TLT 471 TQ14 Course Feedback

Dear Dr. Garrigan,

I apologize for the delay in providing you feedback regarding our class this semester. Submitting the last book synthesis project, traveling abroad and then returning to the hustle and bustle of the Christmas Holiday season seems to have idled my brain somewhat.

Given that I’m in the people development business, I assess the effectiveness of any course by my growth, or output, throughout the semester and by what knowledge (if any) that I can pass on to others. That said, the coursework this semester maintained my interest by exposing me to many new authors whose ideas significantly broadened my knowledge regarding technology. I was profoundly impacted by the Cory Doctorow novel in particular and am still thinking about how technology should be leveraged safely, for good and not for evil. I have passed on Little Brother to my 16-year old daughter who is now reading it as her one elective novel for her honors English class.

The coursework this semester was also meaningful and relevant. As we have discussed on several occasions, I truly appreciate your flexibility in allowing my project work to be connected to business versus academic learning and development. This has allowed me to apply new knowledge directly into practice. The technology plan and case study projects in particular exposed me to many issues that I hadn’t considered for a very real simulation-based training research project, which I am trying to get funded at B. Braun. A summary of the technology plan will be presented to my board of directors on December 14. If I secure the funding for this important research I will owe much to the new knowledge gained during this course. I’m confident that once funded, this research will birth a validated simulation-based training program that will result in improved nursing practice and better patient care.

Finally, the work load this semester was HEAVY. I think that this is a good thing. Growth in knowledge or changes in attitudes and/or behaviors simply doesn’t occur without effort. You have high expectations and demand much cognitive “product” (which seems always overwhelming), but hard work, or deliberate, increasingly difficult practice increases expertise in any field.

Thank you for your passion, influence, and guidance this semester. I believe that the new technology planning knowledge that I have gained will make me a better educational leader.

TQ#9: To All Faculty and Students: Please, Use the School Computers Fearfully

I’d like to paraphrase how federal laws (CIPA and COPPA) influence school technology policies (Anywhere USA School District). Perhaps I am over simplifying, but would you sign the following user agreement, acceptance and consent form?

I understand and agree to abide by the following “limited self-discovery” computer use policies. I also understand that all of my files, research, and digital conversations are not private and will be monitored. Any violation of the computer use policies below, whether intentional or unintentional, mat result in denial of access to technology, probation, detention, suspension, expulsion, or civil and criminal prosecution. Anywhere USA School District will fully cooperate with local, state or federal officials related violations of any of the illegal computer use activities listed below.

1. I will not share personal information about myself or others.
2. I will not engage in inappropriate conversations.
3. I will not contact or be contacted by another person who might be considered inappropriate.
4. I will not view or allow others to view content that is copyrighted or protected by trade secret.
5. I will not view or allow others to view content that is annoying, threatening, harassing or causes distress to another person.
6. I will not view or allow others to view content that is obscene or pornographic.
7. I will not view or allow others to view content that advocates violence.
8. I will not view or allow others to view language that might be considered offensive, defamatory, or abusive.
9. I will not download any files, or install any programs, or change any configurations or settings to address any of my individual preferences.
10. I will immediately report any computer use policy violation by others to Anywhere USA School District authorities.

The US government is totally out of control. It seems as if their only function these days is getting in people’s way. If I were a judge presiding over a challenge to these kinds of restrictive technology policies I would rule for the people. I would rule against any totalitarian regime that limits free speech in any form or format.

TLT 471 TQ#6: Is it Safer to be an Individual or Interdependent Part of a Vulnerable Collective?

The readings and videos reviewed this week have been thought provoking - to say the least. In the back of my mind I have silently worried about my family's vulnerability related to an accelerating dependence on the networked world for several years now and have been taking steps to protect us in the event that our digital umbilical cord is severed due to any number of catastrophic events. This week's work has served to exacerbate my anxieties related to personal security and privacy as we slide down this slippery slope of connectedness. That being said, the same technology that makes us so very vulnerable also continues to give us a competitive edge in an increasingly competitive and flatter world. So how do we maintain our economic value as employees by leveraging technology while reducing our vulnerability and risk at the same time? I suggest a "redundancy" lifestyle.

I disagree with Laurie Garrett's view that "individual preparedness" for pandemics, [terrorism, and/or insurrection and revolution] is "irrational." I'm sure there are many who would also consider those of us who seriously consider that these kinds of catastrophic events are probable as "irrational." But the global financial near-meltdown of 2008 clearly demonstrates that individual preparedness for these kinds of predictable catastrophic events is a wise course of action, whereas dependence on government preparedness is absolute folly given their historic track record of "responsible" stewardship.

So what does a "redundancy" lifestyle mean? It means that we should continue to be active members of the global digitally connected community. Understanding technology and learning how to effectively leverage technology makes us professionally and personally more efficient and productive. But we should also all learn how to become digitally invisible. Even though I am technology illiterate from an IT back-end perspective, I am now committed to learn as much as I can about software and hardware solutions that can keep me safe, and have just purchased "Counter Hack Reloaded" to begin this process. A redundant lifestyle means that we should continue to purchase food at our local grocery stores, but we should also consider learning how to garden so we can grow our own as well. It means we should learn to hunt and fish. It means we should consider stockpiling some nonperishable food for emergency. A redundant lifestyle means that (most of us) should stay on the electrical power grid, but we should also consider installing secondary sources for heat including gas auxiliary generators, solar panels and batteries, and/or wood/coal burning stoves. A redundant lifestyle means that we should continue to rely on community water sources, but should also consider digging an auxiliary well or purchasing an emergency water storage system. It means that we shouldn't abandon our banks, but we should spread a diversity of fiscal resources across several financial institutions. It means we should also have immediate access to emergency "hard" currency. A redundant lifestyle means that we should continue to trust our community hospitals and their dedicated clinical personnel, but we should also learn basic diagnostic and first aid skills and have an emergency stockpile of medications to minimize pain, reduce inflammation, and eradicate bacterial infections.

A redundant lifestyle means we should adopt both new and old world pioneer attitudes to survive the coming storm. Fortunately, we have unlimited access to information to learn these old world pioneering skills in our digitally interdependent connected world.

TLT 471 TQ#5 Technology Planning Reflections: What I Have Learned So Far.

It’s all about money. This is what I have been thinking about most recently in my technology planning project. Even if I sell the idea that a comprehensive simulation-based nursing peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) procedure training curriculum will improve nursing practice (which will result in better patient care) it may not matter unless I can confidently predict that the money invested in the project will return more than the dollars invested.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been laboring to establish the budget that is needed to implement PIVC simulation-based curriculum research. Based on my analysis, I believe that a 14 Month, 4-Phase research program to create and validate a PIVC value-add clinician training will cost $307,450. This budget includes dollars allocated for eLearning pre-work ($50,000), simulation software and hardware ($85,000), clinician advisors/consultants ($32,000), reimbursement for partner hospital clinical staff time ($135,450), and IRB application submission fees ($5,000). During the course of this study we will be training approximately 60 nurses. I worry that a $307,450 budget or a short-term perception of $5,124 per nurse trained might overcome the intuitive “vision” of how this training program could positively impact our business long-term.

Ultimately, the PIVC simulation-based training program (if validated by our research) will be rolled out in multiple ways. The simplest to disseminate/execute will be to offer a new RN graduate 2-day PIVC certification program in a stand-alone simulation education center. Based on my analysis, I believe that the total year-one budget for this program will be $91,926. This budget includes allocated dollars for simulation software and hardware, as well ($34,000), but will also utilize the simulation equipment that is utilized in the aforementioned study, more fully leveraging these capital resources. The budget also includes allocated dollars for a clinical course facilitator ($30,800), and course disposables ($27,126). We believe that we have the capacity to train 154 nurses at this 2-day PIVC certification course in 2010 concurrently with our research project. Thus the total $399,376 proposed budget for both technology-based training initiatives will result in 214 nurses trained in 2010, or $1,866 per participant. Still high from a short-term perspective, but I’m hopeful that the additional nurses trained during the 2-day PIVC certification program in years two and three will reduce the per-participant cost of the course over time. For example, after the initial simulator capital outlay in year one, the cost to continue the 2-day program is just $57,926, or $376.14 per nurse participant.

By spreading the total three year budget of $423,302 over 522 total nurses trained (60 during research and 154 trained during the 2-day course in 2010, 2011 and 2012), average participation costs are further reduced to $810.92. This is a conservatively high number given that 2,400 nurses graduate from 47 nursing schools within 50 miles of Bethlehem annually so our inevitable expansion of the program will further reduce individual participant costs dramatically.

Even though the budget to conduct simulation-based PIVC training is predicted to trend (positively) downward over time, whether or not these better trained nurses will ultimately result in increased IV catheter sales is still a leap of faith. Unfortunately, we won’t know if the dollars invested in this program will return more than the dollars invested until long after we place the bet. So I continue to worry about my ability to sell an ROI vision that doing the right thing for nurses and their patients will positively impact the business bottom line.

Adversary, a new book by Kevin R. Glover

How do we explain to a child why a loving God allows bad things to happen to good people? How can a child make sense of a world permeated by evil and a loving all-powerful Creator? The Adversary, A Christian illustrated novel, addresses these questions by helping middle graders better understand the epic struggle between good and evil throughout biblical history

The major events of the Old and New Testaments are told by Obsessious, a small black, adolescent, celestial spirit who is ostracized by most of the other angels and archangels in heaven when God creates the first earth. Obsessious is drawn to Lucifer, God’s prince on earth, who pays attention to the lonely little angel by assigning him menial tasks. When Lucifer tries to overthrow God, he and the angels who stand with him, including Obsessious, are banished to a dark and ruined earth before Adam and Eve.

After God reforms the ruined earth, and creates man, Lucifer becomes increasingly unbalanced while trying to undermine the worldlings and retain his power. Children struggling with trying to understand their own “dark” sides will find a sympathetic character in Obsessious, who slowly regrets the bad decision he made to follow Lucifer instead of God. Obsessious fears his master and soon realizes that Lucifer’s war with God can never be won. He desperately wants to escape Lucifer, but lacks the courage to do so until he listens to Jesus and slowly understands the meaning of His parables. While Lucifer and his rogue angels seek to destroy God’s Son, Obsessious seeks and finds his own redemption.

Adversary is available at: http://www.lulu.com/ (search adversary, glover)
Adversary will be available soon at Amazon and Barnes and Noble

TLT 471 TQ#4: Is the MFA the new MBA or is the future owned by MSMAs?

Andy Grove has been credited with the motto that, “Only the paranoid survive.” Tom Middleton, my very first real boss told me repeatedly me as a young salesman that everyone was my competition. I was selling pharmaceuticals at the time to general practitioners in Southeastern Ohio. Tom’s message was that I wasn’t just competing with other pharmaceutical salesman for quality face time with the doctor. He meant that I was also competing with everything else and everybody else who was vying for the doctor’s attention including the copier salesman, the office supply salesman, his wife, his kids, his patients and every transient thought or stomach grumble that might divert his availability, time and attention away from me. As a very impressionable young man at twenty-two, I learned early in my career that differentiation is the key to success. In addition, I learned that differentiation is often short-lived so a commitment to a life-long learning process was required to continuously broaden my skill set to always expand my ability to make personal and professional choices.

Daniel Pink suggests, in A Whole New Mind, that right-brained aptitudes will be more difficult to replicate in the new conceptual age. He argues that as information becomes more widely disseminated, and as products become cheaper and more abundant, due to the rise of the Asian knowledge worker and automation, it all becomes less valuable. He argues that the people who will thrive in this new era are those who can make sense of this often superficial, mass-manufactured, data-based tsunami by taking the data and communicating it with emotional impact in a way that is relevant to those they seek to influence. Pink’s fundamental argument is to differentiate oneself.

I’ve been creating and using stories for years now to differentiate myself from “competitors.” I use these stories in presentations, lectures, and in follow up correspondence, which includes these stories as well as hand written notes. I use these story cards (pictured above) to motivate, inspire and teach. The return on this investment of creating, producing and physically sending these cards out has proven itself well beyond anything I could have every achieved with an email message. I have “overcome modern life’s glut of options and stimuli” with mini-symphonies of story, art and personal investment that is not easily replicated by others. This act of creating what some would consider a low tech communication piece was only possible with modern technology - digital cameras, scanners, Abobe InDesign and Photoshop, and HP inkjet printers, which can produce inexpensive, high quality cards in low volumes. So, is this act of differentiation a left-brained (MS) or right-brained (MA) process? I argue both.

Ray Kurzweil suggests, in The Singularity is Near, that humans will be forced to merge with their created machines since the exponential growth in non-biological computing power will far outstrip our lame processing speeds. He foresees a future in which humans and machines will ultimately evolve together. His predictions that at some point the machine itself becomes “self-aware” and is able to independently become a creator itself is a truly frightening prospect. Perhaps I’ve seen too many science fiction movies, but I don’t buy his argument that this machine “intelligence that arises from the singularity will have great respect for their biological heritage.” In the evolutionary processes that Kurzweil so eloquently describes I don’t see where a “survival of the fittest” end game doesn’t play itself out – but I’m only through 100 pages of the book so far so I’ll reserve judgment. The one thing that I do believe is that the exponential hockey stick of technological innovation is inevitable and only those who endeavor to learn about and use it will be able to leverage the new tools to differentiate themselves in the new conceptual age. Even though I fear where we may let technology take us I tend to be an early adopter of technology – always seeking for ways to give myself an edge over my competition. I learned word processing and how to make electronic spreadsheets on a Commodore 64 machine. I bought a $1,300 mobile “bag” phone. I did these things to be able to address my customer’s issues and concerns faster. Through technological solutions I could be the first to empathize with their fear, uncertainty and doubt. So, was this act of differentiation a left-brained (MS) or right-brained (MA) process? I argue both.

For me the focus of education now and into the future should be to facilitate and encourage student creation of all kinds to reinforce this notion of differentiation for competitive advantage. The act of creation with and without technology is an experiential learning process that leads to the real application of knowledge and a life-long love for learning.

TLT 471 TQ#3: Was our assignment really a tech plan?

I have been struggling with this notion of technology as an educational solution ever since I joined the LST MS program in 2005. As has been noted in most of the research we have read this semester, a “slapped on” technological solution of any kind that is not integrated into the core curriculum, typically does not yield anticipated learning outcomes. So I have approached this project as an educational intervention which happens to include a robust technology component. As such, my part 1 assessment of the target audience’s current state is more focused on offering a compelling argument to convince them that they have a problem, which at present they don’t see.

My “school district” is a typical average hospital. My hypothesis is that a comprehensive nursing peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) procedure training curriculum, which includes deliberate, increasingly difficult practice with task-based simulators, and human factors simulation, will ultimately reduce the number of peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) insertion attempts and the length of the PIVC procedure resulting in less adverse events like pain, phlebitis, infiltration and infection.

The need to build this compelling argument was discovered after researching many new hire nursing orientation programs. New nurse graduates (who have usually received no previous training in the PIVC procedure) receive 15-60 minutes of venipuncture procedural skills training in a classroom setting. During this brief training, they received a didactic lecture that reviews the the hospital's venipuncture procedure (checklist) and the classroom instructor models the procedure with a simulated prosthetic plastic arm. The instructor is often a nurse who is not certified in the venipuncture procedure. The full capabilities of the prosthetic simulation arm are typically not used during the training presentation and quite often the procedural instructions given are not up to date with current Infusion Nursing Society guidelines. Student practice on the prosthetic plastic arm during the classroom training is also usually voluntary. After this orientation, most new hire nurses are matched with hospital unit preceptors who are responsible for validating the new hire nurse’s PIVC procedure competency. Preceptors are usually not certified PIVC procedure practitioners nor has their procedural competency been validated or assessed before taking on the preceptor role. Typically, there are no formal new hire nurse PIVC competency criteria, no number of procedures required, and no summative assessments. Usually, these non-certified preceptors subjectively determine when new hire nurses can do the PIVC procedure competently based upon their own individual requirements.

Even though program instructors often recognize deficiencies in the PIVC training component of new hire nurse orientation resources are always limited and they often feel that their executive administrators will not see any value in freeing up additional PIVC instructional time. Since increased instructional time with a new mastery learning technology-based curriculum is needed to test our hypothesis, my “current state” assignment needs to include a review of these typical existing instructional issues. I needed to make credible predictions of patient risk associated with current instructional practices. Unless potential gaps are clearly identified and agreed to by all key stakeholders in any hospital I have no hope of selling them on the vision of a better mastery learning technology-based curriculum or its subsequent implementation.

TLT 471. TQ#2. “A Perfect Storm of Mindlessness”(1)

As an indentured investor in the public school system of this country, all I can do is express my absolute dismay after reading the US Department of Education’s two executive summaries assigned this week. (2,3) Unfortunately, individually I lack the power to redirect the juggernaut of academic “mindlessness” expressed in the research that was reviewed in these two summaries. But perhaps, collectively, we can influence future efforts to improve student outcomes by demanding revolutionary change around the following four key initiatives.

• Meaningful accountability for educational leaders and classroom teachers
• The blended integration of technology into the curriculum
• Focused experiential learning through problem solving that requires significant effort
• A student assessment strategy that measures relevant knowledge application

Given the time, effort and money it took to execute the Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products research, I find it absurd that school principals and classroom teachers were “encouraged” by vendors to use the software products under investigation, but teachers could arbitrarily decide not to do so. Once recruited for the study, school districts top down, from the superintendent to the classroom teacher, should have been required to utilize the software – otherwise, why bother conducting the research at all? The ability of individual teachers in the intervention group to opt out “whenever” is a major flaw of this study, but consistent with Wenglinsky’s observation that a culture of learning is not valued and nourished in many school environments in which many teachers are indifferent and educational leadership is absent.(1) In my view teacher indifference won’t be eradicated until there is truly meaningful accountability for lack of performance. If optimal student performance isn’t evident, opting out of trying new methodologies should not be an option. School districts should be able to quickly remove any principal or teacher (regardless of tenure) who “opts out” of trying potentially new methodologies if the students they are tasked to teach are substandard performers.

The reading and mathematics software products used in this research were essentially drill and practice tutorials that supplemented the teacher and were not an integrated part of the curriculum. In addition, the software under investigation was used by the students less than 11% of the allocated and applicable instructional time. As a fervent believer in Ericsson’s deliberate practice methodology, I am not surprised that instructional interventions used less than 11% of the time result in no statistically significant change in student achievement.(4) There was no significant investment in either time or effort to truly test the potential impact of these software programs. In addition, these software programs did not seem to add any depth to the existing curriculum. I imagine that these drill and practice software programs probably replaced drill and practice print-based work sheets. Wenglinsky suggests that technology like this should never stand alone. He advocates a blended integration of technology into the curriculum that leverages multiple tools. His view is that technology should be imbedded and inseparable from creative teaching that has students spending significantly more time on less. He refers to one such creative teacher who said, “I would rather have my students spend an entire period on one problem, coming up with multiple ways of solving it, many of them dead ends, than have them solve 15 problems without engaging their brains.” (1)

This last comment leads us to the subject of attention and the fact that the temporary memory of our students is fleeting. Limited temporary memory capacity leaves us with students who selectively choose to attend to certain incoming information while simultaneously choosing to ignore other information. Selective attention is the only way that instruction reaches conscious thought. Wenglinsky, Driscoll, and Linn et al advocate student-centric instructional content that is presented in ways that are personnally meaningful or aligned in some way to student’s existing concepts or anchoring ideas (certainly not drill and practice software programs used in isolation). When a student’s existing long term cognitive files are connected in meaningful ways instruction being processed in short term memory will be relevant to the student and provide entry points for the new information to be permentantly filed, or encoded for later recall and application. When students encounter content that is not student-centric (drill and practice programs used in isolation) they are more apt to reherse or memorize the new ideas. Since these isolated, rehersed new ideas are not connected to existing ideas the instruction results in little to no cumulative learning and rapid forgetting. Using technology that is an integrated part of a curriculum, which is directed towards student-centric, relevant, experiential and demanding problem solving will increase their knowledge acquisition and application around more focused content.(1,4,5,and 6)

Finally, standardized tests that measure isolated student knowledge acquisition is just as uninteresting and irrelevant to students as the curricular content and teaching methodologies that they are forced to endure in most classrooms. The drill and practice software programs described in the IES executive summaries were certainly not interesting nor were they personally relevant to the students in these study populations. The software programs did not require any meaningful effort. These programs did not immerse students in an experiential and demanding problem solving process, and yet the IES embarks on this study expecting a lame standardized test to validate a lamely executed technology intervention. Nothing will improve in our public schools until we demand a student assessment strategy that measures relevant knowledge application. Performance assessments need to replace standardized multiple choice knowledge assessments because at the end of the day what students know is irrelevant – what students can do is everything. (1) A student may have memorized an extensive vocabulary (knowledge), but can he or she leverage that knowledge by articulating a compelling and persuasive argument in writing (applied knowledge)?

There are voices crying in the wilderness who are advocating the revolutionary changes reviewed here. For example, Professor Robert Sternberg’s alternative SAT (Rainbow Project) is more focused on having students describe their solutions to relevant problems than answer multiple choice knowledge assessment questions. Even though it has been shown to be twice as successful than the traditional SAT in predicting how well students will perform in college it has not been adopted (Pink, 2005).(7) And even though the SAT introduced a writing component to their multiple choice test in 2005 it is still not being used by most colleges in the evaluation of student applicants. Although I applaud the efforts of pioneers like Dr. Sternberg, I wonder if revolutionary change can ever happen when we can’t even adopt a small incremental improvement to student assessment like writing an essay on the SAT.

The Chinese characters at the beginning of this blog are translated as “Fu bu guo san dai”, or “wealth only lasts three generations.” The proverb is often expressed when discussing the United States because the Chinese believe that we lack the determination and discipline to fundamentally change any of the challenges described above.

Are they right?


References

1. Wenglinsky H. (2005) Using Technology Wisely: The Keys to Success in Schools. Teachers College Press. Columbia University. New York. pp. 43-59
2. Institute of Educational Sciences (2007) Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. Executive Summary. US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
3. Institute of Educational Sciences (2008) Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report. Executive Summary. US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
4. Ericsson K.A. (2004). Deliberate practice and acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine. Vol. 79, No.10:S70-S81.
5. Discoll, M.P. (2005) Psychology of learning for instruction (Third edition). pp. 111-152: Pearson Education, Inc
6. Linn, M.C., Davis, E.A., & Eylons, B-S. (2004). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for instruction. In M.C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Pink D.H. (2005) A Whole New Mind. Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. Riverhead Books. New York. pp. 39
   

TLT 471. TQ #1 National Education Technology “Plan”

The picture above was taken of Michael Phelps after he won the 100 meter butterfly in the Olympics in Beijing by 1/100th of a second. Anders Ericsson (2004) would say that the 1/100th of a second difference between winning and losing was the result of “Deliberate, difficult practice undertaken over a long period of time, while receiving informative feedback, and having opportunities for repetition and correction of errors, which leads to elite performance.”

Phelps deliberate “difficult” practice includes swimming 80,000 meters a week (50 miles). He practices 365 days a years (52 days per years more than most other competitive swimmers. Every race that he swims is filmed above and below the water – every meter is broken down mathematically and analyzed by fluid mechanics programs. Numbers of strokes, speed of stokes, angles of fingertips entering the water, and the tilt of is head is adjusted based on this “feedback” to “correct his “errors” so he can reduce water resistance and increase his speed. His blood is drawn and a comprehensive blood analysis is run after each race to measure how many millimoles of muscular waste needs to be cleared out of his system before his next race. This “feedback” directs Phelps regarding the speed and the number of warm down laps he needs to swim after his races to drop his lactic acid levels back down to peak performance levels.

Why do I introduce you to this notion of deliberate practice and offer Michael Phelps as an example? I highlight the concept of deliberate, difficult practice, with meaningful and actionable feedback for the correction of errors (certainly not standardized tests), because foundational ideas like hard work, ambition, and dedication (time investment) were noticeably absent in the US National Education Technology Plan.

How can we possibly “Strengthen Leadership” without accountability and no mention of performance reviews with “teeth?” How will “Innovative Budgeting” ever occur in an educational system run by an undisciplined government that has proven it can’t fiscally manage anything well? The concept of “Improving Teacher Training” sounds good, but who is accountable for making it happen? I find it interesting that while completing my M.Ed at Temple (1999-2003) and my LST MS here at Lehigh (2005-2010), I have not had one online course. If not me, who? The grand generic verbalization continued with “Support eLearning”, “Encourage Broadband Access”, “Move Toward Digital Content”, and “Integrate Data Systems”, but I was left wondering about substance. If we actually achieve these goals as written and develop and disseminate quality educational content utilizing technology who will come if we haven’t addressed the foundational ideas of hard work, ambition, and dedication (time investment)? For example only 105,000 intrinsically motivated students enrolled for courses at the Florida Virtual School in 2008 (FVS Minutes, 2008), representing only 4% of the state’s total 2,640,000 students (Florida Department of Education, 2006).
.
The Florida Virtual School has truly embraced US National Education Technology Plan. If fact, based on my brief investigation of their work I was impressed by the diverse, robust curriculum and quality of the content. Clearly, the effort at FVS is to serve motivated, ambitious students who have high expectations by offering them coursework that might not be available at their school. Who else but the top 4% of students would want to take courses like AP Microeconomics, AP Art History, AP Computer Science, AP Statistics, AP Calculus, Mandarin Chinese, Latin, Marine Science, etc.? I took a brief tour of the Mandarin Chinese course and was amazed at its depth. Students are immersed in the Chinese culture as virtual exchange students in China as they learn to listen, speak, read and write the language. If fact, my brief exposure to the Mandarin course content has motivated me to call the school to see if I can enroll as an out of state (adult) student. Out of state students can participate in FVS courses for a fee. If this is an option I am also interested in taking the Flash Animation course and the AP Art History course, as well. FVS is an awesome example of what is possible, but it is, unfortunately, an exception. But the FVS example also exposes our bigger “foundational” problem – the elephant in the room that no one has the political courage to address – How do we create a culture of “chasing excellence” in which the remaining 96% of Florida students want to participate in the same kinds of challenging coursework? By serving only the top 4%, 10%, or 20% we still lose as a nation.

According to Craig Barrett (Intel Presentation, 2008), there are more kids in China learning English than our 307,305,000 US citizens (US Population Clock, Aug 29, 2009). In the United States, only about 24,000 students in grades seven through 12 study Chinese (Aratabi, 2006). We are doomed by these kinds of numbers unless we adopt an Asian culture in which everyone in the United States is passionately devoted to educational excellence that only results from hard work, ambition, and life-long dedication (time investment).

References

Aratabi, Lori (2006). With a Changing World Comes An Urgency to Learn Chinese. Washington Post. Saturday, August 26, 2006. Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/25/AR2006082501418_pf.html, August 29, 2009.

Florida Department of Education, accessed at http://www.fldoe.org/news/2006/2006_11_17.asp , August 29, 2009

Florida Virtual Schools Board of Trustee Official Minutes, Tuesday, June 24, 2008, accessed at http://www.flvs.net/Pages/default.aspx, August 29, 2009

K. Anders Ericsson, Ph.D. / Department of Psychology / Florida State University
Ericsson K.A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine. Vol. 79, No. 10: S70-S81

US and World Population Clock, accessed at http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html, August 29, 2009.

Who Needs Tutorials When You've Got Phunland!

When I was doing my homework this weekend, my 15-year old daughter looked over my shoulder. She first asked me what I was doing and then almost immediately gutturally moaned the word “physics” when she noticed the “2D physics sandbox” descriptor under the “phun” logo. Even though she won’t experience physics until next year, the course reputation has already been clearly communicated to Kelsey by her three older siblings. It’s also interesting to note that this groan came from an honors student who plans on pursuing a biology or chemistry undergraduate major when she enters college in 2011. But…as she watched me work within the application for a few minutes, Kelsey asked me if she could try the program and I promptly relinquished my seat to observe her.

I found it interesting that she quickly disregarded the program’s tutorial – like father, like daughter. I too, found the tutorial to be non-intuitive and frustrating. It seemed that I should be able to apply the tutorial directions directly into the program by following sequential instructions – which would have been awesome – but I could not achieve this kind of functionality. Fortunately, the Phunland program itself is so interesting and elegantly simple, that even people not intrinsically “wired” for physics like Kelsey and me felt compelled to just experiment with the program, learning through trial and error, which, I would argue is the ultimate goal of any science course or program. Through trial and error (and a little bit of back and forth with the tutorial for basic command guidance) with simple geometric shapes, springs and water, I spent an inordinate amount of time adjusting the friction and density of my moving objects in an effort to try and control the gravitational movement of my objects. As I navigated through the program I concluded that this is a wonderful constructivist teaching tool that quickly establishes baseline accurate or inaccurate understandings and through experimentation constructs new meaning for learners. I’m assuming that Phunland is the program you refer to as “aimed at high [intrinsic] motivation” given a learner’s natural tendency to want to play with the program, and Concord’s “molecular Work Bench” as the application focused on “deeper content.” If so, I’m not sure I agree with this general statement because I think that Phunland, used to enhance the instruction of a gifted physics teacher, could truly help make physics relevant and meaningful to even the most resistant and intimidated science students, helping to achieve a much deeper level of content understanding.

The Concord Molecular Work Bench program utilized sequenced instruction to step through a lesson focused on random motion and molecular stickiness. In fact, I would say that the instructional design of the lesson really negated the need for the typical “how to use the program” tutorial and replaced it with linearally sequenced content with instructions that simply moved the learner through a lesson with very, very specific learning objectives. While the program clearly transferred the ideas of “stickiness” variables of positive and negative charges as well as the effects of temperature on self-assembly, for me there was no depth of understanding transferred. So even though the sequential instructions made the application easy to use and navigate this “strength” was also the program’s weakness in that experimentation beyond the well-defined lesson parameters was not possible. Even though I am often a fan of the Corcord Consortium methodology, because manipulating animations teaches complex content infinitely better than any textbook can, I’d have to say that I preferred Phunland’s more free wheeling blank canvas approach when comparing the two for this assignment. I think that both programs could be powerful adjunctive tools in the hands of a good teacher depending upon the specific learning objectives that need to be achieved.

Sketchup and POV-Ray Assignment

The first image above was developed using POV-Ray, the coding for which can be found below. The second image was developed using Google's Sketchup. I found the Google product to be easy to learn and will probable find ways to utilize this application in our day to day training development work at B. Braun. The Sketchup illustration above is a diagram of a laminar flow hood, which is utilized in pharmacy clean rooms for sterile compounding processes.

The POV-Ray application was an exercise in futility. I found the program to be insanely complicated, non-intuitive and very frustrating. My dominate learning styles are visual spatial and verbal/linguistic. I am a weak logical mathematical learner, so the trial and error of arbitrarily plugging in coordinates to just place a star in my solar system illustration (above) was incredibly time consuming. The ability to copy, paste and drag shapes directly on the actual rendered image would have made creation a lot easier. If PON-Ray and Photo shop were a combined application, I could see it's ability to automatically create relationships between image objects to be compelling, but for me the inability to work on the "canvas" with PON-Ray wasn't a pleasant experience.

#include "colors.inc"
global_settings { assumed_gamma 1.0 }

background { color rgb <0,> }


camera { location <0.0,>
direction 1.5*z
right x*image_width/image_height
look_at <0.0,> }

light_source { <0,>
color rgb <1,>
translate <-5, 5, -5> }

light_source { <0,>
color rgb <0,>
translate <6,> }

light_source { <0,>
color rgb <0,>
translate <6,> }

sphere
{ <0,>, 2.5
pigment { color Gray }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/2 }
}

sphere
{ <-2, -3, 5>, 0.5
pigment { color Blue }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/4 }
}

sphere
{ <-2,-3, 12> 1.5
pigment { color Cyan }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/2 }
}

sphere
{ <2,>, 0.5
pigment { color Blue }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/4 }
}

sphere
{ <2,>, 0.25
pigment { color Cyan }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/4 }
}

sphere
{ <2,>, 0.25
pigment { color Red }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/4 }
}

sphere
{ <0,>, 0.25
pigment { color Red }
finish { specular 0.6 }
normal { agate 0.25 scale 1/4 }
}
sphere
{ <-5, -4, 8>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}

sphere
{ <-5.5, -4.5, 8.5>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <3,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}

sphere
{ <3.5,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <3.5,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <2.75,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <2,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <2.5,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <3,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}
sphere
{ <1.85,>, 0.05
pigment { color White }
finish { specular 100.6 }
}

TQ#7 Gapminder: “If Serious People Use the Internet the Internet Will Get Serious Content”

According to Dr. Jordan Grafman, chief of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the quality of one’s output and depth of thought deteriorates as one attends to ever more tasks. Claudia Koonz, professor of history at Duke University, encourages her students to “disconnect” from technology. She thinks students today have an aversion for complexity that is directly related to multitasking with technology. “It’s as if they have too many windows open on their hard drive,” she says. “In order to have a taste for sifting through different layers of truth, you have to stay with a topic and pursue it deeply, rather than go across the surface with your tool bar.” Today, students are sorters of the superficial, which results in mediocre learning versus mastery learning. How can a student be truly immersed in social studies research while listening to an AC/DC song on iTunes between checking email, while IMing multiple friends? The situation is further exacerbated when one looks at the depth of online content and the value of online content as opposed to reading peer-reviewed journal articles and studies and (God forbid) a genuine published book related to the social studies topic of interest. (Time, March 27, 2006) Even though I consider myself an enthusiastic early adopter of all kinds of technological tools to enhance performance, I often worry that digitally available information and resources are almost always considered credible by most students. In addition, I worry about the lack of content depth even if the digital information is, in fact, credible. I believe that all of the factors listed above are creating a digital “Cliffs Notes” generation who feel that two or three bullet points related to just about any topic is acceptable. That being said, I often find myself to be the lone skeptic – waiting to assess the real return of any technological teaching or learning application before advocating its use.

That being said, I rarely see any software application that “sells” me instantaneously, I was absolutely blown away by Hans Rosling’s Gapminders data mining application. Wow! Dr. Rosling has actually developed a truly transformational tool that helps students think about thinking. Gapminders can help learners overcome their preconceived ideas and encourages digging deeper into the data once the “gap” between their prior understandings and new information has been identified (truly a constructivist learning environment that creates new understandings). There are limitations in using the tool. For example, in the first image at the top of the posting, I was disappointed that information was limited to the years 1995-2006 when I tried to compare the GDP of countries to 8th grade math achievement – so even with this wonderful tool data depth will drive practical application.

I preferred working with the deeper data bases like when I compared electrical power consumption (kWh per capita) to total income (GDP). Between 1960 and 2005 it is interesting to me that India and China seem to be accelerating (faster) up and to the right (more power use = more total income) as compared to a more gradual up and to the right trend for the US. It left me wondering about the new “space” race for cheaper/cleaner energy solutions. Is the US at a disadvantage in having to restructure an entrenched 20th century energy infrastructure versus China and India who may be able to transition faster to 21rst century energy solutions like solar, geothermal, wind, Etc.? I found myself wanting more and deeper data to fill the “gap” in my knowledge. I found that increasing power consumption per capita was associated with:

• Increasing health expenditures per capita
• Increased adult literary rates
• More patent applications
• Increase income per person
• Greater total CO2 emissions
• Increased life expectancy
• Decreased average number of children per woman
• Decreasing infant mortality rates

For me, Gapminder gives the student who is wired for surfing the ability to do so within a constrained environment that encourages sifting through different layers and staying with complex topics and pursuing them more deeply. This tool could truly be a catalyst for mastery learning, specifically around the content areas that contain the widest and deepest databases. I see only upside – no down side in the use of this exciting tool. Kudos to Dr. Rosling on his accomplishment thus far with Gapminder and best wishes for his continued “liberation” of data to continue enhancing the capabilities of this transformational learning application.

TQ#6 A Quixotic Search for Elegant Learning Solutions

In the readings and during the web-conferencing research this week I became increasingly angry regarding the notion that collaboration was some sort of magic bullet and that virtual classrooms somehow facilitate the sociocognitive process better than live classrooms.

Jonassen referring to Sardamalia suggests that the best way to deal with divergent or opposing ideas is to rise above their incompatibilities. This statement is not just nonsensical, but dangerous. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world. The immersion of students in collaborative environments in which there are no ideas that win or lose, or even “compromise” ideas is simply setting them up for failure. In the real, more competitive global economy the better most “right” idea wins.

Jonassen also suggests that virtual collaboration somehow creates “communities” of intrinsically motivated learners in which individual students are no longer “disconnected” or competing with each other in live classroom settings. The author’s view that online collaboration somehow removes the social communities and cliques that include some and exclude others in live classroom environments is misguided. In fact, the implied anonymity of virtual environments, without the social filters of live classrooms, might create an even “meaner” environment for more passive, disenfranchised students.

That being said, given our investigation of Illuminate and my experience with Wedex (http://www.webex.com) at B. Braun Medical, there is absolutely nothing that online web-conferencing tools offer that can’t be accomplished better in a live classroom setting. Illuminate is not at all intuitive and I needed to invest about 2-3 hours to just figure out how to navigate the application. As can be seen in the screen shot that precedes this entry, we did discover how to load and share a PowerPoint presentation and a video. As we struggled through this discovery process we used the chat box to communicate because we had challenges using the audio feature. When we finally learned how to share the audio component we used both instant messaging and audio to communicate, but the limitations of the technology were barely tolerable. The lag time between a comment made by one person, who then needed to relinquish audio control over to another, stifled the collaborative process. Beyond the inability to talk normally, the need to constantly “enable” or “disable” the application’s features to “share” content was a creativity killer.

Illuminate, like Webex, is a less expensive alternative to push out information by a very skilled moderator to a geographically dispersed audience. For example, if we need just two hours to teach sales reps in all 50 states about a new product feature, it is more timely, faster and cheaper using Webex than the travel and expense required getting everyone who needs the information into a live classroom setting. However, the tool is used as a controlled virtual classroom where information is presented, during which questions can be asked and addressed. The benefit of Webex is that it combines web-conferencing with teleconferencing applications so that the audio component more clearly mirrors a live authentic conversation. If we feel a more collaborative, interpersonal, interactive environment is required for knowledge transfer we move field sales personnel into live classroom environments. I have not yet seen a virtual tool that can improve upon the sociocognitive learning process of a great live classroom environment.

In 1871 Edward Jarvis studied 1,741 cases of insanity and concluded that too much cognitive effort was responsible for 205 of them. This study led to shortening school days and lengthening summer vacations “to reduce time spent studying, because long periods of respite could save the mind from injury” (Kenneth Gold, School’s In: The History of Summer Education in American Public Schools, 2002). I believe that this American legacy of less time in the classroom, aligned with a distant western agricultural mindset, has much do with the performance of our students when compared with global peers. We spend an inordinate amount of time focused on solutions that include technology integration, reducing class size, rewriting curricula, etc., but avoid discussing one of the overarching issues related to student performance, which is the length of the time American students spend in the classroom – an average of 180 days per year. Given that South Korean Students spend 220 days a year in the classroom and Japanese students spend 243 days a year in the classroom one has to wonder why we spend so much time on ancillary, nice-to-have, academically interesting topics like the value of web-conferencing.

American students need to spend more time in classroom and work harder than they do now. They need to learn how to collaborate with others, but more emphasis needs to be focused on developing compelling arguments and leading others to action. They need to learn how to compete effectively, learning how to win gracefully and how to continuously learn through losing, or a common Chinese proverb directed at the United States will become a reality – fu bu guo san dai (wealth doesn’t make if past three generations).

TQ#5 I Read About Concept Mapping and Created One – Certainly Not a “Game Changer” For Me

After reading Jonassen (Chapter 5), Modeling With Technologies and after completing the Cmap exercise pictured above, I’m surprised we focused that much energy on this topic. To me, his discussions related to modeling with systems dynamics tools, modeling problems with spreadsheets, modeling thinking with expert systems, and modeling experiences with expert systems was much more compelling.

Perhaps I’m not impressed because beyond learning how to navigate the application, working with the tool did not require much effort around a content area that was personally relevant or meaningful to me. That being said, I think that Jonassen’s recommendation that concept mapping tools be used for reflection during an entire course of study makes sense, which is probably why I didn’t benefit much from the Cmap exercise. A concept map used as a metacognitive, think-about-thinking, facilitator to help make sense of sequentially, increasingly comprehensive and complex domain knowledge could be a wonderful way of identifying knowledge gaps or unanswered questions. I will consider using concept mapping as I work through an upcoming 18-month venipuncture simulator pilot study at B. Braun. I believe that this will result in a fairer assessment of concept mapping.

What I’m particularly excited about is systems dynamic tools. I was unaware of these kinds of programs. The potential educational value of these kinds of applications at B. Braun is significant. For example, if my sales representatives, or their anesthesia customers, could work through the variable orthopedic post surgical outcomes of nausea, vomiting and pain, by comparing and contrasting the use of a variety of preoperative and intraoperative anesthetic techniques, authentic knowledge would be constructed in a way that isn’t possible by discussing peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic. I will be researching Stella, VenSim, and PowerSim to assess their capabilities to create this kind of a dynamic cause and effect teaching tool.

I might be a SupPapertarian! We use whatever works - didactic or constructivist methodologies to achieve desired learning outcomes

From a business perspective it is always interesting to me to observe the level of academic effort that is focused on arguing whether technology is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether a didactic approach is better or worse than a constructivist approach, or whether…or whether…

As an instructional leader in a business environment in which I am paid based on how well training accelerates improved performance, my approach to the design and delivery of products to improve knowledge, skills, behaviors and/or attitudes is fluid, based upon desired learning outcomes, which should be aligned with very, very specific organizational objectives. If I am a vocal advocate of any cognitive belief system, I would be considered a disciple of both Anders Ericsson’s work related to deliberate practice and Howard Gardner’s work related to multiple intelligences. Based on the overarching themes behind Wenglinsky’s opinions in “Using Technology Wisely” I believe we are more aligned than not regarding the appropriate integration of technological tools (broadly defined) to achieved optimal learner outcomes.

My view of how learners learn is illustrated in the organizational chart that precedes this narrative. The first step of the cognitive information processing sequence is sensory input, which includes the cumulative internal and external, or environmental stimulus, experienced by a person at any given moment in time. What this means is that the content we are trying to share is competing with their hunger pangs and the attractive student sitting three seats away…among a host of other distractions.

All of this stimuli hits a sensory register, which has limited capacity. It can only accept and hold a limited amount of sensory input. The sensory input is stored for about a half a second at which point it is either processed, because the student pays attention to the stimuli, or the sensory input is lost to accommodate new stimuli. Attention is the only way that sensory inputs reach conscious thought. Due to limited capacity our sales represntatives selectively choose to attend to certain incoming information while simultaneously choosing to ignore other information. Selective attention is a process by which students allocate resources to manage limited capacity.

Sensory input that is attended to and is selected for further processing moves to the temporary (or working) memory. At this stage, files on the hard drive or concepts and information stored in the long term memory are accessed for use in making sense of the incoming information. The storage duration of sensory input in working memory is longer than the sensory register, but still a very brief 15 to 30 seconds. Working memory, like the sensory register, has limited capacity. Information is stored in working memory in small chunks of data. These chunks of data will be lost, or pushed out, every 15-30 seconds to make room for new data unless the existing data is rehearsed (practiced) or encoded into long term memory for later recall. Rehearsal is the simple act of consciously looping or repeating the sensory input for recall later, like repeating a phone number until one has the chance to write it down. Encoding, on the other hand, happens when new information in the temporary memory matches or is aligned in some way to a sales representative’s existing concepts or anchoring ideas – their past experiences and prior learning. If a sale rep’s existing long term cognitive files are connected in some way to the information in short term memory these new ideas will be relevant to the rep and provide entry points for the new information to be filed.

What is remembered from our training is largely a function of what our sales representatives understand to begin with. The amount of prior knowledge possessed by reps and their interests will affect both their attention and recall of our training.

Like Gardner, my view is that the brain is modular and retains long-term memories in multiple systems. For example one theory is that the brain is split between two memory systems; verbal and non-verbal. The verbal memory module contains verbal and auditory memory files. The non-verbal memory module contains visual memory files, tactile memory files, and olfactory memory files. What this means, to those of us who wish to teach others, is that training sessions should seek to capture a sales rep’s attention utilizing a variety of techniques in an effort to make connections to these multiple long term files. The more long term memory files we open the better chance we have of our representatives encoding our presentations into a variety of these files for later recall.

So, how do we maximize learner retention and rapid recall to increase sales representative performance in the field in face to face customer engagements based on this view of coginitive information processing? We are neither the “sage on the stage” or the “guide on the side” – we are both. Whether we are conducting the didactic (showing) component of the training program or the constructavist (doing) component of the training program we purposefully design the program to capture a sales representative’s curiosity and interest (arousal) so that they will selectively choose pay attention to instruction. We also purposefully design our programs to make meaningful connections to what sales representatives already know (or what they know they will need to know to be successful) so training content is encoded into long term memory for retrieval when needed. Our blended training curriculums also help students to encode new knowledge more efficiently for easier storage and more rapid retrieval. All of our programs have components that are geared to verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, body/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and visual spatial learners. Finally, our programs are built to require significant cognitive effort. It’s impossible to selectively choose to ignore instruction when brains are actively engaging by doing. Most of our sales representatives think that we take this notion of “effort” to extremes because all are made to work. This is where we differ from the constructivist-purists who seem to believe that all students will be intrinsically motivated to take responsibility for their own learning when given the “right” tools to do so. This utopian view is simply not based in reality, which is why a more fluid, highly customized, didactic/constructivist, blended curriculum seems to be effective in facilitating continuous improvement across our diverse learner populate – those who choose to just get by, those who choose to be average, and those who choose to excel. In fact, we are rabid proponents of Ericsson’s theory that deliberate, increasingly difficult, repetitive practice over a long period of time, with meaningful feedback that allows learners for correction of errors, compels sales representatives of varying motivation to acquire extended domain-specific long-term working memory skills for more rapid (automatic) retrieval when needed during customer engagements (Ericcson and Kintsch, Psychological Review, 1995. Vol. 102, No 2. p211-245).

This all said, I see much similarity in the way that Wenglinsky’s describes student achievement using technological tools with how we leverage a multiple intellenge strategy for increased performance at B. Braun Medical. For example, during his observation of ecology of Antarctica project work at the ALL School in Worcester, MA, he found chat rooms with oceanographers (interpersonal learning), spreadsheets of data (logical mathematical learning), and slideshows (visual/special learning). At the Roots and Wings School, the 10-day 25-mile rafting “expedition” down the San Juan River is aligned with our notion of experiential learning that uses both effort and multiple intelligence theories to transfer, or construct, knowledge. Students were made to do real work (effort) during their expedition in which they kept journals (intrapersonal learning), constructed star chars (visual/spatial learning), examined petroglyphs (body/kinesthetic learning), and wrote scientific reports (verbal/linguistic learners).

According to Wenglinsky, the right “Technology” or “medium” facilitates student understanding by turning a concept into a concrete problem to solve. Presentation skills training at B. Braun does just this. The training program is a high pressure, high exposure live training program that is reinforced by just-in-time, self-paced print and mobile video reinforcement pieces. The live sessions support the intrapersonal learner by creating the environment of self-reflection and higher order reasoning required to develop creative sales presentation openings and closes. Learners are taught to develop presentations by writing in a graphic organizer, which supports the verbal/linguistic learner. Classroom presentation practice is a body/kinesthetic experience focused on voice intonation, tone, tempo and body language. There is also an interpersonal component in that the class participants conduct a keep, toss and add critique with each presenter. The reinforcement pieces are designed to share best practice presentation scripts in our FastFacts training newsletter and actual best practice video presentations can be downloaded from our Intranet and viewed on our sales rep’s laptops, video iPods, or Blackberry 8800 wireless handhelds. These reinforcement materials support verbal/linguistic and visual/spatial learners. Informal peer-to-peer real world best practice presentation videos have created a viral training program focused on continuous improvement.

Like Wenglinsky, we believe that technology is “neither inherently good, or bad,” but if integrated wisely can accelerate deeper levels of student understanding for application in the real world.

TQ3 I'm Sold on Neuroscience-Based Education, But Not From Prensky's Perspective

After reading article titled, Do They Really Think Differently (Prensky, 2001), I couldn’t help but to reflect back on TIME magazine’s cover story (March 27,2006) that focused on children and technology, which asked the question, “are kids too wired for their own good?” Given the discussion of the relative importance of the investment of time and effort (persistence) in learning I thought it was interesting when Dr. Jordan Grafman was quoted saying, “that the quality of one’s output and depth of thought deteriorate as one attends to ever more tasks” when speaking about the dangers of multitasking with technology. Obviously this opinion is diametrically opposed to Prensky’s notion that the “digital native brains” of today’s youth have somehow been reorganized for parallel processing, which doesn’t correlate to the reality of the cognitive capacity of the sensory register, short term and long term memory systems. Given the focused time and effort required for mastery learning, achieving it today may be harder now than ever. The student composing an essay for an English class on his or her computer may also have iTunes opened listening to AC/DC while IMing several friends and checking email between writing sentences. Professor Claudia Koonz, professor of history at Duke University, encourages her students to “disconnect” from technology. She thinks students today have an aversion for complexity that is directly related to multitasking with technology. “It’s as if they have too many windows open on their hard drive,” she says. “In order to have a taste for sifting through different layers of truth, you have to stay with a topic and pursue it deeply, rather than go across the surface with your toolbar.”

I find it interesting that Presnsky relies on a quote from Elizabeth Lorch (Amherst) who is quoting Malcolm Gladwell (The Tipping Point, 2000) as his proof that the “digital native brains” of children watch TV in bursts (strategic selective attention) and that distractions don’t negatively impact retention and recall. I would suggest that Prensky should read Barbara Flagg’s original research, Formative Evaluation of Sesame Street Using Eye Movement Photography (1977), before relying on the interpretation of others to make a claim that the attention spans of children doesn’t matter. Flagg’s research was designed to help early TV producers identify how to manipulate instructional design variables to optimize attention. Using a whisper-down-the-lane claim that Flagg’s formative analysis of a small study population of 21 four and five year olds in 1977 somehow proves Prensky’s point severely impacts his credibility.

Like Prensky, I identify myself as a neuroscience based educator, but unlike Prensky, I am a bit more pragmatic about the relative value of technology based upon the desired learning outcome. In fact, like all tools, technology can be used for good or evil. Unfortunately, Prensky’s over the top bias for technology undermines his credibility when he advocates that “linear thought processes that dominate educational systems now can actually retard learning for brains developed through game and web-surfing processes on the computer.” This is idiotic. I believe exactly the opposite - hypertexted minds that leap from one superficial data point to the next can retard brains that never learn that the way to mastery at anything is narrowly focused, deliberate, increasingly difficult, repetitive practice, undertaken over a long period of time, with informative feedback that leads to incremental correction of errors and continuous improvement (Ericsson et al, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, and many other sources). I believe that technology should be used wisely and in a very, very targeted way to accelerate knowledge transfer or improvement in skills performance.

The SimCity4 game I played, while mildly entertaining, might teach students that a thriving city requires the appropriate interdependent mix of industry, retail and residential areas supported by the appropriate infrastructure of roads and power, but not much else. This game would probably be satisfying to Prensky, who believes that the “digital native brains” of children require “multitasking, graphics-first, active, connected, and fun” educational content, but to what purpose. Students might gain a conceptual understanding that cities require a complex interdependent balance to stay viable, but the content just isn’t here to provide any real depth of understanding. For example, as mayor my approval rating of 57% is pretty good, and I grew the city population from zero to over 10,000 with an estimated city value of over 12 million dollars, but could now grow the treasury funding from a zero balance once I achieved this level. When I raised taxes to 12% I lost industry, commercial activity and residents, but didn’t add a single dollar to the treasury. When I lowered taxes to 6%, industry, commercial businesses and residents came back, but I didn’t add a single dollar to the treasury even though the graphic image indicates a thriving community. This left me personally frustrated> I imagine this would leave a child both frustrated and convinced that a city’s growth is limited.

Class 2 Assignment 2 (WISE)

Less is more – I’ve been here before – it’s good stuff. The Educational Accelerator: Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS) program is an effort that supports this notion that the central purpose of education is to cultivate a student’s ability to think. The Mitosis and Cell Process lesson at http://wise.berkeley.edu/teacher/projects/projectInfo.php?id=16276 is an excellent example of how the targeted use of technology can accelerate a student’s understanding of the stages of mitosis and associated cell structures within the context of learning about cancer. The Concord interactive animation (image above) allows students to start, stop, pause and run the animation of cell division forwards and backwards. As they make their predictions they thoughtfully select the beginning and end of the animation sequence for each phase, name the phase, and narratively describe what is happening within the cell that has lead to their decisions. The lesson is laser focused around 38 seconds of content that the learner can view over and over again as they try to accurately predict the stages of cell division. The activity requires significant effort and effort enhances attention and retention of information. The content is not only designed for our target audience, but novice biology learners of any level – Less is more.

Class 2 Assignment 1 (Webquest)

Glass Slippers Won’t Do at http://www.sitesbysheridan.com/webquest/index.html
is a digital guided research project in which students (9th grade to adult) play virtual roles of historian, sociologist, fashion designer or media mogul to study how the attitudes of women have evolved between 1800 and the present. Students use the Internet to conduct their research, use web-based tools to compile relevant information, which is guided by focusing on stated “big” ideas/questions, and then construct their presentation with multimedia tools. The Webquest contains an imbedded rubric (above) so students know how they will be measured, but I don’t think that the rubric is as aligned as well as it could be with the Florida Sunshine State Standards for which this Webquest was designed. To me the rubric mostly measures playing nice and being accountable during a collaborative learning process and lacks focus on content knowledge, critical thinking, writing to communicate ideas, and analysis of various types of media, past and present.

Class 2 Assignment 3 (Survey Monkey)

I created a 4-question survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MVrIfbC87zNDWaUrDk0U5A_3d_3d titled Use of Low Fidelity Simulation in Skill Development, which is an area of interest for me, but as yet have not gotten any responses to my survey – my fault entirely as the assignment was posted late due to my teaching trip to the west coast. The survey was easy to construct and to administer. We use a similar tool at B. Braun to easily collect data that can be found at http://www.zoomerang.com/

Class 2 Assignment 4 (Jonassen, Chapter 3)

I’m very interested in exploring the simulation builder that Jonassen references on page 52. I’m hoping that the tool, developed at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, at http://www.simquest.nl/ can help us to better transfer knowledge about interstitial valve space and the potential for bacterial ingress at B. Braun Medical. This is an important concept to teach, but critical for understanding all the issues related to infection control in healthcare settings.

Class 2 Assignment 5 (NetLogo)

Note: I can not download NetLogo at http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ on my laptop since my hard drive is maxed out and this program requires 58MD of disk space. I’m hoping that this program is available on the MACs at Lehigh so I can evaluate this software.

TQ1: Aren't Pencils A Protean Technogical Tool Too?

My immediate reaction after reading chapter 1 of the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Koehler and Mishra) is to object to the fact that "technology" precedes pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge, which hints at the authors' bias that somehow the integration of digital technology will transform student learning. To be fair to readers of this blog, my "technology" bias is decidedly neutral. In fact, in my view the teacher knowledge framework should be prioritized as content expertise first, pedagogical knowledge second, and technology - however you describe it - last. A great teacher can not teach what they do not know and a subject matter expert may not know how to share their expertise. No technology in the world can save a inept practitioner who is not fluent in the subject matter that they are tasked to teach. That being said, technology can only be leveraged to accelerate learning in the hands of a subject matter expert who understands how to share their knowledge in the most effective ways to a broad audience with diverse learning styles. But how do we define technology?

I was encourage to read that Koehler and Mishra included both analog tools (pencils, chalkboard and microscope) and digital tools (MP3 players and the Internet) as "technology" that can be used by effective teachers, but object to the implied notion that digital tools are somehow superior given their "protean" nature. A lowly pencil can be protean too - a technological tool, which is transformative to many different people in many different ways.

Graphite, which was first used in England in 1565 to mark sheep evolved into the first pencil as we know it in 1660. In the hands of an effective teacher, or intrinsically motivated learner, pencils can be used to develop verbal linguistic expression, logical mathematical reasoning, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, visual spatial expertise, and kinesthetic dexterity. I used 2H, HB, and 6B pencils to draw the black and white picture that precedes this posting (artistic expression). I also used pencils as a tool for inquiry as I read and reflected upon Luke 4: 14-30, which is the basis for the illustration that supports the narrative in chapter 8 of a novel that I wrote with a pencil titled, The Adversary. In addition, the pencil was used by me and my editor in a very painful intrapersonal and interpersonal revision process that continuously developed my verbal/linguistic skills.

Could I have used digital technological tools to yield the same outcome? Of course. The other color image that precedes this posting is a cover for a self-study print-based learning module, which was created with the Adobe Creative Suite of software products (Illustrator, InDesign, and Photoshop). So to me, the technological tool used in all circumstances needs to be driven by the desired learning or knowledge product outcomes. I continue to learn and teach daily by using a vast variety of analog and digital technology tools.

I believe that Koehler and Mishra would probably agree with my view, in principle, given the overarching theme of chapter one - that effective teachers are life-long learners, who are willing to continuously push past their comfort zone to learn how to use new tools to positively impact learning outcomes in their classrooms. That being said, this stated objective is only achievable in a competitive environment - not the non-competitive academic environment of the public school system in the United States. There's a reason why I had to learn to use more than a pencil to produce an image - speed. I need to continually expand the technological tools that I used to survive in a competitive business environment. If I am not intrinsically (or extrinsically) motivated as a life-long learner to become more efficient and effective then someone else who is will eventually replace me. This is not the case in public education. The level of effort that is required to adopt a true TPCK (or CPTK) framework is simply too high in an environment in which mediocrity is protected for an entire career.

It will be interesting to see how Jonassen's technology-mediated framework differs from that of Koehler and Mishra. My Meaningful Learning with Technology text is on order and has not yet been delivered.