It's funny how almost anything published about technology is dated or outdated as soon as it comes out. The points raised in this August 2009 article seem so quaint since it has all come to pass and alreadyt been update, yet the authors do make some solid points.
I especially liked the concept of fabrication on demand. The content sits on a server somewhere and only turns into a "book" when someone orders it. The current generation of e-readers and pad computers can hold thousands of these books, and do not even require an Internet connection if equipped with 3G or 4G connectivity. I have purchased e-books while at the airport by pushing three buttons, and my Kindle is a lot easier to carry than even a small paperback. Imagine a student carrying a single e-reader instead of 40 pounds of books.
It remains to be seen how this movement proceeds in the textbook arena. Digital publication allows for instantaneous updating, but there is a large commitment to physical textbooks at every level of the educational infrastructure. All in all, though, I think the ability to take the library with the individual, rather than the opposite, will be transformational.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Review - Beginner's Guide to Interactive Virtual Field Trips (Jan Zanetis, Learning and Leading with Technology, March/April 2010)
Virtual field trips (VFTs) have been around for a while, allowing students to experience locales away from the school at little or no cost. Interactive VFTs (IVFTs) take that to the next level and bring active, involved learning into the mix.
Zanetis begins with a description of traditional, asynchronous VFTs, even offering a selection of links to aggregator sites (p. 20). Her description of interactive VFTs outlines the additional advantages these synchronous events bring and the enhanced learning that occurs when students can further engage the presenter, making the experience personal. I was especially impressed by not only her description, but the list of IVFT sites and introduction of the Center for Interactive Learning and Communication (CILC) as a resource for teachers.
I did have one issue with the article, namely that the author jumped into a discussion of the technical considerations at the beginning and did not fully explain the tech requirements. For example, what exactly is a codec, and why is it required over available technology like webcams and existing meeting software? That part of the article took up the first three paragraphs and risked losing the audience before getting into substance. I know what that technology is and I was even confused by her explanation.
Overall, Zanetis makes a good case for IVFTs. There are clear advantages to this kind of learning experience, and she describes those advantages well. IVFTs also meet several NETS-S standards, especially in the areas of communication and collaboration, research and information fluency, and critical thinking. The article should be reprinted in educational publications with a broader audience.
Zanetis begins with a description of traditional, asynchronous VFTs, even offering a selection of links to aggregator sites (p. 20). Her description of interactive VFTs outlines the additional advantages these synchronous events bring and the enhanced learning that occurs when students can further engage the presenter, making the experience personal. I was especially impressed by not only her description, but the list of IVFT sites and introduction of the Center for Interactive Learning and Communication (CILC) as a resource for teachers.
I did have one issue with the article, namely that the author jumped into a discussion of the technical considerations at the beginning and did not fully explain the tech requirements. For example, what exactly is a codec, and why is it required over available technology like webcams and existing meeting software? That part of the article took up the first three paragraphs and risked losing the audience before getting into substance. I know what that technology is and I was even confused by her explanation.
Overall, Zanetis makes a good case for IVFTs. There are clear advantages to this kind of learning experience, and she describes those advantages well. IVFTs also meet several NETS-S standards, especially in the areas of communication and collaboration, research and information fluency, and critical thinking. The article should be reprinted in educational publications with a broader audience.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Speak Up 2009
I just finished reviewing the Speak Up 2009 report, and I must say that it contained pretty much what I expected. Students want to use all sorts of technology in school, but teachers are afraid of distraction and cheating. Without knowing the context of the survey - how the questions were asked - it's hard to draw too many really definitive conclusions.
Student use of technology, as illustrated by the survey, shows that in one way or another they meet virtually every one of the NETS-S standards 1, 2 and 6. The components of standards 3,4, and 5 were not addressed in enough detail to draw any conclusion at all, and a deeper analysis of some of the results shows that there is still a gap between student expertise and broad school application. For example, one result that stood out for me was that although students use electronic communication methods, they do so primarily to talk to friends through text or IM, updating profiles, or commenting on social network sites (p. 5). Students' primary use of electronic resources outside school consist mostly of posting pictures and videos and playing games. Student ideas for using technology in learning may just be giving the expected answer, thus the need for context.
At the same time, schools in general and teachers in particular do not use electronic resources nearly enough. On an anecdotal level, I have taught in a dozen classrooms, and the printed policies of the teachers and behaviors of the students indicate that teachers all too often are still in the desks-in-a-row, students-silently-working-alone mode of instruction. I see a lot of worksheets, in class essays, and silent reading. Except for discussion groups, there appears to be little student engagement and no classroom technology except a projector and document reader. All in all, I see a huge gap between student desires and abilities on the one hand, and teacher willingness to use technology correctly on the other. Technology is not magic, but teachers certainly need to develop a better understanding of its use.
Student use of technology, as illustrated by the survey, shows that in one way or another they meet virtually every one of the NETS-S standards 1, 2 and 6. The components of standards 3,4, and 5 were not addressed in enough detail to draw any conclusion at all, and a deeper analysis of some of the results shows that there is still a gap between student expertise and broad school application. For example, one result that stood out for me was that although students use electronic communication methods, they do so primarily to talk to friends through text or IM, updating profiles, or commenting on social network sites (p. 5). Students' primary use of electronic resources outside school consist mostly of posting pictures and videos and playing games. Student ideas for using technology in learning may just be giving the expected answer, thus the need for context.
At the same time, schools in general and teachers in particular do not use electronic resources nearly enough. On an anecdotal level, I have taught in a dozen classrooms, and the printed policies of the teachers and behaviors of the students indicate that teachers all too often are still in the desks-in-a-row, students-silently-working-alone mode of instruction. I see a lot of worksheets, in class essays, and silent reading. Except for discussion groups, there appears to be little student engagement and no classroom technology except a projector and document reader. All in all, I see a huge gap between student desires and abilities on the one hand, and teacher willingness to use technology correctly on the other. Technology is not magic, but teachers certainly need to develop a better understanding of its use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)