Month: October 2006

I encountered a post that seems a natural follow up to my own post on supplementing student note taking. The author of A Teachers Life offers some links that seem to focus on the Cornell Notetaking system. If I remember, the Cornell system suggests that students divide a note taking into two columns – taking notes in one column and “reprocessing” in the second column.

I wonder what the digital equivalent of such a system might be? Any system for saving text (even WP) would allow reprocessing in ways that would not be efficient on paper. Wiki-type tools (e.g., Notemesh) would seem promising as a way for students to collaborate on note-taking, improve the quality of notes generated by any one individual, and access a set of quality notes for review.

The idea of using technology to integrate and leverage modest contributions made by many people appeals to me. Some may expect far more of technology, but while we are waiting for these grand visions to pan out, why not simply try to identify the type of things that present technology does very well. My list (without devoting much thought) would include:

1. Store large amounts of information
2. Search large amounts of information
3. Provide access from anywhere and at any time
4. Do math stuff

These simple characteristics provide the basis for “social software.” Individuals connecting when convenient add information to a collective pool (access and storage). Such information may take many forms (audio, text, etc.) and be differentiated on multiple dimensions (data, metadata). Some metadata (e.g., votes, rankings) might be processed in a quantitative fashion (the math thing). The value in these processes results from aggregating both information and wisdom.

The challenge in successful applications (e.g. wikipedia) probably has more to do with psychology than technology. No matter how low the barrier to participation, something must motivate a critical mass of individuals to make contributions. I am assuming the motivational issues may even change across the history of a particular product or service. Getting something started – the early stages – is probably the most difficult. While it may be easier to make a significant contribution while little is in place, there is less assurance at that stage that a final useful product will ever materialize.

I have been working on my own little social software experiment. I am working to develop a social bookmarking site specifically focused on technology in education. The idea is to accumulate a collection of useful web sites, descriptions, tags, and ratings.

It is the cost/benefit thing I have yet to figure out. There is some effort in visiting such a site and using it to explore. In my own project, I think I am past the point at which this is the problem – people visit and use the resources (simple stats). However, there is a larger amount of effort in contributing sites, tags, and ratings. Unfortunately, there is an even greater amount of effort in registering to use the site. My situation requires that I demand this level of inconvenience and sharing of personal information (with me only) before I can offer the opportunity to spend more time to actually contribute information to the site. Not a good combination.

I do not feel I have much of a choice. My experience with blogging (this site) is that unless registration is required the amount of personal effort I must spend to deal with spam and other forms of inappropriate content is simply too much. My host (my university) would get upset if I operated a site that ignored the issue of inappropriate content. Commercial sites do not have to operate according to the same standards and tend not to worry too much about those in education.

For the next 19 days, you have the opportunity to contribute an artifact to Yahoo!’s Time Capsule. Your contribution could be in the form of text, an image, a video – something that can be represented in a digital format. A contribution is intended to fit within a theme – beauty, fun, home, faith, sorrow, etc.

Recent posts appear within a whirling globe of documents for your examination (see below). Click on a document and view the contents.

On Nov. 8, the contents will be sealed and stored by the Smithsonian.

Perhaps the most interesting feature of the project is the international perspective. You can view documents organized by theme, but you can also view themes organized by language – One World, Many Voices. Very cool!

You might want to take a look at K12Online Conference (2006). The conference “presentations” will be posted beginning the week of October 23. The conference appears to be an attempt to mimic the experiences of a traditional (FTF) conference in a virtual setting. It appears you can even apply for grad credit if you are so inclined. A preconference keynote by David Warlick is already available.

I just returned from the Midwestern Educational Research Association (MWERA) conference. The juxtaposition of these two “conferences” might represent an opportunity to consider conferences as professional development opportunities. The trip to Columbis, OH, probably cost me about $1000 (trip, room, food) and part of the question becomes whether there is enough benefit in a FTF conference to justify the expense. In a way, this is a specific case of the more general issue of how FTF and online experiences differ.

What benefits do I experience out of a conference?

• Exposure to keynotes and presentations
• Exposure to vendor wares
• Free form opportunities for conversation with colleagues
• Opportunity to explore a new place

Options to these experiences may exist in a virtual space (including images from the remote location). I am guessing that the key issues will involve a) comparative satisfaction with these experiences and b) finances (who is willing to pay for what – spend money to go, spend money to expose participants to products, pay money to encourage presentations by people the rest of us want to “learn” from).

One of the “techniques” we employ when we write is to take “nay-sayers” arguments and turn them back on those individuals. For example, some have argued that technology removes students from “real” experiences. The suggestion might be that students studying biology would be required to experience the living world through a computer screen and that this would not be a good thing. The issue is really whether what you claim to happen really happens. In response to those who assume technology advocates are encouring a focus on biology from the keyboard, we suggested that what biology students experience when they are allowed to explore their environment might be improved if they used cameras, probes, etc. and then return to their classrooms to process the artifacts they have created during their experience. We provide examples from our work settings and it becomes clear that what we demonstrate is not “your father’s or mother’s field trip”. Take this approach in exploring the conference experience. Perhaps what some suggest is a benefit of either the virtual or FTF experience is really accomplished in a better fashion in the other setting.

There will be more as this experience unfolds. I encourage you to at least take a look.

I read a recent blog post (which I seem unable to locate to cite here – add a comment if you recognize the source for such comments) concerning the culture of fear that has developed around all things online. In addition to our collective fascination with various gloomy topics, our focus is maintained by those who profit from turning the capture of online predators into reality TV or who raise concerns and then offer their advice as authors or consultants.

I like Art Wolinsky’s wiredsafety site and the approach taken there. The online videos are a nice resource teachers might use.