Most of us recognize that the Internet operates under few constraints and recent events have revealed just how groups with diverse and competing agendas use the web.
Educators are concerned that students will find “information” that will promote beliefs inconsistent with the common educational agenda. Some are unfamiliar with the reality of such concerns. An article from the Guardian provides comments about such sites.
EdTech types seem less interested in gender issues than used to be the case. Perhaps it is now assumed that there is no longer a “digital divide” in this area.
There is clearly at least one exception and that concerns the interest in “Computer Science.” Newsweek offers a recent article on this topic.
I am presently working on the development of content concerning the use of electronic portfolios. Cindy will be working with College of Education faculty next year to assist them in making the transition from a “paper” portfolio review process to the use of LiveText (a commercial on-line portfolio system). A year or so from now local experiences and my literature review will likely result in a new section for the “Integrating technology …” text.
An issue that has always interested me is how “groups” of individuals focus on a topic and develop a special vocubulary to communicate within the group about this topic. Across groups this specialized vocabulary may obscure what really are commonalities. I have noticied that “teacher education types” are very fond of the word “reflection.” As in, “this assignment seemed to require a lot of good reflection” or “where is evidence of your reflection.” This word appears very frequently in discussions of the value of portfolios. I pulled two “ed psych” texts off my shelf and did not find the work “reflection” included in the subject index of either one. I would guess we might use terms like improve metacognition or self-regulation or in some cases “identify personal experiences that may relate to this concept”. I would guess that counselors or clinical psychologists also have some term to describe the “thinking” that clients do as part of the therapy process.
If you are interested in this topic and are searching for resources, I would recommend web sites maintained by:
1) Dr. Helen Barrett
2) American Association For Higher Education
I also recommend edited book “With portfolio in hand” from Teachers College Press (1998) for some very useful articles. Try the even handed analysis by Lee Shulman (I tend to value analyses that clearly outline both the positives and negatives). While a strong proponent, Shulman raises a list of concerns that make great sense to me. “Trivialization” is an example. Shulman contends that once we commit to a specific type of assessment we then allow this form of assessment to move us along a path of least resistance. I interpret this to mean that portfolios will be likely to contain certain types of artifacts and learners will be asked certain predictable types of questions about these artifacts. Such products and answers will not necessarily address the issues that should be addressed. Shulman mentions MC tests as an example of trivialization. I happen to still feel there is some hope for MC questions, but I do agree that MC items tend to be a great example of the path of least resistance. I think fact questions are easy to ask and worse easy to defend (students have a hard time claiming that the right answser is not THE RIGHT ANSWER). Questions that address capabilities other than recall (see Bloom taxonomy) are much more difficult to construct and more open to complaint. I guess I have strayed of topic again.
Anyway, I am always looking for good resources and would welcome suggestions to extend this list.
I recently created a post providing information about the TEACH act. I just came across another site providing information on this topic – Technology in the Classroom.
A number of high-tech companies and other organizations are cooperating to push for the development of what they define as 21st Century Skills. The work of this coalition has resulted in a web site and several useful resources:
1) ICT-Literacy Map – a pdf document outlining standards and expectations by grade level
2) An interactive guide intended to help those who use the guide define priority skills.
I have heard organizations such as this criticized for what may in the long run be self-promotion – i.e., Apple, Dell, Cable in the Classroom, Time Warner have something to gain by the position that students need to be prepared to learn from new media sources and develop new information literacy skills suited to this new environment. However, I suppose the counter-argument would be that those institutions and companies invested in the status-quo also have a perspective to protect.
These materials contain some concrete language identifying the skills the coalition feels need additional attention and some good examples of classroom activities providing opportunities to learn these skills. I find this combination of specific skills and related activities is a useful way to understand what some feel need to receive greater attention.
I made the trip with Cindy to Chicago. She is attending a conference on digital portfolios sponsored by LiveText.
We walked by Millenium Park last night and I went back on my own today to take some pictures.
The main exhibit featured the a collection of photographs by Uwe Ommer titled “Family Album.”
Ommer has traveled the world to photograph families in context. Four years using nearly every from of transportation imaginable.
Uwe made it to South Dakota.
Learn more about Uwe Ommer at the Family Album Chicago web site.
I wonder if there would be a way to approximate this project virtually. Students from different locations could contribute images of their own families and a descriptive paragraph.
The July issue of eSchoolNews contains a headline article “Copyright: Can it hold knowledge hostage?” The articles takes its direction from an Annenberg School of Communication conference entitled Knowledge Held Hostage.
We emphasize student created multimedia products as a way for students to explore and process course content. When these projects were based in a physical location (e.g., a classroom, a school), existing “fair use” guidelines apply. You can use “small amounts” of material (text, music, images) within an educational multimedia product stored on a classroom computer. However, posting that same product to the Internet changes the rules. Works on the Internet are regarded as “publications” and are governed by the same rules that apply to commercial publication. This changed to some extent with the “TEACH Act.” The TEACH Act was enacted to allow on-line classes to provide similar experiences to face-to-face classes. For example, as a classroom instructor, I can take a small amount of material (e.g., a graph from the textbook) and display this material in class as part of a lecture. An on-line instructor would probably now be allowed to scan a graph from the textbook and post the image with comments on the web as long as access was limited to students from the instructor’s class.
The focus of the TEACH Act leaves unclear what students are allowed to create and post and whom would be allowed to review this material (e.g., parents).
Crews and Law analysis of the TEACH Act.
Indiana University – Purdue checklist of TEACH Act compliance.
Writing about legal matters is tricky. The best advice is probably to understand the punch line from the joke about the baseball umpire – “it ain’t nothing until I call it.” Laws are vague and comments about laws are closer to “opinions” than anything else. Court action often ends up defining what laws mean.
I am very interested in those willing to give their “opinion” regarding what content students are allowed to post.