I ended up enjoying the assignment much more than I had anticipated. It was really pretty simple to put together once I figured out the basics of the program and how to move the necessary files around on the computer I was using. I believe that I will use this technology again, both for classroom use and personal.
It would be a very useful tool in the classroom as an introduction to new topics. There are some ideas that can be expressed more easily as an overview pictorially, even if students do not know much about the topic yet. This would also be a great tool for recording field trips or experiments and such done by the students.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Chapter 8 thoughts
Chapter 8 in Richardson’s book dealt with podcasting. Primarily, it went through instructions on setting up and recording a podcast. There was less need for discussing changes that this medium brought about and how to use it for educational purposes than in other chapters, as most of those ideas mentioned would have been fairly repetitive of those previous chapters. It was largely a “how-to-podcast” chapter.
As I read through the chapter though, I thought, “Ipod or MP3 player – nope, don’t have one; digital microphone – nope; good, reliable, fast computer – not really.” How can I really learn how to do some of this stuff when, I’m struggling to piece together the tools and software I need to really make it work well. This class has given me ample opportunities so far to consider exciting ways to use media technology, but it has also frustrated me because I have so few of the tools conveniently accessible to try these mediums out. The one thing I did have was a nice quality digital camera that unfortunately got destroyed just as we got ready to start the Flickr assignment. Ipod ~$150-200 for basic; a good quality laptop-type computer ~$1000+; a digital camera comparable to the one I had ~$350. Then various other costs necessary to make those items run – who knows. Really jumping into the technology whole-heartedly could get a little expensive. Obviously, much of what is called for I can manage to access and make work in some way, but with small extra difficulties involved in the process, such as sharing a family member’s good computer that I am unfamiliar with using in order to get some of the work done.
Before it seems that I’m writing a letter to the complaint department, let me explain where my thoughts are leading. If I am having trouble obtaining easy access to the tools needed to make these projects work, how well can I expect this to work for my students? Obviously the answer to that question would depend greatly on where I would be teaching. Does my school have the necessary technological tools available for my students to use, at least in a library or computer lab if not the regular class room. Just as importantly, are those tools available in enough quantity and enough of the time for all of the students, or at least partners, to be using them at the same time? Would the students get to use the technology often enough to gain proficiency with it, so that the use would support the subject content and not be an exercise in computer use only? To be truly practical for classroom use, the technology needs to be not just possible to access, but relatively convenient as well.
I see plenty of students who are from fairly low economic status (poor) families who are toting around their Ipods. It would seem pretty certain that they are managing enough internet access to download songs onto those Ipods, so maybe accessibility is less of a problem outside of the school than I think. Still, the access is unlikely to be universal or relatively convenient, so where does that leave the unlucky students? The problem is certainly not any kind of “deal-breaker” against using technology, but it is still a problem that solutions would need to be considered for. Even this college-level class makes that point clear.
As I read through the chapter though, I thought, “Ipod or MP3 player – nope, don’t have one; digital microphone – nope; good, reliable, fast computer – not really.” How can I really learn how to do some of this stuff when, I’m struggling to piece together the tools and software I need to really make it work well. This class has given me ample opportunities so far to consider exciting ways to use media technology, but it has also frustrated me because I have so few of the tools conveniently accessible to try these mediums out. The one thing I did have was a nice quality digital camera that unfortunately got destroyed just as we got ready to start the Flickr assignment. Ipod ~$150-200 for basic; a good quality laptop-type computer ~$1000+; a digital camera comparable to the one I had ~$350. Then various other costs necessary to make those items run – who knows. Really jumping into the technology whole-heartedly could get a little expensive. Obviously, much of what is called for I can manage to access and make work in some way, but with small extra difficulties involved in the process, such as sharing a family member’s good computer that I am unfamiliar with using in order to get some of the work done.
Before it seems that I’m writing a letter to the complaint department, let me explain where my thoughts are leading. If I am having trouble obtaining easy access to the tools needed to make these projects work, how well can I expect this to work for my students? Obviously the answer to that question would depend greatly on where I would be teaching. Does my school have the necessary technological tools available for my students to use, at least in a library or computer lab if not the regular class room. Just as importantly, are those tools available in enough quantity and enough of the time for all of the students, or at least partners, to be using them at the same time? Would the students get to use the technology often enough to gain proficiency with it, so that the use would support the subject content and not be an exercise in computer use only? To be truly practical for classroom use, the technology needs to be not just possible to access, but relatively convenient as well.
I see plenty of students who are from fairly low economic status (poor) families who are toting around their Ipods. It would seem pretty certain that they are managing enough internet access to download songs onto those Ipods, so maybe accessibility is less of a problem outside of the school than I think. Still, the access is unlikely to be universal or relatively convenient, so where does that leave the unlucky students? The problem is certainly not any kind of “deal-breaker” against using technology, but it is still a problem that solutions would need to be considered for. Even this college-level class makes that point clear.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Wikis in the Classroom
Wikis could be useful in the classroom for working on any type of project to which the whole class could contribute.
The largest limitation would be that students may only be able to contribute one at a time. That would be a problem if a student's only opportunity to have access was during classroom time. Is that student missing out on what else is going on in class that day or is everyone just sitting and waiting for their turn.
The largest advantage that I recognize would be to group work assignments that students worked on outside of class if they had computer access available. That way each student in the group could more directly contribute to the final project, rather than simply subdividing the work into sections.
The largest limitation would be that students may only be able to contribute one at a time. That would be a problem if a student's only opportunity to have access was during classroom time. Is that student missing out on what else is going on in class that day or is everyone just sitting and waiting for their turn.
The largest advantage that I recognize would be to group work assignments that students worked on outside of class if they had computer access available. That way each student in the group could more directly contribute to the final project, rather than simply subdividing the work into sections.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Chapter Four Reading Reflection
Chapter four contained some practical ideas and concerns about how to use wikis and their inherent traits. Pages 61-3 included some ideas about assessing the accuracy of such open-content sites as wikipedia.org. I will say that I have been pretty critical of the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I think Richardson did a good job of supporting the idea that such an entity could very well not only be as correct as a traditional encyclopedia entry, but could be more so due to a better balance of opinions. He even discussed how this affected the way students learned to write in wikis by recognizing their opinions as only opinions and not making blanket statements without supporting arguments.
The idea that struck me the most though was the result of taking this comparison of sources a step further. The real question becomes, “Who can you trust?” We are much less suspicious of the information in textbooks, yet in several education classes I have taken the issue of inaccuracies or biases in textbooks has arisen. The internet definitely has plenty of misinformation, textbooks do too; forget media outlets such as television news or newspapers; research scientists are often “bought out” to produce the results that are desired by their sponsors. I don’t even trust my doctor’s information. It is usually different from the next’s second opinion, which is contradictory of the third doctor’s diagnosis, which makes no sense based on my own health research.
The over-arching lesson in this is the importance of having multiple sources of information and the more the better. In my own research I have seen a truly extreme example of directly contradictory information. Most of the information sources in the case were written as if there was no disputing information, but checking multiple sources quickly pointed out a small war between some toxicologists. The real challenge in that case was in deciding whether to trust a single scientist with no obvious reason for bias or many scientists with very obvious reasons for bias. The plethora of organizations and agencies entering into the fray in the case only added more noise and confusion. Google Tyrone Hayes and Atrazine if you’re interested, but don’t believe anything until you’ve read everything and connected the dots.
I thought the teacher collaboration and classroom applications for wikis that Richardson discussed were useful and well worth trying out. I also wondered if there really were wikis about lots of hobbies and interests like the ones the book mentioned. Searching for some of my own hobbies I didn’t find any collaboratively editable wikis. I did find several sites with areas to post information about a particular location for canoeing or camping, but each entry was a distinct “article” unto itself much like reading online product reviews and many of the entries were very repetitive. This helped me identify one great strength of a wiki – speed. You can quickly read just one “article” and still get a pretty good breadth of information from it.
I decided to do one simple experiment, a wikipedia search of “wikipedia”. The people at wikipedia were smart enough to expect such tricks and so created two paths to choose from. One that explained wikipedia’s history (which I refrained from editing as a test of their watch-dogging abilities) and another that contended with frequently asked questions. The FAQ path addressed the issue of accuracy and mirrored Richardson’s explanation. One admission they made was the simple fact that newer entries with fewer editors were more likely to have fallacies.
That made sense to me, so I decided to try a test of one of the organizations newer projects, wikispecies. I’m a wildlife biologist, so I thought this would be a good project for me to test. I decided to search for the first species to enter my mind, which was the black-footed ferret. The first thing that I discovered was that while wikispecies listed the taxonomic classifications for many species, few species had any information added beyond that. About the only statement listed for the ferret was that it was extinct in the wild, which was once true, but captive-breeding programs and subsequent reintroductions into the species’ old ranges in the last few years has made false. I didn’t feel much satisfaction in knowing enough to contradict the site, instead I was just really surprised that there was such a dearth of information there about what is really a fairly high-profile “poster-species” for conservation efforts. I can’t say I did much to help the fact; I didn’t edit the page. It decided that entry needed someone to come along with a lot more information than I was going to provide off the cuff. So much for broadening the base of mankind’s knowledge.
The idea that struck me the most though was the result of taking this comparison of sources a step further. The real question becomes, “Who can you trust?” We are much less suspicious of the information in textbooks, yet in several education classes I have taken the issue of inaccuracies or biases in textbooks has arisen. The internet definitely has plenty of misinformation, textbooks do too; forget media outlets such as television news or newspapers; research scientists are often “bought out” to produce the results that are desired by their sponsors. I don’t even trust my doctor’s information. It is usually different from the next’s second opinion, which is contradictory of the third doctor’s diagnosis, which makes no sense based on my own health research.
The over-arching lesson in this is the importance of having multiple sources of information and the more the better. In my own research I have seen a truly extreme example of directly contradictory information. Most of the information sources in the case were written as if there was no disputing information, but checking multiple sources quickly pointed out a small war between some toxicologists. The real challenge in that case was in deciding whether to trust a single scientist with no obvious reason for bias or many scientists with very obvious reasons for bias. The plethora of organizations and agencies entering into the fray in the case only added more noise and confusion. Google Tyrone Hayes and Atrazine if you’re interested, but don’t believe anything until you’ve read everything and connected the dots.
I thought the teacher collaboration and classroom applications for wikis that Richardson discussed were useful and well worth trying out. I also wondered if there really were wikis about lots of hobbies and interests like the ones the book mentioned. Searching for some of my own hobbies I didn’t find any collaboratively editable wikis. I did find several sites with areas to post information about a particular location for canoeing or camping, but each entry was a distinct “article” unto itself much like reading online product reviews and many of the entries were very repetitive. This helped me identify one great strength of a wiki – speed. You can quickly read just one “article” and still get a pretty good breadth of information from it.
I decided to do one simple experiment, a wikipedia search of “wikipedia”. The people at wikipedia were smart enough to expect such tricks and so created two paths to choose from. One that explained wikipedia’s history (which I refrained from editing as a test of their watch-dogging abilities) and another that contended with frequently asked questions. The FAQ path addressed the issue of accuracy and mirrored Richardson’s explanation. One admission they made was the simple fact that newer entries with fewer editors were more likely to have fallacies.
That made sense to me, so I decided to try a test of one of the organizations newer projects, wikispecies. I’m a wildlife biologist, so I thought this would be a good project for me to test. I decided to search for the first species to enter my mind, which was the black-footed ferret. The first thing that I discovered was that while wikispecies listed the taxonomic classifications for many species, few species had any information added beyond that. About the only statement listed for the ferret was that it was extinct in the wild, which was once true, but captive-breeding programs and subsequent reintroductions into the species’ old ranges in the last few years has made false. I didn’t feel much satisfaction in knowing enough to contradict the site, instead I was just really surprised that there was such a dearth of information there about what is really a fairly high-profile “poster-species” for conservation efforts. I can’t say I did much to help the fact; I didn’t edit the page. It decided that entry needed someone to come along with a lot more information than I was going to provide off the cuff. So much for broadening the base of mankind’s knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)