summary for Educational Content and Resources

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: Suzanne Alejandre: "Re: Introduction"

In order to make summary of this conversation I first made for myself a
somewhat condensed version of the conversation, organized by the goals of
the conference and topics of our group. An html version of this is
available at
	http://forum.swarthmore.edu/~steve/content_summary.html

Of the topics suggested for our group we focused on a few, particularly
what it will take for quality use of the Internet to develop (our
interpretation of "Standards of Quality"?).

We began with relatively easy agreements about the potential of the Web to
enhance research with information rich resources and to create environments
where students and teachers learn by constructing. The challenges and
disagreements surfaced as we discussed how best to develop these potentials.

** Good content: while the web is rich in "stuff", there may not be enough
good content yet. Good content is enough for the enterprising and
interested but what about the many who are reluctant or show no interest?

** Standards for good content: We did not actually write much about
standards. This might be a sign of the early stage of this work as well as
the length of time it takes to evaluate results. There were a few varying
ideas about what makes for good content. Steve Baumann pointed to
interactive elements, that enable exploration of science and math concepts.
Ed Friedman thinks the focus of pioneering efforts ought to be on unique
uses and compelling uses of the technology that can't be had elsewhere such
as real-time data access. Kam Matray and others pointed to the
opportunities of doing work that models or is part of the lived world of
work and professions.

** Professional Development: Aside from good content and nifty tools that
inspire teachers to take initiative, we identified several strategies for
bringing others up to speed.
	Local technology specialists free to collaborate with teachers and
students, preferably within the school day.
	Web content embedded in a context that includes lessons to explore
the content, presents samples of student work, makes the math explicit,
enables feedback and conversation, assessment ideas, etc.
	Scaffolding that enables students to learn the tools of the
Internet in the context of constructing resources, learning to research,
thinking critically about information, and integrating knowledge across
disciplines.templates.
	Online, distance education.

Nonetheless, we recognized that for many teachers to be involved in
designing and implementing learning environments the process of
constructing must be easier and more powerful, Internet access more
ubiquitous, and professional development focused and revamped for these
challenges.

It is telling, I think, that we did not discuss prospects for ongoing
support and moving to commercial products. I know that some of us take
these challenges seriously but, until we have good models for these
transitions, it sounds a little hollow to stress the inadequacy of
professional development environments. It appears that many of us have a
tight connection of our research with classroom practice and we also have a
good variety of projects that complement each other well, running the
spectrum of content generation, to tool development, to dissemination
vehicle to implementation models and maybe we could profitably spend more
time at this stage looking at collaborations across our projects.

Other issues still on the table:

** I think the development of/linkage of our work to standards/curriculum
proficiencies may be necessary for broader incorporation. Certainly this is
worth discussing if we don't agree. And if we do (even if we don't), we
should probably talk about how our work might fit and how it might
influence standards.

** As Jim Moulton noted, it might be helpful to have more developed
categories for users and have a more developed concept of the scaffolding
required for successful implementation.

** While we extoll the integration of our research with classroom practice
and the constructivist approach in which strong content, modeling of
pedagogy, and development of tool competence are all interwoven, we haven't
studied or said much about the effect on the nature of the research or the
scope of thinking which emerges. This is partly a result of being in the
early stages but it will be useful to step back and place our work in
perspective, making more effectively engaging our critics.

** We talked more about researching effective use of the Internet than
about using the Internet for research. I think strong evaluation and
research componenets are and will be increasingly critical to the success
of oru programs and it might be useful to discuss the ways in which we
conduct research on Internet projects or use the Internet for research and
evaluation.

Well, as the saying goes, if I had taken more time I'm sure this would have
been shorter and improved. My apologies for inaccurately reporting anyone's
ideas and for any intrusive bias in reporting and summarizing. Feedback and
suggestions are welcomed.

Hope it's useful.


-- steve

Stephen Weimar      |  steve@forum.swarthmore.edu
Math Forum          |  http://forum.swarthmore.edu/
Swarthmore College  |  610-328-8377

• Previous message: Suzanne Alejandre: "Re: Introduction"