but such a model for educational improvement is unscalable to typical teachers. We have not found a way to be effective and affordable at scale, and our resources are now dwindling rather than growing.

Events of the last few years and projections of our nation’s economic future paint a bleak picture of the financial viability of schools as we know them; we can no longer support an educational system based on inefficient use of expensive human labor. These inefficiencies are not simply within the walls of the school but reflect our lost opportunities to help students learn in all the hours and all the places they spend time outside of classrooms.

Social media, immersive interfaces (such as online videogames), and mobile broadband devices are at the heart of this issue: empowering new forms of learning and teaching while simultaneously contributing to the obsolescence of traditional schools/universities as educational vehicles. The 2010 U.S. National Educational Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) provides some important ideas on the impact of these advances in learning technologies, sketching both opportunities and challenges. Given the goal of transforming today’s schools and colleges to a new 21^st century model of formal education that would support people’s learning across their entire lifespan, the following elements from the Learning section of the NETP are suggestive about foundations for this redesign (Dede, 2010):

Learning

• Learning can no longer be confined to the years we spend in school or the hours we spend in the classroom: It must be life-long, life-wide, and available on demand. (page 9)
• Technology provides access to a much wider and more flexible set of learning resources than is available in classrooms and connections to a wider and more flexible set of “educators,” including teachers, parents, experts, and mentors outside the classroom. (pp. 11-12)
• Engaging and effective learning experiences can be individualized or differentiated for particular learners (either paced or tailored to fit their learning needs) or personalized, which combines paced and tailored learning with flexibility in content or theme designed to fit the interests and prior experience of each learner. (page 12)

Taken together, these ideas suggest to me a different type of formal educational system for the 21st century. In such an educational model, our society would take responsibility for providing universally designed, personalized learning experiences lifelong and lifewide, delivered in and out of dedicated educational settings such as schools and colleges by a variety of educational roles spanning teachers, mentors, coaches, and tutors. Such a system would be roughly analogous in its social services to the various investments localities, states, and the federal government make in institutions that support wellness and medical care, which return valuable benefits to society on multiple dimensions (reduction of healthcare costs, economic productivity, quality of life).

For instance, many talented people not in the teaching profession would be happy to serve as tutors, mentors, and coaches for students if our formal educational system provided training, certification, resources, and formal recognition of those roles. Modern technologies provide ways of coordinating such a distributed system of learning/teaching so that teachers can both benefit from and guide the efforts of others who help students learn outside of the school’s location and hours.

As an illustration of a complementary role in a distributed model of formal education, collaborative media could help to coordinate between museum educators and both teachers and students. Teachers could use technology to make public the progression of curricular goals through the school year and the content/skills on which students need most help. In turn, museums could gear their exhibits and activities to foster these types of learning, making special outreach efforts to students for whom school-based learning was insufficient.

Museums also could craft strong professional development experiences for teachers, with abstract concepts richly grounded in artifacts and with curators providing content expertise. Virtual outreach beyond the walls and schedule of the museum could include both web-based educational activities, such as immersive educational simulations, and “augmented realities” that help people learn about digitized artifacts virtually embedded in physical settings throughout the region and accessible by cellphone.

Members of a student’s family or community could choose to play a different type of complementary educational role in a distributed model. The local context – present and past – in which a student lives provides numerous ways in which to ground, exemplify, and practice the knowledge and skills teachers are attempting to communicate. A learner’s family and people in the community who are close to that student can much better understand how to engage, motivate, and facilitate personalized learning than can a teacher confronted with many students in a classroom.

Schools of education could shift their training and credentialing to encompass not only teachers, but also parent tutors, informal-educator coaches, and community mentors. The inclusion of adult students with substantial life experience might aid in the transformation of education schools, as faculty would confront learners more sophisticated about life and children than their typical students now. Such a shift would extend ideas in the Teaching section of the NETP:

Teaching

• Connected teaching offers a vast array of opportunities to personalize learning. Many simulations and models for use in science, history, and other subject areas are now available online, including immersive virtual and augmented reality environments that encourage students to explore and make meaning in complex simulated situations (Dede 2009). To deeply engage their students, educators need to know about their students’ goals and interests and have knowledge of learning resources and systems that can help students plan sets of learning experiences that are personally meaningful…. Although using technology to personalize learning is a boost to effective teaching, teaching is fundamentally a social and emotional enterprise. The most effective educators connect to young people’s developing social and emotional core (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Villegas & Lucas, 2002) by offering opportunities for creativity and self-expression. Technology provides an assist here as well…. Digital authoring tools for creating multimedia projects and online communities for sharing them with the world offer students outlets for social and emotional connections with educators, peers, communities, and the world at large. Educators can encourage students to do this within the context of learning activities, gaining further insights into what motivates and engages students – information they can use to encourage students to stay in school (pp. 41-42).
• All institutions involved in preparing educators should provide technology-supported learning experiences that promote and enable the use of technology to improve learning, assessment, and instructional practices. This will require teacher educators to draw from advances in learning science and technology to change what and how they teach, keeping in mind that everything we now know about how people learn applies to new teachers as well. The same imperatives for teacher preparation apply to ongoing professional learning. Professional learning should support and develop educators’ identities as fluent users of advanced technology, creative and collaborative problem solvers, and adaptive, socially aware experts throughout their careers. (page 44)

Overall, in the past five years social media, immersive interfaces from the entertainment industry, and ubiquitous mobile broadband devices have coalesced in powerful ways to empower and integrate learning in and out of school. Too often, I have seen educational technologies used to put “old wine in new bottles.” Now, if we seize the moment, we not only can have new wine – such as peer mentoring anytime, anyplace – but also can move beyond the “bottle” of the stand-alone school to lifewide learning. “Plan” is a verb, not a noun. The NETP as a document loses value every day it sits on the shelf. Active dialogue about the draft Plan may be our best next step towards improving education for the 21^st century.

References

Dede, C. (2010). Reflections on the draft national educational technology plan 2010: Foundations for transformation. Educational Technology 50, 6 (November-December), 18-22.

Dede, C., & Bjerede, M. (2011) Mobile learning for the 21^st century: Insights from the 2010 Wireless Edtech conference. San Diego, CA: Qualcomm. http://www.wirelessedtech.com/

Dillon, S. (2011). Tight budgets mean squeeze in classrooms. New York Times (March 6). Downloaded on April 16, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/education/07classrooms.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Dolan, M. (2011). Detroit schools cuts plan approved. Wall Street Journal (February 22). Downloaded on April 16, 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703610604576158783513445212.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology [National Educational Technology Plan 2010]. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010

In “Internet Access Is Not a Human Right” (NY Times, 1.4.12), Vinton G. Cerf argues that internet access is neither a human nor a civil right. It is, simply put, a means to and end, “a tool for obtaining something else more important.” For Cerf, civil laws should focus on the rights themselves and not the means to achieve them. He views technology as a tool, “an enabler of rights, not a right itself.”

Cerf makes a lot of sense, but I’m not sure it’s a good fit for the internet. In most cases, the means and ends are clearly separate, e.g., the means to work (a horse, using Cerf’s example) and the right to earn a living. Everyone would agree that a right to own a horse is ridiculous. In other cases, however, such as schools and compulsory education, the means and ends aren’t so clearcut. In this case, the end would be unattainable without the means. Thus, the law specifies schooling. In the case of health and health care, too, the means and ends are, literally, one and the same.

The Internet (Opte Project 2007)

I believe the same logic holds true for the internet and the means to access it. That is, without access service, the internet would be out of reach. Thus, legislation that guarantees a right to access information without provisions to act on that right would be meaningless.

Cerf argues that we already have the freedom to access information and that it is sufficient to cover access to the internet. But is it?

For all practical purposes, the internet is invisible so it’s difficult to define. In general, it “is a global system of interconnected computer networks that … serve[s] billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government networks, of local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless and optical networking technologies” (Wikipedia).

With the internet, “information” takes on a whole new meaning. It’s no longer local but global. It’s no longer static but dynamic. It’s no longer one-way but interactive. It’s no longer the construct of powerful publishers but of every individual on the planet. It’s no longer just news and announcements but work, education, entertainment, social networking, and politics.

In other words, the internet has changed forever the landscape of information and communications and what it means to be human. We’re in the midst of the greatest migration in the history of our species, but most of us aren’t aware that we’re moving because we’re still in the same geographical location.

This migration is from our earth-bound locales to the virtual world of the internet, where we’re freed from the restrictions of time and space. We can access information from sources around the world at anytime, communicate with anyone from wherever we are whenever we want.

The problem is those who are being left behind. The gap between them and the emigrants is not just technology but quality of life. The internet is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Like water and oxygen, we all need it to survive and thrive.

Finland has it right. Broadband access to the internet should be a basic civil right, and we can’t escape the fact that this translates to providing internet services to those who can’t afford it. Yes, the technology changes rapidly and the cost to keep services up to date will be great, but we can do no less for our fellow human beings.

[Note: Snagged spotlights some of the latest and most stimulating articles on educational technology. This op-ed by Vinton G. Cerf was emailed to me by ETCJ associate editor Bonnie Bracey Sutton. Please send your catch of the day to me, jamess@hawaii.edu, for possible snagging. -Editor]

In her email to me this morning, Bonnie says, “Here is a good discussion starter. It is from Vint Cerf.” I agree.

Vinton G. Cerf, in “Internet Access Is Not a Human Right” (NY Times, 1.4.12), explains that “Civil rights … are different from human rights because they are conferred upon us by law, not intrinsic to us as human beings.” He doesn’t see internet access as a right. It “is always just a tool for obtaining something else more important.” As such, “technology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself.”

What do you think?

Please share your thoughts with us as a comment to this article or as a separate article submission. If you encounter problems posting your comment, email it to me and I’ll post it for you. -Jim (jamess@hawaii.edu)

[Note: Snagged spotlights some of the latest and most stimulating articles on educational technology. I learned about Michael Staton's article from Thomas Ho's Diigo group notification this morning. Please send your catch of the day to me, jamess@hawaii.edu, for possible snagging. -Editor]

Michael Staton, in “Eleven Tech Factors That Changed Education in 2011” (Mashable Tech, 12.21.11), provides a wealth of links to explore. They are listed under 11 categories — see the list below. I clicked on some that were free, open, and geared for instructors: Flat World Knowledge, Piazza, CourseKit, and ClassDojo. Flat World Knowledge is like wiki books but retains the look and feel of more traditional publications. I was interested in college composition textbooks and found only one entry. It’s very good, but it didn’t fit my needs. Still, I can imagine referring students to certain chapters. (See update below.)

Piazza and CourseKit are simple CMSs (course management systems). With Piazza, I had difficulty setting up my college. It tried to force me into a different campus in our university system. (See update below.) Getting started in CourseKit was easier, but the calendar templates are limited and didn’t fit my needs. I really like the concept of ClassDojo. I immediately got the feeling that this is a tool developed by an imaginative teacher in the trenches. It’s a quick way to comment on student behavior in class, providing a means to shape positive actions via analytics. All the students are listed on a single page. Click on one. Select from the preconfigured list of behaviors, and click. The information is automatically processed and distributed. Fast. Simple. Effective.

ClassDojo makes me wish for a similar tool that would facilitate the evaluation of student papers. As I read a paper in one window, the etool (evaluation tool) would be open in another. I would click on categories and specific items in the etool, and the information would be automatically gathered for the paper and added to the cumulative stats for the writer. The results would automatically be sent to the writer.

In reviewing offerings such as these, we need to keep in mind that they are in formative stages and designed around specific needs. We have the opportunity to participate in their development as well as create similar tools for ourselves and our colleagues.

1. The UnCollege Movement Begins
2. The Ecosystem of Innovation Gets the Fuel it Needs
3. The Death of the Traditional Textbook
4. Gates Foundation Backs Education as a Venture Investor
5. Private Equity Bets on Education Giants
6. The Big LMS Gets Some Competition
7. New Tools for Early Adopter Instructors
8. Edmodo Builds First Whole Network of K-12 Users
9. Chegg Buys Its Way Into a Network of Post-Secondary Users
10. Professional Development Is Easy for Tech Entrepreneurs
11.  Schools Are Scaling, and so Are Professors

Please share your thoughts with us as a comment to this article. If you encounter problems posting, email your comment to me and I’ll post it for you. -Jim (jamess@hawaii.edu)
__________
Update 1.4.12: Nick LaVassar (User Operations, Piazza), contacted me via email on Jan. 3 after reading this article. They fixed the registration problem and are taking steps to prevent similar recurrences. Courteous and quick response!

Update 1.4.12: See Brad Felix’s (Chief Learning Officer, Flat World Knowledge) reply in the comments section.

[Note: Snagged spotlights some of the latest and most stimulating articles on educational technology. This article by Sam Dillon was emailed to me by ETCJ associate editor Bonnie Bracey Sutton. Please send your catch of the day to me, jamess@hawaii.edu, for possible snagging. -Editor]

In his article, “In Washington, Large Rewards in Teacher Pay“* (NY Times, 12.31.11), Sam Dillon quotes Eric A. Hanushek, a Stanford University professor of economics: “‘The most important role for incentives is in shaping who enters the teaching profession and who stays. Washington’s incentive system will attract talented teachers, and it’ll help keep the best ones.’”

It’s tough to argue against attracting and retaining the crème de la crème, but is there a downside to this apparent solution to teacher quality? Dillon quotes Nathan Saunders, president of the Washington Teachers Union: “‘This boutique program discourages teachers from working together.’”

Bonnie says, “I am not sure what to do with this. In my mind there are lots of teachers who have worked under trying conditions, but in sharing this article I got a lot of push back from teachers. Here’s the thing: most people pointed out to me that the large rewards are not normal and, of course, that there are outstanding teachers who are run out of the school by the others.”

Bonnie asks, “What do you think?”

Please share your thoughts with us as a comment to this article. If you encounter problems posting, email your comment to me and I’ll post it for you. -Jim (jamess@hawaii.edu)
__________
* Click here for the Webcite alternative.

[Note: Snagged spotlights some of the latest and most stimulating articles on educational technology. This article by Larry Ferlazzo was emailed to me by ETCJ associate editor Bonnie Bracey Sutton. Please send your catch of the day to me, jamess@hawaii.edu, for possible snagging. -Editor]

Valerie Strauss, in The Answer Sheet (Washington Post, 12.30.11), features Larry Ferlazzo’s “Ten Education Predictions for 2012.” The ninth concerns technology in K-12:

9. Strategies to use technology as a transformative tool in education will take a backseat as for-profit online learning charlatans and the Khan Academy take up the tech money and the media space.

What are your thoughts on this prediction? Are K-12 educators going to increasingly rely on outside sources for leadership in technology? Or are they going to take more personal responsibility for the technology that enters their classroom? Or is there a third or even fourth scenario?

Bonnie’s comment on number 8 is “See, I was right on Rhee.” She’s referring to her January 5, 2009, article, Michelle Rhee Has a Broom: Should She Use It to Sweep Out Experienced Teachers?“

8. Former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee will continue her decline in public credibility and relevance. Her work with some of the most conservative, and anti-teacher, Republicans has made her highly unpopular among many Democrats. And, as her Republican allies falter in their own success and popularity across the country, she is, incredibly and unsuccessfully, trying to build a base here in California.

Can Rheeism rise from the ashes in 2012? Is it morphing into other isms?

Please share your thoughts with us as a comment to this article. If you encounter problems posting, email your comment to me and I’ll post it for you. -Jim (jamess@hawaii.edu)

As we teeter on the brink of the new year, we’re left with more questions than answers. In a way, that’s a good thing, considering the makeshift nature of technology in higher education. As we sidle into 2012, the same old questions will greet us. They’re about a world that’s rapidly changing and about our ability or inability to change with it. Let’s face it. The cat’s out of the bag, but some of us are still trying to lure it back in.

Issue #1: Can current leaders take higher education into the 21st century?

Most indications are no. They’re good at preserving the 20th century model and eager to add some technology glitz to make their brick and mortar campuses look modern. But it will be business as usual, with technology applied to brighten up the old way of doing things. Cost effectiveness will be the public mantra, but savings will be offset by the huge piles of money thrown at the makeover. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of today’s leaders have been formed and rewarded by the brick and mortar learning environment. They define themselves and what they do in terms of campuses, buildings, and offices. For them, technology is something to be brought into and added to their domain even if it means severely restricting and crippling its full potential.

Make no mistake. Change will come, but it will come from new leaders who realize that the paradigm for learning environments has shifted from the ground to the virtual. They realize that educational technology is no longer a single innovation or a group of innovations but a sea change based on the awareness that face-to-face (F2F) pedagogy is a subset of the virtual learning environment — and not the other way around. For these leaders, online is the world’s largest learning environment, and brick and mortar facilities are a shrinking part that’s becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The traditional campus-based college won’t disappear, and it will remain the environment of choice for those who can afford the nostalgia, the privilege of dormitories and ivy-covered lecture halls. But in the wake of the first wave of the digital tsunami, their foundations are eroding. The second wave is building just beyond the horizon, and when it strikes it will further undermine land-locked institutions. The select few on high ground will survive, but the vast majority on lower ground will be forced to migrate to the virtual world.

Issue #2: Are we past Web 2.0 yet?

I think we are. The web has never shut down for maintenance. Not for a moment. It’s continually evolving, changing by the day if not by the hour. Social networking is its hallmark, but that’s slipping into the past. We’ve seen countless definitions of Web 3.0, but they all add up to one thing — the web has changed not only the way we interface with information and interact with one another and the world, but it has changed us. Thus Web 3.0 is no longer about the web per se but about the way it has combined with other technology to alter or extend what it means to be human. To get a sense of the immensity of this e-volution, imagine life without the internet, broadband, Wi-Fi, iPhones, iPads, high-definition digital TV, open courseware, blogs, microblogs, YouTube, Facebook, Netflix, Google, wikis, email, ejournals, enews, and ebooks. I rest my case.

Issue #3. Is the F2F vs. online debate over?

For those who answer yes, the fact that all learning today is blended to some degree means that the issue is dead. For those who answer no, the assumption is that blended and completely online learning are fundamentally different. It boils down to this: All blended courses require in-person attendance in one or more classes or locations at specified times; online courses don’t. For the latter, this single distinction removes the geographical and time boundaries that used to define student and instructor populations as well as pedagogy. One of the obvious implications is that completely online classes don’t require campuses, classrooms, and offices. Until educators acknowledge this anytime-anywhere difference and how it redefines learning and teaching, the debate will continue.

Issue #4. Is multimedia better than text?

Much of our effort in course development is based on the assumption that multimedia is superior to text-only approaches and the path to best practice is paved in video, audio, and animation. The old saw is that a picture is worth a thousand words, that learning is much easier and a lot more fun in multimedia. This is true — to an extent.

The fact is that text is faster, which translates to easier, cheaper, and more efficient. Multimedia takes time, effort, and bandwidth. Furthermore, the cost for equipment, resources, space, software, staff, and expertise to produce it can be outrageous. The point is, when you can kill a bird with a stone, why use a cruise missile. Or put another way, more can be less.

So, is multimedia better? Yes, in cases when showing something is easier than trying to explain it in words, e.g., an exotic new plant or butterfly, a dress, a person’s appearance, a building, a painting, a football play, a procedure for drawing blood, instructions on how to assemble a carburetor. However, this answer has to be weighed against cost effectiveness. If it is ineffective or takes too much effort and costs too much for the desired outcome, then the answer is no. Also, the choice isn’t always either-or. There are times when a simple photo or crude diagram is just as effective as a sophisticarted video.

Issue #5. Is synchronous better than asynchronous?

This issue goes hand in hand with #4 above. In course development, we often assume that synchronous is better. Thus, a huge amount of effort, resources, and expense is devoted to producing and facilitating live video and audio events. Live text chat is also viewed as more dynamic. The problem is that the cost to effectiveness ratio for synchronous is exhorbitant in comparison to asynchronous. When weighed against the anytime advantages of asynchronous communications, synchronicity loses some of its appeal.

Issues 4 and 5, above, are important because they color our definition of best practice. The superiority or necessity of multimedia and synchronicity isn’t clear-cut. In some or even most cases, text and asynchronous may be the better choice. When we consider cost effectiveness and simplicity, they look even better.

Issue #6. Is “net generation” a misnomer for today’s students?

Some say yes when they find that students have difficulty functioning in the college’s CMS or using technology in ways they deem important. The argument is, “If they can’t use technology I select in the way that I expect them to, then they’re technologically ignorant.”

Obviously, facility in learning how to use technology is part of the definition of a netgen, but it may not be the most important. Perhaps more significant is their expectation. Those born or growing up in the last twenty to thirty years are different from previous generations. The mobile web is their primary medium for information and communication, and they expect to participate at anytime from anywhere. If it’s not and they can’t, they’ll wonder why.

Thus, it’s not a matter of how well they use the technology we’ve selected but what they expect in terms of content and pedagogy. Given a genuine choice between traditional and online, they’ll choose online options every time.

These are only six issues that I think will stay with us into 2012. There are many more, and I’d like to invite you to share others as well as your thoughts on the ones I’ve chosen. For me, questions are far more important than answers because if we don’t ask the right ones, even the best answers will be wrong.

In the United States of America, we are committed to the education of ALL children in appropriate educational settings. If possible this education should be in the least restrictive settings. At times this may mean individual tutoring to prepare them for broader educational experiences. The following is a case study of what might be for Orion, a child that is both deaf and blind. In the 1960s, due to a rubella epidemic and medical science learning how to bring pregnant women with rubella to full term, we created thousands of deaf-blind babies. Consequently, we have learned a great deal about the education of deaf-blind children. Some of those 1960 babies are now productive adults living interesting lives.

A Case Study

Perhaps a bit of genetics combined with environmental factors left Orion to be born both deaf and blind. Orion has a deaf older brother and a hearing sister. Both his parents have hearing losses. Orion’s family lives in a Maryland suburb of Washington, DC, not far from Gallaudet University and near excellent medical facilities. Perhaps there is no other place in the world that has a richer environment for Orion to grow in. In his first year, Orion received a cochlear implant.

Orion likes the Braille books, for blind children, with tactile pages. Heather, Orion’s mother, uses touch signs with him to begin his communication skills. He did develop stimulus response activities with the touch signs.

The national Helen Keller Centers and state programs provide many lessons and services for the development of deaf-blind children.

An Individual Learning Plan for Orion

We know that the most likely standard universal linguistic code for Orion will be Braille. We know that his intact sensory systems are tactile, smell and taste; consequently the tactile sense is most likely to be the one through which he will develop both receptive and expressive communication skills. We know that with the cochlear implant he will have some residual hearing. We know he can and is developing some touch signs. As Orion matures and we are better able to define his residual hearing and other abilities, we will be better able to design individual learning activities for him.

For example, in vocabulary building we can use words he is most likely to hear and use — items that are touchable. A teddy bear is touchable and the name easy to hear. A saltshaker has a clear shape to feel and can also be tasted. Cookie is another similar word. As we know more about Orion, we can define a whole list of vocabulary words that he is likely to associate with codes and symbols.

The child with normal senses develops speech and oral language as his or her primary linguistic code. Orion will develop his primary language either with touch signs or Braille, Braille being the most universal and extensive code he can use.

Future Devices for Orion

If Orion relies on Braille as his primary linguistic code, of course, Braille books will be a great value to him. It should be possible, however, to develop a digitally based personal Braille decoder of spoken speech. Anyone speaking into this devise has their speech immediately translated into readable Braille so that Orion can read it in real time giving him access to universal conversations. Orion may or may not learn to speak, depending upon how much useful residual hearing he has. The future personal communication device can also have an expressive mode that allows Orion to express his ideas in synthesized speech. He can activate the speech by entering Braille codes.

As with all deaf-blind infants, the big breakthrough comes when they discover that there are codes that allow individuals to exchange past experiences and predict future experiences. Even at this young age, as reported by Heather, Orion is aware of stimulus and response activities, which set the foundation for linguistic development. Deaf-blind infants of necessity need individual tutoring experiences, but technology can offer them a way to more fully take advantage of learning. The proposed personal digital communication device potentially can allow a deaf-blind student to participate certainly in small groups and perhaps even regular small classes.

As we end the year 2011, we find our schools at best not reaching all students. In some instances we have excellent programs that are producing leading students, but far too often we have programs where students are dropping out and ending in a nonproductive stalemate of failure. At one end we have college graduates who are marrying one another and merging two reasonably well paying salaries and, at the other end, some poor kids just barely graduating from high school, failing to marry and often becoming struggling single moms with a dismal future that may include the increasing problems of single parenthood.

These trends are developing a bigger bridge between the haves and havenots. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. This chasm is neither good for the individual nor society. Our current educational system is neither engaging, inspiring nor empowering many of our young people.

Alternate learning patterns are developing from home schooling to charter schools to virtual schools. Sometimes significant engagement comes in clubs and extracurricular activities. On Internet sites many learners are engaged in complicated games that even allow for team activities with distant partners. Many learners are engaged in blended learning activities, that is, traditional classes and alternative learning environments.

To understand the challenges in today’s school system, we will follow five students that are on a TLRI (Total Learning Research Institute) Mars City blended learning team creating a Mars challenge weather balloon. Josh’s parents are both scientists working on environmental changes. Josh is an only child and has done well in traditional schools. He often reads his parents’ professional journals and enters into their professional discussions at the dinner table. Sue Ellen is a child of a single mother and, while she is a reasonably good student, does not have a rich scientific environment at home.

Bradford is in a charter school. His parents are blue collar and have great hopes that he will be the first in the family to graduate from college. Michelle is convinced that she will be a great actress. Her parents are moderately interested in her progress. She is the fourth of five children. Michelle is a bubbly young woman that is focused on her participation in the drama team and high school players programs. Thomas is hard of hearing but integrated into the regular classroom with an electronic interpreter that translates others’ speech into captions. Thomas has been slowly losing his hearing but developed normal speech and language prior to his onset of deafness. He is very good at mathematics.

At their first online meeting they selected the name “Zebra One” for their team. At first there was some awkward moments about Thomas being on the team, but it became obvious that using social media enabled him to participate equally with other team members. But the team reviewed the Foundation Five rules and accepted Thomas with no trouble. He quickly demonstrated his math abilities and demonstrated his place on the team. At the third meeting, Josh commented that he was skeptical about Thomas being a team member but now thinks he is really smart. Zebra One includes a NASA scientist at the Goddard Space Center that serves as a mentor when they need her. Among other things, she can help them find NASA personnel if they need advice.

Sue Ellen wonders why we are worrying about Mars when we have so many problems on Earth. She voices this concern in the team meetings. While Sue Ellen is an honors physics student, she is also blind and uses a Kurzweil reading machine. Few people on the Zebra One team knew she was blind, until one meeting she casually mentioned it since the team generally met via social media and audio telephone conferences.

Thomas had agreed to be the recorder for the Zebra One team since his CAPTEL phone recorded all speech and translated it into captions. The team was especially interested in the payload detecting radiation levels. Therefore, their payload devices include a video camera and radiation detectors. They also assumed that there would be water on Mars from the permafrost, and therefore the preferred lifting gas would be hydrogen since it could be generated from water on Mars.

The unique TLRI New Frontiers Mars balloon challenge program works equally well in both a classroom setting and in a distant learning team setting where the members are in different locations. All materials meet the requirements for use by learners with disabilities. The team format enables learners who may be challenged by disabilities to participate fully in the learning process. Bradford was under therapy for an emotional disturbance. The team learning experience enabled him to control his behavior and work with other learners. Some have criticized the team format in that it might hold the very talented behind. We counter that by saying in the real world leadership requires CEOs to be able to ensure that all workers are making appropriate contributions to the world of work they may be overseeing. Therefore teaming allows all learners to, in effect, put their best foot forward in a collective effort. A true leader gets the best out of the most talented and least talented staff member. Teaming educates all learners in these essential skills.

The introduction of digital technology into our lives has created a different kind of learner. Teaming takes advantage of the new learning style and ensures all members of the group are able to participate at a fuller level. In effect, teaming is one for all and all for one as the team works towards specific objectives.

Teamwork requires that all member function using the Foundation Five rules. That is,

1. Treat others as you would be treated,
2. Walk the talk, that is do what you say you will do,
3. Respect all others ideas and opinions.
4. Be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem, and
5. Hang together not separately.

Teamwork ensures that all learners are participating in the learning process and reap the reward of achievement together. True team learning ensures that no learner is left behind.

[Note: Snagged is a new feature in ETCJ to spotlight some of the latest and most stimulating articles on educational technology. The idea came about in an informal email exchange within the last 24 hours with Bert Kimura, who's been sending me some of his best web snags for the last fifteen plus years. His latest, this article by Donald Clark, has moved us to develop Snagged, a platform for recognizing articles that hook our attention and, hopefully, encourage us to jump into a discussion. Please send your catch of the day to me, jamess@hawaii.edu, for possible snagging. -Editor]

Donald Clark, in “More Pedagogic Change in 10 Years Than Last 1000 Years – All Driven by 10 Technology Innovations,” asks, “What’s the real source of pedagogic change?” His answer: “The primary driver for pedagogic change is something that has changed the behaviours of learners, independently of teachers, teaching and education – the internet” (Donald Clark Plan B, 12.7.11).

Here are the ten technology innovations with excerpted explanations:

1. Asynchronous – the new default: Only after you’ve exhausted the asynchronous online options should you consider synchronous face-to-face events.
2. Links – free from tyranny of linear learning: It has allowed us to escape from the linear straightjacket of the lecture or paper bound text
3. Search and rescue: This pedagogic shift means more independence for learners, less dependence on memorised facts and answers to most questions, 24/7, for free.
4. Wikipedia and death of the expert: The radical pedagogic shift is not only in the way knowledge is produced but the fact that it’s free, seen as open to discussion and debate, and so damn useful.
5. Facebook and friends: Being networked means living within a new pedagogic ecosystem.
6. Twitter, texting and posting: Far from drifting towards high end media, text is alive and kicking.
7. Youtube – less is more and ‘knowing how’: YouTube has shown us how to do video, keep it short and that we don’t need big budgets to do good stuff.
8. Games: Gameplay is just another word for sophisticated, experiential pedagogy.
9. Tools: Tools [word processor, spreadsheet and presentation tools], pedagogically, allow us to teach and learn at a much higher level.
10. Open source: In this age of digital abundance, open and free content is the democratisation of knowledge…. Pedagogy, in this sense, has been freed from institutional teaching.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Clark? Disagree? Partially agree? Do you see it differently? If yes, how so? Please share your thoughts with us as a comment to this article. If you encounter problems posting, email your comment to me and I’ll post it for you. -Jim (jamess@hawaii.edu)