If you had one million books (and growing), where would you put them? A couple in central Wisconsin explores some creative possibilities:

Today’s post is from Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia and Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium:

I’m writing to ask you to help get a free, non-profit, K-12 educational video contest, WatchKnow, off the ground. …

Imagine tens of thousands of excellent short videos explaining nearly every topic taught in U.S. public schools. WatchKnow will be a free (open content), non-profit beta project, to launch probably this fall, to see whether we can create that. We will set the topics and invite teachers–and everyone–to submit videos. Videos will be rated, and, at a certain point, we’ll select a winner for each topic. We’ll give the winner(s) within each topic small prize(s), such as $75 and $25, but the amounts have not be decided firmly yet. We might award substantially more for certain topics. You could think of it as an American Idol for teachers, but we are not affiliated with American Idol.

The project is being carried out as a new program of the Citizendium Foundation, with funding from a retired Memphis millionaire who wishes to benefit American education. I’m the project’s Executive Director, and we’re now in the process of looking for and hiring a technical contractor who will actually build the system (see Craigslist).

Read more here
For future updates, please add yourself to the project announcement list, watchknow-l.

Because it’s non-profit and open content, we of course don’t expect to make money from this project; it’s charitable. Thankfully, our start-up capital is more than adequate for purposes of the beta-test project.

But we will need the help of volunteers to make this work. Educators, ed tech specialists–especially educators who make, use, review, and otherwise care about educational uses of online video–are needed to participate in a Video Review Panel, which will choose topics and rate videos. On the current plan, panel ratings will compose half of the score for any individual video. We could also use your endorsement and support for the idea! See: WatchKnow Participation.

If you’ve complained about the paucity of high-quality educational content online, here’s a chance to do something about it.

Dr. Annette Lamb gave an overview of technology integration in education during her presentation at NECC 2008 this afternoon. (I should say “one of her presentations” — she did several, back-to-back.)

1980s — It was all about the software.
We tended to see computers as tutors (what could kids learn from applications like Oregon Trail?), as tools (word processing, database, spreadsheets), or as “tutees” with students doing Logo programming.

1990s — It was all about problem-solving.
We were building infrastructure and getting our schools wired. We established hotlists, scavenger hunts, and WebQuests. We used tools like Hyperstudio, Inspiration, and Timeliner.

Early 00s — It was all about projects.
We expected students to work with primary sources, to look at things from multiple perspectives, to use web cams and simulations. Teachers spent a lot of time not planning lessons but “designing learning experiences.” (Jargon always seems more realistic at the time.)

Now — it’s all about Web 2.0,
We’re working with blogs, wikis, social networking, and other collaborative technologies. Lamb pointed out that the most recent standards include digital equity and digital ethics.

Each period had strengths. Her point was simple: don’t abandon the old just because the new comes along. Keep the best of the old as you transition to the new.

I’m blogging this week from NECC 2008 in San Antonio.

David Warlick opened his presentation at NECC in a manner that will probably become standard in the 21st century: he told his audience how to tag their blog posts and Tweets so that the RSS feed would pick them up.

He spoke of how students in his (and my) generation were well prepared to work in straight rows performing repetitive tasks under close supervision. To be more precise, they finished school ready to go work in a mill for 30 years, raise families, retire with a pension, and enjoy their grandchildren. He paused and said quietly, “Things changed.”

Now our job is to prepare our children for a future we can’t describe. And our children must not just survive in that world, he pointed out, they need to prosper.

Here are his three bullet points. (I want to mention them so I can do justice to his presentation and then talk about the other things that also captured my attention.)

1. The future is unpredictable.
2. Students are networked.
3. The new information landscape is flat, less authority (teacher)-driven.

Warlick redefined the Digital Divide for me. I had always considered it to be the difference between the “haves” and the “have nots,” between those who could afford a computer (and access and occasional repairs), and those who could maybe get a used computer but had to give it up once the power supply or monitor went out. How shortsighted of me! The “haves” are networked; they know, as Warlick put it, “how to find the people who can help you learn how to do what you want to do.” Those who are networked are powerful. Those who aren’t, are alone.

Warlick believes it is in our national interest for everyone to have free Web access. He pointed to Macedonia and other countries that have already made that commitment.

I had to think about that one. In my rural community, the “haves” can choose: cable, DSL, or if you live out in the county, dial-up. The “have nots” will tell me they have a computer at home, but they will add that it has picked up a virus. Or the printer is out of ink. Or the disk drive is jammed. Always some polite fiction. The point is, they don’t get to choose. Their ability to do schoolwork is affected, but we can level that playing field to some extent. Their ability to network, though, is postponed.

I have to wonder if that means that their ability to prosper is also postponed. In the coming economy, it sure looks that way right now.

This is an example of why I come to NECC. People share ideas that disturb and challenge and stick around.

The blog is ended, but the pondering continues …

Tags:
flat classrooms
warlick
n08
n08s283

Dr. Trina Davis, President of the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) welcomed more than 18,000 educators from more than 50 countries to the opening of the 2008 National Educational Computer Conference (NECC) in San Antonio last night. The keynote session was Texas-sized, filling the ballroom and broadcast throughout the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center.

Special thanks to the Southwest High School Mariachi Band. If they were at all nervous about performing in front of that large an audience, it didn’t show. Music, singing, and a little dancing got things off to a lively start.

In keeping with the conference theme of convene-connect-transform, Davis encouraged teachers to be “powerful advocates for change.” She encouraged us to share our passion, to showcase student work, and to dream big.

Keynote speaker James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds, outlined conditions needed to make the kind of smart groups described in his book. He acknowledged the potential of technology in providing a way to aggregate the individual opinions of a group (95% of which will be wrong) into a collective judgment (which can be amazingly accurate).

He discussed the value of encouraging diversity with in a group, calling it “the most important component.” He stressed that, while socioeconomic diversity can be valuable, cognitive diversity will best provide the variety of perspectives needed to form a “smart group.” Homogeneous groups are easier to work in, but, Surowiecki stated, “The more they talk, the dumber they become.”

The third quality Surowiecki mentioned was independence. For a smart group to develop, people need to be able to think for themselves. They need a small amount of support to move beyond imitating others, and they need to be open to the kind of healthy disagreement that leads to seeing things from a different point of view.

The next couple of days are going to be fun. I’ll keep you posted!

When I came across the Do You Speak American? quiz, I accepted the challenge with a smile. I’ve been fortunate to live and travel in different parts of the United States, and I thought I would do well with it.

There’s an “o” sound, for example, that I start hearing in northern Indiana, and it becomes more noticeable as I continue through Wisconsin into Minnesota. I thought I would recognize a New England “a.” And Southern drawls are easily recognizable, right?

I was thoroughly humbled by this quiz. Can you beat 3? (Yes, I’ll bet you can!)

Bill Poser approaches the Second Amendment in his blog, Language and the Law from a linguistic perspective. He focuses on whether the phrase “to bear arms” was intended to mean military use of weapons solely, or whether the Founders intended the phrase to include personal ownership of firearms.

Poser writes:

Among the numerous amicus briefs submitted is the so-called “Linguists’ Brief”, written by Dennis E. Baron, Richard W. Bailey, and Jeffrey P. Kaplan. This brief argues that the Second Amendment protects only a public right on two grounds: the afore-mentioned interpretation of the leading clause, and the argument that the expression “bear arms” refers only to the organized military use of arms, not to individual use. They claim that the term “bear arms” is “an idiomatic expression that means ‘to serve as a soldier, do military service’”.

To assess the merits of the “Linguists’ Brief,” Poser turns to the texts of the time to see what the phrase meant at the time the Bill of Rights was written. He concludes:

… while the Linguists’ Brief may well reflect the view of the meaning of “bear arms” in 1791 formed on the basis of its authors experience reading material from that period, there appear to be clear and convincing examples of the use of this term in an individual, non-military, sense. The characterization of such examples in the Brief as anomalous is not supported by any sort of scientific linguistic analysis.

Among my high school students in this part of the country, the Second Amendment is cherished. Writing research papers … not so much. I’m planning to bookmark this blog as an example of why we research and why we write. Maybe this blog post will demonstrate the value of the process in a way the textbook examples (with due respect to the writers of textbooks) just don’t.

Breaking news: Supreme Court rules against DC gun ban (@ CNN) (@ Fox)

News flash: multitasking in the workplace began in the 19th century. (Parents, of course, have always multitasked.) Researcher Maggie Jackson, author of Distracted, says, “We can’t just blame the Blackberry” for the fact that the average office worker is interrupted about every 3 minutes and then needs about 30 minutes to get back on task. The resulting cost to business has been estimated at $650 billion per year.

“You can’t produce deeply in a distractable environment — we have to stop kidding ourselves about that,” she says. “We’re existing on snippets and glimpses of each other.”

Researchers are sure people can learn to focus better. Even just talking with children about how to pay attention, Jackson says, has led to some gains.

My high school students like to say they work better when they are watching TV and doing homework at the same time. This practice does not lead to their best writing. Sadly, it probably *does* help prepare them for the work world.

Read Jackson’s article at Business Week: May We Have Your Attention, Please?

Teachers learn Bloom’s Taxonomy almost on Day One of their training. Developed by Dr. Benjamin Bloom in the 1950s and revised by Dr. Lorin Anderson, one of his students, in the 1990s, the taxonomy organizes learning tasks into a hierarchy, with “remembering” on the lowest level and “creating” on the highest.

Andrew Churches, a teacher/researcher in New Zealand, makes a good point when he writes, “Bloom’s revised taxonomy accounts for many of the traditional classroom practices, behaviours and actions but does not account for the new processes and actions associated with web 2.0 technologies and increasing ubiquitous computing.” He proposes adding digital skills to the existing levels of the taxonomy, to include skills such as bullet-pointing, advanced searching, mashing, moderating, beta testing, and blogging. He also proposes adding skills related to collaboration.

The graphic below summarizes his findings. It is used with his kind permission:

What implications does this have for our classrooms?

IT SEEMED like the perfect present for their son’s 11th birthday – a Narnia-based website address to feed his enthusiasm for the books of CS Lewis.

But Comrie Saville-Smith’s parents were surprised when they received an angry call from one of the world’s biggest law firms, demanding they hand over the domain name.

When they refused, they were sent a letter offering to refund them for the cost of the site, before another was dispatched asking them to name their price for handing over the rights to comrie@narnia.mobi.

The Saville-Smiths – refusing to bow to pressure from Baker & McKenzie, the lawyers representing Lewis’s estate – have now been sent a weighty 128-page legal document, ordering them to make their case to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Switzerland by [June 23].

Richard Saville-Smith, Comrie’s father, claims the dispute echoes the “good against evil” themes of Lewis’s novels.

Read the entire article, written by Shân Ross and published June 16, 2008.