Blurts

I am still a fan of RSS. I do understand that some would see this as cause for labelling me one of those who cannot move ahead. I continue this commitment as a purposeful reaction against relying on the trendy recommendations that appear in Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. Recognizing trends is important for the work I do, but I want to remain grounded in solid content I rely on from a range of individuals I have identified and respect.

RSS is a little more complicated than following a social media feed, but worth the commitment. I use several RSS feeds (again as a way to keep up with the options), but my favorite as Feedly. Feedly allows the organization of feeds into categories which I find useful. It also provides ways to “share” content to other services. For me, moving content from one service to another is important. When I find something I think is important, I want to do something with this information – save it for more careful reading, sent it to someone else, etc.

I have one major beef with Feedly. It is the same beef I have with several services I use. I am willing to pay for most of the services I use. My general complaint is that the difference between the free version and the lowest tier paid version is often too great. The difference between free and $60+ a year seems pretty large for what you get with the paid version.

The one thing I miss out on using the free version is the opportunity to send content I want to keep track of to Evernote. I would pay something for this capability, but not $60. There is an easy work around. I can share to a browser and then use the browser to share to Evernote.  I suppose Feedly does not see a benefit in a lower-priced option, but I think they are missing out on a substantial number of users who like the product and would fund the company at a lower cost and a reduced set of features that are unlikely to be used.

One of the challenges of the “digital content stores” is now how to encourage user discovery. This recent post from a frustrated app developer explains the problem. The post describes the frustration of generating an app and making it available through the Apple store (could be any of several companies selling digital products). There are some interesting data in this post – charts showing the year by year increase in the number of apps and the year by year decline in the continued use of any given acquired app. To be honest, my behavior fits this model. I have pretty much locked into the same half-dozen or so apps for the past three years or so.

It seems very possible the original creativity encouraged by this model is now past its peak. Consumers seem to have moved past the original excitement that encouraged exploration and producers will likely lose their enthusiasm as the reality of this lack of interest becomes obvious in the return on their investment of time and resources.

As much as  marketers annoy me, it seems obvious that promoters of some form will be necessary to encourage continued innovation. Perhaps promotion is the next big thing.

There is this phrase “teacher proof” that is typically interpreted as a negative comment on commercial educational materials. I guess the idea is that educators who are experienced should not be forced to use “recipe” lesson plans.

I have been thinking about this concern. What has led to an analysis of this issue for me is the conflict between the advocacy of so many for inquiry learning experiences (e.g., PBL) and the cumulative data on the topic. How do you reconcile the meta-analyses showing direct instruction is more effective that teacher-facilitated inquiry experiences with the interest in inquiry? Why do some researchers (e.g., Deanna Kuhn) demonstrate the effectiveness of a model of problem-based learning when the generic approach can be shown to be less effective? This situation bothers me and it bothers me that it does not seem to bother “true believers”.

Here is a paper I think deserves some attention. This position (note the link in this paper to the full study) argues less effective teachers can improve student performance by using good lesson plans and this adjustment may have more immediate benefits than professional development efforts. I suppose this is not a popular position, but the supporting research does deserve careful consideration.

Yes – I did use the title to get your attention. The idea is to get folks to grapple with ideas that they might reject without consideration.

Screen time is an interesting and challenging topic for a technology advocate. It is difficult to advocate for an activity that allows for user control and that can be directed toward nonproductive and even dangerous ends. I have tried to consider whether there are older activities that might provide guidance. Free reading might fall into this category, but I cannot say that reading has the same downside. Television viewing is probably a better example. Technology use can be like many forms of television viewing (passive and pointless), but technology offers the opportunity for more user control and greater participation.

Here is a good source from Digital Media Central that takes a position and offers links to some of the resources leading to this position.

We recommend that instead of limiting screen time, parents should instead ask themselves and their children questions about screen context (where, when and how digital media are accessed), content (what is being watched or used), and connections (whether and how relationships are facilitated or impeded). This will provide a sounder basis for family decision-making than just watching the clock.

People working in education likely fail to appreciate the amount of money that is involved. Personnel costs are immense, but this reality is overlooked because individual salaries are low. The process of education requires a variety of goods and services (my topic) – educational resources including technology, Internet access, management software, professional development, and even the cost of conference participation. Yes, even sending school personnel to a conference such as ISTE is a sizeable investment. No denying there is big money to be made.

I am not suggesting that anyone should propose we do education on the cheap. All involved in any facet of the enterprise must receive a reasonable return on their time and commitment of skills. I emphasize ALL here. Even those involved may expect that others contribute with little or no return. I agree with Gary Stager on this issue  (emphasis on the specificity of my agreement).

There is a different perspective. Some large companies are willing to provide resources at no or very low cost. This type of commitment has received recognition and encouragement from Department of Education Technology’s “Go Open” initiative.  I am not certain what I think of such programs. At a gut level I distrust such commitments. I assume there must be a motive that is typically not acknowledged and whatever funds are required must come from somewhere. I also question the match between what is offered and what is needed.

Why are free or low-cost goods or services likely to be available? Here is a list that applies in at least some cases. It is not always clear when which motives apply.

Motives

• Ads – traditional model for free or low-cost resources (newspapers, web content)
• Collection of information that can be sold or used (store loyalty cards, many Internet companies)
• Access to community (music streaming to encourage concert attendance, blogging to encourage paid presentation fees)
• Brand loyalty – inexpensive tech equipment to encourage later purchases
• Good will is good publicity

Obviously, schools recognize at least some of these motives. Sometimes there are reasons schools are unwilling to accept (ads and data collection from those under 18 would be examples). For example, the Google school programs do not present ads and limit public exposure of students acknowledging that some commercial motives will not be tolerated.  We pretty much reject certain motives directed at the young we tolerate for older individuals because we question the ability of the young to understand when such motives are present. I sometimes wonder if such awareness is as age-limited as we assume.

In keeping with my belief that we must support those offering services and resources, I find the incentives to the providers to be acceptable as long as the motives are known by all involved.

The one issue that does concern me in the way providers are now committing to “Go Free” concerns what is being offered. Many commitments seem to be existing services that are either already free or are scaled to include educators or students. So the services Google offers to students are already available to you and me at no cost (ignoring the ads, data collection, etc). Google has layered a very useful management system on top of these services and limited the application of revenue streams (ads). The financial hit here is in the commitment to develop and maintain the management systems. Scaling the infrastructure a bit is not a big deal for a company this immense. Still, the tools provided have important educational applications and these tools would be worth paying for.

The commitments I presently find less significant are those that organize and serve the resources developed by others. Amazon Inspire strikes me as falling into this category. I agree that locating resources can be a challenge, but this is what educator sharing already provides to those educators who are tied into a PLN. The content is the challenge. I would be far more impressed if Amazon would waive its 30% on educational content provided through schools or universities.

Singling out Amazon is not fair and we all should appreciate the effort. I am just indicating what I think are the greatest actual needs. I kind of have a similar reaction to the efforts of the Department of Educational Technology. I don’t see organizing resources or services to be the main problem and I do not think encouraging free is a good long term solution. I would be more supportive of the Department offering commissions or subsidies for the development and deployment of relevant services and resources. This type of “grant” program is the way research is supported in higher education. The assumption, I think, is that the competition encourages quality and compensates the productive.