Thinking Allowed.

No dice for Second Life. Or at least IN Second Life. Washington Post ran this article saying that they have just made a decision to ban gambling in Second Life.

“Because there are a variety of conflicting gambling regulations around the world we have chosen to restrict gambling in Second Life,” Robin Harper, senior vice president of marketing and business development for Linden Research, which runs Second Life, wrote in a posting to the company’s blog July 25.

The announcement was posted under her virtual persona’s name, Robin Linden.

This was a decision made with sensitivity to cultures around the world for which gambling is taboo (a nice move). Additionally (and more likely the real motivation), they also needed to avoid the fact that it was illegal in many areas, before Congress came a-knocking.

The short article is a funny one though because they throw in some random other facts:

An Australian newspaper published an article this week stating that terrorist groups are training for attacks by practicing in the online world. In Italy, a priest writing in the religious journal La Civilta Cattolica urged missionaries to consider Second Life a new place to save souls.

Now you can’t tell me that’s not a sweet gig for the young, would-be missionary. You’ve been lazing around playing computer games all your life and now instead of heading off to isolated areas, war-torn nations, or impoverished villages to convert…ahhh…just stay in your pajamas, grab a bowl of cereal and go save some souls online.

Maybe you can get some e-mailing done while you’re at it.

Just keep an eye out for those terrorists.

In her high school track and field career, [Allison] Stokke had won a 2004 California state pole vaulting title, broken five national records and earned a scholarship to the University of California, yet only track devotees had noticed. Then, in early May, she received e-mails from friends who warned that a year-old picture of Stokke idly adjusting her hair at a track meet in New York had been plastered across the Internet. She had more than 1,000 new messages on her MySpace page. A three-minute video of Stokke standing against a wall and analyzing her performance at another meet had been posted on YouTube and viewed 150,000 times.

This is a quote from a Washington Post article on how a high school senior girl’s privacy and life has been turned upside down by the internet. A photo of her (that she didn’t even post) circulated and created “celebrity” status for her when she didn’t want it and didn’t ask for it.

We live in an age where celebrity life is scrutinized by paparazzi and Web 2.0 tools have allowed non-celebrities to actively seek their 15 minutes of fame through blogging, social networking, and YouTube.

But Allison Stokke didn’t actively seek anything. She is now living her own life, suffering the invasions of privacy, accepted by movie and rock stars, without any of the “perks” of that stardom.

Stokke has decided that control is essentially beyond her grasp. Instead, she said, she has learned a distressing lesson in the unruly momentum of the Internet. A fan on a Cal football message board posted a picture of the attractive, athletic pole vaulter. A popular sports blogger in New York found the picture and posted it on his site. Dozens of other bloggers picked up the same image and spread it. Within days, hundreds of thousands of Internet users had searched for Stokke’s picture and leered.

Creepy.

Now her father has to come home from work and scan message boards for potential stalkers!

Why am I blogging about this?

Because, to me, this emphasizes the overwhelming obligation educators have to teach responsible use of the internet.

We need to teach being safe alongside acting responsibly.

We already teach kids to drive safely.

We have health classes that teach students about eating healthy, sex, and drugs.

We teach them to be safe.

And we teach them to act responsibly for the safety of others.

Now we find our students living in a world where their own safety and the safety of others is global in the blink of an eye.

So how can we not teach them the same things as they apply to the Internet?

Image by Marshall Astor, found at Flikr Creative Commons

Know what a CAPTCHA is? I didn’t, or at least I didn’t know that’s what they were called. CAPTCHA stands for “completely automated public Turing tests to tell computers and humans apart.”

What are they?

There those little images that we have to translate into text in order to submit our orders or comment on a blog.

So what do they have to do with harnessing human power? This really interesting Washington Post article describes how the time spent doing that could be spent helping digitize thousands of books that are too difficult to scan using OCR.

Researchers estimate that about 60 million of those nonsensical jumbles are solved everyday around the world, taking an average of about 10 seconds each to decipher and type in.

Instead of wasting time typing in random letters and numbers, Carnegie Mellon researchers have come up with a way for people to type in snippets of books to put their time to good use, confirm they’re not machines and help speed up the process of getting searchable texts online.

“Humanity is wasting 150,000 hours every day on these,” said Luis von Ahn, an assistant professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon. He helped develop the CAPTCHAs about seven years ago.

It’s a pretty phenomenal idea. Use the collective time and minimal effort of EVERYONE to do what otherwise would be a painfully tedious task for many. Is this the future of menial digital labor?

Already we have examples of how machines can work together in bit torrent and massive mathematical calculations (to name a couple). What about using humans the same way?

Concerning those 150,000 hours/per day (!) von Ahn goes on to ask, “Is there any way in which we can use this human time for something good for humanity, do 10 seconds of useful work for humanity?”

Von Ahn is working with the Internet Archive, which runs several book-scanning projects, to use CAPTCHAs for this instead. Internet Archive scans 12,000 books a month and sends von Ahn hundreds of thousands of files that are images that the computer doesn’t recognize. Those files are downloaded onto von Ahn’s server and split up into single words that can be used as CAPTCHAs at sites all over the Internet.

If enough users decipher the CAPTCHAs in the same way, the computer will recognize that as the correct answer.

How cool is this? I love that smart people are thinking about stuff like this. The plan would be to replace current CAPTCHAs with images from books that need digitizing. The name of the project…reCAPTCHA. That’s good.

Let’s share this idea with kids and teachers. Get them thinking about the power of so many people doing little things. Get them to see how collectively we can do so much. And then get them thinking about the possibilities of collective human intelligence for solving world problems.

Now that’s “harnessing human power in exactly the right way.”

A colleague of mine just passed this article on from the Associated Press (through the Post-Gazette). I recommend reading the short article, but in case you don’t, here’s the gist: Laptops in classrooms are engaging students and supported by teachers in Pennsylvania as part of their “Classrooms of the Future” program.

And why is it working in Red Land High School when the NY Times tells us it isn’t working in Liverpool, NY?

Pennsylvania’s program places special emphasis on training teachers to use the technology and know how to incorporate it into their lesson plans, Ballen said.

Note the focus on training teachers. I posted on this need just the other day in my response to the NY Times article.

“They have laptops at home, iPods, cell phones … and then we have them open up a social-studies textbook and ask them to outline a chapter,” [Superintendent] Frantz said. “They’re not learning the way they’re living.”

The same article goes on to say that conservative lawmakers are resisting growth of the program in order to further analyze results. Fair enough, but again, should they also look at what makes a common sense idea work, as well as judging a program on poor execution (like in Liverpool)?

I plan on writing more on the idea of laptops for school use, but not to take home the way they do in the 1:1 scheme. More on that in the next post. Just wanted to get this article out there.

So I am late chiming in on the NY Times laptop article. You know the one…the one that says one-to-one laptops are not showing any improvement in learning and schools are ditching their programs left and right. Justin wrote a great post on it over at Medagogy. Chris Lehmann chimed in over at Practical Theory. Warlick put in his 2 pennies. In the Ed Tech blogosphere, this article is everywhere.

Here’s the thing. Almost every complaint/dig/slam of the laptops in students’ hands came from the perspective of the teacher. Laptops “did not fit into lesson plans”… “It’s a distraction” … “The box gets in the way … “They are too hard to manage” …

Where laptops and Internet use make a difference are in innovation, creativity, autonomy and independent research…

[Oh, I get it, and we wouldn't want that? (where is that sarcastic font when I need it?)]

It could be that laptops in students’ hands are useless as the article suggests, but doesn’t that seem counter-intuitive? Doesn’t access to information and opportunities to engage, communicate, and think with students in a way that they use, interact, and enjoy in their own time sound like a good thing? And doesn’t providing students in a school setting with tools that they use regularly,outside of school, seem like a chance opportunity to engage them in discussion about responsible use, being safe, and the implications of their online behavior? I could go on.

Instead, I offer this question: is it not also likely that the teachers are not sure how to use the laptops with the kids in a proactive, educationally sound way?

Could it be that teachers are the very digital immigrants that we talk about as being so different from our digital native kids? And if that’s the case (it is) then isn’t it likely that if scores aren’t supporting improved learning then maybe it isn’t the technology failing, but rather the people entrusted with using them well who aren’t doing the job. (before you lynch me, it isn’t their fault…read on)

Often the most simple, logical answer is the right answer.

News media like to emphasize possibilities that surprise you. It’s not a secret that they like to sensationalize. Even the New York Times. Providing laptops and access to information to kids is a positive move for learning sounds right. It’s why so many people did it. It should be a good thing.

So why isn’t it?

Were we wrong? Maybe, but not likely. Ideas that are so intuitively sound are usually not wrong.

Instead, could it be that WE DID IT WRONG? Probably.

Most teachers are not social networking and blogging and thinking about the needs of 21st century learning. They are Math teachers and English teachers and Grade 2 teachers who were trained to be the kinds of teachers that we had when we were kids. Their ideas of best teaching practice come from a world before laptops in classrooms and probably before Internet access was possible (particularly for schools).

And I’ll be the first to say that good teaching is good teaching. That sharing passion and engaging students in subject matter and learning has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with a teacher.

But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the teachers for whom the technology was expected to solve less-than-good-teaching (or at least not inspirational teaching). And that wasn’t going to happen. It was unfair to teachers and to the technology to have expected it. (luckily, the technology’s feelings weren’t hurt)

What teachers need with technology is REAL professional development and REAL support. They need technology support people whose job is to make sure that they understand what good laptop classroom management looks like. It isn’t hard to keep kids off of mySpace during class. But if you’ve never had to think about it before, you might not know how to do it. These tech support facilitators need to be 100% devoted to the implementation of technology in their schools. They need to be available to team teach with teachers to model good laptop classroom management strategies and share integration ideas. It is their job to learn new technologies and figure out their implications on learning. Teachers are too busy to keep up with that stuff. (see Kim’s post on always learning)

The shame of it all is that the reaction of schools to abandon laptop programs is hurting the students. Once again, decisions are being made that are “most convenient for us, not best for them.” (Dangerously Irrelevant) Sure, in this case, the decision is couched behind scores that haven’t improved, but the causality is all wrong.

Do it right and it will work. Do it wrong and it won’t.

“A good craftsman never blames his tools.” (thanks, Keith Olbermann and ESPN Sportscenter!)

It’s worth noting that perhaps these schools and districts concede that they will never hire these support people or create a professional environment in which teachers have an opportunity to succeed. If they concede this, then they might as well abandon the laptops.

But if they really want kids to learn WHAT THEY NEED TO LEARN, then the cause of why it didn’t work must be looked at. And then they must bring the laptops back with an infrastructure in place (training, personnel, HELP) so that teachers aren’t pre-destined to fail, but rather are given a real and fair opportunity to succeed.

In the end, if teachers, schools or districts resist or deny this, then it is the students who suffer and who ultimately will not be prepared for their future. Our past is over. We must stop insisting that learning only happens when it matches the testing and models of that past.

Laptops are gateways to information. They can instigate real learning about ethics, communication, safety, responsibility, and high-order thinking. But they need a teacher to do that. A teacher supported and prepared and passionate to do that.

Our curricula of content mired in Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies is not preparing students for anything but further education focused on these same subjects.

What students learn needs to be different and how they learn needs to be different.

But that’s another post.

Scott McLeod over at Dangerously Irrelevant posted a simple question the other day.

Given the realities of our modern age and the demands of our children’s future, is it really okay to allow teachers to choose whether or not they incorporate modern technologies into their instruction?

The comments that followed this particular question from his readers are worth reading.

Here’s the thing…it isn’t about whether technology must be included in children’s educational experience. It’s actually about the THINKING SKILLS that must be included.

There is no doubt that students live in a digital world. That they behave and think and communicate in digital ways. And including technology in their schooling will probably serve to engage them and make their education seem a little more relevant.

But they need more than that.

21st century learners need thinking skills. They need to be able to find, process, and evaluate information that is EVERYWHERE and always accessible. They need to be able to participate in an interconnected, wired world in effective and responsible ways. They NEED to be taught how to manage/handle/thrive amidst all of the information that is out there and continuing to grow.

Our allegiance to English, Science, Math, and Social Studies as core curricular ideals and the end-all-be-all in student learning needs to make room for higher order thinking, questioning, and information literacy.

I am not arguing for the abolishment of those subjects (though a part of me thinks that they continue to drive our curriculum because they suit us the teachers, rather than our intended audience, the students - see another McLeod question on this). I do think, though, that major curricular overhaul is needed and schools need to consider an overarching or interwoven curricular piece that embraces the skills that 21st century learners need.

Going back to the original question then, No, it’s not okay.

To accomplish these thinking skills and to get students to evaluate and understand the world they are in and the world we will be sending them off into, technology needs to be there. Technology is the tool for information access. Technology is the tool for communication of ideas, thoughts, opinion, fact and bias. Technology is the tool from which a massive discussion of ethical behavior continues to emerge. How can we not include technology in children’s education? If we don’t include it, what are they learning?

photo by Yuan2003, taken from Flickr Creative Commons

I don’t know what Techlearning’s readership is…but I am sure that it is greater than mine.

Regardless, I want to share a good article by Scott Meech that was posted there that really sums up our need - as educators - to teach kids how to be 21st century literate (fluent?).

The blind assumption of truth on the Internet has reached alarming proportions.

The article talks about how our assumptions as educators are that kids “know how to use the technology and information resources”. After all, they are digital natives. But our assumptions are far from the truth.

Educators need to break away from the traditional role of teaching to embrace these new learning strategies. Too many times I have heard colleagues mention their personal preferences as a reason for not embracing technology in their classroom. I have heard colleagues mention that they would never read an E-book from a palm or laptop computer because they enjoy a real book so much. These same teachers are not using new technologies in their classrooms, which hinder their students learning.

Scott Meech is right on here. Our assumptions of strong ability and use by our students is not accurate or fair, yet too often we see teachers release their kids on the interent or refuse to have conversations with students about ethics or information validity or research skills.

Just because students appear to know more about computers than adults doesn’t mean they are truly technically literate.

It is incredible how often educators default to the idea that these digital native kids come with an inherent gift for using the technology (and use it well). It speaks more to their own insecurities than it does to a student skill set.

Anyway…a good article to read…I recommend it.

Great post on wikipedia from Jeff at Thinking Stick after his presentation on wikis at the ETC conference in Bangkok.

We need to quit looking at Wikipedia as the end result and instead look at it as part of the learning process. Why not go to Wikipedia and use it as a learning device. Use it in our classrooms as part of the learning experience.

I posted on this topic a little while ago as well. In addition to Wikipedia being an incredibly accurate source on the large scale, it is a terrific conversation starter with students about source accuracy, a participatory web, and about collaboration. These are 21st century learning skills that we acknowledge, yet we avoid these conversations every time we block a site (like wikipedia) or deny it’s use by students.

Teachers need to let go of their allegiance to out-dated definitions of “legitimate information” and understand the power of the participatory web (I am trying to avoid web 2.0-jargon). So how do I convince them to do this?

More on Day 2 of Earcos to come…I’ve been doing a lot of “Jukes-ing”.