01.16.07
Posted in Society and Technology at 4:05 pm by Norm Garrett
Over the past week or so I have moved this blog from a server at my house to one of my servers at my web host (1and1.com). My server at home is primarily a test platform I use for research and programming. Originally, I had put the blog on that server when I was first playing around with it. Then the blog turned into a real thing. So, after more than a year on my server, I took it off and copied it to the new site.
I had been putting this off because I knew it would take some time and might be problematic getting the blog and the accompanying database copied over without losing anything. In the end, it wasn’t too hard and only took about an hour altogether.
Upon reflection, I was reluctant to do it mostly because I was so comfortable with how it worked. It never caused problems and changing the location (and upgrading the WordPress software, which I also did when I moved it) seemed like a real pain for no gain. To the consumer of the blog, it doesn’t work any differently now than it did before. It dawned on me that this is the way we likely view many technology changes. If there is no appreciable gain demonstrated, why go to the trouble (and expense) of doing it? Why, for example, should I move to Windows Vista when XP works fine for me? I used to change just stay on the cutting edge, but after countless hours of wasted time fixing things that weren’t broken, I’ve sort of changed my attitude.
It would seem that many teachers are in the same boat. They are so comfortable with what they do that they really can’t see any reason to change anything. Moreover, they see detriments, not benefits, from adopting some technologies that are often touted. Those of us who are zealots for instructional technology need to step back for a moment and put ourselves in their shoes. If we can’t show tangible, palpable benefits from the technologies we espouse, how can we expect anyone to take the risk of change? Anecdotal evidence is not enough. We need some hardcore research concerning the efficacy of many of these technologies and we need it yesterday.
Permalink
11.15.06
Posted in General, Blended Learning, Society and Technology at 10:34 pm by Norm Garrett
Last month I put 20,000 miles on my frequent flyer tally, mostly going to conferences and workshops about educational technology. Having attended many of these conferences over the past 6 or 7 years, I have these observations:
- Educators and policymakers are doing all they can to make the current paradigm work. The bad news is that it’s the paradigm itself that is outdated. We are using an early 20th century model in a 21st century environment. Believe me, I know. I have been in this system since 1953 (going on 54 years), which is about 50% of the current paradigm’s life. Think about it. High schools and our current setup have been around since the early 20th century … the last time we underwent any kind of paradigm shift.
- In my thinking, no amount of fixing, tweaking, updating, or streamlining of the current model will work. Again, it’s the model that’s wrong, not the way we are implementing it.
- While I have been developing some possible ideas that might be included in a new paradigm, my basic question is how you design and implement a completely new paradigm. Where does the process start? Is it a bottom-up or top-down process (does it begin with teachers in the classroom or with educational policymakers?)?
- There are certainly many hard-working people out there who are trying to change things. The problem is that they are trying to change things within the context of the current paradigm. Again, this is a paradigm that can’t be fixed. To answer my own question, I don’t think a paradigm shift will be a bottom-up process. Does that mean it’s useless to try? Not at all. Where will the new paradigm come from if we don’t experiment with new ideas within the current one? But it’s not enough. We need to rethink everything from funding to curriculum. That provides the paradigm, the framework within which we operate. Changing things by beginning with instruction (the only thing most of the ed-tech zealots have any control over) is simply not enough to cause a paradigm shift by itself. However, demonstrating completely new models of instruction might provide some impetus for those at the top to begin to look at wholesale changes.
What’s wrong with the current paradigm? I don’t have enough room here, but here are some ideas off the top of my head. Note that these are fundamental flaws of the system and cannot be fixed within the context of that system:
- The academic calendar - Why do we still use an agricultural model for an academic calendar that dates back 150 years? Last time I looked, none of my students were needed in the fields during the summer.
- The curriculum - We target mediocrity. Just ask any students who are high achievers and they will tell you how bored they are. We are NOT targeting our best and brightest, nor are we doing a real service to the slower learners. The system is tuned for the average. The outliers are not well served.
- Fixed Depth - I call this Static Depth Instruction. The course parameters dictate the amount of depth and breadth in a course, not the needs or achivements of the students in the course. What we should use is a Dynamic Depth Instruction model wherein students are dynamically given the depth they want/need, determined as they move through the course. There should be no limits on the depth that could be achieved by a student in a given amount of time.
- Curricular Breadth - Students who attend relatively small high schools are given few choices. Even if they attend large high schools, there are severe limitations to the number of choices available to them. Customized, or matched curriculum is impossible. We are limited by space. It’s like the system is a giant bricks & mortar business that can’t seem to figure out how to use technology to augment its offerings with a virtual curriculum.
- Funding - Our funding mechanisms are anachronistic.
- Administration - The days of the local school board should be over. We are a global society, and our educational system should reflect that. Parochial interests do not serve the system well.
I could go on about this, and will in future postings. There are a lot of hard-working early adopters out there that are grabbing onto technology and enhancing their teaching with it, mostly on their own time and without much in the way of accolades or funding. In fact, many of them reap the disdain of their late majority and laggard colleagues for pushing forward and trying to improve instruction. They know the system is broken and are doing everything they can to start a bottom-up movement to change it. Unfortunately, we are talking here about needing a white knight to show up and get something done at the top. That white knight might be the disruptive technology of the world marketplace and the paradigm shift it will force. How long will we have to wait for that and might we react to late to save our competitive position in the world? Only time will tell.
Permalink
08.30.06
Posted in Society and Technology at 11:43 am by Norm Garrett
When we are computing in the public space, we need to pay extra attention to security issues. While I enjoy sitting in an Internet cafe with my laptop and surfing around, or using the Internet via a free wireless connection provided by my hotel, I am acutely aware that these may not be the safest of environments in which to engage the world.
Here is an interesting post entitled “10 Top Tips for Protecting Yourself at Hot Spots.” It is an excellent list but, more importantly, it points to the fact that we must be vigilant when using the Internet and that this is particularly important when we use it in a wireless environment. The article has some good suggestions. The bottom line is that we must be responsible for our own security because nobody else is going to do it for us.
Permalink
05.21.06
Posted in General, Society and Technology at 10:28 am by Norm Garrett
Those of us who engage in website development, blogging, and podcasting need to be aware that anytime we put something before the public (which you are doing if you are connected to the Internet), copyright law may apply. The Creative Commons website has a wonderful legal brief on podcasting that is both understandable and straightforward. It is a must-read if you are podcasting, blogging, or putting any form of content before the public. As educators, we often immerse ourselves so much in “fair use” in the classroom, that we don’t realize that when we do things outside the classroom, the same rules may not be applicable. I highly recommend that everyone read this brief, whether you are podcasting or not. It’s a great primer on copyright law and the Internet.
Permalink
04.26.06
Posted in General, Learning Theory, Society and Technology at 7:57 am by Norm Garrett
I have always noticed that technology seems to have a direct inverse relationship with age. This has been the case since the early days of the PC (the past 20 years or so). Case in point: My mother still insists on calling an airline to make reservations, even though they are now charging extra for that. She has no use for the Internet, doesn’t understand it, and still can’t figure out how my Dish Network DVR lets me pause live programming.
Here is an interesting article on what some educators have done about this. First hurdle: Admit that the students know more than you do about some technologies. These educators did that and enlisted the aid of some savvy students to help them integrate technology. It’s a great idea.
Permalink
03.08.06
Posted in General, Society and Technology at 9:28 am by Norm Garrett
David Shenk, in his book Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut, speaks of the “2×4 effect,” the idea that we are so overloaded with information that in order to get someone’s attention, you (figuratively) have to hit them over the head with a 2×4. An interesting article on the CNet blog talks about an O’Reilly tech conference (the O’Reilly conferences are generally premium conferences in the tech world) pondering the idea of getting one’s message across when everyone is already overloaded with information. In fact, the attendees are generally so overloaded that sessions at this conference lasted no longer than 15 minutes, mostly to appease their “continuous partial attention.”
What is happening to our attention spans with our attempts at multitasking and our severely overloaded senses? One of the speakers, Linda Stone, a former Microsoft vice-president said:
“… technology can’t exist for technology’s sake. It needs to answer the question, ‘Does this product improve my quality of life?’ Wikis might be best for brainstorming, while cell phones are ideal for crisis management. Do you really need to access a Wiki on your cell phone? Only if you’re brainstorming about a crisis.”
How’s your attention span?
Permalink
