Just read an interesting blog by Martin Pluss. He refers to a discussion by Stephen Colins regarding the role of the parent in responsible use of the internet.
Arguing for no censorship and using his own children as an example, he explains that learning about the internet in a safe environment with suitable guidance as a parent is a far more valuable learning experience than just trying to block all that might be damaging.
Computers in open spaces, open and honest discussion, and trust.
A good basis to work from when my kids get to that age.
I had an interesting piece of mail come across my desk this week. It was from the NSW government promoting the ‘2009 Youth Week Website Competition’. Basically it is asking for submissions from young people (under 25) to design the look of the website for 2009 Youth Week. A great idea.
And for the most part, it looks like a worthwhile project that some more creative students might like to take on. However, one thing did concern me a little. Under the ‘Style and Layout’ section, there is a heading on Download speed, which essentially says that the total web page should download over a ’slow’ connection in less than 10 seconds, and that the page size should not be greater than 120kb. “There should be no large images or Flash files.”
Does this ring alarm bells for anyone else? Instead of encouraging our young people to design a web site that is engaging and uses the interactive content that is so typical of the web today (I hesitate to use the ‘web 2.0′ term), the participants are hamstrung by conditions that might have been suitable 10 or more years ago, but surely not today!
Needless to say, now I’ve finished this post, the competition details will be filed in the circular file…
Just read a really interesting article: http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=590685
In it, Sir Jackie Stewart discusses the need for current F1 drivers to have coaches. All other sports have coaches, so why do formula 1 drivers think they don’t need them? Current ‘big thing’ to yet win a world championship, Lewis Hamilton, claims he doesn’t need one. He wants to get to the top on his own… I wonder at what cost though.
Hamilton lost last year’s championship by a solitary point. He had a remarkable season, there’s no denying that, but he also made a few mistakes. I wonder… had he a driving coach, would those mistakes still have been made? Its a question to which we’ll never know the answer, but it is worth thinking about.
It also makes me think about why our Governments STILL don’t place any value in advanced driver training of any kind. Our young people pass a short test, then are let loose on the roads for the best part of the next 60 years without another mandatory test.
These are the same demographic group who are significantly over represented in almost every crash statistic you care to name – and have been for a long time. Governments have tried almost everything, lower speed limits, curfews, passenger limits… all for very little change. Why can they not see the advantage in driver training?
Perhaps we need a new angle… Jackie Stewart for PM anyone?
I think I’ve discovered why I’ve an inherent dislike of using ‘Web 2.0′ terminology to describe the interactive nature of the web as it exists right now.
I was reading through a great article in the latest (August 2008) PC User magazine, when it finally dawned on me. I think that due to the continually changing nature of how the web is growing and changing, to label it anything at all, is contrary to its very nature. The article itself points towards the future of the internet, attempting to discuss ‘Web 3.0′ and even up to ‘Web 10.0′ (or ‘n.0). I think my problem (and it may or may not be just MY problem) is that as soon as you label or ‘pigeon hole’ what’s happening on the web, and how people are using it, that label will almost be superseded as quickly as it is given.
Having said that – I don’t know what the answer is. I understand the desire for people to distinguish between the original static nature of the web, and the dynamic, interactive ‘beast’ it has become. But I really wonder if we’re doing ourselves a disservice by trying to dissect one from the other?
Are we better therefore, to discuss and acknowledge the constant state of flux that is ‘the web’, rather than try to label something that never remains the same?
I had an interesting meeting yesterday with our IT Task Force here at work. The Task Force is a newly formed body of interested parties from different parts of the school with a view to making best use of technology within the school.
The meeting caused me to ponder again on the chicken and egg theory – i.e. what comes first? Do we investigate technology to implement and then apply to an educational framework, or, do we look at how we can best engage our learners using technology, and then implement the technology to suit?
The more I think about this, the more passionate and enthusiastic I become about the latter. Students have always, and will always learn. With or without technology. The challenge has got to be how to engage our students more completely with the given learning material.
Given that students are now using so many of these so called Web 2.0 technologies (a term that for some reason I’ve got an inherent dislike of) in their personal space, as an educator I’m interested in how we can use these technologies to engage our students into the subject matter of various subjects. As a result, we really need to focus on the educational outcomes first, and then apply the technology to achieve those outcomes. I think if we fall into the trap of implementing technology for its own sake before considering the educational applications, then we risk being the custodians of technological white elephants that have no educational benefit.
Of course, the way forward is far more complex. It involves many hours of experimentation, staff training, and probably many mistakes along the way as we discover what is effectively going to engage learning, and what serves as a mere distraction.
Its an exciting journey – who knows where it will end…
I’ve often wondered if I’m the only one who can’t see the value (in educational terms, or also in value for money terms) in an Interactive Whiteboard. Sure they can do some cool things, but is there any great benefit over a standard digital projector?
You can still create an interactive learning environment with a standard projector – students can use the teachers computer, or whatever is projecting the image.
Then, only recently this was brought to my attention: Build your own interactive whiteboard, where Johnny Chung Lee from Carnegie Melon University in the USA builds an interactive whiteboard with a Nintendo Wiimote and an Infra-red Led light source. A quick check of ebay reveals that you can find a Wiimote for less than $50US, and an IR LED for next to nothing. That makes the several thousand dollar MINIMUM ask for an IWB seem absolutely ridiculous. Paricularly when you can freely download all required software etc.
Do people agree with me? Can anyone categorically prove me wrong? I’d love to hear from both sides of the argument.
