This is the first of a three-post series focused on the potential of classroom gardens. I have had a long-standing interest in school gardens as a category of maker space with potential for learning outcomes across the curriculum. This interest has been rekindled because of a recent purchase intended to get me through the Minnesota winter.
Since retirement, we have been spending the worst part of midwest winters in a warmer climate. You may have viewed some of my pictures from Kauai or the Big Island on my travel blog. Because of the pandemic, we will not be spending time on the road this winter. Maybe next year.
Looking for interesting things to do while spending lots of time indoors, Cindy game me an indoor hydroponic garden as a present (birthday, Christmas, extra money set aside for Hawaii, etc.). As I got it set up, I started to connect the experience with my long term interest in school gardens.
This is a pretty fancy setup with sensors, wifi connection, timers, pumps, etc. There are less expensive versions and related products from other companies. The iPad is there because I am doing a time-lapse of plant growth which I will write about in a later post.
The system uses hydroponics which is the growing of plants without soil. The two tubs at the base of the garden contain water and nutrients with a motor to circulate the solution. You add water and fertilizer every couple of weeks and prune plants to keep them within whatever space you are willing to allocate. The first group consists of several varieties of lettuce, cherry tomatoes, and several different herbs. I may have too much going on for my first attempt, but this is about learning.
My experiences with hydroponics go way back – more than 50 years back. Members of my family get tired of hearing this story, but I will offer a short version because it is new to you. When I was a freshman in high school, a classmate and I placed third in a regional science fair with an experiment growing corn hydroponically. I had found some “recipes” for hydroponic solutions that provided plants a nutrient source weak in one of the three major macronutrients of fertilizer (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). We grew corn in four mason jars with a control group and a group deficient in one of the macronutrients. We charted growth and displayed the actual plants as part of our booth for the competitions. I had no idea of the chemistry involved, but the visual display was impressive and we were only 9th graders. I have an old black and white photo of the display but I could not find it for this post.
I have come across hydroponics on other occasions. Some of you have probably seen the hydroponics display at EPCOT. You ride past in on one of those boat rides. We have visited a couple of times and paid the fee to get the behind the scenes tour. Here is a post with some pictures from our visit in 2014. I see I was thinking about the potential for school gardens in reaction to this visit. My present experience offers a more practical approach.
So, I see opportunities for having a unit such as this in classrooms. More on school gardens in my next post.
I have blogged since 2002 and since I have started I have written thousands of posts now organized into three blogs (Learning Aloud, Blurts, and Curmudgeon Speaks). The first two blogs are focused on educational topics and technology tutorials and the final on a range of topics unrelated to my professional interests. I have a sense that the personal blog is becoming less popular. Blogs and podcasts have come to be dominated by commercial backers. There is only so much reading/listening time and it is becoming difficult to keep an audience. Blogs also require more work (relative to social media services) and fewer and fewer folks seem to learn how to use an RSS reader to make the following of multiple blogs easy and efficient. Much of the traffic I get now comes from Twitter (all posts generate a tweet that provides a link), but if I am right about this method of alerting potential readers, the maximum possible readers would be limited to the size of my list of Twitter friends who are interested in education.
I am not going to abandon blogging mostly because I value having a place where the content I have generated is curated. I wrote regularly on Facebook during the Trump era, but there was always a sense that any effort directed at that outlet was “here today and gone tomorrow”. A service with such characteristics does not seem the place to store content such as tutorials intended to have some long term value.
Sites to which multiple individuals post and comment have obvious advantages for engagement even though the content submitted there eventually fades into the mists of time. Blogs do allow commenting, but the interaction on Facebook or Twitter is obviously far greater and more vigorous. This can be both good and bad, but ignoring the deserved negative attention of recent times, the opportunity to engage a group around a topic on such platforms offers clear advantages if the goal is interaction among participants.
I hope to increase the time I spend in such interaction now that I feel free from the hours I spend engaged in Political arguments on Facebook. I spent this time because I felt it important to the way I wanted to think about the future of this country. I have always been interested in argumentation and I certainly had the opportunity to explore both the positive and negative elements of argumentation in discussing my liberal political views. It is this interactivity I hope to experience around other topics.
I have several reasons to abandon Facebook despite the popularity of this platform. First, I just think the dominance of Facebook is not a good thing. Most folks don’t care, but I have what I consider a professional interest in the long view of online learning and I just don’t think it is a good thing when there is not healthy competition offering alternatives and driving innovation. Second, I disagree with some of Facebook’s methods. I understand the ad revenue model (see the comments that follow), but Facebook uses information collected from users to personalize ads (a useful thing in some circumstances) to tell users what they want to know and to prioritize emotion-provoking content. Being told what you want to hear is not the same as the best information available and encourages confirmation bias. Both promoting this bias and emotion-provoking content increase attention leading to the opportunity to sell more ads leading to the opportunity to collect more information, etc., etc.
Follow the money
I think it fair to argue that the big players in this space must generate a revenue stream to pay for their infrastructure and pay their employees. Of course, there is also the opportunity to make a great deal of money.
If one ignores open-source software which certainly exists and maybe fun to explore, the services that will be able to actually compete seem to fall into three categories (I offer an example for each).
Ads – Facebook
General contribution – WT:Social
Focused contribution – rent space – MeWe
With time to spend, I want to explore options to Facebook.
So, Facebook clearly dominates this space and relies on ad revenue which might be interpreted by users as free. If one does not mind viewing ads and we all certainly view ads all of the time, Facebook may seem free. What we are really spending is information about ourselves. Facebook collects this information which is valuable to companies wanting to target ads as effectively as possible.
We could pay for a social service and receive access without the collection of personal data or the need to view ads. I see two options here. In the first option, one pays a fee to gain access to the service. WT:Social is an example of this approach. You can use WT:Social for free, but the service wants you to subscribe. The second option would like you to rent space as a contributor. MeWe is my example of this approach. You can post a certain amount of content at no cost, but at some point you are expected to pay for additional storage and other services.
I am exploring both WT:Social and MeWe. Both offer opportunities to create or join groups and the feed you encounter then depends on those you friend or the groups you join. So, the experience in both cases resembles Facebook with a greater emphasis on groups and without the ads. Both services face challenges overcoming what is known as the network effect.
I have created groups on both platforms attempting to attract participants to a sharing of content associated with a theme of K12 use of technology. The links to these efforts are – https://wt.social/wt/k12-edtech, https://www.mewe.com/join/educationaltechnology-k12. The wt.social group has been active for the longest, but I would not regard this effort as successful. My observation of the wt.social content related to technology has mostly been that there are efforts with many posts by a single individual, but few group members (my example) or groups with many members and only a few posts. I have had far less time invested in MeWe, but I started a group on this site because there were no other groups under the education heading focused on general technology integration. What I can offer based on my experience to this point is that it is very difficult to organically create a group around a specific topic. Clearly, these groups are far smaller than Facebook, but the services argue they are growing. I worry that there is a perception that an individual attempting to create a group intends to use that group as a personal outlet very much in the tradition of a blog. This is not my intention and it is not consistent with the capabilities of social media groups. I will give my efforts a year or so and see what I think at that point.
On Wednesday (Nov. 11), I noticed an email from Google. It was a description of the changes to my Google Photos account. At present Google allows you to store as many “high quality” photos as you want for free. I am not certain what high quality is, but it is a compressed version of the original quality of a decent camera. High quality is still great quality. After June 1 of next year, free goes away. Any Google user has 15 gigabytes of storage (mail and drive). Photos added after June will count toward this limit. If you want more space you must pay for a Google One account.
I knew I paid a couple of dollars a month to Google for space and it turns out I already have a Google One account.
I purchased Google One because I was concerned about what I had stored in Google Drive. I was approaching 15 GB of Drive content. I must have the smallest account (100 gb), but I have lots of content stored.
Some thoughts on paying for stuff. In general, I think digital users should pay. The present ad supported model has resulted in problems concerning the collection and sharing of personal data and efforts by tech companies to attract more screen time from users. The mechanisms to increase screen time have manipulated our understanding of the world with the prioritization of attention grabbing mechanisms such as the prioritization of content suited to our personal interests and content more likely to generate an emotional response. Paying for a less manipulative service would probably be a good thing and the tech companies do need to way to generate revenue. The Google price model is reasonable.
From the other perspective, Google has employed typical big company tactics. Very much like Amazon, Google has undercut the price of competitors driving them out of business. I have no idea whether this was the long term intention, but it has worked out this way. Undercut competitors to close them down or buy them out and then raise prices. This is the type of thing the Commerce Department must address if we want to maintain the competition necessary for continued innovation.
I admit this a kind of click-bait title, but I paraphrased it from a source arguing that far too much ELA time is spent on comprehension skills. I did end the title with a question mark.
The article divides the development of reading skill into two pretty much sequential components – decoding skills and comprehension skills. I agree. The article does not argue that attempts to teach comprehension skills should be completely abandoned, but rather claims that these stepping stone skills are emphasized too much because the key to reading comprehension is really the development of existing knowledge. Again, I kind of agree and suggest that this research supported argument is under-appreciated by many teachers and is lacking in the understanding of such important issues as the struggles of lower SES kids in developing core academic skills.
The position taken by the authors reminds me of a post I generated just a few days ago concluding that increasing time spent in social studies at the elementary school level is more important in developing reading proficiency than variations in the time spent on reading instruction. The logic explaining this finding is that of the typical elementary subject areas, social studies is the area that best covers what might be described as general knowledge (e.g., in constrast to the specialized knowledge and vocabulary of science). Understanding what we read is heavily influenced by what we already know about a topic and general knowledge is, as the term implies, general meaning it applies more widely. Hence, it seems wrong, but possibly counterintuitive to many, to steal time from social studies to emphasize STEM. Develop learning skills first and then allow opportunities to turn these proficiencies loose on topics of personal interest.
Given the complexity of the news environment at this moment, even technology enthusiasts may have missed the massive (400+ pages) report focused on alledged anti-competitive practices of Amazon, Apple. Facebook, and Google. Four hundred pages is a lot to read, but there is an executive summary and sections on specific issues and the individual companies that may be of interest.
The report is titled – Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets. To be precise, this is the house majority report (Democrat). Party animus being what it is, the minority members of the committee may offer their own commentary. The minority wanted some issues such as their claim that conservative issues are disadvantaged by algorithms that do not appear in the report of the majority. I am also not certain that this claim can be objectively demonstrated.
I would describe the general tenor of the report as finding specific faults with all of the companies investigated. While each company operates in somewhat independent areas, the general conclusions were that:
Each company functions as a gatekeeper over a category of distribution
The advantages of this gatekeeper position is used to maintain control.
While the companies function as intermediaries, they exploit their advantages to influence opportunities for competitors and take advantage of companies who depend on the intermediary.
The committee pointed to the combined economic power of these companies in justifying potential regulations that may be necessary. The combined valuation of these companies is more than $5 trillion.
The report indicated that Google would probably be the first to face regulation. Without defending Google, I am personally more concerned about the impact of Facebook. Facebook was indicated in the report to have 1.79 billion daily users and if it has reasonable competitors, these competitors would most likely be other services it owns (Instagram). Facebook was reported to be on 74% of U.S. phones (200 million), Messenger on 184 million, and Instagram on 119 million. Facebook was reported to control 95% of time in minutes spent on social media.
Facebook’s advantages include network effects (people want to be where most other people are and as the percentage goes up the power of the network increases out of proportion to the numbers involved), switching costs (lose access to data – photos, posts, friends), and access to data (the more data the more tailored the experience).
I understand these factors, but I am concerned with the influence that Facebook has on users. It limits their capacity to make sound data and factually informed decisions because it manipulates access to facts and data based on personal biases and emotional triggers. To some degree, Google may be moving in this same direction as it has diluted the original page-rank algorithm to take into account personal preferences. How do you explain to people that what we like and what tends to activate us (content with an emotional edge) may not be accurate or good for us?
Here is a research study from the Fordham Institute that should give all elementary teachers and administrators something to think about. I will say as a preface that I know nothing of the Fordham Institute and I tend to trust studies I find published in scholarly journals more than technical reports. This is because the review process for journal publication requires the review of an article by other scholars who might identify flaws I have not considered. Still, the results of this study seem solid and the deeper question is likely why the results obtained happen. The paper itself (a pdf available for download from the link I provide) may be longer that many want to take on, but the executive summary is easy enough to consume and consider.
The study makes use of a longitudinal design following more than 18,000 k-12 students focused on the development of reading comprehension skills. The basic idea was to predict (a regression statistical approach) differences in 5th grade reading comprehension scores from variations in classroom time focused on different subject areas over the K-5 time span.
Aside from the focus on the study just the data on how student time is allocated and how it varies from school to school is interesting. Over this time span, the average daily academic time is 302 minutes. ELA (language arts) takes up consistently the most time (120 minutes) with math coming in a distant second. ELA time spent is more than the total of all other academic areas combined if math is excluded.
Even with this solid generality, time in different subjects does vary so the regression model attempts to use the time spent to predict variations in reading comprehension in fifth grade based on these variations (controlling for some other variables such as K reading assessments).
The study found that the only variable predicting reading comprehension differences was the time spent in social studies. Note that this includes variations in time spent in ELA. In addition, the researchers broke the data down by SES quartiles and found that this outcome was consistent across the bottom three quartiles, but not in the most affluent quartile.
The interpretation. The authors conclude that social studies offers the best opportunity to develop general knowledge and comprehension itself ends up highly predicted by what one already knows about a content area. I agree with this explanation based on other information I have read. One of the most persuasive study (actually mentioned in this report) involves the description of the play by play from a baseball game. Learners were differentiated based on reading skill and baseball knowledge. So, think of this as four groups – high knowledge/high reading, high knowledge/low reading, low knowledge/high reading, and low knowledge/low reading. In the study high knowledge/low reading demonstrated better comprehension than low knowledge/high reading. If you think about the importance of background knowledge in understanding, this should make sense.
Before I reached their explanation, I wondered about science. Why was time spent studying science not a predictor? The authors thought of this too and proposed that science is more about specialized and not general knowledge.
What about the SES results? Again, I found their explanation quite credible. They suggest that kids from more affluent families simply have far more opportunities to learn about the world – develop general knowledge. Students with fewer opportunities are more dependent on schools to provide background and just focusing on the strategies of reading as a skill does not provide this exposure.
The authors argue that the allocation of school time so heavily to traditional reading misses out on the opportunity to develop general knowledge important to both reading comprehension and life. The authors argue for diversion of some time (they suggest 30 minutes a day) from ELA activities to social studies. As I read this, I thought about the potential of Newsela as a way to do this. Newsela offers reading material on many topics with each article available at multiple reading levels. This would seem the type of activity relevant to both reading skill development and knowledge development.
Back to my general concern. Longitudinal studies lack the manipulated controls of the best research. Hence, longitudinal research is by design correlational and without random assignment to treatments more prone to misinterpretation because of direction of causality or biasing variables. The student attempted to control for such possibilities, but this type of bias always remains a possibility. On the other hand, longitudinal research has a certain type of validity in taking a long term perspective based in actual experiences and while expensive or at least demanding the results are appealing.
I think it will be interesting over the next months to see if this study attracts some attention. It is unfortunate that our present point in time has us focused on so many other issues.
I promote users making use of RSS and a RSS reader to control the blog content they consume. It is the best way to not give control of what you read to the vague algorithms of search and social media. However, I pay some attention to how folks get to my own posts and recognize that search and social media account for a substantial proportion of the page views. If not RSS, I suggest you follow me on Twitter to identify the headlines from posts you may find interesting. Twitter does not select content for you and you see the content of those you follow. Following Twitter link recommendations offers a form of discovery based on your trust in those you follow.
My Twitter posts can be located at @grabe. I do tweet about many topics and some political comments. However, all my blog posts automatically generate a tweet (as did this one).
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.