Another dot in the blogosphere?

Quotable quotes

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 13, 2009

Will Richardson reflected on his experiences at NECC. As he did so, he picked out a few choice quotes from those who responded to the event.

Consider some foundation rattling statements, like the point of integrating technology in education:

So, it is not a question of whether these technologies add value somehow to education, but the reverse, can education add value to the communications and information technologies of our present day world, and its future?

Or the purpose of schooling:

Educators often think that school is the point, when it needs to be the path.

But the best one of all I think is:

It is the job of education to alter itself to prove itself of value to the world which now exists.

Richardson linked them all up nicely in his blog. His entry and the comments that follow are a great read!

Free

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 12, 2009

Want to read (or listen to) a book titled “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” by Chris Anderson for free?

Then head on down to The Long Tail.

Windows 7 multitouch

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 11, 2009

Ooh, a demo of surface computing using the Touch Pack.


Video source

The screen had an LED array, much like the prototype that we have at the MxL. Sadly, we do not have the support or momentum to develop it further.

Is Google making us clever or stupid?

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 10, 2009

Last year, a writer at The Atlantic asked Is Google Making Us Stupid? Recently another writer from the same publication wondered if the opposite was true. They might seem to be taking different sides, but they are really providing depth to the same coin.

The first author said:

the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

I found it somewhat ironic that he wrote an article that a digital native would likely skip. A persistent or struggling digital immigrant (the type that still licks a finger to turn a page) was more likely to read it all the way through. Maybe he was targetting the old school reader as his audience.

But the main issue beckons. There is value in different forms of reading. I agree that more people seem to read only on the surface because of media like mobile phone SMS, ticker-tape TV and the WWW. The need to skim or “power browse” has become necessary to deal with the way information is presented and the sheer amount of information that is now available.

Any educator or digital immigrant would tell you that once the skimming is done and something relevant is found, the reader should then read deeply and reflectively. But that is becoming a lost art. And it is inevitable. After all, how many of us still know how to plant crops and milk a cow the good old fashioned way? Technology has reduced our need to do these things so we can focus on other arguably more worthwhile tasks.

I am a realistic optimist, so I tend to agree more with the second author that technology will help us get smarter in our bid to survive as a species. We might seem to be losing some of our cognitive abilities (e.g., attention span) with the explosion of information but this is only a phase in our development. I’d also like to think that “we’ll move from a world of ‘continuous partial attention’ to one we might call ‘continuous augmented awareness.’” In other words, technology will not only allow us to get the information we need when we need it, it will also help us make sense of it. The author gave great examples in the form of customised travel itineraries and focused Twittering.

I am a bit surprised that there was no mention of Web 3.0 (the semantic Web) which I think is a critical stage in developing continuous augmented awareness. Rather than define Web 3.0, I’ll give an example of what I think it might look like.

Imagine that you are a parent of two children, one is a bright child and the other has special needs. You have a Facebook profile and a blog. You Google for a variety of information regularly (meal ideas, strategies for dealing with special needs, educational and enrichment activities, etc.) and participate in a loose but passionate community of parents on the Net. With Web 2.0, you generate information effortlessly, share it with others and respond to what they have to say. But there is still a lot of information that you need to look for and process.

With Web 3.0, only what is meaningful to you comes to you. As you search for information online, the engine is already aware that you are a parent of two very different kids because of what you post in Facebook, your blog and the forums you participate in. The search results (and even the ads that come with it) are more meaningful to you.

You may not even have to search for relevant information. You carry this information and, say, your shopping list with you in a mobile device when you go out. As you walk past a bookstore, a virtual display changes to highlight a help book or game that might be useful to your children. While doing groceries, you receive notifications on food items on your list that are on sale.

This is continuous augmented awareness. This is Web 3.0 (or even beyond it). This may scare advocates of privacy, but the notion of privacy depends on culture and it changes with time. I am looking forward to such a world because we will collectively want to make it this way, not because some Big Brother is forcing us.


Video source (MP4 version available at source)

How we change the world in this “ground up” manner is another story. But I think that the video above gives us a clue on how this is already happening. The video is long, but I think that it will be 60 minutes well spent. There was nothing about education is it, but it got me thinking about the world our children will be living in. Their education should prepare them as best as possible for their world, not ours.

Are schools cheating kids?

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 9, 2009

After reading Larry Magid’s article on the NECC yesterday, I decided to see what else he had written. One article titled Kids cheating with tech but are schools cheating kids? caught my eye.

He started by revealing some statistics on how kids were using cell phones to cheat in school. He then went on to ask if schools were cheating students by not allowing them to use technologies that would help them now and in their future. He even wondered out loud if phones could be used in tests.

This, of course, resonated with me. But rather than say what I always say, I’ll quote a librarian that Magid cited:

“We can’t teach 21st century literacy and assess with 19th century methodology. We have to look at what we really need students to be able to do when they leave us” and we must ask, “What is my student learning outside of school and how can I get them just as engaged?”

To the point. Nail on the head. Bull’s eye.

I think that in future when I talk to teachers and principals or when I conduct workshops, I’ll ask them: Are you cheating your kids?

My new ICT approach

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 8, 2009

I read a CNET report by Larry Magid who attended the 30th annual National Educational Computing Conference. One of the things that stood out for him was how the more innovative teachers were attempting to integrate mobile phones and various Web 2.0 technologies into education. This was despite the barriers such as anti-phone policies or Web filtering to prevent access to sites like Facebook. (Oh, and there was an amusing anecdote about Twitter use in that article too.)

I am guessing that for many of the attendees the use of such tools was news to them. It is the same in teachers in Singapore except that we do not have the same barriers. Yes, there are rules against using mobile phones, but these are for calls, and most do not (yet) have any restrictions to Web 2.0 sites.

Two things crossed my mind as I thought about what was happening in the USA and here. The first was that I hope that teachers here do not wait for a tool to be banned before thinking of ways to integrate them meaningfully for teaching and learning! The second was me wondering why teachers do not use their own personal experiences with phones, games, Facebook, etc., to think up of innovative and effective ways to teach.

I think that will be the approach that I will use in the coming semester: Think of what you and your students are already using and integrate that meaningfully into teaching.

It’s not about the tool, it’s about the learning

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 6, 2009

My last rant started with the broadband divide and ended with tired pedagogies (as exemplified by IWBs). I follow up today with a conversation hosted by Tom Barrett.

Barrett shared his views after getting his students to use surface computers (Smart Tables) and invited other educators to share their thoughts. Sharon Elin responded and here are some choice quotes:

You have described flaws that echo the fears I was harboring about not only the Smart Table but about IWB’s in particular….

In my opinion, the danger in the use of IWBs in general is the difficulty in bringing project-based, exploratory constructivism into classroom lessons when using the hardware as an instructional delivery tool, activity, or as a game-playing device.

Unless a teacher is creative and deliberately avoids the tendency, an IWB or Smart Table remains one-dimensional and keeps the focus on the front of the room, with the teacher as the main source of instruction and the device as the hook (”sage on the stage”). This focus is not always a bad thing and is actually useful in some parts of some lessons, but many IWB proponents want to make these devices the one and only focal point of the classroom — the demigod of instruction.

The interactivity of IWBs and Smart Tables is definitely engaging and entertaining, and works well to excite students, but I don’t see critical thinking, global exploration, and collaborative activities becoming part of the devices’ repertoire yet.

I’m betting creative educators will find ways to increase the collaborative use of IWBs and Smart Tables eventually, but I think we need to slow down our excitement and guard against the seduction of the “wow” factor. We need to remind ourselves that it’s not about the tool… it’s about the learning.

I could not have said it better!

So don’t just take in this teacher educator’s ivory tower point of view. Consider what that veteran on the battle field had to say!

Broadband divide

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 3, 2009

Yesterday a writer at Ars Technica asked How wide is the world’s digital divide, anyway? More specifically, the writer was wondering about the penetration rates of broadband in various countries. In a survey of 127 countries:

only 10 countries are above 80 percent—mostly small places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Denmark, and South Korea. Together, the ten countries in this bracket account for only two percent of the world population.

Access to broadband in other countries is much, much lower. Eight eight other countries were not included in the study because they had no home broadband penetration.

Does that make me proud to be Singaporean? No, it actually depresses me as a world citizen. It depresses me further when I think about how little we do in Singapore education with the much that we have.

The day before the Ars Technica article was published, the World Bank highlighted how broadband access and mobile technologies were key to economic growth. Their report claimed that:

for every 10 percentage-point increase in high-speed Internet connections there is an increase in economic growth of 1.3 percentage points.

Assuming that the World Bank methods for arriving at this conclusion were sound, this should make any politician or government official jump into action. At least, one would think so. After all, if you have to grab someone, you should do so where they will take notice: In the balls. Eye balls that is. Oh, and the wallet area too.

(On a side note, the second article also mentioned in passing that greater broadband access would “promote social inclusion”. I guess we might have to wait for someone to write about what Web 2.0 denizens already understand.)

What matters to me obviously is technology in education. I champion mobile and Web 2.0 technologies because I think that they are key tools for promoting more relevant forms of teaching and learning. They can shift the power of learning to students because they get information for themselves, learn from anyone from any part of the world, and ultimately learn to think for themselves. Learning takes place any place, any time and in any way.

So when opportunities arise, I urge the school personnel that I meet to set up wireless access and to buy netbooks for students instead of refreshing the computers in labs. When I meet industry representatives who tout netbooks or mobile Internet access, I try to convince them to collaborate with schools.

But I swim against the current. I see companies and schools (and, unfortunately, some of my colleagues) pushing things like Interactive White Boards (IWBs) and outdated Learning Management Systems (LMS). IWBs keep technology largely in the hands of teachers and promote teacher-centric pedagogy. LMS are more often about control than about creativity, communication, collaboration and critical thinking. Both IWBs and LMS are money spinners for the companies that sell them, but they are outdated technologies as far as progressive education is concerned.

Not only should teachers be putting relevant and relatively-cheap-yet-powerful technologies in the hands of students, they should be practising more student-centred pedagogies. They should be modelling and imparting 21st century skills and values instead of beating the 19th century education horse to death.

But if they must use IWBs, then how might they use them regularly and meaningfully so that students learn real world collaboration skills? If LMS are heavily invested in schools, then how might they be integrated into everyday curriculum so that students learn to create and critique instead of learning merely to copy, and conform?

Don’t get me wrong. There is a place and time for didactic forms of teaching. But that place should not be everywhere and all the time and it certainly should not be the pedestal where it still rests. Just because you are talking does not mean that students are listening and learning!

Teachers should stop shifting the blame on why they don’t rely more on student-centred, technology-mediated pedagogies to a lack of time or a tight curriculum or the exam system. If they keep their students’ needs and futures in mind, all these obstacles become insignificant. Schools in Singapore have the money, the motivation and the means to make this happen. Are we going to let inertia and old mindsets hold us back?

Whatever

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 2, 2009

You may know Mike Wesch from his YouTube videos about Web 2.0 (The Machine is Us/ing Us) or digital natives (A Vision of Students Today).

His latest artefact, The Machine is Changing Us, is on SlideShare (embedded below). If I could re-title it, I’d call it Whatever. You’ll have to watch the whole thing to see why.

If it’s not online, it’s invisible

Posted by: ashleytan on: July 1, 2009

From the Chronicle of Higher Education comes this interesting piece on books and reading:

At a focus group in Oxford University Press’s offices in New York last month, we heard that in a recent essay assignment for a Columbia University classics class, 70 percent of the undergraduates had cited a book published in 1900, even though it had not been on any reading list and had long been overlooked in the world of classics scholarship. Why so many of the students had suddenly discovered a 109-year-old work and dragged it out of obscurity in preference to the excellent modern works on their reading lists is simple: The full text of the 1900 work is online, available on Google Book Search; the modern works are not.

That was the opening paragraph and it made me want to read more. Among other things, I liked their quotation of Scottish-American classicist Gilbert Arthur Highet who said that books “are not lumps of lifeless paper, but minds alive on the shelves.”

But I already knew the conclusion. We need to digitise books and put them online. Why? To preserve them for one thing, but more importantly to make them visible to learners who would otherwise not read them.

So I share the call at the end of the article:

Let us work together to give students, scholars, and readers access to the written wisdom of previous generations. Let us keep those minds alive.

Ashley Tan's Facebook profile

My tweets

 

July 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jun    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031