As I mentioned in a previous blog posting, I've been blogging for quite some time. I started on LiveJournal back in the early 2000's. I also started a journal here on Blogger earlier this year for a side project I've been working on. Blogging for personal use has become second nature to me, and I spent the early part of this year learning how to blog for business purposes. This month, however, was my first real look at blogging for educational purposes. Out of everything Web 2.0 that we talked about, I strongly suspect that blogging is what I'll be using the most in the future.
I love how blogging can easily be either a student-centric activity, a teacher-centric activity, or a blend of both. The student-centered blog postings my classmates and I wrote this month remind me of the many reaction papers I wrote in high school and university. However, this time I not only got to read my work, I also got to see how all my classmates felt (and respond to their postings as well). Instead of our opinions being between the instructor and ourselves, they're now a part of a community discussion. I absolutely see myself doing this with students in the future.
I also liked the idea of creating an instructor blog for my students. I could share websites related to my class, post online videos, start debates and conversations, summarize class lectures and activities, preview materials for next class, release study notes, and just simply communicate with a large group of students in one central place.
In addition, I like the potential to use blogs to share ideas with other instructors. Blogs like (e)Learning 2.0 & Beyond ...it's all about what can/will be and Moving at the Speed of Creativity show how professionals can use blogs to share content with collegues in a more community-minded format than a plain website.
Blogging for me represents the best of what Web 2.0 can accomplish: it's an incredibly easy-to-use tool with a low skill threshold, can be molded into use for almost any task, and promotes community in many formats.
Week 4 - Blog Posting #7 -Second Life
Labels:
education,
second life,
web 2.0
I want to start this blog posting by stating something outright: I am a digital native, a technology nerd, and a gamer. I have been these things for the vast majority of my life. Should a technology be useful and well-designed I am often one of the first people to embrace and champion it. I do not have a fear of technology, nor do I have a fear of gaming and virtual worlds.
With this said, I hope that the following criticisms will not be brushed off as judgments from someone who is not open or comfortable with technology, as I have heard them brushed off in the past.
In short, it is my belief that Second Life is not, in its current state, a strong tool for education. The idea behind Second Life, that of an open world in which users can create the content they need for the purposes they have, is a legitimate one. However, Second Life itself is not technologically at a stage in which it is capable of doing the tasks we as educators need it to do at the quality level we need. It lags behind other applications in functionality and in the end often distracts, instead of enhances, content.
What is key in selecting any delivery method for information is choosing a medium that does not detract from the information. In my experiences with Second Life, the medium (Second Life itself) has always gotten in the way of what I was trying to do in this program.
To start with, Second Life has a steep learning curve that one must overcome in order to use it at all. Avatar creation and customization is unnecessarily complicated and could stand to learn from more intuitive systems such as the character creation in the game Rock Band, or the digital avatar creators for use with the Wii or Xbox 360 gaming systems. Learning to move around in Second Life and interact with places is counterintuitive and, to put it bluntly, difficult for no good reason. I cannot imagine it would require many resources to make a better account/character navigation system, and yet Second Life continues to use an outdated and clunky one.
The program itself just does not run well. Lags and glitchs have been commonplace every time I have used Second Life. Insufficient care and/or time has led to Second Life to exist as program that we just accept runs poorly on even the most advanced computer systems with the fastest internet connections. As educators, we must acknowledge that asking our students to fight to use a buggy program is going to cause many of our students to disengage from the content we are trying to teach. For a student already disinclined to do homework, being asked to use a program that doesn't function properly is only going to make them even more inclined to give up on their work.
In addition to a tendency to be buggy, Second Life simply is not visually detailed enough to do and show what Second Life supporters have pushed that we can do/show with it. In an earlier assignment with Full Sail, I was asked to work in a group to make a short video on visual art and Second Life (the video can be watched here). I explored a number of Second Life art exhibits and with all of them came to the same conclusion: Second Life currently is not advanced enough to show enough detail to make it a useful tool to show artwork. With art, the ability to view detail is key to the experience. Second Life does not render 2-D and 3-D images at a quality in which detail is represented and/or programmable. I would be poorly serving art students by trying to tell them the Second Life gallery experience was even remotely as valuable as a real life gallery, or even a digital slide.
In the end, while Second Life is not a true failure, it does not currently perform tasks as well as other digital mediums, such as chat programs like iChat and Skype, digital slideshows and video, and Flash files. While at some point Second Life may evolve to a level where it is useful for many tasks, currenly it spreads itself too thin and is, as a result, not particularly strong at any of the vast number of tasks it claims one can use it for.
The news media, who in the past have lauded Second Life, are starting to change how they feel about the program. Time Magazine recently collected a list of five websites it suggested avoiding, and Second Life made the list. Frank Rose wrote an excellent piece two years ago in Wired Magazine noting that the hype of Second Life for marketing businesses and products was significantly overblown. There is now some broader support to the thought that Second Life is an interesting and forward-thinking idea that has not been well-realized.
I have no doubt that virtual worlds will become more important to education in the future. I just do not belive that Second Life, with its substantial limitations and questionable quality, will be the program that becomes the future for virtual educating.
References
Rose, F (2007, July, 24). How Madison Avenue Is Wasting Millions on a Deserted Second Life. Wired, 15.08, Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-08/ff_sheep?currentPage=1
(2009. February, 26). 5 Worst Websites. Time Magazine, Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1638344_1638341_1633628,00.html
With this said, I hope that the following criticisms will not be brushed off as judgments from someone who is not open or comfortable with technology, as I have heard them brushed off in the past.
In short, it is my belief that Second Life is not, in its current state, a strong tool for education. The idea behind Second Life, that of an open world in which users can create the content they need for the purposes they have, is a legitimate one. However, Second Life itself is not technologically at a stage in which it is capable of doing the tasks we as educators need it to do at the quality level we need. It lags behind other applications in functionality and in the end often distracts, instead of enhances, content.
What is key in selecting any delivery method for information is choosing a medium that does not detract from the information. In my experiences with Second Life, the medium (Second Life itself) has always gotten in the way of what I was trying to do in this program.
To start with, Second Life has a steep learning curve that one must overcome in order to use it at all. Avatar creation and customization is unnecessarily complicated and could stand to learn from more intuitive systems such as the character creation in the game Rock Band, or the digital avatar creators for use with the Wii or Xbox 360 gaming systems. Learning to move around in Second Life and interact with places is counterintuitive and, to put it bluntly, difficult for no good reason. I cannot imagine it would require many resources to make a better account/character navigation system, and yet Second Life continues to use an outdated and clunky one.
The program itself just does not run well. Lags and glitchs have been commonplace every time I have used Second Life. Insufficient care and/or time has led to Second Life to exist as program that we just accept runs poorly on even the most advanced computer systems with the fastest internet connections. As educators, we must acknowledge that asking our students to fight to use a buggy program is going to cause many of our students to disengage from the content we are trying to teach. For a student already disinclined to do homework, being asked to use a program that doesn't function properly is only going to make them even more inclined to give up on their work.
In addition to a tendency to be buggy, Second Life simply is not visually detailed enough to do and show what Second Life supporters have pushed that we can do/show with it. In an earlier assignment with Full Sail, I was asked to work in a group to make a short video on visual art and Second Life (the video can be watched here). I explored a number of Second Life art exhibits and with all of them came to the same conclusion: Second Life currently is not advanced enough to show enough detail to make it a useful tool to show artwork. With art, the ability to view detail is key to the experience. Second Life does not render 2-D and 3-D images at a quality in which detail is represented and/or programmable. I would be poorly serving art students by trying to tell them the Second Life gallery experience was even remotely as valuable as a real life gallery, or even a digital slide.
In the end, while Second Life is not a true failure, it does not currently perform tasks as well as other digital mediums, such as chat programs like iChat and Skype, digital slideshows and video, and Flash files. While at some point Second Life may evolve to a level where it is useful for many tasks, currenly it spreads itself too thin and is, as a result, not particularly strong at any of the vast number of tasks it claims one can use it for.
The news media, who in the past have lauded Second Life, are starting to change how they feel about the program. Time Magazine recently collected a list of five websites it suggested avoiding, and Second Life made the list. Frank Rose wrote an excellent piece two years ago in Wired Magazine noting that the hype of Second Life for marketing businesses and products was significantly overblown. There is now some broader support to the thought that Second Life is an interesting and forward-thinking idea that has not been well-realized.
I have no doubt that virtual worlds will become more important to education in the future. I just do not belive that Second Life, with its substantial limitations and questionable quality, will be the program that becomes the future for virtual educating.
References
Rose, F (2007, July, 24). How Madison Avenue Is Wasting Millions on a Deserted Second Life. Wired, 15.08, Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-08/ff_sheep?currentPage=1
(2009. February, 26). 5 Worst Websites. Time Magazine, Retrieved August 26, 2009, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1638344_1638341_1633628,00.html
3
comments
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Week 3 - Blog Posting #6 -Communities of Practice
Labels:
job search,
linked in,
networking,
web 2.0
As some of my classmates know, I am currently looking to move from traditional teaching to the corporate training/instructional design field. In the past I may have had trouble connecting to people who could help me with this goal. However, Web 2.0 services have made my transition easier because of my connections to larger numbers of communities.
I've been quite vocal about my search for a new job (one of the first steps for networking) and, as such, my current community has reached out with advice. Direct connections, in particular classmates through Full Sail, have given me both encouragement as well as specific advice. What has been interesting, though, is receiving information from secondary contacts. I have had some of my primary connections speak with people in their network with insight into my situation, and then relayed the response back to me through email, Facebook, and LiveJournal. This media has allowed me to extend my inquiries past the people I directly know and access information one or more degrees away from my personal social group.
In addition, the business networking site Linked In has proven helpful in unexpected ways. Linked In functions relatively like Facebook, except it has a focus on business rather than social networking. I initially created an account on the site for reasons outlined in this Guy Kawasaki article on the site: namely to network and make my qualifications known to potential employers.
After a bit of time on Linked In, I discovered another similarity the site has to Facebook, namely that it has groups that one can participate in. I quickly joined a group for corporate trainers and have since recieved a wealth of information on the career I have been looking to pursue. I currently recieve daily emails with the most recent postings within the group. In these postings I can read about key issues in the industry, pick up industry lingo, and even see worldwide job postings from others in the group.
As well, I can also respond to postings and participate in group dialogues. Recently I was happy to be able to point a group member looking for informtion on Adobe Captivate towards the excellent training materials at Lynda.com. She found out about training she might not have otherwise found, and I got to interact with another professional in my chosen industry.
This is just a small sampling of how online communities can help a job search or exploration. Larger numbers of job seekers are now looking to the internet to help their search, and companies have sprung up to respond to this trend. As sites like Linked In expand, they'll likely add additional resources for career progress. As well, thanks to the high degree of innovation and progress of Web 2.0, it can only be expected that additional sites will enevitably step in with services that create even more unexpected ways to use communities to find and explore careers.
I've been quite vocal about my search for a new job (one of the first steps for networking) and, as such, my current community has reached out with advice. Direct connections, in particular classmates through Full Sail, have given me both encouragement as well as specific advice. What has been interesting, though, is receiving information from secondary contacts. I have had some of my primary connections speak with people in their network with insight into my situation, and then relayed the response back to me through email, Facebook, and LiveJournal. This media has allowed me to extend my inquiries past the people I directly know and access information one or more degrees away from my personal social group.
In addition, the business networking site Linked In has proven helpful in unexpected ways. Linked In functions relatively like Facebook, except it has a focus on business rather than social networking. I initially created an account on the site for reasons outlined in this Guy Kawasaki article on the site: namely to network and make my qualifications known to potential employers.
After a bit of time on Linked In, I discovered another similarity the site has to Facebook, namely that it has groups that one can participate in. I quickly joined a group for corporate trainers and have since recieved a wealth of information on the career I have been looking to pursue. I currently recieve daily emails with the most recent postings within the group. In these postings I can read about key issues in the industry, pick up industry lingo, and even see worldwide job postings from others in the group.
As well, I can also respond to postings and participate in group dialogues. Recently I was happy to be able to point a group member looking for informtion on Adobe Captivate towards the excellent training materials at Lynda.com. She found out about training she might not have otherwise found, and I got to interact with another professional in my chosen industry.
This is just a small sampling of how online communities can help a job search or exploration. Larger numbers of job seekers are now looking to the internet to help their search, and companies have sprung up to respond to this trend. As sites like Linked In expand, they'll likely add additional resources for career progress. As well, thanks to the high degree of innovation and progress of Web 2.0, it can only be expected that additional sites will enevitably step in with services that create even more unexpected ways to use communities to find and explore careers.
0
comments
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Week 3 - Blog Posting #5 -Social Media
Navigate the turbulent seas of social media with this handy XKCD map!
(Have I mentioned XKCD is one of my favorite things ever? Well, now I have)
The Did You Know? video we watched this week mentioned the statistic that one in eight couples married last year in the US met online. Throughout the world dating has changed, as evidenced by this article on internet dating in Bangladesh. While there are the obvious means of dating online, online dating websites, there are also more convoluted ways now that social media can help people connect. For a prime example, I'll look no further than how my boyfriend Jason and I got together. The very short version is we met through common friends. The full version, though, is significantly more complex and involves many years of social media use.
To start, we have to go back to 1996. I was sixteen and had just moved from Toronto, Canada to Florida. I was close with many of my friends from my high school in Toronto, and so we kept in touch by mail. Needless to say this was a slow way to keep in touch, so when I heard about free email through Juno not long after my move, my friends and I signed up immediately. Having access to email helped me keep in touch with my Toronto friends at a pace that prevented me from losing touch with them. In particular, it kept me connected with my friend Elena.
A few years later, a free blogging service, LiveJournal, became popular with my friends. We all used this service for quickly letting all our group know about what was going on in eachother's lives. Through both email and Livejournal I was strongly, quickly, and cheaply connected to friends in another country. If left just to mail, I might have lost touch with many of them, but because it was so easy to send quick notes back and forth with email and Livejournal I remained close with many of them.
Now move forward a bit to the early 2000's. My boyfriend Jason had no idea who I was, and hadn't even met the friend that would later introduce us. He had just graduated from a college program and had stayed in touch with one of his professors via email. The professor mentioned a new IT degree at his school that he though Jason would be a good fit for. Had Jason not kept in touch with his professor, he wouldn't have found out about the program. During his studies he met a classmate named Tyler.
Jason and Tyler graduated and went their separate ways, but they kept in touch with email and later Facebook. When Tyler moved close to Jason for a job (that he found online), they reconnected in person.
Onward we move to 2005. After nine years of living in Florida, I decided to move back to Canada. This wasn't that scary a proposition as, thanks to early social networking tools, I still had many close friends there. While I had fallen out of touch with some of my looser acquaintances from high school, my friend Elena had not, and she reconnected me with them, including a friend named Jamie. Jamie and I kept casually in touch at this point, but only through Elena.
A few years later, Jamie started dating through a site called LavaLife. She met Tyler through the site and they hit it off. A few months later, Jamie had a birthday party, which I was invited to on Facebook. Jamie and I were still only acquaintances at this point, and it would have been highly improbable I would have been invited had it not been for Facebook. To add some people Tyler knew, Jason was invited as well. Jason and I met casually, but did not keep in touch afterwards .
A month or two later, Jamie had a problem that she needed immediate help with. Nearly all of her close friends were too far away to assist, so she contacted me as I was significantly closer to her and we were on reasonably good terms thanks to Facebook. At this point she and I became closer friends and, as such, she invited me to go out to the movies with her not long afterward. Last minute, her boyfriend Tyler came along and he brought Jason. After the movie, Jason and I chatted and got to know each other better. We friended each other on Facebook and conversed casually.
I used my status update on Facebook to note that I was desperate to play a particular video game. Jason, who had chatted with me quite a bit online by this point, had the game and proposed having a game night at his house with Jamie, Tyler, Elena, and me. The entire event was organized predominantly online and it was directly afterward that Jason and I had our first date.
The important thing to note here is that this entire process never would have happened were it not for the internet and online social media. The most obvious connection goes back to LavaLife. Were it not for that website, Jamie and Tyler wouldn't have met, and I wouldn't have met Jason. However, an even wider online web was involved in this entire process.
Without the free services of Juno and LiveJournal, I might not have kept in touch with Elena, who reintroduced me to Jamie. Without email, Jason never would have found out about the course that he met Tyler in, and likely wouldn't have stayed in touch with him after they graduated and moved to different cities. Without Facebook, Jamie wouldn't have invited me to her birthday party, where I first met Jason. Without Facebook, Jamie likely wouldn't have felt connected enough to me to feel comfortable asking me for help, and wouldn't have invited me out to the movies with her, Tyler, and Jason. Certainly without Facebook I wouldn't have kept in touch with Jason enough for him to get to know me well enough to know I wanted to play a specific video game and to feel comfortable inviting me over to his home after only meeting me in person twice.
So, not only has social media changed how people directly find people to date, it's also changed how we indirectly look for dates as well. Be it through keeping in touch with friends who likely would have been lost if not for quick and cheap communication methods, connecting with old friends we wouldn't have found without social networking sites, meeting new people brought into our social circle through others' online dating efforts, or growing comfortable with casual acquaintances through the relative safety of sites like LiveJournal, MySpace, and Facebook, it cannot be denied that social media has changed the number of people we can meet, the sheer distances friendships can cross, and the amount of connections we can maintain.
(Have I mentioned XKCD is one of my favorite things ever? Well, now I have)
The Did You Know? video we watched this week mentioned the statistic that one in eight couples married last year in the US met online. Throughout the world dating has changed, as evidenced by this article on internet dating in Bangladesh. While there are the obvious means of dating online, online dating websites, there are also more convoluted ways now that social media can help people connect. For a prime example, I'll look no further than how my boyfriend Jason and I got together. The very short version is we met through common friends. The full version, though, is significantly more complex and involves many years of social media use.
To start, we have to go back to 1996. I was sixteen and had just moved from Toronto, Canada to Florida. I was close with many of my friends from my high school in Toronto, and so we kept in touch by mail. Needless to say this was a slow way to keep in touch, so when I heard about free email through Juno not long after my move, my friends and I signed up immediately. Having access to email helped me keep in touch with my Toronto friends at a pace that prevented me from losing touch with them. In particular, it kept me connected with my friend Elena.
A few years later, a free blogging service, LiveJournal, became popular with my friends. We all used this service for quickly letting all our group know about what was going on in eachother's lives. Through both email and Livejournal I was strongly, quickly, and cheaply connected to friends in another country. If left just to mail, I might have lost touch with many of them, but because it was so easy to send quick notes back and forth with email and Livejournal I remained close with many of them.
Now move forward a bit to the early 2000's. My boyfriend Jason had no idea who I was, and hadn't even met the friend that would later introduce us. He had just graduated from a college program and had stayed in touch with one of his professors via email. The professor mentioned a new IT degree at his school that he though Jason would be a good fit for. Had Jason not kept in touch with his professor, he wouldn't have found out about the program. During his studies he met a classmate named Tyler.
Jason and Tyler graduated and went their separate ways, but they kept in touch with email and later Facebook. When Tyler moved close to Jason for a job (that he found online), they reconnected in person.
Onward we move to 2005. After nine years of living in Florida, I decided to move back to Canada. This wasn't that scary a proposition as, thanks to early social networking tools, I still had many close friends there. While I had fallen out of touch with some of my looser acquaintances from high school, my friend Elena had not, and she reconnected me with them, including a friend named Jamie. Jamie and I kept casually in touch at this point, but only through Elena.
A few years later, Jamie started dating through a site called LavaLife. She met Tyler through the site and they hit it off. A few months later, Jamie had a birthday party, which I was invited to on Facebook. Jamie and I were still only acquaintances at this point, and it would have been highly improbable I would have been invited had it not been for Facebook. To add some people Tyler knew, Jason was invited as well. Jason and I met casually, but did not keep in touch afterwards .
A month or two later, Jamie had a problem that she needed immediate help with. Nearly all of her close friends were too far away to assist, so she contacted me as I was significantly closer to her and we were on reasonably good terms thanks to Facebook. At this point she and I became closer friends and, as such, she invited me to go out to the movies with her not long afterward. Last minute, her boyfriend Tyler came along and he brought Jason. After the movie, Jason and I chatted and got to know each other better. We friended each other on Facebook and conversed casually.
I used my status update on Facebook to note that I was desperate to play a particular video game. Jason, who had chatted with me quite a bit online by this point, had the game and proposed having a game night at his house with Jamie, Tyler, Elena, and me. The entire event was organized predominantly online and it was directly afterward that Jason and I had our first date.
The important thing to note here is that this entire process never would have happened were it not for the internet and online social media. The most obvious connection goes back to LavaLife. Were it not for that website, Jamie and Tyler wouldn't have met, and I wouldn't have met Jason. However, an even wider online web was involved in this entire process.
Without the free services of Juno and LiveJournal, I might not have kept in touch with Elena, who reintroduced me to Jamie. Without email, Jason never would have found out about the course that he met Tyler in, and likely wouldn't have stayed in touch with him after they graduated and moved to different cities. Without Facebook, Jamie wouldn't have invited me to her birthday party, where I first met Jason. Without Facebook, Jamie likely wouldn't have felt connected enough to me to feel comfortable asking me for help, and wouldn't have invited me out to the movies with her, Tyler, and Jason. Certainly without Facebook I wouldn't have kept in touch with Jason enough for him to get to know me well enough to know I wanted to play a specific video game and to feel comfortable inviting me over to his home after only meeting me in person twice.
So, not only has social media changed how people directly find people to date, it's also changed how we indirectly look for dates as well. Be it through keeping in touch with friends who likely would have been lost if not for quick and cheap communication methods, connecting with old friends we wouldn't have found without social networking sites, meeting new people brought into our social circle through others' online dating efforts, or growing comfortable with casual acquaintances through the relative safety of sites like LiveJournal, MySpace, and Facebook, it cannot be denied that social media has changed the number of people we can meet, the sheer distances friendships can cross, and the amount of connections we can maintain.
Week 2 - Blog Posting #4 -21st Century Skills & Lifelong Learning
Labels:
digital immigrant,
digital native,
Prensky
This series of videos and articles focused in part on teaching digital immigrants to effectively teach digital natives. In particular is noted the work of Marc Prensky, a writer who has written many pieces on the topic (his website, MarcPrensky.com, is an excellent resource for anyone wishing to learn more about this issue). Prensky's work is helpful for trying to understand how a digital immigrant teacher can reach digital native students. However, as the first digital natives are reaching adulthood we have an unusual predicament: the first wave of digital native teachers.
I was born in 1980 and have spent much of my life interested in technology. I have inevitably been the on-site tech support person for my family, friends, and co-workers for as long as I can remember. I enjoy reading about Prensky's education ideas, but I feel he’s missed an entire group of new teachers who are technologically fluent already. Our concern is not knowing that certain hardware and software exists, it's knowing how to effectively integrate that technology into education.
Mary Alice Anderson, in a paper addressed to school media specialists, is one of the few authors I've found that has begun to contemplate the needs of digital native teachers. She notes that many of the school in-service programs are geared towards introducing digital immigrant teachers to technology. What is now needed is also programs that skip the introductions and immediately begin showing technology-fluent teachers the myriad of ways they can use the technology they already know how to use in ways that can aid in their teaching.
This is a concern I have heard expressed many times throughout my time at Full Sail University. Many of my fellow students clearly buy into using technology in the classroom, and quite a few of us are already fluent in the programs we're learning to use. What we want more of are specific examples of using these programs in classroom settings, and in particular we want to know how to use technology in ways that won't be blocked by our school or board.
Anderson suggests a stronger partnership between school media specialists and digital native teachers, which I agree would be effective. I also propose that in-service training also begin taking programs to the next level and create training workshops specifically for this next generation of digital native teacher and our more advanced technology training interests.
I was born in 1980 and have spent much of my life interested in technology. I have inevitably been the on-site tech support person for my family, friends, and co-workers for as long as I can remember. I enjoy reading about Prensky's education ideas, but I feel he’s missed an entire group of new teachers who are technologically fluent already. Our concern is not knowing that certain hardware and software exists, it's knowing how to effectively integrate that technology into education.
Mary Alice Anderson, in a paper addressed to school media specialists, is one of the few authors I've found that has begun to contemplate the needs of digital native teachers. She notes that many of the school in-service programs are geared towards introducing digital immigrant teachers to technology. What is now needed is also programs that skip the introductions and immediately begin showing technology-fluent teachers the myriad of ways they can use the technology they already know how to use in ways that can aid in their teaching.
This is a concern I have heard expressed many times throughout my time at Full Sail University. Many of my fellow students clearly buy into using technology in the classroom, and quite a few of us are already fluent in the programs we're learning to use. What we want more of are specific examples of using these programs in classroom settings, and in particular we want to know how to use technology in ways that won't be blocked by our school or board.
Anderson suggests a stronger partnership between school media specialists and digital native teachers, which I agree would be effective. I also propose that in-service training also begin taking programs to the next level and create training workshops specifically for this next generation of digital native teacher and our more advanced technology training interests.
0
comments
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Week 2 - Blog Posting #3 - Media Literacy
Labels:
censorship,
web 2.0
The Gever Tulley video we watched for class this week got me thinking about how much we coddle our students (and children in general) today.
When I was an elementary/middle school student back in the early 90's, I went to a summer school run by my local school board that was vaguely similar to Tulley's Tinkering school. While more structured in curriculum, it was similar in that students were given the responsibility of using tools and equipment to build and create items. In my summers at this school I carved a wooden duck, developed black and white film, built a bird house, made a leather-worked wallet, and crafted a stained glass ornament.
My education background is in Visual Art, so I am extremely aware of how impossible it would be to get permission to do most, if not any, of these projects in a school today. Tools like soldering guns, glass cutters, wood carvers, and saws have been taken out of school programs to "protect" children from injury, as well as protect schools from lawsuits and make parents feel their children are safe. We now seem to take anything away from children that could have even the potential of hurting them if used incorrectly.
This ban on physical tools in schools is much like the ban many of my classmates have noted is going on in schools with virtual Web 2.0 tools. In an effort to protect children from online predators or questionable content, schools and parents have moved towards banning anything related to Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is filled with content and tools that students need to be able to use for their future careers. It's also composed of resources that teachers can use to better reach their students. Despite all this, many school districts, parents, principals, and even fellow teachers would have us ignore this technology for fear of it injuring our students in some way.
My thought is this: instead of trying to shelter our students from perceived (often overexaggerated) threats, why don't we give them a structured education on how to use this technology safely? At the summer school I attended many years ago, the instructors gave us detailed information about how to use physical tools safely. They also demonstrated safe use, gave us real informaton about the dangers of misuse, and supervised us to make sure we were using the tools correctly. At some point though, my summer school teachers gave us students enough credit to know that we would do our best to use their lessons and work safely.
Instead of banning Web 2.0 services outright, why not instead give our students the education they need to use these services both effectively and safely? Websites like Orange Safety's section on Web 2.0 and this slideshow on talking to students about online safety issues show how we as teachers can provide an environment that can take advantage of Web 2.0 technology, while also teaching our students to us this technology in a way that doesn't put them at risk.
Tulley's video showed students who, when given the responsibility of using "dangerous" tools, did not use them irresponsibly and instead created fabulous creations like boats, rollercoasters, and treehouses. Just imagine the creations we are currently holding our children back from creating by limiting and banning their use of Web 2.0 services.
When I was an elementary/middle school student back in the early 90's, I went to a summer school run by my local school board that was vaguely similar to Tulley's Tinkering school. While more structured in curriculum, it was similar in that students were given the responsibility of using tools and equipment to build and create items. In my summers at this school I carved a wooden duck, developed black and white film, built a bird house, made a leather-worked wallet, and crafted a stained glass ornament.
My education background is in Visual Art, so I am extremely aware of how impossible it would be to get permission to do most, if not any, of these projects in a school today. Tools like soldering guns, glass cutters, wood carvers, and saws have been taken out of school programs to "protect" children from injury, as well as protect schools from lawsuits and make parents feel their children are safe. We now seem to take anything away from children that could have even the potential of hurting them if used incorrectly.
This ban on physical tools in schools is much like the ban many of my classmates have noted is going on in schools with virtual Web 2.0 tools. In an effort to protect children from online predators or questionable content, schools and parents have moved towards banning anything related to Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is filled with content and tools that students need to be able to use for their future careers. It's also composed of resources that teachers can use to better reach their students. Despite all this, many school districts, parents, principals, and even fellow teachers would have us ignore this technology for fear of it injuring our students in some way.
My thought is this: instead of trying to shelter our students from perceived (often overexaggerated) threats, why don't we give them a structured education on how to use this technology safely? At the summer school I attended many years ago, the instructors gave us detailed information about how to use physical tools safely. They also demonstrated safe use, gave us real informaton about the dangers of misuse, and supervised us to make sure we were using the tools correctly. At some point though, my summer school teachers gave us students enough credit to know that we would do our best to use their lessons and work safely.
Instead of banning Web 2.0 services outright, why not instead give our students the education they need to use these services both effectively and safely? Websites like Orange Safety's section on Web 2.0 and this slideshow on talking to students about online safety issues show how we as teachers can provide an environment that can take advantage of Web 2.0 technology, while also teaching our students to us this technology in a way that doesn't put them at risk.
Tulley's video showed students who, when given the responsibility of using "dangerous" tools, did not use them irresponsibly and instead created fabulous creations like boats, rollercoasters, and treehouses. Just imagine the creations we are currently holding our children back from creating by limiting and banning their use of Web 2.0 services.
0
comments
Friday, August 14, 2009
Week 1 - Blog Posting #2 - Learning 2.0
Labels:
kindle,
technology
The resource videos for this discussion do one main thing: beg teachers to integrate technology into their lessons. As more digital natives become teachers, principals, and parents, I suspect we'll find technology will become more naturally integrated into schools. Already this is beginning to happen.
Amazon's Kindle is a digital e-book reader. The unit's length and width is about the size of a standard book, and its depth is only 1/3 of an inch (about the same as most magazines). At 10.2 ounces it's lightweight, yet has the storage capacity to hold the text for up to 1,500 digital books. Universities such as Princeton and Arizona State have taken note of this device and others like it and recently started to incorporate e-textbooks as an option for their students.
The initial cost of purchasing a Kindle is $299 (or $489 for its larger cousin, the Kindle DX). This is a bit more expensive than many textbooks, but the Kindle leads to long-term savings in the end. E-textbooks are substantially cheaper than their printed counterparts (even once resale at the end of the semester is accounted for) and easier to acquire as they can be downloaded directly to the device.
The Kindle allows for the same notations one might make in a traditional textbook, including bookmarks, highlighting, and making notes in the "margins". It also allows users to use their textbooks in non-standard ways as well. One option is to highlight and clip key passages to make notes. One can export their notes to share or use in other applications. The Kindle also enables text-to-speech, which can make textbooks more accessible to hard-of-hearing students, as well as those who prefer auditory learning.
Finally, a major feature of the device is its weight. As it is only about 10 ounces, it is much lighter than even the lightest textbook. One could carry all the books they needed for their entire university career in a compact device that is convenient and weighs less than a pound. This may at first sound like a superficial concern, but it should be noted that students carrying heavily-loaded backpacks have been known to injure their backs from the weight.
Universities will likely jump on the e-textbook technology bandwagon first, as the fiscal burden will be on the students themselves and not the school. However, additional funding could make this technology available to public school students in the future, should taxpayers request it.
The Kindle is one of many unexpected ways technology can impact learning. It, like many other programs and devices, will unfortunately require initial additional spending from schools and/or parents, which, in the end, may be what slows or even stops the widespread adoption of this device by schools.
Amazon's Kindle is a digital e-book reader. The unit's length and width is about the size of a standard book, and its depth is only 1/3 of an inch (about the same as most magazines). At 10.2 ounces it's lightweight, yet has the storage capacity to hold the text for up to 1,500 digital books. Universities such as Princeton and Arizona State have taken note of this device and others like it and recently started to incorporate e-textbooks as an option for their students.
The initial cost of purchasing a Kindle is $299 (or $489 for its larger cousin, the Kindle DX). This is a bit more expensive than many textbooks, but the Kindle leads to long-term savings in the end. E-textbooks are substantially cheaper than their printed counterparts (even once resale at the end of the semester is accounted for) and easier to acquire as they can be downloaded directly to the device.
The Kindle allows for the same notations one might make in a traditional textbook, including bookmarks, highlighting, and making notes in the "margins". It also allows users to use their textbooks in non-standard ways as well. One option is to highlight and clip key passages to make notes. One can export their notes to share or use in other applications. The Kindle also enables text-to-speech, which can make textbooks more accessible to hard-of-hearing students, as well as those who prefer auditory learning.
Finally, a major feature of the device is its weight. As it is only about 10 ounces, it is much lighter than even the lightest textbook. One could carry all the books they needed for their entire university career in a compact device that is convenient and weighs less than a pound. This may at first sound like a superficial concern, but it should be noted that students carrying heavily-loaded backpacks have been known to injure their backs from the weight.
Universities will likely jump on the e-textbook technology bandwagon first, as the fiscal burden will be on the students themselves and not the school. However, additional funding could make this technology available to public school students in the future, should taxpayers request it.
The Kindle is one of many unexpected ways technology can impact learning. It, like many other programs and devices, will unfortunately require initial additional spending from schools and/or parents, which, in the end, may be what slows or even stops the widespread adoption of this device by schools.
1 comments
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Week 1 - Blog Posting #1 - Web 2.0
Labels:
web 2.0
The idea of Web 2.0 changing how we as people interact with each other is a complex one. In some ways the interactivity of Web 2.0 is bringing more people together, but in other ways we may be forming more superficial connections at the cost of less deep connections.
Natania Barron discusses this concept in the Wired article "The Internet is People: Social Media Anxiety and Web 2.0." In this article, she discusses how many Web 2.0 services ask and encourage people to open up their social networks and their lives to a wider group of people. With services like Facebook and MySpace, people are connecting with individuals they haven't interacted with in years and/or know well at all. On these websites, people freely friend others and extend their social network. However, often these "friend" connections are nothing more than superficial ties to people, and aren't imbued with the real support and caring an actual friendship entails.
So why do these connections on Web 2.0 websites so often not develop from "friends list" to actual friendship? Perhaps it's due in part to Dunbar's number. This theory, developed by British Anthropologist Robin Dunbar, suggests that humans are only able to maintain a sense of connection and close community with up to 150 people. Maintaining a personal relationship takes time, and there's only a finite amount of time any one person can devote to creating and maintaining their social contacts. 150 appears to be the limit, on average, of connections that most people can manage. According to Dunbar, as a result of this limit humans naturally tend to organize themselves into groups of 150 or less, be it in office divisions, military units, Hutterite colonies, or WOW guilds.
Social networking groups encourage extending one's network well beyond the 150 individuals Dunbar suggests the human brain can truly bond with. The consequences in the short-term range from creating more acquaintance bonds than friendships, to people culling their friends list whenever it grows too large for their likes. The long-term effects of Web 2.0's increased social contacts are unknown, but should be considered.
Natania Barron discusses this concept in the Wired article "The Internet is People: Social Media Anxiety and Web 2.0." In this article, she discusses how many Web 2.0 services ask and encourage people to open up their social networks and their lives to a wider group of people. With services like Facebook and MySpace, people are connecting with individuals they haven't interacted with in years and/or know well at all. On these websites, people freely friend others and extend their social network. However, often these "friend" connections are nothing more than superficial ties to people, and aren't imbued with the real support and caring an actual friendship entails.
So why do these connections on Web 2.0 websites so often not develop from "friends list" to actual friendship? Perhaps it's due in part to Dunbar's number. This theory, developed by British Anthropologist Robin Dunbar, suggests that humans are only able to maintain a sense of connection and close community with up to 150 people. Maintaining a personal relationship takes time, and there's only a finite amount of time any one person can devote to creating and maintaining their social contacts. 150 appears to be the limit, on average, of connections that most people can manage. According to Dunbar, as a result of this limit humans naturally tend to organize themselves into groups of 150 or less, be it in office divisions, military units, Hutterite colonies, or WOW guilds.
Social networking groups encourage extending one's network well beyond the 150 individuals Dunbar suggests the human brain can truly bond with. The consequences in the short-term range from creating more acquaintance bonds than friendships, to people culling their friends list whenever it grows too large for their likes. The long-term effects of Web 2.0's increased social contacts are unknown, but should be considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
