Some time ago, I wrote about the MacArthur Foundation’s intent to investigate the participatory web. After some preparatory work, the Foundation offered a call for grant proposals and now has announced the recipients. Andy Carvin offers a nice summary of some of the awards and includes links to some of the projects.
An item that caught my attention was a course offered by Stanford’s Howard Rheingold on virtual communities ( see course syllabus). Carvin describes the course as an
initiative by online community pioneer Howard Rheingold will develop an online community for teachers and students to collaborate and contribute ideas for teaching and learning about the psychological, interpersonal, and social issues related to participatory media.
If educational implications of the participatory web interest you, take a look at the reading list contained within the syllabus.
It is amazing how those of us working with educational technology issues get so caught up with online tools and topics. I am no different. However, there are interesting tools and opportunities enabled by these tools that we may be starting to forget. My career began with a biology major and interest in teaching high school biology. I continue to be interested in science education. This is possibly evident in the images you see here from time to time.
Biology is a field with an important visual element. Technology allows this visual element to be captured and “studied”. Sometimes the objects of interest require magnification and inexpensive tools are available to enlarge and capture the images. ProScope HR is suited to this task.
The Feb-March issue of the American Psychologist has an article concerning “Online Predators and Their Victims”. The American Psychologist typically offers articles from their “general journal” to the public, but it appears this service runs one issue behind the release of the paper copy to members.
The article is written by researchers I have mentioned before (Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell & Ybarra). A couple of sentences from the abstract offer a perspective on the tone of the article.
“The publicity about online “predators” who prey on naive children using trickery and violence is largely inaccurate. Internet sex crimes involving adults and juveniles more often fit a model of statutory rape …””This is a serious problem, but one that requires approaches different from those emphasizing prevention messages emphasizing parental control and the dangers of divulging personal information.”
I would add school based Internet filtering to this list.
The authors go on to to discuss interventions involving “awareness and avoidance” skills and a focus by counselors on “high risk youth”.
The article identifies a long list of resources for mental health professionals. The article also lists issues that have implications for prevention and public policy. No item on this list involves filtering and the list begins with the admonition to “Avoid descriptions of the problem that characterize victims as young children or emphasize violence and deception.”
This article offers what some may find an uncomfortable conclusion – some adolescents are prone to risky online behavior. The authors cite a yet to be published paper indicating that up to 15% of Internet users age 10 to 17 are “high-risk interactors”.
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K.J. & Ybarra, M.L. (2008). Online predators and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63, 111-128.
Over the past couple of years, I have written about the issue of net neutrality on multiple occasions (e.g., July 2006, Sept. 2007, Feb. 2008). The issue is now again in the news because of a bill introduced by Senator Markey (Washington Post description).
Here is my interpretation of the issue. Net Neutrality assumes that providers should not be able to block or “shape” the rate at which packet types are forwarded to end users. The ISPs argue that massive amounts of bandwidth are being eaten up by certain types of information – e.g., video (some of which is illegal bit torrent traffic). The opposing perspective argues that internet providers often are involved in multiple businesses and could shape traffic to improve financial gains from other services. For example, companies providing DSL (phone) connections may slow VOIP to benefit the long distance phone side of the business and cable companies may slow video to benefit the movie on demand side of the cable business. (View a short YouTube video explaining core net neutrality issues.)
There are educational issues involved in this controversy. Distance education and expectations regarding home access by all students assumes high speed access at reasonable rates (see recent EDUCAUSE statement in the Chronicle of Higher Education).
The bill would require the FCC to study the various issues associated with ISP claims of the shrinking of free bandwidth.
What would be a fair solution? To me, there are a couple of issues:
a) Companies should not be able to control which legal uses of the Internet will be supported.
b) Volume of downloads/uploads may represent a reasonable basis for setting monthly fees under circumstances in which users have reasonable access to multiple providers. When competition exists, it would seem a reasonable means to set costs.
c) Some provision should exist to offer all access to a resource that is becoming more and more essential.
I am assuming a and b could be solved through some form of regulation. It is c that presents the greatest challenge. Clearly, c would require some form of subsidy. The FCC already concerns itself with this type of issue as it relates to phone service.
I have written previously arguing that it is the responsibility of educators to model and explain copyright issues. I simply do not agree with the position that easy copying makes the practice OK.
Microsoft has just released the results of a survey contending that teens are less likely to violate copyright when made aware of the law.
About half of those teens, however, said they were not familiar with these laws, and only 11 percent of them clearly understood the current rules for downloading images, literature, music, movies and software. Teens who were familiar with downloading rules credited their parents, TV or stories in magazines and newspapers, and Web sites — more so than their schools — as resources for information about illegal downloading.
Part of Microsoft’s strategy is to assist students in developing their own intellectual property and then make a decision regarding usage rights (mybytes – suggestions for teachers). Personalizing the creative process and thinking about how you want others to treat this content is a great idea.
The MicroSoft bid to purchase Yahoo! for approximately 45 BILLION dollars is one of those tech stories that has made the general news. There have been many attempts to analyze the decision (a Macworld take, MSNMoney). Obviously, the issue has something to with the connection between search and online ads. But, what could be worth so much money to a company whose operating system and office apps (Word, Excel) dominate the market? Here is an idea.
Ads are key, but what if the real issue lies down the road a few more years. What if Microsoft understands that the software on your desktop will soon become much less necessary. What if the future is in open source or even more likely in “the cloud”? Expensive software and perhaps even inexpensive local software have some disadvantages in comparison to apps that live on the net. As devices become more mobile and more powerful or perhaps simply as devices become more mobile, we may not want to carry our apps and the digital products we create with them with us. What we will want is to access our resources from more places in more ways. Google Docs or Zoho offer reasonable free alternatives to traditional office applications. Flickr and Picasa have changed the way we store and exchange our photographs. The point is there are free ways to do what we used to pay for and these alternatives offer more than the opportunity to save a little money. We are doing more of some things and also doing many things differently.
What will support the Microsoft empire when software becomes less lucrative. I guess ad money is the present answer, but it is also the connection of ads with experiences to which users are will to commit a huge amount of time. Microsoft cannot presently compete with Google in the search arena. Google ads are part of the search experience. Microsoft can’t compete with the web-based mail systems, photo sharing systems, blog services, etc. offered at no expense by other companies. Perhaps the future is coming faster than we realize and Microsoft needs a new revenue model. Perhaps Microsoft can skip the development stage and buy both an ad delivery system and some of the online resources Yahoo! can provide.
I can’t see basing the future of the consumer tech industry on ad revenue, but this may be the funding source in the short term. I keep thinking that we are going to have to be willing to pay for quality resources and content to encourage producers, but that has certainly not happened yet. The change has yet to occur even for television. In fact, we now pay the cable company to bring us more channels with more ads.
I wonder if ad revenue will play a bigger role in educational content delivered to schools. Do you remember the furor when ChannelOne wanted to offer content for free as long as kids in schools would also watch some ads? Now, we just complain about the cost of text books.
Comments are an important part of blogging. However, opening up your blog to everyone does attract “everyone”. A common remedy is to require registration so that as a host you have the opportunity to request additional information before comments are allowed. I trust individuals with .edu or .us email addresses, but others I make an attempt to identify.
Today I received a request from jamesrovance@gmail.com.
I did a Google Search (this is my first step before sending an email and asking for a little information). It turns out the address appears on a list of spammers with Chinese IP numbers. It turns out that the Google search probably saved me future work.
So, James – I will provide access when you get your name of the spammers list. Perhaps someone has acquired access to your gmail account. Get a new account. No offense.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
