Work With Hope

Didn’t write anything on Sunday, though I did use the iPad for things around the house. I found a pretty good recipe app, and I loaded all my recipes. I like this much more than the app I have on my iPhone which is too small for practical use in the kitchen (and isn’t a good app anyway). With the iPad app, I can set the screen up and see it easily as I move around the kitchen.

Today’s observations:

Keyboard gripe: I wish the onboard keyboard had a delete key. To delete a single letter, you always have to use the backspace key, which is a pain if you didn’t het the insertion point in exactly the right place (see earlier comment about placing the insertion point). I suppose this is corrected if you use an external keyboard, but I don’t want to carry around another keyboard. I would place a delete key in place of the second “keyboard switch” key, since I never use that. I’ve looked online for any tricks for this, but I have found none. If you know something, please tell me!

Formatting in the native iPad email app is a pain. If you copy in text from another source in another font, it seems to be impossible to go forward in your original font unless you copy some text from the first part of the email.

For my first post of the new year, I want to approach a topic that has galled me throughout the past year.

The introduction of the iPad in 2010 was heralded as a new paradigm that would change mobile computing for good.  Among the champions of this new device were many educators, some of whom I like and respect, who praised the form factor and immediately saw the value as an ideal classroom device.  One cannot deny the appeal of an intuitive classroom tool providing resources and connectivity at the seat of every child.  The elimination of heavy and expensive textbooks alone will have financial (and health) benefits for students and schools.  Even recognizing the well-documented limitations of the device (no camera, no USB ports, no HDMI port, no Flash, no multi-tasking), it is easy to assume that this is a solid educational platform which will clearly improve over time (it is generally anticipated that an iPad 2 will be announced early this year).  Sales figures indicate public acceptance for this new machine beyond what was anticipated.  As an advocate for 1:1 programs, I should be thrilled by this.

Then why am I so irritated?

Anyone who has followed my writing through the past years (or spoken to me for more than five minutes) knows that I have long been a proponent of the netbook as a classroom device.  From my first 7″ ASUS running Linux I saw the potential for low-cost, small form-factor, long battery life devices as the answer to the main hurdles to 1:1 programs.  As these machines improved in size, processing speed, and battery life, I became more convinced that we were approaching a netbook world, and growth of cloud-based services indicated that a mobile device did not have to be completely self-contained, and students could start projects at school and easily complete them on a larger, more powerful home system.

However, speaking to salespeople, reading tech blogs, and following education literature, I am becoming convinced that this is not the direction that the world will take.  The heat of netbooks has long cooled, and all companies talk about are competing products to the iPad.  To some extent, this was a business inevitability.  The margins on netbooks are so small, that there is little motivation for companies to support the platform.  Now that the iPad has redefined the price point from  $500 – $800, it doesn’t make much business sense to push the $300 product.  This is coupled with the “coolness factor” of the iPad.  As much as we would like to be purists about this, part of an effective 1:1 program is salesmanship, and when parents, schools, and districts are asked to fund technology purchases they see the iPad as cutting edge and the netbook as dated and boring.

So is it sour grapes (or sour apples) that makes me so resistant?  Am I becoming a curmudgeon, a DOS user, mocking the “soft” Windows users as I sink into the primordial ooze?  Maybe.  Perhaps I don’t have the vision and imagination to see how this is a superior path.

But…Someone has to tell me

• How are we not getting less for more, a machine with dramatic limitations for nearly twice the cost?
• How are students going to write at any length with a flat keyboard that takes up a good portion of the screen space?
• How is a student going to show her or his presentation without retrofitting classroom projectors?
• How will this device eliminate the need for computer labs, when traditional computers are still needed for so many functions?

Finally, I’m irritated by the fact that a split market slows progress.  I know several schools who were on the verge of embracing a laptop/netbook program who have put these plans on hold in fear of backing a losing platform.

Again, I may be wrong here (and if things indeed do go the iPad path, it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong or right).  I admire the iPad (though I have only played with it in a BestBuy), and I would love to have one…in my case right beside my netbook!

As always, I invite your comments.

Yesterday Yahoo announced that it would soon be shutting down the Delicious bookmarking site (you can read the full story here).  When I first discovered this on Twitter last night, I was struck with two distinct waves of anger and I’m still splashing angrily this morning.

For anyone who doesn’t know (or hasn’t talked to me), Delicious.com is (and soon to be was) a social bookmarking site.  Users were able to bookmark, tag, and share web pages, and it provided a wealth of “pre-research” on virtually any topic.  When I wanted to learn about something, rather than go to Google, I often started on Delicious.  The service also provided an easy way to share a group of bookmarks on a particular topic at the end of a lesson or presentation. Tracing roots back to 2003, Delicious was one of the original social tools that provided value to the individual and to the participating community.

In the past year there has been a noticeable drop in talk about the site.  I hadn’t heard it mentioned at conferences or within my PLN.  However, I assumed this was a mark of the tool’s maturity.  It was so ubiquitous and readily used that people didn’t notice it anymore.  In the fall I tweeted the question, “Has everyone left Delicious?” and I received many replies that the service was still vital in the research and education communities.  I let go of my (foolish) apprehension…until yesterday.

Looking back, of course, one should have seen this coming.  Yahoo is leaking dollars and employees like a sieve (my concern about the loss of a website is nothing compared to concern for the many who lost their jobs this week).  Delicious didn’t make significant money (a bit of ad revenue) and I don’t see any way that this could be changed; I think that a pay wall would have chased away the masses .  The service was only one of several “dead wood” sites that Yahoo is closing (I can’t help but also note that Flickr is also a Yahoo-owned site and though there is no indication that they intend to take similar action, one cannot help but be a little gun shy).

I mentioned in the beginning of this that I felt two distinct waves of anger.  The first was over the loss of a site I used regularly and enjoyed.  As I moved through the stages of grief, I reconciled myself to moving my stuff to the Diigo site (there is information on moving your bookmarks here).  Diigo offers all of the Delicious features and more, and the transition is easy.  I have had friends encouraging me to go to this for a while.  So I’ll try Diigo, though I noted on Twitter this morning, that I will significant “trust issues” for a while.

As I regained my footing from this first wave, a second hit me twice as hard.  What about all the people whom I have steered toward Delicious, or toward my bookmarks there?  Only a month ago I gave a presentation encouraging teachers to use social bookmarking as a tool for student learning, and I was pleased to hear that some were using and enjoying the service.  What do they feel today?

I feel like writing a note of apology to anyone who has attended on of my workshops, but what would I tell them?  And more importantly, how can I encourage them to use and trust the tools of social media that exist by such slender threads?

Even now I can see that down the road I will use this as a lesson, and maybe this will help some people understand the importance of closely monitoring their online data (to quote one of the educators I follow on twitter, “think global, backup LOCAL”).  But today, I just feel burned and bruised, and I just want to take my bookmarks and go home.

As always, I invite your comments.

For those who want, there is a good list of other Delicious alternatives here

I was directed on Twitter this weekend to a though provoking article in the Washington Post entitled “Teacher: Data, My New Dirty Word”.

You can find the article here.

This article resonated with me not because I am against gathering data or letting that data inform actions.  If we want students to accomplish things, we need to find out how and why they are doing so.  Many teachers and schools have for too long thrown instruction at the wall, assuming it was sticking.  Poor results on classroom exams were explained by student laziness or lack of ability, and not as information to change the type or quality instruction. The power of technological tools to gather and analyze data has been under-utilized, ignoring the information that is available.  Data driven instruction is an effective approach to improving learning for all students.

But, as most pendulums do, I fear that we are moving too far to the other direction.  Data has evolved from being a tool and has become a deity.  In an effort to bring clarity to school evaluation, politicians, media, and others have sought simplicity.  Thus test scores on standardized exams became not information for a school, but that school’s very identity.

I have three main concerns with this:

• Standardized test results are complex.  I have sat in workshops for hours while testing company representatives explain the interpretation of results.  This is an important part of the testing process; however, I know that most who view results cannot help but understand and compare results as, “big numbers good, small numbers bad.”  I know I have this gut reaction to scores (which I try to suppress), and I don’t see anyone in the public sector voicing similar cautions (short of a cursory, clearly to be ignored, disclaimer).
• Teaching for test scores perverts the broader educational program of the school.  It is maddening to me that the SAT has engendered a cottage industry of test-prep companies.  These companies distill key ideas and strategies of the test to a mini-course that can have more impact on results than actual classroom instruction.  Test-result based schools can suffer from the same myopia.  Just as SAT courses really don’t teach anything but how to improve scores on a test on a single Saturday, so schools develop students who are proficient test takers.  Which leads to my third concern.
• I have not yet found a convincing argument that taking high stakes standardized exams is an important life skill…only a school skill.  In my day to day experiences, I am often surprised how little I draw from the data I once was able to produce with a #2 pencil and how much I draw from other classroom experiences and assignments.  So much of the professional world is open book and untimed.  Are we raising a generation of well-practiced unicyclists?

In these arguments I don’t want my initial point lost.  We do need to gather, analyze, and allow out programs and instruction to be formed by data.  However this is part of the education process, and not a substitute for it.

Did you hear it?

It might have come to you as background noise on your TV or radio news.  Maybe it was a story in the business section that you paged by.  Maybe you saw it on your feed reader and decided not to read it because you’re not a Verizon customer so it doesn’t affect you.  But within the last two weeks a quiet statement by two technology giants has rocked (and some suggest threatened) the future of the Internet.

In order to fully explain this story, I need to briefly explain the concept of net neutrality.

Net neutrality has been a hot button issue among tech journalists and consumer advocates, and one that educators need to be more aware.  The principle of net neutrality is that an internet provider, such a Verizon, ATT, Comcast, or others should not be allowed to filter or prioritize Internet sites based on types of content, content subject, or tiered payment.  Advocates of net neutrality argue the “bits is bits,” and it is not the Internet providers role to discriminate between them.

Let’s look at a few possible examples to better understand this.

• Bit torrent sites are high speed file sharing sites.  Often these sites are used for the illegal transport of copyright material such as music or videos.  This is not the only use for these sites, but to curb the file sharing (probably prompted by the RIAA and the MPAA) providers might slow traffic to these sites in order to discourage their use.
• Most Internet providers are either telephone or television companies.  Broadband Internet access is creating new opportunities for alternatives to traditional media.  Providers might slow (or charge for premium access) to sites such as Skype or Netflix or Hulu and effectively cripple these and other change agents
• Even a less overtly discriminatory program can have profound effects.  A tiered Internet structure that feeds sites at various speeds  based on payment, appears open, but in reality this would give an enormous advantage to existing large companies over startups and “amateur” content.  The democratic nature of the Internet would be destroyed.

Efforts by Internet providers to circumvent net neutrality through government action have so far proved ineffective thanks to public awareness campaigns by technology journalists and some “enlightened” companies like Google (read their defense of net neutrality from 2006 http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html).

However, on August 9, 2010, Google and Verizon issued a joint policy statement regarding the future of net neutrality.  Though carrying no force of law, this is a serious proposal intended for legislative consideration.  The statement in essence says that wired Internet should maintain principles of neutrality, but that wireless companies because of limited resources and more available competition should be able to manage their networks however they see fit including price tiers for content providers and for consumers.  Not surprisingly, AT&T quickly chimed in to express their agreement with this statement (so much for the competition element).

Of course Google and Verizon framed this statement as preserving net neutrality for wireless, still the primary Internet access for most.  However, with the growth of the market for smartphones, iPads and similar devices, and other mobile platforms, it is becoming clear that mobile wireless broadband is the future of Internet access.  Google and Verizon have just guaranteed the stability of the horse-drawn buggy market while crippling the automobile.

Within the technology community this quickly became the subject of debate and condemnation.  The largest question was why Google would flip on their stance on this issue.  Most have suggested that Google’s involvement in the mobile phone market through the many phones using the Android operating system has merged their corporate interests with those of the phone companies.  Many sarcastic remarks were aimed toward Google’s unofficial “Don’t be evil” motto and a sense of betrayal pervaded the tech community as many felt the mask was dropped revealing the corporate monster beneath.  Among the editorials were comments by Jeff Jarvis, the author of What Would Google Do (http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/08/10/internet-schminternet/) and the somewhat rudely titled article on wired.com (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/).  Even Jon Stewart of The Daily Show took his shots:  “Google doesn’t get to write laws.  They just photograph and post where everybody lives and republish every book ever written and negotiate with the Chinese government while building floating data centers in the ocean.”

And from the educational community…

Silence

I have yet to see (and I deeply apologize to anyone whom I may have missed) an education blog take serious issue with this policy statement.    I know that this is a difficult topic for most teachers, that teachers now are primarily engaged in beginning of the year activities, and that many teachers are not yet using tools that might be affected by this.

But for goodness’ sake, this is the future of the Internet for ourselves and for our children and we must advocate for them.  The development of a two-tiered Internet with easy access to the corporate message and slow inconvenient access to voices of contradiction (and maybe the voice of our students) is a betrayal of the promise of the global democratic marketplace of ideas.

We need to face this challenge as teachers have always addressed challenges, by educating ourselves, staying aware of developments, and voicing loudly our concerns in blogs, in our networks, and to our representatives.

We can’t stand by and let the Internet be lost.

As always, I welcome your comments.

This is an old pet peeve of mine, so pardon me if I’ve said this before in some venue.

I am a big believer in the PLN (Personal Learning Network) or PLE (Personal Learning Environment) for teachers. I know that my knowledge and excitement are daily supported by the many educators with whom I interact. Whether it is reading articles, watching videos, listening to podcasts (my personal favorite), following on Twitter, or conversing directly, barely a day goes by that I don’t find a new idea, a new technique or a new tool.

I am convinced that education is rapidly changing into something I don’t yet know or completely understand. However, through my network I can glimpse this future and help to make it. Just as education for students is changing, ongoing education for teachers is also changing, and never more crucial. Too often teachers view themselves as “completed” and have little motivation to continue formal education. The good news for these is that attending formal classes is probably the least effective way for them to keep current, the challenging news is that there is no longer “completion” (if there ever was!) and learning and growth must be a constant of the field.

This is why I have trouble with the term Personal Learning Network.  Calling it personal sounds both too informal, and too optional.  I get that the term reflects that these networks should reflect the individual learning needs of each educator (I hope we focus equally on the individual learning needs of students); however, I also hear in this term a distance from the classroom (this is my personal identity as opposed to my teacher self).

Now, I am a fan of economy, so my suggested change will allow us to keep 90% of our printed materials (and PowerPoint slides).  Let’s change the P from Personal to Professional Learning Networks.  Immediately this shift implies two things.  First, it clothes the term in a work outfit; this is not a personal thing to do, but part of your job.  Second, it suggests that in order to be a professional educator, a PLN is as fundamental as chalk dust (for those too young for chalk dust, you’ll have to take my word for it).

So as we begin another school year, let’s help each other build our second professional credential, a broad and effective Professional Learning Network!

I was sad that I couldn’t attend ISTE, but I was very happy to see this presentation by Chris Lehmann “Beyond Tools: Thoughtful 21st-Century School Reform.”  It’s a long presentation, but if you are interested in classroom reform, it should keep you thinking for days.