Author: grabe

NAEP Scores

NAEP results are in and you are likely to encounter a discussion from most news outlets (see NY Times article – I knew open access to the NY Times would be useful). Really short version – math scores are up a little, reading results are mixed, various political groups interpret differently (NCLB may be good or it may be misdirected).

If you are interested in NCLB, I would offer Volume 44, No.3, American Educational Research Journal as suggested reading. This is a special issue on NCLB and there are several analyses to review. I would suggest the following (my bias is obvious in previous posts) – Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. AERJ, 44, 493-518.

One short quote from the conclusion (p. 514):

…, I strongly suggest that the exams used to assess schools have increased the number of high school dropouts. They have no made curricula more rigorous, and neither have they closed the achievement gap …

Loading

NY Times

The NY Times has given up trying to make money (with the exception of ad revenue) from its web site (article from the Times on decision). Perhaps of interest to history buffs, most of the archives will also be available. The NY Times site claims to be the most visited web site associated with a newspaper. The explanation for the change is unclear in the Times article, but the decision is similar to that of CNN in abandoning subscription access. I suppose the “information wants to be free” advocates will argue this move was inevitable.

I can’t claim to be a regular NY Times reading in hard copy or online. I tend to read what some of the editorial writers have to say in the books that eventually incorporate their work. Perhaps I will now make an effort to follow the education section.

NY Times Education Section

Loading

Flickr Frustration – Attribution

I am working on the appropriate solution for a hypothetical problem. Let’s say you are searching for images for your own use and you locate an appropriate image within Flickr. The page claims the image is available under Creative Commons and the license says “attribution”.

What is the appropriate attribution? The owner of the image is Grabe (yes, that’s me), but one does not necessarily have to use a real name and Grabe is vague anyway.

The image came from the page – http://flickr.com/photos/grabe/1397669571/ – and providing this information allows me to demonstrate I am not claiming the image is mine. Still – I have not identified the provider.

If I have a Flickr account myself, there is a way to send a flickr email to another flickr person. Perhaps, the appropriate solution is to send an email and ask grabe just what type of attribution he/she would like.

Beats me.

flcikrattribute

Loading

Mindmap Wikipedia

Here is another suggestion from my wife. Mindmap generates an interactive “mind map” based the content of wikipedia. Enter a search term and that term becomes the starting point for the map. I am guessing what the application does is built the representation based on the embedded links (note correspondence between wikipedia entry and mind map below). I would have to think a bit to determine if I felt a “mindmap” met my definition of concept map. I assume the premise is that a mindmap captures the structure of the author(s). Perhaps it just captures the list of things they could find links to.

Anyway, it is interesting and worth a look.

mindmap example

From a map node, you can link to the wikipedia entry or expand the map.

It would be interesting if you could direct Mindmap at any mediawiki site, but at present the selection is limited to wikipedia versions.

Hmm – is authored hypermedia a representation of personal mental structure? Sounds like a research topic.

Loading

Digital Immigrants May Not Be Far Behind

While much has been made of the digital native vs. immigrant distinction, there has often been little data on just how involved individuals of different ages are with specific technologies. Reuters now reports the results of a recent survey arguing that there is little age difference in cell phone use. I do understand that level of use is only one factor in what some regard as an important group difference. Supposedly having grown up with a technology results in a different perspective in contrast to having come to that technology after experiences with another way of doing things.

Perhaps I respond in defense of those of my age, but why would having one perspective be superior to having multiple perspectives? The fact that I have used a dial telephone, used a phone on a party line, and used a cell phone means I have multiple rather than a single perspective on issues (analog accent or not). Why do some continue to argue that this is a limitation?

For example, the common problem in which some say inappropriate things in social networking environments forgetting others may eventually become aware is hardly a revelation to me. Anyone who has used a party line phone system soon learned that one should never assume a discussion is private. Talk about social networking revisited.

Loading

A couple of letters can make a difference.

File this under the heading – there is no way to avoid all problems in the real world.

I have been doing some exploration for a piece I am writing on educational uses of the social image sharing site – Flickr. Somehow, in this process, I began investigating a project that had students submit pictures they had taken that showed angles. As I scanned through the collection of images, I encountered the picture of a nude woman. My first thought and I am guessing the reaction of some might be that this image had purposefully been tagged to shock others involved in the educational project. There was really nothing about the posture of this particular nude woman that seemed to fit the concept “angle” so the tag made no sense.

I investigated further and found that the Flickr site hosting the image offered artistic photographs – very few of which involved any nudity. I then took a look at the tags and description. Here is my guess based on the context – I think the photographer intended to use the tag “angel” and made a typing error.

Loading