Month: October 2013

It is only interesting if you are interested

It is interesting if you are interested – not everyone is.

This is a book report focused on the Martinez and Stager book “Invent to Learn”. My reaction to the book, while quite positive, is captured in my title. I think the book seriously over reaches and makes flawed assumptions regarding what proportion of students would be intrigued by the topics that are the focus of the book. Some students will be very interested. I would have been very interested as a student and am personally an active maker now. At best, I see the topics covered in the book as options among a wider selection of opportunities that might be made available to students.

My wife likes to describe this broader perspective as the 20% plan. This phrase refers to the motivating opportunity Google once offered employees to work on a project of personal interest as part of their commitment to the company. Of course, it was unclear what the 20% represented in real time – 20% of 60 hours still leaves more dedicated and inflexible time than the work week most assume. Google has also backed away from this ideal to focus on a smaller and carefully selected group of projects. I will leave it to you to evaluate the implementation of a similar model in education and to consider whether my observations about Google may also end up applying in educational settings (20% is misleading because it is likely additional rather than reallocated time and Google finally took a look at the bottom line or maybe brought a greater focus to the core business and backed away from encouraging such activity).

Makers do things for themselves. The immerse themselves in projects that to some extent are self defined and self directed. The collection of areas used as examples in Invent to Learn include programming, electronics, robotics, and fabrication. Most examples are technology-based, but a limited amount of attention considers more “old school” construction resources – cardboard, string, springs, and other stuff. If the maker movement interests you, the book does a great job of identifying information sources and physical resources for getting started.

Some reactions and/or related thoughts:

1) The research section of the book was one-sided and weak. I had some experiences working with LOGO and middle school students. I wrote about “programming to learn” and I carefully reviewed the fairly substantial research on the potential benefits of involving younger students in programming. At the time, the move was away from “computers for computers sake” (i.e., programming) and more toward whether programming experiences would develop general cognitive skills (e.g., problem solving). Some of the meta-analyses of these individual studies appear in the most prestigious educational research journals and seem to question the value of programming at the level of commitment that was being made by most middle schools. I have read all of the books mentioned in Invent to Learn written by Papert so I am aware of the arguments that seem so appealing to the authors. Perhaps the focus here is truly on learning to program because programming can be vocational skill. I would accept this position, but then I would return to the question of how many students would be interested (see my title). In my opinion, serious scholarship requires the identification of the existing literature – pro and con. Hence, I see this as a useful “methods” book for what might be an elective area and not a well research justification for a general change in the curriculum.

2) Why these topics? Is it because the areas emphasized are in some way more relevant than other areas of study (technology and new manufacturing methods)? What about options?

I have a long term interest in school-based, field biology projects. I spent some years associated with a program funded by the state Game and Fish Department that focused on the cultivation and study of habitats (OWLS – outdoor wildlife learning sites). The core idea was to develop small areas of land near schools as habitats – most were small patches of native prairie. Some were simply plots including butterfly gardens, bird houses and feeders, etc. and some in more rural settings might be several acres in size that bordered a pond or stream. Such ventures were developed to incorporate local history (state history is required), biology/ecology, communication, data collection and analysis. I was involved as the technology person – probe use, digital photography, web sites developed for communication among program participants and presentation to the general public. This type of project bears some similarity to schools that sponsor a school garden and use this resource to explore biology, nutrition, and exercise.

These experiences taught me some interesting things about changing the curriculum and project based learning. I learned that teacher passions vary and commitments change with personnel. The projects I mention are challenging because they require an investment of time over time and a critical part of the time involved with projects that make use of plants is that these projects do not mesh well with the school calendar. You cannot ignore the plants over the summer as you might equipment stored in the back room. There was typically money for the materials but not for the personnel. If there was not a teacher committed to maintain the garden over the summer, the plot turned to weeds, the administrators were embarrassed by the appearance of the school yard, and the plot was returned to grass because it was far easier to maintain.

I think I can describe hands-on experiences growing things in a way that argues for educational value. A wide variety of experiences have educational benefits. I liked the argument that technology exists all around us and is not limited to the stereotypical notion that technology involves programmers putting in hour after hour in a room relating to a computer. I like the counter-intuitive argument that technology can take us out of the classroom into the world and allow us the means to investigate that world. Students receive far to few of these experiences.

Again, I return to the question of whether the book argues for a specific addition to what schools already do or whether the commitments reviewed are a proxy for the notion of “deep electives” and choice. Can making apply to gardening in the same way it applies to fabrication?

3) It is inaccurate to represent schools as having no opportunities for passion-based learning. I would suggest that athletics and arts (music, theater, etc.) are obvious examples. Such activities are school sponsored extra-curricular activities often involving part of the school day (a scheduled open period). Sports and arts have advocates claiming learning outcomes that warrant the time and resources allocated. Each area also has critics questioning the time allocated to what might be seen as a distraction from a core mission.

Other “clubs” do exist with differing levels of participation from location to location. Is this book about an area of emphasis that is to receive the level of attention focused on athletics or the arts, but with the focus that is more typical of a club?

4) Do students really want to be independent, self-guided, deep learners? The answer from the book would seem to be – “yes, they just are never really given the chance.” I wonder. Existing clubs focused on the topics described in the book do sometimes exist and have a loyal, but small clientele. Anecdotal reasoning is a serious problem in thinking about educational practice. Assuming that the passion of a specific student you may know explains what would interest most students is dangerous. My experience with similar issues comes from higher ed. The university experience actually offers students a great deal of flexibility in selecting courses as long as general requirements are met. Beyond this general flexibility in the selection of courses, the department in which I work offers specific individualized opportunities – readings and special projects – that would allow a student to identify a topic, develop a learning plan, and with faculty supervision generate a product. I can tell you based on my experience as a department administrator that these opportunities are very seldom utilized. I wonder why? Is it possible that these opportunities just come too late and students have long since given in to the notion that education is something done to them and not something they, with assistance, do for themselves,

Loading

A book is never done

“A book is never done” is the title of a recent Slate article by Dan Gilmor describing the potential in books that can be constantly updated by authors. Of course, Gilmor is describing the potential in ebooks, and while constant modification is possible, his frustration with the cumbersome tools for creating these updates.

The Gilmor piece reminded of a similar frustration I experienced years ago when I attempted to explain a similar concept to the “business types” of my then publisher. My wife and I had authored several educational technology textbooks and after several editions we thought we be might be trusted to take a somewhat different approach. We proposed that we had proven ourselves and educational technology represented an area in which experimentation was kind of expected. Does it really make sense that the approach taken to convince future teachers to make use of technology in their classrooms should rely exclusively on a traditional textbook? It would seem you were not really committed to your core message. The model for textbook publishing was and probably still is a last minute rush to get out the next edition. If you work as a college prof for a living, you really cannot, in good conscience, drop everything at certain times of the year to work on an update to meet the publisher’s timetable. You have time in small amounts and more time in the summer when you are not on contract.

I thought my proposal would result in a better product. My idea at the time was to put in some amount of effort on a continuing basis at some low level of payment to be applied against future royalties. This approach would allow a more thorough and careful development process potentially resulting in a higher quality next edition. In addition, the new content could be posted to the web immediately offering updated material to those using what was already a dated, hard-copy product. It all made sense to me, but evidently not to those locked into a more traditional approach. I was willing to take the risk of investing the time for a limited guarantee, but the company was not willing to take the corresponding risk as an experiment. Perhaps they were concerned that other authors would expect the same treatment.

Interesting how things change. I now publish through Amazon and am free to experiment to whatever extent I like. I miss the editorial review and the sales force supplied by the company book reps, but I find the freedom stimulating. Our previous company has recently declared bankruptcy and is trying to find a way to regain a firm financial base. The lawyers have sent us letters and forms indicating we can request to be considered for payment for the amount owed from recent sales. It is a very small amount so I did not bother. Perhaps the buyers could be given my portion of the sales price. Anyone willing to buy an educational technology textbook that has not been updated in six years deserves a break.

Loading

Geotag your camera photos

Technology in education is often associated with several stereotypes. One of specific interest to me is the assumption that technology ties a learner to a computer in a classroom in a way that reduces social interaction and physical exploration of the world. I believe I can make the case for exactly the opposite position. K-12 learners actually have few opportunities under existing circumstances to explore their world and technology can bring learners into connection with people and settings outside of the classroom. I am particularly interested in recording data and this translates into opportunities involving audio, images, and the forms of information that can be captured with probes. Think of this as capturing experiences that may always have been there, but that were not previously processed very effectively.

Part of my model for processing experiences involves the significance of context (I understand this is getting a little abstract). One aspect of context in our daily lives is location. Objects and experiences exist in physical space and where things are located can have important implications. Do you know that supermarkets are less likely to be located in areas of economic poverty? Who cares? You might if you had to walk some distance to get fresh vegetables which are seldom available from convenience stores. The broad application of GIS/GPS across disciplines allows investigations of the role of location.

In this post I am particularly interested in associating images with locations. Perhaps these images result from photographs taken of full service supermarkets in your community. I have written previously about the unique capacity of phones to capture GPS info, described how to upload images to Flickr in a way that would assure the GPS data were included, and offered examples (images in Google Earth). I feel like I am reversing course here – instead of explaining that you can do interesting things with a phone in place of a camera, I want to explain how you can now geotag camera images.

Unless you have purchased a special camera, your images are not geotagged. This is the case even with expensive cameras. Ironic isn’t it, my Canon 7D does not know where a photo I take comes from, but my phone does. Anyway, most of us have cameras and use them. Whatever the convenience of a cell phone as a camera, dedicated equipment has special advantages. I am never going to get the closeup of an eagle in flight with my phone.

A reasonable way to tag camera images makes use of a phone and an app (Geotag Photos). The concept is simple. Cameras time stamp images, but do not have gps capabilities (using satellite or cell tower data). Phones have gps capabilities and an app can time stamp these data. A second app can match the gps data and photo by time and rewrite the exif metadata of the photo to include these location coordinates. This is the way the Geotag Photo works. You put an app on your phone and you download software to your computer. The phone app records the GPS data and the computer app uses these data to modify the exif of the image files offloading from the camera.

The phone app is displayed here with a second image representing the route taken while collecting the images.

geotagpro1

 

geoptagpro2

Here is the computer software that merges the data from the phone with the individual images.

geotagprodesktop

 

The final product might be generated using the map feature in iPhoto (the pins here represent the location of the images). Clicking a pin reveals the image.

iphotogeotagpro

Loading

I act on my liberal values with my kids, but not yours

The  massive iPad adoption in California caught the attention of most tech enthusiasts and then came the glitch. Students figured out how to hack the iPads and use them in ways that we’re not intended. Schools have reacted by restricting use of the devices.

Some prominent education bloggers responded to this action by pretty much putting down the school and praising the skills and motivation of the students. Reminds of a kind of “anti-establishment” position often adopted in the 60s. Stick it to the man.

I think this position is ill-advised and damaging. Cute, but not smart. It puts the schools in a bad position.

Anyone following my posts knows my general approach to things is quite liberal. However, I think there are limits to how I act on these beliefs. I can certainly advocate for my beliefs. I can act on them when it comes to my own kids. It can become inappropriate when I go too much further. I should not encourage children by ridiculing their parents (I might argue with the parents but not in front of the kids). I kind of feel the same way about schools.

Here are two related thoughts:
1) These are school computers and not the computers of the students. I think schools have a right to control how equipment is used in the school. Schools are judged by those they serve and the general public. If parents want to take responsibility (which I am not certain they can) for what students do with the computers in schools this would be a different thing. If parents want to take responsibility for what students do in the home, this is a different thing. Just as a matter of practicality – how would situational differences in actions be accomplished. You can’t really hack and “unhack” the device depending on the location. I guess filtering kind of does that.

2) I have published several papers (actually as a second author to one of my graduate students) investigating cyberbullying. This was not a primary interest of mine, but kind of a necessary reaction to the restrictions of filtering in schools. I felt the technology applications I propose were very difficult to implement because of filtering and I argued that the data on cyberbullying justified this position. Very few incidents of cyberbullying utilize school equipment (you never say never, but the percentage is estimated at about 4% if I remember correctly). Restricting the use of equipment that was not the source of the problem seemed a political reaction and not an actual fix in my way of thinking.

I cannot justify this argument with phones and tablets. What is actually happening on these devices simply cannot be monitored in the same way school personnel can monitor what appears on computer monitors. I am not necessarily against BYOD models, but the argument I was willing to make in favor of more open access is far weaker in this situation. As the strength of the argument switches drastically I am far less judgmental of school actions that seem more conservative. School personnel cannot really give up their responsibilities to all of the children and to all of the parents. I am not certain what the appropriate course of action is in this situation, but let us at least not be cute by implying that school personnel are uninformed, backward, or stodgy.

Loading