eWeek.com has a recent article describing Sun Microsystem’s interest in education and the creation of a free-standing project – Global Education Learning Community (GELC). The GELC site is intended to offer access to open source learning resources.
The GELC site offers resources for primary, secondary and university students. I did not find a lot of content when I visited and the site seems presently to be mostly a shell to be populated by participants. So those interested in open source educational content might want to put this site of the list to watch.
I have not posted for several days because we have been out of town and our time has been occupied. We made a trip to Ames, Iowa, for Iowa State University’s homecoming festivities. Cindy and I graduated from ISU MANY years ago and we returned for homecoming because we were recognized by ISU with an alumni achievement award.
Dean of Human Sciences, Cindy, Mark
We did have an opportunity to meet with faculty members involved in preparing teachers to use technology to share ideas and experiences. It was a special weekend for us and I was reminded of George Siemen’s comment on the importance of connections in a rapidly changing worlds. We have the opportunity to remain connected to our educational institutions.
We also had a great time attending traditional homecoming activities.
Perhaps the challenge is to expand the more common connections (e.g., following the athletic teams) to connections with the academic mission of the institutions. Maybe such connections should be two-way – how can the academic mission tap into the diverse “real world” experiences of graduates and how can graduates continue to benefit from the academic mission of our institutions?
John Battelle writes critizing the AAP (Association of American Publishers) decision to sue Google over plans to digitize copyrighted work.
I really don’t get this. I have been both a publisher and an author, and I have to tell you, these guys sue for one reason and one reason alone, from what I can tell: Their legacy business model is imperiled, and they fear change
Hmmm – I do not disagree with the prediction regarding the legacy model. I disagree with the position that follows – what is illegal is illegal. The Napster mentality (we were offering a service and never advocated anyone using it for improper ends) is a weak excuse.
If the legacy model is dead, create a viable alternative.
1) Make use of open source resources. Create and offer your own content in this fashion if you are willing.
2) Encourage changes in copyright law
3) Support companies attempting to provide cost-effective alternatives
etc.
Like Batelle, I am also an author. I would like to practice my craft in a different way and I hope my publisher and other publishers move toward different models of content distribution and revenue collection. I believe publishing companies will change when someone comes up with a different business model.
Some observations:
a) Cost to the customer is too high and return to the producers are too low. How can this be? In my opinion, delivery costs and multiple resales which return no money to those creating content are the primary culprits. When you purchase a used book, you are driving up the cost of new books? This is reality. I believe those who desire hard copy content should accept this reality. People presently have the right to resell an object they have purchased. The push back from this reality is that content creators must make their profit on the only sale they control (the sale of the original product). I think the solution to this situation may be to move away from the hard copy concept. Check out the difference in cost between popular books and textbooks.
b) Learning resources need to be generated in ways that allow greater flexibility to the learner. In the field in which I work (integration of technology), flexibility is limited when 1) resources are out of date, 2) resources are generic offering limited perspectives relevant to different age groups, content areas, etc.
It is not easy to criticize wikipedia. What could be wrong with experts creating free online content and filling in the blanks when another expert forgets to include something or gets a fact wrong? The process sounds great, but is it real and who is involved?
See an analysis of quality issues (The Register). Wikipedia is interesting and worth exploring, but under the present model it should not be regarded as definitive or a model of quality communication. Perhaps traditional advice for evaluating Internet sources should be applied – e.g., who is the author, is the author an expert, does this treatment match positions/data provided elsewhere?
I came across this CNet article on educational blogs because another blogger was excited to see this topic covered. What struck me about the excitement expressed by the blogger linking to the CNet site was that the comments to the main article were ignored. The comments dismissed blogs as an unproven classroom activity promoted by those focused on being recognized as innovators rather than on improving student performance. So, I encourage you to read this article and learn how some educators are integrating blogs, but also read the comments and recognize why some educators object.
I can’t help thinking the answer is somewhere in between. It is true that there is little evidence that student blogs promote learning. I do not doubt that in the proper situations blogging might be quite useful, but I am not certain these circumstances have been well defined. If blogs encourage students to think about what they read and hear, this has to be a good thing. However, what students write about and whether what they have to say seems reasonable are critical. Shallow and faulty comments are no better than thoughtless memorization.
Concerns that the educational enterprise is failing to maintain the nation’s economic superiority are simplistic. International changes resulting in economic shifts involve many factors. Some of these factors simply concern basic financial realities such as costs and salaries. The solution may not be to do more of the same. The economy needs at least a few individuals with the motivation and the creativity to think on a higher plane. Sure, basic skills are necessary for advanced problem-solving and creativity. However, if early experiences with the basics are dull, overly repetitous, and disconnected from personal experience, the number of young learners willing to push through will also be limited. A focus on “the basics” and educational rigor are not necessarily the same things.
UND has an annual psychology conference – Northern Lights. The regional conference mostly allows undergraduates and graduate students to present their work.
One unique feature of the conference has been the ability to attract some of the most prominent names in psychology. This year’s keynote was provided by Dr. Albert Bandura. According to the introduction, Dr. Bandura is perhaps the most well-known psychologist behind Frued, Skinner, and Piaget.
Anyone who has taken Introductory Psychology probably remembers the modeling study involving the Bobo doll. Young learners become more aggressive after witnessing an adult act agressively toward a bobo doll. While not as widely recognized, Bandura has also made significant contributions in understanding the importance of self-efficacy.
Now, as an 80 year old patriarch. Bandura is applying the concepts of modeling and self-efficacy to some of the big problems of the world. Bandura is involved in the use of “serial dramas” to promote positive behaviors (literacy, family planning, aids awareness, gender equity) in impoverished countries. Serial dramas are radio or television programs somewhat like “soap operas”, but focused on more socially conscious themes. These programs include certain common features:
models involved in negative and positive behaviors
vicarious motivation – characters experience consequences for their actions
attentional involvement – emotion, interest – that help viewers/listeners identify with the characters in the programs
environmental support – contact information, epilogues following shows provide opportunities for action
These examples offer a very different model of the educational use of technology. I wonder if a similar approach would work in the U.S. Probably not – there are too many messages and such programs would likely attract a much smaller proportion of the audience. Maybe students should do their own programs. They would learn from creating the content and from the content produced by peers.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
