What’s Next: You’re Invited To A Party!

There is a reason why Tupperware went from a mom and pop operation to a $1.1 billion franchise in 50 years.

Earl Tupper, while working at DuPont, stumbled on the formula for making plastic products that were great, but they sat on the shelves of the supermarket gathering dust. No one knew about them or how to use them correctly. Tupper found that Mrs. Brownie Wise was bringing in a lot of more sales than other door-to-door saleswomen in Tupperware Inc. So asking her secret, he found that she made successful sales through home parties.


The parties were fun, full of silly games, with demonstration on how to use the products correctly. As well as innovative ways to use the items. Why would you need a tiny container for? For your pills, jewelry or your brooches. Or, do you know that your camera films could be stored in our airtight containers so that they would not turn moldy easily?

The parties were a great socializing platform when Post-War America needed much entertainment by using as little money as possible.

As a result, Tupper pulled all the products off the stores' shelves and made Tupperware available solely through home parties. This combination of in-house demos of new technology in a context of social networking was a big hit!
From http://www.pickles-and-spices.com/tupperware-history.html

Let's look in on the fun:




Is there a lesson to be learned here for introducing and integrating Web 2.0 tools into my school? First, let’s deconstruct this home party/product demo approach and see how it aligns with what we know to be true about adult learning.

Both adult learning and Tupperware parties work best when planted within a climate of :

• socialization: people trust their friends and credibility deepens as authenticity is tested over time

• demonstration: in this socialized, trusting, environment people are taught how to use the new products. They handle and test them in real life situations. The host/mentor/guide is on hand to troubleshoot if the product seems initially too challenging to use

• motivation: people can choose the products they personally find useful. They construct meaning from testing and handling and seeing applications for the product in a personalized context.

• evaluation: people can take the product home and try it. If it doesn’t meet their expectations, they can return it. If it ever breaks they get a new one free.

• information is ongoing: new products are constantly being demo’ed at the parties. Through the new network of Tupperware users, you are informed of the “upgrades” and new “applications”. People are always invited to try new products and are kept in the party loop.

• good snacks: people need to be exposed to a new product or idea 21 times before they will try it, so some participants just initially come for the snacks. Be sure they are good snacks. (Teachers are crazy for good snacks too!)

Now consider what we know about adult learning in professional development. Hoerr, (2008) reminds us that adult and student learners respond to the same principles of learning. He notes that

• people learn best when motivated
• the task should new and somewhat challenging
• meaning and application must be constructed as the new learning takes place
• guidance and mentoring predict long-term learning

Now does that sound like a Tupperware party!


I would also add that when meaningful learning is occurring within a constructivist model, it can get messy and it takes time. For example, after you have bought your new Tupperware product you take it home, eager to try it out. But because you were visiting with Madge during the demo at the home party, you forget exactly how to work the lid on that new baster/pie server/dill pickle keeper/ ice cream server gadget thing. As you struggle with this new product, it tips, then flips and makes a great big mess as the ice cream dribbles onto the floor.

Well, experiential learning can be like that if it is to be meaningful. It will be awkward and messy at times as your staff tries to make sense of a new Web tool. Be patient! Even though it takes longer to arrive at a solution through such a learning process, that solution is more likely to be understood, effective, and lasting.

While these principles hold true for all learners, there is a factor that is unique to adult learning that we need to be aware of when introducing new ideas and tools our staffs. This difference is in the area of past experiences and meaning.

This approach is supported by Sousa, (2006), the godfather of brain-based learning, who demonstrated the importance of brain compatible approaches to adult learning.

He recognized that adults have a deeper reservoir of experiences to draw from than students. “Adult learners attach meaning to new learning by drawing on these past experiences, but they may not find a match that makes it relevant. When a participant in a professional development activity asks, "Why do I need to know this?" that individual is neither readily connecting the day's menu of learning to past teaching experiences nor accepting it as meaningful.”
(Sousa, 2006)

Sousa’s work in brain based learning shows us that to create experiences that participants perceive as meaningful, professional development leaders should:

* Directly connect the new initiative to job-related goals. For example, activities that show science teachers precisely how they can use new strategies to help students learn science content are more valuable than general suggestions.

* Present the topic over enough time and in enough depth so teachers gain a thorough understanding of how it relates to their work. It is foolish, for instance, to expect participants to make in-depth connections in a one-hour workshop, especially if there are no follow-up activities.

* Use instruction modalities other than "telling." Participants need to see the strategy modeled and then apply it themselves soon thereafter. When teachers actively participate in a demonstration of the primacy-recency effect, for example, they more clearly recognize that the brain remembers best the first and last items presented in a learning episode—and they are more likely to sequence instruction with this phenomenon in mind.

* Initiate action research. Conducting action research in the classroom enables teachers to personally assess the effectiveness of a new strategy, obtain validation for incorporating new strategies into their repertoire, and investigate specific problems that affect their teaching.

* Promote in-school study groups around the topic. As group members exchange new research and share in-class experiences, they can analyze why—and under what conditions—a strategy is effective. Participating in study groups helps teachers who are reluctant to try out new ideas gain confidence.


Can I interest you in this wonderful new product?

The principles of constructivism support the ultimate test of learning as knowledge applied into action. So let’s apply these learning strategies to the goal of introducing new technology into my school.

In my teaching context of an Outreach School, it is somewhat premature to suggest I would be planning, integrating and showcasing a tool for the staff to learn to use. There are four teachers on our site, an off-site administrator and our print and online courses are pre-purchased. We have no departments or shared classes as the four of us teach every course and every stream from Grades 7-12. Our curriculums are in change mode for the next three years in sciences math, social studies, and CTS courses and the teachers are struggling with the continually emerging online versions of these courses. We have a continuous enrollment so new student intake has to be done around marking, student progress monitoring, moving between online and print formats, as well as completing IPP’s and on-demand parent interviews. To compound matters, our jurisdiction is introducing a new student database management system and everyone will be immersed in tech PD this year to master it. For me to suggest another tech “opportunity” would not go down too easily this fall.

There are however, three things I could do. First is to offer to help our junior high teacher with the school website. I could introduce her to Voice Thread for example, which would be a great addition to our very static (okay, boring) website. She is very good at teaching her junior high student computer basics particularly as our students come from such diverse school backgrounds, and there is no such thing as a grade-progressive coordination of spiraling ICT outcomes. She has to start from scratch with every group of students and proceeds from the understanding that there will be huge gaps in the students’ skills. She would however, be enthusiastic about teaching Voice Thread to her students even as she learns it herself. This would be an ideal opportunity for me to bring a new tool to our school and the more dynamic website would showcase to our own staff and to the jurisdiction this new addition. This would in turn, hopefully inspire other schools to improve their own websites.

My research into effective school websites unearthed these guidelines that could further guide us in long term renovations of our website:

• Clean, Easy-to-Navigate Design
• Parent and Community Information
• Student Involvement
• Teacher Updates
• Alumni Section
• Community Interaction


Another approach would be to have our school adopt a Web 2.0 tool as part of our next AISI project. This strategy would embed our new tech learning inside our existing PD. This could be viewed as a positive approach, as teachers may not view the new tech learning as another “add-on”. The AISI projects are evaluated as action research and the results are published at the district level on the AISI website and in the division newsletters. They are also highlighted at the Admin Association meetings. These strategies employ existing venues to showcase the application of the new tool within our context, and would be viewed by the staff as manageable within their time and energy constraints.

Bring a friend to the party!

The third thing I could do is to make sure there are Web 2.0 sessions for all of our jurisdiction PD Days. As I will be the PD rep for our school for this coming year, this will be easily accomplished. However, picking credible presenters who are also good presenters who follow Sousa’ guidelines is another story. Fortunately however, the timing is right as my own tech mentor is returning to our district after his secondment to Alberta Education. Part of his admin duties will be to assist teachers in integrating ICT outcomes. He and I could work together to create formal PD opportunities for the jurisdiction but even more importantly, gather together informal, small communities of people who are already focused on common subject areas. These curriculum groups were loosely established last year as one of our jurisdiction AISI projects. While they are still fairly new and not terribly connected, the framework for engagement is there. This would be a logical fit for the introduction and showcasing of new tools. While these strategic, pre-existing elements present wonderful opportunities, there also needs to be those hard conversations about the roadblocks we will encounter. As The National Writing Project (2009) notes:

• Although most schools are wired, classrooms may or may not have working computers and
access to other technical infrastructure.
• Many school districts create “firewalls” that block student access to Internet research and cross-school communication.
• Students in poorer schools, where they need working technology most, usually have the least.
• Current educational assessment and accountability mandates offer few incentives to districts to provide professional development in subject-matter-based uses of technology.

While these barriers seem insurmountable particularly on a large scale, the experienced bloggers that have guided us throughout this course assure me that effective and lasting change occurs on a micro level.

Practice on your family first!
Even before introducing new Web 2.0 tools to my staff , I would start with my own students. In our student-directed environment of outreach, students are encouraged to participate in their own learning by customizing their academic schedules, their timetables and even in determining to some extent how they will represent their learning. In the case of implementing a new tool to my OPPT class for example, I would let the students’ learning needs choose the tool.

Regardless of the tool chosen however, it must be presented in a research-based context such as Sousa’s as presented earlier . If it cannot, then I would have to choose another tool.

In the constructivist model, Facebook would be my choice for my OPPT class, as the newly created class Facebook page was entirely student-initiated. One of my girls had asked me to be friend on her Facebook and when I declined, she made up a class Facebook page. I sought it out when we did our social networking chapter in this class, and signed up. Six students have given value to this tool by signing up on their own initiatives. Facebook is a good choice because student motivation is high and it is a tool with which they are familiar and all have access.
Other than motivation and accessibility, why would I want it use Facebook in my OPPT group? According to Educause, Facebook has the potential to teach students the value of creating a voice and learning online citizenship. This is an effective starting place for users to first learn about producing content rather than just consuming it. The etiquette of online conversation can begin here and students learn to create portfolios that express their identities. Facebook is also a window on the students’ worldview that can inform us educators how to use the compelling elements of social networking into our teaching and learning. We can play an active role in the creation of a class identity and community.





























Ito, Horst, Bittani, et al.( 2008), In Living and Learning with New Media, recognize that “interactions with peers and even adults in an interest-driven community are more engaging and more fulfilling than traditional classrooms where teachers and their textbooks and tests are often presented as more important than independent thinking and personal growth" (p.23).

This is a direct challenge to the contained audience and gated-community that is the classroom. They further observe:

When these peer negotiations occur in a context of public scrutiny, youth are motivated to develop their identities and reputations through these peer-based networks, exchanging comments and links and jockeying for visibility. These efforts at gaining recognition are directed at a network of respected peers rather than formal evaluations of teachers or tests (p.39).

I appreciate how Gary Hammel (2009) takes this student worldview to the next level as he argues that the principles of social networking are at odds with most current corporate values. If we, or our skeptical teaching peers still need still need convincing of the imperative for equipping our students for their 21st Century world, take a look at his characteristics of online life. And yes, the lowly Facebook and my insignificant little group of OPPT students have a role to play here too.

Hammel observes:

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
Ideas gain traction based on their perceived merits, rather than on the political power of their sponsors.

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.
Position, title, and academic degrees—none of the usual status differentiators carry much weight online. On the Web, what counts is not your resume, but what you can contribute.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.
In any Web forum there are some individuals who command more respect and attention than others—and have more influence as a consequence. On the Web, authority trickles up, not down.

4. Leaders serve rather than preside.
On the Web, every leader is a servant leader; no one has the power to command or sanction. Credible arguments, demonstrated expertise and selfless behavior are the only levers for getting things done through other people. Forget this online, and your followers will soon abandon you.

5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.
The Web is an opt-in economy. Whether contributing to a blog, working on an open source project, or sharing advice in a forum, people choose to work on the things that interest them.

6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.
On the Web, you get to choose your compatriots. Just as no one can assign you a boring task, no can force you to work with dim-witted colleagues.

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.
On the Web, human effort flows towards ideas and projects that are attractive (and fun), and away from those that aren’t.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.
The Web is also a gift economy. To gain influence and status, you have to give away your expertise and content.

9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.
On the Internet, truly smart ideas rapidly gain a following no matter how disruptive they may be. And once aggregated, the voice of the masses can be used as a battering ram to challenge the entrenched interests of institutions in the offline world.

10. Users can veto most policy decisions.
You may have built the community, but the users really own it.

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.
It’s obvious that human beings will give generously of themselves when they’re given the chance to contribute to something they actually care about.

12. Hackers are heroes.
On the Web, muckraking malcontents are frequently celebrated as champions of the Internet’s democratic values.

Hammel concludes, “These features of Web-based life are written into the social DNA of Generation F—and mostly missing from the managerial DNA of the average Fortune 500 company”.

I have always challenged my students to consider possibilities. These characteristics of online life seem so compelling. My students’ work on our class Facebook would give them access to all of this expanded worldview. And no babysitter is required!

Check out our new line!

Having said that however, my challenge will be to introduce our class Facebook page to my brand new students this fall who weren’t part of the initial Facebook page invitation, and with these students, construct conversations about the following:

• What is my goal in promoting this social networking tool?
• What are the possibilities for developing it: a social tool a teaching tool? Both?
• What is my role? Do I queer the deal by being part of it?
• What about new students who may not have internet access?
• What guidelines do we establish in using it?
• Should this be a stand-alone tool or does it make more sense to leave it as a social tool and
use the class wiki as the teaching tool?
• What role could Twitter play with Facebook?
• Should it become a link on a blog?
• Whom do we invite?
• Who maintains it?

Whatever answers emerge, they will be grounded in a participatory model. There is no use me forging ahead to invite our many resource people for example, or other parenting programs in the province to become members, if we as a class do not share a common vision for the tool.

Assuming the class does want to commit time and effort into growing our Facebook, we need to give some thought as to how it could be showcased. The privacy concerns are an overarching issue and I would have to get some central office guidance about jurisdictional guidelines. Do we want to encourage prospective students to join so they can get a sense of our community? So should this a marketing tool for the program? Could it be used as an exemplar at our division PD of what the benefits of a program Facebook page are, or would I destroy its closed community aspect by making it public?

Regardless of the outcomes of this project, the key is that it must be student-driven. Who knows, maybe my next group of students will be Twitterers! I need to be open and flexible to diverse learning needs. What I do know is that any mandated enterprise will crash and burn.

Aside: I still have bad memories from two years ago when our tech department mandated online course “quotas” for us. Yeah right. Sure we will force 20 kids per term to “choose” these crappy-designed online courses. And oh, P.S. 10 out of those 20 students did not have reliable internet access. Last year during our Nisku/Leduc boom, the waiting time for new telephone service in the country was four months! But the quota fiasco is another story!

But regardless of how we have ended up at the Tupperware home party, whether we were dragged, like in the aforementioned model, or whether we came willingly, as in choosing this course, or whether we are just here because a friend brought us, the imperative that drives us as enlightened, responsible educators is summarized by the introduction to the 2009 Inverness Report, of the National Writing Project (NWP):

Gone are the days when teachers could use computers merely for basic drills. Conducting research, evaluating sources of information, displaying data, solving problems, working collaboratively on written and oral presentations—these are the new "basic skills" of the 21st century. To prepare students to thrive in today's society, teachers need to know more about how technologies are used in disciplines and workplaces, and—most critically—how to use the right technologies to support student learning in specific subject areas.

Never have such strenuous demands been placed on practicing teachers to master new ways to teach new skills. But not to panic….

Brownie Wise's Tupperware Home Parties became the gold standard for home party selling. Many other large companies, like Mary Kay Cosmetics, have copied the formula Wise perfected, extending her legacy in American business.

If one motivated person can change an entire industry, surely one motivated teacher can change a class, and perhaps a staff!











References

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., and Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the digital youth project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/report

http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2009/03/24/the-facebook-generation-vs-the-fortune-500/

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/mar08/vol65/num06/Curing_the_Healthy.aspx

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/summer09/vol66/num09/Brain-Friendly_Learning_for_Teachers.aspx

http://www.educause.edu/ELI/7ThingsYouShouldKnowAboutFaceb/156820

http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/2865