Learning Aloud

Another alert provided by Andy Carvin

The Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology grant program (PT3), a popular federal program that assists colleges of education to develop effective edtech teacher training, is facing the chopping block under the White House’s proposed 2004 budget. In four years, PT3 has given out $337.5 million in the form of 441 grants going to universities that partner with local school districts. John Bailey, Director of Education Technology at the US Department of Education, says that edtech rofessional development would be better served if federal funds were distributed to states via block grants. “The president is not saying that it’s not important for our teachers to learn how to use technology,” Bailey said. “We do believe that’s important. In the end, we’re still achieving the same goal, we’re just doing it from another program that’s out there.” But Don Knezek, director of the National Center for PT3 and CEO of the International Society for Technology and Education, could not disagree more. “Eliminating funding for the PT3 program, unless the legislature elects to maintain it despite the president’s recommendation, will bring an end to the most effective and far-reaching federally supported new teacher improvement program in recent decades,” he said. “What we’re losing is that overarching piece that looks at the (teacher preparation) issue as a national issue,” he said. “I believe that it’s a national crisis, and it requires a national effort.” [SOURCE: Wired News, AUTHOR: Katie Dean]
http://www.wired.com/news/school/0,1383,57583,00.html)

The fourth edition of our book will not contain a discussion of the potential benefits of programming experiences (we will expand our online resources in this area for those instructors who are interested). This change reflects the reality of general educational interest in this topic and the need to contain costs so the text can be offered at a reasonable price.

I must admit I enjoy programming — it is kind of a hobby that has some utility as I pursue my professional interests. It can become a challenge to separate personal interests from issues of benefit or efficiency.

Our original presentation of “programming as a tool for learning” focused on LOGO, Papert’s concept of microworlds, and studies of programming experiences as a way to develop problem-solving skills. We later expanded this approach to include other “manipulative environments” such as LegoLogo and Stagecast Creator. We admit to playing a little loose with some of the ideals and ideas of microworlds. You can’t explore all of the nuances of complex ideas in a limited amount of space.

I was moved to bring up the microworld idea again as a consequence of the special issue of the Journal of Educational Computing Research (27(1&2)) which is focused entirely on microworlds. To encompass the variety of papers, the editors define microworlds as “a small, coherent computer environment consisting of tools, structures, and activities that reflect a domain of math or science (because this was the focus of the issue) (Sarama & Clements, p. 2).

Papert offers an article that focuses on the history and potential of microworlds (using Logo as a example). This is a very interesting piece on multiple levels. There is a general comment on the resistance of the institution of education to change (see Cuban and others for descriptions, but a little different explanation). Papert describes “school” as a system of components that have evolved to be mutually supportive. Efforts to change one component (methods of instruction) encounter resistance from other components (e.g., curriculum, evaluation) bringing the system back to the starting point. As an explanation, this makes a lot of sense to me. As a consequence, change to be stable must be systemic. This is the point at which I start to become more careful. I strongly support continued experimentation based on new ideas and the integration of a reasonable number of alternative experiences in most settings. So — call me a wimp.

Papert sees some potential in technology as a systematic change agent because it has influenced society independent of “school” creating pressure for a paradigm shift. Technology is creating an increasingly cultural discordance between schools and society.

He also claims that school culture seems to be able to regularize innovations. If you have followed Papert’s work, it is very evident he has been strongly influenced by work with Piaget. He sees this regularization as assimilation. He remains optimistic that accommodation is still coming (hence the title – the turtle’s long slow trip).

Here is a message I am passing along from Andy Carvin’s WWWEDU list

For those of us working on PT3 grants (or probably other grants identified on this list), the final statement from Secretary Rod Paige is frustrating. More on this topic if I can figure out what prompts this claim.

BUSH 2004 BUDGET CALLS FOR $144.5 MILLION IN CUTS FOR ED TECH
President Bush’s proposed 2004 budget calls for a $2.4 billion increase for the US Department of Education, but the increase is paired with cuts in technology-related programming totaling almost $145 million. Programs slated for cuts include Community Technology Centers ($32.5 million), Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, or PT3($62.5 million), Ready to Teach ($12 million), Regional Technology in Education Consortia ($10 million), and Star Schools ($27.5 million) – all programs that Bush proposed cutting in FY 2003. “In these times of tight budgets and accountability, we can no longer continue to fund programs that simply are not helping students achieve,” argued Education Secretary Rod Paige.

[SOURCE: eSchool News](http://www.eschoolnews.com/) Note – you can ask for a free subscription if you are denied access.

OK – here seems to a key concept of the present administration – Paige claims “increased funding doesn’t seem to be the way to improve student achievement – but reform, flexibility, and local control. ” Translated — you spend money on what you feel needs to be addressed. So – this turns out not to be about an empirical approach as previous statements might lead you to believe (unless you are willing to accept the logic that “the way money was spent before has not achieved the desired consequences”). This is about a political position – local decision making is best.

I just came across this site (actually it was another Cindy contribution). iScienceProject focuses on projects using Hobo data loggers. According to the site you can even borrow a Hobo for a project. We have had the opportunity to work with Hobo projects. This site offers great resources for probe projects.

One of the first Internet projects I was involved with was based on the repurposing of a clipart collection originally created in HyperCard . As you might guess this was a few years ago. I sit in my office this afternoon and watch the hits on these images on my server (NDWild Clip Art) still roll in. With all of the high quality images on the Internet, why is there still an interest in clipart?

I think the interest is there because clipart is simple and flexible. You can resize it (at least make it smaller) and incorporate it into your own creations. I think this is what is most useful for students — using images in an active way. If you can’t collect the images in the wild yourself, manipulate the images in incorporating them into your own creations.

If you are interested in simple wildlife clipart, North Dakota Game and Fish encourages you to help yourself.

On Jan. 1, I made a commitment to lose weight. One month later things are going well. So far, it looks like 8-10 pounds. I have always worked out, but it grew difficult to keep up with my eating habits.

As I was getting ready for today’s workout, I saw my Polar Heart Monitor in the bottom of the gym bag. Cindy gave me this device as a birthday present a couple of years ago (hint, hint). I have not used it in several months so I decided to wear it during today’s workout. When I was wearing this device and was on one of the cardio machines, I used to play a kind of game with myself. The heart monitor allows you to enter settings (like age), the establish a ideal heart rate zone for your workout. The device keeps track of how much time you spend in the zone. When your heart rate is too low or too high, the device will not record time or estimated calories burned. There is a particular cardio machine I like to use and I would watch during a 35 minute workout to see how much of the time I would keep in the zone and how many calories I would burn during the workout. I think the idea is to push yourself, but stay within your zone.

Since the big weight reduction push, I have been putting more time into cardio. I have kind of established a routine during which I spend so much time at setting 5, so much at 6, bump it up to 7 for 5 minutes, then back to 6 for 2.5 minutes, etc. This routine used to be necessary to keep me in the zone, so I was wondering if the time in the gym since I had last used to heart monitor had resulted in some improvement. Sure enough, I was 25 minutes into the workout mostly at setting 7 before my heart rate hit 143 and I had to back it down to 6. So — the time in the gym is paying benefits. This is pretty cool and I guess it is time to push a little harder.

Isn’t technology great?

Kickin it up a notch in Grand Forks.

Cindy sent me this reference. It is an interesting analysis of what the process of education is (should be) about.

What is the purpose of education?

The source for the reference was the Committed Sardine – a great education e-zine.