For those of you that are interested in how I manage my daily lists, I thought I’d share. I use a modified (and simplified) version of Patrick Rhone’s Dash/Plus system. I keep a Field Notes notebook on hand all the time, and every day I start a new TODO list with the date written next to it. Under that, I start compiling the pressing tasks for the day. My version of the Dash/Plus system looks like the following:

And that’s it. If something becomes it’s own project, I’ll push it to it’s own page in the notebook and give it some room to breathe. It a project out grows that page in my small daybook, I’ll push it off to one of my larger project notebooks (usually a Moleskine of some sort…). That will give me room to cross things off and draw arrows and generally make a mess of it.

But for day-to-day operations, this system seems to work pretty well. It’s fast, lightweight, and had just enough flexibility to make things work for me. I’ve tried a ton of other options- I like the app Clear, and for a good long time I used it a ton… but for reasons beyond my understanding, paper and pen (currently a Uni-ball Signo 207 in black, for the pen geeks that might be lurking. Will soon be replaced with a Retrakt G2).

Don’t underestimate the power of that right-arrow, by the way. When I start seeing something with that arrow next to it for more than a day or two, I find myself really motivated to decide if the item really is that important, or if it’s something else. Often, those arrows have a way of turning into a circle. I’m ok with that- it’s a way of forcing some self-evaluation as to what I’m investing my time into for tasks and what might really be important.

“The street finds its own uses for things.”

William Gibson

When Gibson talks about this quote, he’ll usually use the example of pagers- Motorola, when they were pushing pagers in the late 1980’s and early 90’s never thought they’d become the go-to tool for drug dealers. A technology originally developed in the 1950’s (!) for doctors came to be used in a totally different way than anticipated.

We have to consider, in the contexts of our schools, how the tech that we introduce for one purpose will certainly be used for things other than we intended. The typical response to this in schools it to shut things down or lock things up. Instead, why can’t we learn from the alternate uses our students find and incorporate those uses into our classrooms? Why can’t we accept the inevitable?

So I was on twitter when this post went by:

 

 

 

And the thought occurred to me: Static is a remnant of an analog world. My children will never see that on a tv.

Found this via Cory Doctorow:

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations. Architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable. Originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery—celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said, ‘It’s not where you take things from. It’s where you take them to.’”

Jim Jarmusch

I’ve never felt like I’ve done enough- there’s always this lingering feeling that I should/could do more in a given day. Specifically, to make more. Still, to make well you must consume- it is the fuel that drives the creative process. I try to read a lot- most of it non-fiction, most of it online. Still, when I saw this list by Steven Soderbergh, I was impressed not only by the scope of what he’s consumed but also the quantity. I’ve got a lot of work to do.

 

How old is your car?

How old is your oldest lesson plan?

So, look. Tom Whitby is a good guy- he

‘s started (and maintained) some important conversations for educators. But I’m going to use him as an example anyway. I saw this tweet go by:

 

 

 

It’s just all jargon. I mean, what am I supposed to think about that? Are we still talking about 21st century THIRTEEN YEARS into it? I think I’m beginning to become allergic to the word “connected.”

Again, Tom’s a good guy. I’ve had productive conversations with him before. I am, however, going to fix that tweet. It should just read:

We are educators.

 

There. That’s better.

This was originally written for and posted to the BPSEdTech blog.

 

For a long time, complexity was a desired feature in life. We craved environments that were lush and full of detail and embellishment. Such complexity was the mark of a capable craftsman, or, was the needed complexity inherit to the limitations of a system. Old computers had complicated interfaces because there was no way to simplify them- and there was the assumption (a safe assumption, it should be added) that the user of that computer would be an expert in it’s use. The complexity was a necessary hurdle for the user.

Two things have happened in the time since this: Devices have become more accessible because, in large part because the interfaces have become far more intuitive, and there can no longer be the assumption a user will be an expert. This explosion of devices and users has created an immensely powerful environment where users with little experience are able to perform complex tasks quickly. This wide array of new tools and accessibility has led to users becoming overwhelmed by the sheer quantity and magnitude of options. Humans seem pre-disposed to hold on to as many of these tools as possible. Just as it’s difficult to say “no” when offered a larger vat of popcorn at the movies for 25 cents more, we feel that because there are so many tools to use that we must use all of them.

 This does not create freedom for the educator- instead, it becomes a crippling burden to be carried. If research indicates that humans are only capable of maintaining 150 close relationships, how can we mentally handle hundreds of apps installed on our devices? What we think creates the ability to accomplish more tasks in fact diminishes the usability of the device.

What I’m proposing is a move towards minimalism in technology- both in terms of the devices we use and the software we use on those devices.  Less becomes more, as an educator is free to stop thinking about what tool they might choose to use and rather focus on the outcome they are trying to achieve. When the tool stops being the focal point, the work can come to the front of our attention.

A few years ago, I asked some 9th grade High School English Language Arts students to give presentations about memes in the literature we were reading. I was clear about length, breadth, and tone that these presentations need to have. When asked about what app to use, I simply responded that I didn’t care. They were free to choose whatever app they wanted to achieve a result they desired. I made clear that I was judging based on the quality of the presentation, not the specific software they used.

The end result were a number of excellent projects made with maybe a half dozen different apps. But the eye-opening moment was the student that delivered a very, very impressive presentation using nothing more than a photo album in her iPad. She had literally used no software for the presentation- it was a move towards minimalism I’d not seen from a student before. I suspect, looking back at the presentation, that part of the reason that her performance was so good hinged on her not having to think about what app she was using. She freed that part of her mind and was able to focus all the more on her performance.

With the sheer quantity of free apps of decent quality in the App Store, it can be hard to resist the pull to download huge numbers. But the reward for holding back is substantial- a lightweight creation environment free from the burden of too many choices. Give it a shot. I think you’ll like it.