Category Archives: opened

Agoraphobia in education.

Addressing Educator “Fear of Open Space” (agoraphobia)

In the creation of a digital community for education, do we resist the idea of allowing our students into open spaces? The subject and grade level will help determine our personal stance on exactly how “open” we allow our student’s discussion and learning to be… but if the educator is at the secondary level, is it acceptable to open things up then? Or do we still fear the internet? Are there more educators suffering from agoraphobia than we think?

OPen Space

“Wanda in open space” from Corner Gas

“How could anyone be afraid of open space?”

A quote from season two, episode four, of the beloved Canadian show, Corner Gas. Yes, I am working Corner Gas into this blog post.

Open online space, to be clear. And let’s face it, there is a seedy side, with a palpable list of awful instances of abuse in the digital realm. But what about the development of a sense of connectedness with strangers. Strangers who can be from anywhere in the world, yet provide us with ideas, opinions, interests, be they novel or similar to our own!

Why exactly do I get so excited about the online community?

Growing up in the infant stages of the internet and social media, I scoured forums for information on video games I played (Super Nintendo, Pokemon, etc). In my searching, it was always exciting to find websites full of individuals who enjoyed what I enjoyed (in similar or different ways). Sharing the same emotions and ideas with individuals you will never really know (by conventional standards), is a mysteriously unifying concept. You just don’t get that in a closed setting. In closed forums in an educational setting, I only ever saw the keeners dominate forums, and much of the time, I resented their contributions because I felt they used higher vocabulary needlessly that either made their points too convoluted, or served to exclude other classmates who wouldn’t be able to comprehend it as well. I hard a hard time thinking it was practice for language development, and normally felt that it was done to elevate or flaunt language prowess at the expense of making others feel inferior.

I say this, yet use words now in my writing that I would’ve probably resented then. Don’t worry, I have yet to feel it in my graduate classes thus far – but I am always so aware of my motives behind sharing or my vocabulary choices, am I doing it for my benefit, or for others?

fry hear themselves

“hear themselves talk” via Memegenerator

In reflecting on my sharing on the group chat in our discussions. In this course (and my previous courses with Alec), specifically in the chat realm, a lot of my contributions have some desperate attempts at humour laced with relevance to the content – and while it keeps me engaged, I’m sure others, at least once, have thought: “oh my goodness, just stop”. And maybe I’m wrong… but have you ever felt like you were in a class where it seems some individuals just like to hear themselves talk?

That is my fear in the closed setting. I’m a claustrophobic educator I guess. My feelings aside, learning can still happen for students when ones who dominate discussion receive feedback to curb contributions or it pushes others to step up. But are the discussion-dominators even displaying understanding or have they simply learned to fake it?

 

“Learned to fake it”

“Learned to fake it” with it being authenticity. There still is learning occurring when individuals learn to fake it and share what they share in these settings. As such, I would argue that: yes, there is some authenticity, because who it is meaningful to has a wide scope. When we consider the scope and who all the comments reach, we’re bound to find some authentic learning. The modelling of “advanced responses” still benefit others who may get too intimidated to contribute. Therefore, while it may not be authentic for the contributor, whose motives may be less than intrinsic, the responses evoked may be authentic, so where do I (and we) draw the line? And what’s the difference in this between an open or closed setting?

I envision that the more open your discussions are, the more opportunities present themselves for learning to go in more directions as it increases your potential contributors and receivers (positive or negative contributions, mind you).

What age do students begin to have open spaces then?

think of the children.jpg

“Think of the children” via quickmeme

As an individual pushing for openness, I am fortunate to be teaching students mostly sixteen years of age and older. The mentality of allowing students to be exposed or unprotected in the digital realm is not a foreign concept for most of them or us, especially if they have been involved with social media and digital usage throughout their adolescent life.

At the senior science level with open content, the scope isn’t limited to students either. Parents may access the open format if they’re wanting to be involved, yet allow the students to begin to stretch their wings a bit. As long as administration and parents are made aware of the rationale and mentality behind the decision to go public, and concerns are addressed and adapted for as needed, the learning from open commenting and discussion can unfold. If concerns arose like frequent trolling, decisions could be made as a class community (edcuator, students, parents, admin) with how to address them. (All of this is predicated on student buy-in. But… at the senior science level, buy-in is, pretty much, required).

Were I a grade four science teacher, there would be greater restrictions when searching for information and public commenting (as in, it would likely be non-existent as the students would be still, I consider, vulnerable). You would see a closed setting without external influence, but potentially simulated digital citizenship practices in which they’d deal with a pretend troll, or have to select from three information sources to determine which one is most likely false, rather than being thrown to the wolves of the web in my senior science courses. But even then, where is the line where we stop coddling students?

Closing thoughts

While some of my senior students may become “learn to fake it”‘s as I mentioned above, there’s still learning to be had. This learning may be from unknowingly modelling behaviours for themselves, or creating authentic learning for others who may learn from them.

The more open we go, the scope of learning increases. So don’t be afraid of open space.

Open Space Gif.gif

“Corner Gas – Open Space” made via Giphy


Open space…

Open space…

 

Agree? Disagree? Comment below!

-Logan Petlak


ED Goals: Continue to connect, learn, question and improve.

Term in review

Over the course of this semester in ECI 831 we’ve progressed from educational technologies, like utilizing social media such as blogging and tweeting –> open education resources and ideologies –> to the perils and realities of the internet world through law and harassment –> and closed with the power and need for on-line activism. As this was my first class in my graduate studies, I found it very relevant as a student again and still as a young teacher. I felt that many of the discussions directly translated to learning in my classroom.
How have I been applying my new knowledge and thoughts thus far in my teaching practice?

In environmental science we have utilized social media to do research on ways to reduce waste and become enviornmental stewards and activists. In health science, I registered and directed students toward an open education resource through Coursera to learn more about our current topic (vital signs). This was accompanied by showing the students that you may purchase certifications in recognition of these courses should you need some paperwork associated with it ($65). This, in turn, lead into a class discussion on university tuitions that unfortunately seem to serve as a price tag for paper recognition of knowledge garnered. Around the school? I’ve used Facebook group chats to communicate with students about our One Act performance for the year, and have continued to use Remind to communicate with my track and field team as well as help coordinate our school gay-straight alliance (GSA). After spending more time with Snapchat, I had utilized its popularity with students to help promote our school in Moose Jaw as well as provide an area for potential students to ask questions about the school.

As I took into consideration MOOCs and open education, I considered how to work this into my classroom, but rather than simply throwing in some individual research in assignments and reminding them about critiquing sources, I decided to formally merge my teaching style with what I’ve learned about digital citizenship. The Digital Citizenship Presentation covers this and “learning in a Mr. Petlak classroom”. I intend to use at the start of my semesters in the future.

 

Beyond my classroom and practice, what else has this course helped with?

Over the course of this class, I digitally connected with others in the private purchase of a house, I digitally connected with other educators on-line to enhance my PLN, and expanded my ability to organize knowledge gathered outside of the school back into improving learning of myself and others. I felt it helped me reflect on the social dynamics inherent in social media that was just becoming relevant when I was in high school, and it allowed me to better connect with this generation of learners. It also renewed my desire to be an activist and not be afraid to speak out, which I fear as educators we may fear doing so in order to remain neutral… and at times, silent. But the push to learn piano also helped me found my voice and way to “create” music and sounds that I have enjoyed for a long time… and will continue to keep learning about.

 

Closing

I sincerely thank Alec Couros and Katia Hildebrandt for an awesome semester of learning, as well as all of my classmates. I was very unsure what to expect in a graduate class but this did not overwhelm or disappoint. I feel like a better teacher and person after this course and I feel that is my ultimate goal of education: to continue to connect, learn, question and improve.

To finish how I started, below is a picture of the difference in hashtags from the start of the semester to the end of the semester. Despite the length of each list, the time to complete was actually very similar… and almost just as importantly… I think my hair looks better too!

1452648428990

First Day – ECI 831

20160411_234246

Last Day – ECI 831

 

 

 

 

————>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Learning Video

Without further delay, below is my summary of learning video. “Google Yourself” a parody (remix) of Justin Bieber’s “Love Yourself”.

Keep on learning,
Logan Petlak

Lyrics

It all began with a selfiechallenge,
and then I started google plussing my name!
Flipgridding teachers, oh, wow this is great!
No more learning on my own: networking

Learning project maybe write a song,
‘Cause I love music maybe piano player. Can’t yet,
But I still play piano lots
And, holy, I be learnin’ lots
Watching youtube, TedTalks connections is where it is at,
Took weeks just to see that

Katia don’t like trolls but she likes trollin’ ’em
And if you don’t like slacktivism I think you’re wrong.
And I’ve spent hours on my blog
Even tweeted @courosa
I’m networked son,
domain at WordPress.com

So I like PLNs – knowledge-able n’ such
Baby, I support open education
And I think I’ve got a good online identity
It’s clear that I google myself

And when Dave told me bout rhizomatic learning
The only problem I had was info curation
Experience is the best teacher of knowledge
Pipe’s more important than content in the pipe.

And I gotta chirp about some laws
Lessig saves us with creative commons, just go Cite it,
Or we will get locked up
People puttin’ wifi prices on (everything)
And net neutrality is where we wanna fight back,
Took months just to see that

Katia don’t like trolls but she likes trollin’ ’em
And if you don’t like activism I think you’re wrong.
And I’ve spent hours on my blog
Even tweeted @courosa
I’m networked son,
domain WordPress.com

So if you like PLNs – knowledge-able n’ such
Well then just support open education
And if you think you don’t connect with students
Then just edtech Snapchat yourself

And on the chance you have a classroom blog
teach #digcit – Translates to learnin’ for all
And yet the wealth gap leaves students vulnerable
Digital divide can we just break down it’s walls?

Corm-i-er told us, bout’ MOOCs and such
Oh, baby, you could go learn by “yourself”
Orient, declare goals, network, cluster, focus
And go complex question yourself

Now I have, a PLN – am knowledge-able n’ such
And I support open education
And if you think you don’t manage your reputation
You should go google yourself


Net neutrality, safety in ambiguity, equity, and a digital(ly) divide(y).

Net neutrality
Net neutrality
 embraces many of the principles of open education, involving equitable opportunities for all regardless of monetary input. An idealist sees information consumption and distribution as a necessity to the betterment of all individuals, but for others this presents itself to be a business opportunity for personal gain. Some people may be dependent on this for their source of income, so the line between making a living and excess is grey, but it’s important we look at the effects of putting a price tag on the internet and on information in general. It is inherent to our capitalist way of life, so how can we escape the system wrought with greed? Is there a balance between money and open information and access? What are the impacts of the desire for monetary gain? The less than noble players seem to use a particular formula to keep their pockets full and the overarching themes of this apparent greed perpetuate the digital divide utilizing safety in ambiguity.

Safety in ambiguity
Elections are incoming for the province of Saskatchewan as well as in our neighbour-nation to the south… and I think politics is a venue where we can observe safety in ambiguity first-hand through empty promises. “We are committed to developing a plan…”, “we intend to create…”, “we hope to achieve…” the inherent doubt within all these statements is what allows a group, be it political or commercial, to state wondrous intentions but have the safety net of “it was only a hope” or “well, we did do this <minor thing>”. People are frustrated with these statements on every level and may be why Trump has as much support as he does at this point. His plans sound definite with no grey areas, which is a nuance in modern politics and negotiation. Note: this may be the only time you hear a mildly positive comment about said individual. He makes a measurable commitment, which an inquiring mind can at least take some comfort in knowing. And that appears to garner support. My theory would be that we are all aware of the deliberate vagueness of these “business statements”, but simply become frustrated and do nothing to change it. Being committed or open to something is immeasurable. Which is what some in power need to operate freely, so the ambiguous nature of the statement is their defence and their safety. How do we have students sift through this? How do we teach a desire to create change rather than passivity? As educators, “I don’t know” is not an applicable answer. Despite that, when stated correctly, “I don’t know” strategtically protects people in power.

open info or money
“Money or open info + access?” taken with my Samsung Galaxy S5

The digital divide
In human history, we have seen a separation between classes. But is it better or worse today than it was in the past? Students of various economic backgrounds may have access to the same technology at the school, but when they are outside of school what opportunities are they presented that allows them to further excel or fall further behind? When there is the wealth gap, how do you combat this? Do we accept that it is how our society is, and the web is simply the new venue of continuing the wealth distribution gap? John Batelle addressed this notion in the quote: “The web as we know it is rather like our polar ice caps: under severe, long-term attack by forces of our own creation.”  And these creations may take the form of noble tasks but still have inherent problems, like when Facebook created Internet.org, but this simply gave a taste of the internet and fuelled the desire for more (which would cost money). Consider in a school rather than your personal service provider… is your data/Wi-FI service is far better? As a low-income student, does a tech-based class give you a taste of internet access, which leads to the desire to spend money to get it, even for those who may not be able to afford it? Or is this there only opportunity to try and keep up? Wi-Fi access may be a human right, but owning certain technology which speeds the accumulation of information isn’t… and what amount of Wi-Fi speed is a basic human right? School may help educate it, but does the divide remain beyond education’s power? More money at home –> better tech at home –> more tech-saavy child at home –> better performance at school –> more money-earned. Is school the medium to combat this? How do we bridge that gap in an effort to establish equitable learning? Jessy Irwin reminds us that “a faster web for some, isn’t an equal web for all”.


Video: What is the digital divide?


Equity in society and education
I’m not saying capitalism’s good and I’m not saying it’s bad as it is a fundamental part of our society but, in a broad sense, the monetary amounts we make and spend and the associated discrepancies of salaries between careers may ultimately say, “If I make more than you, I deserve more than you, therefore I am more important to society”. While this comment fails to acknowledge the risk affiliated with careers, including ones that involve multi-million dollar risks that create jobs that may even help fund education or the careers that eventually try to gain monopolies and control the information (what ads we see) and information content and sharing. Where is the line between what we need and what we want, and what is fair with others in mind? Is it entrepreneurial or inhumane to covet and alter internet speeds to the highest bidder? They say entrepreneurs/CEOs have high divorce rates, is this because their priorities are for the accumulation of wealth? And is the desire to let an idea grow into what you dreamed it could be such a bad thing? As parents and educators, how do we want information to be available to our youth? Do we want our hard work rewarded to give our children the opportunities they deserve by buying them the best equipment, or keep things equitable for all students? These are questions we need to consider when considering the kind of world we actually practice, and not the open internet we publicly want. Mathew Ingram would ask what kind of internet do we want? But perhaps the better questions is what kind of internet do they (students) want? The innocence of a child may state it best – they would want an open internet and would be frustrated if it were slow because we didn’t pay for what was better, it isn’t a question of whether they care, they already care, but what is the means we will take to make their cares come true?

Comments and thoughts? Let me know!

Logan Petlak


Fundamental rights of open education.

Fundamental rights and wrongs

It’s such a dangerous notion to talk about certain ideas or practices needing to be eradicated or eliminated, especially when one wants to promote diversity, multiculturalism, and free speech… but some things in our world are fundamentally wrong. Some ideas simply do not deserve to linger. But what dictates this line? Something as clear-cut as slavery is a definite “no”, not allowed. Yet other topics, such as spanking children is still up for debate, despite sources of evidence pointing to detrimental effects. Or assisted suicide, as an archbishop in Toronto speaks out against it and endorses greater investment in palliative care, which one may argue, is a similar course of action but simply drawn-out and possibly extending what may be a life prepared and in a position to choose to end (paid for under health care). These are ideas up for debate, but do they need to be? Are they wrong? Are these aspects in our society that represent diverse thinking and are a required mindset to keep modern ideas in check, representing all viewpoints within our populations? Or is there no longer a place for these ideas? Is it not in the best interests of humanity to maintain some of these beliefs? Do we need to evolve beyond it? And what does this look like in a classroom as an “unbiased educator”?

It’s important to note that my examples and their respective sources were accumulated through open sharing of ideas and information on-line, which is wrought with red tape and law. Are laws and ideas that are in sharp contrast to this notion of sharing fundamentally wrong? The current line allows for us to restate what another individual has said person-to-person or verbally, but not computer-to-computer without protections in place. If it isn’t, how does society evolve from and determine that line of what is a fundamentally wrong notion, and what isn’t?

 

Educational implications

Education and our world is constantly evolving, but everything is evolving at a different pace, and this poses a problem when open information and law come into conflict. In the context of evolution and the betterment of humanity, controlling or putting a price on information seems fundamentally wrong, doesn’t it? If you’re an educator, it should. We want all students to learn, and try everything to make that happen, yet ride a line devoid of opinion. As educators, so much of what we learn comes from so many sources of information we never had to put a price on. As Dean Shareski puts it: “I’m a giant derivative”, and we all are, students and teachers alike, so understandings diverse beliefs should come naturally in educating students to become the next workforce, even if they used open information to do so. But would a nation’s productivity crumble if future recruits learned their information independently from sources on-line? Post-secondary institutions may disappear with this and then gone are the certifications that jobs strictly recognize… is that bad? Post-secondary in recent history has held the knowledge and credentials required for success. Are they, as today’s “great keepers of knowledge” a fundamental wrong of the past, and a roadblock to modern education? All you have to do is pay the price to open the doors of wisdom…

Campion Hall door
By Steve Cadman (originally posted to Flickr as Campion Hall) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Referencing current media, one could connect this to the show, Suits. An individual without a law degree successfully practising law, well that can’t be, not without an expensive piece of paper!

Extending our scope

Broadening our scope, we connect this to politics, particularly videos and advertisements that attack the opposition. I feel that, personally, in a “morally just” world, one could present what they are passionate about, their beliefs, and, dare-I-say, weaknesses, then let the people decide if that’s the kind of person they’d want to share leadership with. It’s what is fundamentally right and what you’d expect of a friend. I’m sure we’re all guilty of misleading people at some point, but our leaders need to be leaders and show the example of being upfront about everything.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. We see the subscription to fear-mongering, paid for by the wealthy and, in some cases, tax money. Trickling down, when presenting a new idea or business proposition for a community, rather than address the negatives and the positives, we simply see a highlight of the problems from the opposition. As a citizen, what is fundamentally right would ask us to remember to address individuals as humans and treat them accordingly as you’d expect someone to address you face-to-face. This includes rebuttals, free of personal attacks or vulgarity combined with a twisted sense of pride, or hiding information to “win” the discussion, as has become visible in comments sections of social media. Pro-tip: it doesn’t make you a hero to speak ill of an individual due to whom they voted for, it makes you a bully, and today we see adults practice cyber-bullying in this light and expect our kids to do otherwise. Educators may push students to learn from the mistakes of others and avoid the self-serving biases attributing blame with “facts”. To quote Arthur Conan Doyle, writer of Sherlock Holmes: It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” And through teaching digital citizenship, does that help combat this problem that is embedded in all forms of human interaction? Whether face-to-face or throughout social media, it is present, and perpetuated by leadership, as seen below.


Conservative Attack Ad

Or,


Liberal Attack Ad

Activism

This post’s form of political activism doesn’t even come close to rivalling that of Aaron Swartz… and is more about awareness than an action like an active boycotting. I may have painted far more bleak and pessimistic than reality. Yet Swartz’s beliefs on open education and activism connect with our flaws in society and its associated education systems. His story is that of which a relic of the past, a fundamental wrong, unequipped to suit the evolving world, lead to the loss of an innovator and, more importantly, an individual who pursued what was and can be considered “fundamentally right”. As always, this free information is subject to our interpretation and biases, but let the information and facts direct your theory on the matter. How does the educator find the line between fundamental rights and wrongs on this? Is it as simple as being an educator fitting of Lessig’s description of Aaron Swartz: “Like the very best teachers, he taught by asking. Like the most effective leaders <learners>, his questions were on a path, his path.”

Do you agree with my thoughts or comments? The connections it made to politics and education? Why or why not? Comment below!

– Logan Petlak


Being a devil’s advocate teacher.

When I reflect on some of the significant discussions in my life and in a classroom, I find how frequently I am playing devil’s advocate to students, teachers or colleagues. I’ve found it helps me look at something from all angles, and should someone challenge me on something, I should already have a defence prepared or at least be aware of the inherent difficulties within the idea being broached. Should you know me well enough, you’d know that I am well-meaning and that I am an optimist, idealistic-to-a-fault kind of guy. Make fun of me? I’ll give you a smile!

i don't even give

Winnie the Pooh, happily prancing.

Photo Credit: imgfave.com via Pinterest

But not everyone knows that about me. Case in point:

When I was in grade ten, we had an intern in my old school and she was struggling with classroom management in our drama class. I wasn’t a belligerent in this war that occurred in the class, but my comment when she stopped class to discuss what the issue was certainly made it look that way. I paraphrase, of course, but she asked, frustrated:
“What is the issue in this class that is making you all have such a hard time following directions and listening to me”?
Perhaps it was a rhetorical question, but my grade ten mind was incapable of segregating that from the question at hand, and I had a genuine idea and possible explanation for the cause of the management issues, and I sincerely wanted to help her out… so I raised my scrawny arm to share it.
“Yes, Logan?”, she asked patiently.

15752473076_035b2094a9
Photo Credit: dallas_isd via Compfight cc

“Well Ms. <Intern Name>, maybe it’s because you’re an intern and maybe some of the students just don’t respect you as much as they would our regular teacher.”
She was speechless. Why wouldn’t she be? My friend turned around and looked at me, mortified and was already formulating the lecture he was going to give me after school about “you can’t say that to a teacher, man!” And there I sat, confused. I whole-heartedly thought that was a brilliant explanation for why it may have been happening, and yet everyone was looking at me like I was some kind of sociopath. It wasn’t until she finished her internship that I thought to apologize, but it was too late.

Why am I sharing this story? Basically to preface the following with an example of my ability to mean well, yet having a tendency to state things poorly, so when reading this, take note that I mean well, and believe and support all of this.

Devil’s advocate: watch Michael Wesch’s video about going from knowledgeable to knowledge-able and he speaks about how we need to transition learning into giving students the tools to think critically in a highly connected world where information is available everywhere. Within it, he shows us what he preaches at a university level. There is a great collection of real student responses to what works and more importantly, doesn’t work in today’s classroom*, be it textbooks or simply consuming information off of the board. I put “classroom*” because his classroom represents a population of student’s committed to change, all with laptops and access to this media. Does this represent every student in every Canadian classroom? Brown and Adler will tell you that we don’t have enough universities for all the students anyway so we must learn to adjust to “open education”… but how do you teach that desire to learn or desire to pursue post-secondary? The fact is that classroom is full of students who have paid a significant amount of money to learn an very valuable idea about the future of education… but they are committed to being there. What of those in an inner city school? Teach them the ability to deduce? And next step, how do you assess that? You can ask higher order questions to students but over the span of a semester in high school how precisely can you measure that change? I want my students to want to make a change, but you normally get a handful of students who do so, and these are also the students who end up in universities, in Michael Wesch’s class. Are some students fated to not pursue this or is it our education system failing them? I would be the first to admit that our education system does not meet the needs of all learners and I discuss this with my classes as well. But the transition to open education has a reliance on the assumption of our ability to be connected, or that all students have the ability to be connected, or want to be connected. Students, at least at a high school level, do not always have that desire to put in the work, even if it could be engaging to become “knowledge-able”. One would argue that all students need that sense of belonging and want to be connected, I’d agree. But sometimes to even get there is out of our circle of influence, unfortunately… and I would hope there was a way for open education to extend into that? Or do we just keep trying until it works? Some students may be connected but do not attend enough to learn to deduce or become knowledge-able. Schools may be not well-equipped enough to support all students in the use of open education. Maybe the WiFi goes down… does class stop? The versatility of utilizing the internet is limitless and can support many students, but what of those who can’t access it? Or are simply limited to it at the school setting, you may still see that separation of learners with those more equipped to adapt to the connected age, and those left behind trying desperately to keep up. I think of the teacher who asks, “use your phones and look up…”, and you have two students unable to do so. You may supply them with a school laptop, an old phone connected to WiFi, but what about when they leave? The time others spend on their phones learning beyond the walls would be immeasurable in comparison. It comes down to advocating for students who are unable to connect in a vastly connected world. It reminds me of this particular comic from a great read, “Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie:
part-time-indian.jpg
Photo Credit: Book-rain via WordPress.com

Obviously I am discussing two separate ideas. One speaks of open education and the other speaks to a student’s ability and the supports available to them to achieve. I believe it is important to take note of how this has the potential to be another form of education that may still not meet the needs of all learners or leave some students disadvantaged simply due to their out of school environment. The Power of Networks spoke of the need to once more become a renaissance man and see the immense network that is the world, and we would hope to achieve this through the lens of the internet and associated media. But what is the approach for those who can only access that lens for a finite amount of time? How does one become a renaissance man when you have half the opportunity to achieve than others? Will it become better in time? Will the gap between high-achievers and low-achievers lessen? I believe so, but in the short term, what is a teacher to do to advocate for this student and, more importantly, what is a student to do?

Upon re-reading this, I can hardly argue I am picking this apart, I am simply asking questions to assess the ability of this idea to impact all students. And for the majority of these students, you may not see the results of this learning until well into their adult lives. How do you assess that? Devil’s advocate.

Open to comments or suggestions!

Petlak out.