Group items tagged

There are a number of ways in which technology can better facilitate the learning of adults: Email, iChat/IM, Twitter: connects learners as collaborators Blogs: provides a forum for reflection and discussion Wikis/Google Docs/Zoho: provides a place to co-learn and build shared knowledge. Shared server/network space: provides a place for learners to swap/store documents iPods/MP3 players: allows anytime/anywhere learning Moodle/Blackboard: a place to learn from instructor-assigned tasks and discussions Interactive technology: (student response systems and interactive boards) engages adult learners in much the same way as students Online survey tools: collect opinions and perceptions Social Bookmarking tools: helps to share the knowledge RSS: critical tool for managing information. Digital cameras (still and video): use to record learning for later playback/review. Online streaming (uStream): collaborate online during a presentation, revisit the archive later. Nings; places like this to brainstorm and share strategies. Web: unlimited possibilities!

I agree with your thinking that the tech presentations need to move to other conferences. Thanks for starting that shift.

This is something I have seen at many conferences and I am glad you are making it more obvious to others! One of my niches is using technologies with young children... when I spoke as a featured speaker at FETC (Florida) this year there were only 3 sessions for early learning... so when we add to ASCD, let's also remember to add content for elementary!! I can add an application or two myself. Do you have any specific pointers to help us add more technology, especially Web 2.0 to ASCD?

The field on Web 2.0 is wide open for ASCD 2009. See here. I can tell you that 2009 at the annual conference will be different if we "seize the day." ASCD is ready to embrace a new definition of literacy for the 21st Century at its annual convention in Orlando, but they need our help. It's now time for those whose pedagogies utilize web 2.0 tools to send the word out to their networks to submit proposals by May 1. I also agree on a stronger focus on elementary programming is also needed.

Hi Dennis, Are you on the committee or have some strong influence to be sure the proposals get accepted?

Hi Charlene, It's not that simple. In life nothing worth having ever is. Hope this helps. I'm also going to post more on my blog so I can explain the context, but I can start the conversation by saying a few things here. - I am president of the Massachusetts affiliate of ASCD, - I am on the ASCD Leadership Council. - I attended the Position Statement Committee discussion in New Orleans, ASCD 2008, last month on 21st Century education and was a strong advocate for ASCD beginning to help the staff, leadership and membership understand Web 2.0 pedagogies. - I advocated in the same fashion for Web 2.0 pedagogies with Valerie Truesdale, current President of ASCD. - Valerie pointed out that ASCD 2009 has a major theme on technology, **Imagine: Connecting Learners in an E-World**, and a major theme of engagement, **Imagine: Challenging Minds to Engage and Learn More Deeply**. Based on what I know, I am optimistic that ASCD is ready for our message. I still have work to do, but if I have the names of a network of presenters like you, Gail and others interested with solid proposals, I will approach ASCD to advocate for an understanding of how significant our contribution could be on ASCD 2009. It would obviously help if I had ten or more people so I could say, "Hey, look at us; we have something to offer ASCD that will move the educational technology strand from successful to significant! Not sure what will come of it, but it sure beats complaining that no one listens to us. Dennis

Dennis, Thanks for the encouraging information. I think that in the past some technology-rich presenters have felt discouraged by not having applications accepted. I will apply and also encourage others to do so!

Now if I'm going to advocate for you and others who apply, I think it would help for me to know who applies and what the proposals look like. It would also makes sense for people not to duplicate similar topics. How can we orchestrate that?

Well, let's see, we can use Twitter, this site, and others to gather information about people planning to apply OR perhaps a more proactive approach -- offer to ASCD some expertise in helping them fill a technology-infused or technology-rich strand by helping them select the sessions which will be hosted in a specific room or rooms throughout the conference (thus pooling the higher technology needs (high speed internet and projectors, sound, IWB or whatever) into a specific set of rooms. We could serve to help them make this a dynamic, meaningful and important part of their conference. We could help them balance grade levels, technologies, levels of experience required of participants, etc.... I wonder what others think...

Great ideas, almost create a "package" of well balanced presentations, balanced grade levels and interest. I like Gail's thinking about hosting in specific rooms using appropriate technology that helps spread the message. For example instead of going to an IWB session, actually see the board in action during a presentation. I would also like to extend the buzz by having "meet-ups" or a networking sessions on various topics. These could be informal sessions to promote conversations. I will be working on topic ideas this week.

I do like this idea - a bit like NECC's OpenSource Lab concept. A suite of Web 2.0 tools demonstrated and presented.

I think we need to LEAD with the content (curriculum, learning, etc) and USE the tools as much as possible and then intersperse that a bit with the tool "how tos" and "whiz bang"... this conference will draw people who want to learn about using technologies IN curriculum and not so much the techies, at least that would be my first take. We may have sessions that people come to to find out the basics (Like "What IS Web 2.0?") but perhaps MORE who wonder about having learners participate in global learning communities or who ponder making curriculum more differentiated through technology.... it will be important to not ONLY "preach to the choir" of the technology-lovers at ASCD, but to snag a few through the content... am I making any sense?

Dewey also criticized Lippmann’s trust in knowledge-based élites. “A class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge,” he argued.

The history of the American press demonstrates a tendency toward exactly the kind of professionalization for which Lippmann initially argued.

The Lippmann model received its initial challenge from the political right.

A liberal version of the Deweyan community took longer to form, in part because it took liberals longer to find fault with the media.

The birth of the liberal blogosphere, with its ability to bypass the big media institutions and conduct conversations within a like-minded community, represents a revival of the Deweyan challenge to our Lippmann-like understanding of what constitutes “news” and, in doing so, might seem to revive the philosopher’s notion of a genuinely democratic discourse.

The Web provides a powerful platform that enables the creation of communities; distribution is frictionless, swift, and cheap. The old democratic model was a nation of New England towns filled with well-meaning, well-informed yeoman farmers. Thanks to the Web, we can all join in a Deweyan debate on Presidents, policies, and proposals. All that’s necessary is a decent Internet connection.

In October, 2005, at an advertisers’ conference in Phoenix, Bill Keller complained that bloggers merely “recycle and chew on the news,” contrasting that with the Times’ emphas

“Bloggers are not chewing on the news. They are spitting it out,” Arianna Huffington protested in a Huffington Post blog.

n a recent episode of “The Simpsons,” a cartoon version of Dan Rather introduced a debate panel featuring “Ron Lehar, a print journalist from the Washington Post.” This inspired Bart’s nemesis Nelson to shout, “Haw haw! Your medium is dying!” “Nelson!” Principal Skinner admonished the boy. “But it is!” was the young man’s reply.

The survivors among the big newspapers will not be without support from the nonprofit sector.

And so we are about to enter a fractured, chaotic world of news, characterized by superior community conversation but a decidedly diminished level of first-rate journalism. The transformation of newspapers from enterprises devoted to objective reporting to a cluster of communities, each engaged in its own kind of “news”––and each with its own set of “truths” upon which to base debate and discussion––will mean the loss of a single national narrative and agreed-upon set of “facts” by which to conduct our politics. News will become increasingly “red” or “blue.” This is not utterly new. Before Adolph Ochs took over the Times, in 1896, and issued his famous “without fear or favor” declaration, the American scene was dominated by brazenly partisan newspapers. And the news cultures of many European nations long ago embraced the notion of competing narratives for different political communities, with individual newspapers reflecting the views of each faction. It may not be entirely coincidental that these nations enjoy a level of political engagement that dwarfs that of the United States.

he transformation will also engender serious losses. By providing what Bill Keller, of the Times, calls the “serendipitous encounters that are hard to replicate in the quicker, reader-driven format of a Web site”—a difference that he compares to that “between a clock and a calendar”—newspapers have helped to define the meaning of America to its citizens.

Just how an Internet-based news culture can spread the kind of “light” that is necessary to prevent terrible things, without the armies of reporters and photographers that newspapers have traditionally employed, is a question that even the most ardent democrat in John Dewey’s tradition may not wish to see answered. ♦

Finally, we need to consider what will become of those people, both at home and abroad, who depend on such journalistic enterprises to keep them safe from various forms of torture, oppression, and injustice.

Invisible audiences. While it is common to face strangers in public life, our eyes provide a good sense of who can overhear our expressions. In mediated publics, not only are lurkers invisible, but persistence, searchability, and replicability introduce audiences that were never present at the time when the expression was created.

Replicability. Digital bits are copyable; this means that you can copy a conversation from one place and paste it into another place.

Context is only one complication of this architecture. Another complication has to do with scale. When we speak without amplification, our voice only carries so far. Much to the dismay of fame-seekers, just because the Internet has the potential to reach millions, the reality is that most people are heard by very few.

The lack of context is precisely why the imagined audience of Friends is key. It is impossible to speak to all people across all space and all time. It’s much easier to imagine who you are speaking to and direct your energies towards them, even if your actual audience is quite different.

two audiences cause participants the greatest headaches: those who hold power over them and those that want to prey on them.

Some try to resumé-ify their profiles, putting on a public face intended for those who hold power over them. While this is typically the adult-approved approach, this is unrealistic for most teens who prioritise socialisation over adult acceptance.

Recognise that youth want to hang out with their friends in youth space.

When asked, all youth know that anyone could access their profiles online. Yet, the most common response I receive is “…but why would they?”

The Internet mirrors and magnifies all aspects of social life.

When a teen is engaged in risky behaviour online, that is typically a sign that they’re engaged in risky behaviour offline.

technology makes it easier to find those who are seeking attention than those who are not.

Questions abound. There are no truths, only conversations.

They can posit moral conundrums, show how mediated publics differ from unmediated ones, invite youth to consider the potential consequences of their actions, and otherwise educate through conversation instead of the assertion of power.

group settings are ideal for engaging youth to consider their relationship with social technologies and mediated publics

Internet safety is on the tip of most educators’ tongues, but much of what needs to be discussed goes beyond safety. It is about setting norms and considering how different actions will be interpreted.

Create a profile on whatever sites are popular in your school.

Keep your profile public and responsible, but not lame.

Do not go surfing for your students, but if they invite you to be Friends, say yes. This is a sign that they respect you.

The more present you are, the more opportunity you have to influence the norms.