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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)