–

For example, on twitter, your updates are limited to 140 characters. Here are a few example tweets I expect students to make: (the @name here is twitter’s own reply format)

1)”@gdhuyvetter Do students have spirit dress today”

2) “@cptcobalt Can you help me with #4 on tonight’s math homework?”

Now things like this, by virtue, are good at first glance. But look and see how this can go wrong:

1) No school administrator would want to be pummeled with hundreds of messages like this. This explains itself.

2) Now this is the tricky one. At first glance, this is clearly a good use of the twitter service. But messages are limited to 140 characters. And that even counts for any reply statements or #materdei voodoo we may have. So in reality, we’re limited to 120-130 characters. Lets try to answer the question in that same 120 characters:

@twitter To solve number 4, first try multiplying both sides of the equation by three. This will leave you with 4x = 120. Now divide both sides by 4. This will give you your answer.

FAIL. Now that was an excellent use of the service, but it had 181 characters, 41 too many. I’m pretty sure students will feel discouraged or impacted by this limit (I know I would) and simply just send the answer.

–

I think class blogs (read: not only one student) and wikis would be an excellent resource. For example, in Mrs. Rydjeski’s Junior British Literature class (blk3), we have a review tool called “The Log”. The log is our way, that if we have missed a day of school, to go back and look at that day’s notes. A student does the log, and if the log is up to par, Mrs. Rydjeski will grant pardon on one unpreparedness point. This encourages students to not only do the work, but also do a fine job of it too. You can go into her class, open up the binder that contains the log, and easily see what EXACTLY we did that day in class.

This would be a much better tool to have online on a wiki. For example, anyone in class that day can contribute articles and info to the wiki. If we talk about a kenning (running joke) in a class, a student can show what page and line we found the kenning on in the kennings page of the wiki. And at the end of the semester, Mrs. Rydjeski (or any teacher) can go through and view the entries or revisions students have made, and then distribute points or other prizes for it.

It is, without argument, the best way to “upgrade” a daily log or to take notes in class.

–

But you do bring up a good point. You cannot, in good thought, implement any of this without being absolutely sure your students are safe.

MySpace and Facebook are definitely out of the question. The messages and conversations exchanged on there are private and unreadable for anyone except the intended recipient. You have no idea to track what a teacher or student may be doing.

Twitter is slightly better on this regard because all messages are public. You CAN protect your updates, but there is no way to selectively distribute updates to any one person. Even the @replies are viewable.

But a blog or wiki blows everything else out of the water. All of the edits can be seen by everyone. You can easily track the joker student who blanks a page and replaces it with an inappropriate word (a la wikipedia) and give him the proper consequences. Nothing can be hidden from a blog or wiki.

And ironically enough, blogs and wikis, which have to be school sponsored (to an extent) are definitely the safest to use.

These are just my thoughts based on my “enlightened” student point of view.

Alex Guichet
Grade 11

I don’t claim that we have responsibility for students’ online activities outside of school time beyond our care for them as persons. I do see this concern as a challenge that we are facing and one that can cause some parents and teachers to take a “the Internet is bad…period” stance.

We do drift into responsibility when we assign a student to participate in a social medium. A teacher who sets up a site for class discussions has responsibility for what is said and the behavior of all involved, the same as in a classroom.
From a school perspective (and I am not talking as a lawyer here, just “logic-ing” it out) activities in the classroom are the school’s responsibility. Recognizing that absolute vigilance (read omniscience) is impossible, there is an expectation of reasonable monitoring and awareness of what is going on. Because of this, a teacher would not be allowed to meet with his or her students at a restaurant or at a home because reasonable monitoring could not take place. In the same way, communication between teacher and students on a non-school website without the possibility of administrative oversight has the potential of creating liability for teacher and school.
This was (I think) the real dilemma that I was examining…even if I muddled it a bit.

I agree completely with your extension of the driver metaphor. I was speaking globally there, not suggesting that high school students are new to this. I do think that there are age levels that can learn better in this sheltered environment, but this is more important for younger students.

Right now though there’s not a practical application for it. The technology isn’t developed enough nor has the service been widely adapted for it to become a necessity to implement in classrooms.

I think a fundamental flaw that this “Think Tank” is having is that it is trying to think of needs for technology, as opposed to the right way of thinking, which is technology to alleviate our needs. Let’s face it, right now there’s not a dire need for our teachers to make international calls to other teachers for lectures. Most students can catch up perfectly fine when they come back from being sick. To prove my point entirely the end of this blog post even asks

“Does anyone else have ideas for use of cameras in the classroom or any other transformative program?”

We shouldn’t have to be thinking of uses for technology, we should know what we want to do THEN turn to technology to allow us to meet our demands.

Another point I would like to make in regards to the “Flight” post.

You made a metaphor comparing our investments to technology to that of building a Cathedral. The general point of that metaphor was that we wouldn’t be the ones experiencing the fruits of our efforts, but instead our children and grandchildren would.

While this metaphor certainly sounds impressive and is inspirational it is fundamentally flawed in the technological world.

Technology shares almost no similarities to building a Cathedral. Technology is always moving and constantly improving. Fundamentally you cannot “invest” in technology like you would a Cathedral. We could spend all of the money available on the latest computers and technology and I can almost guarantee that all of it would need to be replaced within five years. Let’s not forget that the towns and cities that built a Cathedral built them because they needed the economic and social benefits that a Cathedral brought. Currently Mater Dei has no need to actively expand our technological infrastructure outside of what is currently provided. I’m sure someday the time will come when we need to expand, but when the time and NEED comes the technology will be available and practical for us to adapt.

There is no need to invest in expanding our technological infrastructure. Especially when there’s currently no need to do so, and if it’s going to have to be replaced in the near future anyways.

This isn’t to say that I am against the efforts of this “Think Tank” to improve Mater Dei’s technological future. I just think the train of thought is currently backwards and we need to take a different approach to doing things.

Respectfully,
Patrick McNally