Month: February 2003

I work in a psychology department so my professional interests (technology, education) are a little out of the mainstream for my colleagues. Like all of us with diverse interests that bring us into contact with diverse groups of people, every once in a while, there is an intersection of interest areas that offers a unique perspective typically not noted by those totally focused on a specific area. (Now with this build up, I hope you find the following post to be interesting.)

I have been reading a review paper written by a graduate student (Brent King) focused on the topic of Internet Addiction. His paper considers various theoretical perspectives on Internet Addition before attempting to argue for a behavioral model of addiction. I was aware of a couple of studies in this area (e.g., Kraut, et al – Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and well being, American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031), but I had no idea that this “problem” was receiving the amount of attention that it has.

One study that caught my eye (Kandell – Internet addition on campus: The vulnerability of college students. Cyberpsychologgy and Behavior, 1, 11-17) argues that college students are particularly vulnerable to Internet Addiction. This vulnerability is a combination of:
a) Characteristics of the Internet — active, controllable
b) Developmental sensitivities of typical college students – engaged in identify formation, desire for meaningful, intimate relationships — alternate online identities may be perceived as safe
c) Characteristics of the environment — free time, easy access to the net, expectation that students use Internet as a productivity tool

What strikes me about this list is that I would consider all of these to be positive opportunities — including the fact that college itself is an environment that encourages the exploration of alternate values, vocational possibilities, belief systems (at least as I read the psycho-socio developmental literature). I suppose there is a problem when one becomes so infatuated with the “Internet world” that it replaces reality. I sometimes wonder the same thing about those of us who have spent our lives in college settings — certain properties of this “life” offer an alternative to what some would argue is reality. I think I have found a new addiction — perpetual student — the addiction to college life.

Internet addiction? Sitting here in my office, by myself, typing away to a faceless and perhaps fabricated audience, I am starting to become concerned. Time to go home and watch television.

This is interesting. A report just surfaced claiming that Google has purchased Pyra (the company responsible for Blogger.Com). Collecting innovative Internet technologies under one roof I guess.

Steven Levy, one of my favorite technology authors (see Hackers, Insanely Great), has an article on Google in the Dec. 16, 2002, issue of Newsweek. I have to admit I did not know Levy was a Newsweek editor. I have always associated him with his books.

The Levy article provides interesting insights into the business, technology and social phenomenon that is Google.com.

Google is the 4th most popular destination of the web. It contributes to searches offered by the 1st (AOL) and 3rd (Yahoo) most popular sites.

Google makes money by licensing its search technology and from ads targeted to searches. However, the ads are delivered in a separate screen area and in text so as not to annoy searchers. Web users seem to be annoyed by ads in general, but tolerate and may even find the Google approach of value.

The major advantage of Google is the ability to quickly offer the answers searchers want. Sounds obvious – but this objective is difficult to achieve. The goal might be translated as the hits at the top of the list generated by the search must satisfy the question users have in mind (see Get Lucky option – take me immediately to the top site on the list). Major contribution to this success seems to be PageRank – using information about other sites linking to target site to assess usefulness.

The article identifies many applications of Google I would not think of. For example, check out the background of a potential date. I found http://googlefight.com/ kind of interesting. Enter two search phrases (e.g., people) and see which has the greatest online popularity. I tried Mark Grabe vs. Cindy Grabe. Any guesses? Google has become a what of doing things.

It all started quite innocently enough. It appears some educators see potential in the humble handheld. I had always thought of mine as a way to keep track of my appointments. Perhaps I should investigate. Step 1 – upgrade from Palm V to Palm 505. Now, I appear to have a slightly more expensive version of what I originally used to keep track of my appointments. I can??t say I see any new ??essential?? uses, but I will keep my eyes open and try new ideas as they arise.

I am having difficulty with the 505 when I try to go mobile (walk across campus). I go somewhere, take notes, update my calendar, etc., get back to my office and find that the 505 has frozen up. I don??t mean frozen up in the sense that I live in North Dakota and when it is -20 (like today) things get cold. I mean the Palm stops working until I poke a paperclip through the little hole in the back and restart it. This activity somewhat defeats the purpose of carrying it around to gather information to bring back to my office.

Like a good technology user, I go online and visit the Palm web site. I learn that the 505 appears to have some design flaw that results in a static charge causing difficulty and I am entitled to a new cradle. I call up customer support and ask about this difficulty. Sure enough, they will send me a new cradle. However, I suggest that the static issue may come into play before the Palm is inserted in the cradle. It seems to me that carrying the Palm in your coat pocket in the dry and cold season (translated winter in North Dakota) may cause similar static problems that have nothing to do with the cradle. What could I do about this problem? I could buy a case to carry my Palm in my pocket. I thought I might just carry my Palm in my backpack instead. Did I want them to ship the new cradle? No, I said, that has never been a problem.

I notice that a couple of my colleagues are starting to bring their Palms to meetings and they then assemble a sort of folded-up keyboard that allows them to take notes. Perhaps I should get one of these keyboards so that I can retain my status as a tech-savvy guy. I could carry my Palm and this keyboard in my backpack instead of my laptop.

Again, I go online and visit the Palm site. It turns out I can purchase a new portable keyboard for $79. However, I could also purchase a ??refurbished?? keyboard for $49. I decide to purchase a refurbished keyboard and a travel charger. Since I am now going to carry my Palm with me to gather all of the very important things I must know and remember, I don??t want to run out of power if I am away from my desk for lengthy periods of time. Perhaps, a short battery life is why my Palm freezes up on my cross-campus journeys.

A week plus or minus a day or two later, the box from the Palm store arrives. Sure enough – a charger and a genuine fold-up keyboard. I open the plastic wrapped keyboard and attempt to connect my Palm (being careful not to generate any static electricity). The plug-in on the keyboard does not seem to match the connector on the bottom of the Palm. I am not pleased.

When you order an item from the Palm store, you are sent several emails to assure you that progress is being made in getting the merchandise you have purchased into your hands. First, you receive an email verifying that your order has been received. A couple of days later you receive an email indicating that your order has been shipped including a link to the FEDEX site so you can track your package as it makes the journey across the country. There is also a link to the Palm Store so you can contact customer service.

The problem is soon apparent to me. I ordered item P10802U-REF (REF for refurbished I assume) and I was sent item P10713U. I immediately find the last email from Palm and use the link to find “customer service.” It turns out I can simply send an email and explain my problem. Hey- I ordered item P10802U-REF for my 505 and you send me a keyboard that will not connect. A few hours later I receive a reply – the P10802U-REF is the proper keyboard for your 505. If this product is defective you can call Technical Support at 847-262-7256.

I try a second time. Actually, I first use Google to look up P10713U so I can explain that the Palm store has sent me the keyboard for whatever Palm instead of the 505. Google is amazing and sure enough Palm and P10713U do identify a product. This is a keyboard for the 105 and several older modles. I also learn there are many sources for P10713Us out there and I could buy one for $14 if I wanted. Armed with this new information, I construct another email. Do not pay any attention to the packing slip. I am not claiming the P10802U-REF would not work with my Palm. I am claiming you sent me a different keyboard. I am certain this is not the keyboard for the 505. There are only 10 pins on the connector for the keyboard and the 505, the 505 cradle and the 505 power supply all have more. The connector also is at least a quarter inch wider than the opening on the 505 so it would be impossible to join these two devices, Perhaps you grabbed this one out of the wrong bin in the warehouse.

I have yet to receive a reply to this email. It may have been the comment about the alternate sources for $14 keyboards. I was just concerned that Palm might need to restock.

Next day – I wait until after 10 – would not want to contact a west coast employee too early in the morning. I call the number for technical support. I am now connected to some type of decision tree — at some point along the line I am informed that I may be asked to pay a fee because my Palm was purchased several months ago (I am not worried), I enter my phone number, press the pound sign and begin to listen to music interspersed with information about Palm products. It is not exactly the day to try to sell me something. I am also told that my call may be monitored. I hope so! Finally, Mike is on the line, He needs to know my phone number. Then my last name. It turns I out I don??t exist – at least in the Palm database. I have purchased two Palms I offer – hoping he will not hang up. My wife bought them for me. I begin to tell the story of ordering a refurbished keyboard for my Palm – the P10802U-REF to be exact. But, I was sent the P10713U. Don??t bother to look that up – it is not really the keyboard I need, but I could get one for $14 (I am starting to have flashbacks to the song Alice??s Restaurant, but this may not offer any insight to any of you who are not of my generation). The connector will not work, but I don??t think this is really a technical problem, I was simply sent the wrong item. This item has only 10 connector pins and is too wide, etc. I was right Mike said – this is not the correct keyboard for a 505. Finally, I have reached someone who understands. Now – Wait a minute, it turns out Mike is from technical support. You need to talk with someone at the Palm Store, Mike says. I will connect you — don’t worry if the connection goes dead for a few moments. Just a minute, I say, do you know anything about the static problem in the 505. Too late – Mike is gone. I wait. It is Mike again – what is your phone number again?

A few minutes later, without any concern on my part that my connection had gone dead, I hear a woman??s voice. Can I help you? I proceeded to tell her the entire story of my quest for a fold-up keyboard. How, I ordered a P10802U-REF, but was sent a P10713U which actually the wrong keyboard and quite overpriced at that. What should I do? I would be sent a label so I could send my keyboard (the P10713U) back without charge. Would I be sent a P10802U-REF?, I want to know. We don??t have a P10802U-REF in stock, I was told. Did you have a P10802U-REF, when you filled my original order?, I ask.

Possibly not was the reply.

For $30 more, we will credit your order toward a brand new keyboard. That was it for me. May I speak with your supervisor, please.

Insert entire story of the P10802U-REF at this point. Sure enough, my options are to pay $30 or to be awarded credit for the P10713U (or whatever). Credit toward what – I wanted to know? Will you give me credit for this phone call (now going on 40 minutes)? So, I asked, who do you assume made a mistake in this situation. Why is it that after two hours of my time and a 40 minute long distance phone call, my only way to obtain a keyboard from Palm is to pay $30. I could have made the trip to my local Best Buy 2 weeks ago for the same price, without this phone call, and for considerably less aggravation. Our policies do not allow us to reimburse you for your time or expense and unfortunately we do not have the item you ordered two weeks ago.

Hmm – Thanks for your time, I said. Next time I will call customer support (this last comment was unnecessary and I apologize).

I am sorry you had to read all of this. However, I needed to find some way to get something out of this particular life experience. I guess it is like Arlo Guthrie said – you can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant (I mean the Palm Store)

Still in quest of the illusive P10802U-REF. Anyone need an overpriced P10713U?

By the way, the lyrics for Alice’s Restaurant are available online.

Another alert provided by Andy Carvin

The Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology grant program (PT3), a popular federal program that assists colleges of education to develop effective edtech teacher training, is facing the chopping block under the White House’s proposed 2004 budget. In four years, PT3 has given out $337.5 million in the form of 441 grants going to universities that partner with local school districts. John Bailey, Director of Education Technology at the US Department of Education, says that edtech rofessional development would be better served if federal funds were distributed to states via block grants. “The president is not saying that it’s not important for our teachers to learn how to use technology,” Bailey said. “We do believe that’s important. In the end, we’re still achieving the same goal, we’re just doing it from another program that’s out there.” But Don Knezek, director of the National Center for PT3 and CEO of the International Society for Technology and Education, could not disagree more. “Eliminating funding for the PT3 program, unless the legislature elects to maintain it despite the president’s recommendation, will bring an end to the most effective and far-reaching federally supported new teacher improvement program in recent decades,” he said. “What we’re losing is that overarching piece that looks at the (teacher preparation) issue as a national issue,” he said. “I believe that it’s a national crisis, and it requires a national effort.” [SOURCE: Wired News, AUTHOR: Katie Dean]
http://www.wired.com/news/school/0,1383,57583,00.html)

The fourth edition of our book will not contain a discussion of the potential benefits of programming experiences (we will expand our online resources in this area for those instructors who are interested). This change reflects the reality of general educational interest in this topic and the need to contain costs so the text can be offered at a reasonable price.

I must admit I enjoy programming — it is kind of a hobby that has some utility as I pursue my professional interests. It can become a challenge to separate personal interests from issues of benefit or efficiency.

Our original presentation of “programming as a tool for learning” focused on LOGO, Papert’s concept of microworlds, and studies of programming experiences as a way to develop problem-solving skills. We later expanded this approach to include other “manipulative environments” such as LegoLogo and Stagecast Creator. We admit to playing a little loose with some of the ideals and ideas of microworlds. You can’t explore all of the nuances of complex ideas in a limited amount of space.

I was moved to bring up the microworld idea again as a consequence of the special issue of the Journal of Educational Computing Research (27(1&2)) which is focused entirely on microworlds. To encompass the variety of papers, the editors define microworlds as “a small, coherent computer environment consisting of tools, structures, and activities that reflect a domain of math or science (because this was the focus of the issue) (Sarama & Clements, p. 2).

Papert offers an article that focuses on the history and potential of microworlds (using Logo as a example). This is a very interesting piece on multiple levels. There is a general comment on the resistance of the institution of education to change (see Cuban and others for descriptions, but a little different explanation). Papert describes “school” as a system of components that have evolved to be mutually supportive. Efforts to change one component (methods of instruction) encounter resistance from other components (e.g., curriculum, evaluation) bringing the system back to the starting point. As an explanation, this makes a lot of sense to me. As a consequence, change to be stable must be systemic. This is the point at which I start to become more careful. I strongly support continued experimentation based on new ideas and the integration of a reasonable number of alternative experiences in most settings. So — call me a wimp.

Papert sees some potential in technology as a systematic change agent because it has influenced society independent of “school” creating pressure for a paradigm shift. Technology is creating an increasingly cultural discordance between schools and society.

He also claims that school culture seems to be able to regularize innovations. If you have followed Papert’s work, it is very evident he has been strongly influenced by work with Piaget. He sees this regularization as assimilation. He remains optimistic that accommodation is still coming (hence the title – the turtle’s long slow trip).

Here is a message I am passing along from Andy Carvin’s WWWEDU list

For those of us working on PT3 grants (or probably other grants identified on this list), the final statement from Secretary Rod Paige is frustrating. More on this topic if I can figure out what prompts this claim.

BUSH 2004 BUDGET CALLS FOR $144.5 MILLION IN CUTS FOR ED TECH
President Bush’s proposed 2004 budget calls for a $2.4 billion increase for the US Department of Education, but the increase is paired with cuts in technology-related programming totaling almost $145 million. Programs slated for cuts include Community Technology Centers ($32.5 million), Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, or PT3($62.5 million), Ready to Teach ($12 million), Regional Technology in Education Consortia ($10 million), and Star Schools ($27.5 million) – all programs that Bush proposed cutting in FY 2003. “In these times of tight budgets and accountability, we can no longer continue to fund programs that simply are not helping students achieve,” argued Education Secretary Rod Paige.

[SOURCE: eSchool News](http://www.eschoolnews.com/) Note – you can ask for a free subscription if you are denied access.

OK – here seems to a key concept of the present administration – Paige claims “increased funding doesn’t seem to be the way to improve student achievement – but reform, flexibility, and local control. ” Translated — you spend money on what you feel needs to be addressed. So – this turns out not to be about an empirical approach as previous statements might lead you to believe (unless you are willing to accept the logic that “the way money was spent before has not achieved the desired consequences”). This is about a political position – local decision making is best.