Joe McConda on Technology, Education, and Culture

Chapter 14 in the Solomon book was very hard for me to follow. In thinking about the critical factors of assessing educational equity, I found the first full paragraph on page 203 to be the most significant passage in the chapter. The author says that meaningfulness is as important an issue as physical access. I take this to mean that if the program isn’t something that the student can relate to or make sense of, then it might as well be inaccessible. I fully agree with this.

This makes me think of the state-wide technology program that our correctional facility school  in Ohio will be implementing in the near future.  All of our students will receive their instruction through computer software that follows the state content standards. Their assignments and tests will be monitored  in Columbus so that the bureaucrats can determine whether the student is getting the content he is supposed to be getting. As our text says, the only evaluation made here will be who is or is not learning. No consideration will be given as to whether or not the instructional method is meeting the needs of the individual student.

I read the Silicon Ceiling and while I see the concern about the gender gap in digital production access, I don’t really agree that it has the grave consequences that are stated. Yes, I agree that women should have equal access to careers and that it is imperative for them to have equity in compensation for work done. Single parent families headed by women are prevalent in our society and when women are prepared with education such as that in computer and information systems, it is very likely that they will be able to support themselves and their children adequately no matter where they are. A direct quote from the article states:

“[I]t’s definitely worth it. The freedom that you have, knowing that no matter what happens I can support my family, I can take care of myself, I can make my own way in the world is absolutely worth it.“(Silicon Ceilings: Information Technology Equity, the Digital Divide and the Gender Gap among Information Technology Professionals, Andrea M. Matwyshyn)

These are good goals and everyone wants all families to be successful. I think, rather than having government incentives for specific fields, there should be more energy put into helping students understand various careers and perhaps spend time experiencing what is done in a particular job. Exposure to various fields and having positive role models in those fields would be the best incentives.

I can understand the concern that when IT is a male dominated field, the production of technology has inherent biases that potentially have a negative impact on society, however, I just don’t think the solution to the gender gap is to coerce people into fields they may not enjoy, nor do I think they should be encouraged in that direction only because the money is good.

In my opinion, the lack of equity (the haves and have nots) in access is much more of an issue than the gender gap in production.

I watched the video of Danah Boyd discussing her experiences with high school students across the country.  It was a very interesting discussion.  It highlights the extreme speed at which technology is changing and thus changing our culture.  I have to admit that, not too long ago (less than a year), I pretty much chastised my son for being so in tune with his my space and face book.  He is in his second year of medical school and I remember making the comment to him that things on sites like that could come back to haunt him.  Of course, he was pretty incredulous at my stereotypical view of the sites.  It’s interesting how my own views have changed.  I still believe that much of the interchange on these sites by high school students is filled with unprofitable, potentially hurtful words, content, etc., but Danah Boyd made a good point in that they are really no different than the way teenagers have always been.  They’re just hangin’ out in a different place.

Among the many significant points she made, the point about how the Internet is just a common part of life now was something that really made sense.  She said that older people talk about “getting online”  while being online is more of a fluid thing for young people.  They move freely within the online environment,  coming and going without a thought.  We have to be careful in thinking that this is true, however, of all young people.  It seems that way, but there are young people who don’t have continual access.  These students will be “left behind” unless their access becomes more equitable.

After reading chapter 9 in our text, I began reading about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on its web site. I think that most teachers would agree with me that it looks good on paper, and the idea is great but not new. It seems that we waste a lot of time doing trivial things in order to meet this law’s requirements. One thing that comes to mind is the highly qualified teacher thing. We had state administrators coming down to our school every two or three months. They would have us gather all of our transcripts and records to show that we were HQT’s. These kind of things do nothing to help the students. They only make the bureaucrats look good.

In regard to equity, the most significant thing that I read was in the Solomon book, Toward Digital Equity, pg. 126, about a report that said that single-sex instruction was no better than coeducational. It said instead “that good education was the most reliable characteristic needed, and that this would include small classes and equitable teaching methods, as well as curriculum that was focused on academic achievement.”

I know this is an impossible dream, but I think that small classes would solve a lot of problems when it comes to equity. Of course it would require “good education”. I’ve heard teachers make comments such as “A bad teacher in a class of 35 is the same bad teacher in a class of 10″. While this may be true in some cases, it may be more true to say a good teacher in a class of 35 would be a better teacher in a class of 10. A smaller class size would help meet the needs of diverse learners and would facilitate individualized instruction as well as the use of technology.  Changing our current system that doesn’t allow small classes because it is not economically feasible may seem like an impossible dream, but it is something to shoot for.

I found this post by Pesce very interesting. Not surprisingly, it raises many more questions than answers. As to how these mob rules affect equity, that seems to be fairly clear to me. The story about the fishermen is a good thing. That would seem to be a win-win situation for everybody. I wondered, though, as I read this story as to why this problem wasn’t solved centuries earlier with simple available means. Pesce mentions this later that if the phones were no longer available, the network would not be lost and the fishermen would communicate through smoke signals if necessary. Why did it take cell phones to bring this about? And why couldn’t they have sailed from village to village until they found one that needed fish? I guess that is not the point. It is a good thing that under served people can gain access to the digital information we have and use it to the betterment of their lives. If we no longer had to go through the hierarchy of telcos (I assume this refers to telecommunication companies such as AT&T) or web sites, then more digital equity would be achieved.

As for learning, I can see how the average person can learn what they want or need to know through these mob rules. They could ask people out there for the information instead of relying on text books, references, or qualified instructors. They could probably gain free access to the expensive sources required. Also, those people out there in the network could come up with better ways of learning the subject than the hierarchy of school systems have.

As for the effect that mob rules would have on education, I think this would be similar to what Pesce was saying about medicine. I don’t think our society will ever be ready to let state mandated education be done by “do-it-yourselfers” on the Internet. I believe that most people will always expect “official” school systems and qualified administrators and teachers. These school systems as well as the text book companies will have to do a lot of adapting, but like the doctors and hospitals, they will always be expected to be there.

I wonder how all of this electronic information highway will be funded if the mob rules take out all the hierarchies that keep it going now. If somebody isn’t paying a fee for the service, then where would the money come from?

The Cluetrain Manifesto is a compilation of 95 theses that was published in 1999. The theses reflect the change in the marketplace. Because more and more people are connected via the Internet, the marketplace has become virtually smaller. Just think about the foreign markets that now affect Wall Street and vice-versa. It’s true, the internet has decreased the distances between people no matter where they are.

When reading about this manifesto, which by the way, is something I had never heard of before. … Imagine that…….These classes have caused me to learn about things I never knew were out there. At any rate, the following statement really hit home as far as education. The whole idea of relevance. I think that’s where we miss the mark with students so often. Making what we’re teaching relevant to them is tough. As this manifesto put forth to the marketplace the idea that unless it understands that there is a new marketplace, it will become irrelevant.

Theses 14 – 25: Organisations entering the marketplace

With the emergence of the virtual marketplace, the authors indicate that the onus will be on organisations to enter the marketplace conversation (thesis 25) and do so in a way that connects with the ‘voice’ of the new marketplace (thesis 14-16) or risk becoming irrelevant (thesis 16).

Educators must realize that our consumers (students) have changed and unless we (not just a few of us, but education as a whole) find a way to connect to the “voice” of those we seek to educate, we do risk becoming irrelevant.

The analogy between this and Martin Luther’s Manifesto is  interesting.  Will education reform make such a mark on history? Will the result  be a counter reformation and violence?

The hypothetical fifteen year-old as described by Marc Pesce is a technology savvy teenager. He’s a multi-tasker who has many modes of media going at one time. The television is basically just back ground noise to this guy whose major focus is the computer with the various applications providing a means to do homework, play games, communicate with a social network, and watch video concerts, movies, etc. on You Tube. He gets great joy from sending these You Tube segments to his friends and receiving such things from them as well. It’s important to this teenager to send along things to his friends and he must not send any “uncool” thing. His reputation depends on not sending something that is “lame”.

You Tube is targeted to what is called “Micro-audiences”. There are millions of videos that various groups are interested in. These micro-audiences have their own interests and preferences and it can all be found on Web 2.0s newest phenomenon. As a learner, this fifteen year old would be more influenced by blog posts from individuals, or amateurs rather than a central source such as a textbook. He would prefer to give his own opinion or perspective on a certain topic in a blog post than to answer the questions in a text book.

There is another fifteen year old who has no computer and therefore, no ability to find information, be entertained, or interact with friends. Of course, he could go to the library, however they don’t allow one individual to monopolize. He watches the shows on TV that are available to him. He would also listen to the CD’s that he could buy or share with his friends. As a learner, he is probably more comfortable having a central source such as a teacher or text book telling him what to do or what to learn.

Both of these kids need to be met where they are in terms of learning. Using computers and the networks like My space in the classroom would enhance the learning of both of them. The latter would have to accept the use of computers and then become as familiar with using them as his counterpart. Hopefully, it would broaden his horizons and encourage him to think more like a learner. I’m not saying that the high-tech kid is the perfect learner. He could easily become bored with whatever the class is working on at the time, and if it is deemed as lame to his social network of peers, then he won’t give it much effort.

As I was reading about literacy in the Solomon book and thinking about what constitutes literacy, I was reminded of something I learned about Daniel Boone that has stuck with me since I was a kid. This would be the famous inscription carved on a tree, “D. Boon killd a bar o this tree 1775.” Some might think that ol’ Dan’l wasn’t too bright, or not very educated, or maybe a little illiterate. History shows us, however, that Boone was as intelligent and educated or more so than most other people of his time and location. This inscription seems to me to be much like an email, IM, or text message written by any college student or Phd. in today’s world. The grammar and spelling are not as important as is getting the message out in a short amount of time. Of course, Boone had a better excuse considering that Mama bear might be on the way. My point is that literacy is more than just reading and writing words. It is understanding what is being communicated by way of various media.

In Solomon, chapter 5, the authors refer to Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences theory, which by the way, has increased from 7 intelligences to 8, with the inclusion of naturalistic intelligence.  I believe Gardner’s theory has credence and have seen it in my own children and myself, for that matter.  For instance, I  can read something about math or science and understand it much easier than I can read and understand the more subjective disciplines of the social sciences including education with all the various methods and research based studies.

The distinction by Freire  (Solomon, et. al, p.69) between becoming literate only to be able to read about someone else’s reality and solve someone else’s problems and the idea that literacy is both “reading and writing the world” and “reading and writing the word” is significant.  Further statement that those who cannot actually read and write the word are always reading and writing the world broadens the definition of literacy. This also ties in well with Multiple Intelligences  theory and the idea that definitions for learning have been too narrow.  Reading and writing the world is exactly where technology is taking us with “Thinned Walled Classrooms” and other uses for various tools that provide links to people and ideas around the world.

Once again, I am old enough to have lived through several initiatives in education.  There were at one time, moveable walls.  Then there was the open classroom with no walls.  I have to say, at least from my limited perspective, that these were examples of the many “experiments” in education that proved to be virtually useless.

Now, I’m asked to find out about “Thinned Walled Classrooms” .  I’ll admit I had not heard of this before, but give me a little credit…….I did know that I wasn’t going to be looking for information about a new building material that could be used to divide classrooms more efficiently.  Technology is breaking down barriers at break neck speed and I am wondering how long it will take for these methods to catch on.  The “Thinned Walled Classroom”  involves mentoring by both students and teachers via blogging.  The connection to other parts of the world using blogs is being done more and more.  Clarence Fisher and Barbara Ganley seem to always be on the cutting edge of new ways to make technology work for student learning.  I read what is being done and I feel inadequate to achieve the same type of proficiency as they have done.  However, I don’t think this is something that is going to go by the wayside as those “building” strategies of the past.  I think these types of things are going to become more common and we will all begin to see the benefit and do what it takes to get on board.

In reading Danah Boyd’s and Nicole Ellison’s definition of Social Network Sites, I was amazed at the creation and progression of the many sites that I had not even heard of before. It gave me a much better understanding of the different sites. This is an amazing technology that allows millions of people to exchange information and create social networks and apparently it is a very big business. I was really intrigued to read, “Then, in July 2005, News Corporation purchased MySpace for $580 million (BBC, 2005)”. I asked myself, why? and the obvious answer would have to be advertising, but it just seems like such a large amount of money and could that much revenue be generated on these sites to warrant the large selling price? I went searching to figure out why and found that spyware, pop ups, etc. must generate enough contacts for bringing in large sums of money from these sites.

In looking at the sites in general, I see a division into two basic categories. There are the more social sites in which people get together to just talk about their lifestyles and interests. There is usually no certain theme or focus. The other category would include sites that are for specific groups within a profession, educational community, or religious affiliation. The latter category is more disciplined and focused on a better understanding of a particular area of focus. The sites promote discussion for improvement and expansion of a given purpose. Boyd and Ellison do a good job of drawing these distinctions, yet also explain that all sites have similarities as well as differences.

I’ve noticed from my classes here ( EDUC 685 and 628) that, while we are focused on the particular purpose of furthering our understanding of educational technology and its implications for the field of education and our culture, we also interact on a social level at times. As human beings, we are prone to do this and it makes all interactions, whether f2f or distant, much more interesting and enjoyable.

An issue here is something that is not new…..it has been around as long as the Internet. These SNSs can be very useful when used in a positive way. There have been and will continue to be examples of when they have been used in ways that are harmful and at the very least, not helpful.

Danah Boyd stated that after her definition of SNSs, she was criticized for not including all the other examples of technology based communication sites, such as blogs, wikis, etc. In a way, I think the term social may give the connotation that the sites are unprofessional. Blogs, wikis, and other tools used more for education or business are seen as more professional in nature and thereby helps distinguish a purpose. Many of the SNSs, as was discussed in earlier blogs, are places where people can go to interact with a group of people already within their social network. They aren’t really reaching out with a purpose to influence or connect others outside that circle. Blogs can be used in a variety of ways, but a platform for particular issues or themes is what I see.

My son, for instance, participates in a blog site for his profession of software testing. The postings are always focused on the profession and different aspects of the problems of the profession presented in creative ways. The networking aspect has given him a voice within the profession and has led to several business relationships and invitations to speak at various conferences within the field. My point is technology is influencing the culture and the ways in which people interact both personally and professionally. The culture at large must figure out how to take the good with the bad and rely on an educated public rather than on censorship.

If I had a class in the public school setting, I would not have a problem with allowing students on Facebook or MySpace, however, I would use blog sites with moderated comments, etc. for things related to instruction. On these sites, I would have to be aware of the things that could go on between students ( negative comments, inappropriate language, etc) which are things that teachers have always had to be aware of in educational settings. But the big thing, I think, would be to make students aware of the dangers of people with bad intentions who may misrepresent themselves in places online. Parents and teachers cannot be everywhere and we should teach children how to protect themselves.