Critical thinking activity – compare and contrast the following two accounts of the PISA results. What interpretive biases are evident? Are such biases the result of poor insight or a self-serving agenda? Were you surprised by which source interpreted the data in the way they did? Are the writers looking at the same numbers?
Yesterday, I inadvertently found myself in a “comment” argument when I reacted to an Engadget post about the Microsoft student advantage program. I first simply pointed out that the author had a strange way of explaining why the program would be useful to students indicating students needed “word processing, PowerPoint and Excel”. My comment indicated that students could make use of word processing, presentation, and basic numerical analysis tools in various content areas, but multiple companies offered such tools. Word, PowerPoint and Excel were just one flavor. This comment brought positive reaction and what I regard as Microsoft talking points – the Microsoft software is what those in business need and Google does not meet FERPA requirements. At this point, I should have stopped, but could not. I responded that the tools 9th graders will use in their work will likely be very different eight years from now and this notion that business knows would have students and the rest of us using BlackBerries. I also indicated that the Google for education program was different than many of them had experienced as independent users. My point was not so much that what Microsoft offers a poor solution for the classroom, but that Google and Apple also have models for and an existing presence in education settings. I did not see individuals identifying themselves as educators that were part of the early discussion and thought that perhaps those who had responded were misinformed.
I do think Microsoft is in a tough spot. When your business model is focused on selling software and you are competing with companies that primarily sell hardware or ads, this creates a challenging situation. Apple and Goggle can give away the software. Google is possibly in the best position because their model is hardware neutral and Apple hardware is more expensive. I think it is great that several of the big companies and many other players are interested in classroom use of technology. Uninformed perspectives or not, it has to be better to have a variety of sources for hardware, software and services. I also think that we all should be reacting to the assumptions of these companies. I assume that these companies want to do the right thing and need the comments to shape their policies.
This is the 60 minute segment with Jeff Bezos. Understanding the role of megacompanies is important to us all. I say this noting that lower prices and small businesses may not be compatible. Bezos promotes disruption in many areas.
I don’t think of Creative Commons as having versions, but evidently this is not the case. Creative Commons has released version 4 language. You may need to update.
Why has “making” caught the attention of educators and what types of making are consistent with this interest? I am guessing that few educators appreciate programming, robotics, and 3D printing so it cannot be personal experience. I became a self taught programmer in the mid-80s because that is what you did and I can understand why those with similar experiences are excited in what new opportunities offer students. These skills end up serving my professional career and turning unique skills to your advantage is necessary in many professions. There is nothing like the satisfaction in creating something from nothing (kind of like writing) and struggling to make something you can imagine work. This is hard to explain to those who have not been there.
I think the interest stems from forms of learning we have all experienced outside of formal education. I call it “hobby learning”. School-based education cannot require hobby learning. If schools tried, they would ruin the experience. At best, I think schools can provide opportunities to explore through clubs or perhaps some new opportunity that would be equivalent of the “readings” or “special topics” credits we offer in higher ed. Something like a 20% time opportunity should that make sense to the tech inclined.
My recommendation (in contrast to my personal tech tendencies or the recent book advocating a Making, Tinkering, etc. approach with a tech focus) would be school gardens (vegetable or habitat exploration). Making offers interesting opportunities if we do not define it too narrowly.
A Thanksgiving Day comment about trees – by Addison
