tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49288798936846365442024-02-20T01:11:49.384-08:00Josh Paluch's Current ResearchIn an effort to make my work process as transparent as possible and hold myself to ever higher levels of accountability, I'd like to present you my research portal.
Please feel inspired to comment on any post!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-55436000008887747212009-07-13T17:42:00.000-07:002009-07-13T17:45:05.914-07:00A Typology for Web 2.0Annotation<br /><br />This paper, which Google Scholar says is cited over 300 times, develops a typology that categorizes Web 2.0 technologies as supporting four fundamental use contexts: dialoging (collaboration), networking and awareness-making, creating, and sharing in two primary learning functions: 1) organizing communication and 2) organizing resources.<br /><br />Organizing Communication:<br />1) Dialoging<br /> a. Text forums<br /> b. Chat<br /> c. Video phone<br />2) Networking & awareness-making<br /> a. Person-centered SNSs<br /> b. Networked weblogs<br /> c. Micro-blogging <br />Organizing Resources:<br />1) Creating<br /> a. Weblogs<br /> b. Podcasts<br /> c. Wikis<br /> d. Application sharing services<br />2) Sharing<br /> a. Object/topic-centered SNSs<br /> b. Social bookmarking<br /><br />The common reoccurring theme in this piece is that in order for constructivist learning to be possible the locus of control over the communication process, (i.e., what tools are to be used) must reside with the students. Students must feel empowered to create, construct, manage and share content themselves. It is the teacher’s role to facilitate these actions.<br /><br />While the scope of this paper is helpful in understanding the typology of the space, the subsequent examination of individual web functionality was cursory. I would have liked to see more discussion and justification for the categorizations.<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <p style="margin: 0pt;">Dalsgaard, C., & Sorensen, E. K. (2008). A Typology for Web 2.0. In <span style="font-style: italic;">7th European Conference on e-Learning</span> (p. 272). Academic Conferences Limited. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from <a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC_WmUCwUtAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=%22A+Typology+for+Web+2.0%22&ots=jHUAWdoZO5&sig=1hJFy71yIK4p9X2-bmfhwbsVxuU">http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC_WmUCwUtAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=%22A+Typology+for+Web+2.0%22&ots=jHUAWdoZO5&sig=1hJFy71yIK4p9X2-bmfhwbsVxuU</a>.</p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-59673574320239968542009-07-13T13:29:00.000-07:002009-07-14T14:25:57.610-07:00Teens and Social Media: An OverviewAnnotation<br />
<br />
This nationally representative sample of 935 teens age 12 to 17 years old and parents was conducted as a telephone survey in late 2006. It found that 93% of teens use the Internet and frequently for social interaction with 64% of them creating some online content, up from 57% two years previous. (That is not as high of growth as I would have expected.) Additionally, 55% have created a profile on a social networking site such as Facebook or MySpace. Interestingly, teens tend to be slightly more protective of their privacy by restricting access to online content more frequently than adults but are much more likely to communicate using online tools other than email.<br />
<br />
Other research indicates that online social sites hold great potential for moving teaching/learning in a more constructivist direction. This research confirms the notion that teens are cognitively ready for such a move.<br />
<br />
<div style="color: #999999; line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><div style="margin: 0pt;">Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). <span style="font-style: italic;">Teens and Social Media: An Overview</span>. Washington, D.C.: Pew Interent & American Life Project. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Social-Media.aspx">http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Social-Media.aspx</a>.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-35716061478003568062009-07-13T11:23:00.000-07:002009-07-14T14:26:34.331-07:00Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systemsAnnotation<br /><br />In this article, Chrisitan Dalsgaard of the University of Aarhus, describes the potentially constructivist use of social software beyond the more objectivist approach of learning-management systems (LMS) seen today in many University settings. He grounds his discussion in the question of whether the socializing features of such software should be integrated (as they tend to be in an LMS) or kept separate of the central system. He claims that this question can only be rightfully answered in the context of pedagogy because “the usefulness of different tools in support of learning depends on which learning activities the tools [are supporting.]”<br /><br />He points out the difficultly in defining “educational social software” by settles on one given by Terry Anderson that includes the idea that uses must retain control in order to be counted as such. He lists weblogs, wikis, RSS feeds, and social bookmarking as candidates but claims the list is not exhaustive. One already sees a contrast with the type of functionality generally included in an LMS, including assignment management, lesson plans, and syllabi.<br /><br />In conclusion, he offers a “student-centered” model of e-learning which allows for a LMS for administrative issues, personal tools for construction, presentation, reflection, and collaboration, and social networks for facilitating communication between students in the same course and others working in the field.<br /><br />The shortcoming for this article is Dalsgaard’s overly optimistic assumption regarding the intrinsic motivation of students. For this type of strict-constructivistic pedagogy to work, students must be highly motivated.<br /><br />This paper was incredibly elucidating for me when it comes to understanding the possible categories of functionality associated with educational social networking software, which could include those stated above.<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <p style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">E-Learning</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);" href="http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=2&article=228">http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=2&article=228</a><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">. </span><span class="Z3988" title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Social%20software%3A%20E-learning%20beyond%20learning%20management%20systems&rft.jtitle=E-Learning&rft.aufirst=C.&rft.aulast=Dalsgaard&rft.au=C.%20Dalsgaard&rft.date=2006"><br /></span></p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-55155938741419226502009-07-13T08:15:00.000-07:002009-07-18T12:50:52.441-07:00Elements (Functions) of learning in an Social Network Site*** This is a working post. It's not complete.*** <br /><br />This is an attempt to list the elements/functions/factors found in an SNS and relate it to some known principal of learning. <span style="background-color: white;color:red;" >(Perhaps I should just settle with either NETS-S or the 21st Framework and evaluate each tool/SNS against it? Operationalizing a rubric is proving to be too multidimensional.)</span><br /><br />Maybe this is the way to think about it...<br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <p style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="font-size:78%;">Dalsgaard, C., & Sorensen, E. K. (2008). A Typology for Web 2.0. In <span style="font-style: italic;">7th European Conference on e-Learning</span> (p. 272). Academic Conferences Limited. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from <a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC_WmUCwUtAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=%22A+Typology+for+Web+2.0%22&ots=jHUAWdoZO5&sig=1hJFy71yIK4p9X2-bmfhwbsVxuU">http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC_WmUCwUtAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=%22A+Typology+for+Web+2.0%22&ots=jHUAWdoZO5&sig=1hJFy71yIK4p9X2-bmfhwbsVxuU</a>.</span></p> </div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s29y1XziZMQ/Slu8wv8qMnI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/2ndsa7jppUM/s1600-h/Typology+for+Web2.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 222px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s29y1XziZMQ/Slu8wv8qMnI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/2ndsa7jppUM/s400/Typology+for+Web2.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358083727377969778" border="0" /></a><br /><table border="1"><tbody><tr><td>Function/Element</td><td>Category<br />(construction, presentation, reflection, collaboration)<br /></td><td>Notes</td></tr><tr><td>Profile page</td><td>several</td><td>profiles may contain many elements and may be too large of a category for useful inclusion here</td></tr><tr><td>Blogging</td><td>collaboration</td><td>blogs may not be inherently collaborative but if comments and RSS following are included, they foster communication</td></tr><tr><td>Micro-blogging<br /></td><td>x</td><td>x<br /></td></tr><tr><td>Social bookmarking</td><td>collaboration</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Wikis</td><td>collaboration</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>ePortfolios</td><td>x</td><td>x</td></tr><tr><td>Media gallery<br /></td><td>x</td><td>x<br /></td></tr><br /><tr><td>Message Boards<br /></td><td>x</td><td>x<br /></td></tr><br /><tr><td>Podcasting<br /></td><td>construction</td><td>x<br /></td></tr><br /><tr><td>Tagging<br /></td><td>x</td><td>x<br /></td></tr><br /><tr><td>Real-time collaboration (Skype)<br /></td><td>x</td><td>x<br /></td></tr><tr><td>RSS Reader<br /></td><td>x</td><td>x<br /></td></tr></tbody></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-74896514608986489042009-07-12T16:48:00.000-07:002009-07-12T16:48:14.210-07:00Framework for 21st Century LearningAnnotation<br />
<br />
Like NETS-S, the Framework for 21st Century Learning seeks to define those skills that all learners will need moving forward in today’s society and are broken up into several categories. Unlike NETS-S, this framework is built upon what the Partnership calls “Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes.” They are the usual English, World Languages, Arts, Mathematics, Economics, Science, Geography, History, Government, but also include Global Awareness, Financial/Economic Literacy, Civic Literacy, and Healthy Literacy. <br />
<br />
The categories of specific 21st century skills include Learning and Innovation (creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration), Information/Media/Technology (information literacy, media literacy, ICT literacy), and Life and Career (flexibility, initiative, social, productivity, and leadership).<br />
<br />
In the near future, I will be going through aligning the 2 frameworks to determine the common themes. I expect many.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="color: #999999; line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <div style="margin: 0pt;">Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009, May 27). P21 Framework Definitions Document. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from <a href="http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/p21_framework_definitions_052909.pdf">http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/p21_framework_definitions_052909.pdf</a>.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-67524746089570716302009-07-12T15:13:00.000-07:002009-07-12T15:14:19.027-07:00NETS-SAnnotation<br /><br />The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) was first developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in 1998 and updated in 2007. They are an attempt to enumerate the necessary foundational skills and expertise that every student will need for living and working in the digital age and are broken up into six broad categories including; Creativity and Innovation, Communication and Collaboration, Research and Information Fluency, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving/Decision Making, Digital Citizenship, and Technology Operations/Concepts.<br /><br />These standards, coupled with the framework developed by The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, represent the foundation of what will become my rubric for evaluating the educational value of social networking sites.<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"> <p style="margin: 0pt;">ISTE. (2007). NETS-S. <span style="font-style: italic;">ISTE</span>. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from <a href="http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/nets/for_students/nets_s.htm">http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/nets/for_students/nets_s.htm</a>.</p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-50408855077510810282009-07-12T14:35:00.001-07:002009-07-12T15:14:35.032-07:00Leadership for Web2.0 in Education: Promise and RealityAnnotation<br /><br />The Consortium for School Networking commissioned a report conducted by the Metiri Group and funded my the MacCarthur Foundation to ask the question, “To what extent are American K-12 schools redesigning schools to tap into the learning potential of Web 2.0?” This large-scale research surveyed 1,200 district superintendents, curriculum directors, and technology directors to determine and found generally that the speed of innovation and change in society regarding Web 2.0 technologies is outpacing K-12 education’s capacity for innovation.<br /><br />Specifically, the report finds that district leaders believe the Web 2. 0 represents an enormous opportunity to improve students’ communication skills, quality of schoolwork, interests in school, among other important metrics. In fact, 77% of respondents agreed with the statement “Web 2.0 has value for teaching and learning.” Additionally, 61% believed that participation on approved educational sites should be allowed and 24% believe all use should be allowed provided it is supervised.<br /><br />Despite great support for the potential of Web 2.0 tools in general, over 70% of these same leaders banned social networking in their schools and near 40% ban the sharing of media files and playing of interactive games. The most common stated concern was the potential “wasting of time/distractions to learning.” Over half reported using filtering systems that are more restrictive than required by federal policy. Many district leaders reported that Web 2.0 functionality the most easily fits into traditional instructional practices get used the most. This suggests that Web 2.0 tools are not sparking a pedagogical switch towards constructivism and, according to Wenglinsky in “Using Technology Wisely,” this will inhibit the value of such usage. Unfortunately, it also suggests that schools, and their curriculum, are not being redesigned to tap into the expressed value of Web 2.0 tools.<br /><br /><div style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153); line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <div style="margin: 0pt;">CoSN. (2009). <span style="font-style: italic;">Leadership for Web2.0 in Education: Promise and Reality</span>. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from <a href="http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?TabId=4198">http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?TabId=4198</a>.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-54846993201409986362009-07-12T13:16:00.000-07:002009-07-12T13:18:16.166-07:00Social-networking for ChildrenAnnotation<br /><br />This blog posting by a student at the University of Washington's Masters of Communications in Digital Media, while unfortunately uncited, states that about 80% of all elementary school in Taiwan use "Uschool" as their official social-networking platform. She goes on to claim that 50% of elementary schools in Shanghai, China use the same system. If true, it's a remarkably progressive example of such technology use which l I assume, because there is no data available, far outpaces either U.S. or European adoption rates. One reason might be its usage policy which expressing not collecting any personally identifiable information from users under the age of 13. The only information collected by these users is a parent’s email address and then it’s only used to activate an account.<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"> <p style="margin: 0pt;">Unknown, T. (2009, May 25). Social-networking for Children. <span style="font-style: italic;">Flig The Media</span>. Blog, . Retrieved July 12, 2009, from <a href="http://flipthemedia.com/index.php/2009/05/social-networking-for-children/#comment-3606">http://flipthemedia.com/index.php/2009/05/social-networking-for-children/#comment-3606</a>.</p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-74870330793684206692009-07-11T16:05:00.001-07:002009-07-11T16:06:26.771-07:00Using Technology Wisely: The Keys To Success In SchoolsAnnotation
<br />
<br />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.
<br />
<br />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. </div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"></div>
<br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><div style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Wenglinsky, H. (2005). </span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153); font-style: italic;">Using Technology Wisely: The Keys To Success In Schools</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">. Teachers College Press. </span><span title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_id=urn%3Aisbn%3A0807745839&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Using%20Technology%20Wisely%3A%20The%20Keys%20To%20Success%20In%20Schools&rft.publisher=Teachers%20College%20Press&rft.aufirst=Harold&rft.aulast=Wenglinsky&rft.au=Harold%20Wenglinsky&rft.date=2005-07-15&rft.isbn=0807745839">
<br /></span></div></div>
<br /><div class="MsoNormal"></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-51176092022795362352009-07-10T15:27:00.001-07:002009-07-10T15:27:44.888-07:00Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0Annotation<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <div style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="color: #999999;">Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. </span><span style="color: #999999; font-style: italic;">Educause Review</span><span style="color: #999999;">, </span><span style="color: #999999; font-style: italic;">43</span><span style="color: #999999;">(1), 16. Retrieved from </span><a href="http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420" style="color: #999999;">http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420</a><span style="color: #999999;">. </span><span class="Z3988" title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Minds%20on%20fire%3A%20Open%20education%2C%20the%20long%20tail%2C%20and%20learning%202.0&rft.jtitle=Educause%20Review&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.aufirst=J.%20S.&rft.aulast=Brown&rft.au=J.%20S.%20Brown&rft.au=R.%20P.%20Adler&rft.date=2008&rft.pages=16"><br />
</span></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-69273155184184880532009-07-10T11:10:00.000-07:002009-07-11T16:07:18.339-07:00danah boyd @ Sosial web og laering - 2008<object width="400" height="300"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1998402&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1998402&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/1998402">ITU: Sosial web og læring: danah boyd</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/itu">ITU</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.<br /><br />Annotation<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />She then elaborates on five aspects of online “publics” that distinguish them from their offline counterparts.<br />--persistence (what you write may never go away)<br />--replicability (your utterances can be reproduced and transformed)<br />--scalability (most postings are largely unread but could, usually through embarrassing circumstances, be broadcast to millions)<br />--searchability (people can easily find what you’ve said and done)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-78859895197723205102009-07-10T08:13:00.000-07:002009-07-10T08:16:28.195-07:00‘Screw Blackboard... do it on Facebook!’: an investigation of students’ educational use of FacebookAnnotation<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Of that 4%, five themes emerged.<br /> 1. Recounting the Univ. experience<br /> 2. Exchange of practical/logistical info<br /> 3. Exchange of academic info (this was VERY limited)<br /> 4. Displays of supplication &/or disengagement (rampant anti-intellectualism)<br /> 5. Simple banter<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Two other pertinent learnings can from this article.<br /> 1) It reconfirms the Boyd et al. notion that FB primarily supports preexisting relationships, not forming new ones.<br /> 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.<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"> <p style="margin: 0pt;">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 <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebook-seminar-paper-Selwyn">http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebook-seminar-paper-Selwyn</a>.</p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-30213538475760183012009-07-10T08:01:00.000-07:002009-07-10T08:03:02.925-07:00Facebook 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.)<br /><br />Selwyn, N. (2007, November 15). ‘Screw Blackboard... do it on Facebook!’: an investigation of<br />students’ educational use of Facebook. University of London. Retrieved July 8, 2009, from <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebook-seminar-paper-Selwyn">http://www.scribd.com/doc/513958/Facebook-seminar-paper-Selwyn</a>.<br /><br />Anyway, the argument (simplified) goes like this...<br />- Since we know that SNSs tend to support existing relationships (rather than create new ones)<br />- Since people tend to present that part of themselves which fit the norms of the situation<br />- So, introduction of a tool which is generally seen as supporting informal communication begets informal personae<br /><br />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.<br /><br />This, of course, generates many new questions...<br />- 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.<br />- 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?<br /><br />Anyway, I just found this interesting.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-88463417427953091462009-07-09T05:56:00.001-07:002009-07-10T09:44:11.708-07:00Teens & Social Networking in School & Public LibrariesAnnotation<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"> <p style="margin: 0pt;">Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries. (2008, January). Young Adult Library Services Association. Retrieved July 2, 2009, from <a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/yalsa/profdev/teen_sn_brochure.pdf">http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/yalsa/profdev/teen_sn_brochure.pdf</a>.</p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-32731548708396574712009-07-09T05:56:00.000-07:002009-07-10T08:16:16.887-07:00Creating and connecting: Research and guidelines on online social—and educational—networkingAnnotation<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Most importantly for my work, the final suggestion of the report states that social networking developers should <blockquote>“work with educational leaders to increase services that are explicitly educational in nature via informal and formal initatives.”</blockquote><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"> <p style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Creating and connecting: Research and guidelines on online social—and educational—networking</span>. (2007). . Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from <a href="http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/41400/41340.pdf">http://www.nsba.org/site/docs/41400/41340.pdf</a>.</p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-18119598009397339132009-07-08T08:34:00.000-07:002009-07-08T08:34:37.501-07:00Copy and Paste Literacy: Literacy practices in the production of a MySpace profileAnnotation<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <div style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #999999;">Perkel, D. (2006). Copy and Paste Literacy: Literacy practices in the production of a MySpace profile. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #999999; font-style: italic;">Informal Learning and Digital Media</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #999999;">, 21-23. Retrieved from </span><a href="http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/dperkel/2006/08/01/copy-and-paste-literacy-literacy-practices-in-the-production-of-a-myspace-profile-an-overview/" style="background-color: white; color: #999999;">http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/dperkel/2006/08/01/copy-and-paste-literacy-literacy-practices-in-the-production-of-a-myspace-profile-an-overview/</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #999999;">. </span><span class="Z3988" title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Copy%20and%20Paste%20Literacy%3A%20Literacy%20practices%20in%20the%20production%20of%20a%20MySpace%20profile&rft.jtitle=Informal%20Learning%20and%20Digital%20Media&rft.aufirst=D.&rft.aulast=Perkel&rft.au=D.%20Perkel&rft.date=2006&rft.pages=21-23"><br />
</span></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-16453591737664987162009-07-07T15:23:00.000-07:002009-07-10T11:11:34.997-07:00Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and ScholarshipAnnotation<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <p style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">boyd, D. M., & Nicole B. Ellison. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">, </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">13</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">(1), 210-230. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);" href="http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html">http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html</a><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">. </span><span class="Z3988" title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Social%20Network%20Sites%3A%20Definition%2C%20History%2C%20and%20Scholarship&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Computer-Mediated%20Communication&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.aufirst=danah%20m.&rft.aulast=boyd&rft.au=danah%20m.%20boyd&rft.au=Nicole%20B.%20Ellison&rft.date=2008&rft.pages=210-230"><br /></span></p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-41561100323123346232009-07-07T14:27:00.000-07:002009-07-07T14:32:01.853-07:00Research 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.<br /><br />Jim Shelton, <span>Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Innovation and Improvement, U.S. Department of Educatio, says that <blockquote>"... 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."</blockquote><a href="http://bit.ly/wKTBX">http://bit.ly/wKTBX</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-68077959424702788842009-06-29T21:01:00.000-07:002009-07-08T08:36:55.996-07:00Evaluation of EETT<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s29y1XziZMQ/SkmN_hooZlI/AAAAAAAAAO4/DWlL-QVzfWg/s1600-h/ed_gl_header.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s29y1XziZMQ/SkmN_hooZlI/AAAAAAAAAO4/DWlL-QVzfWg/s320/ed_gl_header.gif" border="0" /></a></div><br />Commentary<br /><br />I've just finished perusing "Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program: Final Report" and the results are pretty depressing.<br /><br />While there was some acknowledgment that the program is helping high-poverty schools catchup to low-poverty schools in terms of tech adoption, there is not much else encouraging in the report.<br /><br />- 20 percent of teachers indicated that this [required] professional development<br />did not include any of the seven research-suggested characteristics.<br /><br />- Only 27 states (52 percent) had minimum technology competency<br />standards for teachers [a reporting requirement of EETT funding] in<br />2006-07, and states were generally not collecting data regarding the<br />GPRA measure of the percentage of teachers meeting state technology<br />standards<br /><br />- Another GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act of 1993)<br />requirement is that states report the percentage of districts<br />receiving EETT that have "effectively and fully integrated<br />technology." As reported on the 2007 state survey, most states either<br />had not ****EVEN*** adopted a definition of effective integration of<br />technology or did not measure the percentage of districts meeting the<br />statewide definition.<br /><br />Lastly...<br />One of the GPRA measures for the EETT program is "the percentage of<br />students who meet state technology standards by the end of the eighth<br />grade." For the ***ONLY*** 12 states that reported data, the average<br />percentage of students meeting technology literacy standards was 64<br />percent.<br /><br />I think the most damning comment comes in the conclusion,<br /><blockquote>"In terms of the EETT objective, the lack of agreed-on definitions [by the states] and solid assessment strategies makes it difficult to assess the program on a national level."</blockquote>So, if you were a legislator, does this sound like a successful<br />program to you?<br /><br />I'm just saying...<br /><br /><div style="line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);"><div style="margin: 0pt;">Executive Summary--Evaluation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program: Final Report. (2009, May 5). . Reports, . Retrieved June 30, 2009, from <a href="http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/finalreport.html">http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/finalreport.html</a>.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-82572009123738465012009-06-28T06:20:00.000-07:002009-07-08T08:36:19.188-07:00At what grade level are SNSs appropriate?Commentary<br /><br />Good teaching is good teaching, some if not many aspects of SNSs (or as NECC folks prefer to call them “Social Learning sites” or “Educational Networking sites”) are appropriate for all levels of education K-12 and beyond, but there was a lot of talk today at EduBloggerCon about the child safety issues involved.<br /><br /> It seems, to me, that there should be a gradual release of responsibility that comes with scaffolding employed here. For example, K-2 might use a tool/platform that only allows only classmates (and trusted adults) to join. This would allow those teachers to ensure that children learned the, potentially, hard lessons that always accompany putting ones thoughts out there for a community in a fairly small and very safe environment.<br /><br /> From there, students in grades 3-6 (upper elementary) would be ready to expand their community (i.e., learning network) out to their entire grade level. This will not only increase its utility, but inevitably present more “teachable moments” as student learn about the unique aspects of interacting with larger crowds. However, the crowd, in this case, is comprised of their peers and, as such, is not likely to present overly complicating communication challenges that come along with working with a varying age of members.<br /><br /> Consequently, in middle school, the community could be expanded to the entire school population. This will allow for an even more heterogeneous community and a yet greater number of teachable moments. As the size of the community grows, the amount of risk increases, but so too does the potential value/reward. (Clearly, by middle school, almost all students outside of school, will have jumped straight to the full-feature, international community of a general-use SNS like Facebook. But the model I’m presenting is only intended to describe how educators should deal with and prepare students for the Web2.0 phenomenon. We can only hope to influence, we cannot control, what students do outside of our care.)<br /><br /> Finally, by H.S. and after such careful scaffolding and tutelage, students will be ready to bring their full-value PLNs into the school environment. By this time, one would hope that they fully understand both the educational rewards and the inherent risks (and risk mitigations techniques) of social learning.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-85801163809594243312009-06-25T21:20:00.000-07:002009-07-08T08:40:50.470-07:00It was a good day...I finally nailed down my 1st scholarly project description. I'll be evaluating the potential educational value of social networking sites at the elementary school level by developing a rubric of educational elements based on a survey of applicable high-quality learning principals. Each site will be judged against that rubric in determining to what degree a site exhibits those principals or has those elements. I should then be able to not only rank the sites, but make suggestions for increasing the educational value of each.<br /><br />I understand that general-use sites like Facebook would generally not be allowed in an elementary, if any, classroom. However, Facebook and other popular SNSs will be included with school-safe versions like <a href="http://www.echalk.com">eChalk</a> and <a href="http://www.saywire.com">SayWire</a>, in order to determine their theoretical value and consider the full-set of possible features of such sites.<br /><br />The first step in this process is a brief survey of the literature on the general social and personal value of SNSs, a value which is broader than simply being "educational," hence the review of the Ellison article. This also makes it clear to me that I'm going to have to define "educational" fairly narrowly. If you have any suggestions, I'm more than open to them.<br /><br />Cheers...Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-72257318692351806662009-06-25T20:56:00.000-07:002009-07-08T08:38:56.759-07:00Social network sites and society: current trends and future possibilities<span style="font-size:100%;">Annotation<br /><br />Nicole B. Ellison (co-author of “<a href="http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html">Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship</a>”) along with Cliff Lampe and Charles Steinfield co-author this feature article from interactions on current trends and future possibilities of social networking sites.<br /><br />By studying MSU <a href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</a> users, this, generally very optimistic article lays out how SNSs support the management of numerous “<a href="http://www.bowlingalone.com/">weak ties</a>,” which then facilitate the flow of “diverse perspectives and new information.” This flow reflects an increase in the social capital amongst the participants and is often initiated by the casual communication sparked through common affinities found on one anther’s profile page. These casual conversations can, and do, lead to more meaningful exchanges. These meaningful exchanges then can, and do, lead to larger social action so that not only do the participants benefit, but society does, as well.<br /><br />This brief and well-written article is an excellent primer for getting one to think about the possible educational value in a large-scale <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites">SNS</a> if one assumes that learners are pro-active information seekers. If SNS users communicate only with those whom they associate outside of the system, they are unlikely to acquire the diverse perspectives or new information that generally define learning.<br /><br />By the article's logic, for one to say that SNSs are learning tools, one would have to confirm that users of those sites are cultivating “weak ties.”<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msu.edu%2F%7Enellison%2FEllisonLampeSteinfield2009.pdf&ei=rkpESvD3AdOwmAe9js2xAg&usg=AFQjCNGfkug2gAcbaoreqpXCkYEKNYyshw&sig2=U3SiWRd5szsBllcY4SPumw"></a><br /></span><div style="line-height: 2em; margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"> <p style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">boyd, D. M., & Nicole B. Ellison. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">, </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">13</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">(1), 210-230. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from </span><a style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);" href="http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html">http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html</a><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">. </span><span class="Z3988" title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Social%20Network%20Sites%3A%20Definition%2C%20History%2C%20and%20Scholarship&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Computer-Mediated%20Communication&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.aufirst=danah%20m.&rft.aulast=boyd&rft.au=danah%20m.%20boyd&rft.au=Nicole%20B.%20Ellison&rft.date=2008&rft.pages=210-230"><br /></span></p> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-90963892613683262282009-06-24T20:57:00.000-07:002009-07-08T08:39:41.280-07:00Position Statement on Education Technology Funding in Elementary Schools I'm hoping that you will all take a look at this document and help me 'shore it up' before I present it next week. Thanks!<p><meta name="Title" content=""> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/Josh/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml"> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves>false</w:TrackMoves> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:drawinggridhorizontalspacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing> <w:drawinggridverticalspacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:dontautofitconstrainedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> </w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="276"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><b><span style="">Position Statement on Educational Technology Funding in Elementary Schools</span></b><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="">Josh Paluch<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="">University of Florida<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="">June 30, 2009 <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">Take a moment and consider your own use of technology throughout this day, so far. Have you made a telephone call to ask a question of someone who wasn’t in your building at the time? Perhaps you didn’t need an immediate answer, but didn’t want to forget your question, so you sent an email instead? Did you send that email from the computer at your desk or were you on the run sending it from that very same cell phone that you earlier used to make a call. Have you needed to look up any information today? Did you use a book or a computer? What’s the weather going to be like tonight on the ride home? Should you bring an umbrella? I bet you didn’t use an almanac for that one. Where do you get your news? Do you get it from CNN on your television, CNN on your computer, from Twitter on your computer, or do you get it from watching CNN scroll the Twitter feed from their computer to your </span>television? The ways we think about communication, collaboration, news, and even learning are undergoing dramatic changes and technology is making it possible. In fact, many of the uses of technology I just mentioned are examples of informal learning. Imagine the impact ubiquitous technology could have on formal learning!<span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">The point is that Internet and communication technologies and their affordances in both efficiency and effectiveness have so woven themselves into the fabric of our everyday lives that they have become almost transparent to us. We often forget what life was like before these technologies were introduced. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">I’m a public school teacher and until recently, it was impossible for me to forget technology progress because I had, effectively, none of these technologies in my classroom. Then in January of this year, our classroom, and my teaching, was transformed over a weekend. When we left on Friday, each classroom had a combination 27” TV/VCR, an overhead projector, and two outdated, barely functional, PCs running Windows ’98. When we arrived on Monday, through programs like eRate and EETT, the T.V. had been removed and replaced with a ceiling-mounted LCD projector capable of displaying a 60” image, which for a large classroom of 25+ students is, easily viewable from either my laptop or the brand-new student computer running Windows XP and capable of supporting any of the most modern software, including audio/video production tools. Additionally, our Media Center had been outfitted with numerous digital and document cameras, portable whiteboard tools, and two 16-computer laptop carts all available for checkout. Just to do my part, I purchased a relatively inexpensive hand-held digital video camera to compliment our technology upgrade.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">I’ve always been a teacher who believes what both the research and my own intuition tells me, that students must be creating to be learning. Unfortunately, this style of teaching was not always as efficient as I believed it must be to be practical in my school’s situation. I’m a fourth grade teacher at an amazing, but low-income, Title1 school in Gwinnett County, Georgia. 75% of our students are eligible to receive free/reduced lunches, which means that a typical family of four earns less than $39,220 per year and only about 60% of those families have an Internet-connected computer at home. (Understandably, $39,000 doesn’t leave much for technology purchases.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">Imagine my students’ faces when they walked in on that Monday in January. Imagine what it would be like for you to be given the equivalent of access to an Internet-connected computer, a cell phone, and a digital camera all over one weekend? Would it change the way you work, live, and even learn?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">We jumped in quickly and from early on I realized why students in this generation are referred to as “digital natives.” For many of them, it was as though our school and its teachers took on a new level of legitimacy and, correspondingly, they showed a new level of engagement. These technologies didn’t change the way I think about teaching and learning; they made it possible. The writing projects we’d always done for one another now had a potentially worldwide audience. The plays we had previously scripted and performed for other classes in our school, were now viewable by whomever we saw fit via our website. A PowerPoint presentation with a few pictures and perhaps some clipart audio and printed out for distribution was now an online digital movie with narration, background music, and the power to bring its audience to tears with its beauty and sincerity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">After this transformation, </span>and while working diligently to make a tutorial video to teach other students how to use Windows Moviemaker, a project of his own choosing, Carlos said to me, “Mr. Paluch, this is pretty much what we used to do before the new computers, but it’s just more fun.” Engagement and connection to the learning process are conditions that lead to deeper and more meaningful learning.<span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="">Technology may become transparent, but it must never be forgotten that, properly integrated, it can be a transformational experience for both teacher and student.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Please continue to fund EETT, by far the most targeted program for educational technology at 2009 levels of $269 million.</span></p><!--EndFragment--> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-23439343986852134192009-06-24T11:08:00.000-07:002009-07-13T07:44:34.062-07:00The newest question...In my last research question, I ran up against a roadblock of not having time to get IRB approval so I've redirected my thinking. My overall interest is still EdTech use in elementary public schools, but for now (ie, for the first scholarly activity), instead of focusing on safety factors of EdTech integration, I'm narrowing my interest to an examination of <span style="font-weight: bold;">social networking sites' possible educational value</span>. I'll be attempting to create a rubric outlining pedagogical elements necessary to learning and using that rubric to evaluate the extent to which current SNSs possess them.<br /><br />I. Lit. Review of current work in the area<br /><br />Terms: SNS "social networking" web2.0 facebook education "positive outcomes" "formal learning environment"<br /><br />People:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.cgreenhow.org/">Christine Greenhow </a></li><li><a href="http://www.danah.org/">danah boyd</a></li><li><a href="http://www.shirky.com/">Clay Shirky</a></li><li><a href="http://www.henryjenkins.org/">Henry Jenkins</a></li><li><a href="https://www.msu.edu/%7Enellison/">Nicole B. Ellison</a></li><li><a href="http://www.lkl.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=165">Neil Selwyn</a> (skeptic re: social web in formal learning)</li><li><a href="http://person.au.dk/en/imvcd@hum.au.dk">Christian Dalsgaard</a><br /><br /></li></ul>Journals:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/">Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication</a></li><li> <a href="http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/journal.asp?referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:300321,1&linkin=633814473088996126"><span style="font-size:100%;">Journal of Educational Computing Research</span></a></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://interactions.acm.org/">interactions</a><br /></span></li></ul><br /><br />II. Lit. Review of factors of educational efficacy<br />- the ones that make sense for online tools, like these, and for elementary students (audience matters)<br /><br /><br />III. Develop rubric based on factors<br />- x-axis=tool; y-axis the degree to which or 1/0<br />- <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">the structure of the rubric will emerge as I learn about the factors through reading. (or so I thought... ugh)</span> They may come from what kids want/like, teachers, etc. I need to document where each factor came from.<br />- It will probably be under 10-12 of them both for practicality and completeness.<br />- Some will be binary, others will be scaled.<br /><br />IV. Survey top 2 most popular SNSs from both "school safe" and "general use" categories according to Alexa<br />- be able to articulate why I chose the tools I chose (might be popularity, might be something else)<br /><br />V. Report Findings<br /><br />VI. Develop recommendations for future SNSs<br />Make sure to include conclusions for all potential audiences. Each will have a different perspective. Some will care about the method & the rubric and others will care about the outcome.<br />- for tools developers<br />- customers of these tools (school districts, ed leaders)<br />- EdTech researchers<br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">* I'd like to thank Dr. Cathy Cavanaugh and Dr. Chris Sessums for contributing to these ideas.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4928879893684636544.post-25985920394042914292009-06-18T16:12:00.000-07:002009-07-10T08:17:20.752-07:00Refined Question<span style="font-weight: bold;">What would it take to unblock Web2.0 tools in school?</span><br />Balancing value with safety.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0