In his blog article, "The Sleep of Reason, Part 1," Michael Gorman articulates the essence of criticism that I have long held during my "anti-Wikipedia" moments (I do, yes, tend to swing back and forth on my feelings regarding the ubiquity of Wikipedia in general and its reliability as a source of information specifically).
During my "pro-Wikipedia" moments, I tend to marvel at the way in which Wikipedia seems to successfully function: as a rather organic process of building and correcting knowledge all existing within a framework that is set out beforehand; within specific rules and guidelines as set out on Wikipedia, a source of organically- and people-created knowledge like perhaps nothing seen before by humans is sprouting up on computers around the planet.
Gorman speaks to me, then, when he notes that "The difference [between print and digital, reliability and suspicion] is not, emphatically not, in the communication technology involved. Print does not necessarily bestow authenticity, and an increasing number of digital resources do not, by themselves, reflect an increase in expertise."
It is just as possible to have faulty or plagiarized information in print as it is to have it digitally. It is not as LIKELY--because it simply is more difficult and takes more time--but it is just as POSSIBLE. Further, quantity (increases in the quantity of information of any given topic online are certainly common) does not increase reliability either.
At the end of the day, much of what Gorman points out seems to be an idea that itself rests on this important notion: with content (ideas) becoming easier and easier to both publish and access, perhaps the most important step we face as users of information and technology is to develop surefire methods of checking, authenticating, and legitimizing information.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
"The Serfdom of Crowds"
Jaron Lanier's article "The Serfdom of Crowds" (from You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto) in the February 2010 issue of Harper's raises questions around the effects that web 2.0 technologies such as Wikipedia and Facebook have on the way that users of these technologies think--literally influencing how users make decisions, interact with people, and write.
Lanier himself has long been an intriguing critic of the evolution of the internet and its sudden, accepted centrality in the lives of so many--see this passage from his Wikipedia entry:
Lanier himself has long been an intriguing critic of the evolution of the internet and its sudden, accepted centrality in the lives of so many--see this passage from his Wikipedia entry:
So then, some salient excerpts from "The Serfdom of Crowds":
- In Edge magazine in May 2006, Lanier criticized the sometimes-claimed omniscience of collective wisdom (including examples such as the Wikipedia article about himself), describing it as "digital Maoism." He writes: "If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people [creating the content] and making ourselves into idiots."
- The central faith embedded in Web technologies whereby users not only consume information but widely generate it is the idea that the Internet as a whole is coming alive and turning into a superhuman creature.
- If you believe the distinction between the roles of people and of computers is starting to dissolve, you might express that—as some friends of mine at Microsoft once did—by designing features for a word processor that are supposed to know what you want—for example, when you want to start an outline within your document. You might have had the experience of Microsoft Word suddenly determining, at the wrong moment, that you are creating an indented outline. The real function of this feature isn’t to make life easier for you. Instead, it promotes a new philosophy: that the computer is evolving into a life-form that can understand people better than people can understand themselves. If you believe this, then working for the benefit of the computing cloud over that of the individual puts you on the side of the angels.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Playing around with Wikipedia--some edits
I edited the Wikipedia entry for my hometown of Randle, WA.
The entry previously looked like this:
.png)
I made the following additions:
1. I explained the history of the moniker "Big Bottom Valley."
2. I added the town of Glenoma, WA, to be included within the jurisdiction of the White Pass School District.
3. I edited grammar in the "Politics" section.
The entry now looks like this:
.png)
The entry previously looked like this:
.png)
I made the following additions:
1. I explained the history of the moniker "Big Bottom Valley."
2. I added the town of Glenoma, WA, to be included within the jurisdiction of the White Pass School District.
3. I edited grammar in the "Politics" section.
The entry now looks like this:
.png)
Monday, January 25, 2010
It's all about getting published
While teachers--English teachers in particular--have long looked for ways in which to motivate students to improve their writing by identifying a "real audience" (i.e., an audience different from--and larger than--the teacher and classmates), they now have to look no further than their computers. Blogging provides an immediate and easy way to expand a writer's readership and to provide an extra incentive to write well.
In addition to the obvious social constructivism benefits that blogging in the classroom provides, blogs' biggest value for writing teachers might have less to do with the web 2.0-specific capabilities inherent in the technology and more to do with the fact that it makes it easy for students to "get published." Publication can occur literally with the click of a mouse.
Though Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsua, in their article "Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-class Discussions," focus on reporting out on the potential of blogs to create a more robust classroom discussion and learning environment, they also note the benefits of blogging as a means to providing writers a new audience: "Blogs enable users...to share...with people who are outside the [school] community." With the thought lingering in the backs of their minds that a wider audience--even if it is mostly just mom and dad, grandma and grandpa--is reading their work, nearly all writers respond with a better effort, a greater willingness to carry out multiple edits on a single piece of writing, and a greater sense of satisfaction when having composed a quality piece of writing. No longer is it only praise from the English teacher that students receive; praise now comes from--potentially--any computer on the planet with an internet connection. Wang and Hsua go on to note: "Knowing that their writing is available to the public, students might have stronger motivation to write well so that the quality of their writing
might shine."
And I think of all those hours all those years that I've stuffed manila envelopes with student writing to mail out to writing competitions just for the purpose of providing students with a chance to get published.... Hello blogs, goodbye paper cuts!
In addition to the obvious social constructivism benefits that blogging in the classroom provides, blogs' biggest value for writing teachers might have less to do with the web 2.0-specific capabilities inherent in the technology and more to do with the fact that it makes it easy for students to "get published." Publication can occur literally with the click of a mouse.
Though Shiang-Kwei Wang and Hui-Yin Hsua, in their article "Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-class Discussions," focus on reporting out on the potential of blogs to create a more robust classroom discussion and learning environment, they also note the benefits of blogging as a means to providing writers a new audience: "Blogs enable users...to share...with people who are outside the [school] community." With the thought lingering in the backs of their minds that a wider audience--even if it is mostly just mom and dad, grandma and grandpa--is reading their work, nearly all writers respond with a better effort, a greater willingness to carry out multiple edits on a single piece of writing, and a greater sense of satisfaction when having composed a quality piece of writing. No longer is it only praise from the English teacher that students receive; praise now comes from--potentially--any computer on the planet with an internet connection. Wang and Hsua go on to note: "Knowing that their writing is available to the public, students might have stronger motivation to write well so that the quality of their writing
might shine."
And I think of all those hours all those years that I've stuffed manila envelopes with student writing to mail out to writing competitions just for the purpose of providing students with a chance to get published.... Hello blogs, goodbye paper cuts!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
"Backup Education?"
"Backup Education?" Marc Prensky asks. No: don't just back up. Get out of the way. Far out of the way.
People are generally frightened of change. It represents challenge, discomfort, mental and physical stretching--all things that most people don't want to endure if they don't have to. After all, isn't technology and our ever-evolving world supposed to be about convenience and ease, rather than the kind of discomfort that might be brought along by large-scale change?
I get it. I don't want to be stretched in two different directions in my life either. Hardly ever do I wish poly-directional stretching on myself, especially voluntarily. And I think it is the basic human response to the notion of "change"--a largely emotional, perhaps latent "fight-or-flight"-type response--that drives much of the emotion that swirls around the topic Prensky tackles: why do some teachers devote huge amounts of mental resources into trying to deny the central role that technology plays in education? Is it because they don't want to be stretched personally? Or is it because they genuinely believe that technology as a central facet of education is not in the best interest of students?
In the end--assuming that technology is not "going away" (which strikes me as a fairly safe bet)--it seems like many tech-wary teachers are going to have to make a choice: join the 21st century or get out of the way. Support and adopt the use of "real-world" tools in the classroom--or at least be quiet about not supporting them: don't be proverbial "sticks in the mud," don't form pockets of people whose main goal focuses essentially on failure--the hope that the wide-spread application and use of technology will essentially fail. It seems that the message that "backup educators" should be digesting is as simple as a Disney story moral: in the words of Thumper's mother in Bambi, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Or is that too much of a stretch?
It feels like backup education teachers will eventually be irrelevant once we reach a point in time when it is simply absurd and irresponsible to exclude technology from the classroom. Some argue that that day has already arrived. The million dollar question: when will that day be widely recognized by the masses as having arrived? 2012? 2015? 2020 or beyond?
People are generally frightened of change. It represents challenge, discomfort, mental and physical stretching--all things that most people don't want to endure if they don't have to. After all, isn't technology and our ever-evolving world supposed to be about convenience and ease, rather than the kind of discomfort that might be brought along by large-scale change?
I get it. I don't want to be stretched in two different directions in my life either. Hardly ever do I wish poly-directional stretching on myself, especially voluntarily. And I think it is the basic human response to the notion of "change"--a largely emotional, perhaps latent "fight-or-flight"-type response--that drives much of the emotion that swirls around the topic Prensky tackles: why do some teachers devote huge amounts of mental resources into trying to deny the central role that technology plays in education? Is it because they don't want to be stretched personally? Or is it because they genuinely believe that technology as a central facet of education is not in the best interest of students?
In the end--assuming that technology is not "going away" (which strikes me as a fairly safe bet)--it seems like many tech-wary teachers are going to have to make a choice: join the 21st century or get out of the way. Support and adopt the use of "real-world" tools in the classroom--or at least be quiet about not supporting them: don't be proverbial "sticks in the mud," don't form pockets of people whose main goal focuses essentially on failure--the hope that the wide-spread application and use of technology will essentially fail. It seems that the message that "backup educators" should be digesting is as simple as a Disney story moral: in the words of Thumper's mother in Bambi, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Or is that too much of a stretch?
It feels like backup education teachers will eventually be irrelevant once we reach a point in time when it is simply absurd and irresponsible to exclude technology from the classroom. Some argue that that day has already arrived. The million dollar question: when will that day be widely recognized by the masses as having arrived? 2012? 2015? 2020 or beyond?
"No Choice" = interesting big ideas
Thoughts on Will Richardson's "No Choice" blog post:
More and more it is becoming clear that there is an ever-widening gap between tech-savvy and not-tech-savvy teachers, and that at some point down the road--2 years? 5 years? 10 years?--there might be a fairly radical sense of division. Most of this seems to come from the simple fact that change is uncomfortable--most people never desire to change, and that includes using technology in school if you're a teacher.
However, a huge issue when it comes to integrating technology into schools is this: financially, logistically, and culturally, it is an incredibly complex task. At what point can Ministries of Education (MOE) and/or School Boards "require" the use of technology? The answer certainly has much to do with money and accessibility when we take into account issues of equality and equity that tend to be coupled with the use of public funds. Who can MOE's or School Boards "require" to use technology? Only students? Only teachers? Both? The answer would seem to be both. To what extent can technology be required to be used? For "all assignments"? Each student with a computer? The questions that accompany the continual integration of technology in schools are mindboggling. This is not to say that the use of technology is in any way "right" or "wrong," "good" or "bad"--merely that the integration and application of it in education is a huge endeavor (always has been, and likely always will be--it's merely becoming more acutely noticeable as technology increases at an ever-faster rate).
At a professional development day yesterday that focused on the use of technology in the classroom, our District's Superintendent-to-be remarked that, "Some teachers are already deeply immersed in using technology in the classroom, some are dabbling in it, and some are scared as hell at the thought of using it." I wonder if there will ALWAYS be a scared as hell contingent of tech-shy teachers, or if--at some point down the road--"tech shy" and "teacher" will simply be qualities that cannot be combined?
More and more it is becoming clear that there is an ever-widening gap between tech-savvy and not-tech-savvy teachers, and that at some point down the road--2 years? 5 years? 10 years?--there might be a fairly radical sense of division. Most of this seems to come from the simple fact that change is uncomfortable--most people never desire to change, and that includes using technology in school if you're a teacher.
However, a huge issue when it comes to integrating technology into schools is this: financially, logistically, and culturally, it is an incredibly complex task. At what point can Ministries of Education (MOE) and/or School Boards "require" the use of technology? The answer certainly has much to do with money and accessibility when we take into account issues of equality and equity that tend to be coupled with the use of public funds. Who can MOE's or School Boards "require" to use technology? Only students? Only teachers? Both? The answer would seem to be both. To what extent can technology be required to be used? For "all assignments"? Each student with a computer? The questions that accompany the continual integration of technology in schools are mindboggling. This is not to say that the use of technology is in any way "right" or "wrong," "good" or "bad"--merely that the integration and application of it in education is a huge endeavor (always has been, and likely always will be--it's merely becoming more acutely noticeable as technology increases at an ever-faster rate).
At a professional development day yesterday that focused on the use of technology in the classroom, our District's Superintendent-to-be remarked that, "Some teachers are already deeply immersed in using technology in the classroom, some are dabbling in it, and some are scared as hell at the thought of using it." I wonder if there will ALWAYS be a scared as hell contingent of tech-shy teachers, or if--at some point down the road--"tech shy" and "teacher" will simply be qualities that cannot be combined?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Fun with the Google family
Some of my Google documents:
For the sake of circularity, a link to my facebook page (in case I ever need to find myself online!)
As an English teacher, never be caught without your Shakespeare Life and Times presentation.
I Google with iGoogle:
Google Calendar:
Google Reader:
For the sake of circularity, a link to my facebook page (in case I ever need to find myself online!)
As an English teacher, never be caught without your Shakespeare Life and Times presentation.
I Google with iGoogle:
Google Calendar:
Google Reader:
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
I feel like I've heard this about a googol times...
While TLs' roles will certainly evolve over the next decade (I cannot begin to imagine how wildly advanced technologies will be in 2020--I imagine being as awe-inspired as a ten year old watching a spacey sci-fi movie in the 1960s that features a narrative voice over saying something about "the future"), it is still important to keep central to our thoughts and motivations this principle:
Though the quantity of information will continue to increase and the accessibility of information will become easier, it is quality--quality of questions, quality of thinking, quality of articulation--that is central to the stuff of learning.
Though the quantity of information will continue to increase and the accessibility of information will become easier, it is quality--quality of questions, quality of thinking, quality of articulation--that is central to the stuff of learning.
"I'm on facebook, not in English class..."
Many web 2.0 tools are thought of--and used--in a manner largely influenced by context and experience; that is, the context in which the application is both initially encountered and most often used tends to inform the manner in which the application is used. The "way" people--and students are no exception--use various web 2.0 apps tends to be something like what we talk about when we discuss "style" as writing teachers: though the act of putting pen to paper is a simple communicative act that can be used to many ends--the same can be said for web 2.0 apps--the end product that writers produce (the style they employ, the tone they utilize) is highly influenced by the genre in which they are writing. Writing a business letter? The style is largely determined beforehand (Microsoft Word offers templates), the tone is marked by formal diction. Writing a literary analysis? The tricks of the trade are taught in English class (not after school online on a computer), the tone is--for lack of a better term--academic. Writing a note on facebook? OMG I hv 2 stdy 4 a tst and I am BTT!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Applying web 2.0 applications
While I am generally amused by--and often enamored of--the vast array of web 2.0 applications available today, I have always maintained a niggling thought that some applications might exist solely for their own use: that is, they are what they are, and maybe there is not always an effective or worthwhile educational application--and by extension, there might be a good bit of wheel-spinning or wasted time in trying to devise ways in which to use tools that were not designed originally for the specific job. That is the potential down side of technology in this case. The potential upside is that there likely are countless effective ways to apply web 2.0 tools in schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)