Work With Hope

Apologies for being away…wish I had a legitimate excuse.

I read with interest about the purchase of Instagram by Facebook last week for 1 BILLION DOLLARS. Whether or not Facebook overpaid for this property (they did), one cannot deny that this latest Internet fad had a meteoric rise in popularity (and price). As I read the article, while I meditated on the unreality of a billion dollars, my eye was caught by another, slightly smaller, number.

Instagram has 14 employees.

14

While it is easy to see this as a lottery situation with 14 lucky winners, I see the number in a different business sense. If we take the economy of the world as a limited number, then 1 Billion of the total worth employs 14 people.

Kodak, a more traditional photo company, has hit financial hard times. Though valuation estimates vary, the company is estimated to be worth between 2-3 Billion, and this does not truly reflect what the purchase cost of the company might be. Given its current Chapter 11 bankruptcy status, many suggest that that purchase value might be quite less. The company employes over 17,000. So, even using the most generous valuation figures, in this company 1 Billion employs over 5000…in a failing company.

As I looked at these numbers I was struck again by a concern that has been gnawing at me. If more and more value is attached to companies with fewer and fewer employees, where will everyone work? It would take over 1000 Instagrams to employ Kodak, and even with the explosion of Internet business, there is no way that this area can accommodate the employees of the companies that are currently threatened by new models.

Now, I’m not trying to go “grumpy old man” on this. I’m not nostalgically trying to hold on to old models, and I recognize and encourage schools to embrace new models of distribution and instruction. However, behind this evolutionary movement is a belief that when the music stops, there will still be enough chairs for all of the players.

When I talk about this to others, I’m often reminded of the employment changes of the Industrial Revolution. Though I wasn’t there to watch, my sense over time was that the workforce adapted to these changes and people were by and large able to find work and build lives within new realities. Maybe the same thing will occur and we will find new ways to employ people. However, in a market driven economy, I don’t know how the motivation to create a billon dollars through 5000 can beat creating it through 14.

I don’t think we can (or should) artificially retard the pace of progress, but as I keep running by as chairs are yanked away, I hope that there will be seats for my daughter, and for the sons and daughters of others.

As always, I welcome your comments.

 

This post started to be about a huge topic, but I kept getting bogged down. So I decided for a bite of the elephant instead of the entire beast.

A friend of mine (and by friend of mine I do not mean myself) whom I’ll call Maynard, recently found himself in an uncomfortable position with a third friend, whom I’ll call Clarice, caused by changes to Facebook privacy settings.  Maynard made a comment on one of his Facebook friend’s posts, not realizing that current settings cause the original post and his comment to appear on the pages of all Maynard’s friends.  Luckily the comment was not toxic, just teasing, of Clarice, and after a few awkward moments the kerfufel resolved itself into an uneasy truce.

One doesn’t have to look far in their own lives or the news to find dozens of similar stories.  Whether deserved or not, Congressman Weiner’s career was abruptly ended by unintended sharing.  Pro athletes have shared information about their injuries that teams have wanted to keep private. Even Leo Laporte, the self-proclaimed “Tech Guy,” accidentally shared private posts during one of his podcasts at the end of last year, causing him embarrassment and perhaps other trouble.

While it is easy to point the finger and snicker, we are all vulnerable to similar gaffs.  We don’t understand the privacy settings on Facebook and other social media, and we electronically communicate things when we shouldn’t.  For most of us, this can cause a bit of social embarrassment, for others a major, life changing crisis, but the source of the problem is the same.

Which leads to the the point I want to make, why is online privacy not part of the new Common Core standards?  If these standards are what we expect a young person to know and be able to do by the time he or she finishes twelfth grade, isn’t knowing how to communicate effectively and appropriately part of this?

I was looking through the standards (currently available for language arts and math), and I found no mention of online privacy.  A student leaving high school is supposed to know and understand the quadratic equation, but they are on their own when it comes to Facebook.  With no intended insult to the math cartel (OK, I suppose calling them a cartel is sort of an insult), the number of people who use the quadratic equation after leaving school is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.

While I recognize that there are technology standards that address this issue, these are not part of the sacred common core.  Thus they will be addressed or not to the extent they are a focus for a teacher and school, and they will not be part of national standardized exams which is the chief driver of classroom time.

Whether or not we teach the higher level maths is a discussion for another day, but if education is to prepare students for life and not some theoretical semblance of life, it should do just that. 

As always, I welcome your comments. 

 

Let me quickly say that this has nothing to do with my Catholicism. This blog is confessional, but not confessional.

 

I’m responding to another set of beliefs in my life, one which has formed much of my teaching and interaction with technology for the past several years. As with most disillusionments, this came on slowly, starting with irritations, growing to disappointment, and blossoming in questioning. Finally, I couldn’t deny it any more, and I said out loud (via Twitter) what I had not yet completely admitted to myself.

 

“I don’t know if I believe in Google any more.”

 

Now, I need to clarify, I have loved many Google products. No matter where this googlagnosticism goes, I will still use many Google apps and recommend them to others. Google search is like oxygen for cyber travel (I can’t believe that I used such a lame expression). Google docs is a million times simpler than Sharepoint, and probably the best collaboration tool. I also have always liked Google’s ability to provide free tools for educators, businesses and others.

 

But two areas in particular have shaken my confidence and made me question my love affair, and both have to do with dependability.

 

If you go back in the archives of this blog, you will see how excited I was by the release of Google+. I saw in this filterable social sharing tool the answers to Facebook’s weaknesses. The ability to create and broadcast to specific circles is genius, and I saw great possibilities for creating discussion groups with colleagues, or even possibly between teachers and students. Lots of little details, like the ability to edit posts and the ability to create longer posts made me think that this was truly a Facebook killer. I encouraged all my friends to leave Facebook and start using Google+. It was a revolution, a Googlepocalipse.

 

But what happened? I notice now that weeks go by when I don’t open Google+, and longer than that without posting anything. This experience is shared by the few friends who have come over. Somehow Facebook and Twitter continue to be a more satisfying and useful experience. Google put out this exciting new platform, but they haven’t put the time or money into making the case to the general public as to why they should use it. Likewise, Google is yet to make an application that makes Google+ fully functional on the iPad. Interestingly, there is now a Verizon commercial showing how to use circles with the Samsung Nexus, but there isn’t any reference to Google+ (if that is what this commercial is showing). I am somewhat apologetic to the people I invited over and feel like my credibility has been lessened by this whole experience. Google+ may survive (in a recent development, Google is finding a new and annoying way to integrate your search results with your Google+ account), but there is a perception at least in my circle that this one more WAVE or BUZZ…a great idea going nowhere.

 

And what about the Chromebook? A little more than a year ago, in the midst of the netbook craze, Google announced that it was building a lightweight operating system designed to work solely as a web interface. This new chrome operating system would reside on notebook computers called netbooks. By embracing the cloud for all operating functions, the new device was going to be lighter, faster, and with better battery life.

 

And what happened? First, lots of time passed. Google itself seemed uncertain how the Chrome OS fit in with Android development, and certainly couldn’t make this case to the casual user. Chromebooks are now being released, but the silence behind this release is deafening. No public campaign, no splashy release to schools, no advertising in the mainstream press. So it appears that Google has released a device that solves yesterday’s problems in a form factor that no one wants.

 

In general, I have this nagging suspicion that Google no longer has its finger on the pulse of users and doesn’t know how to explain itself to them. When a great product like Google+ dies on the vine, and a product like the Chromebook arrives with a thud, you can’t help but to be wary of jumping on the Google bandwagon so quickly.

 

I’m not sure that I’m making the case that well, but as usual, I welcome your comments.

 

 

After the struggle of coming up with blog topics and time to write, it has been a pleasure to relax a bit and to let things evolve organically for a change.  I made the same New Year’s resolution, to write at least 24 times, only this year I hope not to need to compact them into such a short period of time.
 
I make several resolutions each year, some professional, some personal.  It is always a great way to feel inadequate midway through the year, but surprisingly I have also accomplished some of these over time.  As I  look forward to continued participation in the educational technology discussion, I’m wondering if there are ways that I can make it more of that…a discussion.
 
I’m not a bad presenter.  I think I am pretty clear and that I balance funny and serious pretty well.  I get the usual feedback from conferences that most people like my talks, and I get good sign-ups and drop ins when the participants get to choose.  Though I have a healthy scepticiam for this type of approval (I suspect if you put a broom in front of a group of people, there would be a number who would mark 5 on the evaluation and someone would write “best Inservice ever”), I do think I give people good value for their time (if not their money).
 
Sometimes, however, I worry about the entire format of presentations and seminars.  What is the value of me standing in front of a group of teachers and telling them that they have to break from old models of lecturing in front of a classroom? How am I an innovative educator (with respect to Lisa Nielson who writes the Innovative Educator blog and who is really amazing) when I’m reciting lists from PowerPoint slides?  How am I challenging the audience to grow when they are able to listen and never forced to contribute?  Perhaps this picture is a bit dramatic, but how can I open up the conference room and break the fourth wall of the tech talk.
 
There are many practical reasons why I and other speakers do not involve the audience more often.  I never know what the room is going to be like until I arrive.  I usually don’t know the number or the mood of the group or their background or what equipment they have before I start.  Most essentially is a sense that they are here to watch me perform, and it is up to me to put on a show so they will feel it’s worthwhile.
 
I try.  I always call for hands of people who know concepts or who have tried things (very weak, I know).  I have posed questions for people to discuss in twos or threes, but this usually feels forced (plus I’m afraid that they are talking not about the questions, but about how much they dislike the presentation…paranoid), and I’m anxious to get back on stage.  I take questions, though I most keep talking until the end of the session.  In short, I don’t do this effectively, and I think I need to.
 
So my resolution for 2012 is to make sure that every presentation has some sort of participatory element.  My apologies ahead of time for the ones that don’t work, and I’d love to hear suggestions of things that you have found to be effective.
 
As always, I welcome your comments.

Well, I made it.  With this entry I have completed blog entries on 24 straight days.  Thanks to all who stuck with me reading the posts or suggesting topics.  Though it was a strain to write every day, I think I’ve rediscovered why I started, and I look forward to continuing (at a less demanding pace) in 2012.

Merry Christmas to all and a very happy new year!  May the blessings of this holy season rain down on you and all whom you love!

…Is a TEDTalk.  

 
I’m sure that most everyone who reads this is familiar with TED.  The TED (Technology Entertainment Design) organization holds two conferences each year, one in Long Beach/Palm Springs and the other in Edinburgh.  At these conferences experts from all areas of science, education, entertainment and the arts present a short (18 minute) presentation on a topic in their specialty area.  Attending the conferenxce itself is limited to a select few, at a cost of $7500 for standard membership; however, through Internet distribution the talks have become available to all and many have been widely distributed and shared.  Many lesser-known thinkers have become Internet celebrities through viral distribution of their talks. A slightly less prestigious TEDX younger sibling has also emerged, bringing a similar experience to a wider number of cummunities and a greater number of speakers.
 

As with any well-intentioned humanistic pursuit, there has been criticism of TED as being elitist, reductionist, and glitzy.  I suspect that all of these criticisms are true.  However, I have been more than once moved by an effective speaker to learn more about a subject or think about an area I had never considered before.  I know that TED talks have been the entry drug for real progress in the lives of many.
 

Obviously with only two talks each year the speaker list is very exclusive with world leaders speaking beside Nobel Prize winners and music and movie stars.  To be invited to speak on such an exclusive (yet worldwide) stage with the cache of a the TED organization represents true acknowledgement that one’s ideas (whether good or bad) are worth consideration and attention.
 

So I confess to you, my online Santa, in a moment of undisguised ambition that my fondest wish as a small-potatoes speaker and blogger would be to have an opportunity to prepare and deliver a talk at the TED conference (I would gladly accept a TEDX, though I admit it would be with some slight disappointment).  Every time I write or speak, I work to put into words this wild and changing world of educational technology and try to say something new about it.  A TED talk would give me the opportunity to find and express that one key idea with which I want to be connected, and the idea of getting that room laughing would be the last item on a bucket list (the next to last item on the bucket list is to stop using words like bucket list).
 

I even have the idea ready.  I would be talking about…no, I’m waiting for a call.
 

As always, I welcome your thoughts. 
 

It happened again last week.  I was talking to a couple of teachers from one of my schools. I said, “I read on Twitter this morning…,” and I saw it: the raised eyebrows, the exchanged glances, the swallowed smiles.  I realized that I could announce the second coming, and nothing would be taken seriously because it came from Twitter.

 
I’ve said before that I like Twitter as a tool and I think it is important.  I have built more useful network connections and found the better resources on Twitter than I have at any conference or professional development day.  I believe that every teacher should have a Twitter account and at least follow some of the better accounts.  However, I often run into a subtle prejudice against being part of the Twitter network, and I think the main reason for this is…the name.
 

Twitter, it just sounds silly, and even sillier is the term tweet for each post on the service.  People in media who criticize the service always use these as part of their criticism.  “I don’t tweet” they comment, implying through emphasis on a word that anyone who does this must have the IQ of a marsupial.  I myself hate using the word tweet, more often I say “I posted on Twitter.” The problem is exacerbated by the variations, retweeting, mistweet, tweeps…ugh!  I wonder what would happen (and I’m sure this has happened) if a doctoral student cited Twitter in his or her thesis.  I’m certain that the candidate would be mockingly dismissed, even though Twitter can be as good a source of information and reference as any of the traditional  ones.
 

It is the same with teachers.  It is hard for people used to talking about taxonomy, pedagogy, and metacognition (whether they understand them or not) to say tweet in the same sentence.  The same goes for wiki, moodle, Glogster, and to a lesser extent, Prezi. The free-form naming of the web is a great marketing tool for the general public, but a definite hurdle for the professional world of education.
 

We need to jump beyond this prejudice, for Twitter is a vital tool.  It is also one of the few social media platforms that is not particularly populated with students (the average age of Twitter users is 39), so despite the name it is a place for adult conversation away from the noise.  By building a “following” list carefully, one can develop a stream of great information and support.
 

I wonder what the reaction would be if Twitter were called Dynamic Blackboard, if posts were called, well, posts, and if those who participated were called scholars. I’ll bet there would be significantly more openness to trying it and considerably less embarrassment in saying one did.
 

Tweet Tweet

Cutting it close again today, but I have a short thought.
 
As I follow the fights of schools to legislate digital resources out of the hands of young people, and as I follow our Congress trying to allow the music and motion picture industries censor access to websites under the pretext of piracy, I sometimes wonder how many of these rules, laws and controls will be summarily repealed by the next generation.

 
I think it’s healthy to remember that these battles over digital issues are going to be reconsidered by the generation that has always been surrounded by technology and lived with social media.  I think that very different decisions will be made regarding access people who have always carried smartphones.  I also think that there will be very different attitudes regarding privacy, by people who have always lived on Facebook. 
 
Just wondering…

In a digital world of simultaneous permanence and transience, I started wondering today about my old email addresses.  In the past 15 years I have had many addresses as I have worked my way through various services.  In most cases I have just moved on to the next, checking the old for a while, but eventually forgetting it.  So I thought today I would drive by these old addresses and see if there is anything still there. Please don’t send anything to these, because I don’t know if I will every get back again.
 
Gdhuyvette@aol.com:  like most people, my first email was AOL.  This address is so dated that I had to shorten my name to 10 characters.  I used AOL through my entire “narrow band” modem phase.  Everyone from that time period remembers the distinctive call of the modem, followed by the chippy “You’ve got mail!” (I always wanted to remind him that it should be “You have mail!”).  Today when I see an AOL address I wonder about the person sending, worrying that I’m dealing with stunted growth.
 
I went on to AOL today and typed in the old address.  After experimenting with a number of passwords, I finally came to a screen where I was invited to reactivate my old account for free.  I did this, but the mailbox was empty.  However, I guess I have an AOL account again. 
 
Gdhuyvetter@sbcglobal.net:  when I moved over to broadband I was able to use my full name in the address.  Unfortunately, I didn’t realize it at the time, but the first address I created was tied to the main holder of the account, which was my wife.  after receiving email addressed to Toni for a few days, I knew that I had to move on.  I kept this account, though, and used it when I had to give an email address to a vendor so my spam could go there.
 
I opened this mailbox to find it very full, with 580 emails going back to 1/6/09. Lots of updates from DirecTV and offers from PetSmart.  Hmm, one email regarding my daughter’s tuition bill from last July, I guess the registrar did send it after all.  Luckily I was able to get a replacement in time.  No personal emails except some forwards of articles and pictures from my wife.

 
GJDhuyvetter@sbcglobal.net:  This was my alternative to the first account and the one I used for “real” email throughout my time with SBC.  Ultimately I moved to Gmail because it was easier to type, and more friendly with the cloud.  I just looked up GDhuyvetter@gmail.com, and I never seemed to have an account with this name.
 
Well this one looks less abandoned.  Only a couple of unread emails.  As I look at settings I remember that I had emails from this forwarded to my gmail account.
 
A little disappointing.  I thought that this trip down email lane might yield greetings from a long-lost friends or a promise of money (maybe a desperate call for help that I missed), but clearly I didn’t leave much behind. However, you might find something more exciting and tell us about it here.