Years ago, when I first began reading about a smartboard in every classroom and a laptop for every student, I was overjoyed. When the smartboards grew increasingly sophisticated and laptops morphed into netbooks then tablets, I was ecstatic. Yes, teachers and students were finally beginning to use some of the latest internet technology to breach the classroom walls and tap into the growing universe of online information, resources, and services.

The transformation was nothing short of miraculous. The electronic screens in classrooms became instant windows to a seemingly infinite wealth of not only information and knowledge but of experts and other human resources. Stepping through the electronic windows, teachers and students broke free from their tiny classrooms and soared into the new world of learning that transcended time and space barriers. Without moving an inch from their desks, they could, with a click, be anywhere and communicate with anyone in the world.

But as the trickle of technology into classrooms grew into a torrent and every day brought a flood of new announcements of schools and entire districts investing in smartboards, laptops, and iPads, I no longer found myself cheering. Now that we’re past the initial hurdle of simply getting the technology into the classroom, I’m beginning to pay attention to other factors, and some of what I’m seeing worries me.

For example, I’m becoming increasigly concerned about the hands in the cookie jar. I expect to see the hands of students and teachers — the intended recipients, the targets of the funding for new technology. However, I don’t expect to see other hands, especially when they’re grabbing a sizable portion of the cookies.

Mary Vorsino, a writer for Hawaii’s primary daily, the Star-Advertiser, reports that, according to the state Department of Education, “a plan to put a laptop in the hands of every public school student in the state will likely take a decade to roll out and is expected to cost about $50 million a year to sustain.”*

Vorsino says that the governor, Neil Abercrombie, “has asked lawmakers for about $1 million to jump-start the project. If approved this legislative session, that money would be used to equip 1,500 students with laptops as part of a pilot project.” She warns that “expanding the program will be far pricier. In peak implementation years … the program could cost as much as $63 million a year. Sustaining the program is expected to cost about $50 million a year for hardware, training, infrastructure, repairs and other items.”

Infrastructure — yes, definitely. Many schools have to be retrofitted for the new hardware as well as for broadband and wireless connections. Hardware — assuming that the reference is to laptops or tablets, it is, of course, a given. Repairs –  when necessary, these are also a given. Training — this, however, worries me. According to Vorsino, “The chief information officer for the state Department of Education” claims that “the laptop program needs to be rolled out slowly because it requires intensive professional development for teachers. During the ramp-up of the program … about 40 percent of the funding for the program will probably go to teacher training.”

Forty percent of $50 million is $20 million — that’s $20 million dollars for teacher training alone. Infrastructure, repair, and “other items” costs are in addition to this figure. Without more information, we can’t determine what will actually be left for the laptops themselves, but a conservative estimate could place it at approximately half or less of the budget, which translates to $20-25 million.

Applying the state DOE figures to a hypothetical classroom of 20 students, the following breakdown might apply: $8,000 for laptops (at $400 each); $4,000 for infrastructure, repair, and other items; and $8,000 for teacher training. For a single school of 50 teachers, the teacher-training cost alone would be $400,000.

I’m not arguing that teacher training is unnecessary or useless, but I’m wondering, aloud, about the proposed model for training and about the possibility of less expensive or alternative models. I’m not sure what the exact plans are, but perhaps the most expensive would be a bureaucratic model that calls for the addition of or an expansion to an existing instructional technology (IT) department, which would mean the hiring of staff and the building or acquisition of offices and labs to manage training. This department would serve a complex or an entire district, depending on the size of the system. Of course, the staff would need equipment and other resources as well as an ongoing maintenance budget. With this model, we can quickly see why the training costs are so high.

Another model is outsourcing, or contracting a private sector company to conduct the training. Again, I’m not sure what the cost would be, but I’d guess that it would be less expensive in the long run than the bureaucratic model.

Perhaps the least expensive would be a bootstrap model that relies on the online medium itself, existing IT staff, and the teachers’ ability to update their skill levels on their own or together, in groups. For example, existing tech specialists would develop an interactive tutorial website and teachers would have the option to log in for instruction and training as needed. If the IT staff are skilled, they could develop multimedia modules to enhance the process. A prominent feature of the site would be a discussion forum for various skills levels: beginner, intermediate, advanced. Those who are advanced could serve as resources and moderators in these forums as well as informal mentors to less skilled colleagues. Relying on asynchronous approaches, teachers could participate in this training on their own time as part of their professional self-development or during prep periods. As the program develops into multiple years, the pool of highly skilled teachers will grow, further strengthening the bootstrapping.

The cost for this teacher training model? Almost nil if existing resources are used. Sustainability? Excellent. Effectiveness? Empowering for all concerned and, thus, excellent.

Further savings could be realized if schools offered students the option to bring their own laptops, netbooks, or tablets to class. This would be an extension of the bootstrap model, but geared for students. Their computers would have to meet certain minimal requirements, but these could be kept to a minimum so most computers would be suitable. There would be advantages to this approach. Students could opt for more powerful computers that could serve them in extracurricular activities. They could upgrade at their will. However, these students would be responsible for their own upgrades, repairs, and computer-specific apps. Furthermore, the IT department could set up help forums for a wide range of operating systems, models, brands, etc., and these could be run by volunteer student moderators for service credit.

Some may question the feasibility of this bring-your-own approach, but it’s probably the most natural. In fact, on college campuses where no formal campus-wide computer program is in place, students bring their own and manage quite well. I have a feeling the situation could also hold true for high schools and even lower grades where personal computers are allowed or even encouraged on campus and in classrooms.

In this student bootstrap model, funds could be made available for those who cannot afford to bring their own. Schools could give or loan computers, or provide vouchers for purchasing them. Of all the models, this — in conjunction with the teacher bootstrap model — is perhaps the least expensive, most sustainable, and most natural.

In this brief article, I don’t cover all the possible teacher-training models. I don’t think I have to. I’m confident that teachers are fully capable of developing models that best fit their own school, complex, or district needs. My purpose is to explore the idea that there is more than one way to achieve the one-laptop-per-student goal and that some approaches aren’t only possible but cost effective as well as sustainable.
__________
* “School Laptop Project Has Pricey Goal,” 13 Feb. 2012.

[Note: This series is being brought to you by ETCJ associate editor Lynn Zimmerman. -Editor]

English has become one of the world’s most widely-spoken languages as well as the most popular second language and lingua franca of academics in no small part due to the heavy concentration of top universities and the large quantities of educational materials produced in English-speaking countries. Another reason for its popularity is the huge amount of entertainment content and other media produced in the Anglosphere. For instance, nearly every English-language training school here in Shanghai has a TV in the lobby showing DVDs of “Friends” (老友记, Lǎoyǒujì) or other American television shows to help students practice their English.

One of the great victories of the Information Age is the ability of learners the world over to access content in almost any language, giving them unprecedented variety in terms of learning style, pace, and method. English-language TV has been around for decades, of course, but the spread of high-speed internet and satellite connections has made accessing content, be it entertainment or educational, much easier. DVDs and streaming web video, for instance, have brought English-language educational content to places that had none just a decade ago. In addition, technology like smart phones and tablets has made mobile  learning much simpler and more effective – convenience and flexibility can make it seem as though there’s more time in the day, so to speak, for practice in speaking and listening as well as exposure to a language, and with English in particular it’s easier than ever.

Access and exposure are crucial factors in the newest round of technological innovations that is altering the language-learning landscape. The latest technology has also enabled positive shifts in the pedagogy of language learning and teaching, especially with English. Technology permits the deconstruction of the traditional classroom experience to make listening to lectures, engaging with learning material, and practicing individually more convenient and feasible for learners. Lectures, for instance, can be lengthier or constructed in a different way because a student no longer needs to be in a classroom with a teacher. Lectures can be divided into sections for more concentrated or focused listening, and exercises can be designed to be inserted at specific points, without worrying about time constraints or student fatigue.

A student can also peruse digital flashcards (and hear authentic vocabulary pronunciation) at his or her own pace. Digital flashcards afford the convenience of learning thousands of characters without carrying heavy books or cards, and they also assist learning by providing instant feedback on performance. In a classroom using traditional methods, the teacher would need to create individual plans to meet students’ different needs, but with digital content, individualization is much easier.

Language is, as many academics and marketers alike have pointed out, inextricably linked with culture in ways that we’re still discovering today. Speaking and learning a language can provide deep and accurate insights into the culture that produced it, and it’s this connection, in concert with some of the technological developments discussed earlier, that has helped make English so widely-learned and spoken. A Chinese student who was reading the classic novel Catcher in the Rye to improve his English, for instance, found that the harsh language of the characters gave him a better understanding of contemporary American culture.

English-speaking culture and media, particularly from the US and UK, are among the most widely-known and consumed in the world so there are many resource for learning and teaching English. A good example is Open Language (specifically EnglishOne), which has created an online platform to make developing lessons and content exceptionally simple for anyone who wants to teach English, or any other language, from anywhere at any time.

To be continued in Part III: “Chinese As the Language of the Future.” See Part I: “Technology Is a Game Changer.”

Of course they should, but what tone should it convey? Actually, I’m really asking about students’ digital identity, but the title of this post merely reflects the “branding” I employed to attract students to my upcoming presentation about personal branding and digital identity. It is that presentation which prompts this post.

This is a touchy subject because parents and schools are so “conflicted” about it! On top of that, students’ immaturity calls for lots of caution! The “facts of life” are that most students do indeed have a digital identity so digital literacy compels that we teach them to be prudent about what they post with respect to content they create or share, permissions, and much more!

Nevertheless, the personal branding principles that apply to their parents and teachers apply equally to students with the exception that we can “cut them some slack” (or can we?)  for not starting to “build their brand” yet (my daughter is among them L), but they certainly ought to be made aware of the implications for their future competitiveness, don’t you think?

After all, almost all of them are already online and, in many cases, they have already lost their opportunity to make a positive first impression. So, what should I say (or not say) to the students?

This post is full of questions and I hope to follow it up with subsequent posts with some answers…or at least to let you know what happens next. The future is full of problems and opportunities!

For a conference to run smoothly and professionally, a large amount of work happens “behind the curtains” without the conference attendees being necessarily aware of it. The Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) was founded in 1981 and has been organizing international conferences since the 1990s. However, bringing a conference online requires new approaches from the program committee. Theo Bastiaens, program chair of the 2011 and 2012 Global TIME conference, talks about lessons learned, the quality of online talks, and the online experience from an attendee’s point of view.

Theo Bastiaens, program chair of the 2012 AACE Global TIME conference.

SP: What makes or breaks a successful online conference?

TB: As the online conference Global TIME was organized for the second time we certainly fine-tuned the format, schedule, and technical platform. Since an online conference is somewhat different from a face-to-face conference we had to make sure that people had a virtual space to contact each other. For that reason, AACE developed “Academic Experts.” In my opinion, a great new platform to organize these online conferences. A very important aspect of this platform is that it integrates participants’ social profile with discussion features and the paper presentations. Little things that we learned from the online conference last year, like the automatic adaption of the program to the time zone of the participant, are very important for a smooth organization.

Another difference with traditional conferences is the backup of presentations. The technical staff records all presentations before the conference starts. Although most presentations are live, one is prepared that if there are technical troubles the “canned” recording of that same presentation can be played. But of course Q&A sessions and discussions can never be prepared in advance.

SP: In a scholarly climate that views print journals with a high citation index as the gold standard for publication, online conferences may be perceived as a “second class” event. How do you judge the overall quality of AACE Global TIME’s program?

TB: From a quality perspective the peer-review process and selection is the same as with other traditional conference formats. However I think that speakers are better prepared in the online format. From their personal comfort zone, at home, they present in general a well timed session — and they already trained this talk during the prerecording session that we use as backup. It is not easy to improvise in these sessions. So, I personally like these sessions better because they are more to-the-point.

SP: What aspects of the online format did you find particularly challenging or engaging?

TB: I like the fact that after the conference I am able to take a look at all sessions. So there is no need any more to make a choice between the talks. Everything is available, together with the paper in PDF format and the slides. I like that with these resources all together I have a better and clearer understanding of the research presented.

In the end I also need this option to look at the resources afterwards because attending an online conference — sitting in front of the computer screen — is much more exhausting than participating in a traditional conference format. Maybe it’s because we are not acquainted yet with these new technologically mediated events. But it might also be true that it is just more intensive to attend online. Future experiences will tell if this is a typical characteristic of online conferences.

In general, I think, with this Global Time online conference, AACE takes a brave step in a new direction. An innovative step, with an innovative platform, to serve the educational technology community.
__________
Theo Bastiaens is a full-time professor in educational technology and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Fernuniversität Hagen, Germany. His focus is on the teaching of new media. He is also part-time professor at the Ruud de Moor Center of the Open University of The Netherlands where he deals with new media in teacher training. In addition, his interests center on themes such as instructional design and human resource development.

The second edition of the AACE Global TIME online conference took place from February 7 to 9, 2012. The annual event aims to connect and engage educators, researchers, consultants, trainers, policy makers, curriculum developers, entrepreneurs, and others. Sectors covered include adult learning, higher education, informal learning, K-12, libraries, and museums as well as vocational education and corporate training. It was my pleasure to cover the second edition of Global TIME for the Educational Technology and Change Journal on behalf of AACE.

Global TIME 2012 hosted attendees from 28 countries, 34 presentations, 44 additional “asynchronous” papers, 3 excellent keynotes, and 4 workshop sessions. Even though the program was less packed than the usual week-long AACE conferences, the following overview is still necessarily a rather idiosyncratic collection of my manifold personal impressions and encounters.

Day 1 – Getting Started: Cultural Change in Workplace Learning

“We are having a PowerPoint war.” With these words from Sarah Benson, member of the AACE organization team, the conference started on February 7 at 4 p.m. GMT. Benson’s comment referred to some initial technological hiccups with loading the keynoter’s slides – fortunately, one of the very few problems with the Adobe Connect virtual conference space.

Program chair Theo Bastiaens, director of the Institute of Educational Science and Media Research at the German “Fernuniversität Hagen” and professor at the Open University of the Netherlands, officially opened the conference with a short welcoming address, greeting everyone from a freezing Europe. Approximately 20 participants from all over the world joined in – and immediately started to compare notes on their local time, weather, and physical location. Penelope Neuendorf said “Hello” from Canberra (Australia) at 3 in the morning, Luigi Riscaldino from the University of Calgary (Canada) sipped his coffee at 9 am, Manar Hosny logged in from Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), and Mark Curcher said “Hi” from Dubai (Arab Emirates).

They all wanted to hear about the latest trends in social technology use from Jane Hart, founder of the Center for Learning & Performance Technologies (C4LPT), a  website that attracts 100,000 visits per month. Hart is also part of the Internet Time Alliance, a prestigious international consulting group. In her keynote, she addressed cultural changes in workplace learning that allow organizations to move from “try and force people to learn” to “allow people to engage in meaningful social interactions about how to do their job.” Not only organizations face change through social media. To learn in the new social workplace, employees will have to change as well. They have to get used to not being spoon-fed through training but embark on a continuous self-motivated learning journey, e.g., by building a trusted personal learning network, acquiring new collaboration skills, filtering and sifting through information overload. This requires skillsets that have to be addressed in higher education. “Many young people have the social media skills to organize their personal lives but will need help to use these skills in their professional life,” Hart argued. “Knowing the tools is not enough. We use tools like Facebook and Twitter different in the private setting and in the workplace. Ask yourself: What will your Facebook profile look like to an organization that is trying to recruit you?”

The keynote’s topic tied in nicely with the workshop that Bernard Robin and Sara McNeil, two researchers from the University of Houston (USA), offered later that day. Their presentation explored Web 2.0 applications as tools to support the teaching and learning of 21st century skills across content areas in K-16 classrooms. An online version of the skills map can be found at P21.org.

Fig. 1: Workshop on 21st century skills and Web 2.0

The workshop focused on a hands-on presentation of tools and services. Thus, it was extremely interesting when you did not know the respective Web 2.0 application but a little dull when you were familiar with the tool. All in all, the talk offered a well-structured tour d’horizon through social media applications. My personal favorite was the website “poll everywhere,” which can be used to replace electronic voting systems (e.g., clickers) through cell phones and web interfaces.

Between the keynote and the workshop, attendees could choose from parallel presentations in three virtual rooms. I listened to two about iPads. Both talks gave interesting insights on this addition to the realm of mobile and ubiquitous learning devices. Whereas Doug Reid and Nathaniel Ostashewski presented case studies on the use of iPads in two sixth grade classrooms, Bulent Dogan presented a pilot at the North American College where all freshman and sophomore students were given iPads in the fall 2011 semester.

Reid and Ostashewski received a best presentation award for their work, which focused on teaching strategies and the implementation of constructionist principles through iPads. Their presentation asked the challenging question “Is it worth the effort?”  According to the teachers involved in the case studies, iPads were a great tool for empowering students and meeting curricular demands. The researchers will expand their work in the future: “It will be interesting to see how the iPad2 with the new camera and video editing capabilities will support digital storytelling.”

Bulent Dogan discussed the results of two online surveys that were distributed among students and faculty during the iPad pilot. Out of 164 students, 86 participated in the survey, equivalent to a 52% response rate. Dogan’s study revealed some initial trends on iPad use in higher education. Among the students who owned iPads, 48% indicated that they used specific applications (apps) for studying and learning. Popular educational apps include notetaking, e-book readers, dictionaries, and math apps, e.g., calculators. Of the students surveyed, 65% indicated that “iPads help them to study” rather than being a distraction. On the faculty side, the survey identified needs for training in the educational uses of iPads.

Another award-winning presentation I watched as a recording was the PhD thesis work of Sarah Bryan on informal communication in a geographically dispersed, virtual setting. Her presentation, “Finding the Water Cooler,” described a model for communication among virtual instructional design teams. Bryan’s work, based on the theory of social presence, comprised a qualitative, participatory study on the collaborative efforts of four instructional designers: “Alpha, Beta, Charlie, and Delta.” Bryan developed a guide for virtual team communication protocols that comprises five recommended practices: Frequent contact, Acknowledging communication, Closing the loop, Establishing the culture, and Training the team (FACET model).

Day 2: Immersing in Adventure Learning, Designing for Authenticity, and Learning About Aesthetics

The second day started with my personal conference highlight – the keynote by Aaron Doering and Charles Miller, both professors of educational technology at the LT Media Lab, University of Minnesota (USA). Throughout their talk, Doering and Miller argued that the most important goal when integrating technology into education is to design for authenticity. To foster this design goal, they presented four layers of authenticity: content, context, narrative, and shared experience. The audience, tired of run of the mill learning environments, greatly appreciated instructional design ideas that followed new and exciting approaches off the beaten track, as these comments illuminate: “I have to say I find all of this so inspiring !” (Mark Curcher), “Takes experiential learning to another level. I love it!” (Linda Brawner), “I’m blown away! Very inspiring!” (Jordan Reiter).

Fig 2. Layers of Authenticity: Keynote by Aaron Doering and Charles Miller from LT Media Lab.

Content: “Authentic content” means the use of timely, real-world problems, media (e.g., photos, video, interviews) scenarios, and case-based examples to guide instructional presentation. To exemplify their ideas, Doering and Miller presented two learning environments for users with special needs. AvenueASL is an e-assessment environment for American Sign Language (ASL) for K-12 and postsecondary ASL learners, used at 18 universities and 27 high schools throughout the US. In a deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) learning tool, which is currently under development, the researchers implemented a gaming type environment to improve reading and writing skills.

Context: Designing for authentic context means to immerse students in real-world, ill-structured problem scenarios, based on genuine, valid, and legitimate needs specifications, data, and expectations. As an example, Doering and Miller presented “Geothentic,” a training environment for geographic knowledge, where learners have to solve realistic problems like “Where is the best place to build a new hospital in the San Francisco area”? Situated Movies serve as motivational prompts to solve the task.

Fig 3. Where is the best place to build a new hospital in the San Francisco area? Visualization of students solutions in the teacher’s  view.

Narrative: Designing authentic narrative means to “create a place, rather than a space,” Miller explained. To foster a sense of belonging, the researchers argue for real-world, meaningful stories that make learners feel as if they are part of the narrative and, as a result, reference their experiences outside the classroom. This idea guides the “adventure learning approach.”  The “GoNorth!” adventure learning program was developed for the K-12 classroom. Between 2006 and 2010, a team of educators, scientists, and teachers embarked on annual excursions, traveling on dog sleds to five Arctic locations. An international audience around the world followed the excursions on the web. A similar idea is implemented in the project Earthducation, a series of seven expeditions to every continent, designed to create a “world narrative” of the intersection between education and sustainability. The field sites for the expeditions comprise climate hotspots, which are particularly vulnerable to environmental issues and climate change, as well as regions with general current struggles related to sustainability. Teachers, students, and the general public are invited to share their thoughts on education and sustainability in an online community that documents the excursions.

Experience: To allow for shared experience means to reframe learners as the experts who communicate, collaborate, and share their experiences with others working around the same issue. “Explore 15” is a platform that allows students to create their own adventure learning environment. The online community framework allows students and informal learners to propose projects. Elected teams will receive an “expedition kit” – including, among other things, multimedia equipment for recording their experiences. “Explore 15 is the first I have seen that truly breaks down the barriers between experiential education for teens and ‘formal’ education,” was one of the comments from the audience.

Fig. 4. “Explore 15” – Design your own adventure learning expedition.

As in day one, the keynote theme was again mirrored in the workshop topic and took up the thread of aesthetics and compelling learning design. Catherine Fulford, professor of educational technology at the University of Hawaii and a distinguished member of the AACE community, provided the audience with useful, hands-on tips on designing visual material for learning purposes. The centerpiece of her talk was a quote from Lloyd Rieber (1994): “There are times when pictures can aid learning, times when pictures do not aid learning but do not harm, and times when pictures do not aid learning and are distracting.” Another noteworthy advice for educators from Fulford’s presentation: “Take your own pictures instead of violating copyright. You cannot just use anything from Google images!” She referred to the website publicdomainsherpa for further information on copyright, copyleft, and the commons.

I especially enjoyed the effort to make the workshop format interactive and engaging through various polls. Fulford’s presentation was also a great source for further readings on visual design.

Fig.5. Catherine Fulford’s reading recommendations on visual design

I used the time between keynote and workshop session to review the asynchronous presentation by Deborah Heal, “Crossing the Digital Divide,” a case study on implementing technology in a small rural school in Nepal. Heal, instructional designer at the University of Oregon (USA), shared her lessons learned on how to bring computer based learning material to a classroom without Internet connection – or even electricity.

A very interesting live session featured Elaine Huber from Macquarie University (Australia), who presented the research design of her PhD project, a meta-analysis of learning technology evaluation. Given the multitude of approaches, methods, and frameworks for evaluating e-learning, there is no standard way and most institutions do not provide suitable guidelines. Hence, the evaluation of instructional design projects is often times carried out in an ad hoc fashion, not planned and integrated well from the beginning. Huber’s ideas resonated with the audience, as Manuel Frutos-Perez observed, “It’s curious that we tend to be quite methodical when we teach our students research skills, but then we don’t apply that to our own practice.”

A research team from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium) received a best paper award for their presentation “Listening to an Educational Podcast While Driving a Car: Can Students Really Multitask?” In an experimental study with 112 participants, involving Spanish language podcasts and a driving simulation, the researchers tried to answer if multitasking affects learning performance. The analysis showed that students in the multitask condition did not learn less than students in the single task. However, in the multitask condition, the best learners were the worst drivers. “Within the context of this experiment, it was rather the driving performance than the learning performance that was affected by the multitasking.”

Day 3: The Virtual, the Augmented, and the Real Deal

The goal of Craig Kapp’s presentation on Thursday (Feb. 9) was to infuse a sense of “the recently possible” to the last keynote of the conference. His topic, “augmented reality,” was well suited for this purpose. As opposed to reality, a world that is unmediated by technology, Kapp defined virtual reality as an attempt to map as many of our human senses as possible to a digital input, e.g., goggles to remap the sense of sight or gloves to mirror haptic sensations. Kapp gave compelling examples for current practical uses of virtual reality, e.g., a fire drill simulation in a multi-story building or a therapy environment for PTSD patients. Between the poles of the real and virtual space, Kapp positioned augmented reality as “a predominantly real space where virtual elements can be inserted in real time. It kind of sits between these extremes, it’s not quite the real world, it’s not quite the virtual world, it’s the merging of the two.” A familiar example, at least for the US-audience, was the virtually enhanced data display at football games. To further spur the audience’s imagination, Kapp gave a live demonstration by showing an augmented reality hallmark greeting card through his webcam.

Fig. 6. Augmented Reality Example

“These cards have the ability to interface with the real world and the virtual world in real time,” said Kapp, “placing a virtual world on top of a physical item. It seems like magic, so how does it really work? We can locate an object in space using a camera – either a camera built in a mobile device or a computer camera. Once we can load an image of the world around us, we can look for some specialized content. Once we see this content, we can load a virtual world on top of it and then render it in real time.” Kapp introduced two different forms of delivery. The “magic mirror” lets users see themselves in a virtually enhanced environment; the “magic lens” allows them to see the surrounding world in a virtually enhanced way. One of the  most promising uses of AR for educational  settings leverages GPS and compass data through mobile devices. “Imagine taking students on a nature walk and being able to place virtual annotations on the objects they are seeing,” Kapp explained. Other examples for educational uses are augmented reality textbooks (e.g., from LarnGear Technoloy), mixed reality simulations, e.g., Sim Snails for biology, a mechanical drawing simulation by the HIT Lab in New Zealand, and medical visualizations.

For educators intrigued by the possibilities of augmented reality, the presentation comprised helpful suggestions for getting started: AR sights is a free, downloadable app for Mac/PC that allows users to view Google Earth 3D models as augmented reality. ZooBurst, a free AR-tool developed by Craig Kapp, focuses on digital storytelling. The environment is designed for K-12 as well as higher education users and attracts a growing international community of 65,000 people around the world.

The Good, the Bad, and the Better

A truly remarkable and, to be honest, somewhat unexpected feature of Global TIME was the collegial atmosphere that corresponded to similar face-to-face AACE events like ED-MEDIA and E-LEARN. Program chair Theo Bastiaens opened each keynote and workshop session with knowledgeable and warm remarks, thus setting the stage for friendly and discursive online discussions – not only in a synchronous manner during the sessions but also via comments on the AACE community platform Academic Experts.

Fig. 7. Example of asynchronous discussion in Academic Experts

A drawback of the conference was the tendency to have low attendance rates for the paper presentations. Sweeping around my own backdoor, the knowledge that everything was recorded did not help in fostering the discipline of real-time attendance. However, being in the same virtual room at the same time allowed for deeper conversations than merely watching the recorded version. On several occasions, I realized in retrospect that I would have benefited from a synchronous backchannel. I personally learned the lesson that online conferences are more productively attended from your home office rather than trying to blend in the conference schedule with your busy work environment.

For future TIMEs, I would suggest that the organizers provide more time for questions and encourage presenters to use interactive elements such as polls to foster discussion during the online sessions. For the asynchronous papers, I missed multimedia elements such as pre-recorded presentations, videos, or audio downloads. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to Global TIME 2013!
__________
Update 2.15.12: See Stefanie Panke’s “An Interview with the 2012 Global TIME Program Chair Theo Bastiaens.”

OK, I am spoiled. Henry Jenkins, Bill Clinton, Vice President Gore, Danah Boyd, George Lucas, Ron Brown (he is deceased), Seymour Papert — and lots of other luminaries. In person and in your face. Wendy Pye face to face and online. More about that later.

Face-to-face, people intrigue me. I know Chris Dede and was mentored by him. I worked with Seymour Papert and was taught by him, and I have had tussles with people who are very well known about technology in schools, broadening engagement and digital equity. In courses, there are people who have watched my work and who know my personality, even when I shrink back from too much of everything in technology. Gently they beckon. I meekly follow. I think I only have the courage to continue to learn based on the friendship and encouragement of my educational friends. Vint Cerf has remained a friend and email keeps us in touch.

I sat around tables that contained important CEOs and learned to negotiate, I learned to listen well, I learned to push MY ideas.

If I had only met these people online, the relationship would be different and unreal, but the Facebook, and online communications cement our friendships and continue the dialogue. I loved talking with Henry Jenkins about New Orleans and our first impressions as children when we went.

I told him a story about a little boy who drew a picture of New Orleans that was sort of out of my understanding. It was x-rated. It was flagrantly different. But as an adult when I returned, I saw what he drew — 00. These big eyes let you know that I only went to New Orleans to the convent with nuns. I never saw anything but food on my visit and learned history. Certainly not reality.

I did meet a professor online from UCLA, and I never met him in person. I regret not meeting him in person before a terrible illness took his memory. I know what he wrote to me, and there was lots of encouragement, but I can’t say I really know him. The people I have met and been accepted by are known in some ways by me. OK, the Facebooking connections and news stream give me more personal information.

What I love about conferences is lighting the fire, the campfire conversations that happen. Forget the conference. I like talking to and exchanging ideas with people.

I am going to Harvard to a conference that will establish a new foundation for Lady Gaga. I don’t know Lady Gaga. But on a listserv I hold my ground about the lack of perception about minorities in cyberbullying. I spoke loudly online about cultural differences and the fact that there may be reasons for fear and concerns about race baiting. Most of the people don’t say much about these topics on the listserv. Danah Boyd, a Microsoft researcher, and I met at a gathering and complained again that there is a lack of understanding of the whole population of people on the Internet. (Hello, lots of people are still not connected at all or digitally literate.)

Online leads to some wonderful connections. Online also leads to a lot of BRAIN sucking. People share your ideas and market them as their own, without a lot of regard. It can be brutal and superficial. It can be heartbreaking when you find it out. I worked with a person who never taught, and it took some face to face with real teachers to understand that he did not get it. He had no idea of the background of most teachers, and I am not talking minority teachers here. Some of the people who shout from the mountaintops are not really caring about teachers. They are showmen, and they get paid well. Sometimes they teach but mostly they take.

According to Kyle Webb, at yesterday’s Lane Community College (Oregon) Board of Education meeting, the dean of academic technology, Brad Hinson, “presented the state of online education and its potential future.”* Webb quotes Hinson: “Faculty [need] to understand ‘the demand is there. It’s modern education. It is what the students demand.’”

Hinson’s observations are enlightened, but they didn’t push me to the keyboard to write a comment. The shove came from concerns by two of the board members. Gary LeClair, according to Webb, “said there seems to be more ‘social isolation due to more computers.’ LeClair said he already notices students glued to cell phones and computers as it is, and that he is concerned that students with college-issued iPads might increase this social isolation, thus impeding their educations.” Webb also quotes Jim Salt, LCC’s Education Association president, who, along with LeClair, “voiced concerns about the potential loss of student-instructor connection.”

These two concerns, about the causal relationship between personal communication devices, on the one hand, and social isolation and deterioration of student-instructor relationships, on the other, are the issue. They’re reminders that, in most disagreements, the root is not in what we actually observe but with our interpretations. We’ve all witnessed the first scenario where students share the same geographical location, e.g., a cafeteria table, but are oblivious to one another because each is engrossed in her/his smartphone or tablet PC.

They appear to be socially isolated if we base our conclusion on the scene before our eyes. But if we base it on what’s “really” happening beyond the reach of our five senses, we realize that they are far from being isolated. To the contrary, they’re connected and connecting to the almost infinite social world made possible by the internet. If they’re not communicating online with others in sync (real time),  then they’re doing so in async; and the “others” could be individuals or sources of information constructed by others.

In fact, some of the people they’re communicating with may be sitting across from them on the same table — as well as thousands of miles away in different parts of the world. In other words, time and place are irrelevant when interaction via internet technology is factored into the picture. This is where an understanding of personal learning environments and personal learning networks is critical. Personal communication devices, whether smartphones, tablets, or notebooks, extend our networking into the virtual world, allowing us to interact with people who don’t share our physical space or time.

The concern about personal communication devices disrupting the teacher-student relationship is also a matter of perception. On the one hand, when students in a classroom or lecture hall are paying attention to their iPhones and iPads instead of their teachers, the connection between the two seems to be broken. However, this is true only when we view the teacher as the source of information. When we view her as a facilitator or guide, then we realize that the students may be engaged in constructing knowledge from information that they’re gathering online.

In this interpretation, what appears to be a disconnect or disruption is really the extension of teaching and learning into the virtual dimension. In other words, the teacher has unbundled her role and reconstructed it to include the online dimension where the sources of information are nearly infinite and skill in searching for and processing information is critical. In a world where students, with their personal communication devices, can learn 24-7 from anywhere and anyone, the teacher’s role must either change or become irrelevant. To remain relevant, she must take on the role of facilitator, someone who teaches students how to use the latest technology to optimize learning in her field.

Perception is critical in making decisions about technology in education. In this case, the point is that we can’t always trust our eyes. We have to look beyond what’s in front of us to a new world that we can’t see — a world that our students are comfortable and at home in, a world that provides anytime-anywhere communication with countless networks of people and sources of information. If we’re not careful, we could condemn and dismiss this exciting constructivist extension to learning in the name of a teacher-centric model that no longer reflects the world that is.

__________
* “IT Briefs Board of Ed on Moodle Revamp,” The Torch, 2.9.12.

[Note: Snagged spotlights some of the latest and most stimulating articles on educational technology. This article by David Nagel was brought to my attention by ETCJ science education editor Harry Keller. Please send your catch of the day to me, jamess@hawaii.edu, for possible snagging. -Editor]

David Nagel, in “Feds Look to Accelerate E-Textbook Adoption with ‘Digital Textbook Playbook’” (THE Journal, 2.1.12), describes the “Playbook” as “a guide designed to help schools overcome the challenges associated with the shift to e-textbooks. The ‘Playbook’ is the product of the Digital Textbook Collaborative, a group put together by ED and the FCC and composed primarily of technology companies and textbook publishers, along with two education organizations, one school district, and one university.”

Nagel quotes FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski: “‘When we talk about transitioning to digital textbooks, we’re not just talking about giving students e-readers so they no longer have to carry around backpacks filled with 50 pounds of often out-of-date textbooks. We’re talking about students having interactive learning devices that can offer lessons personalized to their learning style and level, and enable real-time feedback to parents, teachers, or tutors. Imagine a student who has trouble doing his geometry homework; the digital textbook automatically inserts a supplemental lesson. Imagine a teacher who has instant access to the results of a pop quiz; she can immediately see that four of her students didn’t understand the concept of photosynthesis and is able to offer an extra lesson.’”

According to Nagel, “The 67-page document provides advice for educators and administrators in four key areas:

• Planning and leadership during the transition, with links to case studies and exemplars;
• Ensuring connectivity at schools, including calculating bandwidth requirements, moving to the cloud, connecting classrooms, securing the network, and funding infrastructure upgrades;
• Ensuring connectivity outside of school, including cost management, planning curriculum for mobile access, and adding WiFi to school buses; and
• Adopting the right device for the purpose, with suggested considerations and a look at the pros and cons of BYOD versus school-supplied devices.”

Your thoughts on this initiative? -js

You are invited to be part of the second annual Innovator Spotlight virtual event!

Every year the League honors outstanding innovations through the presentation of its Innovation of the Year Award. These innovations represent significant achievements at member colleges and the continuing renewal of the spirit of innovation and experimentation upon which the League was founded. Award-winning innovations will be presented in collaboration with Teaching Colleges and Community (T.C.C.) and Learning Times by some of the brightest minds in the community college world. Join us Wednesday, February 15th, 2012, for this exciting one-day online event for as little as $75! Register today!

Topics to be presented include:

• Learning and Teaching
• Leadership and Organization
• Workforce preparation and Development
• Student Services and Activities
• Basic Skills and Developmental Education
• Resource Development and Foundation Management
• Research, Assessment, and Accountability
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Sustainability

This virtual event features:

• Plenary Keynote featuring Martha Kanter
• Innovation of the Year award winners’ sessions
• Virtual Roundtable Presentations
• Multimedia Poster Sessions
• Virtual League Corporate Partner Exhibit Hall
• Opportunities to network with colleagues from around the world
• All sessions taped for 6-month access to paid attendees

(Announcement received from Bert Kimura, 2.6.12)

[Note: This series is being brought to you by ETCJ associate editor Lynn Zimmerman. -Editor]

People have been learning languages since…well, since people have been, pretty much. For as long as we can remember, however, most people have approached SLA (second-language acquisition) with what we sometimes call a “classroom mentality,” meaning language learning must involve long hours in a classroom with static (sometimes outdated) textbooks.

This is the way language learning has been for a long time primarily because there really weren’t many alternatives: it was prohibitively expensive (and time-consuming) for most people to travel to a foreign country to learn in a native-speaking environment, and there weren’t many good or affordable ways to access educational or entertainment content in other languages. Those days, however, have come to a spectacular and speedy end since technology has totally changed the game.

In the Information Age, there’s really nothing you can’t do if you put your mind (and your web browswer) to it. First and foremost, learning a new language is about exposure and access. Hearing a language spoken proficiently, processing it, and then using it yourself is a fantastic way to advance your skills, and technology has made that easier than ever before. For example, programs like Skype have made live video chatting, not long ago an elaborate and expensive pipe dream, as convenient as a few clicks of the mouse.

While it’s been a boon to long-distance relationships and migrant workers the world over, it’s been even more beneficial for those seeking to learn a new language without the hassle and inconvenience of fixed classroom time. More than that, though, technology has enabled a sort of interactivity in language learning that was difficult to obtain before. Instead of just trying to absorb information, linguistic clusters, and grammar rules from a teacher or lecturer, learners can now dial up a native speaker on Skype and, very personally, both absorb and apply at the same time without sacrificing convenience or making an excessive time commitment.

It’s critical to remember, however, that many forms of technology are not as universally available as we’d like them to be. People without access to high-speed internet connections, tablets, or smartphones simply don’t have the same technological advantages as those who do. That doesn’t mean, however, that technological advances have passed the world’s poorest residents by when it comes to education and language learning.

The emergence of the ICDT4 (Information and Communication Technologies for Development) movement has helped bring cheaper and more mobile technology to places where ten or even five years ago there would have been no opportunities for this type of learning to flourish. Technology has not only made language education easier, but cheaper as well, expanding access to those who in the not-too-distant past wouldn’t have been able to enjoy it.

To be continued in Part II: “Technology Makes English the Global Language” and Part III: “Chinese As the Language of the Future.”