Least Tern > But not Least

But Not Least...

Beyond the Classroom

Writing a Never-Ending Story

I have begun a never-ending story. Like my blog, the story is linear. Unlike a blog, anyone can edit the last 6000 words.  So far, the story has been begun three times. Although I liked my beginning, and liked even more the addition made by the next writer, the third writer deleted it all and started a new story.  Adding to that story, I felt creative energy, but also a sense of loss. My words worked well, I understood them - and they were gone.

Isn't this a lot like the use of technology in the classroom?  Just when the story seems right, someone (Microsoft, Apple, Edmark, Tom Snyder, Linksys, Netgear, IT, a CIO) changes the storyline. We're stuck with the new, like it or not. But that is the "game" we agree to, isn't it?  Plus sa change.

But most teachers also want la même chose.  Writing and then rewriting this story has helped me to understand the frustration of deletion and change. Mine is an emotional response to change, not unlike that felt by many teachers who are faced with new technologies and applications. Nonetheless, I return to the story frequently. Why?

The answer lies in the potential value of the online never-ending story form itself. There is, after all, always a story in which I can participate.

What a Teacher Might Use This Form For:

Disadvantages

  1. All entries, as I have structured the exercise, are anonymous. So no one can take credit for good work, mean work, or poor work
  2. Writers are not communicating in real-time: words can not be read until posted. Simultaneous inputs may conflict (but should not be lost)
  3. Most of what one writes is not permanent - up to the limit set by the administrator, it is subject to change by the next writer
  4. There is no media involved.
  5. There are no fancy fonts, bolds, italics or other highlighting allowed. Just words.
  6. The result might not make sense.

Hmm.. Responding to one point at a time...

Advantages

  1. Writers who wish to be "known" will need to establish an identity with words. Alternately, the form can be used to force writers to practice a style or voice. Not knowing who writes what can be an advantage in a true collaboration (no pre-judgment of input)
  2. This is not a format best suited for a class period. Send it home. Sometimes students do their best work well after dark. Or very early in the morning.
  3. Limits can be attractive to students.
    1. If they know that their work will have a better chance of survival if it pushes the limit + the "overflow", they will write more.
    2. And because there is an administrator: the limits can change downward.  This page to here contains 2,264 characters (including spaces) and 1,867 characters without spaces. Not very much, it seems to me. Were I to reset the limits to 1000 characters in the input, with a 300 character overflow (a 1300 max), students would write less but save more.  It is something to explore. 
    3. Furthermore, not changing requires intellectual self-control. It is an exercise in respecting "intellectual privacy".
    4. Not changing, but adding to is a problem-solving exercise as well. It requires understanding what others have said and responding in a constructive way (by extension, contradiction, logical opposition, lateral addition).
  4. No media content focuses the writer upon the communication of ideas through words.
    1. This is hard, but in an English class or a Writing Across the Curriculum math class, it is the point.
    2. Media slows down communication - this is quicker (even if it takes 1000 words)
  5. Ditto.
  6. Sense will change with the writer. If the goal is to make sense happen, then the student has to work to understand what has gone before as well as what he is going to add.

Hmmm...So, how does all of this apply to educational technology?

A simple tool has many uses. There are much more complex ways to digitally create any one of the products or collaborations brainstormed above. But this simple little tool works. Looking first to the simple solution is the best strategy for a technology coordinator, IT director, CIO, school administrator - or teacher. It reminds us to examine our "old" toolkit and our "history" for the simple tools - before rushing into the new. This, by the way, is Ockham's Razor.

The focus is upon the process.  This is a constructivist tool. The tool itself has no learning curve, so the created content becomes the focus of learning.

Collaboration and good communication are key.  These are the essential 21st Century skills, perhaps. 

It takes a teacher or guide to make it happen. This format requires a startup idea, procedures and permissions, a rubric or other guideline, and follow-through. Eventually, students will learn to become the creator/guides. The format, then, places the teacher in a good position to learn about constructivist teaching.

The tool embraces the process of change, but this is within a framework. Defining the framework - the the ethos, the goals and mission, the community, the procedures and permissions - of technological change empowers members of the school community to enter the process with confidence.

The tool creates a History. The actual file is called "old.txt" (often renamed). But Old exits only after addition, revision, and editing. That is what educational technology must do. It is well and good for technologists to talk about radical change to the culture of education, but, as we have discussed in previous essays (Change Happens and Longitude and Latitude), change that fails to link to the existing culture is going to be as successful as a bungee jumper without a cord.

And now for the rest of the story...

E. Sky-McIlvain 2/28/04