Emerging Technologies Consulting

As you can probably tell from the links in the last post, I’m coming down from a trip to Paris.  Today is Bastille Day and because I was just in Paris a few days ago, I thought it appropriate to celebrate by cooking a few things.  I am, at this very moment, waiting for croissants to rise.

What I wanted to talk about, though, is language.  I took 4 years of French in high school and another couple of years in college, thinking I might even major in it.  That was 20 years ago.  I failed to seriously brush up on my French before we went, so although I tried to speak it a little, I got a lot of funny looks as people tried to decipher what I was saying.  Usually, they then switched to English, for which I was actually grateful and not in the least offended.  I had a slightly better experience 20 years ago when I took a trip to Paris in that my French was more current and I think I sounded a bit better, but still, I didn’t have to use it that much.  I gave someone the time.  I ordered bread (pain) and coffee (du cafe).  For more complex transactions, my friend, a fluent French speaker, did all the talking.  I find my lack of real knowledge about French, despite so many years of studying it, rather disappointing.  It would be nice to truly be able to speak the language.  I think two things kept me from really learning the language.  One, we did not speak French that much in class and two, when we did, it was not to ask directions or order food, it was about, as Eddie Izzard demonstrates so nicely–cats on chairs and monkeys on branches (La chat est sur la chaise et le singe est sur la branche.)  Mostly we learned to read French and to write it.  I actually read a Zola in French, but I don’t think I’m going to have a conversation with a waiter about that.  Now, I passed up a couple of opportunities that might have helped.  Every week, there was French table in the cafeteria where only French could be spoken.  Presumably, the conversations were about real things–what we were eating, what we were going to do on the weekend, etc.  By the time this came into my consciousness, I’d decided to drop French as a major.  I also could have gone abroad to France and studied.  Again, I’d dropped French before really exploring this option.

When I was in college, the Internet barely existed.  The web didn’t yet exist.  We barely even had computers, much less networked computers.  Now, though, there are many ways I could immerse myself in a language, thanks to the web.  I can read or watch French news or tv.  Better yet, you can actually have conversations over the net with real people.  The Mixxer is a site where one can find people to converse with in different languages.  I’ve signed myself up despite no forthcoming trips to Paris, alas.  But I’d like to not let my French die and next time I go to France, I’d like to avoid such funny looks.

Over the last few days, I’ve been working on putting together a video to be presented at a conference on language learning.  My experience with language learning goes back to my first days of reading.  My mother taught high school French and eventually Spanish and Latin.  When I was around 6 or 7, I remember finding her books and started trying to read them.  The conversations presented in them were stilted and old-fashioned even for the 70s.  It would go (in English) something like this:

Girl: Hello.

Boy: Hello.

Girl: My name is Maria.

Boy: My name is John.

Girl: I live in a blue house.

Boy: I live in a red house.

As Eddie Izzard points out, most of the phrases one learns in language class can never be used in a real conversation.  You never seem to learn how to ask where the bathroom is or how to order a meal properly.  Despite the stilted conversations, I continued studying French through college, almost majoring in it.  Of course, majoring in French meant reading Proust in his native tongue, not actually speaking to French people.  I tried that in the summer of 1989, when an opportunity arose to spend time with a friend in France prior to a summer program in England.  I found out that the average French person hasn’t actually read Proust or Zola.  Further, the people I was staying with were all American and tired of speaking French all the time.  I managed to be able to ask the time (and tell someone the time), order food and ask when the next train was, but beyond that, could not carry on a decent conversation.  As far as I can tell, languages are still taught with a focus on literature rather than on having actual conversations.

In making the video, I was trying to make the point that language learning offers an opportunity to open students up to a larger global community, but only if language teachers allow that to happen.  Sitting in booths and memorizing vocabulary and phrases like “The mouse is under the table” isn’t going to help much.  Yes, students need to learn vocabulary, but they also need to talk to real people in that language.  They can do so quite easily now via the Internet.  They can have blogs, participate in Skype calls or IM chats, record podcasts, or participate in virtual worlds such as Second Life or World of Warcraft.  Unfortunately, many teachers aren’t taking advantage of what’s out there instead using the same old rote memorization and stilted conversation methods.  My experience with language teachers has been similar to my experience with other teachers.  There is a small minority experimenting with having their students keep blogs or even have conversations with students who speak the language natively, but most teachers are relying on 20 year old textbooks and recorded material.

My French is rusty now, and most people think of French as an elite language that lets you travel to France and order fancy meals and wine.  However, when I was in high school, some immigrants from Laos showed up in our town and besides the Laotian language, they spoke French.  My mother ended up being the only one who could talk to them.  French is spoken in many countries in Africa as well.  So, even though we think of many European languages as being limited to Europe, thanks to a long history of colonization, these languages are spoken in many countries around the world, opening up an opportunity for students to connect with developing countries and to understand the history of colonization and its impact–on the language, yes–and also on the people and the economy.

_______________

In addition to thinking about the possibilities of language learning beyond where my own classes took me, in looking for video and images to include in my video, I learned quite a bit.  I wanted to find factory photos to represent the idea of industrial education and narrowed it down to child labor photos.  That led me to a set of photos related to a textile plant in Birmingham.  Later, I ended up at a set of postcards about mining in Pennsylvania.  I was fascinated by both sets of images and it really brought the whole child labor issue into sharp relief.  (Despite reading Zola, it’s hard to imagine what child labor was really like).  I also found my way to these Lewis Hines photos, many of which are on Flickr.  As I kept exploring, I watched two different talks, one on kids teaching kids and one on Global Citizen Year.  The first showed up in my feed reader.  The second one I found via photos from Flickr.  My collaborators introduced me to the Life photos hosted by Google, which was a treasure trove of images of classrooms past.

It never ceases to amaze me how much information is available on the Internet.  And the more amazing thing is that it’s only a drop in the bucket.  It’s easy to get lost in the pathways, but it’s also just as easy to make really amazing discoveries.  I wonder if I could brush up on my French using similar pathways, by forcing myself to read French blogs, for example.  Seems like a definite possibility.

IT World posts two Facebook-related studies, one of which claims that workers who use Facebook and YouTube at work are better employees and the other that says that Facebook users have lower grades.  Eszter Hargittai at Crooked Timber has already picked apart the second study, suggesting it’s not carefully done, doesn’t account for things like socioeconomic status and that the question is a difficult one to answer anyway.  There may, in fact, be a correlation between students who use Facebook a lot and lower grades, but it doesn’t mean that Facebook is the cause of lower grades.  The second Facebook story, the one that’s more negative has gotten a lot of legs on the Internet, with many blog posts about it and its implications.  The first one, if my reader is any indication, did not gain as much traction.  That in itself, is quite interesting.  I think people are looking for hard data to back up their gut feeling that being online is bad for you in some way.  Any data that shows the opposite just isn’t as appealing.  I think we all know that too much of anything is usually a bad thing.  Whatever that thing is doesn’t much matter, but the media keep harping on the Internet as an evil presence in our lives–which might explain why the media is losing ground to the Internet.

Here’s a quite interesting report from NPR’s On the Media that discusses the Internet’s effect on our brains.  Studies right now are contradictory although many seem to point to a human capacity for more knowledge and different points of view.  Most experts agree that the Internet probably is making our brains different, the sticking point is whether that difference will be good or bad. And most say we probably won’t know for sure how our brains are changing for a long time to come.

Several of my Twitter friends pointed to this Wall Stree Journal blog post on how the Facebook generation will expect to work.  I think many of the tenets Hamel suggests are spot on.  I’d like to examine them in the context of education.  First, go read the article, then come back here.  Here are the points Hamel makes and below each one are my comments for the educational environment.

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.

Instructors should value what students bring to the class and try to create an environment where the teacher isn’t the only expert in the room.  Both student and teacher bring value to the class on equal footing.  I try to point out when someone posts something interesting on our class blog that I didn’t know about or has an idea that didn’t occur to me in order to encourage the idea that student ideas are as important as mine.

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.

The teacher at the front of the room obviously has more credentials than the students in the class, but teachers can work to encourage contribution from the students so that that is what’s valued in the class.  This is similar to #1 above, but  can be harder to overcome since students often look at credentials as a way of authenticating that the teacher’s contribution is more important.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.

Again, because of the received dynamic of the teacher as the expert, this is a hard one to aspire to, but it is true that certain students seem to rise to the top of in-class or online discussion.   The thing to watch out for is that the ones who don’t get an opportunity to contribute.  I think in a classroom, one actually wants to eliminate hierarchies as much as possible.

4. Leaders serve rather than preside.

Approaching teaching as something your doing for the students rather than as some kind of power mongering (I’ve seen this very rarely anyway) can really make your classroom a thriving place for your students.  Offer articles for papers, offer to meet to discuss ideas, and come to the classroom expecting to learn something rather than teaching something.  There’s a balance to be struck, of course, in that you have a limited amount of time, but being generous with what time you do have can go a long way.

5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.

I actually try to do this in most of my classes.  I don’t give topics for papers and sometimes give rather vague directives about page length, about image inclusion, etc.  I simply ask that it be argumentative and lean toward the academic rather than the casual.  This is very difficult for most students.  They’re used to doing what they’re told.  While assignments are generally necessary, giving students as much freedom within those assignments can help them learn how to choose tasks for themselves.

6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.

Anyone who teaches has watched groups of students form–those who sit together every class, who comment on each other’s posts or in-class comments.  One can capitalize on this by assigning those students to group projects.  I’ve heard feedback from my students about our small groups that they like to choose their groups.  Sometimes it may be necessary to organize groups for a particular kind of experience, but consider at least trying to let groups form on their own.

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.

In a classroom, this probably doesn’t apply, but in the larger context of an institution, it would be nice if resource allocation were open to an extent that allows people to gravitate toward interesting ideas.  Instead, there’s still a top-down allocation process.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.

In the classroom, I always try to be as open as possible and I encourage my students to be as well.  That’s why we blog in public.  I think it’s important for students to see each other’s work and ideas.  At the institutional level, it would certainly be good to have that kind of sharing of information.  Technology could help with this process, but most institutions I know of haven’t yet gotten to the point of being able or willing to share information across the institution.

9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.

I’ve done this in many classes, posted potential readings and assignments and let students choose.  I’ve also allowed them to change the direction of the course by voting on it.

10. Users can veto most policy decisions.

I’ve done this in class too.  It’s great when the students feel some ownership over the class.

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.

This is a value I try to impart, but it’s very hard since many students are used to external rewards such as grades.  I, myself, like external rewards, but those can be very simple and usually I receive the greatest external rewards for projects that have had an instrinsic value for me.  I don’t have grades on individual assignments and I have students evaluate themselves, mostly focusing on what they learned from the class.

12. Hackers are heroes.

I celebrate the student who presents a contrary view–as long as they do so without hurting someone.  Class and blog discussions are most interesting when someone says, “I disagree and here’s why.”

What other ways can these principles play out in the classroom or in educational institutions?  These just came to me off the top of my head.

Bionic Teaching points to a poster that sets up an opposition between the library and the Internet.  According to the poster, the library wins hands down.  Tom presents a point by point rebuttal that is spot on.  The thing is, this is a false dichotomy.  Yes, libraries have things that the Internet doesn’t, but the Internet has things (YouTube video anyone?) that the library doesn’t. They can exist together, and in fact, most of the librarians I know are completely web savvy and are working hard to bridge the gap between the library and the Internet and to take advantage of developments such as tagging and apply them to libraries.  I do a lot of research, both via the library and via the Internet.  I have to say that I’m frequently disappointed by my library research.  First, I have to figure out which database to do my search in.  Will what I need be in JSTOR or ProQuest or the MLA database?  Next, I have to figure out how to search.  Can I just put in some key words or do I need to know a special language in order to conduct a search? Then, I have to find the actual material.  Will there be a full-text version online and will I have to reconduct the search in order to find it or will there just be a link? (I have actually had to re-do a search before!)  Or will the material need to be ordered from another library or will I have to physically go pick up the material?  At any one of those points, I can get frustrated.  I end up using Google Scholar quite a bit, setting my preferences for my own library rather than try to figure out where and how to search.  Sometimes that ends up giving me a head start on an actual library searching, clueing me in to what database to use and what keywords are most likely to give me good results.  Sometimes I resort to plain old Google, hoping to find papers posted on faculty web sites or to find non-scholarly work related to my topic.  So, I see libraries and the Internet as co-existing.  Gatekeeping attitudes like the one represented by the poster only serve to turn people off to the library.  It makes me feel like I’m not good enough to set foot in one because I (gasp) use the Internet.  Libraries may need to simplify some of what they do (sometimes this is made more difficult by publishing companies) so that searching for library materials is more like searching Google, hopefully better!  And they definitely need to drop the attitude that there’s one right way to do research.  Research is a process that requires not just searching Google and searching library databases, but also knowing who to ask for suggestions, i.e. tapping into your network.  Libraries can be places where they teach this process effectively (I know many that do), and teachers need to do the same.  I’ve seen far too many students who don’t use the library resources, mostly because they find the process baffling.  Teachers need to a) help students learn this process and b) encourage them to visit the library and talk to a librarian in person (or via IM as many libraries now have this option).  The debate isn’t about *where* to find the best information but about *how* to find the best information, using the resources available to you.  Let’s have that discussion instead of pitting these two resources against each other.

On Friday, the World Wide Web turned 20.  I remember learning about the web.  In 1990, I had headed off to Indiana University for a Master’s program in Creative Writing.  One might not think that a writer would have any interest whatsoever in the web and the Internet, but I spent a lot of time on a computer, writing my poetry.  Also IU was on the cutting edge of Computer Science, so regular folks had access to technology that they might not have at a different institution.  I stood in line to get my email address, and I still use that same username across many of the social media I use today.  I participated in email lists and usenet news groups, and I have vague memories of using Gopher, but I really didn’t see a web browser until 1995.  That’s when my husband was looking for jobs in Computer Science.  So we spent time surfing the web, looking at potential schools.  We reasoned that a school with a web site in 1995 probably had a decent CS presence.

In those early days, the web was slow.  Most pages were text only, sad versions of print and graphically-enhanced brochures.  I can remember, however, shopping on the web in 1998 via eToys.  And I can remember being frustrated when I couldn’t shop and when businesses didn’t have their products online, just an address and contact info.  Blogs appeared around 1998 and from that point one, the web became a two-way street.  Some might argue that discussion forums, which existed before then, were a two-way street, but I would argue that the blog form encouraged sites like the New York Times and even corporate sites to allow commenting on articles and to get feedback and reviews that become part of the site, rather than being emailed into the black hole of some customer service address.  Amazon, of course, has taken this to an extreme.

I started building my own web sites in 1996.  I taught others how to do it in 1997 and onward.  I never became a web developer, per se.  I found the work tedious.  And as the web developed, it went beyond the HTML and CSS I used to build most of my web sites and moved into the realm of actual programming.  Once web sites became dynamic instead of static, they needed to be programmed rather than simply built.  Luckily, about that same time, blog software and other site building software matured so that a person could put up a web site (a dynamic web site even!) quite quickly, no experience in HTML or programming necessary.

The web used to be accessible only to those who knew about it, but quite quickly, it’s become completely mainstream and has completely changed over the course of 20 years.  If you want to give yourself a laugh, go visit the Internet Archive and look at some sites from the 90s.  They were kind of pathetic, but at the time, they were the cutting edge of web technology.  The next 20 years should be interesting as the web no longer just resides on computers, but also on phones, game consoles, and handheld games.  Who knows what it will look like in 20 years or from where we’ll be able to access it?  I’m looking forward to the developments.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The web in 1996 wasn’t as bad as Slate makes out (duncanriley.com)
• Follow a Trail of Content via RSS, Republishing, Retweeting (cogdogblog.com)
• The Semantic Web: A Treasure Trove for Marketers (readwriteweb.com)