Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, Ch. 11

This turned out to be one of the most galvanizing chapters in the entire book, based simply on Shirky's assertion that all effective groups must negotiate three simple things he calls: The Promise, The Tool, The Bargain. To me, these three things help explain the student engagement crisis occurring in the upper grades of K-12 education.

Shirky claims that all groups contain an implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise to all members that makes the desire for a form of collective action possible. The strength of the promise makes members willing to contribute. As teachers, we routinely conceptualize our classrooms as groups of students, but it's difficult to imagine what we offer them by way of a promise that Shirky might recognize. Most of the activities that occur in the classroom invalidate the premise of a group promise, since most of it involves students acting in isolation. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if pushed, many teachers might admit to the existence of such a promise between the teacher and the collection of students as individuals, specifically something along the lines of 'Do what I instruct, and you will pass this course'. Taken as a whole, this might be the kind of promise the school offers students individually, 'Follow our instructions and you will graduate'.

However, the kinds of classroom inquiry activities that my department has been advocating does allow for the kind of group promise Shirky discusses. In terms of science education, having students investigate elements in their school or community allows them to identify reasonable goals based on areas of interest ('we will measure the pH of the local pond' leading to a goal of 'we will help restore the pond ecosystem') lends itself to creating that kind of social consensus based not around individual rewards (top marks) but collective action (restoring the pond).

For Shirky, the tools in question are often types of social media, but even he recognizes that the group needs to find a tool that fits the needs of the group. Too often, teachers not only specify 'what is to be done' but also 'how it is to be done', robbing students of the chance to develop those crucial decision-making skills related to problem-solving and negotiating in a group dynamic. Plus, the how is often something to be done alone.

Finally, the bargain is the reward that the members of the group will get from the successful action as well as belonging to the group. Thus, rewarding a group of students with top marks is not an incentive to high-end students who might rationalize they could achieve a better performance individually, similarly some low-end students might realize that their past performance has been so poor that even superlative marks in the future will still not enable them to pass the course. The reward for cleaning up the pond might be a more interesting place for students to gather, they might earn the appreciation of the community and a sense of accomplishment, especially if an activity tied to the clean-up of the pond was how to make the pond more enjoyable with a minimal impact on the ecosystem.

I would hope that moving forward I will be able to keep those ideas of the promise, the tool, and the bargain in mind as I plan classroom activities.

It certainly seems more engaging than worksheets and readings.

Thoughts on Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, Ch.10

It was difficult finding a link to this chapter in terms of school reform, and perhaps that is the most illustrative thing about a chapter on the rise of Open Source software. I have already suggested that the emphasis on the school->teacher->classroom linear organizational strategy goes far to inhibit collaboration, both for teachers and students. Yes, the provincial teachers' union has its own online repository and collaborative space, but if it is a challenge to get teachers to collaborate and share between schools (although it's improving), it's even more difficult to facilitate that across districts.

The absence of a viable community of practice that meets beyond the school level made me question where it was teacher's get their new ideas from? Opportunities to meet and talk with other teachers from outside of our district takes on more importance and I think a real push needs to be made to incorporate this into city and provincial conferences and conventions. I don't think we need more presenters to teachers, but rather more facilitators of conversations and sharing sessions between teachers.

I'm sure there's some kind of Wikipedia re-invention of the K-12 system waiting to be created by someone, but I find the current system so deeply entrenched in my thinking that it's hard to even guess what that might look like or how it might function. But it's there, I'm sure.

Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, Ch. 9

Fitting Our Tools To A Small World or how links between small-scale networks help facilitate the formation of resilient large networks. This is a very intriguing chapter, but mostly because of how foreign it feels to the school and classroom environment where we actively discourage most of our students from maximizing the diversity of their potential networks. Again, much of what we do reinforces what happens at the School->Classroom level. The number of physics' student networks at my school might be limited to one per year, if my school only happens to offer one physics class per year. My physics network might be limited to only those fifteen students who are in that class with me. If we're generous, we could double it to take into account the students who took the course last year. This is a small drop in the bucket when compared to the number of students in my district who take physics annually. Roughly 800 students write Physics 30 in my district, allowing for some degree of attrition among those who enroll but never write the exam, as well as students who decline to take Physics 30, we could easily imagine the number of students annually enrolled in Physics 20 (the precursor) to be 1000 students. Would you rather have the opportunity to be in a support network with 1000 people all having the same basic experiences and problems, or fifteen? The other school district operating in my hometown is twice as large as mine, which means we could increase the number of students in the Physics 20 network to 3000 if we allowed for some degree of cross-District interaction.

Currently these sort of connections are impossible because the starting unit of our online organization is the school.

Not the student.

Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody Ch. 8

This particular chapter dwelt with using online social tools to increase collaboration, often from Shirky's perspective towards some kind of social action, but as I noted in the previous chapter, schools currently do not do social engagement well (poverty engagement, meaning helping the poor, doing food drives, etc, they do better and more often). Schools also manage collaboration in a limited notion only, at least in my city.

For the most part, collaboration is limited to students taking the same course, from the same teacher, at the same time. Increasingly, out-of-school collaboration has come under fire as homework policies become revised to take into account the extra demands on student life outside of school as well as changes to assessment policies that seek to limit the amount of work done for assessment outside of the direct observation of the teacher. Furthermore, programs of choice and increased suburban cachement areas also means that students are physically tending to live farther and farther apart, inhibiting again their ability to get together.

The rise of various content management systems would superficially seem to be capable of reversing this trend, as their data capture techniques allow for chronicling user activities. However, again, we see these systems being set up to reinforce the District ->School -> Teacher-> Class file structure, with very little cross-over. Only recently have some teachers in my district started experimenting in Desire2Learn using the 'cohort' function, a tool with some potential to allow cross-class collaboration under the same teacher.

Ideally though, any online education system would give students the freedom to collaborate with any other student who wanted to collaborate with them at any given time without the current restrictions of School-> Teacher-> Class. Once students are given their unique user identifier linked to their demographic data, we have all their key School->Teacher->Class data on hand and should be able to track them across the system fairly easily. If our assessment activities are linked explicitly to outcomes from the Programs of Studies, it would not only help establish a context for student work common across all schools and classrooms, but also help foster a standard for collaboration among teachers from different schools as well.

Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, Ch.7

This chapter was mostly on how the use of online social tools can aid in the organization and execution of collective action. It's somewhat hard to interpret or envision how these tools might function within an educational or school-based setting since, upon reflection, schools actually do a pretty good job of limiting student-based collective action. We do individual and group work often and in a variety of ways, but maybe it's time we start thinking about students and the bigger picture?

Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, Ch.6

"Collective Action and Institutional Challenges"

This chapter looks at the speed with which resistance and confrontation to the sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests in the Boston diocese manifested, organized, and became international. Shirky points out that organizers were able to do this because the cost of spreading information, as well as the cost of assembling like-minded people had fallen dramatically by 2002, to the extent that geographical boundaries no longer represented a significant barrier.

I guess sometimes we assume that all of the students present in a classroom represent a "like-mind" even though we know that each student wears multiple identities. We also know that different students bring different attitudes to school in regards to learning, particular subjects, the school itself, and even towards the nature of work expected from them by their teachers, parents, and peers. It is really difficult to consider a group of 30-40 students, brought together by geography and a timetable, to represent a "like-mind," even though much of current pedagogy appeals to teachers to develop such consensus as a precursor to inquiry activities, and related teamwork.

Shirky's comment that the Roman Catholic Church in Boston had forbidden lay organizations (that is groups of Catholics not necessarily led by priests) from organizing across parish lines resonated with my as school boundaries are always hot button topics. As Shirky said, organizations like the Church, and from my perspective schools, were developed at a time when geography represented a significant barrier to organizing institutions. Students could only walk or ride a bus so far. In the United States, policies regarding busing have become tied up in the ongoing conflicts about integration, segregation, and freedom of movement.

However, even putting aside the question of boundaries for physical school attendance, why must students be limited to work only with students and teachers co-present with them in a particular classroom, at a particular time, in a particular place? Surely different web 2.0 tools could allow students to collaborate with other students taking the same subject but at different times within the same school, or even the same district? Most online Learning Management Systems give teachers and students the ability to notify and message each other as they log into the system; couldn't students access any teacher teaching a particular subject matter for help? Most schools in my district have a dedicated tutorial period where different teachers rotate through fielding questions from students in particular subject areas (ie. each chemistry teachr shows up once a week to offer assistance for all chemistry courses). Why not extend this online? Would opening up the system to allow for collaboration across schools really be that difficult?

Thoughts on Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody Ch.5

It finally happened. I came across something in Chapter 5, where Shirky gets down to discussing some of the details of how collaboration occurs, that diminished my enthusiasm for mass collaboration and social networking as potential frameworks for organizing classrooms around. In his explanation of the frequency of user contributions to websites like Wikipedia, Shirky mentioned that they tend to follow a power law distribution (you can read a similar essay Shirky wrote on the subject here). In making edits to Wikipedia, there was a tremendous imbalance between the volume of contributions between most users and a few users. This is fine for a voluntary organization like Wikipedia, where user-members can float to their comfort level. A classroom however presents a different sort of environment in so far as we have different expectations.

Teachers are accustomed to rewarding student performance with grades. Most mass collaboration software allows for the tracking of contributions, so it is easy enough for teachers to see who has done what, and issue a grade based on frequency. Similarly, teachers could also develop criteria for contributions (ideally this would be done jointly with the participating students) so that students would understand how the value of a contribution might be judged. On the one hand, my concern is that setting any kind of parameter on what constitutes a "good" contribution is going to undermine the collaborative spirit of the venture. If we set minimum and maximum contribution thresholds, I worry that students will feel coerced into making contributions, while others might be disincentivized to make as many contributions as they would have otherwise made.

Further, and more to the point, there is a prevailing notion of fairness that teachers try to honour in the classroom, that the inherent inequality of a power level distribution makes problematic. Effective mass collaboration appears to require a few self-selected individuals to do the majority of the work willingly, allowing the rest of the users to enjoy the benefits of this labour. The classroom environment is not typically set up to reward this kind of altruism, and views it's opposite, as a kind of freeloading parasitism to be discouraged, if not punished outright. Dealing with this view will require a fundamental rethink of classroom values.