Written Conversations...It's More Than Passing Notes in Class

Written Conversation is a variation of journaling a dialog, from which chatting and texting are also derived. Whereas the latter are useful for (and much quicker than) penning a friend thousands of miles away in "real" or "delayed" time, Written Conversation is a technique achieved with a partner or a whole group of students who are contributing to the same conversation at the same time, in the same place. Basically, one person writes a word, statement, or question on a piece of paper and then passes the paper to their dialoging partner, who then writes something in response and passes back the paper. Hence, there is only one rule: "Just write!" This exercise can go on for several minutes to several hours, depending on the purpose and/or interest of the conversationalists. In effect, it's like a sanctioned session of "passing notes in class".

I tried this technique with my Literacy buddy last Thursday during our initial session. He told me straight out at the beginning of our time together that he did not like to write. However, what I found intriguing was that every time I passed the paper back to him, his wide grin was the tell-tale sign that he seemed excited and curious to see what I had written to him. Strangely enough, he, too, seemed to get a lot of delight out of crafting words together to write a message back to me. In his last sentence to me, he said, "This is fun!" Was it the change in writing technique? The secrecy of not knowing what his writing partner was going to say to him? Or, perhaps, was it the first time he had received "mail"?  Whatever the reason, it got him talking...and writing. Each sentence sparked another idea and soon he forgot to write down his thoughts and began to engage in an oral conversation with me. This is a great technique to use to get shy kids to talk, but it can be a little more difficult if you have a talker who does not like to write. Once I praised him for his ideas and nudged him to write them all down so that I could read them too, he was able to re-focus and write what he had just told me verbally. And so it went on for about 7-10 minutes. When I saw that he was getting antsy, I knew it was time to move onto something else.

However, this exercise got me thinking. Written Conversation could be used to scaffold students who struggle with writing or with finding their voice by starting a dialogue between a teacher and student or between a small group of students to get juices flowing. What I envision for struggling writers, is to use Written Conversation as an opportunity for them to tell their own stories in a way that is meaningful and unique to them. These are "quick writes", which can help students to build upon what they are currently capable of doing and knowing and eventually progressing to longer documents in which their voices speak out to the world about who they are and what they think about.

Additionally, Written Conversations can be applied to fiction and non-fiction texts, and can also involve the whole class in writing a story or discussing a Read-Aloud book simultaneously. By using such technology as Google Documents, each student can contribute something either anonymously or by login ID (depending upon how the instructor sets up the document). Unlike class discussions, in which only one person can speak at a time, Written Conversation is an ongoing, silent discussion which involves all participants contributing their ideas and to be a part of the dialoging process. Obviously, expectations for this type of writing approach must be made ahead of time, in order for a large group of students to have a respectful discussion. However, this, too, could be a topic of discussion for a Written Conversation.

I found it to be a fascinating way to get a student writing, not worrying about conventions, formatting or spelling. It was just to get pen to paper, and ideas into written words in a conversational style. Written Conversation has limitless possibilities of allowing students' voices to be heard in "real" time, and in a safe and edifying environment. I'm excited to explore its possibilities...

The Machine is Us/ing Us

People across the globe use computers and internet technology every single day. It is a machine--or is it? We teach the machine everyday and yet the machine is us--or at least, people identify themselves through the machine. We have the ability to express ourselves through the machine to others and the machine learns from us. However, we are a diverse population of people--co-owners of the machine--with diverging worldviews. With our words, we spread love, hate, fear, confusion, peace, knowledge, segregation and unity. And, yet, we all have different perspectives on what those concepts mean and who should know their definition and for what purpose.

Technology changes so quickly--how do we keep up and prepare our students for the ever-changing future of technology? Other questions also run rampant in my mind: If we are the machine and the machine is learning from us, what are we teaching it and what exactly is it learning from us? People believe what the machine tells them. Where is the authority? Where is the privacy? Who governs the machine and who governs ethics? Does the machine identify us? What are the limits to what the machine can do and how do we know if we have gone to far?

After watching this video, I felt a sense of fear and panic (and a little motion sickness from watching it at hyper speed!). However, it has not stopped me from continuing to use my computer, technology in general, or the internet. I think it is because I see that it makes things easier for me to do. I can also see the importance of engaging in the use of technology in order to belong to my society. Therefore, I suppose that means that the machine is using me--influencing my culture--in order for me to continue to belong. Scary.

Ideas Worth Spreading?

After watching the “TED ideas worth spreading” video, I had mixed feelings. Part of me was intrigued by what I had just seen--video recordings of groups of lower income children in a typically technologically inaccessible region of the world, working together to figure-out how to use a computer and the internet in the streets of Bombay. But another part of me cringed when I heard the researcher recount how the children were forced to lose their heavy accents in order for the “text-to-speech” software to work for them. He said that “they all started sounding like Jimmy Stewart”. In essence, the children had to change themselves in order to fit the machine. This brings up issues of diversity and dominant culture influence.

I can appreciate the fact that groups of four students were able to share one computer and learned how to use the technology from each other. That knowledge would be beneficial in school districts who lack funding to provide more than one computer for each classroom or technology training to their students--or even their teachers. However, I wonder how easily this could be integrated into a society that is all about independence and “me, me, me!” Would American students be willing to share? That remains to be seen.

The fact that students were left to their own devices to figure out the technology and could roam the internet at will--and unsupervised--also made me uneasy. Don’t get me wrong, I love to browse the internet, and I love figuring things out on my own, but I also know not to click on certain sites, pop-up ads, and whatever else that could be potentially dangerous out there in cyber space. Children do not always have that self-control or prior knowledge to guide them and they can be inadvertently directed to inappropriate websites with a click of a mouse. At this point, I would say that the role of the teacher would be to facilitate students’ internet literacy and etiquette.

I have also witnessed my students on countless occasions believing everything they read online, and hearing them say, “If there’s stuff on Google, why do we need to stuff it into our heads?” (just as the American students said in the video). Here, too, lessons on the validity of resources found on the internet would have to be integrated into a curriculum, as well as continually questioning and discussing what “deep learning” really is.