Ben Vershbow reports on if:book that one of the cofounders of Wikipedia wants to develop a similar project with a more controlled approach. The new approach will make use of editors so that there is greater control of the introduction and modification of content. The “fork” allows individuals to use Wikipedia content in creating a new site. The new site must offer others the same opportunity.
The wiki concept allowing anyone to modify existing content (which can then be changed back by the original authors) has been too idealistic for some. The idea of allowing contrasting approaches to compete for attention is interesting.
Ebrahim Ezzy outlines how he sees the coming competition between web-based apps (e.g., Writely, Google Spreadsheet) and what he describes as web-expanded desktop apps. As I understand this second category, he is describing the effort of the companies who provide commercial applications to offer web options from within these programs (e.g., blogging from MicroSoft Word). When I thought about the distinction, I realized this second category has been developing for some time and I failed to recognize the contrast he describes. For example, many word processing programs have offered the save as html option for some time. Many other programs (e.g., PowerPoint, Inspiration) provide similar web-oriented option. Ezzy describes features that go far beyond what many of us have already used.
Ezzy concludes that Web-Expanded Apps will end up winning out (security, reliability, scalability, etc.). Read the article – the host of the site Richard McManus disagrees. Perhaps each approach will achieve a critical mass of followers. Browser-apps may be useful in many educational settings because desktop apps are already bloated and expanding the feature set even more may create products not suited the needs of young learners. If this is the path commercial developers intend to pursue, browser apps may
offer the best approach for those seeking both value and simplicity.
When Apple upgraded iTunes and the iTunes store to offer movies I could not resist. I paid my $10 and downloaded Pirates of the Caribbean just for the experience. My problem is that I am one of those people who has a TIVO, netflix and several cable movie channels and watches about one movie a month. At present, I am not certain what this will have to do with classroom applications, but the convergence that some have long predicted may now be more obviously on the way. The device for connecting computers to new large screen TVs demonstrated in the release announcement (to be released early next year I think) may be useful in classrooms.
The video experience reminded me of a topic I wanted to explore. Classroom video is changing. Cindy is presently implementing a grant intended to allow Grand Forks teachers to compare two commercial classroom streaming video systems and they content each provides. I will likely describe this project as it develops because the impressions of teachers may be informative to others.
Here is another resource that falls within this same category. I recently encountered the Dragonfly TV web site. Dragonfly TV is a PBS science program for adolescents I would describe as focused on hands-on science and the exploration of scientific principles as applied to daily experiences. I was aware of the program (see concluding comments) but had not encountered the web site. Among the resources the site makes available are segments from the program – each 30 minute program consists of multiple segments. Science educators might review these clips with the intent of locating resources for classroom demonstrations. The clips are even available as podcasts for collection within iTunes or on your ipod.
Here is the little twist. Tomorrow our son Todd starts his second year doing the Final Cut Pro work to edit Dragonfly TV. The frenetic pace of the program – complex multimedia, rapid pace, etc. – is what he and the other editors create from the raw video content. Those of us who have done simple video productions in iMovie may now appreciate just how much of the complexity in polished professional productions is created by the editors. Part of the concept of what it will take to make the program appealing to adolescents is the presentation. It is kind of like MTV meets Mr. Wizard (if this makes no sense Google Mr. Wizard).
The National Center For Educational Statistics has released a new study summarizing student use of computers and the Internet. The data for the study were collected in 2003 (evidently the government has no graduate students anxious to graduate working on the data they collect).
A few findings that I consider important:
1) Students use computers and the Internet to complete school assignments at school and at home (unfortunately, details are lacking).
2) There are significant “digital divide” issues in what students do with technology outside of schools.
3) In school access to technology could be described as addressing differences in access that exist outside of school.
4) There were no sex differences in overall levels of use.
NCES seems committed to a longitudinal approach allowing them to track trends. In general, this is a useful strategy and only practical for organizations able to commit considerable resources to a topic. My concern with the existing approach is that it limits the opportunity to focus the resources behind the research on new issues. Given concerns related to how much (not whether) students use computers and the educational tasks students use technology to accomplish, I wish the protocol would be modified or refocused to consider some new topics.
I happen to be reading a related article today from the EDUCAUSE REVIEW that also concerned digital divide issues. The review article was citing data from 2004 on “access.” I did not read the source to determine when the data were actually collected. Access and how we define access changes so quickly. I remember a few years ago when the metric was whether or not a school had a connection. At some point, these data were meaningless for purposes of comparison because the trend line had reached a point at which little growth was possible. In contrast, a more recent point of comparison was the percentage of classrooms with at least 4 computers with an Internet connection. When defined in this fashion, some variability was evident.
The research process can be slow. However, these are not complex methodologies and the statistics are elementary. The review process would seem less time consuming than one might expect from a high end research journal. These are data suited to policy decisions more so than fine-grained theoretical arguments. This would seem to be a situation in which the target is moving faster than data can be collected to fix its location.
EdTechLive provides the audio of interviews with prominent individuals in the field. A recent addition is a session with Larry Cuban (author of Oversold and Underused – the PDF of which is also available from the site) and this conversation has generated some buzz in the blogs I follow. For those who have followed some of the core issues, most of the arguments in the interview are pretty much a rehash of themes from previous publications. Cuban’s 2001 book investigated a wide variety of issues concerning the use of technology in schools. Two of the major themes are apparent from the title – schools are pressued to purchase technology and the amount of time students spend using technology is very limited. The lack of reliable evidence that technology has a meaningful impact on achievement, limited opportunities for students to use the resources that are purchased, and the cost of the purchases are blended into a rather pessimistic picture. While pessimistic, this book and a journal article (much shorter – American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834) should be read by those interested in this field. The interview provides a nice overview and may generate in some the motivation necessary to locate the book in the library or online.
Some of these same issues have been raised again by the recent Wall Street Journal article criticizing 1:1 laptop initiatives (accessible without cost from other services). This topic comes up in the interview.
Addressing and interpreting all of the concerns raised in the Cuban documents would require another book. Many of the observations (e.g., students spend little time with technology, teachers with adequate personal technology skills fail to avail their students of the same tool opportunities) have been made by others and the causes and related recommendations vary. The issue of “proof” in education is troublesome to all of us attempting to make good decisions about the field and also attempting to keep our personal interests from clouding the practices we advocate.
I would suggest that a careful reading of the research literature would bring into question several “costly” and time consuming educational practices (one of which Dr. Cuban seemed to mention in a positive way in this interview – general liberal arts education). One of may favorite examples (perhaps because of my personal academic training) is the science laboratory. The cost of laboratory experiences in introductory chemistry is extremely expensive (partly because the safety requirements that are imposed) and the demonstrated contribution to the understanding of the content taught in such courses would be hard to justify based on the literature I have read. I think some of the same factors that Cuban mentions in his book apply to the way we think about science laboratories. Instead of pressures exerted by parents to involve their children with computers and the promotions of companies interested in selling technology to schools, pressure comes from other directions. The assumptions regarding what constitutes sound scientific training promoted by organizations such as the NSF and the politics asssuming that general math and science preparation are somehow essential to international competitiveness prompt schools to spend money in certain ways. I am not against spending the money – my point is that finding costly academic ventures that lack a strong empirical basis is not that difficult.
Listen to the interview, parse the various arguments, and determine for yourself how you would interpret many of the observations that are provided.
This comment comes to you from the food court of the Fargo mall and is written as an opportunity to escape from boredom. I tell you this in keeping with the tradition of other bloggers who constantly inform readers of the exotic places they visit and the exciting things they do.
My institution requires that each year each faculty member submit multiple indicators of accomplishments in the areas of teaching, research, and service. That part I understand. However, somehow the mix of annual indicators now includes a personal reflective statement on these same areas of academic responsibility. I whole heartedly believe that faculty members should examine their beliefs and priorities. However, after nearly 30 years of being involved in my profession, I find it difficult a) to come up with something that sounds both profound and original each year and b) to ignore the reality that I am writing something for administrators to review while I am also supposedly identifying weaknesses I am trying to address.
Anyway, knowing myself (isn’t that the point of reflection), I realized that I needed to arrange circumstances so I might enjoy this task. Perhaps I should just think of the task as one giant blog entry. I considered this for a little while and then decided that with blog entries I operate under the illusion that someone reads what I write and I was not certain I could force myself into the same illusion regarding the personal statement. I finally hit on another possible source of motivation. I pride myself on having first or second-hand experience with the technologies I recommend. The rule is there must either be exposure to applications through teachers I or my wife knows or we must create for ourselves the opportunity to use a tool or technique for a reasonable amount of time.
So – we drove to Fargo. Cindy will look for quality goods at unsually low prices. Typically, I make this trip for the pleasure of spending time in Barnes and Noble drinking coffee, reading, and writing. However, I realized that the Fargo Barnes and Noble has no Internet access. I need Internet access for this project. The food court in the mall has Internet access. So here I am in the mall reflecting on my scholarship using Writely. Here I am both reflecting and exploring the features of Writely.
I see Writely has options for public documents and for blogging. Perhaps it is best in this case that I keep the product private.
I received the following email in response to my latest post on net neutrality. It came from my son – truthfully I had no idea that he read my blog and I was impressed that he wanted me to know what he thinks about the topic. Since he did not write his comments for public consumption, I asked permission to share what he had to say.
Hi Dad,
I just read your blog post on net neutrality (very well written). Anyways, I just wanted to share with you a couple of thoughts I have on the subject. During the editing of the film I am currently working on, I have listened to hours of interviews with people from all over the world. One of the questions always asked in these interviews is “where do you get your news and information from? Three times out of four the answer is “the internet”. I have footage of people waiting in line outside an internet cafe in Kabul, Afghanistan. They are there to read the news and communicate with people all around the world. A lot of these people don’t even have electricity in their homes, yet they depend on the internet for information. I feel that the difference between the haves, and have nots in todays society is not currency but access to information. For corporate interests to have control of this information, be it by censorship or by making it financially unattainable, would be disastrous. The ability for all people to be able to create and consume content without financial, ethical, or political pressures is key to the future of the world. I don’t think that is an exaggeration. We are quickly becoming a global community and there is no turning back now. It is paramount that everyone remain in the loop.
A little background – Todd works on documentary films. In the project he describes he is one of the Final Cut Pro editors putting together a piece on what people around the world think of the United States.
12 total views
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.