Chapter 9 of Web 2.0 gets us thinking about what we should expect from schools now and in the future. Should we create programs that analyze a students strengths and weaknesses and that offer suggestions about what projects or tasks that student would most successfully complete while gaining the necessary knowledge base? Should teachers be tied down to specific school-board approved text books? These are great questions. The reality is that teachers are ham-stringed by overly specific teaching objectives and that the textbook industry is overly embedded in our educational culture. That, however, does not mean that we cannot integrate new tools into the current curriculum. The use of blogs for journals or to post assignments and the use of wikis to collaborate documents can add another dimension to a class and offer students the technology “fix” that they need. Until funding becomes available for each class to be held in a computer lab, however, full technological integrating is likely to be limited, at best, for most schools across the nation. The key is in finding teachers and administrators who are committed to encouraging incremental, manageable changes in the curriculum and in teaching methods until we do have a largely integrated school system.

In 2006, Virginia passed into law a bill that requires teachers to instruct students about web safety and warning them about online predators.  While the idea of this is noble and necessary, I cringe at adding additional requirements on our teachers.  More and more, every day of the school year is being planned out for the teacher, limiting their flexibility in teaching topics with any depth.  I agree that teachers should address web safety issues in their classes from the earliest grades in which they use computers, but worry that legal requirements lead to more explicit teaching of this that may detract from content area studies.

Chapter 6 in Web 2.0 addresses technology leadership in the schools.  The emphasis on technology has to start at the top and work down to the classroom.  This does not mean that administrators must be technology experts, just as we would not expect them to be experts in specific content area.  Technology leadership should focus more on the leadership than on the technology.  Technologies change and new tools are readily available for teachers to use.  Technology leaders should remember to remain flexible, allowing teachers to use those tools that most adequately address the needs of their subject areas and of their students and encouraging them to use and view new tools.

Discussions of financing technology in the schools revolve largely around collaboration of federal, state, and corporate initiatives, weighing costs and benefits of initial and maintenance costs for equipment, and the use of open source software.  Some might argue that we cannot afford not to provide students with the opportunities to learn about and experience the technologies that they will need as they move on to life after high school.  While this long-term view may be accurate, the short-term reality is that school budgets are stretched as they are.  Such expenses may simply be too much for local school systems to incur without state and corporate support.  The discussion on open source software was an interesting one.  On the one hand, the use of free systems such as Linux could save local systems a great deal of money on both operating systems and software applications.  On the other hand, most teachers, administrators, and students are familiar with applications such as MS Word or MS Excel and use these applications at home.  Further, most corporations rely on MS Office products in their business operations.  Familiarizing students with applications that they are unlikely to use seems, to me, to be irresponsible.  Again, corporate involvement seems, to me, to be an appropriate solution to this funding problem because corporations are the most probable benefactors when students learn the tools that they will use in their future jobs.

I just finished reading an article written by my professor and some of her students. You can find it here. I find that the article really reiterates much of what we are learning in our information literacy course. The article speaks of digital immigrants (teachers) teaching literacy skills to digital natives (students). I love how the article continually reinforces the difference between fluency and literacy. Children become fluent speaking a language, but that fluency does not mean that students have the skills to read, write, and, otherwise, use the language effectively. The same is true of the digital fluency that most of our students possess. As part of their effort to help teachers find ways to encourage digital literacy, the authors developed a method by which students can work with information. To this end, they offer the acronym D.I.S.C.O.V.E.R. Each letter signifies a different step to help students work effectively with information. I like this acronym because it is easy to remember and because much of the focus is on the process. My only concern with it is the lack of emphasis on the product. I know that students are, ultimately concerned with the final grade. This, I hesitate to call it a shortcoming, might be overcome with the use of a scoring rubric placing more emphasis on the product. Perhaps a 50/50 grade between the process and the product would make a method this focused on the process more practical in a culture where the end result matters most. Regardless, this article is worth a read. It is sure to get some wheels turning.

Chapter 5 in Web 2.0 got me to thinking a bit about irony and human nature.  You know how, as often as not, it is the accountant who has trouble managing his own money or the professional cleaner whose house is a mess.  Why, when we learn about the best ways to teach students, do we not feel the need to apply those lessons to ourselves?  I have heard it said that, in order to lead, you must first learn how to follow.  Well, in order to teach, one must first know how to learn.  In this day and age, the “chalk and talk” approach to teaching kids is typically frowned upon, but this is precisely what most professional development comes down to.  Incorporating constructivist concepts and teaching with the technology that you intend for teachers to use might make them more comfortable with the tools and actually result in their usage.

I still haven’t decided if I like twitter or not just yet. Perhaps I am simply not used to it. I feel like it is not much different from email except that you can read everyone’s short post very quickly. Maybe tools like this will become what email used to be and make email akin to formal letter writing. Who can say? I have found that, while somewhat annoying, the 140 character limit forces me to choose my words wisely. I have heard it said that a writer can say it in a novel, a good writer can say it in a short story, and a great writer can say it in a poem. Used correctly, Twitter could create a generation of “e-poets”.

So, I’m still reading in Web 2.0 and now we are looking at how alot of these tools are being used in the classroom. Specifically, I paid attention to the sections on social studies and geography because that is the subject matter that I will be teaching. I found these sections to offer sites and suggestions that fit the approach that I want to adopt in the classroom, but that would have taken me several years to actually enact. I am feeling more and more confident that I can hit the ground running and not have to slow down a bit.

The book also introduces the reader to the New Tech High model and the Lemon Grove school district model. These models partner with businesses and charitable organizations to develop schools and school systems that use technology as a large part of their curriculum, achieving as much as a 1:2 computer-to-student ratio. The efforts are admirable and the one weakness noted is the large expense necessary to maintain these systems. I worry about another weakness, though. The focus skews so heavily towards science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) that I have to wonder about the other educational pursuits. I helped set up computer labs at Battlefield HS, an information technology magnate school in Prince William County, VA. At this school, students can graduate from high school having earned professional graphics, programming, and network certifications. I remember noting while I was working on it that the school appeared to have more, or at least as many, computer labs as classrooms as well as a plethora of drafting and networking labs. Even at the time I thought that, while the school is impressive technologically, I wonder what the students are missing out on. I feel the need to quote Robin Williams’ character John Keating from Dead Poet’s Society. He said, “[w]e don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering - these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love - these are what we stay alive for.” I would hate for us to miss the forest for the trees here by focusing so much on the skills and technologies that we forget that education is as much about enriching lives as preparing them.

While reading Chapter 3 in Web 2.0, I realized that I never realized how many of the web tools I actually use.  I also never realized how many I’ve never heard of.  I consider myself pretty web savvy, but do not consider myself an “internet guy”.  While I primarily use the internet for conducting research, getting directions, and checking email, I can certainly see the benefits of each of the other tools.  I was always comfortable with immersing myself in this new world, and these instructional technology courses at UMW have really opened my eyes to the huge potential of this medium.

All of that having been said, I still do not see the internet in the way that the authors describe it at the beginning of this chapter.  They paint a picture of people who never have to leave their computers.  They describe a world in which no one has to leave their house except than to buy groceries.  While this subculture does exist, the typical student will not likely see him- or herself in such a position.  In my experience, businesses have begun to use the tools available on the internet, but few have abandoned the suit and tie for the PJs and extended sleep session.  I believe that the authors describe the internet in terms of its most dedicated supporters.

Most students will not “live in the web” and I, for one, do not believe that we should teach them to do so.  We should, however, teach them what tools are available and how to use them so that they may be more productive once they reach the workplace.

I’m trying to use Twitter and am definitely working in Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development here.  Why do I want everyone to know what’s going on all of the time?  Why do I care what everyone else is doing?  I can definitely see some merit in it for educational uses.  If you students are on it, then using it for reminders or to attempt to connect with your students would be an excellent use of it.

So, I was reading web 2.0:  new tools, new schools last night.  In Chapter 2, it gets into students and learning.  I love how it talks about just how ingrained information technology is in these students.  I am 30 years old and consider myself very comfortable with technology.  I can work with hardware and software.  I know how to use the social networking sites and I know the benefits and disadvantages associated with them.  I also know that I do not really use them that much.  I am much more comfortable with face-t0-face interaction.  I don’t even like to leave messages or talk with the automated answering systems with banks.  I really just prefer to talk with people.  The point is that while I grew up on the eve of the information age and have, somewhat, embraced these new technologies, students today cannot remember anything else.  Companies like The Disney Channel have websites designed for children under the age of 5.  I have to stop myself from thinking, “what on earth is a four year old doing on a computer?”  That, however, is the age in which we are living now.

I enjoyed reading about Anderson and Krathwohl’s study.  I first read that study last semester when preparing for a presentation about writing objectives.  In order for students to embrace inquiry learning, they need to have some background, or schemata, from which to start.  I firmly believe that ideas are more powerful than facts, but some facts are worth knowing (it’s hard to appreciate the Revolutionary War without knowing about the events that led up to it, but the ideas that came out of the War are still applicable today).  When we are planning out lessons, we need to keep in mind not only the content to be learned but the dimension of knowledge and the manner in which they learn it.  In alot of ways, taking advantage of these newer technologies can help us to do all of this.