Author: grabe

Red Lake, MN, is close and the tragedy has a special connection to my colleagues because it happened on a reservation. The department in which I work is involved in the training of clinical psychologists and has a special emphasis on the development of clinicians to work with Native American populations. A group has been working at the reservation since the shooting – see news story.

New information points to the unique role technology played (see role of Internet in perpetuating hate groups) in this tragedy. I tend to react against those who blame technology for such events, but I look to must look to others to explain such behavior to me.

Glen Bledsoe has proposed a taxonomy of classroom technology applications. Each level specifies a description of the use of technology, teacher behaviors, and impact on students. Attempting to identify the dimension along which tasks can be arranged is difficult and not everyone will see the dimension as critical. Still, if making a proposal that ranges from “lower” to “higher” gets people talking, defending their own priorities, etc., it is a useful exercise.

Education World provides an interview with Susan Patrick discussing the National Technology Plan. The interview is described as providing a response to criticism of the plan.

My own issues with “The Plan” (previous post) evidently do not surface frequently as criticism. Actually, I guess my concerns are not actually complains about what was said. I simply felt the plan avoided questions that teachers need answered.

One of the quesstions was very close to the issue I raised:

{insert quote}

EW: Other critics argue that the plan emphasizes the “what” (e-learning, digital content) over the “how” (how to address each student’s needs and skills). What are your thoughts on that?

SP: I’m not sure how they get there. The whole goal of the plan is directed to student learning. The plan, in fact, is trying to change the conversation from integration to transformation. It’s not about overlaying tech and putting five computers in the back of the classroom. That’s not enough. It’s about students who use technology to engage themselves, to individualize, to access new content, to learn how to research, and to learn to think critically. If we focus on integrating technology, we won’t realize the true benefit tech offers.

I respectfully disagree. You will have to read the plan yourself to reach your own conclusions. As I suggest in my analysis, the focus on NCLB and test outcomes is clear, but the endorsement of classroom practices is extremely vague. Actually, I am not certain that the focus on test outcomes and “to access new content, to learn how to research, and to learn to think critically” are consistent in the way teachers are likely to read the focus on assessment priorities. I am also not certain how the lack of federal support for technology (see previous post) allows schools to act on this plan.

InternetNews.com summarizes some data from the most recent Pew Internet and American Life Report to comment on parental use of Internet filtering software. Supposedly, 54% of families with Internet access use some form of web filtering. More than half of parents who use filters admit they then follow up on how their children use the Internet.

I cannot resist trying out new authoring tools and this is especially true when the tool is “open source.” NVu (New View) is an open source web development system that might be viewed as an alternative to GoLive or Dreamweaver. The product is available for multiple platforms and in my opinion is worth a look.

(Screen Image)

List of NVu Features

As I read the product description, it appears this product is based on Netscape Composer.

If you are interested in news and issues in higher education, you would most likely read The Chronicle of Higher Education. If you try this link, you will find that full online access requires a subscription.

Inside Higher Ed – a new and free online source – appears to be attempting to take advantage of the “fee issue” to launch a competing service. I would guess the idea is support this alternative through ads.

The web works in mysterious ways. Maybe not – it is either fee based or ad based.

The feds have just released a new survey concerning K-12 use of the Internet.

Parstad, B. & Jones, J. (2005). Internet access in U.S. Public Schools and classrooms: 1994-2003. (NCES 2005-015). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics

Yes – I realize 2003 and new survey should not be used in the same post when describing the Internet, but it may have taken some time to get results through the editorial process. 😉

Some key findings (if schools have Internet connection):
1) 93% of instructional rooms have Internet access
2) 32% have wireless access
– wireless access is one variable sensitive to SES differences (ranging from 36% to 25% across grouping variable)
3) ratio of students to Internet-enabled computer is 4.4:1
– varied with SES differences (4.2:1 to 5.1:1)
– overall change since 1998 12.1 to 4.4
4) 48% of schools allow students to use computers outside of regular hours
5) 82% provided professional development to staff on use of Internet in instruction