General – Page 8 – Learning Aloud

Chromebook Cursive

Google has released an app for taking handwritten notes named Cursive. Cursive can be obtained from https://cursive.apps.chrome rather than the Play Store. The app works by progressive download so it works a little differently than other apps.

I have explored Cursive and will offer some basic comments below. I would not personally use Cursive, but I would not rely on handwritten notes on paper or any digital device because of the quality of my handwriting and because I can simply take notes more effectively from a keyboard. Cursive is not unique in allowing handwritten notes, but it is free and intended for Chromebook users.

Some observations. I have a Chromebook Pixel, but cannot see using this device because while it has a touch screen it is designed in the form facter of a typical laptop and extended writing on the screen does not make ergonomic sense. I explored Cursive with my Acer Tab 10 tablet which is a native Chrome device. It is several years old and probably underpowered by today’s standards. My assumption is that Cursive was designed for a Chromebook convertible or flip device.

The following is the Cursive interface with the tool options across the top of the screen and other options (e.g., copy to clipboard, export as pdf) available from a dropdown menu. The tools include a pen or brush, an eraser, a way to extend the keyboard, and to import images.

Here is what my effort to hand write notes generated.

I tried to generate notes at a rate I think might be necessary to record notes in a class. My handwriting is this bad. I also was using a short stylus (I call it golf pencil length) – my Apple pencil does not work with other touchscreens. Even with an older tablet, I found the lag (time between a movement and consequence appearing on the screen) to exist, but not present a serious problem. The issue that did frustrate me was the requirement that I not touch any part of the screen (e.g. my palm) while trying to write or draw. This creates a strained writing posture that has to limit the quality of what is put down and would become tiring when taking notes during a long presentation. Apple has found a way around this issue, but I cannot speak to whether solutions have been found on other chrome devices.

My recommendation – if you have a Chrome device that you would like to use to take cursive notes, I would suggest you give Cursive a try. It is easy enough to add to your device and learn to use and it costs you nothing to give it a try.

P.S. Here is a review from someone with better handwriting.

Chromebooks have screen recording built in

I had always assumed I had to add something to allow me to make screen recordings on my Chromebook. However, recent improvements in the OS offer a built-in video recording capability.

You activate screen recording from the popup that reveals such information as your clock, wifi strength, and internet strength at the bottom right of your screen (shift+CTRL+show windows icon for those who prefer to rely on keyboard shortcuts). The screen capture icons is then used to access the features to control screen capture and screen recording (make certain your OS is up to date).

I could not figure out how to take a screen capture of the active screen capture controls so I had to use my digital camera. Controls will appear at the bottom of the window allowing recording to be activated and to set the size of the window to be recorded. A record button will appear to start the recording. A red button appearing at the bottom of the screen is used to stop the recording.

I generate most of the recordings I create on a Mac and have typically relied on Apple’s Quicktime to do so. I know that many educators have used Screencastify to record video from their Chromebooks. Screencastify has one great feature not available in the Chrome builtin or Apple’s Quicktime, it allows an insert recorded from the computer’s camera to appear on top of the screen being recorded. This “see my teacher view” seems more appealing to me. There is a free version of ScreenCastify limited to five-minute videos. The unlimited version (for educators) is $29 (for a limited time).

Professional<>unbiased

The following is a repost of something I wrote in 2011. I have been reading about memory and the value of revisiting memories you find difficult to recall without cuing. There is a connection here. I decided my own writing would be interesting to re-examine as it reflects thinking I was doing at a given point of time and how the possible relevance may have been forgotten. The post concerned my reflection on expertise and how it is accepted or rejected. Thinking about what I was thinking about.

From 2011

A recent interview by Steve Hargadon (Future of Education) featured Douglas Rushkoff (Program or Be Programmed) (also see this etsy post). The simple version of the message, I think, is that we should participate now to shape how our digital tools are used because these tools will end up defining our future. I admit to not having this book on my reading list at this point, but some of the ideas did seem interesting.

The author’s response to a particular question caught my attention. The question directed at Rushkoff pretty much amounted to “Why do some who produce content deserve to be paid for their efforts and others do not?” So, the questions are being asked of a multi-book author who is compensated for his writing activities. And, the question is related to the premis offered by that author that we need to understand the technologies we are creating because our experiences and our assumptions end up being shaped by these creations. Part of the background for the question was related to participatory culture (e.g., bloggers) and the opportunity for so many to offer their opinions and how such opinions may influence others.

The author’s response focused on journalism and argued that journalists should be compensated while bloggers possibly should not because of the preparation, evaluation, and integration that went into the products generated by journalists, but not necessarily the products generated by bloggers.

This got me thinking about the topic of “what are we willing to pay for?” I agree with Rushkoff that we may fail to appreciate expertise when a technology system offers no apparent way to differentiate the process that went into the generation of an information product. On the surface Rushkoff’s position makes some sense, but it occurred to me that while one might conclude that the processes of preparation, evaluation, and integration warrant compensation should one necessarily conclude that those who are paid have engaged in these processes?

We typically pay someone else for services we are either unable or would rather not perform for ourselves. A journalist potentially has access to information sources the rest of us do not have and has the time to carefully evaluate these sources in order to provide a more concise and accurate account for us to consider.

However, the confabulation of payment with a title can lead to other problems Rushkoff did not identify. Perhaps we are now at the point where definitions of “the press” and “journalism” are somewhat ambiguous and assumptions associated with these terms problematic. “Gets paid” seems an agreed upon characteristic of both the official “press” and the occupation of “journalist”. What about characteristics such as “objective” or “critical”? How about “entertaining” and “agenda supporting”?

I completely agree with Rushkoff’s argument that we need to pay attention as technologies evolve because our technologies end up shaping us. Blogs are the least of our problems. We should have been more aware as cable television allowed the creation of “channels with a perspective”. We now think we are being informed by paid professionals who remain employed by a broadcasting company because they can take a given event and interpret it to conform to the philosophy or bias of the channel that employs them.

I think we need some kind of rating system that better defines the basis for the analysis that goes into the preparation of the content we consume. The disclaimer “the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position of this station” needs to be reworked for certain programming. Perhaps the statement should read “the views expressed here reflect the predictable bias of this station”. Keeping the spin going in the same direction may take considerable talent.

A slice of PISA

I was exploring for new resources for my Fall grad class and I came across this McKinsey and Company. The pdf contained a number of findings based on an analysis of the 2015 PISA data. Educators will recognize PISA as the Programme for International Student Assessment an internal assessment of student achievement often used to question the effectiveness of U.S. K12 education. That perspective aside, PISA does more than compare the achievement nation to nation because it also collects questionnaire data from students and educators allowing researchers to relate these data to the achievement data.

The researchers from McKinsey had used these data to identify multiple “drivers” of achievement outcomes. I was particularly interested in their conclusions regarding relationhips between science achievement and whether student classroom experiences had emphasized teacher-directed or inquiry-based experiences. Because the focus of the work was on science achievement and I imagined science to be a subject matter often supported by laboratory experiences, I thought the results relating these learning experiences to achievement would be particularly interesting.

Without getting too far into the methodological or statistical weeds, the conclusions were explained in the following chart. The various survey questions allowed the categorization of the classroom experiences students had experienced into levels of teacher-directed or inquiry-based experiences (few, some, many) with direct instruction showing a more positive relationship to achievement overall. The researchers concluded there was a sweet spot with some inquiry-based experiences combined with mostly teacher-directed experiences when it came to the best outcomes.

These findings likely frustrated the many constructivists who constantly berate the textbook and presentation-based approaches that limit student-centered activities, but the findings are consistent with the major reviews I have read. The researchers used individual items (e.g., students design their own experiments, students are asked to argue about investigations) to suggest that when inquiry activities are used structured tasks are likely to be most effective. One hypothesis proposed by the researchers was that students don’t have sufficient background in many cases to benefit from inquiry activities.

The specifics of the survey questions used by PISA interested me because I always find the methods section of research students to be helpful and I could not find the specifics I was looking for in the McKinsey study. I also tend to value research studies in journals over “think tank” analyses so I did some searches for PISA 2015 research. I came across a study (Cairns, 2019) more to my liking.

Cairns focused specifically on the inquiry tasks and what differentiated effective from ineffective experiences. If you looked at the individual items making up the multiple survey items what could you discover? The author noted that the term “inquiry task” is not clearly conceptualized in the literature making this approach of potential value. Cairns also noted that more experimental investigations of inquiry tasks have been more successful in supporting inquiry methods than correlational methods (the PISA study would be considered correlational as it evaluated existing instructional conditions and the relationship to achievement rather than controlling the research setting). The results resembled the findings of the McKinsey study and emphasized the importance of scaffolded experimentation (not student-designed experiments) with instructors explaining the implications of the core principles demonstrated by the experiments.

I was able to find examples from the survey questions elsewhere.

Teacher-directed items.

Inquiry items

Bryant, J., Dorn, E., Krawitz, M., Kihn, P., Mourshed, M., & Sarakatsannis, J. (2017). Drivers of student performance: Insights from North America. New York: McKinsey & Company.

Cairns, D (2019) Investigating the relationship between instructional practices and science achievement in an inquiry-based learning environment, International Journal of Science Education, 41:15, 2113-2135

Comment spam

This blog offers the opportunity for comments. This allows readers to respond to what I say – agree, disagree, or extend. Until a week or so ago, such responses have been very uncommon. I wish this was not the case, but few people react to my posts. Please feel free.

Like I was saying, a week or so ago I began receiving comments to various posts every few hours. Somehow, I have become the target of comment spam. The messages vary from promoting products that have nothing to do with the posts to which these promotions are attached to strange stuff in other languages. This blog must have somehow been added to a list.

I have been trying to figure out the motivation for these comments. I moderate the comments to this blog. This translates as nothing appears to the general public until I approve the comment. I would approve most comments should they have any level of relevance, but the comment spam that has been appearing lately is just irrelevant stuff. Unless I am missing something or there is a motive here I don’t understand, I can’t figure out why these comments keep coming.

BTW – if there is a goal here I am missing, please feel free to comment.

I have discovered the source of the spam. I was using an extension from Akismet to block spam. Akismet decided this blog was commercial in nature because it contains ads and deleted my account. The challenge is that the least expensive service for a commercial site from Akismet costs more than the ad revenue I make in a year so my only solution is to discontinue comments. Sorry to anyone wanting to add a comment.

Book update

I have generated few posts lately because I have been updating our textbook to make it available for the Fall semester. I have written about our involvement in writing textbooks several times before (use the book tag at the end of this post if you are interested in reading earlier posts). We have had a book used in the preparation of inservice teachers and the continued development of practicing teachers since 1996. We worked with a commercial publisher (Houghton-Mifflin and then Cengage) through 5 editions and when we wanted to offer a different approach (a Primer selling for $29 augmented with online resources) we could not reach an agreement and then decided to continue with our experiment by selling our Primer through Amazon ($9). Much of this adventure and our rationale is explained in previous posts.

One of our core ideas was that proven authors should write continuously rather than rush every three years to produce the next edition. The combination of a Primer and online resources allows this approach. We reasoned that in a field that moves as fast as the application of technology this makes a lot of sense. What I have been working on for the past few months was the update to the Primer.

I found that my update was more challenging than past updates. It was time to do the update, but the pandemic and how K12 education was forced to change as a consequence left me uncertain how best to position our view of technology integration for the future. Online experiences will undoubtedly play a larger role despite the negative reaction of many educators to their experiences during the past year. The core principles of how learning happens and how educators must provide external experiences to optimize the internal cognitive work of students have not changed. Our best guess is that we better appreciate how to use technology to better individualize learner experiences and part of how this will happen will require educators to function more often as instructional designers rather than rely on commercial instructional content.

I guess we will see as we try to get educators to take a look at our update and make decisions about how best to develop the skills of future and practicing teachers.

I learned a couple of things that may be of value to others who like to work in Google docs. I write almost exclusively in docs and this has been the case for a while. I like working online because I work using many different devices in many locations. I also like the way I can organize the many resources I use in one place. Anyway, here are the issues.

First, I learned that large documents (i.e., a book) cannot be saved as a pdf from docs. I was totally confused by this at the end of work as I needed a pdf to load into Kindle Create. I could download in other formats, but not pdf and I could swear I have never had this difficulty before. Anyway, there is evidently some issue with file size. The solution was simple – print to pdf. This is an old hack, but evidently it works on your own computer and does not stress Google.

Second, I needed to create a Table of Contents that links to the beginning of individual chapters. I have encountered this challenge before and I know I solved the problem in a different way before. Unfortunately, when I am working under a deadline, I frequently solve a problem and then don’t keep an account of how I did it. A few years later and I can’t remember. This time I used the capacity to add internal links in Docs. You add a bookmark at the beginning of each chapter (see bookmark under the Insert dropdown menu), list chapter titles on a TOC page, and then link from each item on the list to the appropriate bookmark. You should see the bookmarks you have created when you select text and then the same link icon you use for external links.

Finally, the last challenge I am trying to resolve is to get Amazon to identify the newer version of our book as an update. This is supposed to work when you upload a new version in place of an older version, but I have not been successful in accomplishing this change. When you update an existing work, the folks who purchased your original work are supposed to be given the opportunity to update their copy at no cost. I know this works because I see the “update” option from time to time in my own Kindle library. This also means any link you have used to reference your book in the Amazon store still works. The downside is that Amazon will continue to list your book by the original publication date which is misleading to new potential buyers. I am waiting a few days to see if the “update” link appears for the old version I have in my Kindle library and then I will have to decide what to do.

Access through Amazon

Oregon Trail Lives On

Oregon Trail was the example of an educational game we described in the first edition of Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning and it is included in the latest update. Other educational games might make better current examples, but the game was so ubiquitous and part of the K12 experience of so many that the familiarity of the game represents a touchstone we can rely on to make a connection between what we describe as attributes of educational games and a personal experience. The game continues to exist (the point of this post) and also provides the opportunity for a hands-on experience we can direct interested parties to explore.

In case the game was not part of your elementary school experience, the game asks players to take on the role of the leader of a wagon train making the journey from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon. The wagon master makes decisions along the way involving issues such as what supplies to purchase, when to hunt for food, when to stop and when to push on. Hunting for deer is what I remember as the only skill-based action component of the game. The focus was mostly on decision making and how such decisions were successful in dealing with random events one might encounter – e.g., disease, storms, breakdowns. In my opinion as a nongamer, the information provided was minimal and the repetitive process of moving through the game was tedious. As an educational activity (see book), I have always recommended that gameplay be supplemented with other reading and writing activities. Still, a history of Oregon Trail available on Wikipedia indicates that through 2011 sixty-five million copies of some version of the game had been sold. The game was inducted into the video game hall of fame in 2016 and is considered among the most influential early examples of serious games.

Versions of Oregon Trail have been developed by different companies and this continues. A recent offering from GameLoft available through Apple’s Arcade game subscription service represents a good example. The game is more sophisticated with more options and more challenges, but perhaps the most interesting feature is the attempt to be more sensitive to the true history of westward expansion and the impact on Indigenous inhabitants of the lands through which the wagon trains of the game traveled. This NPR story describes the efforts of Gameloft to more accurately represent Indigenous people in its representation of the Oregon Trail. The company brought in three Indigenous histories to offer advice on the way Native people were represented.

The new version of Oregon Trail is designed to be played repeatedly and the opportunity to fashion different groups making a trip changes the experience depending on the members of the group. Each segment of the trip involves multiple choice points that route the party through different locations with different experiences. The perspective of Native Americans is presented in alternate “journeys” using similar game components.

I have spent a few hours with the new game and my assessment of the educational impact remains pretty much the same. I also don’t see this game gaining traction in classrooms because of the Apple game subscription system used to make the game available. The efforts to improve the historical accuracy of the game are certainly to be appreciated.