There are multiple ways to search. Crowdsourcing search implies that you rely on the popularity of resources within a group to identify what you want to review. There are various ways to do this. For example, Nuzzel identifies links shared by those you follow on Twitter. Those links shared most frequently rise to the top and might then encourage your examination.
I use a similar approach with the social bookmarking site Diigo. In this case, I am searching the stored bookmarks of other Diigo users by frequency within a designated period of time. I use one year for most searches.
Here is the process. Under the Discover heading, use the Community option.
This will take you to the most popular bookmarks, but I want to search these bookmarks for a specific term. In this case, I am searching for “argumentation”.
The search returns hits on the search term. Each snippet includes other information I can use – the number of hits, the date the link was first saved, etc. I can then visit the pages, review the content, save as a bookmark in my own Diigo account, etc.
Indulge me in an intellectual exercise. Begin by assuming there is room in the curriculum for an addition – a different course or at least a learning activity requiring a significant commitment of time. Ignore the typical reaction of “we already have far too much to do”. Without taking on the issue of time, just assume that it is useful to be open to considering priorities as they exist and to consider the possibility of how best to spend whatever time is available.
The task I am proposing to evaluate the value of adding either coding vs argumentation.
I am not certain I know what the outcome of this choice should be. I do think I know enough to know that a sound case can be made for both alternatives and that others should at least recognize this same point before assuming they can promote either of the alternatives. In the circles I most commonly frequent, I assume that most would be willing to promote coding. However, this is because coding is the option most think they understand. Without intending to offend anyone, I would propose that most coding promoters are not actually coders themselves and most are nearly unaware of argumentation.
Let me quickly provide a brief description of argumentation. I would describe argumentation as the processes involved in taking and defending a position. It requires the capacity to explain a position, offer reasons for this position, and offer evidence in favor of this position. It requires the recognition that others may not share this same position, the ability to recognize the reasons and evidence offered in support of this alternate position and the ability to compare and contrast the reasons and evidence for these opposing positions. Developmentally, we know that argumentation skills are acquired slowly and that the more advanced skills of analyzing the rationale offered by others is late to show up if this capacity develops at all. I hope this brief description allows a connection of what are likely more well known concepts such as critical thinking, persuasion, deep reading, and scientific reasoning.
It might even be possible to return to my initial challenge and use it as a “meta” example of argumentation – arguing about arguing. Having taken one position or the other, what are the reasons and evidence likely to be advanced in support of each alternative and what are the likely counters to these reasons and the supporting evidence.
I will give you some time to think before I offer my own analysis.
Hardware is or perhaps already has become a commodity. Nearly any device produced – laptop, tablet, phone – is capable of reaching the online services provided by multiple providers and more than meets the needs of a very high proportion of users. The money put into such devices brings a dismissing return. Once you get past $300-400, a larger investment adds little to what you can accomplish. This reality is reflected in the diminished interest in these same devices. If it were not for difficulties with the wired-in batteries, most of us could extend our replacement cycle by several years. The speed of a connection is far more important than the speed of the CPU, drive, or bus.
The trend I describe here is not a reflection of the use of this technology. We might have moved more of our attention to mobile, but we have not diminished the focus of our attention on digital content.
These trends make it difficult for companies that are focused primarily on hardware. The multiple companies involved in generating hardware assure reasonable value for money spent. I use mostly Apple devices, but I understand that I am purchasing this hardware at a premium and for little advantage when it comes to my work. I am worried about the future of Apple hardware.
It seems Apple already realizes the challenges I have identified and are making every attempt to diversify. My frustration is that Apple fancies itself a design and hardware company and ignores the potential in content (with the exception of music) and online social. I wish that Apple would challenge Amazon in the ebook market. iBook Author is a great tool but largely ignored as a development environment because Apple refuses to make the necessary investments to take the content generated cross platform. Anyone writing for group adoptions (e.g., textbooks) cannot make a commitment to developing in iBook Author. Instructors making book decisions cannot put students in the situation of having to own the hardware from a specific company.
My complaints with the Amazon model beyond the general objection to the lack of competition is the simple format of the content that must be prepared for the Kindle. Generating content for the Kindle is not easy and the commitment of Amazon to its own low end devices limits the use of multimedia in the content created. I understand that Amazon is moving toward a more diversified textbook authoring platform, but derivations of pdfs are not what I find impressive. The Kindle devices are simply not suited to video or to integrating web and book content.
So Apple, you have the money to create a presence in the content environment. You will soon be out of the education market if you focus only on hardware.
Newsela has not been around for long, but the company has become quite popular as a way for educators to meet the literacy needs of classrooms serving a wide range of reading levels. The service offers the same “news” stories written at multiple reading levels.
Newsela now offers an additional approach that meets the challenges of what some have described as a “new literacy”. Most of us increasing turn to online resources to meet our information needs and we locate this information using search. What search returns are multiple hits and we tend to fashion an understanding from a review of several of these sources. In keeping with this notion that we build a personal understanding by combining information from multiple sources, Newsela now provides a resource called Paired Texts. Two articles that address a common theme are provided. Students are provided a writing prompt that is best addressed by combining information from the two resources.
As far as I can tell, the articles are selected to provide different information and not contradictory perspectives. This would seem to be the next step – what do you do when a search provides information that is not consistent and you are asked to take a position?
It is the end of the K-12 school year and many educators and tech support staff are highlighting student work using social media. I think this is a good thing. It provides students an authentic audience, informs parents of student activities and provides ideas to other educators. However, I make one further observation after reviewing many such posts – few examples can be found to demonstrate how secondary students make use of technology. I have made this observation before and wonder if you have noticed the same thing.
I think I know many of the reasons for what I have just described:
a. elementary teachers have greater control and can carve out blocks of time in a day or week to devote to the type of projects you see online,
b. middle school teachers are more likely to work in cross-disciplinary teams that can be focused on projects, and
c. the use of technology on the secondary level tends to be focused on tool integration rather than self-contained projects. This focus may be important but seems less news-worthy to many who want to promote what is happening.
I also think that tech support personnel have greater difficulty addressing content expectations that exist at the secondary level and are less likely to have the background knowledge necessary to offer suggestions.
Whatever the issue – please add your own thoughts to my list – I think this is a problem. Educational technology application just seems to run our of steam.
The coding thing in its present iteration has many of the same issues. Idit Harel just generated a concern with what was described as “pop computing“. Hardly an opponent of computer science, Harel a co-author with Seymour Papert, has long championed constructionist approaches to learning but is disappointed in present coding experiences.
I now see my concern with the focus on the “hour of code” and what I observed here as sharing a common theme. Both seem to run out of gas without an obvious end game. With programming, I would begin by making certain secondary students have access to a computer science course. I would also suggest that what counts toward graduation requirements (not electives) should include computer science as an option.
Why is this an issue? In part, I blame AP, dual-enrollment, etc. courses. If this is about reducing the cost of a college education by taking supposed college level courses on the cheap, I think this is misguided. Take a high-school level computer science course, master a foreign language, improve your writing skills, take an industrial arts class. Enter college with a greater breadth of knowledge and greater depth of knowledge and skills in important areas.
Understanding argumentation is likely very important to wading through political news in a productive way. Argumentation involves taking positions and refuting opposing positions based on the careful identification of reasons and the evidence behind those reasons. It is a way to get beyond the noise and the emotion when decisions must be made in contentious situations. Argumentation is a productive process that requires careful attention to the positions we already hold (are there actually reasons and is there actually evidence) and attention to the efforts of those with a different perspective to support their position. The externalization of positions is a way to learn. (Yes, I have been reading about the educational potential of argumentation and I see the educational applications as based on similar principles as my description of authoring/teaching to learn). Educators might want to consider developing argumentation skills as relevant to the educational emphasis on the development of 21st-century skills and particularly critical thinking.
As often seems to happen for me, reading about one issue sensitizes me to another. The Wall Street Journal published a piece and proposed a service related to developing awareness of extreme political positions contrary to your own. The proposed service took advantage of “research” conducted by Facebook regarding extreme political positions. It was not clear that the Facebook research was related to the accusation that Facebook promoted liberal news stories over conservative stories, but interest in this topic likely encouraged interest in this research and the WSJ awareness of the research. Facebook researchers published a piece in Science (I admit I have not read the original research) on “very” polarized content and the database for this content seems to be the starting point for the WSJ work.
To be clear, the core issue in the WSJ article seems similar to Pariser’s concern that personalized search creates a filter bubble in which individuals are more likely to come in contact with information consistent with existing values rather than information that reflects reality. The idea is that our online history biases what is presented to us because we are likely to regard such results as a successful search and search algorithms want to provide us successful search results. The WSJ article mentions this issue without actually demonstrating this is a reality. This is not the point. What the WSJ article is trying to do (if I understand the intention apart from the other content provided) is to offer the reader a side by side comparison of positions taken on a popular political topic. It is more a way to bring to the attention of the reader extreme contrasting views as a way to encourage awareness.
I found it very interesting to examine the content and to try to mindfully apply the reasons and evidence test as a way to examine the contrasting extremes. I would encourage you do a similar thing. Take an issue – gun control, climate change – and review some of the extreme “news” appearing on Facebook. The WSJ service makes it easy to explore some sample posts. What is the evidence offered in justifying any reasons given? I think approaching this demonstration using this technique adds something to what the WSJ proposes.
I just updated our textbook and then explained the reason I decided to update the existing content rather than just republish as a new book. I thought I was doing the right thing by updating our content, but after not seeing the new content in my own Kindle download of our book I investigated. I based my approach on assumptions and did not read the fine print (which follows).
Some examples of corrections that don’t justify sending updates to customers who previously purchased your book are:
New Content Added: Chapter(s) or page(s) added, deleted or revised; new images added; bonus chapter added.
Book Plot or Character Changes: Character’s name changed; book ending changed.
Marketing Information: Links or marketing info added, deleted, or modified.
I did not update to correct errors. I updated because I wanted those who had already made a purchase to get the most current content at no additional cost. I should not have relied on my assumptions. I don’t understand this position. Current content would seem a unique benefit of digital content available via the Internet. Current content is one of the common complaints of those who oppose traditional paper textbooks updated every three years or so. I doubt those with an old edition would repurchase a book and even if they would I should have the opportunity to decide if I think I deserve additional income.
I guess the thing to do at this point is to delete the existing book and publish as a new book.
You must be logged in to post a comment.