why we learn

There were many things that I realized as I worked through my first week in a supervisory position. A large portion of what I had to accomplish was procedural, e.g., the signing of documents and attending meetings. But, it has become obvious that I will have to be tactful in my approach, as I am responsible for two distinct staffs, operating independently, at different times, and with different student populations. Moreover, my unfamiliarity with one of these groups, the adult education programs that I supervise, makes things more difficult.

Balancing Act

One week in and I can already tell that balancing my role as supervisor of high school and adult staffs is going to be a challenge. I am much more comfortable with the high school staff, as I’ve worked with them since I was first employed nine years ago. The adult education component of the school has always been foreign to me. I did teach an adult physics class in the evening, maybe five years ago. This was, up until just recently, my only experience with the adult programs.

Read more

If you’ve ever done any type of research, you are probably familiar with “keywords” or “subject terms” used by databases that index journal articles related to your field of interest. My understanding is that most journals allow authors to tag their articles with keywords of their own choosing. Let’s look at some examples from the submission guidelines for several of my favorite journals.

Educational Research

Articles should begin with a structured abstract and up to six keywords, and should not normally exceed 5,000 words.

Journal of Educational Psychology

All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 180 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases. In fact, every journal listed on this page has the same requirements.

Educational Psychology Review

Directly below the abstract, provide 3–5 key words that express the manuscript’s precise content.

and, Teachers College Record does not reference, or I assume require, keywords.

I could go on and on. Zero specificity or guidance. Lists of suggested keywords are not mentioned. Now I know why I’ve so often seen the phrase “author supplied keywords”.

Read more

I’m not quite sure whether I should be enthusiastic or despondent as I write that a superb implementation of what I’ve envisioned in terms of a research tool already exists. Launched in January of this year, A.nnotate serves precisely the role that I hoped to create independently. I knew that the creation of this sort of interface would be difficult, if not impossible to do on my own. So, in that way I’m excited to know that any development work that might have served as an impediment is no longer a worry. The creators do a nice job explaining the premise behind the idea of their sight.

An Overview

I’ve just briefly looked over the interface, actually using an article as a test case. It’s brilliant. Basically, it allows a users to upload PDF files (Word files and HTML pages are also allowed), then read and annotate these uploaded documents using highlights and user created notes. Each annotation can be “tagged”. Annotations can then be,

• searched
• sorted, by date, subject, tag, or document
• and, shared.

This service works on a “credit system” under which the first 30 or so pages are free. Subscriptions range from $19.99 – $199.95 per month. A complete description of the fee structure can be viewed here:

Additionally, it is possible to run a dedicated server per organization or institution. Discounts for universities are available (server not required). If a group membership is purchased, than members of the group can all comment/highlight (annotate) the same papers. Individuals can only delete their own annotations, but the superuser (for lack of a better term) has the ability to delete any annotation that they wish.

Furthermore, the company, textensor has a second product called PublicationsList, an online bibliographic manager that possesses the ability to export citations in commonly used formats (including RIS and BibTex), as well as store the actual files. I emailed them to inquire about how tightly these two products are integrated. In their response they indicated that, as of right now, it is only possible to like via the notes within the A.nnotate interface. Their are investigating the possibility of integrating more tightly these two web apps next year.

This is powerful stuff.

Read more

Rogoff¹ on Vygotsky and Piaget’s views on intersubjectivity²

For Vygotsky, shared thinking provides the opportunity to participate in a joint decision-making process from which children may appropriate what they contribute for later use. For Piaget, the meeting of minds involves two separate individuals, each operating on the other’s ideas, using the back-and-forth of discussion for each to advance his or her own development. This discussion is the product of two individuals considering alternatives provided socially, rather than the construction of a joint understanding between partners (p. 149).

Very interesting. Rogoff goes on to describe her interpretation, that these two process are not mutually exclusive, that instead they are useful and utilized in different contexts

1. Rogoff, Barbara. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press

2. an exchange between conscious minds; shared by one or more conscious mind

Meyer begins by discussing the metaphor as grammatical device.

The problem with metaphor, however, is its ability to capture the imagination and consciousness of the user and subsequently to preclude the development of other metaphors or alternative understandings based on different connections. For every metaphor highlights one aspect of the concept, just as it hides another.

The above proposition is one of two principle points posited in this work¹, and it is central to the second. It is, I think, a contention that in an of itself worthy of examination. Meyer examines the use of metaphors within the sphere of distance education and the Internet as a whole. An evenhanded approach is adopted, as both positive and negative aspects of each metaphor and its corresponding connotations are provided.

The Internet and its metaphors, “web”, “information highway”, “delivery truck”, “media as a message”, and “technology as tool”, are examined first. The first two conceptions, the web and the information highway, are fundamentally flawed in that they conceptualize the connections between computers in two dimensions. Even so, the information may be viewed as more accurate in that it presents the more realistic aspect of multiple paths to a single destination. The delivery truck idea, one that I haven’t been exposed to previously, serves to placate potential wariness of the medium in that it removes its potential to influence the user in any way, rather its sole function is transmission. This trope is problematic, and is in fact contradicted by another metaphor discussed is this section, “medium is the message”, which endows the technology with superordinate status. Lastly, the author discusses how viewing technology as “a tool” might also alleviate fears by shifting focus to its utility.

Read more