Wanting to know more, I asked her which teachers had started the groups. She looked at me confused and said, “Oh, the teachers don’t know anything about this.”

Learning is moving forward folks. All we are deciding is whether we want to help shape the conversation.

Sculture from Anthropolical Museum in Mexico City

Last week, I shared a stage in Mexico City with Pedro Ferriz de Con, a popular Mexican radio and TV news anchor. I was there to talk about Personal Learning Networks, and, in his own way, he was too…and a whole lot more. Here’s a paraphrase of the powerful and thought-provoking message he delivered to hundreds of Mexican school leaders.

The United States led the world in the 20^th Century in part because of their remarkable education system. But their system is not adapting quickly to changes of the 21^st Century. The countries that are the first to create a new system of education around new tools and new skills will be the ones that can challenge the U.S. for global dominance in the decades to come. If we change the way Mexican schools deliver an education by harnessing the remarkable potential of people and resources available online, we can be one of those countries. We can’t make this change next week or next year, it has to be today.

Whoa.

I don’t know about you, but when people from outside of education put forth a vision for our school systems, I usually get ready to cringe. Sometimes I cringe a little (like when Malcolm Gladwell spoke at ISTE about how to improve math scores), and sometimes it’s a lot (like when I see Congressional speeches in support of NCLB on C-SPAN). This was different. From reading his bio online, I get the sense that Pedro Ferriz de Con has no background in the education field, yet he conveyed a concise and powerful message about how Mexican leaders needed to change their schools to compete in the new century. It was really inspiring.

So since I returned to the states, I’ve been musing over some questions. I’ll serve them to you with your stuffing on this day before Turkey Day in the U.S..

Have you ever heard a public figure in the U.S. — such as a radio host or news anchor –  express such a clear understanding of how learning is shifting in the 21^st Century? (e.g. Brian Williams? Oprah Winfrey? Rush Limbaugh? Others?) If yes, was it  specific, contextualized and impassioned? If not, why not? Where are the Pedro Ferriz de Con’s in the U.S.? Finally, are we letting our public figures off the hook?

Happy Thanksgiving.

According to the research, one measure might be diversity. It turns out that the diversity of your network can determine the quality of your learning. We all get caught in an “echo chamber” sometimes – surrounding ourselves with people who think like we do. As early as the 1970s, researchers such as Herbert Simon found that getting out of the echo chamber produces more inventive problem solving. Translation: people with diverse networks are more likely to transcend their own points of view and arrive at more creative solutions.

So how do we measure the diversity of our networks? Well, one way is to create an image of your connections that measures how many people in your network know each other. For example, this spaghetti-like picture above is a map of my LinkedIn contacts. (Click on the picture to view it in full size. You can produce your own map at LinkedIn Labs.) I’ve always thought of LinkedIn as one of my better learning sources, but until the release of Google+, I’ve never really reflected on how it differs from my other networks. In one word — diversity.

Each color on this map represents a group of people who know each other, but not necessarily the people in the other groups. I created a key in the lower left to label each group by color. Because LinkedIn is used across many industries, my network taps into people from K12 schools (public & private), higher education, corporations, non-profit organizations and more. You can also see how many people in each group know each other. For example, my contacts in K12 public education know some of the folks from my K12 private education network, but they don’t know many of my colleagues from my MBA program.

This diversity makes LinkedIn different from my other networks. For me, my Twitter network is my education Mecca, and I use Facebook for my personal friends. Make no mistake – all my networks are invaluable! My Twitter feed, for example, is a lifeline to a hundred terrific education ideas every day and that’s a good thing. My point is that we need to cultivate different kinds of networks for different tasks — diverse networks for creative problem solving, narrower networks for research & ideas, close personal friend networks for support, etc. Your use of a network probably won’t match a colleague’s use of the same network.

So, as you think about Google+, think about what networks you want to grow. Each one delivers to your doorstep unique possibilities. What opportunities will your Google+ network deliver?

Reid Hoffman (Joi Flickr)

Yesterday, at the MIT Media Lab, I heard Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, say two things that should make every learner lean forward in their chair and listen.

The first is that social collaboration is a core skill that every person needs. He doesn’t think collaboration comes naturally, and he wonders why we don’t teach it earlier and more often in our schools. His second point was the necessity of continuous learning. He thinks the traditional “career ladder” has fallen over, and that most graduates will increasingly work independently, having numerous employers in constant search of the latest skills. The book he is writing, The Startup of You: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Building a Killer Career, talks about the this need for constant reinvention by using a large social network.

OK, so it’s not surprising that the founder of a social networking company would espouse greater use of social networks. But Reid is not your typical billionaire entrepreneur. He’s a contemplative thinker. He earned his B.S. in Symbolic Systems & Cognitive Science, and he did an M.A. in Philosophy at Oxford. He was going to be a professor, but he was disappointed by small scale for his ideas in academia. I believe that his success as an entrepreneur relies on being an expert at “reading the tea leaves” of our future. In other words, it’s less likely that he is pushing social collaboration because he founded LinkedIn and more likely that he founded LinkedIn because he knew that social collaboration would revolutionize everything.

He is one of those useful outside voices that I mentioned in my last blog post. Some stakeholders (board members, for example) who might not listen to arguments in favor of social learning, will pause when they hear it coming from him. Bookmark his talk for future use. He might be a useful tool in your “Change Toolbox.”

The painful truth is that change only begins we learn their language. Now, I’m not talking about just pitching our innovations in a different way. I mean truly thinking about what every stakeholder values and asking ourselves why this change would be meaningful to them. It often means altering our proposals so they better fit people’s needs. Once we’ve done that, we’re ready to have a two-way conversation in terms that our listeners will understand.

For a start, every school change agent should become fluent in these three languages.

The Language of Learning: When communicating with teachers, discuss the impact on student learning. Replace “You could use Skype in Spanish class,” with “Here’s a tool that could increase student engagement, practice time and skill building.” Share information about teachers who have already initiated these changes, being frank about successes, failures and student benefits. Teachers will need to hear that there are significant, genuine learning payoffs for students if you expect them to invest the time to transform their classrooms.

The Language of Vision: When communicating with parents or your community, describe how your proposed change fulfills their goals for their sons and daughters. Give them a context for the change by painting a vision of life and work in the 21^st Century, focusing on their dreams for their children in this evolving world. Talk with them about how changes in the educational system better guarantee success and happiness for their child.

The Language of Measurement: Many of your stakeholders, such as senior administrators and the board, speak the language of measurable outcomes. Every conversation with them should include how you will assess the impact of the changes. What assessments will you use? What evidence do you have so far from pilot programs and other initiatives? They need to hear that you can measure the results.

To save time, get some “translators.” These are team members or stakeholders that speak the language better than you. Sometimes the best translator is on the web. A three-minute video or short article in your audience’s target language will often have more impact than anything you could say.

Finally, don’t worry about being perfect. I find that similar to traveling in foreign land, even if you just learn a little of the language (a few key phrases here and there), stakeholders are grateful for the effort, and then they want to learn your language too. That’s where the real payoff begins because it launches a meaningful two-way conversation. When you are both fluent in each other’s language, that’s when you can describe a shared vision for the school of the future.

In my previous post I highlighted one such bias –the Fundamental Attribution Error. That’s the tendency to blame people for bad situations rather than systems. Researchers have found that we’re much more likely to assume that the root cause of a problem is unmotivated or underperforming people, rather than a broken system sabotaging their success. It’s a powerful predisposition, and, since that post, many people have asked me how to overcome it.

There’s no secret sauce. But there are questions you can ask yourself to reveal the hidden biases that affect your decision making. The next time you run into a problem, ask yourself:

1. What’s the change I want?
2. What’s the gap between the current reality and that goal?
3. What’s the root cause of that gap?  (This question is critically important! A hint – it’s probably not “the people.”)
4. What’s the system we could implement to close the gap (and ensure it doesn’t return)?

Let’s work through an example. Say you run the technology at a school, and you’re overwhelmed by daily requests for tech support. In fact, there are so many small questions that it’s difficult to get to them all, let alone engage in work that would really change the classroom. What’s the answer to the problem? The Fundamental Attribution Error tempts us to point to the people. We might conclude that the users are particularly bad at technology. They’ll never learn, and, for that reason, we need more staff (which, given most budgets, we probably can’t get). However, if we walk through the questions above, we might reach a different conclusion.

1. The Change: To have more time to work on meaningful conversations about teaching and learning.
2. The Gap: Not enough time because too many simple requests from users.
3. The Root Cause: Ok, so it’s time for some self-reflection. Think of someone who is good at solving tech issues (maybe you!). What do they have that other users don’t?  Online help manuals, an understanding of how to Google common problems, confidence in their technical ability, an online network of support, practice answering lots of issues…? A lack of these things probably contribute to the endless emails and phone calls.
4. The Systems: OK, now we’re ready for some answers. We could label all of the equipment with easy to use instructions, teach a class after school on how to use Google for support, create an online FAQ site or resolve to use a more Socratic approach (Q&A) to providing support. Any (or all) would be a good start.

I know — those solutions are a lot of work. But so is running around putting out a million fires with no end in sight. Although they take more time, systemic solutions like these create an environment that breeds success and builds capacity across the organization. You may have to work extra hard to get these started, but, once they’ve begun, they pay back dividends tenfold.

The real answer may surprise you. In his book Change or Die, Alan Deutschman relates the tale of heart patients whose doctors told them to change their lifestyle or die within a few years. That’s a pretty clear mandate. After two years, how many do you think changed? Three quarters? Half? A third?

Try 10%. Yep, 1 out of every 10.

Most of us are surprised by this number because we suffer from something that social psychologists call the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE). That’s the tendency to blame people for behaviors rather than systems. In other words, we assume that if people don’t change, it’s their fault. They’re not trying hard enough, or they lack “motivation.” But the evidence doesn’t support the theory. Often people don’t change even when faced with really big incentives (even the loss of their own life) because the systems that surround them don’t support the change.

So if FAE is the disease, what’s the cure? Well, returning to Deutschman’s book, let’s look at an example of heart patients that DID change. They were just as ill as the first group, but these people had systems on their side. Their doctors actively involved them in designing a program that fit their needs. They received expert instruction — a nutritionist for healthy eating, a trainer for proper exercise, a yoga instructor for stress. Finally, they were given time to practice, and they met as a group to share their successes and learn from their mistakes.

And 72% changed!

So if you want people to change their learning in and out of the classroom, then, yes, motivation is part of the answer, but probably not the biggest part. What’s more important is that you surround your teachers and staff with systems that will promote their ability to change. Ask yourself the following questions about the people at your school:

• Are they integrated into the selection of their content?
• Are they consulted in the design of their professional development?
• Do they receive training from experts who break down the skills into manageable parts?
• Are their technologies drop-dead simple to use?
• Do they have time to practice?
• Can they share their successes and victories with each other, learning and re-learning continuously?

These systemic features (and others like them) are the keys to unlocking the school change conundrum. Now, I’m the first to admit that this kind of active involvement and support are difficult to pull off, but I also believe that we’re kidding ourselves if we think people will change without these systems in place. The hard path here is the genuine one. So if you want change — real change — then change the system. Your people will follow.

1. Replacing meetings with PD time:  Many of today’s meetings are a relic of days gone by. Ask yourself — are your gatherings mostly one-way presentations of factual information? If they are, then move those announcements online and re-allocate the time to PD. Two meetings a month translates into two full days a year of PD, and most people will prefer the opportunity to learn. Ask people to try out what they learn between meetings and report back.

2. Tech tools linked to expectations:  A few years ago, a teacher I know made a terrific observation. She said, “I don’t know why in most schools the technology is mandatory and the professional development is voluntary. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?” New technologies mean an opportunity to link the distribution of those tools to mandatory PD. And don’t be afraid to have these classes go far beyond basic functionality. A new iPad can come with a class on social learning; a netbook can be tied to Google Docs. Focus on things that will inspire student collaboration and creativity.

3. Volunteer now, get paid later:  Most teachers have a pretty full plate, and it’s a lot of work to teach a “tech class” to their peers. Consider offering your teachers this deal – put together a short class “for free” during the school year, and you’ll get paid to teach a longer class over the summer. It’s a way to reward people who take the time to present on a new tool at a department gathering or faculty meeting, and it is a way to engage teachers in summer growth and development. I’ve even seen money for these summer classes come from paid registrants from other schools. That’s truly a win/win.

Thos are some of my tips. How do you find time and money for PD?

The problem is that PD is messy. It’s more complex than any server configuration, and it needs more traffic management than any network. Done right it involves multiple stakeholders agreeing on content, delivery, time, compensation and lots of other issues. Sometimes the path of least resistance is to buy the technology, provide online instructions and skip the PD conversation entirely. But that rarely results in real changes in how students learn.

So let’s help each other out by talking about our most successful technology PD efforts. Over the years, I have found at least five key characteristics of successful PD.

1. Riveting Content: Make it meaningful and mind expanding. Many teachers don’t like PD because we schedule “the boring basics,” such as the new grading program or email training. Sure, they’re necessary, but not spellbinding. Instead, focus on exciting technologies that teachers can use tomorrow in their classroom to improve student outcomes.

2. Social Learning: Build those networks! Introduce your teachers to the vibrant conversations about learning that take place every day on the web via Twitter, LinkedIn and other networks. Talking to other teachers from around the world will spark ideas for their classes and ensure that learning doesn’t stop when the “PD day” is done. It also lays the groundwork for you to deliver increasing amount of you PD online (more on that in the next post).

3. Real “Teachers”: There is no better salesperson for classroom technology than a teacher using it successfully. These tech advocates can explain the instructional benefits, discuss student outcomes and give troubleshooting tips. If it’s your own teachers, that’s even better.

4. A Learning Buffet: Offer a selection of topics and let teachers choose the ones they like. The list doesn’t need to be huge, but it should have enough variety to appeal to different learners and various subject areas.

5. Varied Time Commitments: Weave together a mix of short mandatory PD with longer voluntary classes. I’ve worked with schools to set up half hour information sessions in which teachers share what they are doing in their classrooms or even five minute videos from teachers talking about their use of a new tool. Some of this can be face to face, but it can also take the form of teachers participating in online activities. Either can be followed by longer voluntary sessions where teachers can return to the topics that excited them.

An effective technology PD program builds excitement and momentum for learning in new ways. In part two of this post, I will talk about how to find time and money for PD.

Instead, Mr. Ito’s learning is fueled by an active mind, a large network, diverse life experiences and ubiquitous access to the Web. He lives his life publically – posting his travels to his website and participating in myriad online activities and discussions. In short, Mr. Ito is a passionate modern learner – someone who uses a global web of connections to learn what he wants, when he wants. The results?  He’s become a venture capitalist and a disc jockey, an entrepreneur and a “guild master” (in World of Warcraft). And, now…the director of the prominent MIT Media Lab.

It’s startling to juxtapose this snapshot of Mr. Ito’s learning with Alfie Kohn’s latest portrait of the poorest U.S. schools.  As Mr. Kohn writes in Education Week, in these schools “Not only is the teaching scripted, with students required to answer fact-based questions on command, but a system of almost militaristic behavior control is common, with public humiliation for noncompliance and an array of rewards for obedience.” No passion. No personalization. No connections. It’s the kind of education that Kohn says “simultaneously narrow[s] the test-score gap and widen[s] the learning gap.”  And although this system is most prevalent in the poorest schools, we all know that don’t have a monopoly on it. Many wealthier schools also have trouble shrugging off the legacy of a century-old, lecture-based, factory model of standardized instruction and assessment.

Let’s be clear – no one is saying that leveraging the power of Web is the only way to learn – or that it’s easy to connect teachers and students to this global network of people and information. It’s harder. Much harder. But if schools want to fulfill their missions in today’s world, we need to acknowledge that learning should look different in 2011 than it did when we went to school. It should look more agile, more customized and more engaging. It should look more social and more interactive. Learning should look like a blend of the best of our constructivist aspirations with this evolving online ecosystem that is available 24/7/365.

It should look like the kind of place that Mr. Ito would never want to leave.