Recently, we’ve been exploring the cognitive approach to literacy instruction and evaluating common cognitive strategies to support the development of reading comprehension. For our final discussion, I decided to use a cognitive mapping strategy to organize our thoughts about this approach to literacy learning.

Enter Popplet
Using the Popplet tool, I set up a brief skeleton of potential topics to cover in reflecting on our understanding of cognitive strategies. Then, students were invited to join the Popplet (and the conversation) by adding their thoughts in the form of branches and bubbles.
The process of collaborating to construct meaning and understand how to use the tool took place through face-to-face discussion with neighbors and through the comments and questions popping up on our page. With little to no instruction on how to use the site, students were able to easily navigate the page, uncover features, and successfully represent our findings.
​
Application ideas included using the tool to explore academic vocabulary, organize discussions and interactive support around homework, or brainstorm ideas for a group project, just to name a few. Students also made some insightful suggestions, such as to use the color-coding feature to distinguish the original prompts, integrate multimodal options such as representing through images/videos/drawings in addition to text, and laying out clear expectations for what student contributions should like (establishing norms).
With 27 people simultaneously posting and reviewing on one Popplet, I thought there was potential for an overwhelming mess. It turns out we were far more successful, and now I am far more likely to use this tool in the classroom again!

As I’m currently teaching two similar courses addressing literacy across content areas, I decided to test out a new idea. For one course, I wanted to “update” the traditional literacy autobiography assignment that is typical of courses like these. The traditional assignment (as I was even asked to complete while in college) asks students to define and trace their literacy development across meaningful experiences, highlighting sponsors and moments of discovery, resistance, and validation. In attempting to remix this project, I wanted to maintain the important analysis of identifying and reflecting upon literacy sponsors, as well as larger contextual factors (such as the impact of technological and economic shifts on our opportunities for engaging with literacies). However, I hoped to infuse greater degrees of creativity and control over format and structure along with greater relevance to the role of literacy in my students’ lives every day.

DIGITAL REMIX: Literacy in Action
For this project, I asked students to narrow the lens and focus only literacy encounters within the last week or so. Students could document these experiences in a variety of ways utilizing a variety of tools–with the catch that they needed to use a digital tool incorporating multimodal representations. The written reflections were completed in two parts: 1- a short personal reflection on the issues addressed above, and 2- a synthesis of findings across projects (including two other group members) focused on patterns of experience, similarities, and new perspectives not previously considered.
​
As for the technology tools, students constructed prezis, movies, twitter accounts with snapchat selfies, instagram and tumblr accounts to document their experiences. Their work is filled with unexpected discoveries (moments of “I did not realize this was literacy”), the sharing of personal interests, and a lot of humor and personality! While the written reflection and expectations need some tweaking, there is a lot of opportunity to save this project from the drudgery of redundancy and make it meaningful for both authors and audience alike.
Looking forward to sharing some work as soon as I get permissions!

It will surprise no educator (or logically thinking person) to consider that education ought not be aligned to models of factory or medicine. Teachers are neither transforming raw material into products or curing disease through a clearly designed method. The variables attached to every educational situation are instead moral-laden and begin with the importance of context.
Somehow while I feel like I always inherently knew this, it wasn’t until reading Good Education in an Age of Measurement by Gert Biesta that I realized what the very nature of educational research implies. He makes the point that even though research can tell us what works, it is not possible (in our field) to determine what will work every time. Results are not generalizable even from student to student in the same classroom–something that every teacher obviously learns through their own interactions. This understanding is fundamentally at odds with any blanket decision to apply a strategy or pedagogical approach that requires teachers to assume that if something worked once, it will work always (as opposed to the opposing view that just because something worked once does not mean it can ever be repeated because the variables of the context cannot be controlled for). These are people we are talking about after all–not organized systems that can be studied but unpredictable entities influenced by “fuzzy stuff” such as motivation, emotional state, prior knowledge and experience, attitude, and beliefs…
And thus, the very act of engaging in this research can create the illusion that what is “discovered” must be applied. At the heart of this application, however, lies one of the most important attributes of the teacher: professional judgment. As our states and districts continue to limit the degree to which teachers are able to draw upon professional judgment in navigating which research to test out when and how to adapt it for their unique situation, we are placing all of our faith on a causal understanding of what teaching is and how it should be studied–a frightening trend that I am just learning how to articulate.

Sometimes the biggest hurdle to implementing technology in the classroom becomes the technology itself. Teachers become overwhelmed with the logistics of: getting access to working tools, preparing to effectively use them (often through their own play and construction of the desired outcome), planning the implementation process, structuring class time, and managing how to provide support, mentorship, and scaffolding to keep students moving through the technical challenges that will arise. With all of these considerations in mind, it can often be far too easy to overlook the more important question of why?

Why use this tool? What are the benefits or advantages offered? How does this tool capitalize on the demands of the learning objective? Why select this path over another, and how do you critically make selections to repurpose and combine tools within the context of one project?
We might consider how apprenticeship provides an opportunity to introduce complex processes and provide guided practice for beginners. Such an instructional model aligns well with the types of learning needed to master new technology tools. This model is also closely correlated to the Gradual Release of Responsibility, where the responsibility shifts from expert to apprentice through coaching and mentorship.
​
However, I wonder if we might also pay equal focus to the importance of cognitive apprenticeship–modeling the thinking processes we undergo as experts in navigating these decision-making processes. This might appear similar to the ways in which English teachers conduct read-alouds (or think-alouds) where the teacher makes visible the typically invisible process of reading by modeling the use of cognitive strategies that expert readers engage in while reading. Applying this strategy to the context of learning with digital tools might help to bridge the gap of critical inquiry into our reasons for and applications of producing with digital tools. These are the types of questions and active critiques students need to develop in their own consumption of digital media and fostering such a perspective might begin here in the act of cognitive apprenticeship–useful for not just teaching tools but teaching thinking about the tools we choose to engage with.

“…such emancipation will begin when the student decides it will begin, and it will belong only for the student, not for the school. It will not begin because of a policy or practice, but in spite of a policy or practice. A policy or practice can only set the orbit of learning for a student, while intellectual emancipation happens when a student sets out on an orbit that is wholly his or her own…” (Bingham & Biesta, 2011, p. 24).
From Jacques Ranciere: Education, Truth, Emancipation

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the question of whether or not the Gradual Release of Responsibility instructional model is an authentic model for classroom learning, or if by its very nature it imposes inequality and limitations upon the educational process.
​
As is typical, I think my current reactions come back to the question of balance–everything in moderation. I wonder also if GRR might be a model better utilized for procedural or technical tasks, ones with distinct pathways to success that would only be unnecessarily convoluted by spending precious time in exploration. On the other hand, I wonder if thinking about educational inquiries with multiple pathways towards success, completion, enlightenment, critical thinking, etc. would be better enhanced through models that thrive on student choice and direction… More questions to ponder in navigating the tightrope between academia and the “real world.”

I think that it is possible to construct spaces for participatory cultures to exist within a formal classroom and really to be a driving force for how learning is “done.” I also believe that these learning spaces are in line with the types of learning objectives and standards laid out by the Common Core, which leads me to my contested assertion that standards (possibly within their own vacuum) can actually co-exist with creative, collaborative, and exploratory learning. However, I see this contingent on two big IF’s–

IF… schools/districts/states allow for teacher agency and autonomy in designing learning experiences in their classrooms. When curriculum is instead sold as pre-packaged products devoid of context (and mostly meaning) there is little chance of constructing the room (both physically and in terms of scheduling) for these types of learning environments to flourish. Many of the characteristics that typically define “formal” learning must be reconfigured in this type of learning environment (physical space, teacher role, technology access, etc), yet I believe these are within easy reach for a willing teacher to embrace. However, a school setting that imposes the formality of norms (through curriculum, behavior management, censorship, etc) may be an insurmountable challenge.

IF… learning experiences are intentionally designed. I really love the integration of Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), because I think backwards design is even more important when constructing digital learning experiences, even moreso in participatory cultures. I think it can be easy to get caught up in the technology itself, without carefully attending to the process of learning (the scaffolding of skills it might require and how to rethink what these skills look like in a digital context–even again after students bring their own understanding to the community, expanding on the original goals, complexities, or potential outcomes the teacher may not have invisioned). I see the culture itself as not only allowing for but embracing “play” and flux–a clear vision is important, but unlike traditional settings/assignments, I think there is a greater need for the vision itself to be negotiated and refined through the community. Allowing for flux also takes into account many of the logistical concerns of implementing these experiences in real classrooms (access, tools, timelines, etc).
Reviewing the list of experiences Jenkins describes of “What Could Be Done” across the different core skills, it is clear that none were accomplished by serendipitous accident. Many will require not only a teacher’s knowledge of content but also a reconceptualization of what teaching means in a participatory culture. Furthermore, teachers will likely need to collaborate with resident tech experts or instructional technology coaches to support their learning of the tools themselves. After all, it might be hard to envision how to design experiences around “judgment” if the teacher can just barely use the technology at a functional level. Which only further supports the need for developing these core skills in the teachers themselves. Sure we can say that the learning and teaching is distributed–which it is– but most teachers will only feel comfortable moving into this space with at least some degree of competence themselves. We might support them to see their role as facilitator or co-learner as opposed to expert, but going forward with no knowledge might make intentional design not just a harder sell but practically impossible.
​
But what does this mean in an era where “Failure is Not an Option?”
I was also thinking about failure in terms of teaching being perceived as “failing” if certain assessment goals are not met on standardized tests. In questioning my first response, I came to a larger question: Can people enact (not just embrace) progressive reforms while operating within a regressive state? The essence of participatory culture asks teachers to rethink their traditional teaching roles and relationships to students, understanding of content delivery and construction of meaning, and learn to play and take risks with new forms of digital tools– risks that might be readily accepted as new challenges and paths to learning but only under circumstances that allow for and support risk-taking. A national climate that instead imposes daunting standards and standardized testing as the measure of teaching ability and professional competency, as well as determining pay and even employment is NOT a climate in which teachers would be as likely to willingly embrace a whole new approach to teaching and learning–rather a more likely outcome might be to sacrifice progress to at least maintain credibility. Can you have authentic progress if your goal is to measure each mis-step as a failure and means for exposure? I’m wondering if this is more problematic than I may have originally thought…