The lead story in the latest Newsweek (April 3) is focused on “new” web applications (“Putting the We in WEB). The discussion, which covers MySpace, Flikr, etc. and a collection of Web 2.0 startups I have not encountered (e.g., Plum, Jajah), includes interviews with founders of some of the more well-known services. The interviews provide some insight into what the writers (Steven Levy & Brad Stone) and company founders see as the key features of new offerings (e.g., community, user-generated content).
I was listening to Public Radio this morning and the news program had a piece on No Child Left Behind. The discussion was focused around a recent report by the Center on Education Policy summarizing the 4 year record of NCLB.
The report basically concludes that results are mixed. Aside from issues of whether or not expectations are adequately funded and whether the approach is appropriately punitive, I think a major conclusion is that math and reading benefit at the cost of attention to other activities (an example used is history). Advocates claim that fundamental skills (i.e., reading) provide the basis for learning everything else (i.e., social studies). Critics note that what have been reported as achievement gains attributed to the program are deceptive and simply result from the common practice of school/teacher decisions to reduce the time spent on other topics. Hence, we claim to teach social studies in elementary school, but tend to actually do little of this as the time for achievement tests measuring reading and math approach.
Thomas Friedman had an article on a related topic this past week (sorry – I can’t link you to the NYTimes editorial). Examining the priorities of education from an international perspective, he notes that the U.S. is worried that students cannot compete in math and science (I guess the focus is on more advanced levels of education) and this is a concern for future economic competitiveness. In contrast, other countries worry that a lack of interest in the humanities will reduce higher level thinking capabilities so necessary for creative approaches in many fields. Everyone sees the connection between education and commerce and everyone is concerned (anxiety is the word Friedman uses) that national educational practices will limit the nation’s capacity to compete.
Here is another example of software you can use to create podcasts. Profcast is a Mac-only product ($35) that can be used to convert a PowerPoint or Keynote presentation into a podcast. The slides are embedded within the podcast and appear within the “album art” window of iTunes.
The link provided below will download a sample I have created. This “podcast” will open within iTunes. If you have Quicktime player loaded on your system, you might also right click on this link and download the file. The file can then be opened and played within Quicktime. If you try this second technique, you will find that you can expand the “slides” to their original size.
My academic life is somewhat schizophrenic. I split my time between work associated with a Psychology department and a program in Instructional Design and Technology. The Psychology department is large and long established. The IDT program is small and new.
A party at my house is not a unique event and never before a blog topic. I was chair of the Psychology department for many years and parties at our house with 50+ grad students, faculty members, and friends were common. Psych parties were and continue to be great fun.
The IDT program at UND took 10+ years before the administration felt it appropriate to commit to a program. The early years have been a struggle with faculty recruitment and student enrollments critical issues. For several years, the program seemed to continually teeter on the brink of disaster.
I was thinking this morning. It is a significant accomplishment to actually have enough of a group to have a real party (this was actually our second event). Not just the type of party in which a couple of people stop by for a beer, but a real event in which people come and go for hours. Perhaps this could be the standard by which I can feel the program has achieved critical mass. All of those traditional academic metrics aside, when do you reach the level at which a program deserves to be recognized? We do have research articles, books, grants, graduates with jobs, and those kinds of things. We also have enough of a cohesive group to have a real party.
I do admire those individuals – administrators, faculty, student – willing to take a risk on a new program. Because of the type of institution UND is (Med school, large internationally oriented aviation program, long time experience with distance education), there is really a great deal of opportunity here for an academic program focused on the instructional benefits of technology. However, potential takes time and effort to develop.
Don and Ann Lemon (below) – Don (now retired) was an early advocate for the IDT program and first program Chair.
Artistic expression everywhere.
Faculty-types automatically go into presentation mode.
So, I have high hopes there will be many IDT parties yet to come. Party on!
Andy Carvin’s posts offering an international perspective on the digital divide always makes me feel hopeful and guilty at the same time. Internet-based technologies are spreading and connecting us all, but we take the ease and relative low cost of our own opportunities for granted. The perspective of what you can do from where and the related costs is worth a look.
A student in one of my classes brought a copyright resource to class and I thought I should pass the resource on. Technology and Learning offers a copyright primer and chart for administrators (you may have to register to use this site). I have to bite my tongue when I see that a resource has been created for administrators, but if I say anything more I may get myself in trouble. Hall Davidson (the author) has made an effort to use concrete examples and organize issues within a convenient table.
The trouble I have attempting to understand copyright is that the language of copyright law always seems vague and my mind quickly jumps to very specific examples that remain unclear. Here is an example based on the chart provided by Technology and Learning and not the original law or related cases. One topic within the chart concerns the use of copyrighted characters (e.g., Bugs Bunny) and the description of violation claims – “Copyrighted characters may not be used without permission for any school purpose other than instruction.” This actually surprised me because I would probably not assume I could use an image of Bugs or a recording of “that’s all folks” for any purpose. Then I started to wonder about the meaning of instruction. Does the word “instruction” mean use of the image/sound as an example that preserves a focus on the original use of the protected resources (e.g., a discussion of copyrighted material, a discussion of branding as a business strategy) or does it mean the use of a resource as part of a general educational enterprise (e.g., creating a stamp of bugs and using this stamp to reward good student work). See what I mean by the problems that arise when considering specific cases?
I have not been an administrator now for several years. Perhaps if I was presently in such a capacity, I would be able to think more clearly about such issues.
Let me tell you where I am going with this in hopes that you will stick with me. Those in the midst of innovations tend to focus on how what they are doing is drastically different and better than what came before. The lens of history often reveals it was the generation before that was actually responsible for the change. In addition, a preoccupation with what is new may limit learning from what came before and it may actually be the third generation that is able to tie things together.
Back to sex (in case your mind has started to wander) – I am a product of the 60s and I was in college during the “sexual revolution”. It was a time of many changes and many challenges and an age group was labeled as if this group were somehow responsible. As participants, we thought so. However, from what I have read of historical analyses of such matters, the greatest change actually occured among those in the generation preceding the generation associated with the phenomenon.
The focus on the distinction between digital natives and digital immigrants (not my favorite terms) has elements of the same misperceptions. Mixed within the generation of digital immigrants is a group that might be called the digital discoverers. These individuals created the applications and enabled the trends responsible for the activities of the digital natives. In contrast to digital natives, the discoverers actually understand how the applications work and understand the social and technological contexts out of which these applications emerged. While it is true that an understanding of technological or sociological context are not necessary to use the present applications, I tend to believe that adapting applications occurs more productively when connections with the past are appreciated. This is true of those programmers creating new tools and also of those who use such tools. Concepts such as metadata are hardly new. Database design and relational database structure use techniques that include attaching descriptors to records and systems for linking existing databases. Perhaps the same is true for those focusing on tool applications.
Adaptation is what many are really interested in. Educators are not using blogs, wikis as they tend to be used at present – the intent is to adapt common use to classroom use. “Native” bloggers did not take up blogging within the context of “blogging to learn.” The interest in social software applications could have roots in existing experience. Researchers have been struggling with how to productively engage students in online discussion for some time. The research on “writing to learn” has a longer history. Back in the ’60s when I was told I was part of that “other revolution” there was a lot of interest in productive “face to face” discussion. What should be done to engage ALL learners? What should be done to encourage deep rather than shallow thought?
So, what has changed?
