Challenges of Technology and Education

I've had this feeling lately that I don't really know what I'm doing/where I'm going with this project. I get the basic concepts of technology and education; that it's good to have technology in the classroom and that technology/web 2.0 helps students pay attention and more actively engage in the learning. But I've had this thought that all of this is just like: "Oh, duh. Tech stuff is cool." So, I talked to Miller and he helped me to decide to investigate the challenges faced by technology in the classroom. I had already thought about challenges, but the only one's I could think of were monetary or involved the teachers themselves.

This website I found lists some of the major challenges that education and technology face. Although money is listed as a challenge, it is less a lack of money in the school and more a lack of money at home that is worrisome. Many schools in urban, poverty-stricken areas may have access to technology at school, but the children are not able to use computers at home because the parents cannot afford it. Without access to computers at home, the technology in school does not have the desired affect because the kids spend more time learning basics than anything that would actually help. This brings me to another point mentioned on the website, about how, on average, students only spend around forty minutes a week on the actual computer, which is no where near enough time to actively learn from the computer. Kids would need to be on the computers much more often to get a real benefit from them.

One of the final points that the website mentions is the involvement of the teachers in the technology. The teachers need to actively embrace the technology if it is to be any good. The teachers need to plan lessons around technology, not just have technology be something cursory that is thrown in there because the the board of education wanted it. If a teacher uses the technology, so will the students. The students will embrace it if the teacher will. But, if the students can sense that the teacher doesn't really care, the students will not care either.

So, the future for my project looks pretty good. I have a plan, and I just need to figure out what tools I want to use. I am planning on using a movie picture site, where the pictures get mixed together to create a movie. I just have to finish up some research next week and then start the presentation.

The Future of Education

I have been continuing to do research for my project on Web 2.0/technology and education and have been visiting the blogs and websites of various educators who have studied this field. I have been reading some interesting articles on the status of technology and education, including this one on how education is used in colleges. I was planning on focusing on education in the secondary school or high school level, but this article was just too good not to use.

The article begins with a discussion of the different theories in teaching, and how some believe in "open education" in which the student is more actively involved in his learning and how some (mostly the octogenarians) believe in a more lecture orientated curriculum. The problem is that many students, at least those who actually want to learn something, do not want to be talked AT. They would rather be engaged/involved in the discussion. From personal experience, I would much rather have a teacher who involved the class, whether through debates or simple anecdotes, than a teacher who stood up and lectured for forty minutes.

The article then goes on to mention how Web 2.0 and open education are linked, and how, in modern times, one cannot have one without the other. Web 2.0 technology and tools engages the students and makes them more interested in the lesson, leading them to learning more. If a student can experience the concept being taught by the lesson in an engaging way, such as through an Animoto video or a collaborative Wiki, this will stimulate their minds and allow the knowledge to more easily be absorbed. The article ends with a discussion of how some Internet tools take us away from humanity but how some, such as Web 2.0, brings us closer to humanity by providing a way for us to interact with each other in a learning environment.

This article reminded me of a blog post I read by Patrick Higgins that discusses his recent trip to an education conference and how some teachers seem almost too timid to really embrace the educational tools allowed by Web 2.0. It got me thinking; could it be that some people really, whether subconsciously or actively, fear Web 2.0 for the simple reason that it will make them obsolete? I do not think teachers, or any type of educators, have anything to worry about as computers can never replace human contact/intelligence (unless you're considering AI, and I don't think we're quite there...yet.) Regardless, the link between the article and the blog post was interesting as they both hinted at the ultimate purpose of all these talks and conferences; finding a way to engage the student in a manner hitherto unknown. The ultimate goal of education is imparting knowledge and any way in which that goal is more easily achieved is indeed an advancement in the field.

Technology and Education: The Final Frontier

I've been mentioning Technolgy and how it relates/affects to education a lot on this blog lately. However, with this approaching research project, I have perfected my idea, and decided what I really wanted to focus on and investigate. I have been researching how education has infiltrated schools and how educators are using technology. Also, I have been looking at those educators who are resistant to the change in education, who may not embrace technological innovations in the same way that a more modern teacher would.

I have been reading numerous blogs and bloggers that write about these topics. One of these people is David Warlick whose blog, 2 cents, has been very helpful and informative. He often writes about how technology has impacted schools and what people learn from technology. Other sources I have been using are: 10,000 words (which involves journalism more, but is still helpful, especially as it concerns how journalism and technology meet which is a whole other blog entry) and chalkdust101, written by Patrick Higgins Jr. that has a plethora of informationm regarding the education of children and what the future of education is from a hand's on perspective. I have also been using various technology blogs, including: Mashable and NY Times Bits.

My future plans are to continue researching a bit more and then begin to compile my sources and start the project. I am planning on using a picture/music site to present my information, such as Animoto. I also hope to use an information gathring source and another Web 2.0 tool from the list.

Lions and Tigers and Social Networks, Oh My!

My group did a presentation on social networking and, through it, I learned of the many different ways in which social networking could be used. Of course, the obvious social network sites exist, such as Facebook and Myspace. However, during the course of our research, we also discovered sites like Friendster, SecondLife, and Last.Fm which are all used in interesting ways. SecondLife is more of a virtual world, where people can create avatars and talk. Last.fm is a music orientated social networking site in which a person can "scrobble" their songs and Last.fm will then make recommendations based on what other users who listen to the same songs as you do also listened to. I also learned about the history of social networking and the ways in which social networks could connect people. It was also interesting to discover the ways in which social networking sites could use your personal information in ways you may not have wanted. Below is the presentation my group made for this assignment:






Social networks are important to understand/use because they will, in the future, become even more vital than they are now. Social networking, in its most basic form, is a way to connect people who may not know each other or who may not have seen each other in a while. To that end, all social networks provide ways for a person to make "friends" on the site, either through matching the people directly through shared likes or providing ways for people to chance upon each other. Social networks also provide ways to instantaneously communicate, such as status updates, or more private avenues of communication such as e-mail built directly into the website. These skills will be needed in the coming years because people will need to know how to communicate with those they may not know quickly and efficiently and to find those they need to find.

The common theme that ties the different projects together (social networks, social bookmarking, wikis, and RSS feeds) is the fact that the user, the individual is now in charge of the information they view and consume. In days past, the news agency or company presented the information to the viewer and the viewer could then choose which of that information they wanted to read. There was some form of choice in this, but not much. The technological age brought about a deluge of information where people have so much information that news agencies are now catering to the individual. The person can now choose not only what they want to read, but when they want to read it (by using archives) and who they want to read it from. It the New York Times does not have the information a person wants, they can be at the Washington Post's homepage in less than ten seconds. The power of knowledge is now in the hands of the people. Let's hope we can figure out what to do with it before we self-destruct.

A Plea

Hahaha, score one for the techies. A recent study claims that the Internet and social networking do not, in fact, encourage anti-social behavior. The study actually claims that there is a correlation between those who use Web 2.0 technology/social networking and positive, social interactions. As the study states: "frequent internet users, and those who maintain a blog are much more likely to confide in someone who is of another race" and "most internet activities have little or a positive relationship to local activity." What does this mean for the future? Hopefully it'll lead to the abolition of the image of pale, nerdy, anti-social teenagers sitting hunched in front of their computers, screaming in agony if a concerned parent flicks on the light. Let's face it; there is a stigma attached to being someone interested in technology/computers. It is true that obsessions are not healthy, but is a fascination with computers, something that will be important in the future, any worse than a sports' fanatic, staying glued to the TV for hours on end to watch a ball get thrown around?

(Rant mode activate.)

But, no. Sports fans are accepted by society, lauded even. Watching sports, in my opinion, is a complete waste of time. Playing/participating in a sports activity I can see; that's a healthy form of exercise. However, sitting on your butt watching a televised game for hours just doesn't do it for me. I don't get it. Computers, though, are fascinating. You can connect with so many people online, either through social networking (see, social is right in the title!), forums (connecting with real people on the interwebz!), or simply online shopping (where you can interact with the machine, Amazon recommending you stuff, or with a person by reading reviews.) Anything you can do on the Internet (OK, maybe with the exception of MLIA, but that's just funny) is an education process. As you are using the Internet, you are learning important tools for the ever-changing world and...the future! (That was corny. So sue me)

The study goes on to mention that the amount of adults who do not have any serious confidants in their lives remains unchanged (about 6%) since 1985, and that social networking users are actually more likely to visit with neighbors or go to cafes/bars/social activities. Just because you enjoy technology does not make you a misanthropic, indignant, freak. It just makes you someone who enjoys computers.

I am not disillusioned enough to believe that there will be any radical changes in thinking due to this study, but I do think it is the first step on a large path towards acceptance, one the entire world will eventually have to tread. Computers (or some advanced form of our desktop entities) are the future, and those who know how to use them will have an advantage. Those who wasted their time watching 333 hours of football...not so much.

{Tech Nerds--------------------------------------------------------------------Everyone Else}

There's this gap. It's kind of a big gap, troubling in fact. Because, I mean really, we're the future. And this gap, it's kind of based in technology. There's people like me (this will sound kinda pretentious) that are fairly computer literate and can interact with the Internet. We enjoy technology, enjoy learning about new things and the latest gadgets, enjoy trolling the Internet in search of the latest and greatest new website. Then, there are others. There are kids that, even though they have the ability to, can barely check their e-mail. They get confused doing the most common tasks on the Internet. How is this possible? Whose fault is this? Should the public education system get the blame? Or teachers? Or parents? Or, maybe, even the kids' fault?



Let's start with public education. Isn't the responsibility of education to better and prepare students for their later lives and to help them perform well in the "real" world? And, if this is so, why do we still have teachers who are unwilling to make this change, from a staid curriculum that hasn't changed in decades, to a more technologically advanced one? I know it is hard to change, but making students re-write, verbatim, the Constitution (and, trust me, one of the teachers at my school does this) is not doing anyone any good. Least of all, the students. Teachers certainly don't teach to make money. They teach (at least I think they do...) because they enjoy teaching and bettering the lives of their students. If they are not giving their students the tools needed to survive in an ever-changing technological infrastructure, they are not doing a good job. They are failing their students in the one area where students need the most help; planning for the future.



The students themselves, actually, may be the most to blame. After all, how can there be people who have grown up and lived in the same circumstances as myself, but not know how to do half the computer stuff I do? There's a disconnect there, and where is it coming from? Our education is similar and I would assume our home life is similar. Is it the motivation? Do I just care more about technology than others my age? Of course there are those that simply can't afford this kind of technology. This is perfectly acceptable; it is no fault of the students that they cannot afford a computer. As a matter of fact, the public education system should provide computers in schools for this purpose (but that's a different story.) However, I'm talking about those that have the ability to learn, to better themselves. Technology is the future, and people need to realize that. New skills need to be mastered. It's not a question of wanting. These Web 2.0 (and beyond) skills are a necessity.

So, I really don't feel bad about those students that cannot master these simple Internet tools. The knowledge is there, either through a teacher or a plethora of online sources. If you are not ready to adapt and learn for the future, don't expect everyone else to stop their lives to coddle you. You are responsible for you. Don't expect others to hold your hand. I need people to take control of their lives and their futures, cuz it's really starting to bother me.

Why the iPhone's Competition Fails (Before it Even Begins)

Everyone knows the iPhone is the most amazing phone ever made. OK, I may be a bit biased, but it honestly completely revolutionized what people do with their phones and how they do them. At the risk of sounding like a commercial, you can google a restaurant (either through an app or the actual google website), read the website on the restaurant, and call the restaurant and make reservations through the internet. This is massive step forward from normal phones. It is like Web 2.0 in a way, where one can access any information they need to access instantaneously and use the information they've gathered to make other decisions. This is why people love the iPhone. Because it is more than a phone, it's basically a computer in the palm of your hand.

However, there is another reason people lurv the iPhone. The brand. Apple is the cool thing to love. Having anything apple automatically makes one hip, trendy, and nonconformist. (Because, back in the 90's, Microsoft was the big bad wolf that was suffocating the younger up-start companies, like Apple. Now, Apple is almost as big as Microsoft. Those who are trying to nonconform by using Apple are actually still conforming by using Apple. The only way to nonconform is to either not use a computer, or use third party software/browsers/etc. But that's another blog entry.) People buy iPods because that is what everyone from ages 10-50 has. No one buys a Zune. People buy Macs because they think Macs are the hip thing to do, even though most of the claims Apple makes about the security of Macs are largley untrue. This is the second reason people buy an iPhone: to be cool. To fit in.

The iPhone has basically cornered the market on smart phones. There are many other smart phones out there, but Apple does it better. Verizon, however, seeks to change all this.They have recently started marketing their "Droid." Their ad campaign focuses on what the iPhone doesn't do (it does have some faults - we just got picture messaging last month, though that was largely AT&T's fault) and it could use some improvement. Verizon's "Droid" (made by Motorola) promises the ability to have a physical keyboard (some think the iPhone's touch screen keyboard is too finicky; I personally love it) as well as the ability to run multiple apps. These are all valid points, that I'm sure Apple is working on addressing, but are they really important enough to make consumers drop Apple/iPhone, a well established brand and product, for something completely new and untested? Some also feel that this was a bad move on Verizon's part, severing any ties they hoped to have with Apple and ending any dreams of having a Verizon iPhone. People are defensive of Apple; launching a direct assault on the "underdog" may not prove to be a smooth marketing move.

The Verizon "Droid", image courtesy of slashgear.com

I read an article in Time a few months ago about the market for a smartphone. This article mentions how, instead of giving Apple direct competition, some phone manufacturers should focus on a less "smart" smartphone. Basically, there should be a stepping stone for those who may not be the most technologically advanced between a normal phone, such as the Razor or Envy, and smart phones. There is not a smart phone like this on the market now, and it might prove to be a lucrative area. This may be a chance for another company to make worthwhile amounts of money on a smart phone. Companies must adapt instead of trying to copy. Apple is currently the Leviathan of the smart phone market, and nothing is going to change that for a very long time.

Objectivity=Subjectivity?

So, I read a pretty interesting blog today. It concerned the objectivity of journalists in the web 2.0 world and, this is the most interesting part so pay attention, how important (or non important) objectivity really is.



How about an equation?



Objectivity =/= Subjectivity.



Seems pretty straightforward, right? Well, this blog does not think so. In fact, this blogger basically equates objectivity to subjectivity inasmuch that readers want, NEED, subjectivity in their news stories and articles.



Let's face it-when we read an article, we know we are getting a biased opinion. Whether it's through Fox News or MSNBC, Time (which I will give props to for at least attempting to remain unbiased) or the New York Post, we read articles as much for the "need for narrative" as we do for the hard facts. I'd hazard a guess that gossip mags sell more than any newspaper. And why is that?



Because people love sensationalism. They crave it.



So, bringing this back to the originial point (and how this relates to Web 2.0.) A memo from the Washington Post (leaked, of course) told all journalists on staff that it was OK to have an objective point of view, to be human basically, but not to let in interfere (noticeably) with their articles in research.



Wut?

It is impossible to not have a bias. It is almost as impossible to hide that bias. And that is what this blogger is saying. That the transparency of objectivity is an OK thing. We all know journalists have bias, and that's just fine with us.

Google's Plan to Make an OS Obsolete

Last year, I heard talk about a new tool Google was inventing. Google Wave is an application that can be installed in Internet browsers that allows multiple users to basically share a desktop. Google Wave will allow for the instantaneous (that's certainly become a Web 2.0 buzzword) sharing and editing of documents, the ability to play games together, have an IM conversation, and much more. It is basically the best of every neat web tool put together in one easy to use/see flow. Kinda like a RSS feed on Ritalin. Or an iPhone in a browser. Well, you get the idea.

Google Wave, if done successfully, (and Google certainly has an excellent track record) could mark the turning point of something greater, bigger, than Web 2.0...perhaps, and you heard it here first, Web 3.0? Google Wave will make everything that came before it obsolete, as anything you could want to do is available right in your Internet browser. Need to edit a document and share it with a colleague? Simply place it in Wave and you can edit it together. Need to have a web cam conversation with your spouse and review your finances? Simply open up a web cam chat window in Wave and share a document. And, if there is something you do need to do but can't find on Wave, clever Google has made it an "open source license" basically saying that amateur and not so amateur developers can make widgets and new features for the Wave. It is a constantly evolving microcosm of the Internet.

So, I admit, not most teens are like me. Many teenagers do not get excited over the latest and greatest in Internet technology. A lot of them, quite frankly, don't care. Why should they? Well, because, if they want to exist and thrive in the future, they're going to have to become adept at the usage of these new Internet products. Technology is a very slippery slope; once you fall behind, it becomes almost impossible to keep up with the newest and best ideas conjured by the nerdiest minds on the planet. Just as our parents had to learn how to use a computer, the Internet, and communication tools, we will have to learn even more advanced technology to compete in the job market. Imagine, if you will, a 2010 high school graduate twenty years from now. They haven't kept up with the technology, as they don't care, but a 2030 high school knows the ins and outs of recent technological breakthroughs simply because they lived through it and experienced it. Why would an employer hire someone who would take months to learn new info when they could hire a bright, fresh new mind?

Technology is born out of necessity; perhaps, then, it is fair to say adaptation to technology is born out of the will to survive. A 21st century case of Social Darwinism where only those who know exactly what they're doing have any chance of surviving.

Web 2.0...And Beyond.

The dot com bubble was born in the 90's, and the world never looked back. People could look up information, view pictures, and communicate with each other virtually instantaneously. The internet became staid almost, though it was still regarded as one of the greatest inventions of the twentieth century. However, as the new millennium began, the Internet became invigorated by a new term and new concept; Web 2.0. The definition of Web 2.0 itself is hotly contested, though Tim O'Reily, who coined the term Web 2.0, has offered one definition. His concept of Web 2.0 is far broader than the ideas that are bandied about now. Some think Web 2.0 is based around social networking and idea sharing, though O'Reily considers any way in which people can instantly communicate with each other as Web 2.0 technology.

As I've said previously in this blog, we are the techno generation. We live on the internet; Facebook in one tab, a google search or wikipedia entry in another, our e-mail in a third, and iTunes minimized. We live in forums, we developed our own language (bbl, ttyl, brb, and the endless parade of emoticons), and we can constantly be interacting and connecting with others. A student in America can share and talk with a cubicle worker in Bejing. This fascinates me. The Internet fascinates me. It is the lifeblood of the world now. We cannot exist without the Internet. It may sound pathetic, but I am not ashamed to admit that I feel withdrawal when I am not able to access the Internet for an extended period of time. I have an Iphone and can check my e-mail and facebook multiple times a day, and that's without even sitting down at a desktop computer.


So, what does this have to do with anything?


The future of the Internet is of great interest to me. Widgets and RSS Feeds, wikis and blogs, flickr and IM. All these technologies occurred in the last decade. What awaits us around the corner? Just one example is the latest web based addon Google has unveiled, a tool that allows users to comment on/give extra information about a web page. The greatest features of this tool are the instantaneous feedback and the ability for multiple comments to appear on multiple web pages. This is quintessential Web 2.0.

My goal is to learn more about what the Internet can offer, the odd/quirky ways in which people utilize Internet tools (del.ici.ous comes to mind), and the rapidly growing and expanding technology that makes up the infrastructure of the Internet. Is it really that hard to imagine a time in the future where the human race has (d)evolved into cyborgs? Where computers are embedded into our brains, where we can look things up simply by thinking it? Nothing ever stays the same, especially technology.

Blogging isn't just for ranting anymore!

We are the techno generation. We grew up with PC's and laptops, cell phones in our pockets at the age of twelve, iPod earbuds entwined around our necks, and the Internet anytime we want it. In the middle of this deluge of information, however, a large percentage of this generation is woefully ignorant of the vast majority of tools the Internet can provide. Sure, most teenagers can e-mail, check facebook, shop online, and maybe even check Wikipedia. However, blogging is something that many more students should be made aware of. It is a way for students and teachers to interact in a less formal setting, a way for students to feel more at ease completing an assignment, and way for students to become more connected with the outside world.

Blogging in schools is fast on the rise. It's a way for the students to share their thoughts and feelings in an environment that is controlled but untamed at the same time. Theoretically, anyone could comment on any blog post a student does. But, what exactly does a student get out of blogging? Well, for one thing, it allows the student to express themselves in a way that might otherwise be uncomfortable for them, say in the classroom. Also, a student way wish to look at their classmates blogs, which could lead to a sharing of ideas and information. After all, isn't that a main goal of education in the twenty first century; to make students more well rounded and worldly?

Blogging also provides the amazing ability to connect to other stories, articles, and ideas. There is nothing better than presenting a point and then linking to someone else with that opinion; it makes your thought sound more real and more accepted. A student writing a blog can link to an article discussing the facts of the case, present their opinion, post a picture of a concept, and then get feedback from others. It is a self-contained world of action and reaction.

However, a blog may have drawbacks. Privacy is always an issue. Though I mentioned earlier the privacy afforded by a blog, the opposite may be true as well. You can be as anonymous as you want on the Internet but, at the end of the day, your ideas are still your ideas. People who you may not want to read your writing have every right as anyone else to. Also, there is always the chance of a blog to go off topic, or of a student not completing an assignment. After all, it's easier to keep track of a student manually writing an assignment as opposed to setting them loose on the Internet.

The Internet and technology are here to stay. My generation, the techno generation, knows more than Generation X or the Baby Boomers. However, our children will know even more. Today, we scoff at the ideas of typewriters and rotary telephones. Maybe, in the future, our kids will scorn us for our cell phones and laptops. Maybe, this is the future:

Image courtesy of: petitinvention.wordpress.com

I Can Haz Hyperlink?

I think the most important thing we've learned so far is the structure of a news article and how to write one. The inverted pyramid and bottom up editing have been helpful because it shows how a real newspaper would run its articles. I hope to continue to learn what makes a story interesting to someone, how to obtain a larger readership, and what to do to keep people reading. I have learned that news can vary greatly in how it is presented and its accuracy. News can be biased or objective, fact filled or fluff.

The ways we look at different types of media (such as blogs and wikis) was also important as it helped to better understand the type of news on these sites and the people who post them. For example, by reading many different types of blogs, it will be easier to determine which blogs are interested in reporting the "facts" (though it is next to impossible to remove all personal bias when writing in such a personal way) and which blogs blatantly put a spin on a story. In the future, I hope to learn more about the different ways media can be manipulated and to continue to work on writing news articles and more informal forms of journalism.

NATO Airstrike in Afghanistan

This article deals mainly with prominence and consequence. The prominence of this article is the fact that NATO, normally a peaceful organization, bombed an area of Northern Afghanistan where hijakced oil tankers were with the intent of killing insurgents believed to be there. The consequence of this article was the fact that the vast majority of the eighty deaths were civilian. NATO claims that they did not know that amount of civilians would be around the oil tankers, but many were siphoning gas from the tankers.

Proximity also plays a part in this article, though of lesser importance. The Middle East, and Afghanistan in particular, are a hot bed of news interest. Because of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, many Americans are interested in anything that occurs over there, especially events that result in casualties. Finally, timeliness is a small part of this article as the deaths were recent. The prominence and consequence were the most emphasized elements of this article as the fact that NATO killed civilians is a very newsworthy piece of reporting.