Month: January 2008

Sorting Out the Agendas

I have been interested in the $100 laptop since I first learned about the project in 2005. When the opportunity to purchase an XO (the name for the first version to ship) as part of a buy one / give one plan became available we made the commitment (Our XO ).

Of late, the grand plan seems to be growing confused. The price point has changed at least temporarily – the $100 laptop is now $200. Perhaps this is inflation, but it is more likely the inability to operate on the needed scale. I understand the buy one/ give one plan was an effort to increase the number of machines to be produced even if all of the machines did not go their target audience. The scale issue comes up in some other ways. Clearly, there is no longer a single plan and there may now be several vendors interested in offering a low price, educationally focused machine (Intel dispute with OLPD – New York Times; Intel quits one laptop per child). There is also the dispute regarding the operating system – UNIX vs/and Windows (Negroponte at CES is positive about eventual connection with Windows). It is even unclear if the OLPC agenda is now focused exclusively on other countries or has been modified to allow some U.S. schools to participate (Birmingham in deal to bring XO to students. (eSchool News)). This last issue is strange – if U.S. sales are to be part of the model, limiting access in any way seems a very bad idea. As a developer, I find it difficult to spend too much time with the machine exploring possibilities without the opportunity to field test ideas (meaning machines available in local schools). I can see no U.S. sales. I can see open U.S. sales. I don’t get a few projects here or there when the original model asked for buy in to support projects elsewhere.

I think competition is great. I think exploring competing educational models is great. I hope other agendas (power/visibility/control, profit, platform exclusivity) do not dilute and confuse the original goal. Let’s get some machines in the field and let other issues work themselves out based on what students are able to accomplish.

Blogged with Flock

Loading

Communicating in Email

I came across a brief Wired post exploring the inability to communicate actual intent in email. The Wired articled referenced “recent” research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Epley and Kruger.

The Wired article refers to Epley and Kruger in stating:

The researchers took 30 pairs of undergraduate students and gave each one a list of 20 statements about topics like campus food or the weather. Assuming either a serious or sarcastic tone, one member of each pair e-mailed the statements to his or her partner. The partners then guessed the intended tone and indicated how confident they were in their answers.

Evidently, those receiving the messages understood the tone at about chance level.

I think this and the explanation of the researchers (we are egocentric and know what we want to convey and assume that the message says that) is interesting and should be part of the message when talking with teachers about email. Evidently, we often lack the metacognitive ability to differentiate the meaning in our head from the meaning on the screen until we receive the reply indicating we have been misunderstood.

I wanted to read the original work and tried to locate the authors and theme in Google Scholar. The Wired article does not provide a reference.

I found Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J. & Ng, A. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: We communicate as well as we think? JPSP, 89, 925-935. The article does deal with egocentrism and email, but the Wired piece leads with comments from the experiments and seems to imply newer work.

Blogged with Flock

Loading

CES 2007

This is the week for CES – the massive Computer Electronics Show that serves as an opportunity to become acquainted with new technology tools and software.

For those who think I only follow Mac projects and prophets, here is a link to the Bill Gates keynote (use this page to select your connect speed). Gates is not the showperson that Jobs is, but his vision cannot be disputed.

If you don’t care about the next big thing (or one more thing), it appears that CES offers some other opportunities. The show will also allow Negroponte and others the opportunity to advance their ideas for the application of technology to the solution of serious world problems.

Stay tuned.

Blogged with Flock

Loading

Here is my response

The Gates Tip Line includes a recent post in which the host asks for replies to a teachers negative analysis of Prensky’s comments (I did not see the phrase “engage me or enrage me”, but this is the type of comment that Prensky uses). The host was disappointed with the lack of response to the request for responses to the teacher. I attempted to add a comment, but the options appear to require that you identify yourself through a commercial blog service or OpenID. I will add my comment here. By the time I read the comments, some had already made the effort to reply. I have excerpted one comment I would like to address:

The teacher’s statements above fly in the face of what the last two decades of psychological research have found (which (surprise!) support constructivist models of learning rather than a transmission model of education!). ‘Guide on the side,’ not ‘sage on the stage.’ As much as possible, discovery- and inquiry-based learning rather than lecture and regurgitation.

I don’t like phrases like “regurgitation”. These discussions should be about data and sound judgment. We can leave the defamatory phrases to the politicians. If you mean memorization, say so. I do agree that education should attempt to require more than memorization. Lecturing, like books, is an information delivery system. Hopefully, learners are capable of using information, however they encounter it, as the starting point for learning. The constructivist model, as I understand it, suggests we all understand by attempting to interpret experiences (including lectures I assume) based on our existing personal knowledge.

I would sincerely like to be made aware of the research mentioned here (please provide references). If you have followed my recent and past comments, I have not read what I consider quality research supporting the “child-centered” position. I have read many books and articles on the topic and I have myself added to this material, but these are not research papers. As I have said, I can direct you to reviews of research by Sweller; Chall; Mayer; and Lesgold that are quite critical. You have to consult these reviews for the specific studies that are available. So, there are many studies arguing the negative side of this debate.

Perhaps this is a matter of differences in definition – constructivism and child-centered are difficult to operationalize. I am not attempting to bait anyone here, but since blog hosts are appealing to general readership for help and information. If we can switch the discussion to the data, please help by offering references the rest of us can review. I have already read negative reviews, where are the positive studies?????

Chall, J. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom. Guilford.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Lesgold, A. (2001). The nature and methods of learning by doing. American Psychologist, 56(11), 964-973.

Mayer, R. (2001). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.

Loading

An Inconvenient Truth

This post is chronologically inaccurate, but the order in which you are reading this material is possibly more interesting.

Front sidewalk

I took this picture a few minutes ago. This is my front sidewalk. In a way, it is a remarkable image. What you see is water between the snow banks. This is January 6 in Grand Forks, North Dakota. According to the Weather Underground, the average high for the day is 15. The temperature at 3 today was 41. My little story would have been more spectacular if this was an all-time record, but alas this was not the case. In 1990, it made it to 43. I was here for that day as well.

I purchased An Inconvenient Truth from the iTunes music store before Christmas. I own an iPod Touch and the plan was to watch the movie while on the road over break. I finally watched most of the movie today while I worked out. This documentary is very compelling and I highly recommend it. I would like to say it was enough to get me to move from the powered elliptical to a self powered stationary bike, but this would not be true. I have written on the topic of this documentary before, but each time I am exposed to the information I feel the need to comment again (see this TED talk). I guess it was the connection between the content of the documentary and the view out the window of the health club that prompted this post.

Of course, any single event offers little proof of a trend. However, it seems to me that I have experienced a large number of record temperatures. The data are there. As I looked for the records for the day (43, -31), it occurred to me that student projects might be derived from these data. For example, I wonder how many record temperatures were set in the past 5 years.

Blogged with Flock

Loading

Role of "The Institution”

Will Richardson offers a recent post focused on personal development. The post begins with the modest proposal that one might acquire an MBA (unofficial) by reading appropriate material while simultaneously engaging in related conversations (online I assume). It was unclear who such conversations would connect you with. I assume it would not be Guy Kawasaki or George Leonard, the examples given of authors appropriate to the proposed MBA, and I assume it would not only involve other like minded seekers of knowledge or one would have the “blind leading the blind”. Perhaps this model assumes the participation of business professionals who would serve as mentors (funding source unknown) in what might optimistically be described as a learning community. It appears the community is also to provide the contacts needed in the eventual transition from “student” to employee.

I am all for continued personal professional development (hence the name of this blog) and assume that continued growth is one of those factors that brings enjoyment and success in nearly any profession. However, I am also a member of the education establishment; the folks responsible for the $100,000 bill the hypothetical student might build up in earning an MBA (not at my institution). I am still working for an institution because I share some of the assumptions on which institutions operate and possibly because I could not get enough gigs as a convention speaker or workshop leader to support myself. It is difficult to fashion a role as member of the establishment into an edgy or sexy image. However, rather than ignore “new proposals”, my training is to examine the logic and raise questions.

Here are some questions:

Do individuals have the motivation and understanding to explore a broad range of topics at an appropriate level of mastery? How many individuals have the appropriate vision and determination and who makes the decision regarding which are true believers and which are simply pretenders?
    There is a large body of research (e.g., Lesgold; Mayer; Sweller; Chall) that indicates self-guided education is substandard. To be fair, some do offer counter positions (e.g., Downes). My analysis is that the data presently favor the position that self-guidance as a general approach is a bad idea. I think it is very possible self-guided learning is a great idea for some individuals and perhaps for some purposes, but I think we are presently unable to identify the factors that would guide the identification of who this subset of individuals would be and what the circumstances might be. Perhaps “hobby” learning is great for areas of personal interest and when no one actually must depend on our skills/products BEFORE making commitments to us.

How are comparative decisions regarding who knows and can do what made? I sometimes tell my students that they only pay part of my salary – the state pays the rest. In addition to assisting students acquire knowledge and skills, I must made comparative judgments regarding the mastery of the knowledge and skills of others. This process is intended to inform and guide my students, but also to offer information to employers, graduate programs, etc.  If I only concentrated on the development of the students I work with, I would be ignoring this other responsibility.

Many of the issues that come to my mind in considering collaborative, self-directed education remind my of the “vocational school” complaints that often arise within higher education when institutions become too closely aligned with business/industry or when humanities programs feel they are being threatened. What would compel a student to learn a language, take biochemistry, calculus or philosophy, or take an art class if the imposed curriculum did not force future doctors, psychologists, or engineers into some of these options.

The “de-institutionalization” of education would leave many other gaps (service, research), but it is Saturday morning and I have real work to do so I will wait to see if this discussion advances before I take the time to continue.

Blogged with Flock

Loading

More on “Fair Use”

Here a few more comments related to yesterday’s post on “fair use” in educational settings.

My understanding of what educators should encourage is based largely on my reading of the TEACH Act and related commentary (e.g.., Georgia Harper). The very necessity of the TEACH Act suggests to me that educational fair use should not be interpreted as extending to sharing products online. Note that fair use standards were clearly limited to “face to face” classroom settings before the TEACH Act and limited to specific online circumstances (e.g., protected environments) after the TEACH Act. I can now include limited amounts of video, text, music, etc. in my online classes in the same way I could previously use such resources in my FTF classes. As I understand the 2002 law, the notion that an educational product using protected resources (small quantities or whatever) offered in an open way online does not fall under the fair use guidelines of the TEACH Act. Open access amounts to publication – whether for commercial purposes or not. If there are other more liberal guidelines available informing what products resulting from educational experiences can be offered online, I would like to be directed to these resources.

A recent analysis from the EFF entitled Recut, Reframe, and Recycle is now available. But, be careful to recognize the difference in what advocacy groups suggest and what exists in law or through such review processes such as CONFU. Organizations (Center for Social Media) have a way of being focused on an organization-f0cused agenda rather than attempting to balance the rights of all parties that may be impacted when a more formal decision/recommendation is made.

Again, I am not a legal expert (however, I do play one on the web – 😉 ). Unlike those who interpret things in a very loose way, my advice is unlikely to get you in trouble.

Whatever your interpretation of fair use, I stand by my position that expecting students to rely on their own talents to create all components of products they want to offer is the best policy. I would argue that it is nearly always better as a learning experience to develop your own skills or collaborate with willing partners to create products.

Loading