In One Place

I started playing with a Wiki (http://www.simplykaren.org/wiki/index.php/LewisAndClark) for my Lewis and Clark idea. It’s different, obviously, since there is no interaction per se. You could create objects and have pages for them such as maps, compasses, animals, etc. You could also make use of lots of information and images already on the web. It’s still text based so you have that descriptive writing component but it seems easier for a classroom teacher to control.

Big difference: no way to tell who is online and strike up a conversation with them. I wondered about using the built-in Wiki that’s in Moodle because there is a chat function and a way to tell who is online (not necessarily in the wiki with you). On the other hand, it’s that chat feature that makes teachers wary about using things like MOO. Who will they meet online? How can they control the conversation? The wiki takes that part away.

Here’s what I’ve learned:

To run a MOO, you need two pieces: a server and a database. I easily downloaded and installed the enCore database mentioned in High Wired that is made particularly for education. I did not so easily download and install the LambdaMOO. It seems I need a yacc compiler and that is not on either of my servers. I will probably put in a ticket to my ISP to see if this is even possible. But then I had an idea: what about a wiki? It’s essentially the same idea except you use wiki markup instead of commands. It’s browser based rather than telnet which makes it more accessible. So, here I go to my wiki to begin the trail….

I am nothing if not persistent but LambdaMOO thus far has thwarted my efforts to install it. I’ve followed the directions but can’t seem to compile the code on my server. I keep getting an error message that the “yacc” command can’t be found (a compiler of compilers according to my husband). He reminded me that I could type yacc -help to find out if it was installed. I know very little about UNIX (I can change directories and list their contents and have used vi enough to know it’s hard). That adds to the frustration because I don’t know what to do about the problem. Can I install yacc, for instance? I remember a long time ago when I first got involved in the web and servers, a programmer said that UNIX was like an enchanted forest: easy to get into but not so easy to get around or out. I’ve carried that image with me and know exactly what he means now.

I’ve got some troubleshooting choices: try a different server, try a different MOO, but for now I’m taking a break and going outside. I really want to set up my own. Since we followed the Lewis and Clark trail one summer, I’ve wanted to do something curricular that deals with them. I think the MOO is a perfect idea.

Introduction

Search any university library card catalog and you will find books about the “art of teaching” almost any subject from mathematics to horseback riding. That teaching is an art seems to be a commonly held notion. And, if teaching is an art, then teachers are artists, creators rather than technicians, who design learning experiences for their students that inform and engage, demanding an intellectual and personal response from their students. These highly effective teachers seem to move beyond content knowledge and skillful pedagogy, developing a collaborative, creative relationship with their students: “Outstanding teachers engage youngsters, interact with them, draw energy and direction from them, and find ways to give them reason to follow along. This is the difficult and serious work of teaching” (Ayers, p. 28). These “outstanding teachers” sound very similar to Mary Oliver’s poet whose poems are written “to give the reader an arrangement of words in which an experience or insight waited to be felt through, and I mean in an individual and personal way. Only thus could the poem make an indelible mark upon the readers. Only thus could the poem become an abiding part of the reader’s own life. A reader would enter the poem–let us assume with a supple will and a whole heart–and would emerge a little different, forever, from what he or she had been before” (Oliver, pp. 108-109).

Like the poet, the artistic teacher arranges words, as well as spaces and experiences. We can all remember that certain teacher who seemed to be special, different from all the rest, who pulled us in and helped us not just learn content and skills but also to grow and change and move towards our potential. These teachers practiced art in its broadest sense: “to signify engaging, complex, and expressive human activity” (Flinders, 1989, p. 17). And this broad sense is what “allows us to speak of a beautiful lesson or of a well-orchestrated class discussion” (Flinder, 1989, p. 17).

Defining this art of teaching, however, can be elusive. It is “never far from mystery” (Ayers, p. 26), a kind of almost alchemical combination of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. According to Flinders, it is less well understood than more technical aspects of teaching, but it seems to be the quality that separates teachers from trainers. Writers have tried to define this elusive art, often by describing the characteristics of artistic teachers through telling their stories. By examining the literature and listening to the narratives, we can come to at least a preliminary understanding of this art called teaching, an understanding that can help educators and those who educate them, get at the heart of what it means to be a teacher.

Accreditation, Regulation, and the Art of Teaching

The stories of artistic teachers can help flesh out the policy-driven definitions of effective teachers provided by both government and accreditation agencies. The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) suggests that teacher preparation programs should produce candidates who “know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.” No Child Left Behind, the sweeping school reform mandate that is currently in place, requires schools to have highly qualified teachers: “To be deemed highly qualified, teachers must have: 1) a bachelor’s degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.” This legalistic, central-office definition does nothing to get at what makes a teacher successful or effective, ignoring the complexity and artistic aspects of teaching, that mix of knowledge, skills and dispositions that can not be mandated or developed in a half-day workshop (Flinders, p. 19).

For those who believe that the art of teaching subsumes both policy and practice, definitions like those provided by No Child Left Behind are worrisome. Teaching is reduced to a set of rules with teachers takin gon the role of technicians: “What we call education is usually no more than training. We are so busy operating schools that we have lost sight of learning” (Ayers, p. 36). Others describe teachers reading from scripts designed to be “teacher proof” (Starnes). Anderson discusses the movement towards “mechanical pedagogy” (2002, p. 33) while Palmer worries about the effects of “methodological reductionism” (2003, p. 5) on the diversity of teachers and learners. Flinders, finally, believes that a proper understanding of teacher professionalism must include more than the “commonsense image of professionalism” that focuses on careere development and expert knowledge: “In listening to teachers talk about their work and in observing their teaching day after day, I soon realized that this image did not match their daily routines and their concerns. This image of professionalism failed to capture the artistry that these teachers often spoke of and demonstrated as central to their work” (2002, p, 17).

Some threads are coming together:

As Judi pointed out, my thinking about civil discourse in relationship to weblogs also has a place in the world of MOOing. And while civil discourse is certainly an offline world issue as well, I think the World Wide Web has accelerated the pressure to figure out how to get along with others as it offers a meeting place for diverse peoples. When I grew up, everyone I knew was pretty much like me: white, middle class, church goers. I didn’t have much opportunity to interact with anyone who was significantly different either ethnically or culturally. My community was pretty small.

For my nephew, who is exactly 26 years younger than I am, the world is a much larger community and significantly more diverse. He has the potential to interact with those from vastly different backgrounds on the web. And, just as I learned how to address adults and speak appropriately in certain situations, my nephew must learn similar patterns; however, he must be much more sensitive than I had to be to a wide range of beliefs and values. Civil discourse is more important than ever. And we need to consider a wider view of even civil discourse. This is more than being polite or disagreeing nicely. I think we can use civil discourse to further conversations, come to consensus, and develop community.

I am drafting a paper on the art of teaching and decided to do some blogging so take this for what it is, ideas sloshing around in my head:

1. Most organizations like NCATE talk about teachers having knowledge, skills and dispositions. The people I read seem to suggest that the knowledge and skills part are more scientific, yet certainly required. It is the dispositions that make knowledgeable, skilled people into artistic teachers. They weave information and strategies together to create a learning space fo their students.
2. The image of weaving comes up several times in the reading I did along with other images such as bridge builder, who makes connections. Ayers uses a more general image of teachers as creators of spaces and experiences for students but refers to the bridge. So does Perrone who wants educators to build bridges to students, finding out what they are interested in and empowering them to extended learning.
3. The arts can inform teachers’ practice: ie, using Stanislavsky’s ideas about what makes a good actor. And Mary Oliver’s description of the poet seems to help describe what a teacher is doing.
4. Good teachers are reflective. They never take their role for granted but are constantly working to improve.
5. Good teachers know themselves and have a strong identity. (See Griffin p. 293 who quotes Palmer about knowing thyself.) Griffin talks about also developing student self-efficacy. “I must first see my students and myself clearly before I can select the appropriate tool.” (Griffin, p. 296).
6. Trying to define quality teachers is difficult and often at least at the government level focuses on certification and experience rather than actual practice. A teacher is someone who has taken certain courses and passed certain tests. But there is certainly the possibility that you could do all that and not be an effective teacher.
7. Artistic teachers have a different kind of relationship with their students. They listen to their students, include them as equals in the class.
8. There is a tension between training and education (Ayers). And Perrone talks about the different between teaching you to read (training) and helping you learn to love to read (education). Perrone wants us to look to the larger purposes. And those larger purposes seem to focus on developing creators. Perrone quotes Horne from 1917 about the need for teachers to be artists who don’t care so much for a neat desk but help students to deeper understandings.”
9. People who write about the art of teaching are worried about school reform and technology, that both have the potential to take the art out of teaching as they try to regulate and define something that is often mysterious and not particulary scientific. Starnes is concerned that teachers are just reading scripts rather than being active creators.

Just logged into LambdaMOO for the first time, and someone immediately struck up a conversation with me. He offered helpful advice but also seemed to be flirting just a little, too. I’m not a particularly social person and am more interested in exploring the rooms and seeing how the MOO fits together but I chatted for a little while with him and another guest. She indicated that most people just go in as guests but I think I would like to get a “real” character, become more established. This, obviously, is an active MOO with 120 people logged in this morning when I got online. I never made it out of the stuffy Coat Closet so will try to go in later and explore.

If you type “help manners” you get five pages worth of information about how to behave appropriately in the LambdaMOO community. Here’s the “general” information:

“Although it is not technically against MOO law to harass people, it is suggested that you do not. The advice here is intended to make the MOO a better place for everyone, not to limit freedom of expression. However, the legal system on the MOO is evolving at this time, and it is not well understood just how some laws from the real world might apply. If you commit an act that could be considered a transgression against these manners it is possible you will be punished by anything up to and including permanent banishment from LambdaMOO. There is some disagreement in the LambdaMOO community about how much protection for free speech rights should be provided. This document, while not favoring censorship, encourages you to think about what you say and do.”

There it is again…”think about what you say and do.” This is the same advice the MOOSECrossing gives to its users: “Think first.” Is it really that simple? And just what should they be thinking about? So, let’s start a list of frequently asked questions related to civil discourse. These are the questions to consider when you engage in discussions with people either online or off.

1. What effect will my actions have on other people in the community?

This is certainly the overarching question. While this question will not stop someone intent on mayhem, it might slow down the middle school prankster who just wants attention. Ask yourself: how would I feel if someone said that to me? The golden rule is often quoted in civil discourse guidelines: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

2. How can I disagree without being disagreeable?

There are specific techniques that can help you challenge people’s ideas without attacking their characters:

• Speak for yourself. Use “I” statements to make it clear that you are stating your opinion and not representing a whole group.
• Maintain respect for others who hold different beliefs and ideas. Use your discussions not just to tell them about your beliefs but take the time to understand theirs. Keep talking and debating but don’t cross over into insults (ie, Anyone who believes that is just ill-informed.).
• Write as clearly as possible and be sure to clarify quickly if it’s apparent that someone has misunderstood you. Likewise, if you aren’t clear about what someone said, ask questions and listen to the answers.

3. Was I angered or hurt by something someone else said and now I’m ready to get even?

Count to ten is the perennial advice when you can feel yourself getting angry. While there might be times when a little righteous indignation is warranted, really letting someone have it is almost never productive. You can control the way you respond to people by just taking a minute to catch your breath. Why are you so mad? Is there a way to express that angry that will further the discussion rather than end it?

I forgot to mention the Seymour Papert video from GLEF where he suggests that the first step in the revolution is to get rid of the curriculum. I showed this one when I did my presentation on technology and curriculum for the Curriculum Development class I took.

Judi Harris commented on my post Big Ideas about MOOs #2:

“One of the biggest factors working against MOO adoption/adaptation in K-12 is the extensive amount of time that students need to be allowed to work in the problem-solving environment to garner the requisite educational benefits. Many would argue (with LOGO, too, by the way) that the learning and engagement benefits justify the more open-ended approach and the much longer time-on-task, but that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not anything that can be easily ?¢‚Ǩ?ìtallied?¢‚Ǩ? against a set of curriculum standards, unfortunately ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù though it?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s probably true that a well-designed, curriculum-based MOO helps students to meet these standards.”

I try to be as pragmatic as possible with teachers: help them figure out ways that technology can enhance what they are doing. But I’m getting increasingly frustrated: we seem to have a collective sense that education could be much more engaging and exciting but can’t figure out how to assess it. I’ve been working with the instructional technology resource teachers in Virginia. During an afternoon session, they work in small groups on the modified webquest I created about creating project-based curriculum. In both groups that have used it, I’ve had at least one teacher tell me how hard it was for them to think “outside the standard.”

After almost a decade of standardized testing, teachers associate objectives with standards and begin their planning with a specific standard then find resource related to that standard. It seems to me that it makes for a very piece meal approach to learning. I think software like MOOs and project-based learning activites like webquests require teachers (and students, for that matter) to start with big questions and ideas. When I do the training, I show the video of Patty Vreeland from Newsome Park Elementary School from the George Lucas Educational Foundation where she talks about matching standards to project-based learning. (As an aside, after several years of using this video, I got to meet Parry Vreeland. She’s an ITRT now and was at VSTE. She is so lively and inspiring.)

As for a curriculum-based MOO, I was thinking that Lewis and Clark would be a great MOO: have students describe the different locations along the trail. They could add journal entries and anecdotes along with descriptions of the various characters like Sacagawea and the members of the exhibition. (A blog would be a perfect accompaniment: since we don’t have any written record from Sacagawea, it would be interesting to write it from her point of view.)

But then reality steps in: Lewis and Clark make up just one sub-standard of a larger standard related to United States expansion at least in Virginia’s Standards of Learning. There are 9 SOL related to history so with a nine-month school year that means we have to cover an SOL every month (20 days). (Actually less since the tests are given in May.) Since Lewis and Clark is one of four sub-standards, they would get about five days. No time to even think about a MOO since it would mean a lot of research and reading and creating.

Here’s the potentially revolutionary idea: You could divide the class into 9 groups and give them each one standard. They would each spend a month or two developing a MOO related to that standard. Then each group would have a chance to interact with the various MOOs over the course of the next few months.

Rex, F. (2006). LambdaMOO: An Introduction. Retrieved March 14, 2006 from http://www.lambdamoo.info/.

So far, this is the best introduction to MOO-ing I’ve seen. It is up to date, makes it clear that MOOs are text-based, and gives a good overview of interacting and writing commands. It also discusses the safety issue:

“You’ll find many people to meet up with and build cyber-friendships with (parental warning and all), and some even use the Moo for pretty complex RPG’s (role-playing games). Like the real world, you take the good with the bad. There’s an infamous story about the misgivings of the Moo, A Rape in Cyberspace (1993) by Julian Dibbell, and there have apparently been many marriages sprung.”

I read about the rape in the book Judi Harris loaned me. (Sorry, don’t have the citation with me but I’ll post it when I get back to home base.) When the rape occured, the wizards of LambdaMOO had just changed the format so that rather than the wizards being the final word on what happened to users who violated the rules, it was up to the community. So, they had a conundrum: here was an obvious violation but they had to see what the group would do to the violator.

I thought of an interesting parallel to modern times. The world watched as the Palestinians had their first elections. We celebrated democracy in action. Except, they elected a terrorist organization to the leadership role. Hmmm…now what?

Dibbell’s description of the rape is very graphic and disturbing and he looks at the larger issue of how we are going to get along in this virtual world:

“For the Bungle Affair raises questions that — here on the brink of a future in which human existence may find itself as tightly enveloped in digital environments as it is today in the architectural kind — demand a clear-eyed, sober, and unmystified consideration. It asks us to shut our ears for the time being to techno- utopian ecstasies and look without illusion upon the present possibilities for building, in the on-line spaces of this world, societies more decent and free than those mapped onto dirt and concrete and capital.”

Can we build more “decent and free” societies online and can they provide examples for how we might function together in the “real” world as well?