johnhendron.net: hendron’s digest - a weblog

I didn’t get to see everything I wanted to this summer at NECC. Today, ISTE released a number of video screencasts and audio podcasts (with slides) on their website.

• NECC Podcasts
• NECC Video Casts

Last night I came across a blog post criticizing a recent article in Leading and Learning with Technology magazine, the most widely-read ISTE journal. Scott McLeod, a professor at Iowa State University, had issues with the article’s quality.

Specifically, he found sections of the article lacking, dated, irrelevant; the whole thing, perhaps, a “squandered opportunity.” He says the ISTE editors “didn’t do their job with this one.”

As it turns out, I hadn’t read the article yet. I figured “it can’t be this bad.” At least once before, I found Dr. McLeod’s negativity discouraging. With such an open, critical review of this article, I know if I had been the author, I would have been crushed.

Worse yet, comments on the blog only echoed McLeod’s sentiment. One said: “I can only imagine the damage the author is doing to her reputation and credibility as tech-savvy educator,” while another said: “I just went back and read it again and you are right on target with your criticism. Looks like an article from 4-5 years ago with a section added in the middle about the collaborative web.”

So this morning, before I checked my morning e-mail, I broke-into the article and examined it with a careful eye. It was a leading article for this issue, and even enjoyed fanciful artwork and “Web 2.0″ glossy “Aqua-esque” treatment to headers in the table comparing online web services.

I wanted McLeod’s review to be unfair and mean. I wanted this article to have redeeming qualities. I found, however, the article does fail, but for somewhat different reasons.

First, the title isn’t addressed. “Creating Valuable Class Web sites” suggests some newfound knowledge that will make a class webpage… worth making. The article does little of that. Instead, it focuses on three methods for creating a website. This might have been okay. Basically, these are the options author Betsy Baker offers:

• Use an online webpage creation tool (Geocities, Tripod)
• Use the Read/Write Web (blogs, wikis)
• Start from Scratch (but cheap), i.e., using web design software (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, iWeb, etc.)

Second, I did question why certain tools and services were listed (i.e., “Macromedia” Dreamweaver was one that stuck out), and McLeod and company did the same. The problem is, some of these tools (including Geocities) still exist! Today, it’s Adobe Dreamweaver, and so what if FrontPage is the 2003 edition. What I thought was unfair in McLeod’s review was the assumption that just because the latest and greatest tools weren’t being used, the article stunk.

Instead, the article lacked merit because it didn’t build on its own strong title. Comparing FrontPage 2003 to a modern wiki page is not even fair. It’s not comparing apples to oranges. Sure, some educators I work with still are nostalgic enough to want to goal-set “having my kids make a webpage.” “So what?” I ask. “What is that going to do for them?”

“I don’t know.”

Well, let’s start: what would make for a valuable learning experience when it comes to the Web?

Instead, the article offers this pull-quote: “Research indicates employers soon will expect workers to be able to create, maintain, and use Web sites.”

Whoa. My legs are weak from the time-warp. I forgive McLeod. Yeah, some of tools are out-dated. But is the author suggesting kids should make websites because it’s a future work requirement? Back to that question.

A valuable class web site is one (100% my opinion here) that:

• communicates what students are learning,
• is easily accessible by all the stakeholders,
• encourages 21st century collaboration and cooperation,
• allows students to connect their own emerging knowledge.

Yes, some day employers will want employees to have web skills. In my district, teachers have to maintain a weblog. The day has already come for many of us.

But let me return to my original point: the tools we use shouldn’t really matter. Sure, the “read/write” tools make it easier (and quicker) to focus on content rather than HTML. But I have teachers who today use a variety of tools to create their own presence on the web: one who maintains a digital version of her curriculum using Dreamweaver, another who podcasts regularly, and another that built an awesome drama website for her kids using iWeb. It’s a mixture of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 tools.

What’s the value in publishing on the Web?

• Motivation through the sharing of student work,
• Communication with parents about what’s going on in the classroom,
• Self-paced instruction for students,
• Creative expression by students.

Ultimately, the most valuable web site might be one that gives equal access to publication by all learners. That’s why I’d have framed the article in a completely different way.

Giving students voice means they’ll likely be using Read/Write tools. That’s what’s most valuable; it’s also the point I think that ultimately disappoints in this particular article.

Our focus then becomes, as McLeod rightly suggests, on how to gain access to read/write tools, or as he says, “[the article] should have included “Some discussion of the desirability of using outside, non-district-sponsored tools…”

And then, finally, it all starts to make sense when we read Karen Work Richardson’s article (”Don’t Feed the Trolls”), calling for students to participate online as bloggers to learn a few things about civil discourse. Now that’s valuable.