Garland Green's Blog Portfolio - Discussions

When, Not If... Maybe!

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:01:41 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 7. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it.

When I look at all the projects that are awaiting implementation I find that we have a "when", not "if" approach to implantation. In most cases I get the "when" wrong not the "if" wrong. But I do get it wrong and that means that we in the technology department need to always make sure we have plan for when the "when" moves to "maybe.".

Most technology is "sold" as being needed for the sake of institutional productivity. In short, you can do more with less time, and therefore, becoming more productive for the institution. As is pointed out in 7.3, page 120-121

But this is not always the truth. Folks like me have pointed to email for a long time as an example of effective ICT as well as the Internet being used as a kind of "Answer Man" and giving teachers access to information on demand. However, "...there is also a considerable body of research that at least sheds doubt on such contribution of ICT." And my teachers are quick to point that out. "Gar, do you have any data to support your X, Y, Z position on using this, or that tool?" I would like to be able to say, "No, but I know it in my gut" but that ain't going to work.

So when I talk about purchasing new tools that will replace a time-tested, well-practiced process with new tools, online grades for example, there is predictable blow-back. However, as is pointed out, "'We see the computer age everywhere except in the productivity statistics." I hear this all the time and I can't help but think that it is total fecal matter. Here is why: it is always faster and easier to input data on paper, at least at the "input" stage. Teacher A writes down attendance on a piece of paper and kid B picks it up and takes it to the office. A person writes it down on a piece of paper and enters it into a book or something. Fast for the teacher, laborious and not productive for the organization, even if it is faster and more productive for the teacher. Input faster, organizationally slower and less productive.

So the problem comes in when we try to define productivity in the traditional sense. Sure, in the minds of our users (and we covered this in the last chapter -- perception is truth) it is so easy to print out a newsletter and give it to your kids to take home, as opposed to posting it on a school web page. As is pointed out (and I will adapt this to my K-12 example): "According to Brynjolfsson, the first explanation (reference to the computer age being everywhere but no statistics) is the most important, which would mean that there is no real productivity paradox - but a measuring problem with regard to the output criteria in the service sector."

As it applies to K-12, how do you measure the productivity of a teacher converting a newsletter to a school web page if the only measure is "teachers' time" being the metric? You can't because you do not take into account the impact on the consumer (that word again), the parent, being able to access that data at every turn and at every time? So the service sector in this case is our parents and their time is too something we need to consider in the productivity equation.

So to close this, it is true that there a definable challenge to determine the effect on an organizations' productivity as a result of ICT. The real struggles, as is pointed out on page 123 it is not the effectiveness versus opportunity that is important, what should be considered is that there is "(a)n important negative effect of ICT is information overload." That is the job of the Director of Technology to determine the when, not the if. Once there is a clear understanding of what will help the organization, and thus being more productive to not only the staff, but the wider K-12 community then implementation must happen. The issue becomes when and to what impact will it have on the information and data collection overload have on the workings of the district. So it is not a matter of if, but when. Well... maybe.
-G

Between The Keyboard and Chair

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:17:51 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 6. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it.

I find that a good portion of my day is spent finding a way to fix the technical problems that rest between the keyboard and the chair. No matter how good we are as a technology team and I as a technologist it always comes down to the people. Subsequently, I found the discussion about "user friendliness" and the success of the media choice and use of the technology most relevant.

In section 6.2, page 95 Accessibility focused on the fact that as technologists we need to not only focus on the level of user-freindliness itself, but making sure that we match the tool with the end user and their level of experience. " It is, therefore, not the level of user-friendliness itself that is important, but rather the right match between the user's experience and the complexity of the system." Again, I am in this program in order to help me translate new technologies into the K-12 environment. It is for that reason when we talk about "user-friendly" in terms of accessibility, we talk in terms of "dumbing-down" the tool. I have said this to others, and behind closed doors I might add, that we have a baby boomer logjam when it comes to integration of new tools. This puts an added need to find tools that fit the end user and still meet the needs of a changing data-driven demand for accessibility to information.

In BOX 6.1 there is discussion about using a tool that was meant for on purpose being used inappropriately for another. The idea that you would hold a fact-face-meeting and send folks back to an email treasure hunt to find out if you are fired is almost criminal. However, it does demonstrate one use. I did however, have a cousin of mine who is attending Stout "break up" with his girlfriend by simply changing his relationship status on Facebook.com. If you talk to him it worked just fine for both parties.

My point? "Effective communication depends on choosing a medium that is compatible with the task at hand." It is true that there are various competing theories about how to do this, having a dialog about administratively "dictating" the appropriate use of these tools is part of any job. We have just adopted a new Acceptable Use Policy for SDMA because of misuse of these tools as was described above. I find it interesting the level of resistance to the incorporation of new, better suited tools, such as Chat over e-mail. We have covered that already.

Therefore, I think I subscribe, for now, to the Subjectivist approaches to the adoption and integration of technologies into an organization. "The social influence model argues that media richness cannot be determined objectively. What is important is the way various media are perceived. The perception depends on the user's attitude as well as the options and behaviour of others. Furthermore, different people may have different perceptions." Point in case as it applies to Chat versus e-mail. Skype versus a phone call, and so on.

This leads me to the end of this post. When we consider the introduction of new technologies into an organization we have to understand that our end users will make assumptions that can not be determined objectively. "The same goes for matching medium and task: different users will make different choices based on their personal perceptions." As I said, it is between the keyboard and the chair.

-G

5.5 ORGANIZATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 05:09:25 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 5. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it."

I want to return to the examples I used in chapter 4 from a perspective of implementation strategies. I will look at LAD and Prototyping. Before doing so let me go back to chapter 4's example. We have every classroom equipped with a TV (all are CRT), VCR's and in some cases a DVR/CDROM player. However, these TV's and media boxes will need to upgrade since the contract between Menomonie and "Channel One", the company that purchased the TV's for us ends in January 09 and we have a new HD broadcast issues.

So as I said we need to replace the VHS players, the DVD players and the TV's. The TV's are easy. We will need to add digital projectors (push of new technologies) since the cost is comparable to a new HD TV that can accept the HD signals that will come in January. To connect to it we can repurpose our teachers' laptops since every teacher has one assigned to them. In this case we eliminate the tuner if we use a web browser to show recorded TV content and Movies on DVD. To do this we have chosen to use Open Source tools to eliminate the need to purchase new VHS/DVDR's in classrooms and libraries.

However, in doing so we will change the way our organization records, disseminates and archives the new digital content. For those interested in the tool we have chosen to use MythTV to do that.

However, as is pointed out on page 89:

"Over the past decades ICT (Information Communication Technology) has become an important trigger for organizational change. Although social systems cannot be designed and imposed, attempts can be made to influence and realize the way organizational objectives are achieved through clever interventions and strategies. To do so, it is important to have knowledge of the process of change. The focus is on human behavior, organizational culture, the stimulation of change, hierarchies and an awareness that organizational change is a continuous process."

In deed, as you can imagine, our traditional Library Media Specialists (Librarians) feel both both skeptical and threatened. However, while I did not understand it at the time, I used Prototyping since we understood that our "(u)sers have a hard time making their needs and requirements explicit." In my case they used the head in the sand approach and just ignored the challenges. But a strict Linear Application Development model would, in fact, have given us built-in obstacles that would impede our success. As is pointed out: "In order to improve the quality of the design, various validation steps and feedback loops..." need to be designed to make sure the transition from an analog, front-of-the-room-single-box approach, to a networked, streaming-media approach needs to be developed. We have developed a prototype and have been collecting input from two of our Library Media Specialists to help with developing deployment strategies.

Therefore, the importance of understanding importance of organizational culture and the impact that these new technologies will have on those is vital to the success of this project specifically, but ICT in general. As it written in the conclusion: "Implementation can be interpreted in a broad as well as a narrow sense." As it should be. The big idea for me has to do with understanding the impact new ICT will have in acting as a "trigger" for change. In my case, the way Librarians will need to do their jobs in the next six years. An if you have never worked with this group of educators, this is no small job.

"Big Idea" You Find In Chapter 4

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 03:44:12 -0700

Q: Pick out the most important "big idea" you find in Chapter 4. Submit to the discussion board:

1. what the idea is,

2. why you feel it is important, and

3. how you can apply it."

Understanding the push and pull outlined in 4.2 is important in all modern organizations and understanding the importance of in public education is vital. Let me use a real life example of understanding the importance of it as it applies to 4.2 pages 60-61.

We have every classroom equipped with a TV, VCR and in some cases a DVC/CDROM player. However, these TV's are all CRT boxes and we will need to upgrade these since the contract between Menomonie and "Channel One", the company that purchased the TV's for us ends in January 09.

So the push of the market and new technologies has made our CRT TV's and VCR players obsolete. As much as that is the case, so too are the DVD /CDROM players no longer of much use since the new format, Blue Ray or what ever "wins" will drive the HD content that is played. This is a market push to change.

The pull in our case has to do with the need for content consumption (that word again) in a convergent paradigm. So the "(c)hanging requirements from the environment and the organization: the environments within which organizations operate are becoming increasingly complex (hard to understand) and turbulent (subject to constant change).

In our case the complexity has to do with moving the traditional brick and mortar classrooms to the asynchronous and online environment that gives all our teachers access to the same tools they have in the classroom. In my example access to TV, DVD (movies) and audio books.

Secondly the push of the technology itself. We now have access to online DVR's, not simple TV's and this can be viewed through the web browser, digitized digital "movie" content and the ability to stream audio books through iTunes, Shoutcast, Flash Players and so on. The push of the new technologies that can help eliminate the need for hard-wired single purpose boxes. Therefore, the "(a)vailibility of technology: the mere fact that ICT applications are available is also a reason to consider to what extent these applications have to be adopted by the organization." In this case, sdmaonline.com

Finally, we know that know that we now have competition for our educational dollars from other schools facing the same challenges. Now they don't have a brilliant guy like me who understands this stuff so they are in trouble. (That was to check if you were listening :-} ) "The behaviour of others: the 'me-too', or 'bandwagon' phenomenon also plays an important part in justifying the adoption of ICT applications." While there is a part of that that drives ICT in education, in our case this is much less the case as it was in the past since we have a tangible and identifiable need to adopt these new technologies in order to remain both viable and relevant in the marketplace.

The final reference from 4.2 is what I find most important: "The interaction between 'technology-push' and 'market-pull' is of great importance at the market level where innovations are developed and subsequently offered."

TCP/IP

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 07:14:31 -0700

Q: Describe a milestone in the History of ICT. Include a date of the milestone, describe the milestone, and why it was important. Include at least on reference.

It ain't sexy, it gets little fanfare and is a redheaded stepchild to the other topics posted here, however, TCP/IP is the diesel that powers the Internet engine and subsequently the Information Communications Technologies that will support our futures. I think that when we talk about

disruptive technologies we often focus on the implementation of them and the impact they have on social structures. Our previous discussion was in part about this. How do these new technologies change the way we communicate? Without TCP/IP, possibly a previous incarnation of NCP, or a hacked together attempt at a routed UDP, we would have had to come up with an open protocol in order to do that. The TCP/IP protocols won the day.

It is true that the Internet is the primary reason TCP/IP is what it is today. Without Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP) we could not talk to each other in the ways that we do. However, before there was the World Wide Web there was ARPAnet (Advanced Research Projects Agency Networks) and "ARPAnet created the TCP/IP communications standard, which defines data transfer on the Internet today." (SOURCE)

Furthermore, "(w)hat many people don't realize is that in early versions of this technology, there was only one core protocol: TCP. And in fact, these letters didn't even stand for what they do today; they were for the Transmission Control Program. The first version of this predecessor of modern TCP was written in 1973, then revised and formally documented in RFC 675, Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program, December 1974." (SOURCE)

I concede, that a dialog about TCP/IP can be a big bore, but when you couple in P2P with TCP/IP you get Skype, iChat, and a host of technologies yet to be seen. So I conclude TCP/IP is a silent warrior in the business if information communications technology and deserves an honorable mention.

Gutenberg press, and other devices

nospam@example.com (Garland H. Green Jr) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:48:58 -0700

Q: In class their was a discussion about the Gutenberg press, and other devices. It was mentioned that we were only focused on producing information and not considering the consumers of the information. If you refer back to all the communications models we looked at, you will note that there is both a sender and a receiver of information in the models that deal with the technology. The sender and receiver is the same as the producer and the consumer. This was a prelude to the actual discussion.

In class there was a discussion of whether or not there is a difference in the producing and consuming of information by those in the 10 to 12-year-old age range. This was based on antidotal information and so we need to determine if there really is a difference in the way people of this generation consume information. In your post you need to state...

1. Whether or not you believe there is a difference in the way this generation processes information and how so.

2. Describe the role of the sender in this communication process. Is it the duty of the sender to adapt to their audience's needs by adjusting their form of communication, or is it the receivers duty to adapt to the communication method chosen by the sender.

To refrain from gathering more anecdotal information, you need to site at least two references - one that demonstrates whether or not this generation consumes information differently and a second to determine whether or not we need to adjust to their communication methods or is their role to adjust to our traditional communication methods.

Since I "started this" I think I should be the first to post.

"Whether or not you believe there is a difference in the way this generation processes information and how so.

Answer: Yes, there is a difference. What is required is the "how", however. I will explain at the same time as describing the role of the sender. "Is it the duty of the sender to adapt to their audience's needs by adjusting their form of communication, or is it the recievers duty to adapt to the communication method chosen by the sender.

In this case I will suggest that it is caveat emptor intertwined with caveat venditor. I have provided two pieces of work that I have drawn on from in the past and I have come to believe that the both the vendor of information, the venditor of information, and the consumer, the emptor of information are at different times one and the same. The consumer of the information has to rely on others who have produced it (meta-data) in order to build a uniquely new position. To quote Doc Searls and David Wineberger from their book, The Cluetrain Manifesto: The End of Business As Usual: "Markets are conversations." As a result in the market of the web, opinions are formed by conversations, and it is the conversation that contains the knowledge, not those who participate in the dialog. I will explain this in a bit, however, to answer the question quickly, it is not as simple as being a binary sender's responsibility or the consumer's responsibility, subsequently it is both. Let me explain:

The students of today have access to more raw data that is produced by the process of credentialing, as well as the average, non-accredited, shoot-from-the-hip-anything-anytime data producer. I believe that the technology of the day plays a vital roll in giving access to, and the ability to create the data that, according to Dr. David Winberger, the author of "Everything is Miscellaneous" makes up the web since "...everything is meta-data" on the Internet.

The impact of the technology of the day on the social structure and the way students access data, and as a result, value "conversation" from their peers and those who they decide should be considered an "authority" and to be listened to has changed in the last ten year. The impact of technology has precipitated the transformation in the way the younger generation values information, and by extension, the producers of it.

In the discussion in class I indicated that I had observed that our students, those students that we in Menomonie teach, no longer are as willing to accept what we say as teachers (and adults) is coming from a person of authority; a "trusted" source. In this case I was pointing to my observations about the kids I have personally observed. However, this notion did not pop out of the sky through a celestial osmosis of understanding.

Dr. David Winberger, author of "Everything is Miscellaneous" (please watch the film I captured of his online presentation from his blog) states that: "The knowledge is in the conversation, It is not in Harold's head, its not in your head, its not in any head, its in us talking together and that's what we can do now. So we find this out on the web, we always knew this, so what the web is revealing to us about knowledge is what we have always known about knowledge, but our thinking about it has disputed.

Initially the conversation was started by Winberger. (11:28 into the film). His focus is on the university intellectuals, however, I am interested in the K-12 educator, but his point is well taken when he states:

"We had this idea that there were these authorities who have PHD's... well you know, that never worked, doesn't work now, instead what we have, as we always have, nuances of authority where authority becomes meta-data. Authority is: '...here's meta-data that tells me I should believe you, to one degree or another.' And we all get to create the meta-data which is a huge problem, of course, because a lot of us aren't qualified to judge what should be believed, but we do anyway. Because, just as we continue to talk, even though we are not qualified to."

In deed, this is true. Many people have relied on the traditional structures of authority (K-12 education and the teachers that work there) to vet information, the web is changing this model. I make no value judgement on the idea of "is this good or is that bad?" I don't care about that at this time. What I am interested in is better understanding what it is that I am observing. And I am observing a change in the way students interact with information, meta-data if you will.

But Winberger takes it a step further: "So we have this issue because everybody now can use meta-data to point at stuff and say: '...believe this, don't believe this, this is sort of right, you got the first part of this right, liked the first part of the chapter, I hated chapter four...' what ever, we all get to do that. The authority of knowledge gets split off from the thing itself and becomes meta-data pointing at it, meta-data we can all create. This does not fit well into the model of credentialing institutions but it is already there."

My contention has been, regardless of what the impact of having access to "everything" online that links to "everything" else and turning everything into meta-data, the challenge is for us as K-12 educators to learn how to take this new, easily accessed juggernaut of digital information and CONTEXTUALIZE it. Once again, I do not pull this out of the air, even though I have tried to "K-12-it" and adapt it. Again, this was taken from Winberger: "We still need to do the thing we've done in the real world, which is to to take big pieces of information, reduce them to into small physical objects, and arrange the small physical objects so we can go back to the big pieces." That is value of an adult, the ability to contextualize this huge sum of data and contextualize it and put it into small physical objects of understanding.

The question is asked of us to indicate the difference and to use data to support it. I have a graph that I used to demonstrate the need to use social networking sites as a model of how we need to adapt the way we teach kids. I also used the "Frontline documentary "Growing Up Online."

In Growing Up Online the narrator points out, if not completely obvious: "This is the first generation to come of age, immersed in a virtual world, outside the reach of their parents." However, C.J. Pascoe, PHD of the Digital Youth Project, UC Berkeley puts it better when she claims (05:30 into the film): "It's just this huge shift, in which the Internet and the digital-world was something that belonged to adults, and now it's something that really is the province of teenagers. So there is this proliferation of pictures and videos and them living their lives in essence online " Danah Boyd of Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society further states that: " This is a generation that sees online not as a separate place you go but just a continuation of their existence. It's self-realization, it's learning about life."

C. J. Pascoe, PHD of the Digital Youth Project, UC Berkeley goes on to explain (18:15into the film): "In a way, the social networking sites are this digital representation of what we think of as adolescents. So what teens are doing is going around and trying on these different identities. I'm a goth, or I'm a punk, I'm a surfer or I'm a this, or that. And the internet's allowed them to display that identity in a very dramatic and very succinct way."

(The following information is taken from this image, dapted from the original to represent the current status at SDMA)

Therefore, when you combine the two points of view, along with the data collected in the BusinessWeek: “Web Strategies That Cater To Customers” you learn that 34% of young teens ages 12-17 are "Creators: publish Web pages, write blogs, upload videos to sites like YouTube." So at some point these kids have to adhere to caveat venditor because they will be judged by their peers with comments and ratings, both tools built into Web 2.0 blogging tools.

What is also interesting is that these same kids who are the producers of meta-data become "critics" of their peers. While nowhere near a majority, 24% of Young Teen are "Critics: comment on blogs and post ratings and reviews." This is considered by Winberger to be the meta-data that these kids base an opinion on in order to determine if the person is worthy of "authority" figured. What matters in the digital real is the strength of the argument, so in fact, caveat venditor, let the vendor beware. The big part of this should be clear.

In addition, what separates, like no other, is the growth of social networking sites in the life of young students. As was so well addressed in the Frontline documentary, 51% of Young Teens ages 12-17 are "Joiners: use social networking sties" such as FaceBook and MySpace. These tools are designed to funnel people to the online presence of the student and the way they produce their identity and information will determine if they get linked. A piece of information that is not linked on the web is a literal dead end. This simple fact means that the message has to be atractive to the consumer, and viseversa.

However, this is about the "production" of data, meta-data. Of Young Teens ages 12-17, 49% are: "Spectators: read blogs, watch peer-generated videos, and listen to podcasts." That is compared to 26% of the "Older Boomers" ages 51-61. That indicates a measurable difference in attitudes toward data. It was this data that I brought to the dialog in class and which was the basis for my "question", if it was a question at all, more an interesting observation. Therefore, the reader has to understand if the information that they use to form an opinion is worthy of being considered worthy, or in other words, an authority that can be trusted. The kids of today do this seemingly as a second nature. Therefore, a social caveat emptor.

To close this start to the dialog, it is important to remember that young people have (according to the data that I provided from Business Week) have their own communities that are not credentialed, but do police the quality of the data produced, either by themself or by other young people. The true meaning of peer review.

If you watch the video from Winberger, you will understand that being accepted as an authority is the determinator of value. Therefore, because of peer review and the commenting on data that is produced, there is a natural adaptation of information and a crafting of the message and the building of self, as was pointed out by the Frontline video. So I contended that the responsibility is one and the same. The first is to participate in a conversation that inspires the student to want to "...get it out there" and then start a conversation. The back and forth is where the value is and where authority is formed. To quote myself, "the beautiful thing about the web is you get to show people what you know and don't know, at the same time."

When you follow the struggles of the young people who are heavy consumers of data as well as producers you would be hard pressed to argue that a the Older Boomers, ages 51-61 approached the consumption, and production of data in the 20th century the way the young people of the 21st century do. The data shows that a full 61% are "Inactives: are online but don't yet participate in any form of social media." Therefore, I am inclined to conclude that the impact of readily-available, and nearly-free access to unlimited, data-rich content, made possible by the internet and technology is in fact changing the way our students consume data as well as requires students to adapt to the peer feedback and learn how to craft the identity that will bring them closer to what is considered worthy of being an athority. So to answer the second question, the built-in peer review that is made possible by the web 2.0 tools requires both sides to "adapt." Equally.