Lose the Wires and Get Connected

Reversal: The process by which an emerging technology simultaneously sets the stage for its own replacement (Thornburg, 2008). The smartphone, which was reversed by the cell phone, previously reversed by the telephone, and before that by the telegraph, is an example of how a chain of innovation progresses and impacts society. We are progressively getting better connected and faster connected through these technological achievements. Yet, what will the smartphone reverse? What will be on the telecommunication stage of the future? A tetrad analysis may provide us some clues.

Tetrads are four-part structures that help people discern the interrelationships among historical evidence, current information, and predictions for the future. They provide perspective about what is enhanced by the technology, what was made obsolete, what it retrieved from the distant past, and what it might reverse toward the future.

For example, the tetrad (pictured above) developed for the smartphone includes the following:

· Enhances: The smartphone consolidated multiple applications into one device. It became a portable, handheld computer that could also be used as a camera, MP3 player, video player, GPS, and PDA. It can be used for gaming and social and professional networking. Users can access and share wherever satellites and towers exist. But, perhaps the most incredible aspect of the smartphone is the ability to allow third-party application design.

· Obsoletes: The smartphone is quickly making a plethora of stand-alone technologies obsolete. Some of them include: landline telephones, hard-wired computing, paper maps, PDAs, CD players and tape recorders, and instamatic cameras. There is no longer a need for multiple electronic devices.

· Retrieves: The smartphone brings to mind tools of the distant and not-so-distant past. For example, the research capability recalls encyclopedias, the ability to communicate with multiple people recalls party lines, the GPS reminds us of atlases, that camera feature is similar to the instantly developing Polaroid, the interactive gaming capacity retrieves our competitive nature in board games, and the phone calls up earlier means of communicating over long distances: the telegraph and pony express.

· Reverses: Although the future of smartphones is unknown, Brandon (2010) predicted some possibilities. He suggested that the smartphones of tomorrow may be situation- and location-aware devices. This could mean that the phone will detect your thirst, point you toward the nearest establishment that serves your favorite drink, and offer to pay your bill. In addition, the future smartphone could be service-oriented where it could detect unsafe air contaminants, it could include biosensors for heart and health, and it could connect you with others at social functions that share similar interests.

Brandon, J. (2010). The future of smartphones: 2010-2015 and beyond. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-future-of-smartphones-2010-2015-and-beyond/

Thornburg, D. D. (2008). Emerging technologies and McLuhan's Laws of Media. Lake Barrington, IL: Thornburg Center for Space Exploration.

The Development of Mobile Learning for Smartphones, an article by Judy Nix, addresses the need to develop courseware for handheld devices. Further, the author suggests that the smartphone holds undiscovered resources for education that will help motivate and engage learners beyond the class walls and the scheduled class times. You can read it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/206926/The-Development-of-Mobile-Learning-for-Smartphones

The following article from The New York Times by Matt Ritchtel and Brad Stone (2009) suggests that spending more time on smartphones in the classroom can actually make students smarter. It presents both sides of the argument to include the economic impacts. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/technology/16phone.html

The following site purports to be a news lifestyle magazine and shopping guide for technology consumers. It gives up-to-the-minute news stories on emerging technologies for the tech enthusiast. I4U tries to sense the next big thing by tapping sources around the world and issuing reviews of new products. They also provide RSS feeds. You may find it here: http://www.i4u.com/

From Playing Video Games to Designing Them

Many young people are well versed in playing video games, yet few have actually created their own interactive programs and then shared them on the Web for others to enjoy. Scratch, intended for 8- to 16-year-old students, is a recently emerged programming language developed by the LifeLong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab and made available in a free download in 2007. It allows users to develop their own interactive stories, games, and animations. Students integrate mathematical and computational skills, geometric relationships, and systematic reasoning, with creative problem solving techniques.

Although diffusing rapidly (548,512 registered members), the open-source site suffers from the lack of a viable marketing campaign. The technology, for the most part, relies on word-of-mouth in social and professional networks for people to become involved in the Scratch community. Even though the site has several tutorials to help guide the user, they are inadequate for covering the over 100 programming blocks. Instead, Scratch depends on the creativity, experimentation, and discovery process of the user and the ability of the user to view previously developed programs to interpret how the programs were designed. This can be rather intimidating for those who take tentative steps regarding new technologies. The technology would benefit from easy-to-follow curriculum plans that are linked to national technology and content standards.

According to Silver (n.d.), Scratch is a tool that can easily be integrated into any curriculum at school, but it suggests to the learner that this is a technology that would be fun to use at home. It is a technology that reaches across curricula and cultures to engage students in creative problem-solving tasks. It encourages students of all ages to mix media (graphics, sound, color, motion) and then share the product online. Perhaps the greatest advantage of Scratch is the open-source nature of the site. Users can collaborate, communicate, experiment, break apart and alter programs in the process of running them, and learn from the greater global community of Scratchers. This, indeed, represents the real power of online learning.

You can learn more about Scratch and download it here: http://scratch.mit.edu/

ScratchEd is an online community created for specifically for educators. It includes articles, resources, and a discussion forum. You can find it here: http://scratched.media.mit.edu/stories

The following site includes several demonstration and instructional videos to help a novice get started with Scratch: http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Support/Videos

Silver, J. (n.d.). Media Lab Video [Interview] Retrieved from http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Support/Videos

To Wii, or not to Wii? Module 5

"">

When it comes to technology there are those that resist it, those that tentatively test the waters, and those that dive right in. Researchers and change agents would refer to them as laggards, late majority, and early adopters. Our school mission statement is: “Inspiring students to become successful and responsible citizens in a global society.” In order to further this goal, students and teachers must integrate technologies into the very fabric of the courses. Technology must become more than a tool, it needs to become an extension of knowledge. As a member of the data review team at my school, we continually encourage all faculty members to become involved in our commitment to globalization by integrating 21^st Century technologies into all curricula. This includes PE. Well, it could include PE. Our PE teachers are laggardly, to say the least.

The PE teachers resist incorporating technologies into their classes with every fiber of their being, and with some justification. They note the rising obesity rate for sedentary children, their lack of easy access to computers, large class sizes, student and parent expectations of physical activity, etc. Yet, when I pointed out the health and mental benefits (especially for the elderly and physically disabled) reported by users of the interactive Wii gaming system (in particular Wii Fit and Wii Sports), many of their arguments dissolved.

Driscoll (2005) suggested that motivation and self-efficacy is the key to trying a new skill. Keller (as cited in Driscoll, 2005) proposed four conditions for motivation. They are: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. When this model is applied to our laggardly PE teachers, Attention was garnered through our ongoing technology arguments and through frustration in providing engaging and helpful activities for our adaptive PE students and for the regular students on rainy and cold days. Technology was made Relevant when it was directly related to their instructional goals for the children. Confidence will increase when sedentary students become successfully and actively engaged in physical activity. Finally, Satisfaction will be assured if students lose weight, increase strength, gain mobility, and/or find joy in physical activity as a consequence of technology.

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Here is John Keller’s official ARCS website if you want to learn about it straight from the source:

http://www.arcsmodel.com/home.htm

Here are some websites that report on the possibilities of using Wii technology in promoting physical activity:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719303

http://www.healthgamers.com/2010/research-theory/the-most-heart-healthy-wii-games/

http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20100225/wii-games-speed-stroke-rehab

This site is a gaming blog that has several posts about the effects of Wii games on motor skills, brain activity, and depression.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/category/video-game-research

The following trailer demonstrates how Wii technology encourages and engages people of all ages in physical activity.

My Networking Connections: Module 4

(Click on the Mindmap for a link to the Website for a better view.)

What an amazing exercise! Everything, everyone is connected. As the connectivists suggest, finding patterns among all the the various relationships is a rather daunting task, but the endeavor reveals depths of associations never before realized. One does not merely communicate with another, one communicates with networks and networks communicate with one. This holds powerful implications about the way we now learn. It indicates that how we learn is affecting what we learn and who or what we learn it from. Learning no longer follows a linear path; it is decreasingly a top down, directed activity (Siemens, 2004). Instead learning is multi-directional, with unexpected turns, discoveries, and associations around every twist in the road.

Among the myriad of digital tools at our disposal, the Internet, e-mail, and the phone remain unsurpassed in connectivity importance. Not too long ago the teacher, the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the pencil and paper, and the text would have topped my list of valuable education tools. These would have been the center of inquiry. But now, it is a little disconcerting to ponder, but the 'middle man' in education seems to be me. I am at the center of my own learning. Inquiry resides in me; discovery resides in the Internet; and support resides in my network connections.


The following site is a blog dedicated to connectivism. It is extensive and well-commented upon.
http://www.connectivism.ca/


You may want to see Stephen Downes blog on Connectivism. Very conversational and not too wordy. In addition to his own comments, he provides links to George Siemens.
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?journal=Connectivism%20Blog


Reference:

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Module 3 - How Important is Collaborating?

People have an amazing capacity to communicate, cooperate, and collaborate. Although these skills are not unique to humans –- ants cooperate by adopting different jobs to support the colony, birds sound an alarm when danger is near, and whales collaborate in order to round up dinner (watch it below) –- unlike the animal kingdom, we no longer have to collaborate in order to survive. Our advanced weapons mean that we no longer must hunt in packs; our cultivators, tractors, and combines have increased food production and reduced the number cooperative farmers; and we no longer need thousands of workers to build a pyramid.

Or, do we? Perhaps collaboration is fundamental to our survival. Perhaps we will lose part of what if means to be human if we cease to effectively communicate, cooperate, and collaborate.

A recent study from PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that emotions outlast the memories that made them. (You can find the story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125869707)
It was determined that feelings linger for people who no longer have the capacity to retain memories. For example, an Alzheimer’s patient will not remember a visit from a family member, but they will retain the sense of joy long after the visit is over. This study implies that the value of life does not solely reside in our cognition, but instead, the quality of life is dependent on human contact.

All of this seems to have deep implications for the future of collaborations and learning theory. Rheingold (2005) proposed that an innate attribute of the human condition is interaction and cooperation. He stated that collaboration is vital to economics, to who we are, and to how we think. When this is related to learning theory, behaviorism, concerned with changing observable behaviors through a stimulus and response mechanism, ignores the affective domain. Cognitivism, concerned with the nature of knowledge at different stages of development, represents an active approach to learning, but is deeply concerned with memory, not emotions. Constructivism, however, promotes a problem-based learning approach to include collaborative activities. Learning is not purely objective, it is also socially constructed through interactions with the environment and other learners. It addresses the cognitive domain, but it also touches the affective domain, so vital to the human condition. Through constructivism, the learner employs all tools necessary to build understanding. Technology is arguably the most powerful tool at a student’s disposal. Technology plows fields, engineers structures, empowers learners, and provides the connection across generations and across cultures, to insure our very survival.

You may view Rheingold’s video here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

You may also wish to read the following blog by Isabel Gabalda. She posts a professional forum about constructivist psychology to include peer-reviewed articles: http://jconstructpsych.blogspot.com/

Resource:

Rheingold, H. (2005). Howard Rheingold on collaboration. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Module 2 - Learning Theory Reflections

John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying, “Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.” Sydney J. Harris said, “The danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers”.

These two opinions about technology and cognition is also represented by Bill Kerr (2007) in his blog at http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Mr. Kerr, in response to Stephen Downes’ blog wrote, “If machines evolve further and start displaying visceral emotions then how should we deal with that? An alternative into dehumanising humans would be to humanise machines. At that point behaviourism might make a come back.” Kerr continued by stating, “…the architecture of the mind is very different from that of a computer.” Regardless of one’s position on behavioral theory versus cognitive theory, surely we can agree that we still don’t truly understand how we learn. Further, to discard one theory in favor of the other seems premature given our infancy into understanding cognition. Karl Kapp (2007) supports this position in his blog at http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html Mr. Kapp said, “What we need to take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the blog discussions among Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes, and Karl Kapp is the undeniable similarities when compared to the online discussions among graduate students at Walden University. Although there are subtle (and not so subtle) differences and disagreements about the value of behaviorism versus cognitivisim as relevant theories in learning, the themes remain constant. For example, Marci Vining, a Walden student, stated, “Educators should not adhere to one view of learning.” Cassandra Moore concurred when she said that the learning process “…cannot be explained by one theory.” Rebecca Raichel also stated, “I don’t think it has to be one or the other.” As Kerr (2007) said, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.” I agree -- for now.

On a personal note: For years I have delighted in the creative floor plans my middle school students design in response to an introduction to architecture unit. After assessing their drawings for years it is difficult to deny Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. I find it interesting to view students who remain Preoperational as they continue to draw doors from the front view as compared to the Concrete Operational students who have progressed to correctly drawing doors from the top view.

If you are interested in reading more Piaget’s stages of cognitive development then please refer to the following discussion posted by Dr. C. George Boeree. He includes additional examples from each stage. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html

Also, you may want to visit Stephen Downes on the Web. Since I referenced him within Kapp’s and Kerr’s blogs, I thought it appropriate to include his website. This site will allow you to access his blog, Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter sites. http://www.downes.ca/

Kapp, K. (2007). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Module 1 Learning Theory

Learning theory is the educational model that unites the cognitive and affective domains for the purpose of explaining how we learn and enhancing what we learn.

Please, forgive my personal reflections regarding how people learn best, but after all, learning theory and teaching theory is nothing, if not a deeply personal adventure.

I come from a long line of strong-willed (and strongly-opinionated) educators. With a room full of teachers, professors, journalists, counselors, and principals, our discussions often center on educational theories. For example, my mother, once an ETS field agent and the only white counselor in a pre-integration black high school, recounts meeting B.F. Skinner in a ‘60s workshop. My sister wants to hear ideas concerning her sponsorship a dozen South Korean university exchange students. I am interested in discussing the flattening of the world after going to hear Thomas Friedman speak. Educational theory is so endemic to our lives that my entire family actually “Piagets” containers when storing leftovers; we actually use the word, “Piaget”! We literally get into friendly competitions to see who selects the most accurately-sized storage containers for food – not too big, not too small; the spaghetti must fit just right with the lid on. We literally try to out Piaget each other! Crazy, huh?

That said, describing a specific learning theory as superior to another actually makes me uncomfortable. Learning theories evolve as our understanding of how we think evolves. They build upon the ever-expanding knowledge of how we teach and learn. While one theory might seem to adequately explain certain behaviors, it might be rather impotent in explaining another. The mind is an incredibly complex machine and our educational theories are mere jabs at addressing its complexity. Educational Technology adds yet another layer of issues to the challenge.

I believe that people experience learning differently. One model does not work for all people, at all stages of development, in all situations, and with all levels of knowledge. For example, when I teach my middle school students about dangerous power tools, I must remind them that in this case, learning through experience or trial and error is not an option. They may not test my authority as they would test a bench for wet paint or test an iron for heat. The behaviorism theory is not a safe method of interaction with the environment; there is no winning a game against a band saw blade; the rewards can be lethal.

Behaviorism attempts to explain the operant conditioning of an organism as it relates to the environment through stimulus and reward cues (Driscoll 2005). In other words, behaviors can be strengthened or weakened through reinforcement. While I can support some applications of behaviorism, far too many teachers abuse this theory in an attempt at classroom management. Do this for a sticker and do that for some candy. Does this not smack of dog training? Sit! Speak! Here’s a doggie biscuit! Although behaviorism is the telegraph of communication technologies, it seems to be experiencing a tentative rebirth in the infancy of online education. As learning theories evolve, we seem to find new applications for old theories. At one time we knew the world to be flat. For all our progress, many believe that it is flat once again - just read Thomas Friedman (2005).

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

You may wish to visit the following website for a categorized explanation of different learning theories: http://www.learning-theories.com/

Additionally, you might want to visit the following blog concerning connectivism:

http://www.connectivism.ca/blog/learning-theories/

Also, you may want to listen to Thomas Freidman yourself: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266