This blog was created as an assignment for the Multimedia course (525). Now that the course has been concluded, I have been wondering what to do with this blog. I have decide to continue to use this blog, but shift its focus to science education, which is very relevant for me as I plan to teach science. There is no need to change the title, as it is just as appropriate, or probably more so, for the new focus. I will keep the archive entries, as well as the links to the other 525 blogs as some of them may be updated as well. I have created a page on my wiki site that is a collection of science education links, and I have connection to this under the Other Links section. Additional links that I could add to this blog in the future could include other science education blogs, and possibly direct links to other science education websites (instead of via the Wiki site).
The 525 course demonstrated some of the ways blogs could be used in education. One that looks quite useful is that of current events. Students and teachers could use a blog to point out and discuss news stories and events. In science education this is very helpful because it would be a good way of keeping track of new discoveries, which occur very frequently as science is very dynamic. For instance, I am currently taking an astronomy course, and at the begining of each class the professor discusses relevant science news stories about research and discoveries. A blog would be another way of doing this, and with this blog I could practice doing so. There are different formats that could be used for such a blog. It might be an individual blog. Under this setup, everyone would have their own individual blog on which they would handle all the posts. This could potentially be done with only the teacher, bloging. The advantage of the blog for the teacher is that it could be used the blog to demonstrate news items rather than simply telling the students about them in class. But a more constructivist and better idea would be for all the students to have their own indiviual blog, in addition to the teacher. Each student could use their blog to discuss science news. This could mean focusing on one article, as we did with the blogs in the 525 class, or one one topic or a more general dicussion of several topics the students consider relevant and newsworthy. The students might be required to make an entry once a week, as was the case with the 525 class. This could be done by having it due on the same day for all the students, or staggering them so that each day in the week would have some students doing an entry. Using blogs in this manner would allow for looking at new events closely and for not needing as much class time to do so. Another way blogs could be used in class would be to have students look at, reflect, and write about topics or areas highlighted or directed by the teacher. This was the predominate use of the blogs in the 525 class. Both uses of the blogs could also have the students read and post comments on each other's blogs. I am about to start a course on science teaching methods (514) and material and ideas from that course will probably end up on this blog. But the blog should continue with the same focus past that class as it will still be relevant. The new focus and purpose of this blog is to practice using blogs for science education. In my case, that will mean focusing more on secondary education level material. This would have some impact on the types of articles and sources, and would probably allow for more options than earlier levels.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Science Education Links Page
It's a bit messy, but I have a page of science education links up on my Wikisite.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Blogs, Multimedia, and Education
When it came to blogs, before this class I had read many - usually political ones, but I had never written one myself before. It is a bit addictive, and I think its best educational value is the ease with which the writer can direct the reader to more information - its a step above citations.
I had never heard of Wikis prior to this class. And I am now maybe also getting hooked on them, and it has become rather easy to think of many projects that could be done with them. I think the most exciting thing about this course has simply been become aware of more tools, or become aware of just how useful tools I already knew about could be. Another thing this class introduced me too is Open Software - and the potentially wide range of possibilities it has.
What things are challenging for the use of multimedia ahead? Well I think one thing is always going to be loosing sight of the purpose of the activity - you should be looking for multimedia that will help your learn objectives and use it if you can find one - as opposed to looking for some subject to try a new piece of multimedia with. This was demonstrated to me quite recently, as I was constructing my final project. It is an oceanography project, and the NOAA website has many links and other features, including among other things animations. I eneded up spending a absurd amount of time unsuccessfully attempting to get incorporate it into my project. It was nice - but it didn't really help understanding the material in any fundamental way. I was desperate to include because it looked neat and would impress people, not because it would useful.
Another problem may simply be keeping up with the technological capablities of my students. I may have been born into a world with computers, but I am often reminded of how slow I can be compared to other people.
I had never heard of Wikis prior to this class. And I am now maybe also getting hooked on them, and it has become rather easy to think of many projects that could be done with them. I think the most exciting thing about this course has simply been become aware of more tools, or become aware of just how useful tools I already knew about could be. Another thing this class introduced me too is Open Software - and the potentially wide range of possibilities it has.
What things are challenging for the use of multimedia ahead? Well I think one thing is always going to be loosing sight of the purpose of the activity - you should be looking for multimedia that will help your learn objectives and use it if you can find one - as opposed to looking for some subject to try a new piece of multimedia with. This was demonstrated to me quite recently, as I was constructing my final project. It is an oceanography project, and the NOAA website has many links and other features, including among other things animations. I eneded up spending a absurd amount of time unsuccessfully attempting to get incorporate it into my project. It was nice - but it didn't really help understanding the material in any fundamental way. I was desperate to include because it looked neat and would impress people, not because it would useful.
Another problem may simply be keeping up with the technological capablities of my students. I may have been born into a world with computers, but I am often reminded of how slow I can be compared to other people.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Is this class R-rated?
Daniel Pink’s ideas in a Whole New Mind about Right brain domination (doesn’t that sound like the title to a bad science fiction movie?) are interesting in that they seem to go against what one would expect. Given the growing and growing importance of technology, would not one think that analytical thought –engineering, programming etc., would be even more important?
The website of The Partnership for 21st Century Skills defines what it thinks students need to learn in the new century; it includes a core curriculum, which looks traditional, but also several 21st century interdisciplinary themes that should be woven into the core subjects. In other words, the basic subjects students learn will not really be different, but rather is it how they study them, what is emphasized, and how they are connected that changes.
One of the interdisciplinary themes is global awareness, which in many ways sounds similar to multicultural education. Some people have frowned on multicultural education, saying that it softens the curriculum or is just PC fluff. However, clearly the Partnership does not think so. It would also fit in with the importance of empathy, which both Pink and Wiggins and Mctighe (in the book Understanding by Design) stress. The other 21st century themes – each a literacy – essentially seem to involve knowing how to use and apply information and skills into areas such as health, business, and citizenship. This clearly is in accord with the “interpret” and “apply” facets of understanding that Wiggins and McTighe describe. In addition, the whole idea of interdisciplinary themes matches Pink’s concept of “Symphony” which
“isn’t analysis but synthesis – seeing the big picture, crossing boundaries. "
All of this would imply that one should avoid teaching that is centered on drills and factual recall – indeed in UBD Wiggins and McTighe clearly caution against this.The subjects and themes are all part of a larger framework, which the Partnership represents with a graphic (I guess they want to appeal to visual learners). The website describes a number of skills it believes students need to learn in the 21st century, and groups them into categories. The learning and innovation skills seem more directed towards the right side of the brain and the facets described in UBD - towards empathy, interpretation, and application. The Information, Media, and Technology skills seem more analytical, but they still involve some right brain thinking, as the issue of ethics in the use of technology is stressed. The Life and career skills deal with many facets of learning, and can be seen as both “left and right”.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Partnership thinks 21st century learning environments should feature communication, collaboration, and application, and that the purpose of technology in education should be to foster these themes. Again, this can help create empathy, as well as perspective (another learning facet of UBD)
However, what about assessment? It seems that test-focused, “drill and kill” assessments would not fit in well here. The Partnership recommends a mixture of assessment strategies – tests, but also less traditional methods, like portfolios. One of the criticisms of the modern No Child Left Behind Act is that it only uses standardized tests for assessing schools, when more than one method should be used. The Partnership stresses the importance of interpretation and application of knowledge, as well as using communication for learning. Technology should be used to support these goals. They also stress that know learning should involve “deep understanding rather than shallow knowledge” This is very much in agreement with the philosophy of Wiggins and McTighe, who stress the importance of understanding and caution against shallow “coverage” of topics. They warn that this often happens when teachers rush to cover everything required by government standards. All this makes it sound like American educational policy needs considerable adjustment if it is going to head in the direction that the Partnership recommends.
Although both the Partnership and Pink talk about these concepts with a focus on the future, they are not new. The famous progressive educator John Dewey felt that social interaction was an extremely important part of learning. In his 1897 Pedagogical Creed he wrote:
“I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.”
Dewey stressed the need to teach children skills and social interaction, not facts that may soon be out of date:
“With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to command, that his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently. It is impossible to reach this sort of adjustment save as constant regard is had to the individual's own powers, tastes, and interests - say, that is, as education is continually converted into psychological terms. In sum, I believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and that society is an organic union of individuals. If we eliminate the social factor from the child we are left only with an abstraction; if we eliminate the individual factor from society, we are left only with an inert and lifeless mass.”
In other words, students need to learn the communicative and collaborative skills stressed by the modern writers like the Partnership. Students also need to know how to learn, not memorize facts. Dewey also alluded to what we would now call visual learning:
“I believe that the image is the great instrument of instruction. What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he himself forms with regard to it. I believe that if nine-tenths of the energy at present directed towards making the child learn certain things, were spent in seeing to it that the child was forming proper images, the work of instruction would be indefinitely facilitated. I believe that much of the time and attention now given to the preparation and presentation of lessons might be more wisely and profitably expended in training the child's power of imagery and in seeing to it that he was continually forming definite, vivid, and growing images of the various subjects with which he comes in contact in his experience.”
Jerome Bruner, in his 1960 book The Process of Education, discussed how intuitive and not just analytical thinking could be an important part of learning. He also stated that teachers needed to know how to adjust to it:
“It requires a sensitive teacher to distinguish an intuitive mistake – an interestingly wrong leap – from a stupid or ignorant mistake, and it requires a teacher who can give approval and correction simultaneously to the intuitive student.” p68
In other words, teaching should encourage the right side of the brain, not just the left.
What this means is that in the 21st century classroom we need to use learning and teaching styles that are not in conflict with these ideas if we are to encourage the right side of the brain. That would include visual learning, as well “global” thinking and learning. This would allow students to wholly understand material, and to apply it and make connections to other material with it. Learning and teaching should not focus on covering a wide range of issues in a shallow manner with the memorization of facts, but should involve deeper understanding of material – which requires interpretation, application, and even empathy to better see its role. This is not new; what is new is that technology can be used to foster this kind of learning; it does not need to make it cold, sterile, and impersonal. Technology has not rendered “soft skills” or the humanities obsolete. Instead, it has become a necessary part of using them. That is one of the big things to get from Pink and the Partnership. Moreover, from this perspective, current educational policy seems muddled.
The website of The Partnership for 21st Century Skills defines what it thinks students need to learn in the new century; it includes a core curriculum, which looks traditional, but also several 21st century interdisciplinary themes that should be woven into the core subjects. In other words, the basic subjects students learn will not really be different, but rather is it how they study them, what is emphasized, and how they are connected that changes.
One of the interdisciplinary themes is global awareness, which in many ways sounds similar to multicultural education. Some people have frowned on multicultural education, saying that it softens the curriculum or is just PC fluff. However, clearly the Partnership does not think so. It would also fit in with the importance of empathy, which both Pink and Wiggins and Mctighe (in the book Understanding by Design) stress. The other 21st century themes – each a literacy – essentially seem to involve knowing how to use and apply information and skills into areas such as health, business, and citizenship. This clearly is in accord with the “interpret” and “apply” facets of understanding that Wiggins and McTighe describe. In addition, the whole idea of interdisciplinary themes matches Pink’s concept of “Symphony” which
“isn’t analysis but synthesis – seeing the big picture, crossing boundaries. "
All of this would imply that one should avoid teaching that is centered on drills and factual recall – indeed in UBD Wiggins and McTighe clearly caution against this.The subjects and themes are all part of a larger framework, which the Partnership represents with a graphic (I guess they want to appeal to visual learners). The website describes a number of skills it believes students need to learn in the 21st century, and groups them into categories. The learning and innovation skills seem more directed towards the right side of the brain and the facets described in UBD - towards empathy, interpretation, and application. The Information, Media, and Technology skills seem more analytical, but they still involve some right brain thinking, as the issue of ethics in the use of technology is stressed. The Life and career skills deal with many facets of learning, and can be seen as both “left and right”.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the Partnership thinks 21st century learning environments should feature communication, collaboration, and application, and that the purpose of technology in education should be to foster these themes. Again, this can help create empathy, as well as perspective (another learning facet of UBD)
However, what about assessment? It seems that test-focused, “drill and kill” assessments would not fit in well here. The Partnership recommends a mixture of assessment strategies – tests, but also less traditional methods, like portfolios. One of the criticisms of the modern No Child Left Behind Act is that it only uses standardized tests for assessing schools, when more than one method should be used. The Partnership stresses the importance of interpretation and application of knowledge, as well as using communication for learning. Technology should be used to support these goals. They also stress that know learning should involve “deep understanding rather than shallow knowledge” This is very much in agreement with the philosophy of Wiggins and McTighe, who stress the importance of understanding and caution against shallow “coverage” of topics. They warn that this often happens when teachers rush to cover everything required by government standards. All this makes it sound like American educational policy needs considerable adjustment if it is going to head in the direction that the Partnership recommends.
Although both the Partnership and Pink talk about these concepts with a focus on the future, they are not new. The famous progressive educator John Dewey felt that social interaction was an extremely important part of learning. In his 1897 Pedagogical Creed he wrote:
“I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends.”
Dewey stressed the need to teach children skills and social interaction, not facts that may soon be out of date:
“With the advent of democracy and modern industrial conditions, it is impossible to foretell definitely just what civilization will be twenty years from now. Hence it is impossible to prepare the child for any precise set of conditions. To prepare him for the future life means to give him command of himself; it means so to train him that he will have the full and ready use of all his capacities; that his eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to command, that his judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under which it has to work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and efficiently. It is impossible to reach this sort of adjustment save as constant regard is had to the individual's own powers, tastes, and interests - say, that is, as education is continually converted into psychological terms. In sum, I believe that the individual who is to be educated is a social individual and that society is an organic union of individuals. If we eliminate the social factor from the child we are left only with an abstraction; if we eliminate the individual factor from society, we are left only with an inert and lifeless mass.”
In other words, students need to learn the communicative and collaborative skills stressed by the modern writers like the Partnership. Students also need to know how to learn, not memorize facts. Dewey also alluded to what we would now call visual learning:
“I believe that the image is the great instrument of instruction. What a child gets out of any subject presented to him is simply the images which he himself forms with regard to it. I believe that if nine-tenths of the energy at present directed towards making the child learn certain things, were spent in seeing to it that the child was forming proper images, the work of instruction would be indefinitely facilitated. I believe that much of the time and attention now given to the preparation and presentation of lessons might be more wisely and profitably expended in training the child's power of imagery and in seeing to it that he was continually forming definite, vivid, and growing images of the various subjects with which he comes in contact in his experience.”
Jerome Bruner, in his 1960 book The Process of Education, discussed how intuitive and not just analytical thinking could be an important part of learning. He also stated that teachers needed to know how to adjust to it:
“It requires a sensitive teacher to distinguish an intuitive mistake – an interestingly wrong leap – from a stupid or ignorant mistake, and it requires a teacher who can give approval and correction simultaneously to the intuitive student.” p68
In other words, teaching should encourage the right side of the brain, not just the left.
What this means is that in the 21st century classroom we need to use learning and teaching styles that are not in conflict with these ideas if we are to encourage the right side of the brain. That would include visual learning, as well “global” thinking and learning. This would allow students to wholly understand material, and to apply it and make connections to other material with it. Learning and teaching should not focus on covering a wide range of issues in a shallow manner with the memorization of facts, but should involve deeper understanding of material – which requires interpretation, application, and even empathy to better see its role. This is not new; what is new is that technology can be used to foster this kind of learning; it does not need to make it cold, sterile, and impersonal. Technology has not rendered “soft skills” or the humanities obsolete. Instead, it has become a necessary part of using them. That is one of the big things to get from Pink and the Partnership. Moreover, from this perspective, current educational policy seems muddled.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
History
I decided to look at an educational experience that occured when I was a college student, not when I was teaching (there are not many examples of that). But I think it is relevant because I had to give a presentation to class - in effect teach them about something. Furthermore, this basic lesson design, having the students give in-class presentations, is one that is used very often.
This occured in US history class which I had freshman year at college. Everyone had to do a presentation on a historical figure, and I did Aaron Burr. The presentation didn't go well -it was long and rambling, and I put too much information in, much of which wasn't really important. In 522 we called this coverage. There were some important ideas that I wanted to stress, but they lost in all the other stuff. Furthermore, it consisted of just me talking at the front, apart from a few notes I scribled on the board, there was no visual aids. It wasn't a good presentation for visual learners, or for anyone else for that matter. Most of the other students did better than I did; that was due to being better at public speaking and at editing the information. The presentations were pretty much just someone talking - a few people printed out some outlines, but that was it.
Multimedia could have improved that experience in some many ways. The most obvious way would be use powerpoint with the presentation. This would give visual learners something to do, which is important considering so many people are visual learners. But there are many other possiblilities as well. One idea is that instead of doing a in-class presentation, the students could all do there own wiki sites centered on different historical figures. This allows students to benefit from each other research like they would in a presentation (but not in most homework assignments), but without taking up time in class. Using blogs would probably not be as good a fit as wikis in terms of individual presentations. But having a weekly or monthly blog research activity would be potential idea. Eric Langhorst, the history teacher we looked at last week, uses technology in many ways to teach history - using podcasts among other things. Having students do their own history podcasts would be another alternative. Meanwhile somebody seems to want to do a Wiki for Aaron Burr.
This occured in US history class which I had freshman year at college. Everyone had to do a presentation on a historical figure, and I did Aaron Burr. The presentation didn't go well -it was long and rambling, and I put too much information in, much of which wasn't really important. In 522 we called this coverage. There were some important ideas that I wanted to stress, but they lost in all the other stuff. Furthermore, it consisted of just me talking at the front, apart from a few notes I scribled on the board, there was no visual aids. It wasn't a good presentation for visual learners, or for anyone else for that matter. Most of the other students did better than I did; that was due to being better at public speaking and at editing the information. The presentations were pretty much just someone talking - a few people printed out some outlines, but that was it.
Multimedia could have improved that experience in some many ways. The most obvious way would be use powerpoint with the presentation. This would give visual learners something to do, which is important considering so many people are visual learners. But there are many other possiblilities as well. One idea is that instead of doing a in-class presentation, the students could all do there own wiki sites centered on different historical figures. This allows students to benefit from each other research like they would in a presentation (but not in most homework assignments), but without taking up time in class. Using blogs would probably not be as good a fit as wikis in terms of individual presentations. But having a weekly or monthly blog research activity would be potential idea. Eric Langhorst, the history teacher we looked at last week, uses technology in many ways to teach history - using podcasts among other things. Having students do their own history podcasts would be another alternative. Meanwhile somebody seems to want to do a Wiki for Aaron Burr.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
iPods and Integration
History teacher Eric Langhorst describes in his article After the Bell, Beyond the Walls (in Educational Leadership) how he makes use of technology. The examples he provides do seem to involve the conditions listed in the table for technology integration. He uses the technology in a student-centered setting – by either offering podcasts of information for students to use in a manner more convenient for them, or to engage students in active learning, such as through discussions and debates. In addition, Langhorst receives considerable assessment of his techniques, from students and parents. Access to technology does not seem to be a problem, as he uses widely available, off the shelf systems. This also makes technical assistance less of an issue, as it would come in the form of customer service. He is also able to compensate for those who do have access problems – by providing CD recordings of “Studycasts” to students who cannot log onto the internet at home, for instance. That might be another important condition – that if all students cannot easily get whatever hardware they need to take advantage of the integration, than the school must provide it or make some alternative method of use made available, as Langhorst does. This means that the technology can than be used in an integral manner without leaving anyone out. Moreover, Langhorst’s use of technology is quite integral – it is not just for the “wow factor” as he put it. By having discussions with other students and experts, he is able to use technology in ways that are of substantive importance and would be much more difficult to do in a traditional manner.
The main problem seems to be in the areas of support and vision. Langhorst describes a system that apparently has been developed by teachers at the grass roots level, not proposed by school or district administrators. Teachers, students, and parents spread the ideas. While Langhorst does not describe any opposition to his ideas, there does not seem to be any existing administrative support either (although his ideas do seem to mesh with the district’s technology outlook). It does not appear as though this has been a major impediment to implementation, probably because he used off the shelf technology that is already widely used by and available to students. As Langhorst points out, tools like blogs and wikis can be used for free. No major investments or systems changes were required on the part of the school. Had any of that been required, than administrative support would have been essential. Langhorst also appears to be comfortable with this technology, and clearly has ideas about how to use it in education. Teachers without such confidence are going to need outside help. Langhorst does not state in his article how much support or encouragement (or resistance) he got from administrators.
One thing I found interesting was the notion expressed in the introduction that students had to “power down” when they entered school. For me, at first at least, the opposite was true. I first used the internet at school; first in high school, and than in college, before I ever used it at home. My first email account was one I got at college. Many technologies that I now use at home I first used in an academic setting. For some students this was (or is) true of computers in general. This raises a problem with this kind of technological integration; what if you are in a school or district were it is not a reasonable assumption that most students will have an iPod or some MP3 player? There is one way to take care of that problem: a few years Duke University attracted considerable attention by offering each incoming freshman a free iPod (although it would be very easy to hide the cost in a tuition increase). This was a demonstration of the way iPods are starting to join computers as technology that is widely promoted in the academic community (although not everyone seems so sure). It helped put iPods on the educational map. We can also see this at Drexel of course. However, that kind of a solution is probably not going to be realistic outside of higher education. Many districts may have to rely on donations (presumably from the corporate world). Langhorst is actually using technology provided by Microsoft for a pilot program in one of his classes.
Langhorst uses the iPods for much the same reason educators have used the internet – to provide more flexibility to students, so that they can learn outside of a traditional classroom setting. I was also intrigued when Langhorst discussed how states were starting to require students to take some online courses. Online courses in higher education do not seem odd, but it is more novel for me to imagine one in a k-12 setting. Langhorst says that the “brick and mortar school” will remain the center of learning. However, could the fear that this will someday no longer be the case lead to resistance to technological integration? I would agree with those who contend that it is important for students to socialize with each other and with their teachers face to face. Students, especially in elementary school, should not have a primarily online educational experience. Technology is likely to get more support if its proponents can demonstrate how it will free up time in the classroom, not usurp it. Langhorst’s ideas are constructive in this regard.
The main problem seems to be in the areas of support and vision. Langhorst describes a system that apparently has been developed by teachers at the grass roots level, not proposed by school or district administrators. Teachers, students, and parents spread the ideas. While Langhorst does not describe any opposition to his ideas, there does not seem to be any existing administrative support either (although his ideas do seem to mesh with the district’s technology outlook). It does not appear as though this has been a major impediment to implementation, probably because he used off the shelf technology that is already widely used by and available to students. As Langhorst points out, tools like blogs and wikis can be used for free. No major investments or systems changes were required on the part of the school. Had any of that been required, than administrative support would have been essential. Langhorst also appears to be comfortable with this technology, and clearly has ideas about how to use it in education. Teachers without such confidence are going to need outside help. Langhorst does not state in his article how much support or encouragement (or resistance) he got from administrators.
One thing I found interesting was the notion expressed in the introduction that students had to “power down” when they entered school. For me, at first at least, the opposite was true. I first used the internet at school; first in high school, and than in college, before I ever used it at home. My first email account was one I got at college. Many technologies that I now use at home I first used in an academic setting. For some students this was (or is) true of computers in general. This raises a problem with this kind of technological integration; what if you are in a school or district were it is not a reasonable assumption that most students will have an iPod or some MP3 player? There is one way to take care of that problem: a few years Duke University attracted considerable attention by offering each incoming freshman a free iPod (although it would be very easy to hide the cost in a tuition increase). This was a demonstration of the way iPods are starting to join computers as technology that is widely promoted in the academic community (although not everyone seems so sure). It helped put iPods on the educational map. We can also see this at Drexel of course. However, that kind of a solution is probably not going to be realistic outside of higher education. Many districts may have to rely on donations (presumably from the corporate world). Langhorst is actually using technology provided by Microsoft for a pilot program in one of his classes.
Langhorst uses the iPods for much the same reason educators have used the internet – to provide more flexibility to students, so that they can learn outside of a traditional classroom setting. I was also intrigued when Langhorst discussed how states were starting to require students to take some online courses. Online courses in higher education do not seem odd, but it is more novel for me to imagine one in a k-12 setting. Langhorst says that the “brick and mortar school” will remain the center of learning. However, could the fear that this will someday no longer be the case lead to resistance to technological integration? I would agree with those who contend that it is important for students to socialize with each other and with their teachers face to face. Students, especially in elementary school, should not have a primarily online educational experience. Technology is likely to get more support if its proponents can demonstrate how it will free up time in the classroom, not usurp it. Langhorst’s ideas are constructive in this regard.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Blog Poll
I have been having trouble with the blog poll - It will say "Cannot process request" when you try to vote. If anyone has any trouble shooting ideas, please let me know. Thanks.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Someone released an upgraded internet?
The phrase Web 2.0 brought up in my mind the image of a whole new World Wide Web – that an upgraded version had appeared and was flying off the shelves. However, the websites that I visited did seem to be different enough to warrant such a dramatic title.
The first site I used was Gliffy. I found it a bit clumsy to use, although that was probably because of inexperience. I used Gliffy to make a chart, something which would clearly have many applications, including in multimedia projects. While its format is somewhat better for making charts, Gliffy is not really very different from some other graphic programs. The ability to access the chart from anywhere you can find an internet connection would be useful for travelers or projects with multiple creators. However, that capability really is not unique.
I found the other site, Wikispaces, to be more interesting. Once I got my own Wiki site started, it became hard to stop. The ability to quickly set up a site with multiple users to easily post links and documents would clearly be quite useful, especially in terms of individual classes or even individual sections. However, isn’t that really not so innovative – can’t weblogs do that too? Wiki’s format does seem a bit better suited for educational purposes. A site with multiple pages seems more practical for a class than one long continuous one. Separate pages could be used for different subjects and assignments, or for different sections of the same class.
What does Wiki mean anyway? One Wiki site offers a definition. It does seem that Wikipedia has a very appropriate name, given that its entries are created by many users. There is also a Wiki search engine.
However, the best site, I thought, was techlearning. This contains many potentially useful features. Under the daily tips/features menu, it linked to a site that really impressed me. This is the Exploratorium museum site, which caught my attention because of my interest in science. It features online activities, exhibits, and webcasts, among other things. The showing of an educational video or film in class has been common in school for a while. However, what if the teacher linked to a site like Exploratorium and projected it for the whole class instead? This would be a much more dynamic and active experience. The teacher would have some choices as to what to show or do – he or she could even let the students decide. An active learning experience is preferred over a passive one. Unlike a website, a video is really not very different from a lecture in the sense that the students are simply watching and listening. Furthermore, this sort of multimedia activity would be just as easy to set up as watching a video, as the teacher does not need to create anything, just hook up the website. I am not sure if there are any copyright problems in using a website in such a manner. I would think not, given that we have done so. On the other hand, copyright issues can make showing a video or DVD to a class more complicated. A class in the San Francisco area can visit the actual site as well.
Techlearning also highlights projects built by students, educators, and organizations. One that caught my eye was a research project on the homeless called Life on the Streets. In the book To Teach, author William Ayers discusses a student who did a project on the homeless. Now with multimedia, a similar project could be shown to a much wider audience – a great advantage if your project is designed to raise social awareness. Techlearning also features a site and product database, as well as news and help sites. One site to check out contains guides on copyright information.
That’s nice, but is Web 2.0 still too drastic a term? What does it mean anyway? Wikipedia offers this definition:
---The idea of "Web 2.0" can also relate to a transition of some websites from isolated information silos to interlinked computing platforms that function like locally-available software in the perception of the user. Web 2.0 also includes a social element where users generate and distribute content, often with freedom to share and re-use. ---
Wikipedia also describes what proponents say makes Web 2.0 unique:
---Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser.[12] Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data.[13][12] These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[12][2] This stands in contrast to very old traditional websites, the sort which limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site's owner could modify. Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax,[12][2] Flex or similar rich media. The sites may also have social-networking aspects.[13][12]---
Sounds like a description of many of the features in the sites we have seen. However, does that still warrant a 2.0 label? Some people think that is overdoing it, Wikipedia points out:
---The argument exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts. Note that techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[24] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino. In a podcast interview Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon": "nobody really knows what it means"; and went on to say "if Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."[5] ---
I am more inclined to favor this view. I think you need a bigger, more original advance to use such labels. Regardless, some people are pushing the Web 2.0 idea very hard. One such proponent is Tim O’Reilly. He states that the concept came about from the belief that the dot-com collapse of 2001 was a turning point in the history of the internet. His article contains information about the history of Web 2.0, and the relationship a number of companies have had with it. In fact, these articles on Web 2.0 seem to stress its importance for the world of business, not education (although isn't that the case with everything?). There was Web 2.0 conference last year, and an Expo this April. In fact, it so hot that Wikipedia reports that one company, CMP Media is trying to get the rights to use the term “Web 2.0”.
This raises another problem. How long will it be before someone starts marketing the term Web 3.0 ?
Just to get off topic, has anyone not seen this? Yuk!
The first site I used was Gliffy. I found it a bit clumsy to use, although that was probably because of inexperience. I used Gliffy to make a chart, something which would clearly have many applications, including in multimedia projects. While its format is somewhat better for making charts, Gliffy is not really very different from some other graphic programs. The ability to access the chart from anywhere you can find an internet connection would be useful for travelers or projects with multiple creators. However, that capability really is not unique.
I found the other site, Wikispaces, to be more interesting. Once I got my own Wiki site started, it became hard to stop. The ability to quickly set up a site with multiple users to easily post links and documents would clearly be quite useful, especially in terms of individual classes or even individual sections. However, isn’t that really not so innovative – can’t weblogs do that too? Wiki’s format does seem a bit better suited for educational purposes. A site with multiple pages seems more practical for a class than one long continuous one. Separate pages could be used for different subjects and assignments, or for different sections of the same class.
What does Wiki mean anyway? One Wiki site offers a definition. It does seem that Wikipedia has a very appropriate name, given that its entries are created by many users. There is also a Wiki search engine.
However, the best site, I thought, was techlearning. This contains many potentially useful features. Under the daily tips/features menu, it linked to a site that really impressed me. This is the Exploratorium museum site, which caught my attention because of my interest in science. It features online activities, exhibits, and webcasts, among other things. The showing of an educational video or film in class has been common in school for a while. However, what if the teacher linked to a site like Exploratorium and projected it for the whole class instead? This would be a much more dynamic and active experience. The teacher would have some choices as to what to show or do – he or she could even let the students decide. An active learning experience is preferred over a passive one. Unlike a website, a video is really not very different from a lecture in the sense that the students are simply watching and listening. Furthermore, this sort of multimedia activity would be just as easy to set up as watching a video, as the teacher does not need to create anything, just hook up the website. I am not sure if there are any copyright problems in using a website in such a manner. I would think not, given that we have done so. On the other hand, copyright issues can make showing a video or DVD to a class more complicated. A class in the San Francisco area can visit the actual site as well.
Techlearning also highlights projects built by students, educators, and organizations. One that caught my eye was a research project on the homeless called Life on the Streets. In the book To Teach, author William Ayers discusses a student who did a project on the homeless. Now with multimedia, a similar project could be shown to a much wider audience – a great advantage if your project is designed to raise social awareness. Techlearning also features a site and product database, as well as news and help sites. One site to check out contains guides on copyright information.
That’s nice, but is Web 2.0 still too drastic a term? What does it mean anyway? Wikipedia offers this definition:
Wikipedia also describes what proponents say makes Web 2.0 unique:
Sounds like a description of many of the features in the sites we have seen. However, does that still warrant a 2.0 label? Some people think that is overdoing it, Wikipedia points out:
---The argument exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts. Note that techniques such as Ajax do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[24] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino. In a podcast interview Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon": "nobody really knows what it means"; and went on to say "if Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."[5] ---
I am more inclined to favor this view. I think you need a bigger, more original advance to use such labels. Regardless, some people are pushing the Web 2.0 idea very hard. One such proponent is Tim O’Reilly. He states that the concept came about from the belief that the dot-com collapse of 2001 was a turning point in the history of the internet. His article contains information about the history of Web 2.0, and the relationship a number of companies have had with it. In fact, these articles on Web 2.0 seem to stress its importance for the world of business, not education (although isn't that the case with everything?). There was Web 2.0 conference last year, and an Expo this April. In fact, it so hot that Wikipedia reports that one company, CMP Media is trying to get the rights to use the term “Web 2.0”.
This raises another problem. How long will it be before someone starts marketing the term Web 3.0 ?
Just to get off topic, has anyone not seen this? Yuk!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tracking Students
ACLU rips districts student-tracking pilot
From eschoolnews
Summary: This article describes how the Middletown school district, in Rhode Island, plans to fit students’ backpacks with radio-frequency identification chips (RFID) to track their movements. About 80 students would have the chips, and the buses they use would be tracked through GPS. According to the district superintendent, the goal is only to monitor where students get on and off the bus to improve efficiency. It would also allow parents to see where the buses are, and if their children are on board. The 80 students, from the Aquidneck School, would be a pilot program; parents could withdraw their children from it. The program is opposed by the ACLU, which is worried about privacy and security. The director of the local chapter of the ACLU argues that other people could buy RFID readers, and use them to track students without consent. The district counters that only they have identification information to match with the ID number. The ACLU does not object to tracking the buses. MAP Information Technology Corp. makes the program, which was approved in November. It is not known how much it would cost to implement such a program district wide.
Response: When I read this article, I was reminded of a scene from The Simpsons. It was when Principal Skinner said that he had a student tracking system, although only one student, Martin Prince, had agreed to wear a monitor. This is bound to be controversial, and there are going to be more episodes where technology and privacy clash in the schoolyard. According to the article, a similar program was proposed in Northern California 3 years ago, but was abandoned after people protested. Eschoolnews also has another article, about how hidden cameras were found in another public school. The student newspaper broke the story – sometimes they do have real news! I remember how in class we heard about how some parent were using the internet and webcams to keep track of their children. It was the case that school life was separate from home life in the sense that parents were not immediately monitoring their children. That clearly is changing.
My View: If parents want to have their students to have these monitoring devices, than that is there choice. They should be allowed to do that. It was interesting though, that while the article contains the views of the school district and the ACLU, no parents are quoted. I would also think if they could probably get the relative information about bus operations without actually wiring the students. Moreover, if the chips were in the backpacks, one would think that students could fool the system. They might want to try to confuse people by swapping bags. I guess though, that it really is up to the parents. Is it really an invasion of privacy for parents to know where there kids are? However, would I agree to be monitored like that? NO!
Questions: There are many potential questions about this plan. How much would it cost? Couldn’t the money be better used somewhere else? How frequently would chips and other components need to be replaced? How do we prevent students from removing or swapping chips? Is it possible to obtain the information about bus operations in some other manner? Than there is the possibility about unauthorized tracking. The school argues that only they have the specific identification information. However, is it not still a problem that an outsider could track a student’s location, even without knowing the student’s name? What other privacy issues in education could arise?
From eschoolnews
Summary: This article describes how the Middletown school district, in Rhode Island, plans to fit students’ backpacks with radio-frequency identification chips (RFID) to track their movements. About 80 students would have the chips, and the buses they use would be tracked through GPS. According to the district superintendent, the goal is only to monitor where students get on and off the bus to improve efficiency. It would also allow parents to see where the buses are, and if their children are on board. The 80 students, from the Aquidneck School, would be a pilot program; parents could withdraw their children from it. The program is opposed by the ACLU, which is worried about privacy and security. The director of the local chapter of the ACLU argues that other people could buy RFID readers, and use them to track students without consent. The district counters that only they have identification information to match with the ID number. The ACLU does not object to tracking the buses. MAP Information Technology Corp. makes the program, which was approved in November. It is not known how much it would cost to implement such a program district wide.
Response: When I read this article, I was reminded of a scene from The Simpsons. It was when Principal Skinner said that he had a student tracking system, although only one student, Martin Prince, had agreed to wear a monitor. This is bound to be controversial, and there are going to be more episodes where technology and privacy clash in the schoolyard. According to the article, a similar program was proposed in Northern California 3 years ago, but was abandoned after people protested. Eschoolnews also has another article, about how hidden cameras were found in another public school. The student newspaper broke the story – sometimes they do have real news! I remember how in class we heard about how some parent were using the internet and webcams to keep track of their children. It was the case that school life was separate from home life in the sense that parents were not immediately monitoring their children. That clearly is changing.
My View: If parents want to have their students to have these monitoring devices, than that is there choice. They should be allowed to do that. It was interesting though, that while the article contains the views of the school district and the ACLU, no parents are quoted. I would also think if they could probably get the relative information about bus operations without actually wiring the students. Moreover, if the chips were in the backpacks, one would think that students could fool the system. They might want to try to confuse people by swapping bags. I guess though, that it really is up to the parents. Is it really an invasion of privacy for parents to know where there kids are? However, would I agree to be monitored like that? NO!
Questions: There are many potential questions about this plan. How much would it cost? Couldn’t the money be better used somewhere else? How frequently would chips and other components need to be replaced? How do we prevent students from removing or swapping chips? Is it possible to obtain the information about bus operations in some other manner? Than there is the possibility about unauthorized tracking. The school argues that only they have the specific identification information. However, is it not still a problem that an outsider could track a student’s location, even without knowing the student’s name? What other privacy issues in education could arise?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Visual Learning
My learning styles analysis seems very imprecise. One thing I noticed was that often either answer would be correct – picking out which one was correct more often could be very difficult. It would have been better if there was some way to account for this.
Regardless, the result suggested my learning styles are for the most part fairly balanced. The one very clear exception to this was on the verbal vs. visual scale, which was totally skewed to the visual side. However imprecise the test may be, I think it was quite correct in this assertion. According to the site’s explanation, most people are more visually oriented, which really is not surprising. We learned to read books with pictures before we read books with text, and than with all text. I do not know if it is common to be on the far left of that scale, like my result was. It does imply that I would be much better operating in visual medium as opposed to an audio one, and that I should seek to use multimedia tools that emphasize visual presentation and avoid the use of those that emphasize audio presentation. There are plenty of projects and activities in education which involve operating in the visual medium, or in both the visual and audio mediums. There seem to be fewer that involve only the audio medium. A exercise that presents infomation in a exclusively audio format would probably be harder for me to follow. Both audio and written text require me to construct images from them in my mind; in a visual format, the images are constructed for me. do other people try to construct images, or do they not need them, either inside their head or out?
Visual elements, besides being appealing to the eye, can convey much more information than text can in a comparable space. However, visual elements can be more than just supplemental, they can also be a central and fundamental part of a course. One example of this from my own experience is when I took a GIS class from a geography department. This course centered on using ESRI’s program ArcView to study and present geographical information, be it economical or social factors, physical geography, or anything else. The imagery was more closely integrated with the technology – it was not just easier to do it on the computer, it had to be done on the computer. And the advantages of the program (and the maps and figures we generated using it) when it came to not just displaying but also analyzing information were enormous.
Visual images (actually, just what other kind of images are there?) are made more interesting by movement – and so video is becoming an increasing common tool in education. The most basic use of this is the presentation of films or videos in class in a traditional method, mainly with a VCR (or, less frequently a movie projector). This has been around for quite awhile. Jerome Bruner’s 1960 book the Process of Education (which we have been reading for 522) discusses it (while stressing it should not replace the teacher). Videos do not have to be shown to inform about a particular subject; they can also be used to generate discussion in general. One person I know who teaches an English composition class recently showed them the documentary movie Flock of Dodos, not so much to teach them about science education, but to provide a subject around which they could write. It would be much less stimulating to attempt this in a different format.
Increasingly, films have shifted from video to online. One example from my current experience here at Drexel is a couple of films we have been viewing online for 520. One is an hour long clip on science education, that provides not only a view of a science exercise, but subsequent analysis of it by a panel of teachers. Another is a series, The Education of Mrs Groves, that consists of several short clips of life at a middle school. The use of films online makes it easier for students to watch them at a more convenient time – freeing up class time.
Watching videos and films is one thing. But what about making them? This has been a much less frequent activity for me, both in high school and in college. When it has been done, it was not really to present information, but rather as an artistic project (often for a Spanish class). Furthermore, it was always done using conventional VCR technology.
In reviewing this, I find two visual tools that attract the most interest from me. One is spatial infomation software, like ArcView. Using this to present infomation in more visual and interactive ways make it attractive. The other would be using computer (as opposed to older video technology) to create short films - and not just for an artistic purpose, but also to present infomation that would normally be presented through static words or images. A project that could make use of both of these would be very attractive to me I think.
Regardless, the result suggested my learning styles are for the most part fairly balanced. The one very clear exception to this was on the verbal vs. visual scale, which was totally skewed to the visual side. However imprecise the test may be, I think it was quite correct in this assertion. According to the site’s explanation, most people are more visually oriented, which really is not surprising. We learned to read books with pictures before we read books with text, and than with all text. I do not know if it is common to be on the far left of that scale, like my result was. It does imply that I would be much better operating in visual medium as opposed to an audio one, and that I should seek to use multimedia tools that emphasize visual presentation and avoid the use of those that emphasize audio presentation. There are plenty of projects and activities in education which involve operating in the visual medium, or in both the visual and audio mediums. There seem to be fewer that involve only the audio medium. A exercise that presents infomation in a exclusively audio format would probably be harder for me to follow. Both audio and written text require me to construct images from them in my mind; in a visual format, the images are constructed for me. do other people try to construct images, or do they not need them, either inside their head or out?
Visual elements, besides being appealing to the eye, can convey much more information than text can in a comparable space. However, visual elements can be more than just supplemental, they can also be a central and fundamental part of a course. One example of this from my own experience is when I took a GIS class from a geography department. This course centered on using ESRI’s program ArcView to study and present geographical information, be it economical or social factors, physical geography, or anything else. The imagery was more closely integrated with the technology – it was not just easier to do it on the computer, it had to be done on the computer. And the advantages of the program (and the maps and figures we generated using it) when it came to not just displaying but also analyzing information were enormous.
Visual images (actually, just what other kind of images are there?) are made more interesting by movement – and so video is becoming an increasing common tool in education. The most basic use of this is the presentation of films or videos in class in a traditional method, mainly with a VCR (or, less frequently a movie projector). This has been around for quite awhile. Jerome Bruner’s 1960 book the Process of Education (which we have been reading for 522) discusses it (while stressing it should not replace the teacher). Videos do not have to be shown to inform about a particular subject; they can also be used to generate discussion in general. One person I know who teaches an English composition class recently showed them the documentary movie Flock of Dodos, not so much to teach them about science education, but to provide a subject around which they could write. It would be much less stimulating to attempt this in a different format.
Increasingly, films have shifted from video to online. One example from my current experience here at Drexel is a couple of films we have been viewing online for 520. One is an hour long clip on science education, that provides not only a view of a science exercise, but subsequent analysis of it by a panel of teachers. Another is a series, The Education of Mrs Groves, that consists of several short clips of life at a middle school. The use of films online makes it easier for students to watch them at a more convenient time – freeing up class time.
Watching videos and films is one thing. But what about making them? This has been a much less frequent activity for me, both in high school and in college. When it has been done, it was not really to present information, but rather as an artistic project (often for a Spanish class). Furthermore, it was always done using conventional VCR technology.
In reviewing this, I find two visual tools that attract the most interest from me. One is spatial infomation software, like ArcView. Using this to present infomation in more visual and interactive ways make it attractive. The other would be using computer (as opposed to older video technology) to create short films - and not just for an artistic purpose, but also to present infomation that would normally be presented through static words or images. A project that could make use of both of these would be very attractive to me I think.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Marc Prensky
Marc Prensky’s uses of the terms “Digital Immigrants” and “Digital Natives” is in many ways appropriate given the considerable differences technology has made in how people learn and what they experience. Inevitably, one question that I have to ask myself is, which group do I belong to? I was born in 1979, so the answer is not as obvious as it would be if I were born in 1950 or 1990.
In many ways, it seems as though I am a Digital Native. My family got a PC when I was very young, and I cannot really remember life without one. I started using computers for educational purposes in elementary school. I grew up playing video and computer games, listening to CDs, and watching TV (and too much of it). I made considerable use of computers for high school classes. In college, I used the internet as my main source of world news, and I started shopping on it. Neither of these activities seemed exotic or difficult to master. I am quite accustomed to using computers and digital databases for research – using their older paper equivalents to find something would almost seem daunting. By the time I was taking math classes calculators had become common. To perform complex functions using tables or other older methods seems archaic and cumbersome. My math teachers brought tables out to show how they had to use them when they were students, back in the “dark ages.” If asked to perform calculations in that way now, I would be unable. I generally do not carry out actions like the “Digital Immigrant Accents” that Prensky describes. Perhaps the biggest single activity indicative of being a native is that I do not think twice about going to the internet to get information – it is where I usually go first. It does not seem strange or novel to read a news source from another part of the world. When some organization calls me on the telephone, I tell them I will check out their website for more information. When I am trying to figure out how to get somewhere, I will often use an internet site like Mapquest rather that use a traditional street map.
However, I am very clearly much less of a digital native than children born later. I was not born into a world that was saturated with digital technology to the extent that it is now. I did not use the internet in any significant capacity until high school. The computers and programs were very crude by today’s standards – I grew up with DOS, not Windows. I listened to walkmans and portable CD players, not Ipods. While I made extensive use of computers in education, for much of the time that was restricted to word processing. Many people younger than me are much more proficient with technology. I often feel like a clumsy oaf compared to them. I may have been born into a digital word, but that world was far less static than it had been in the past. As I was growing up, technology was changing both education and society in general. I was not born into the world those changes created. Instead, the world I was born into, although already filled with technology, would be very different by the time I reached college.
This fact was demonstrated recently when I visited an elementary school. I helped several children to use the internet site Yahooligans to do a research exercise on Martin Luther King, and two things became apparent because of it. One was that the second graders were using the internet, something I did not do until high school. The second was that I thought it was odd they told me that they had not used the internet before, even though I was years away from doing so when I was their age. So perhaps on closer examination splitting people into either Digital Immigrants or Digital Natives is too simplistic. As for the idea that the brains of Native and Immigrants are different, I am not sure that I like it. It might mean that my brain is something of a missing link.
In many ways, it seems as though I am a Digital Native. My family got a PC when I was very young, and I cannot really remember life without one. I started using computers for educational purposes in elementary school. I grew up playing video and computer games, listening to CDs, and watching TV (and too much of it). I made considerable use of computers for high school classes. In college, I used the internet as my main source of world news, and I started shopping on it. Neither of these activities seemed exotic or difficult to master. I am quite accustomed to using computers and digital databases for research – using their older paper equivalents to find something would almost seem daunting. By the time I was taking math classes calculators had become common. To perform complex functions using tables or other older methods seems archaic and cumbersome. My math teachers brought tables out to show how they had to use them when they were students, back in the “dark ages.” If asked to perform calculations in that way now, I would be unable. I generally do not carry out actions like the “Digital Immigrant Accents” that Prensky describes. Perhaps the biggest single activity indicative of being a native is that I do not think twice about going to the internet to get information – it is where I usually go first. It does not seem strange or novel to read a news source from another part of the world. When some organization calls me on the telephone, I tell them I will check out their website for more information. When I am trying to figure out how to get somewhere, I will often use an internet site like Mapquest rather that use a traditional street map.
However, I am very clearly much less of a digital native than children born later. I was not born into a world that was saturated with digital technology to the extent that it is now. I did not use the internet in any significant capacity until high school. The computers and programs were very crude by today’s standards – I grew up with DOS, not Windows. I listened to walkmans and portable CD players, not Ipods. While I made extensive use of computers in education, for much of the time that was restricted to word processing. Many people younger than me are much more proficient with technology. I often feel like a clumsy oaf compared to them. I may have been born into a digital word, but that world was far less static than it had been in the past. As I was growing up, technology was changing both education and society in general. I was not born into the world those changes created. Instead, the world I was born into, although already filled with technology, would be very different by the time I reached college.
This fact was demonstrated recently when I visited an elementary school. I helped several children to use the internet site Yahooligans to do a research exercise on Martin Luther King, and two things became apparent because of it. One was that the second graders were using the internet, something I did not do until high school. The second was that I thought it was odd they told me that they had not used the internet before, even though I was years away from doing so when I was their age. So perhaps on closer examination splitting people into either Digital Immigrants or Digital Natives is too simplistic. As for the idea that the brains of Native and Immigrants are different, I am not sure that I like it. It might mean that my brain is something of a missing link.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)