A CNN news item contends that young learners are perhaps limiting their development of cursive skills because of a preference for the keyboard. This seems a classic case of unintended consequences of technology (someone should add this to the list) and also an example of the reality of activities competing for the limited time available in our lives.
I am going to spend most of the summer in Grand Forks by myself. Cindy is in Japan and Kim (youngest daughter) is biking cross country through a program called Bike and Build (Habitat for Humanity).
Both called last night (Father’s Day is today). Kim was staying a church basement somewhere in New Hampshire and Cindy was in Tokyo (her room has full internet access, but she has trouble manipulating the computer because of limited language skills). Both have phone cards – Cindy says her 1260 minute card is worth a little over 100.
Both also have blogs. Cindy’s blog is pretty elaborate – I see this morning that she has incorporated short videos – one of a jellyfish (image below is a jpg). She is using the blog as an open diary of her adventures. This will be pretty cool if she can keep at it.
Bike and Build team members take turns generating the entries for their blog. Uploading the entries is a challenge.
Microsoft announced on Friday that it will release no new versions of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh. So, it is time for you Mac fans to download and become familiar with Apple’s Safari or Mozilla or Netscape Naviator.
The May 29 issue of Nature contains an article claiming that playing video games (shooters) can improve certain cognitive skills. We are talking “the brain changes as the result of experience” type claims. The position that such experiences have some very real redeeming qualities (beyond being fun) is in stark contrast to those who see the dark side of such games (see CNN news article). While I am not ready to assign Doom as homework quite yet, the development of these contrasting claims will be interesting to follow.
Those of us in higher ed typically bristle at claims that we work in an ivory tower. The implication is that we are unaware of how things work in the “real world.” I prefer to understand such complaints as the lack of an understanding that people often function in “parallel universes” – this view encourages the perspective that groups share the blame for any lack of understanding or common interest rather than assuming the problem is owned by one group.
I learned at the conference I attended this week that North Dakota has a State Technology Plan. This plan outlines expectations for schools, teachers, and students. I was vaguely aware of such documents because of the recent Ed Week special report that indicated states have technology plan and even the awareness the U.S. is working on a technology plan (see blog of 6/6 – you can participate). Such plans are significant. States are strongly encouraged to develop plans by linking the presence of such plans to federal dollars. States “encourage” individual schools through the same mechanism.
I am surprised that there are not more discussions among those of us involved in the preparation of teachers and those working to assure the competence of practicing teachers. I am not certain that “just in time learning” is always the most efficient approach or is always possible. I understand that universities value their independence and do not assume the teachers they prepare will all work within the state. I also understand that we explore ideas that may prove impractical. These are just different perspectives on the same goals. There must be more opportunities to develop a shared vision (or at least overlapping visions) and responsibility.
Check out your state technology plan. You should be able to locate it online.
The North Dakota K-12 technology conference (Teaching and Technology) is this week. The keynote presentation was given by Susan Patrick U.S. Education Department Office of Educational Technology (sorry about the image – I wanted to emphasize the message on the screen). The message — there is a major role for technology in NLCB. Integrating technology to improve student and school performance is the key. Access to technology is no longer sufficient to generate federal support for school proposals.
I enjoy attending sessions and I try to pick out things I need to learn about. I can take pictures of Cindy without permission.
More tomorrow on some of the sessions (even on Windows products).
One observation – after listening to the keynote (technology integration as viewed from the federal level) and also attending a session on the state technology plan (pretty much the same message) – I started paying attention to the attendance in other sessions. Those who attended sessions seemed to prefer “how to do it sessions” over sessions emphasizing curriculum examples. I wonder why? Perhaps many feel they have yet to get to the point at which they feel integrating technology is possible. Perhaps classroom integration is very teacher, school, and content area specific so that there is less interest in how someone else does it. Perhaps people who pay to attend technology conferences really enjoy learning about the technology and will worry about the planning stuff when they get back home.
This question is often a good way to generate some discussion (or a minor riot). Search Engine Watch is an online source for lots of information about search engines. Recently, Associte Editor Chris Sherman attempted to generate an answer to this question by asking the search engines. The answer – “Even the search engines themselves can’t agree.