Experimenting with technology

Finally, the script for my podcast is finished. Although, I’m sure there will be more edits to come.

The technology I’d planned to use when I first started doing my research and observation was Movie Maker. Once I got started though, I got a little nervous and backed off of that. I thought I’d spend too much time on the technical aspects and neglect the content.

So I moved to doing a PowerPoint presentation. After doing a test using PowerPoint, I was disappointed, so I’ve moved back to using Movie Maker. My uncertainty with using Movie Maker comes from not having used this program before.

Experimenting with new computer programs has been one of the really good things about this class. I’m being forced out of my comfort zone.

For example when linking to web pages in my blogs, I’ve stopped used bit.ly and TinyURL.com to make the links shorter. Both web sites will automatically rename your link to something shorter. Now I make my own links which allows me to give them the name I want to use. The result is cleaner looking and flowing copy. I of course already knew that this is how readers prefer to see links in the things that they are reading.

So now, whenever I’m working on something I take the time to experiment with a new technology or a new piece of software.

This morning while working on my presentation, I captured a Jing Pro.
Jing allows you to capture what’s on your computer screen at a given time, including video and audio. You can capture the entire screen or just part of it.
During my observation at Westwood Cyber High School, one of the teachers, also known as mentors, showed me how she uses Jing to make assignments and share her expectations.

My example here isn’t that sophisticated, but I was successful in capturing the following image from my screen:




This was simple to do. I am finding that the more I experiment, the more I increase my comfort level with the technology.

Of course, I’m saying this before my podcast is completed and posted.

Back to work on it.

My lesson plan challenge

The biggest challenge I’ve had in completing my lesson plan assignment is that I don’t have a classroom. So my assignment has been to observe the Westwood Cyber High School in Michigan and present a digital report.

I feel like I’m actually doing two reports. First, I’m writing a story then I’ll break it down and use pictures and audio to tell the same story.

My initial plan had been to do a video. However, I abandoned that idea following some initial work on the assignment. I think it would have been an ambitious route to take. In the end I think I would have become too focused on the technical aspects of my presentation and potentially less focused on the content. So far, I think that was the right approach to take.

As I’ve been working on my story, reviewing notes and examining just how Westwood incorporates technology into teaching its students, I’m have a much better understanding the strategies in “Using Technology in the Classroom that Works.’’

One last-minute hic-cup for my presentation came when Bruce posted a newspaper article about Westwood. I don’t want to read the story until I’ve finished my own presentation. This has also presented a challenge as I’ve tried to respond to new blog posts.

Oh well.

Thrilled to become literacy tutor

For several years, I’ve wanted to work with adults who are learning to read and write. But for years I could never find the time to do it.

Now I have. And I’m very excited to have recently completed training to become a volunteer literacy tutor. My certification coincides with my “Technology in the Classroom’’ course.

During my tutor class, we weren’t trained specifically on how to incorporate technology into our lessons. But it is expected. There is a computer lab available to us. Many of the students seeking to learn basic reading, writing and math skills after graduating or dropping out of high school are seeking to improve their skills for landing jobs, better jobs or pursuing higher education. Future opportunities for them will also require improved computer knowledge. So it is imperative that those of us who are taking on the responsibility of helping students develop these skills do it with the best technology available to us.

In a 2009 report released by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 14 percent of American adults are considered illiterate. The report defines literacy as “using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.” Varying reports cite much larger rates in some U.S. cities.


I’m excited about this opportunity to help tackle a serious problem in our society. I am also excited that it comes at a time when I can put into practice some of the strategies I’ve learned from the textbook, “Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works’’.

These are students who fell through the cracks once. So I’m hopeful that along with teaching them reading, writing and arithmetic, I also hope to help close the now-widening gap in computer literacy.

In some of the research I’ve done for my podcast, I’m finding that educators are being challenged to think outside the box, to be innovative in connecting with students. The illiteracy rate in the country is proof of what happens when we don’t connect with these students.

Bus provides opportunity for homework

An Arizona school district just found a way to get students so engaged on the way to and from school that more homework is getting done and rowdiness on the bus is down.

According to a story story in today’s New York Times, administrators at Empire High School in Vail, Ariz. are experimenting with the use of Wi-Fi on one of its school busses. The students are now using their time on the bus to catch up on e-mail and homework.

The idea for the Internet bus first surfaced when school officials thought they could get more work done themselves if they had WI-FI in their cars, shared rides to long-distance meetings allowing one person to work while the other drove. It became a reality on the bus when one administrator saw an advertisement offering Wi-Fi for the car.

This school district is not shy about using technology. It is already heavily wired (including the football field) and students are issued laptops instead of textbooks. So the experiment began and students, teachers and administrators like the results.

When the athletic department used the bus for a game trip, players and coaches spent their down time catching up on homework and email.

According to the article, school districts in Florida, Missouri, and Washington, D.C. have similar buses. Says Karen Cantor, in the article, the buses are an effort to extend the six-hour school day. Cantor is director of education technology for the federal Department of Education.

At $200 for the router and $60 a month for the Internet service, the wired bus seems a small cost to pay for getting more homework done and cutting down on disciplinary problems.

This is good example of what can happen when educators challenge themselves to think outside the box and seek creative and innovative ways to reach students.

"Joe's Non-Netbook''

I’m a big fan of the CBS news show Sunday Morning. I love stories and they tell very good stories.

This morning I was fascinated by a story in which the reporter talked about some of the most popular Super Bowl commercials from the past with a group of college students.

First was Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef’’ ad which premiered during the 1984 Super Bowl. The popular line from the ad made its way into the language of pop culture and even surfaced during a debate between Vice President Walter Mondale and Sen. Gary Hart during the Democratic presidential primaries that year.

One of the college students said that her mother talks about the commercial all the time but that she had never seen it. The ad shows features three elderly ladies inspecting the hamburgers of the competition. One lady asks, “Where’s the Beef?’ The young lady in the CBS story was not all that impressed with the commercial. One student did allow that anything with a little old lady asking “Where’s the Beef’’ is funny.

The reporter then shows the students a clip of the commercial featuring football star Mean Joe Green. As Green is walking through the tunnel to toward the locker room, a little boy gives him an ice cold Coke. Green accepts the coke, drinks and then tosses the little boy his jersey in thanks. When the original commercial aired, I and countless other people felt tugging at our heart strings. What was the reaction from one young lady this morning? She laughed. She thought the commercial was funny. And all of the students thought that an ad produced several years ago mocking the original ad was funny. “That’s our humor, my humor’’ said one of the students.

So by the time I got around to watching “Joe’s Non-Netbook’’, I thought someone had been beating me across the head with a stick.

I’d even made an excuse for why the kids didn’t get the sentimental value of the Coke commercial. “They just don’t understand who Mean Joe Green is,’’ I said. “They don’t have the right context.’’

Of course that isn’t it. And it was a lesson that I got quickly. Those of us who are responsible or want to be responsible for educating our youth need to listen to them. We need to hear what they are saying to us.

“Joe’s Non-Netbook’’ is a funny video. I laughed out loud at it. The video underscores the importance, the necessity of adapting our teaching methods so that we engage students at their comfort level and with the tools that are so a part of their lives.

While we all know that there has been progress in incorporating technology into our educational system, I think the video and the story about the commercials are clear indicators to us that students want active engagement. It’s our responsibility to provide it.

Google is waving

The eSchool News article asks: “Has Google developed the next wave of online education?’’

I think it has. Or at the very least with Google Wave it has developed the next wave of how we will communicate online.

The article left me wanting to know more before I could form an opinion. So I went in search of additional information. How exactly is Google Wave, which is described as a tool that allows open communication and collaboration on the same document in real time works?

I discovered blogs and wikis and a YouTube video in which the Google Wave developers demonstrate how the product can be used. I was fascinated.

Google Wave has wrapped regular email, live chat, social networking, file editing including on text, photos and videos and more into one application. If you come to the wave late, you just click playback and you see everything that everyone has done to the file.

I am even more fascinated that plans include making Google Wave available free to users.

That it is free will make this product attractive to school officials who are constantly facing tight budgets.

I think that while Google Wave is still just another tool to help enhance the learning experience, it has the potential to:

--Make people more accountable. You know who is making changes to a document.
--Encourage participation. Some students are just better at communicating through writing than by voicing their opinions in front of others.
--Promote collaboration. This will allow students to feed off of each other.
--Make it easier for students to interact with others from different backgrounds and cultures whether they are down the street across the country or on the other side of the world.

I think the conceptual spell check is another element that will be attractive to users. It doesn’t just check to see if your word is spelled correctly, it checks to make sure you’ve used the word in the correct context. I can see this as a very valuable tool for learners of all ages and at all skill levels.

I think that school administrators will find there are some drawbacks to using Google Wave. Does free really mean free? What does Google get for allowing free use? Is it personal information? If so, how much and how will it be used?

Even with those questions, I’d love to get my hands on Google Wave.

"Made to Stick''

Some of the language in these documents is sexually explicit warns the Washington Post’s introduction to an excerpt of “The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair.’’

I was reminded of this report when I read the introduction of the book “Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die’’ by brothers Chip and Dan Heath. The brothers, one an educator and the other a researcher argue that any idea can be made to stick or can at least be made sticker.

So why did the Starr Report come to mind? Like the popcorn example in “Made to Stick’’, Ken Starr had to grab and hold the attention of readers. He knew he had the law on his side. He also knew that the popular president had strong public support on his side. The prosecutor countered the president’s popularity by incorporating the classic principles of “Made to Stick’’ several years before the Heath brothers published their book in 2007.

The report(http://tinyurl.com/The-Starr-Report), which was excerpted in daily newspapers around the country, became an instant best-selling book. It provided an unexpected level of detail about the relationship between the president and Monica Lewinsky, a White House inter. The evidence was concrete including evidence of semen on the blue dress Lewinsky wore during a sexual encounter with the president. The report was credible because witnesses had testified under oath. Emotions ranged from pity, sorry and anger at the president to disgust that the president would actually be having sex in the Oval Office. Finally, the prosecutor told a good story. Unlike standard government reports, the Starr Report was a well-crafted narrative with that was so well crafted that it skyrocketed to the top of best-seller lists.

Applying the principles of “Made to Stick’’ to an incident that happened nearly 10 years before the book was published tells me that the book makes sense. There is some validity to it. The book has also reinforced some lessons I am learning in this course and in classes I’m taking to become a volunteer literacy tutor.

I will apply some of the lessons from “Made to Stick’’ to see if I can make them work. However, I am concerned that complex ideas and issues must be continually boiled down to very simple sound bites. What role does this approach play in contributing to a society that already resists exploring issues beyond the surface?

Draft of Michigan's 2010 Educational Plan

I am a product of the public school system. I am a supporter of public schools. It is very rare that I will vote against a tax increase that’s aimed at improving our public school system.

So I felt a little twinge of pride when I recently read through the draft of the 2010
State of Michigan Educational Technology Plan. The plan is designed to improve the use of technology in the state’s classrooms while at the same time improving the skills of teachers and students. If this is the kind of work that my tax dollars are going to support, then I’ll probably vote for that next tax increase too.

The plan outlines a five-goal approach to achieving its overall goal. Those five goals are focused on:

• Teaching for learning
• Leadership
• Professional learning
• School and community relations
• Data and information management

The architects of the plan, the state’s Educational Technology Advisory Group, has found way or is seeking ways to get a wide range of people involved with the program and ultimately responsible for the success of the plan. Such involvement which will include students, teachers, administrators, state educational leaders, community leaders and the private sector is necessary if we are to begin significantly increase the number of high school and college graduates who can compete on the global stage for jobs in science, engineering, math and technology.

This is a plan that if adopted and successfully implemented can be a foundation for innovation and for helping to stimulate diversity of thought about the Michigan economy.

This is a plan that can help build the confidence of teachers and students and the pride of a community. And it’s one that can make a taxpayer feel good about how her tax dollars are being spent.

Debating the use of Wikipedia

A former co-worker said on his Facebook page this week that he was surprised at how quickly the Teddy Pendergrass page on Wikipedia had been updated following the R&B singer’s death on Wednesday night.

I paused to think about that comment knowing that an internal tug-of-war about Wikipedia had been bouncing around in my head for a few days.

I come at the whole Wikipedia debate from a different perspective than most in this group. I’m a veteran journalist who plays by the journalism rules. One of those rules in most newsrooms is that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I know the dangers that using a source like Wikipedia can cause. Some might be considered small – getting someone’s age wrong or misspelling a name. But others can be more serious like reporting that someone is dead who isn’t or that someone has been arrested for committing a crime when the person hasn’t.

We also know that racially insensitive and irrelevant information has been found on some Wikipedia pages. This also raises questions in my mind about site’s credibility.

I don’t think Wikipedia should be used by journalists to report stories and I certainly don’t think that students in grades K-12 should use the online encyclopedia to source their work.

As Stephen Colbert shows in “The Word-Wikiality”, his comedic take on Wikipedia, there are so many dangers in relying on it as an authoritative source.
Colbert pokes fun at something we all know – just how easy it is to change something in Wikipedia. He laughs at how easy it is for users to create their own reality. “Any user can change any entry and if enough other users agree with them, it becomes true,’’ he says.

When it comes to shaping the minds of young people, this is not a laughing matter. The technology that is available to us today has changed our lives and will continue to in many ways. But it’s important that those of us who are charged with preparing students for the task of running our society don’t shortchange them. Students should know that research assignments are meant to be rigorous for a reason. The assignments are meant to challenge them in many ways, including developing and verifying several sources for the materials that they use in their work. If we allow assignments that are pulled together with a minimum amount of work and with the only source being a run through Wikipedia, we’re not doing our jobs.

But beyond Colbert reminding us of the ease with which Wikipedia can be changed, he also reminds us how easily people can be intimidated into not challenging others even if they know the others are wrong.

“If you go against what the majority of people perceive to be reality, you’re the one who’s crazy,’’ jokes Colbert.

So I advocate that we don’t allow students to use Wikipedia to source their research papers. And with our ever improving technology that allows us to carry hundreds of books on a Kindle, Sony Reader or similar device, we should encourage students to seek more sources, to do more research and to challenge more of their own thinking and that of their fellow students.