Each group should post the conclusion they reached from the CROAK online investigation. Then explain the evidence the group used to make the decision and the logic connecting the evidence to the conclusion. Did everyone in your group agree? Did your investigation follow any misleading or irrelevant information that made you consider a different theory?
After your group has posted the results of your investigation, read the conclusions that the other groups reached. Comment on the reasoning they used to reach their decision. Please remember to be courteous in your comments.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Revised technology autobiography
-Revised thoughts are italicized:
I believe that many educators fall into one of two common traps when trying to make use of technology in the classroom. Some mistakenly believe that technology is unnecessary or even detrimental to learning. Others buy whole-heartedly into integrating technology into their classroom, but are so caught up in the “gee-whiz” factor that their equipment becomes gadgetry rather than a meaningful tool for education. A large percentage of teachers are truly neutral on the subject and will make use of the technology a school district provides them with and common applications, but not invest time or money into additional equipment or newer and less common applications. A very small number will recognize the true potential of the technology they could be using as well as the pitfalls.
-I am still convinced of this problem. One thing that I have been glad of in this class is that we have focused much of our attention on online information-sharing tools. I think this more focused curriculum has really given me some ideas that I am truly excited about that I would not have had with a more superficial coverage of technology for more diverse utilizations. I think we have focused more on the meaning of the new technology than on glitz. Our text was also a great choice in this regard.
Is technology really a necessity for learning? Isn’t it truly just a crutch, so students don’t have to apply their minds? It is true that humans have been thinking, inventing, and discovering far longer than computers have been around. However, new technology has always been evolving and its use has opened new doorways to knowledge. In “teacher-speak”, technology means computers and microchip driven electronics. I believe this definition came about due to the language of government funding for classroom computers. Technology really has a much broader definition referring to newly invented tools and processes. I remember a conversation I had with an interviewer for a teaching position that was before I had any teacher training and realized that the narrowed definition existed. He asked me what technology I would purchase for my science classroom if I was given funds to spend. -I will certainly be loaded up with answers if anyone asks me that question again. Not only will I know what I am being asked, I actually know of a lot things I want to use. I stated that I would purchase much better microscopes for my students than the ones I usually observed in classrooms. He scoffed that microscopes were not technology; they had been around for as long as he had been alive. I thought it better not to mention how much longer than that they had been around. I continued that I would like to have a videoscope, so I could point out microorganisms to the entire class at once. “Ah yes! That’s technology!” I quickly considered what would happen if I stated that closed-circuit TV had been around as long as I had been alive. Once upon a time, microscopes were a new technology. Their invention allowed people to view organisms that they never before knew existed. Because of this, humans eventually came to realize that germs cause disease. Before this invention, much of medicine was conjecture and philosophical argument. What if the learned people of the time had dismissed the microscope as a toy or distraction. What if they had said, “My grandfather got through just fine without ever looking at his spit through a tube and I will too!” What would have happened if civilization had dismissed television, radio, telegraphs, the printing press, or even the alphabet. That sounds absurd, but isn’t our current computer technology really the next step in that progression of information sharing tools?Often when someone says, “Oh, you don’t really need to know that stuff” don’t they really mean that they don’t know about the stuff and don’t want to take the initiative to learn it. My grandmother never learned to use an ATM. She said that they were confusing. There was nothing confusing about reading a yes/no question and pushing the button adjacent to the appropriate answer. She simply dismissed it because it was unfamiliar to her. I have had similar experiences myself with technology. I have cursed at many inanimate computer screens when I could not get the result I wanted. For a time I tried to avoid having to use computers rather than learning the basics of getting them to do what I wanted. I quickly recognized the futility of this approach. New technology really does create new abilities, provide access to new information, and expand our horizons.
-I like many of the new tools that I was exposed to in this class. Many were new to me altogether. Others I knew existed and basically what they were, but hadn’t tried. I’m glad this class provided the impetus for me to work with them. Some I think I’ve got down and others I’m still figuring out. I’m more willing to start initially using them ignorantly and let the proficiency develop than I was before this class. One unfortunate side effect of all this is that I now have a technology wish list in my mind that is bigger than the wallet in my pocket.
I see powerpoint presentations used in classrooms all the time. They are great. I say this because I recognize an easily stored, easily reusable, easily sharable, easily adjustable teaching tool. It serves as notes, simple lesson plan, and visual aid all in one package. -I certainly plan on acquiring or producing a good collection of computer-housed lessons for exactly that reason. This class has exposed to me many different tools for that purpose that are much better than the powerpoint presentations I was more acquainted with. I know too many instructors though who are intrigued by a powerpoint presentation for its glitz. It’s so much shinier than the chalkboard and just watch how the words look like they’re flying onto the screen! Perhaps the teacher is enthralled, but to the students this is old hat, big deal. I guarantee that a live rabbit in a box or blowing bubbles with a soap solution will garner much more student attention than a flashy, cute powerpoint show. The real power of technology is in what a teacher can do with it, not how it looks. I’ve observed teachers in classrooms who spent more time fiddling with and doodling on their smartboards than teaching their subject matter. It’s all in how it’s used. Such teacher misuses of technology lend credibility to the first argument that it is a waste of time and gets in the way of true learning. - I really like that many of the tools we have looked at are for students to actively use, not just to observe the teacher using. I have no problem with the teachers who use common computer applications and the equipment they are provided with, but go no further. This moderate stance on using technology in the classroom is actually a good balance. It isn’t a resistance to change or a world-of-tomorrow gadget show. These technology neutral teachers are using tools that are fairly “tried and true” with most of the major bugs worked out. These teachers’ classrooms may not be on the cutting edge of technology, but they are utilizing technology none the less. -I will probably fit into this category, though I may push towards a few newer tech tools. At the very least I hope I will be up to speed enough to be proficient on newer technology when it becomes more mainstream/tried-and-true. When I was in college, geographic information systems careers were supposed to be the next hot job market. Within a decade the students who had focused on these systems were struggling to find good jobs in the field. Why? It was because GIS programs had become so user-friendly and commonplace that a one hour tutorial could teach a novice what these professionals had learned to do over four years. A little bit of technological lag isn’t always a bad thing. -And user-friendly is great for me.
Then there are educators who are using very new technology and using it in appropriate and very pragmatic ways. Honestly, I have no experience with teachers who are using technology as creatively as a few I have read about. I do though see teachers that have used technology for sharing information with students, parents, and other teachers and also for creating some really neat virtual models for science use.I am excited about what I hope to learn in this class. I am not embarrassed to say that I am as excited about much of it so I can learn to use it personally as well as in my classroom. I have many ideas that I believe are pretty creative regarding how I might use some of the technology for teaching, but I don’t have enough experience to judge how realistic my ideas are based less on the limitations of the technology than on the limitations of a real classroom teaching situation. I am always somewhat disappointed when I read about something really outstanding that an educator is doing, only to find out at the end of the article that the teacher is at a special, experimental, advanced magnet school for exceptionally gifted prodigies. I am feeling cautiously optimistic that there are educational applications of the technology we will study that will be outstanding with more general audiences as well. I feel like I am in that general audience category myself.
- I am actually even more excited to try some of the things we used in class than I had imagined I would be, especially regarding classroom use. And this class has made me aware of some tools that I want to try that we didn’t have a chance to really use. I feel like some of the ideas I had before this class for using technology are realistic and going to be much easier to implement than I had imagined. My confidence that I can learn to use these tools without messing anything up has greatly increased.
I believe that many educators fall into one of two common traps when trying to make use of technology in the classroom. Some mistakenly believe that technology is unnecessary or even detrimental to learning. Others buy whole-heartedly into integrating technology into their classroom, but are so caught up in the “gee-whiz” factor that their equipment becomes gadgetry rather than a meaningful tool for education. A large percentage of teachers are truly neutral on the subject and will make use of the technology a school district provides them with and common applications, but not invest time or money into additional equipment or newer and less common applications. A very small number will recognize the true potential of the technology they could be using as well as the pitfalls.
-I am still convinced of this problem. One thing that I have been glad of in this class is that we have focused much of our attention on online information-sharing tools. I think this more focused curriculum has really given me some ideas that I am truly excited about that I would not have had with a more superficial coverage of technology for more diverse utilizations. I think we have focused more on the meaning of the new technology than on glitz. Our text was also a great choice in this regard.
Is technology really a necessity for learning? Isn’t it truly just a crutch, so students don’t have to apply their minds? It is true that humans have been thinking, inventing, and discovering far longer than computers have been around. However, new technology has always been evolving and its use has opened new doorways to knowledge. In “teacher-speak”, technology means computers and microchip driven electronics. I believe this definition came about due to the language of government funding for classroom computers. Technology really has a much broader definition referring to newly invented tools and processes. I remember a conversation I had with an interviewer for a teaching position that was before I had any teacher training and realized that the narrowed definition existed. He asked me what technology I would purchase for my science classroom if I was given funds to spend. -I will certainly be loaded up with answers if anyone asks me that question again. Not only will I know what I am being asked, I actually know of a lot things I want to use. I stated that I would purchase much better microscopes for my students than the ones I usually observed in classrooms. He scoffed that microscopes were not technology; they had been around for as long as he had been alive. I thought it better not to mention how much longer than that they had been around. I continued that I would like to have a videoscope, so I could point out microorganisms to the entire class at once. “Ah yes! That’s technology!” I quickly considered what would happen if I stated that closed-circuit TV had been around as long as I had been alive. Once upon a time, microscopes were a new technology. Their invention allowed people to view organisms that they never before knew existed. Because of this, humans eventually came to realize that germs cause disease. Before this invention, much of medicine was conjecture and philosophical argument. What if the learned people of the time had dismissed the microscope as a toy or distraction. What if they had said, “My grandfather got through just fine without ever looking at his spit through a tube and I will too!” What would have happened if civilization had dismissed television, radio, telegraphs, the printing press, or even the alphabet. That sounds absurd, but isn’t our current computer technology really the next step in that progression of information sharing tools?Often when someone says, “Oh, you don’t really need to know that stuff” don’t they really mean that they don’t know about the stuff and don’t want to take the initiative to learn it. My grandmother never learned to use an ATM. She said that they were confusing. There was nothing confusing about reading a yes/no question and pushing the button adjacent to the appropriate answer. She simply dismissed it because it was unfamiliar to her. I have had similar experiences myself with technology. I have cursed at many inanimate computer screens when I could not get the result I wanted. For a time I tried to avoid having to use computers rather than learning the basics of getting them to do what I wanted. I quickly recognized the futility of this approach. New technology really does create new abilities, provide access to new information, and expand our horizons.
-I like many of the new tools that I was exposed to in this class. Many were new to me altogether. Others I knew existed and basically what they were, but hadn’t tried. I’m glad this class provided the impetus for me to work with them. Some I think I’ve got down and others I’m still figuring out. I’m more willing to start initially using them ignorantly and let the proficiency develop than I was before this class. One unfortunate side effect of all this is that I now have a technology wish list in my mind that is bigger than the wallet in my pocket.
I see powerpoint presentations used in classrooms all the time. They are great. I say this because I recognize an easily stored, easily reusable, easily sharable, easily adjustable teaching tool. It serves as notes, simple lesson plan, and visual aid all in one package. -I certainly plan on acquiring or producing a good collection of computer-housed lessons for exactly that reason. This class has exposed to me many different tools for that purpose that are much better than the powerpoint presentations I was more acquainted with. I know too many instructors though who are intrigued by a powerpoint presentation for its glitz. It’s so much shinier than the chalkboard and just watch how the words look like they’re flying onto the screen! Perhaps the teacher is enthralled, but to the students this is old hat, big deal. I guarantee that a live rabbit in a box or blowing bubbles with a soap solution will garner much more student attention than a flashy, cute powerpoint show. The real power of technology is in what a teacher can do with it, not how it looks. I’ve observed teachers in classrooms who spent more time fiddling with and doodling on their smartboards than teaching their subject matter. It’s all in how it’s used. Such teacher misuses of technology lend credibility to the first argument that it is a waste of time and gets in the way of true learning. - I really like that many of the tools we have looked at are for students to actively use, not just to observe the teacher using. I have no problem with the teachers who use common computer applications and the equipment they are provided with, but go no further. This moderate stance on using technology in the classroom is actually a good balance. It isn’t a resistance to change or a world-of-tomorrow gadget show. These technology neutral teachers are using tools that are fairly “tried and true” with most of the major bugs worked out. These teachers’ classrooms may not be on the cutting edge of technology, but they are utilizing technology none the less. -I will probably fit into this category, though I may push towards a few newer tech tools. At the very least I hope I will be up to speed enough to be proficient on newer technology when it becomes more mainstream/tried-and-true. When I was in college, geographic information systems careers were supposed to be the next hot job market. Within a decade the students who had focused on these systems were struggling to find good jobs in the field. Why? It was because GIS programs had become so user-friendly and commonplace that a one hour tutorial could teach a novice what these professionals had learned to do over four years. A little bit of technological lag isn’t always a bad thing. -And user-friendly is great for me.
Then there are educators who are using very new technology and using it in appropriate and very pragmatic ways. Honestly, I have no experience with teachers who are using technology as creatively as a few I have read about. I do though see teachers that have used technology for sharing information with students, parents, and other teachers and also for creating some really neat virtual models for science use.I am excited about what I hope to learn in this class. I am not embarrassed to say that I am as excited about much of it so I can learn to use it personally as well as in my classroom. I have many ideas that I believe are pretty creative regarding how I might use some of the technology for teaching, but I don’t have enough experience to judge how realistic my ideas are based less on the limitations of the technology than on the limitations of a real classroom teaching situation. I am always somewhat disappointed when I read about something really outstanding that an educator is doing, only to find out at the end of the article that the teacher is at a special, experimental, advanced magnet school for exceptionally gifted prodigies. I am feeling cautiously optimistic that there are educational applications of the technology we will study that will be outstanding with more general audiences as well. I feel like I am in that general audience category myself.
- I am actually even more excited to try some of the things we used in class than I had imagined I would be, especially regarding classroom use. And this class has made me aware of some tools that I want to try that we didn’t have a chance to really use. I feel like some of the ideas I had before this class for using technology are realistic and going to be much easier to implement than I had imagined. My confidence that I can learn to use these tools without messing anything up has greatly increased.
Chapter Six Comments
It is interesting to think about two contradictory ideas about the internet. First, that the “easy-share internet” has created a vast social network that could otherwise never exist. Second, that communication forms such as email and text-messaging have created an environment with less personal interaction than ever before which maybe even hinders some people’s interpersonal development. I think both of these ideas have truth in them, they are just referring to different kinds of relationships.
I have heard some people say that they don’t care for the internet because they would rather deal with a real person. The internet is too cold. Of course the person on the other end of most internet interactions is real too. Just try putting a pleasantry like “How ya doing today?” in the special instructions box the next time you order something online. See how quickly you get a response (and better customer service too).
The flip side is that I know of few relationships that can do as well online as in “the real world” (or is it “In Real Life”, IRL). I have real world friends who I don’t get to see very often, but communicate with over email. We almost always say, “Hey, we need to get together sometime soon!” Clearly, online is not as good as face to face or even as good as a phone call. I believe that there is a very real impersonalness to online communications that our organismic selves cannot get around.
I wonder if a teacher who does most of his teaching via the computer can really establish as good of a relationship with his students as a teacher who does most of her teaching face to face. There is little doubt that a good teacher-student relationship is very important. I wonder if a generation of students who have grown up using email, text-messaging, myspace, and facebook feel the like these communication methods are as impersonal as I do or if their neural networks don’t differentiate as strongly.
All my friends are “real world/ IRL” friends. An internet friend would feel kind of contrived to me, yet certainly there are people who develop deep online friendships and even courtships that really work. I don’t deny that such relationships are genuine and lasting, maybe even more intellectually truthful. I just know I would rather see the emotional reaction in a person’s face and voice.
Clearly, the technology discussed in this chapter of the book provides great informational access and could be powerful educational tools. I just question how much of a relational tradeoff there is if the technology is used by a teacher a lot. I would be very interested to hear what someone more comfortable with cyber-friendships thought about that issue.
I have heard some people say that they don’t care for the internet because they would rather deal with a real person. The internet is too cold. Of course the person on the other end of most internet interactions is real too. Just try putting a pleasantry like “How ya doing today?” in the special instructions box the next time you order something online. See how quickly you get a response (and better customer service too).
The flip side is that I know of few relationships that can do as well online as in “the real world” (or is it “In Real Life”, IRL). I have real world friends who I don’t get to see very often, but communicate with over email. We almost always say, “Hey, we need to get together sometime soon!” Clearly, online is not as good as face to face or even as good as a phone call. I believe that there is a very real impersonalness to online communications that our organismic selves cannot get around.
I wonder if a teacher who does most of his teaching via the computer can really establish as good of a relationship with his students as a teacher who does most of her teaching face to face. There is little doubt that a good teacher-student relationship is very important. I wonder if a generation of students who have grown up using email, text-messaging, myspace, and facebook feel the like these communication methods are as impersonal as I do or if their neural networks don’t differentiate as strongly.
All my friends are “real world/ IRL” friends. An internet friend would feel kind of contrived to me, yet certainly there are people who develop deep online friendships and even courtships that really work. I don’t deny that such relationships are genuine and lasting, maybe even more intellectually truthful. I just know I would rather see the emotional reaction in a person’s face and voice.
Clearly, the technology discussed in this chapter of the book provides great informational access and could be powerful educational tools. I just question how much of a relational tradeoff there is if the technology is used by a teacher a lot. I would be very interested to hear what someone more comfortable with cyber-friendships thought about that issue.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
digital story assignment
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Comments about Chapters 3,5, and 7
In Chapter Three of Richardson’s book, I appreciated the fact that he discussed ideas for making the use of internet technology more practical. By discussing issues such as some students’ difficulty getting access to computers and the internet, maintaining control of student and class postings, and limiting access, he acknowledges some very real potential problems. It is always encouraging to me when an aficionado of any topic is able to logically assess problematic issues in a realistic way and provide solutions.
One of the ideas that Richardson presented was that it may be easier for a teacher, especially a teacher who is just staring to use information technology in the classroom, to utilize a single class weblog with posts only added by the teacher and students’ responses posted as comments rather than having to keep track of every student’s individual blog. Another idea that would help calm teacher and definitely parental anxiety was the suggestion to simply use access controls to make the site more of a closed community available only to students and perhaps parents, rather than open to anyone. Perhaps the most important advice was to be sure that all policies, permissions, and guidelines are well established from the outset. This critical step helps to assure acceptance of the techniques being used by administrators, students, and parents. Not only does this help protect the teacher, it also elicits support for the technology’s use by making it seem more benign than it otherwise might to some people who would be suspicious or critical of something they were unfamiliar with.
Chapters Five and Seven contained both straightforward directions and potential uses for RSS and Flickr. The statement that strikes me as being obvious but necessary to make is that the way to realize the usefulness of these programs is to simply try them out and give them a chance.
One of the ideas that Richardson presented was that it may be easier for a teacher, especially a teacher who is just staring to use information technology in the classroom, to utilize a single class weblog with posts only added by the teacher and students’ responses posted as comments rather than having to keep track of every student’s individual blog. Another idea that would help calm teacher and definitely parental anxiety was the suggestion to simply use access controls to make the site more of a closed community available only to students and perhaps parents, rather than open to anyone. Perhaps the most important advice was to be sure that all policies, permissions, and guidelines are well established from the outset. This critical step helps to assure acceptance of the techniques being used by administrators, students, and parents. Not only does this help protect the teacher, it also elicits support for the technology’s use by making it seem more benign than it otherwise might to some people who would be suspicious or critical of something they were unfamiliar with.
Chapters Five and Seven contained both straightforward directions and potential uses for RSS and Flickr. The statement that strikes me as being obvious but necessary to make is that the way to realize the usefulness of these programs is to simply try them out and give them a chance.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Chapter 1 and 2 in Richardson Comments
The first two chapters in Richardson’s Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Webtools for Classrooms seemed like a pretty strong argument for why they are important for the world in general and education specifically. The chapters made me think about many possible uses of the web tools for classroom use. Some of the ideas that struck me the most were the use of a blog as a class specific, open forum newspaper, using individual student’s blogs as a kind of portfolio about a specific topic that would be their own beyond high school, and the idea of using a blog with digital video as a sort of field trip with either an expert in the field of study or for having groups of students record and share field projects with the other students in a subject.
Almost as quickly as possible uses were occurring to me, so were questions about how to make them work. Many of these questions were technical in nature, but so basic that I am sure we will discuss them in class at some point. I wondered about the benefits and difficulties of allowing reports on a school-based weblog anonymous and what all is necessary for true anonymity to be possible. I considered what various equipment would cost, such as digital video cameras and what kinds of policies would be necessary for providing them to students or subject experts to use outside of the classroom. I wondered what the benefits of having a “normal” code driven website were over using simple weblogs, Was space the main issue or some other consideration? I wondered what a portal was and how are listservs different from blog subscriptions.
The discussion about the development of a read-write rather than read only web was illuminating to me. Richardson’s disappointment that blogs and the like are used much more for social reasons rather than more academic ones was funny to me. It made me think of the sorts of programs available on television and the proportions of different program sorts. Even if the web is a two-way connection, how likely is it to follow a similar pattern to television in the proportion of educational to entertaining programs.
I think his statement on page forty about how it will be “messy sorting through issues of trust and reliability” was very true and perhaps even understated.
Almost as quickly as possible uses were occurring to me, so were questions about how to make them work. Many of these questions were technical in nature, but so basic that I am sure we will discuss them in class at some point. I wondered about the benefits and difficulties of allowing reports on a school-based weblog anonymous and what all is necessary for true anonymity to be possible. I considered what various equipment would cost, such as digital video cameras and what kinds of policies would be necessary for providing them to students or subject experts to use outside of the classroom. I wondered what the benefits of having a “normal” code driven website were over using simple weblogs, Was space the main issue or some other consideration? I wondered what a portal was and how are listservs different from blog subscriptions.
The discussion about the development of a read-write rather than read only web was illuminating to me. Richardson’s disappointment that blogs and the like are used much more for social reasons rather than more academic ones was funny to me. It made me think of the sorts of programs available on television and the proportions of different program sorts. Even if the web is a two-way connection, how likely is it to follow a similar pattern to television in the proportion of educational to entertaining programs.
I think his statement on page forty about how it will be “messy sorting through issues of trust and reliability” was very true and perhaps even understated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)