Cookies in a Flash

When I read this article, I chuckled a little. Developers of web content and sites that host web content are getting better and better at collecting data about how people are using their tools. Some examples are Youtube's Insight and Visible Measures. The latter of these two examples actually will display in a graph when people are rewinding the scrub bar and re-watching portions of the video. Granted, I think a person has to have about 50,000 or so views for this to work, but it does give a pretty accurate display of audience engagement with a video. In the tool I helped design for my dissertation -- PrimaryAccess Storyboard -- we used something similar to Flash cookies to collect data about how the students were using the tool. This tool is built using Flash, and Bill (the programmer) was able to add in some code that records everything the user does while logged into this application. I was able to get detailed information from each student, such as when he or she logged in, whether or not they logged in after school from a different computer, every single move they made with the mouse or keyboard (I didn't know what they wrote and deleted, just the number of characters typed and deleted). I was even told how much time each student spent on task. Of course, we who have been teachers know that a general number for time on task, such as 52 minutes, does not really tell me much about what the student was doing. Using the rest of the data, I was able to see the differences in how the students used their time. Some would experiment with different images, layering them on top of each other and tinkering with the order. Other students were just playing with the tool, adding characters, spinning them around and deleting it.

This approach to data collection was not perfect, and Bill and I are still thinking about ways to make this data more useful to teachers, but it did answer a longstanding issue I have always had with technology in the classroom. Computers, just like  in other contexts, make it easy for students to look busy when they really aren't. As an observer, I was able to see how students would deftly switch between their work and Solitaire without the teacher ever noticing. Even though the data told me how long they stayed on task, I was able to infer from the rest of the data that they really weren't very engaged. And even if they looked engaged, I could see how they were spending their time. Some used the tool creatively to make the best product possible, while others played around but did not put a lot of thought into their final product.

I see a lot of potential in this kind of data collection. We can learn a lot about how students use different tools and scaffold projects in a way that anticipates these patterns. This also opens the door to looking at how teachers make instructional decisions based on the feedback they get from the students' tool use. Given what they know about how a student is using his or her time, can they make better decisions for directing student effort before the final product is turned in? I think there are lot of good questions, and hopefully some answers, that will come from this kind of data.

And your homework for tonight is ... Facebook?

I've been thinking a lot about this post from Will Richardson. On one hand, I agree with Will. There is tremendous potential in using social media for learning. I have personally had this experience while trying to learn something new, such as CSS, PHP, digital video, guitar riffs, how to clean my lawnmower's carburettor, etc. In most cases, someone else held the key to a problem I was struggling with, and had I not been connected to a large pool of folks with similar interests and extensive knowledge, I would either be stuck in a rut or would have bailed on the whole thing altogether. The distinct characteristic from these learning experiences and those of K-12 (and undergrad, in most cases) students is that I was personally driven to learn something new. Students are personally driven to learn new things as well, but in many cases their personal interests don't align with the learning objectives established by their teachers. So, in the case of this 20-year old University of Missouri student, he probably is learning a lot by engaging in social media. He has probably learned a slew of new terms from the Urban Dictionary. He has learned how to be witty in 140 characters or less. He has learned how to keep tabs on his high school girlfriend. And I wouldn't be surprised if he has not only learned how to get free music from YouTube, but also discovered music he otherwise would have never heard of. The challenge for educators (and professors) is a) to convince this kid that most of these "skills" (minus the stalking) can cross over to his academics and make learning a much more personally rewarding experience, and b) to venture into this scary territory where they relinquish control over the learning environment without drenching it in a cheap, imitation school-scented cologne.

In response to Will's question, I'm not sure the blame for this kid's lack of vision lies with anyone in particular. Perhaps the blame lies with anyone who believes differently and doesn't do anything about it.

Why isn’t the future what it used to be? part 2

I ran across an interesting article, which relates to my previous post about how tecnology in education rarely meets the expectations of those who see its potential for improving teaching and learning. The authors draw upon the Technology I, II and III framework for describing technologists' attitudes and beliefs about achieving desired results in learning. The framework can be described as follows:

• Technology I: the belief that using certain tools will inherently lead to better learning. The problem with this belief is that the complexitites of human learning can rarely, if ever, be addressed wholely through a single tool, or even a collection of tools.
• Technology II: the belief that using certain design approaches or processes will automatically lead to better instruction, thus increased learning. The problem with this belief is that every learner's brain does not operate in the same way, and the complexity of learning environments will invariably disrupt any systematically designed instruction. Having been the designer of instruction for several years, I know from experience that the best laid plans are at the mercy of hundreds of environmental factors which the instructor may or may not be able to anticipate or control.
• Technology III: the belief that learning situations should define which technologies and design processes to use. Practitioners who ascribe to this belief are likely to embrace many design approaches and use a variety of tools. The problem with this belief is that it's hard to maintain due to what the authors describe as technological gravity. Given time, even the most rigorous and thoughtful Technology III practitioners will slip back into patterns of preferring one tool or design approach over others, regardless of their compatibility with the task at hand. I mean, some days we just feel like standing in front of the class and lecturing from slides.

The authors propose three "habits of mind" that, if one is disciplined enough to actually do them, will fight off technological gravity. I won't go into those three disciplines right now, but they are worth considering and may work.

I've read countless articles which start off by recounting the unfulfilled promises of educational technology. I even had a section in my dissertation on this very topic, describing the prophesies of educational film, radio, television, computer-based instruction and the Internet, and their failure to deliver the goods. Just as in sports and movies, hype surrounding educational technologies is rarely lived up to. New innovations are commonly seen as a solution before we even really know what the problem is. What if the innovation causes even more problems than previously existed? Boy, talk about disappointment! Educational technology should address pre-addressed problems or goals.

The Technology III mindset is practical, and I don't think it's hard to achieve. Just be flexible and don't put too much faith in one tool or approach to teaching. Pretty simple.

Why isn't the future what it used to be?

I ran across this article on cnn.com, and it got me to thinking about my entry into the world of educational technology. This is actually something I have been thinking a lot about lately because I recently graduated and accepted a position at a university. This transition from student to professor has caused me to think back and wonder what it was that drew me toward this profession. The fact that just about everyone I meet has asks me the same thing has something to do with it, as well. When I started teaching, I was already very much into computers. The World Wide Web was a baby and the only way I could go "online" was with the AOL software (I don't think they even called themselves AOL back then.) I was fortunate to get my first teaching job at a district that invested heavily in technology. Looking back on the resources they had even in 1995 is still astounding. Just about every lesson I taught had some sort of technology in it, though in most cases the students just watched me play with whatever tool I happened to be using. But I never really had any expectations that using the technology in my teaching was making me any better of a teacher. My classroom was nestled in between two 30-year veterans, and I looked to them as the standard for good teaching. And they didn't use technology ... at all. In fact, I had to remind them every grading period how to enter their grades into the grade book program. Every once in awhile I would do something with technology that got their attention and they would want to know how I did it.

My point is, I've never really trusted technology to do anything for me. I've always seen myself as the creative force in the classroom, and I happen to like technology and use it to do my job. One quotation from the previously mentioned article really caught my attention, and it ties in nicely to this idea. It's from Matt Verheiden, one of the writers for the recent Battlestar Galactica mini-series.

At some point, you can't expect a miracle to come in the form of technology to save us. At some point, the miracle has to come from a change in attitude and a new outlook.

So while it's entertaining to ponder whether or not some technology will be invented that seamlessly interacts with a student's brain making the whole learning process both fun and effortless, I think there is lot to be said for hard work, creativity and collaborating with other people.