Using Technology Wisely: The Keys To Success In Schools

Annotation

Harold Wenglinsky, a former visiting scholar at Educational Testing Services and expert on quantitative analysis of large-scale data on educational policy, makes very clear his position in this book-length report on the use of technology in K-12 education. Technology used in the context of a constructivist pedagogical environment is often beneficial to student achievement and almost always beneficial to the development of higher-order thinking skills. But, that same technology used in what Wenglinsky terms a “didactic” pedagogy (a pejorative term, thus making clear his position from the outset) is, at best neutral, and at worst detrimental to the learning process.

Wenglinsky supports his conclusions with both qualitative, and more authoritatively large-scale quantitative data gathered from both the 1996 and 2000 National Assessments of Educational Progress. One gets the sense, however, that he went into the quantitative data looking to support a pedagogical agenda rather than to objectively seek understanding. This searching for quantitative support of previous qualitative findings might just be appropriate, in this case, given his admission that the nature of NEAP data does not distinguish direction of causality. The best he can hope to do is to look for a preponderance of evidence across both methods. Admittedly, there is little debate left in the educational community that constructivist pedagogy is effective in and of itself, but particularly so when facilitated by strong curricular support. I just would have hoped for some methodological allowance around the notion that most good teaching is a combination of both direct instruction and more constructivist notions depending on the needs of the current set of students.

Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0

Annotation

In this article, John Seely Brown, former Chief Scientist of Xerox-PARC, describes how the increasing demand for advanced learning coupled with the advent of Web2.0, collaborative environments is creating a “perfect storm of opportunity” for a switch from a prevalence of Cartesian learning/teaching pedagogy to a flourishing of a more social/constructivist view of learning.  He characterizes this as a move from “learning about” to “learning to be.” Brown doesn’t diminish the need to know “about” something, he just thinks that the need for explicit knowledge needs to flow from an authentic desire to “be” someone or something in a situated task. This is what Dewey called “productive inquiry.” Brown emphasizes, through a series of examples, that it is the advancement of technology that allows us to pursue this type of education more practically. He notes that the ability of learners to find niche communities of inquiry ignites their passions to acquire both deep knowledge about a subject and the general skills necessary to be a part of that community of learners.

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 16. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420. 

danah boyd @ Sosial web og laering - 2008

ITU: Sosial web og læring: danah boyd from ITU on Vimeo.

Annotation

In this presentation to a Norwegian conference on the social web, danah boyd seeks to contextualize young people’s use of social media in a broad historical context. She briefly details that history of social network sites from “Six Degress,” through MySpace and describes it as a social shift as much as a technical one.

She also describes the awkward nature of SNS’s of expecting users to explicitly identify “friends,” noting that MySpace even allows users to rank them. This is an example of the type of wholly different social environment that kids have to deal with and that parents can barely understand.

She then elaborates on five aspects of online “publics” that distinguish them from their offline counterparts.
--persistence (what you write may never go away)
--replicability (your utterances can be reproduced and transformed)
--scalability (most postings are largely unread but could, usually through embarrassing circumstances, be broadcast to millions)
--searchability (people can easily find what you’ve said and done)

While these aspects may not inform how one thinks about evaluating the educational value of SNSs, it does inform how one could develop and use one. Perhaps a closed an purely educational SNS should not be blocked from indexing by search bots and should have all of its content discarded upon completion of the formal learning experience. This might make participants feel more comfortable with openly discussing ideas that they don’t necessarily feel comfortable with.

boyd, D. (2008). danah boyd Sosial web og laering. Oslo, Norway. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://www.vimeo.com/1998402?pg=embed&sec=1998402.

‘Screw Blackboard... do it on Facebook!’: an investigation of students’ educational use of Facebook

Annotation

Facebook is such a wildly popular Web2.0 social networking community (site) where university students spend much time that it deserves research attention about how it fits into an educational setting. In fact, on its face (excuse the pun), it has many of the desired qualities of an effective educational technology, (viz., feedback mechanisms, good social fit, conversation and collaboration facilitation, and it’s encouraging of active participation.) Also, it fosters discussion, summary and analysis, which we know leads to increased levels of learning.

Consequently, this study asks three questions, one of which is pertinent to my own research. “What can be said to be new about the nature and outcomes of students’ FB use?”

In this “Non-participant Ethnographic Study” from Neil Selwyn, a sociologist working at the London Knowledge Lab, text analyzes 612 Facebook profiles of university students using the Glaser & Strauss model, primarily looking at 2,496 educationally related out of 68,169 (4%) “Wall” postings over a 5 month period.

Of that 4%, five themes emerged.
1. Recounting the Univ. experience
2. Exchange of practical/logistical info
3. Exchange of academic info (this was VERY limited)
4. Displays of supplication &/or disengagement (rampant anti-intellectualism)
5. Simple banter

Disappointingly, very little usage of FB supported traditional academic learning. However, Selwyn concludes that however mundane the content, FB provides a valuable social element to the university experience. Alas, it doesn’t sound like FB can replace an LMS, but it shouldn’t be precluded from the campus experience.

Two other pertinent learnings can from this article.
1) It reconfirms the Boyd et al. notion that FB primarily supports preexisting relationships, not forming new ones.
2) Students bring to the social network their own preconceived notions of self and act upon those notions even if it means not engaging for fear of being thought a nerd.

Selwyn, N. (2007, November 15). ‘Screw Blackboard... do it on Facebook!’: an investigation of students’ educational use of Facebook. University of London. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebook-seminar-paper-Selwyn.

Facebook as an LMS?

I just read a fascinating (if disappointing) study about the potential applicability of Facebook as an LMS. (Or at least that's what the title implied.)

Selwyn, N. (2007, November 15). ‘Screw Blackboard... do it on Facebook!’: an investigation of
students’ educational use of Facebook. University of London. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebook-seminar-paper-Selwyn.

Anyway, the argument (simplified) goes like this...
- Since we know that SNSs tend to support existing relationships (rather than create new ones)
- Since people tend to present that part of themselves which fit the norms of the situation
- So, introduction of a tool which is generally seen as supporting informal communication begets informal personae

In other words, these students didn't utilize the communicative and collaborative power of their pre-existing tool for formal educational purposes because they didn't want to be seen as nerds to their pre-existing friends.

This, of course, generates many new questions...
- Could a tool with identical functionality but rebranded as a serious learning environment prove effective/efficient in supporting the learning process or would it be dismissed as uncool? Or perhaps just the students who used it seriously would be labeled the same way.
- Could anonymous profiles help create an environment where students would be free to break-out of their predefined personae and contribute to the best of their intellectual ability?

Anyway, I just found this interesting.

Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries

Annotation

This brief document prepared in 2008 by the Young Adult Library Services Association of the American Library Association emphasizes the potential educational value of Social Networking for teens, although I feel that many of their ideas are applicable to younger students, as well. The main point of the first section of the report emphasizes the obvious read/write nature of social networking sites. If students are using SNSs, they are searching, reading, writing, and synthesizing all in an authentic and meaningful way. The report acknowledges the safety concerns around the use of SNSs, but highlights them as an opportunity to teaching students about boundries, expectations, and safe SNS use.
The rest of the report was a list of ideas about how to best sell the value of SNSs to educators, parents, and the community at-large.

This report, while not novel, echoed what so many progressive organizations have to say about the educational value of SNS. Basically they say, that these sites, like any social space have their security concerns, but that we need to look at the boarded picture of potential value in order to judge them effectively.

Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries. (2008, January). Young Adult Library Services Association. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/yalsa/profdev/teen_sn_brochure.pdf.

Creating and connecting: Research and guidelines on online social—and educational—networking

Annotation

This report carried out commissioned by the National School Board Association, carried out by Grunwald Associates and funded by Microsoft, News Corporatoin, and Verizon, gathers its data by surveying over twelve hundred students age 9-17, one thousand parents, and 250 district leaders. In general, it finds that kids spend about 9 hours/week online, about 60% of online students use social networking sites to talk about educational issues and 50% talk specifically about schoolwork. It also finds that while parents and district administrators see the great potential of social networking sites to foster 21st century skills, many of those sites and activities that make up the bulk of functionality on those sites (e.g., sharing media, blogging, messaging) is blocked in schools. It also finds that while much of the reason for blocking revolves around safety concerns, only 7% of the students surveyed have had someone ask them personal questions online, 7% have reported to have been cyberbullied, and 4% have had “uncomfortable” conversations on SNSs. Furthermore, only .08% of all students say they’ve met someone from online, in person, without their parents permission. (Since this data is self-reported, and because children may not understand or trust the notion of anonymity, this number may be underreported.) Given this data, the report suggests that the benefits of social networking may outweigh the actual harm and that schools should consider relaxing restrictions on these sites in schools.

Most importantly for my work, the final suggestion of the report states that social networking developers should

“work with educational leaders to increase services that are explicitly educational in nature via informal and formal initatives.”

Creating and connecting: Research and guidelines on online social—and educational—networking. (2007). . Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/41400/41340.pdf.

Copy and Paste Literacy: Literacy practices in the production of a MySpace profile

Annotation

In this paper, Dan Perkel, a graduate student at Berkeley SIMS at the time, argues that, according to both a social and technical understanding of literacy (diSessa’s in particular), the copy/paste functionality availability in MySpace profile creation allows users to participate in and practice new forms of literacy, one that transcrends the old dichotomy of read/write, comsume/produce. He says that, “The creation of a MySpace profile is neither strictly “reading” nor “writing,” but is somehow both simultaneously.” Further, he supports diSessa’s notion that literacy cannot be separated, meaningfully, from the medium/technology that underlies it.

Perkel’s work here has helped me to understand several facets of my own. In particular, I’m starting to see how collaboration, as in the case of some MySpace users developing tutorials for others, as an example of the type of interaction that teachers strive for in explicit educational settings. This behavior is often also seen in in gaming contexts. In spaces where knowledge is valued, it is shared gladly by some of those who hold it.

I also now see the open personalization of MySpace profiles to be a factor that is optimal in formal learning but is clearly a trade-off between itself and usability, or in the case of a classroom, personalization and practicality.

Finally, Perkel drives home the point that while copy/paste might be a rather ordinary technical skill, its use, at least in social media situations, is indicative of an underlying valid social literacy, participation.

Perkel, D. (2006). Copy and Paste Literacy: Literacy practices in the production of a MySpace profile. Informal Learning and Digital Media, 21-23. Retrieved from http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/dperkel/2006/08/01/copy-and-paste-literacy-literacy-practices-in-the-production-of-a-myspace-profile-an-overview/. 

Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship

Annotation

In this article danah boyd and Nicole Ellison, both leading social media researchers, describe the origins and implications of what they call “social network sites.” From their perspective, SNSs are fundamentally distinct from other forms of online community in that they tend to be organized around personalities rather than topics, like usenet groups might have been. Additionally, they recognize that SNSs generally support the maintenance of extended offline social networks rather than the formation of strong, new relationships. They see the foundation of these sites as a profile page with a display of “an articulated list of ‘Friends.’” SNSs also often include a common set of features that help create community, including messaging, media sharing, blogging, and calendars but one way sites differentiate themselves is through different levels of privacy of ones profile. The notion of community became so popular that some services integrated “social networking” into themselves rather than the other way around (e.g., YouTube, Flickr.)

Boyd and Ellison see four primary areas of current research on SNSs including, impression management, network structure, online/offline connections, and privacy issues. They then mention other areas of potential research around SNSs, finally including the area which is of particular interest to me, the educational their explicit educational potential. They cite Dan Perkel’s “Copy and Paste Literacy: Literacy Practices in the Production of a MySpace Profile - An Overview” as “challenging the view that there is nothing educational about SNSs.”

While this work does not directly bear on the educational value of SNSs, it sets the groundwork for understanding how SNSs came about and what current research (i.e., 2007) is focused on them.

boyd, D. M., & Nicole B. Ellison. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.

Research is coming slowly...

This stuff is just far too interesting and I'm having a hard time sticking to my research question. Here, however, is a jewel I found while being off-topic.

Jim Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Educatio, says that

"... teachers have too much of a range [of student abilities] that they have to try to teach in order to be successful in the classroom. The only way to allow them to try to be success in that environment.... is through technology."

http://bit.ly/wKTBX