Learning Aloud

Several past posts have contained concepts advanced in Thomas Friedman’s book – The World Is Flat. Friedman’s analysis positioned the Internet among the key factors that have brought both positive change and challenges to our world. Free access to the Internet allows oppressed people to gain a broader perspective. The Internet allows the work of U.S. workers to be outsourced to those willing to do this work more cheaply. Open access serves as a challenge to the productivity of the U.S. education system. In head to head competition, if one cannot do the same job for less, one better be capable of solving more significant problems or providing more creative solutions. etc.

The flaw in Friedman’s analysis may be the greed of U.S. based multinationals. Friedman’s idea that you cannot hide behind walls assumes a lack of collaboration from those on the other side of the wall. It appears Google, Yahoo, and other technology companies are willing to help countries that compete with the U.S. economically and subject the unfortunate to mistreatment keep the walls up by censoring the information that gets over the walls. (Human Rights Watch) I thought this issue had been resolved a couple of years ago. Now, it seems the big tech players have gone soft again perhaps in fear that a competitor will take advantage of any show of resolve.

National Geographic has a great webcam feature titled Pete’s Pond. Great live imagery from a watering hole in Botswana.

Webcams need not be located in such exotic locations to be interesting. Cornell University runs a feeder watch program for the purpose of collecting data and involving the public in a little field biology. Search for “webcam bird feeder” online and you will find several others.

New Kids On The Blog. Not my cute title this time – this is the heading for an NEA piece on K-12 blogging. This is an introductory level description of blogging, but the examples are worth a look.

Months ago, I commented on the plans of Nicholas Negroponte (MIT) to develop a $100 laptop (link).

CNET is now carrying an update on that story.

It’s an education project, not a laptop project. If we can make education better–particularly primary and secondary schools–it will be a better world.

By the way, if you visit the CNET site to read this story, make sure you explore the graphic organizer tool “The Big Picture” showing interconnections of the story on the $100 computer and other news stories.

Andy Carvin makes available the audio for Negroponte’s presentation.

This is really a continuation of yesterday’s post regarding “real” experiences for children. The “contra” example addressed in that post concerned the position that children need more opportunities to explore their own environment (outdoor environment in Dr. Monke’s example) and the damage that would be done by substituting virtual for real experiences.

Rather than promoting technology as an alternative to “real” experiences, we promote technology as a way to increase the probability that physical experiences are real learning opportunities. Again, experiences without thinking are ineffective learning opportunities. It is our contention, shared by many other scholars I believe, that when used properly technology can involve students in thinking about virtual or physical experiences.

Cindy provided the following images from her experiences of the past week. All middle school students in Grand Forks have an opportunity to attend an Eco-ed Camp at Turtle River State Park. This has been going on for several years. The tech group goes along and works on the “invertebrate study” which involves issues of water quality and presence of invertebrate species.

Students collect specimens – sometimes taking them back to the classroom in physical form and sometimes in digital form.

Once back at school, students continue to work with the images by creating multimedia projects based on their experiences in the field. The projects continue student involvement with experiences from the field.

Aquatic worm

Riffle Beetle Larva

Podcast from South Middle School.

I have commented previously on the curious, but contradictory perspectives of me and my “next farm” childhood friend (Lowell Monke). Lowell and I differ in our opinions of the potential of technology to help young children process their life experiences. Lowell, it seems, is a persuasive writer and I keep running across his work (Orion Magazine). Reading his material is a weird experience for me – the farm and elementary school experiences he describes as “authentic” in this article were identical to my own and often I was physically there at the same moment (his description of a common acquaintance Lee Anfinson).

I knew our farm—where the snowdrifts would be the morning after a blizzard, where and when the spring runoff would create a temporary stream through the east pasture. I could tell you where I was by the smells alone. Watching a massive thunderstorm build in the west, or discovering a new litter of kittens in the barn, I would be awestruck, mesmerized by mysterious wonders I could not control. One of the few moments I remember from elementary school is watching a huge black-and-yellow garden spider climb out of Lee Anfinson’s pant cuff after we came back from a field trip picking wildflowers. It set the whole class in motion with lively conversation and completely flummoxed our crusty old teacher. Somehow that spider spoke to all of us wide-eyed third graders, and we couldn’t help but speak back.

Ironically, my farm home no longer exists except in digital images and the school descrbed in Lowell’s article is no longer in service. This following picture of my home shortly before it was demolished was sent to me in an email from Lee Anfinson (the person described in the excerpt).

Near Pierson, Iowa – my farmstead is now only a grove of trees. The childhood homes of Lowell and Lee are still standing. (Thanks to Google Map)

Must be a constructivist thing – we each process our experiences to create our own truths – similar experiences or not. Probably a very important lesson here – it is not the experience (virtual or physical), but the mental interpretation we apply.

Those of us promoting the integration of technology become concerned when individuals are unable or unwilling to make use of technology because we believe technology supports student learning. Any concern I had that gender differences were responsible for such inequities have diminished over the years I have followed such issues. I am aware of large gender differences in the number of students pursuing computer science as a vocation, but I am willing to treat vocational preferences as a separate issue. The question of whether there are gender differences in the willingness to make use of technology in a more general way is similar to the issue of whether there are gender differences in the willingness to read – both have implications for learning on a more general level.

Christensen, Knezek & Overall (Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 2005, 38, 23-37) offer a recent study claiming there is a percipitous drop in female “enjoyment” of technology in middle school. This drop appears to occur between the 5th and 6th grades and the authors speculate the drastic change is the result of emerging gender differences in sensitivity to relationships vs. achievement/competition orientation. Among the recommended solutions offered, greater use of technology in group projects, online interaction, and technology supported communication. These suggestions are very similar to our own suggestions for addressing several sources of inequity (Responsible Use of Technology).

I think the results of the reported study should be regarded with caution. A general issue in any research is how key variables are operationalized. “Enjoyment of Computers” is assessed using a five item scale. To me, the items are a curious assortment – I am tired of using the computer. I enjoy lessons on the computer. I enjoy computer games very much.

Consider this, the one specific activity mentioned in the list is game play. This fits very well with the concern for gender differences in competition and would be associated with less enjoyment among females who are reported to not enjoy competitive game play. There is no item on the list that might tap use of the computer for communication/socialization. Consider that the recommendations offered by the authors would engage learners in activities the scale they use to evaluate enjoyment would only indirectly assess at best. Makes no sense to me.

Why do a study of this magnitude with such a weak and potentially misleading indicator of the key dependent variable? This is my take – read the article and draw your own conclusions.