Learning Aloud

Since I began using technology as a significant tool in my profession in the mid-1980s, I have read several dozen books about the history of the personal computer, the Internet, and the individuals associated with the development of these technologies. Based on this experience I would suggest that educators read Walter Isaacson’s “The Innovators” for a solid review of this aspect of history.

I make this recommendation for the following reason. As I have read commentary on the value of teaching all K-12 students to code, one of the more persuasive arguments I have identified for this expectation has been that we all need to have a basic understanding of how computers and the Internet work. Technology plays such an important role in our lives we need to understand how it works so we can make informed decisions. I agree. I would also state for the record that coding is but one piece of the general puzzle and possibly a less important piece for understanding than aspects of technology independent of individual computers. Also important are the political and social issues that influence how these technological resources are used.

I do not intend to put down educator intentions in this area, but the focus on K-12 coding is not sufficient and maybe not even needed. Many educators need a far broader perspective on technology in society. Reading “The Innovators” would provide an efficient way to at least build a general base for understanding “how we got to now.”

More and more I feel that the time-limited environment of K-12 education is being dominated by STEM (and even STEAM). If the goal is to create adults capable of achievement in the sciences, this focus will make a limited contribution. Higher education and advanced training will be necessary. Emphasizing the science itself without a broader understanding of how social issues determine the focus of technology utilization is essential. I would argue that sociology, history, and psychology play a far greater role than the arts in this regard. This lack of balance in education at the lower levels is a concern that is exaggerated by educators concerned that their discipline will be left out or underfunded. Specialization takes far more training and is best delayed until learners have developed a broad base on which to build.

Access to published research for any interested party would seem a good thing. In general, the point of research is to improve understanding. Sometimes this improved understanding could result in what most would regard as practical benefits. Some assert that citizens are being denied access to findings that might be beneficial. This situation occurs when citizens cannot afford the cost of access as expected by publishers. The scholars are caught in the middle of this situations. Faculty publish to get their findings to peers and meet performance standards that are typically part of the tenure process and a necessary step in obtaining external funding. The publishers require payment and claim they must charge substantial sums because few purchase scholarly content.

It is not my intent to evaluate these various claims. I am not in a position to do so. I do know that universities may have to pay thousands to have access to certain journals, but I also know that scholars can access these journals electronically and citizens can often access these journals by going to the library.

Technology is often described as a disruptive force. I think I have encountered an effort to disrupt academic publishing.

A couple of weeks ago I received an email from an individual through ResearchGate . The email asked that I send a copy of one of publications to this individual. I was traveling at the time and so was unable to respond. A week or so later I received a second email indicating that I had yet to respond to the first request.

Sending “reprints” is not something I have done in a long time. When you published in the old days, the journal would send the author a hundred or so copies of the article. The article in the journal contained your address and individuals who might have to read the article in the library could then send you a card and ask for a copy of the article they could keep. Later with “xerox” machines in libraries and then online access of journals allowing pdf downloads, the reprint was mostly discontinued.

I did eventually download a reprint and intended to send it as an email reply. When I selected the link in the request rather than a simple way to send the file, I was asked to create a profile page. At this point, I became annoyed and ended my involvement. I have since received a request to complete the profile. I did not reach the point at which I could provide the reprint and now I am part of some database of academics.

I became curious about Research Gate because their approach seemed unnecessary. Anyone interested in a publication should be able to download it without my cooperation and Research Gate would not have had to require my personal information if the goal was simply to forward a file. Wikipedia  confirmed some of these impressions. Evidently others also have concern about the organizations “recruitment” techniques.

I am uncertain regarding the appropriateness of the organization’s purpose. Whatever the intent, the methods of building a database of participants lacks transparency.

 

 

I have wanted to write a post for some time complaining both about user expectations for free or very low priced apps/services and provider pricing models. I see these two issues as inter-related so please bear with my effort to argue for a connection between these issues.

The immediate stimulus for this post was a recent Miguel Guhlin comment lamenting the loss of Pastoch.io as a free way to offer a web site based in Evernote. Postachio discontinued the free service and moved to a paid service that would cost Guhlin $90 annually in addition to the cost of a Pro Evernote account.

I have written about a similar problem on several occasions (recently concerning Posts).

The challenge here is to encourage both users and providers to make adjustments

Users expect too much without appreciating the demands of creating quality resources. Users expect free without giving thought to why the app/service provider would have developed the necessary skills and made the considerable effort to make the app/service available. This “reason” might be called the business plan. If no business plan is visible as a user I would hesitate to invest much in the service.

Free does not have to mean that no plan exists, but it is important to consider what the future might hold. Perhaps the developers hope to produce a popular service and be acquired. If successful, there is then the concern that the company acquiring the product may discontinue what the user has come to depend on (.e.g., LaLa). Perhaps the developers benefit from a related income stream and do not need to make money on the free service (e.g., many Google services, ed presenters who support themselves through speaking/consulting fees, but offer online tutorials at no cost). Perhaps the developers intend to charge at a later point (the Guhlin experience). If this happens without an indication free was not the long term intent I would regard this as naive or unethical (I do not have the background to evaluate the Guhlin case). I do think developers can be naive. I even distrust products that would seem to have “backend costs” and are free or are sold at a very low price. Once the market for a free or $1 product is saturated, how will the developers continue to cover their own costs? This final issue is the one that keeps biting me. Even services I have paid for have failed on me.

My second “issue” concerns the pricing model some companies offer. My needs frequently seem to fall between the base price (sometimes free and sometimes a few dollars) and the next step up on the price/services model. As an example, Guhlin suggested that he was going to respond to his plight be using Zapier – a flexible system for integrating applications/services (as a simple example detecting a change in one service and updating data in a second service). This service interested me so I investigated the service. While quite powerful, the service makes a good example of the situation I have just described. There is a free version that allows a limited number of tasks/actions to be taken (probably sufficient for Guhlin’s project and most I would consider). The next step on the pricing structure is $240 per year (and it moves up from here).

My sweet spot as a personal user is likely in the <$25 range for annual services and maybe $10 for an app. In some cases I might expect to pay both (the initial purchase and then an on-going payment to support backend requirements).

From my perspectives, these two issues are inter-related. More users should be involved in paying for services they use and providers should be offer reasonable rates suited to the actual levels of benefits users receive.

 

I like Dan Gilmor’s writing because he thinks a lot like me. I admit it.  I hope this commonality does not diminish how seriously you take my suggestion that you read his work.