I have been attempting to find a way to prevent comment spam so that I can allow comments on my posts. It seems unfair to generate posts and not allow people the opportunity to state a supporting or opposing point of view. This does not mean spam comments can be tolerated. I have made some adjustments so we will give the comment option another try.
Education World offers a nice article on educational blogging. If you are interested, check this resource out for the links to examples and tools.
You never know for certain that what you read is true, but what I read regarding major tech business leaders (e.g., Gates, Jobs) has always disturbed me. I understand that one needs a bit of an ego to push a personal agenda or vision, but there is a point at which personal drive becomes annoying. These folks are starting to act like professional athletes or movie icons.
Speaking of Icons. Steve Jobs has retaliated against Wiley books because of a less than flattering book (iCon Steve Jobs). Seems like Steve will not allow the sales of Wiley books in Apple Stores.
Very mature, Steve – makes me proud to be an Apple User. Let’s “think different” and try to lead in a positive way.
Someone at Kairosnews has taken the time to compile an online bibliography of resources and information about blogging. Kariros concerns itself with rhetoric, technology and pedagogy so you can expect a related orientation in the resources that have been organized at this site.
When I am out of town at a conference, I tend to eat a little (actually a lot) more than normal. This, in combination with a lack of exercise, means I can put on about a pound a day. This is not a good thing.
It turns out that the Government has just the thing to help me out – the new Food Pyramid. It appears the new pyramid takes into account some changes in thinking about nutrition and the reality that nutritional needs vary with age, sex, and activity level. The only way to provide everyone their own chart is provide access to a dynamic web site that will generate the chart for you (see following – this will also work for you if you happen to be 56, a male, and exercise regularly under normal cirumstances).
There is no coffee group! I will also have to figure out how much milk is contained in my cafe au lait.
I think there are advantages in looking at the work of content experts as an outsider. It can be advantageous to distance oneself and use observations from other disciplines to see opportunities and pitfalls. Providing K-12 students to function as historians and use primary sources is a common theme at the history conference I am attending. My science education background encourages me to interpret this charge as a way for history educators to engage students in a ???history lab.??? I asked a presenter about this comparison and my question generated a kind of blank look. I guess thinking in this way assumes others also look at such issues as outsiders.
While I am convinced that primary sources and labs represent a useful way to identify commonalities among certain disciplines, I would not attempt to convince history educators to spend class time having their students working with primary sources based on the success of science labs. Evidence from research on the value of science labs is not impressive. What goes wrong and what are the opportunities for a discipline (history)? I think the problem with science labs is that these experiences are too scripted? The labs become a type of recipe-guided, worksheet-completing, task. There is not enough cognitive engagement. Perhaps there are reasons this happens in science labs that may not apply to history investigations. There can be danger in science labs. There is typically an expected outcome that should be achieved. There can be expense and a desire to contain the cost of repeating failed experiments.
The presenter talked about the value of maintaining the adventure in working with primary sources. This may be a way of differentiating the level of structuring that provides guidance from that which restricts thinking.
Image from Virginia Center for Digital History, University of Virginia collection. “Drumming out a soldier”
I seem to be on a NCLB jag lately. USA Today had a front page story describing the NEA suit. The suit focuses on the contention that the government has not followed what was promised in legislation –
“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local education agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.” The NEA position contends “there has been a $27 billion funding shortfall in what Congress was supposed to provide schools to meet the law’s regulations and what has been funded” since 2002.
The Department of Education web site provides a reply to the NEA position. The ed department claims that funding for education has been increased and urges NEA to quit wasting money and focus on educating children. The Dept of Ed position claims “…studies assert the law is appropriately funded and not a mandate.” The “not a mandate” part confuses me. The Feds say – here is your money spend it how you want, but if you do not do this and this and this, students will be able to go elsewhere, tutoring will be provided, etc. The part about “spend it how you want” is clearly not a mandate, but the part about consequences sounds punitive and thus does imply that the money should be spent in some ways and not others.
This seems to be the kind of argument in which the participants keep repeating the same thing over and over – only louder. On the surface, claims that are being made (increased funding, billions in shortfall) seem to be contradictory and no one wants to put the issues into a frameword that allows a clear picture of whether this is an unfunded mandate or not. Our kids do deserve better than this.