Maybe I just don't understand.

At the heart of the Deuce (that would be Anything 2.0) is participation. Not lurking. Doing. We have (as of a few minutes ago) just under 180 members here. I think about eight of us have contributed anything here. Maybe it's ten. I didn't count -- and I didn't count the "Introduce Yourself Icebreaker Assignment." (Hi, nice to meet you. Now? What do you think?)

Ya, I know it was the weekend. But if you're too busy at work and have other priorities on the weekend then what and how are you planning on actually getting into anything involving the Deuce?

Maybe you did something over on the Stop Cyberbullying -- I'm not a member over there -- I haven't looked.

Maybe you're just here to get The Answer. The problem, of course, is that without your voices, we aren't going to come up with any. Personally, I'm of the mind that Classroom 2.0 will not be a room and it won't be in a school. It'll be a place we each establish for ourselves. I'm in my classroom (and my pajamas) as I write this.

How is that going to shake out for - say K-4 kids? Personally, I see a pretty big widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Nobody seems to want to address that one either, except by adopting a kind of No Child Gets Ahead mentality in order to make sure that No Child's Left Behind. It's a good strategy for keeping everybody together, but a miserable approach to expanding knowledge.

So? You people out there! Not Steve. Not Sharon. Not Barbara or Tom. Somebody else. One of you who hasn't said anything yet. Somebody who's been here for a few days and done nothing but read.

Are you out there?

Are you listening?

Are you thinking?

Do you just not understand that lurking is not a viable strategy in the Deuce?




Views: 207

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Chris, it was your blog post this morning that led me to this thread in the first place -- thanks. As to open vs. closed -- I did gloss that a bit. Good point. My use of "open" and "closed" was more about what I can and can't do with this space and less about the true nature of networks. I'm not going to think through it right now -- although I might at some point. Hierarchy?

As for the other stuff -- yeah, I'm here, too, to see if it's useful. Speaking of -- what would you like to know?
Hi there I have read the treads here with interest - I must first confess I suppose, that I am lurking in Ning getting a 'feel' for the discussions that are going on. I drifted up at Ning via David Warlick's recent post with much the same thought process - Is there a need for this? Do I need to know? The answer I think is a definite 'maybe'. I can see that many member names are those that we are all aware of in the blogosphere already which you would expect - people already aware of 2.0 and the issues, I find it hard to see how the Ning concept is going to attract 'newbies' - What's in it for them?

There needs to be genuine discussion on topics which will grab those people - I have a feeling that if they come in and see this thread they amy well be turned off altogether - less navel gazing comrades, if this is to work as a concept let's post some ' real stuff', if that doesn't take then I guess my 'maybe' was correct.

Web 2.0 took off for me with the K12 online conference last year - real practitioners showing what really works ( first hand best practice case studies )- Now that was inspiring, many 'newbies' came on board for that and stayed, this I guess maybe more of a slow-burn.

We'll see... ( and those of us lurkers who are doers rather than talkers will still be here hopefully!!!)
Yup. You're right on the mark, Paul.

So's Chris, actually.

My point is that the people here weren't saying *anything."
OK. So I realize that as the creator, I may have an opinion, but the network can go in very different directions than I might anticipate. Here's my two cents...

Those who are the most likely to have signed up for Classroom 2.0 in these early stages are those who already had some form of personal social network going, since I announced it in the blogosphere. And for them, Ning is not likely to be as robust as their existing network.

Those who are most likely to benefit from Classroom 2.0, on the other hand, are those who have not yet jumped into the pool of the read/write web. Specifically, when I saw Ning and what it could do, I was hopeful that it could become a way for those of us who are more seasoned in Web 2.0 to bring others into the "conversation" in an easy way. I was particularly thinking about the sense that I, and others, are getting even from tech-savvy educators that they don't have the time or understanding to set up their own blog, aggregator/reader, etc.

So my hope is *not* that Classroom 2.0 becomes a burden to those who are already socially networked, but a way for us to easily introduce Web 2.0 to educators who aren't there yet. And I really believe that once someone begins to experience the changes to learning that occur in the read/write web, that he/she will want to find a way to bring them into the classroom. The "lurking" doesn't bother me at all. For some, they will need time just to figure out what is going on. In fact, one of my disappointments with Ning is that there is not an easy way to follow the blog or forum discussions without knowing how to use an RSS feed--it would be nice if they both had an option for emailing new posts, with the content in them.

I've watched a number of conversations develop here that I have thought were very productive. At the same time, I have worried that some of the "School 2.0" / Titanic stuff would turn off those just interested in dipping their toes into Web 2.0 without wanting to have to rethink education as a whole. Like many of you, I'm frequently asked to talk about the read/write web, and I'm hoping that I can encourage educators to sign up for Classroom 2.0 as a way to get started in this new world--and that when they come here, they can make some friends, learn about social networking, write a blog post, get some conversation going, and be a little more excited about what is taking place for learning because of the read/write web.
Steve and I have already had this conversation in other threads and I agree with him on it. He says it much better than I could. Understandable since it's his idea. :)

One part that Steve said *does* stand out, though.

"So my hope is *not* that Classroom 2.0 becomes a burden to those who are already socially networked, but a way for us to easily introduce Web 2.0 to educators who aren't there yet."

Here's my problem.

For this to be a viable community (social network, whatever you wanna call it), it has to provide value to its members. All *I* want is for somebody to do something. I'm doing what I can do to stir the pot. Chris -- and undoubtedly others -- see this as problematic. Ok. If you don't like my questions, ask some better ones and I'll sit down and shut up. Or offer my insight (however misguided it might be).

But if there's *nothing* going on, then this other idea of introducing the Deuce to educators who haven't gotten on board with it can't happen either. Anybody been over to School 2.0 lately?? Morgue 2.0 might be more appropriate.

So, I've been here a week. Call me impatient. Call me a ADD. (oh look a chicken!) Call me rude and obnoxious. But just like your students, if you're not going to engage *somehow* out here in this space then you're wasting my time.

A week on the internet is a lifetime. Welcome to the Deuce.
Also, it is worth considering that there are conversations going on that aren't taking place in the forum. I've had several really good connections with others that take place through emailing them or chatting on their profile.

I also think that when those of us who are seasoned see someone come in that we have invited, that we are then going to be likely to communicate with them.

I only go to facebook a couple of times a week, but it still has value for me as a community. I'm not sure a community has to be all-consuming. There will undoubtedly be some significant news story or event that will generate a lot of feedback, and when it does, that's likely when we'll be really grateful to have a fuller community.
Steve, this is what I want! For myself, as a fairly new teacher but a lifelong techie, I want to learn from experienced teachers and I think I have the tech skills to contribute some myself. As I work with my colleagues who are less familiar with technology, I am discovering that most of them just need someone who they know is there to answer their questions: someone who teaches and someone who can also pop into their classrooms and say, "You have to see this new technology I found. Here is how it works. Here is how I think you can use it." I want a place that I can introduce my teachers to and say, "These are good people. They do what I do, but together they have many more skills and much more experience. They will help you."

I love the opportunity to network with other teachers who use technology. I was starting to feel isolated in my school and sometimes I just need to get my geek on, but that is not what I think Classroom 2.0 needs. It needs experienced teachers who can answer questions and guide others into the 2.0 world, but it also needs inquisitive learners who will ask beginner questions (over and over and over again) and who will challenge us to come up with ways to help them bring these excellent tools into their classrooms.
I am brand new to social networks and this site. I have posted a couple of things already, but being a noob I don't want to over do it. But I guess I will take the bait and and post more.
well, I just got here - actually, that's not true, because when I added the feed to my bloglines account, it said I had already subscribed. Surprise! but I hadn't gotten one update on that feed. Dunno why. I tried one of the other feeds, and now it's coming through. Ning might be a little buggy, I keep getting "script error" browser messages while reading the pages.

If the tools aren't working, people won't know anything is going on.
Getting the hang of this does take time. I have been blogging for just a year and I feel that I still haven't developed a voice, or have something to say that I think is worthy, but I still try. The more I do it the more comfortable I feel. Lurking is a good way to get a feel for conversation and tone which can differ from site to site.

But from the K-12 angle I believe teachers are not trained to be collaborators. Even if they were the culture of the K-12 building, steeped in the tradition of segregated classrooms, by grade level, by subject area, eventually acculturates the teacher into "one of them". I have witnessed this in schools for many years and held countless debates on how to change it. My sister now a 10 year veteran fell victim to this change. So the 2.0 world is all about collaboration which is unfamiliar territory to most teachers. In fairness the newer teachers are less susceptible to this process but they are still confronted by it and some manage it well.

I can understand the emphasis on best practice and how important it is to share those concepts with others. But I would be cautious of seeing 2.0 as the vehicle for that. Really, sharing a best practice in the year 2007 can easily become obsolete and irrelevant in the year 2009. And you know how teachers love to hold on to that lesson plan. I have teachers using lesson plans from the late 80's who still feel this is a best practice. Maybe it is, but it also excludes the development of new thinking on the subject which to me is critical for the meeting the needs of today's students.

My point here is that teachers need to think more about why they do what they do in the classroom. In other words teaching kids to think is OK but thinking by itself is not efficient or effective. We need to teach students how think creatively (open minded, curious) and reflective (metacognition) and critical thinking (seeking truth and understanding, strategic, skeptical). I am all for sharing best practices that promote these types of thinking and if that is what we are talking about .....bravo.

I suspect we are not!!!!
If nlowell's goal was to prompt members of Classroom 2.0 to respond to his post in someway...anyway...then I would say he succeeded; but I can't guarantee that I'm going to stick around for very long. You see, I am one of those "lurkers"; a term I find offensive and highly judgemental. It makes me feel like a voyeur or worse yet, a leech. The way to encourage teachers to shift the way in which they share their voice is not through bullying and berating them. Is that what good teachers do to their students? I personally have never considered myself to be a great writer; so for me, the thought of putting my ideas "out there" is nothing short of frightening. (It has taken me over an hour to write this post.) I am fairly new to the world of web 2.0 and I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the whole idea of transparency. I still haven't figured out how I could possibly contribute anything new to the conversations taking place right now, particularly in the company of such people as Will Richardson, Terry Friedman, David Jakes and yes, nlowell. What WILL encourage me to enter the web 2.0 conversations are people like Steve, Barbara and Alja who obviously understand the complexities of adult learning.
Thank you for speaking up, Cary.

First, please don't take the term lurker as a perjorative. Regardless of what it means outside the web, what it means here is somebody who listens but doesn't speak. Web 1.0 is rife with them. There's nothing wrong with lurking. Some studies peg lurkers at anywhere from 60% and up in any community. There are a lot of studies indicating that lurking is an effective strategy for a large number of people.

This is only one of the many cultural differences you'll find here in the Deuce.

My problem -- my frustration -- with Classroom 2.0 when I started this post five days ago (another cultural difference -- 5 days is at least a full generation in Deuce Standard Time) was that nobody was saying *anything* There were no posts. No blogs. No forums. Nothing. Lurking in a silent room doesn't help anybody, and I was afraid that if the ball didn't start rolling soon, that the people coming in would find nothing happening and leave before it could develop. Much like what has happened over on School 2.0. Drama -- for all that many find it distasteful -- usually is enough to get people at least talking --- if only about what a reprehensible example nlowell sets for the rest of the community.

My promise was that if somebody ELSE would stand up and model the kind of discourse they wanted, then I'd sit down and shut up. For the most part, except where I had something I thought would contribute to the discourse, I have. We've got a long way to go, but we're starting on the path.

So, yes, hate my methods. But it worked. Whether it continues or not remains to be seen.

Thank you, again, for speaking up.



Win at School

Commercial Policy

If you are representing a commercial entity, please see the specific guidelines on your participation.





© 2024   Created by Steve Hargadon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service