Re-Siever

Reading Ann Oro’s post today about using tools to follow comments got me thinking (in a non-linear kind of way) how I decide whose blog to read.

Is it just content?

It’s certainly important to me–after all, I am reading to learn and reflect on what others are saying. I appreciate practical advice on how to use 2.0 tools from people like Ann, Sue Waters, and Paul Hamilton. Other bloggers expand my understanding about the “big ideas” in learning and technology. David Warlick, David Truss, and Dina Strasser make me think.

What about design?

I must admit, some blogs make me a little crazy. I’m just not good with visual distractions like Vokis (the flapping hair in particular), animated advertisements, or really crowded sidebars. There are some pretty elegant sites out there, ones that are easy on the eyes. Dan Meyer’s blog fits this category.

The Tone

I am not sure if there is another word to describe this–is it attitude? Some blogs have a respectful presence, an ethic that builds community–Dean Shareski and Clarence Fisher come to mind. I think in part it is the way they handle new ideas and how they respond to people who comment on their blogs. I get the sense I would like to work with these folks. I bet they would make great colleagues. Some blogs are feisty, poking at the establishment, or offering up contrarian opinions. Good.

Then there are a few blogs that leave me feeling squirmy. The tone is superior, dismissive, too cool–and rude. Yes, I do read them. I have a morbid curiosity about them, I guess. What would it be like to share a staffroom with them? Would I feel safe?

Blogs I don’t (yet) read

I would love to see more blogs by classroom teachers who are not tech specialists, who are using 2.0 tools effectively in the content areas. I’d love to find blogs by drama teachers or art teachers who just blog, but don’t necessarily use technology directly. And I want to read more student blogs by kids who are not just responding to teacher prompts. I better get searching.

So, what are your criteria?

How do you choose your blogroll?

Image: I Love Books by Weeping-Willow under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license

Tags: Ann Oro, blogging, Dan Meyer, David Truss, David Warlick, Dean Shareski, Dina Strasser, Paul Hamilton, Sue Waters

In April I had the pleasure of seeing Margaret Wheatley in Vancouver. Much of what you find in her remarkable books is available on her site as well as several excellent podcasts. She has changed the way I look at leadership, organization, and relationship, and so has influenced my teaching and learning, too.

Meg talked about how change happens through networks of relationships. Hierarchy is never the way to organize-it is antithetical to natural systems. It looks good on paper, and gives the illusion of order or connectedness, but it is not the way people truly operate. It happens the way Margaret Mead described it, through conversations among people who share the same passion: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

So, this is order:

And this is connection:

I am attracted to Wheatley’s humane view of the world. At first blush the classic org chart model seems to be the logical way to organize for resilience, efficiency, and success. But here’s what she says about that:

…I see the need to create organizations where people can bring their whole selves. Unless we create organizations where all of us feel we can contribute in multiple and unexpected ways, the organization cannot survive into the future. There is no way to be adaptive and resilient without having everyone engaged in the work. No one person is smart enough. No one group can respond fast enough. If we are not making it up as we go along, tinkering and experimenting with solutions, we will not survive.

Quoted in School Administrator, Jan, 1995, interview and article by Elizabeth Donohoe Steinberger

The message I take from this is that we are all invited to lead in our schools, and lead from our own passions. Meg’s elegant definition of a leader, someone who wants to help, opens the door for everyone to contribute. If we wait for or expect those in positional authority to do the changing, it ain’t gonna happen.

This idea also speaks to the simplicity and power of Web 2.0. It allows anyone and everyone to contribute in multiple and unexpected ways. Random links create real connection, and suddenly a pattern emerges. Yes,

it appears complex, but zoom in or zoom out and you can see uncomplicated, elegant relationships that form a whole community.

David Truss gets me thinking:

…our digital world has made it much easier to have an incredible impact on a global scale. The world isn’t so much ‘flat’ as it is woven.

We are all weaving this web of relationship, one connection at a time.

Images: IBM/Tabulating Machine Co. organization chart by Marcin Wichary Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

Schiller Labs by Empty Streets Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

Woven Ball by exfody Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

Tags: community, connection, David Truss, Margaret Wheatley, relationship, school, Web 2.0