Blurts

I have always been interested in what seems like the desire of the public for free online services and the costs to the companies trying both to provide interesting services and make a profit. Ads have often been the answer, but now ads have become a target as companies who want to buy ads want them to be targeted. Targeting requires that online services collect information about users to provide the data necessary to target ads to viewers likely to be interested in the ads. The other issues associated with ads aside, ads are not to appear on educational material.

I was recently surprised to learn that Edmodo would be shutting down before the beginning of the new school year. This was a surprise because I knew Edmodo to be a popular service with classroom educators. I was able to find one of my posts from 2014 in which Edmodo was described as the Facebook for education. What happened? I assumed the problem was the inability to find a business model that would cover costs. I explored a bit and found that the lack of a way to convert educator interest into revenue had been a problem others had asked almost from the beginning.

BTW – if you are an Edmodo users you are asked to download your content yet this summer. Use the first link in this post to review the Edmodo directions.

PEW has just released its 2022 survey on Teens and Social Media. Some trends noted in the data:

• TikTok and YouTube dominate teen social media activity with Facebook and Twitter in decline.
• Most teens have access to the devices necessary to participate online with phones the most common technology for access (95%).
  • 91% of teens 13-14, the youngest in the study have access to a phone
  • Access equity seems most different when it comes to having multiple devices – phone, computer, and gaming console (at home). 71% have access to all three
    • Black and hispanic teens report the most use of social media

I have been doing more literature research on the difference between comprehension in reading from paper and the screen. I came across a meta-analysis by Delgado and colleagues.

One of the factors in the research was whether the content involved narrative or informational text. The researchers found a significant difference when the genre was informational, but not narrative. The authors speculate this may be an example of the “shallowing hypothesis“. This hypothesis proposes that as readers frequently use a given medium for shallow interactions they will have greater difficulty using it for other purposes.

When I read about taking Smart Notes, I found the recommendation that the reader take particular attention when information ran counter to personal beliefs. The Delgado finding would seem to fit this recommendation as I am more likely to rely on screen reading when I am involved with informational text. I do this because I can use annotation more effectively on a digital device. This is a priority I have followed now for many years. My history of reading information-rich texts in a digital format would not refute the shallowing hypothesis because my history with this approach means I come to reading with a different mindset than many other readers.

Assuming that the shallowing hypothesis offers a valid interpretation of the frequently found advantage of paper over screen, what is it that educators should take from these studies? Some have decided there is evidence learning from paper is the only approach suited to learning tasks. Given the high volume of information we all encounter online, I think this is the wrong decision. The hypothesis could also be interpreted to mean that when learners only use digital reading for casual experiences, they will tend to carry over this shallow approach. The remedy could be argued to be more assigned meaningful tasks that rely on deep reading with digital media.

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38.

I was thinking this may be the time of year that school IT administrators should be contacting parents to alert them to government programs intended to lower the cost of home high-speed internet access. The savings should allow access for a rate between $30 and $50 dollars a month. Two links follow that might be forwarded with recommendations for review.

Office of Educational Technology

White House – Get Internet

K12 schools will soon open their doors for the new school year and many schools are still dealing with a shortage of teachers. This article from The Hill does a nice job of identifying common explanations for the challenge.

The causes identified include:

• Stress associated with COVID, COVID-related changes in how instruction is to be delivered, and public questioning of education.
• Low salaries. The article indicates that the starting salary in 2019/20 was $41,000.
• A decline in the number of education graduates. Nationwide the total number of education degrees was 200,000 or so in the 1970s and 90,000 in 2019.
• Occupations options for women – 36% of grads in 1970 were focused on education and 6% in 2019.
• These factors in combination – many of these factors feed on each other increasing the impact. Fewer teachers mean more demand on those who are working. Low pay means other occupations will be more attractive. etc.

The leadership of the FCC presently consists of four members; two Democrats and two Republicans. The intended leadership group is five members with three members from the party of the President and two from the opposing party. At this point in the Biden Presidency, the FCC still lacks a fifth member because of Senate Republican objections to Biden nominees (read this pro-Republican account for complains about nominee Gigi Sohn). 

The makeup of the FCC is crucial to the role of net neutrality. This doctrine proposes that service providers (the company you pay to access the Internet) must treat all content equally. This means they cannot prioritize content based on business opportunities or other reasons. For example, a company that provides both Internet and cable television cannot slow access to online video services advantaging their own cable television offerings. A different way to describe the concept is to propose that Internet providers should function as common carriers in the same way telephone companies must be common carriers. You pay for phone service and the cost can change, but you can use this service as you want. Related to this issue is the level of realistic competition in the market. Many Internet users have limited options in how they access the Internet meaning market options with different companies offering different experiences are not available.

As a policy net neutrality has changed with administrations. Net neutrality was the policy during the Obama administration, but this standard was removed during the Trump administration. With a 2-2 split on the FCC, the existing standard remains in place.

Democrats have now introduced a bill to mandate net neutrality. Passing legislation would take the FCC out of the decision making role for this issue. The bill would expect Internet providers to function as common carriers and allow the FCC to take on other issues related to Internet use (see below). As a political issue the party orientation toward the Internet breaks out as favoring corporations or consumers. 

Meanwhile, classifying broadband as a telecommunications service would in turn allow the FCC more authority over providers. This would mean promoting competition, policing potential abuses, and updating Universal Service Fund programs to provide broadband to schools, libraries, and lower-income Americans. 

https://www.extremetech.com/internet/338404-democrats-introduce-bill-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-rules