Author: grabe

My first post from AERA involves a topic I did not anticipate. I assumed I would offer something related to an inspiring session I had attended. No luck so far. Instead, I find myself writing about conversations I have had with colleagues and with the all too frequent topic of these conversations. Higher ed folks are experiencing the same budget cuts so common in other industries. Words like furlough, layoff, adjusting course loads, and budget cuts seem to come up in most conversations. The convention itself is smaller and this was apparent reading the newspapers on the way here. This is typically a very large convention 12,000-14,000 and I suppose it makes sense that graduate students and junior faculty members would really struggle to find the means to get here. I wonder about those who have made a full-time commitment to a graduate education and now must try to find that first job. It really is a leap of faith or a commitment to a cause when you spend four years dedicating yourself to this goal. We admire risk takers and true believers, but we tend to think of business entrepreneurs as our examples. Why is that?

I have been attending sessions concerning 21st century skills and new media. I am still trying to understand if these areas are really new to me or simply represent a new vocabulary. I still like higher order thinking skills and participatory media – similar ideas I think. The one paper that intrigued me was from a U of M (that is Minnesota in my neck of the woods) group that were examining new media use among struggling readers (more on the specifics in a later post). The core idea, if I am interpreting correctly, was that by middle school a significant group of students have given up on reading or at least text-only content. New media may offer an opportunity to engage these students again. It appears that students were engaged, but may still be capable of avoiding the text components of projects by using options such as audio instead.

I like to think I keep up on emerging trends, but often I find myself interpreting using older models. I think this is how the constructivism thing is supposed to work. Many of these ideas of interdependence of production/consumption and modalities sounds a lot like the “language experience” model. Communication is a more basic process than specific skill areas such as reading and writing, speaking and listening. As I remember a core premise, these skill areas offer the potential to inform each other if the setting for learning a given skill does not decontextualize that skill from the others.

Back to the budget thing. The session I am sitting in writing this ended up with a different orientation than I expected. Several presenters did not show and the focus that remained was hip hop and the use of this genre in urban schools. Not what I came to hear. Can’t blame those who made it.  Hip- hop would not be my thing, I am more of a jazz and blues kind of guy. I also don’t teach in an urban setting. Exploring new ideas, hip hop included, takes both time and money. I wonder how the public costs out such ventures. Some may not understand hip hop in the classroom. I think your beliefs have to accept that these folks are trying to find ways to engage kids and the challenges in doing this work in these kinds of settings may not be apparent to those who view the effort from another time and a very different place.

I am approaching what for me is conference season. I attend AERA, NECC and the North Dakota edtech conference (TNT) in the next couple of months. The rest of the year my budget and job keep me at home. I write a few posts while I attend conferences and I read the posts of others some whom attend many conferences.  So, in a way, I am a producer and consumer. I know what I like to produce and consume, but I am attempting here to offer a broader perspective which requires that I  broaden my comments by pulling in thoughtful posts from others.

Here are the question. Are blog posts and Tweets authored by those who attend a conference helpful? What should those who post keep in mind to make their contributions useful?

AERA is next week and the Twitter chatter has been picking up for weeks (use AERA as a search term in TweetDeck or Nambu). I have also noticed that AERA is a frequently misspelled option for area and as a consequence weird things show up. AERA has not been a major bloggers event. I could not find it as a destination in David Warlich’s hitchhikr. I have always thought that someone ought to pursue the topic of “Why researchers don’t blog”, but we will save that topic for another day.

A comment on Twitter: I do not encourage frequent conference tweets especially from those who think they are live blogging. This is a personal thing, but consistent with what I think I get from Twitter. I can see Twitter as a useful backchannel tool, but just how often would I be in an AERA session with others who Twitter. Perhaps at NECC this might make sense. Sorting out a string of tweets to gain some sense of context and flow is too much of a hassle. Wrong tool. Don’t be lazy – share what you learn via blog posts so there is some flow and continuity.

There are others with other opinions. I tend to focus on information exchange. Others see the social networking advantage of Twitter. As I understand their perspective, a conference represents an opportunity to network with other professionals. Twitter can facilitate connections using the conference or conference events as a point of departure. Twitter offers a second opportunity in the post conference time period to follow up on what seem to be common interests. So, I guess – find new folks to follow and possibly meet to network.

Blog posts from a conference: I have researched the topic of conference blogging previously and there are some classic analyses. Here is a group-based approach from 2006. By group-based, I mean an approach by which a group makes a collaborative effort to offer a thorough review for others. AERA is a little to large for such a commitment. I remember reading a description from 2004 that identified major categories of conference blogging and I was able to still locate it. I like nice categorization systems. My posts typically fall into the reflection category – I pick up an idea for a single presentation and offer a comment both attempting to convey the original message and offer something more. If you really want to take the conference blog on as a serious mission, you might even download a pdf that attempts to organize tips for you to follow.

After making this sound like a serious pursuit that requires preparation, commitment and follow through I am starting to wonder if I have not set myself up to disappoint. I hope not. On the plane for San Diego in the morning. Might as well take advantage of the holiday to take a little time away from the snow and cold in North Dakota. Next week a few posts on research presentations from AERA.

This from the “Thinking Stick” – “I don’t like learning alone!”. Jeff Utecht comments on not being able to get into the conference scene. “Other than my own four sessions, I only went to two others …”. “I don’t like learning alone!” This post seems to have attracted some attention and comment. Perhaps it speaks to what the growing number of conferences have become, perhaps it speaks to something else. We do seem to have a proliferation of gatherings and some dissatisfaction with the experience. I do think there are too many conferences that seem to rely on the same presenters. I agree that this combination of frequency and redundancy is kind of boring. However, I am addressing a different issue here.

We may have just discovered another learning style or individual difference to add to the list educators need to address. Perhaps this difference is related to how many times a year you get to do this thing, i.e., go to a conference. Contrary, to the position taken in the Utecht post, I enjoy a “quality presentation”. I want to listen carefully and attempt to understand. I do not want to be distracted by “discussion” until the presenter has had the opportunity to offer background and provide a complete, well thought-out analysis. I do not want to offer three examples of whatever every five minutes to the person sitting next to me. I think I value depth over breadth – isn’t that the in thing to value lately. Until I can gain some insight into the depth of the position, data, or strategy someone else has to offer, my immediate reactions should be surpressed.

I like a quality handout and even a paper with additional information. If you presentation is really useful, I want to think about it some more. I may want to read the references you provide.

I guess we all have our opinions. Quality evidently means very different things to different people. My reaction to most spontaneous interaction depends on the intent. Most I regard as chit chat and banter. If it is intended as socializing, it is fun. Sparing with ideas is something I am capable of doing. It is entertaining. However, if the situation is intended as as an opportunity for learning, then the chit chat to Me is boring.

I think it is the combination of depth and interaction that is useful. There is a time to listen and a time to speak (this is starting to sound biblical). Take the time to read the book. Take the time to listen to a 20 minute presentation. Take the time to carefully prepare a handout. Understand a position and its context before you offer a comment. We get to play many roles if we are willing to be patient.

I happened across a recent article on 1:1 laptop programs by accident. A post from the National School Boards Association referenced a recent article in in the prestigious journal Science. The first issue of 2009 was devoted to technology in education and there was an article on Laptop Programs (Zucker & Light). In the end, I must say the article was pretty generic. While a prestigious general science journal, I forget that the topic discussed is something those of us focused on technology integrating read at every opportunity so I encountered nothing I felt was a great revelation. I was hoping that someone had new and impressive data to report.

Perhaps the one paragraph I found helpful focused on a 4-year longitudinal study being conduced in Texas. Most work in this area must rely on samples of convience. The Texas study includes a large number of schools with laptops and matched schools without such initiatives. It takes money and the right circumstances to do research on this topic. Unfortunately, the study found no impact on reading and writing performance and perhaps a slight advantage in mathematics. In addition, the study determined that “the availability of computer technology by itself had little or not impact on the intellectual challenge of teachers’ lessons.” Such conclusions seem all too common. I am going to have to attempt to locate the Texas study (not published in a journal as far as I can tell from the Science article). My question would be did the laptop initiative focus only on the equipment and how to use it or was there a plan for curriculum reform that teachers ignored or found impractical.

BTW – the reports from the Texas Immersion Pilot work are available. I do note that the achievement data from the 4th year of the study is a little different than that reported in the Science article. One indicator of some unique interest is something called “home learning” –

For Cohort 3, the extent of Home Learning was a positive and statistically significant predictor of both TAKS reading and mathematics scores.

I think this makes sense. Perhaps simply finding ways to engage students to extend time spent will produce changes.

I recently generated a post on the changing nature of newspapers. This post on newspapers was motivated by recent accounts of papers going out of business or attempting to make the change from a paper to a web format. In reading material associated with changes in this industry, concerns with the economics of primary source content providers (reporters) caught my attention. The issues raised seemed  similar to concerns associated with commercial academic content. My personal experience is with academic textbooks, but I work in an Instructional Design and Technology graduate program and some students assume their skills will be in demand by companies offering other forms of instructional content. So, issues of whether there is a future for commercial content and what a paid professional can offer that others cannot are interesting to consider.

First, I do think there are many examples of quality content generated as contributions by unpaid professionals. By unpaid, I mean not compensated by those who seek access to the resource. I do not know whether these works were supported through summer professorships or some other form of institutional support. Within the past week, I encountered the following:

Handbook of Collective Intelligence – launched by the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. This resource is already very well developed, but additional contributions are welcomed.

Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning (George Siemens & Peter Tittenberger) – University of Manitoba. This resource is also complete and also available as a pdf. As far as I can tell, this resource is not open to public modification. While open to any educator, the resource is associated with a Certificate in Emerging Technologies for Learning offered by the University of Manitoba (see preface for details).

I hope it is fair to include my wife and my effort within this group. Meaningful Learning and the Participatory Web – this is a resource for pre-service and practicing teachers and others interested in educational applications of the participatory web.

Other content categories are available. For example, collections of lessons – e.g., Curriki or Merlot – offer a different type of learning content. Again, these resources are available at no cost.

I keep asking myself if by the ability to generate this list (without searching) I have answered some question concerning whether commercial content generation is still necessary. The newspaper professionals don’t think so and in my gut I guess I do not either. The three extended resources I have listed are provided by folks with professional interests in the topic, BUT who are also interested in social and technological topics in sharing this information. Your average chemistry or history prof. or middle school math teacher is probably less likely to share this passion. I do think that access to some such resources will challenge the traditional commercial publishing model and expand the variety of formats in which learners access content. Competition is good. There is also value in editorial supervision, professional review, attention to content standards, and other factors that one may ignore when working without compensation. Curriculum committees selecting content may think some of these expectations are important. We do live in interesting times.

I have been interested in information content providers for some time and noticed what seems to be an uptick in comments related to this topic this past week or so. This morning, my local paper, the Grand Forks Herald, ran an editorial from the publisher focused on the present economic challenges to the newspaper industry. This evening, Andy Rooney’s closing piece on 60 minutes was about newspapers. While these editorials did not reference similar concerns expressed elsewhere (e.g., recent closure of the Rocky Mountain News), both concerned the threat to the newspaper as we know it.

Everyone seems to have a different take on the problem. Leo Laporte, a podcaster I follow, often comments on the unintended outcome of Craig’sList, taking away ad dollars from local papers. Why pay when you can advertize for free? The editorial in my local paper commented on the faster pace of things and the counter strategy of writing articles of a shorter length.

Blogger and author Clay Shirky has been writing about the newspaper business lately (also see posts previous to the one accessed via this link). His conclusion:

Shirky makes the same observation I make – who actually collects the news, the primary source content that requires reporters, digging, authentication, etc. Who sends out people to watch and listen – just in case. Bloggers are not the answer – most of what we do is spin what we read. Most of us, at best, are secondary source people. We comment, but we do not gather the basic information that needs to be shared.

One more reference (just to clear that section of my gmail account where I have collected these items in the past few days whether the content was posted this recently or not) – the BivingsReport – summarized recent efforts of newspapers to extend their reach with blogs and other forms of online content. How are papers extending their reach by offering web conent?

Not sure where I think this is going. Will something rise up to replace newspapers if the traditional or modified model of news publication fails? Wrong area for me to assume I know enough to have anything of value to declare. I do see similarities between the newspaper industry and the book business. I know a little more about writing books and I have a bias because of my involvement in generating a book that brings me revenue. I guess the bottom line question is whether what we once considered quality content will be generated when funding models either change or no longer exist. I have another post coming on this topic. Without searching, I have come across a couple of quality wiki-book projects in the past week or so. I will identify these resources, plug my own similar project, and speculate regarding the motives of folks who put together major projects without a plan for financial gain.

P.S. – One day later – Seattle Post-Intelligencer switches to web