Oakland Wireless and Wireless Washtenaw!

Oakland, Washtenaw wireless systems coming soon

Posted on 8/30/2007 8:45:39 AM Municipal wireless projects in Oakland and Washtenaw counties should be complete in 2008 and will offer considerable economic development benefits, officials of the two counties told a Great Lakes IT Report - WWJ Newsradio 950 breakfast Thursday. The systems, Wireless Oakland and Wireless Washtenaw, will offer particular advantages for rural areas in western Washtenaw and northern Oakland counties, which are currently limited to broadband. "West of Zeeb Road, we don't have access" to broadband, Washtenaw County deputy county executive and CIO David Beehan said during the event. He said business owners in western Washtenaw are telling the county, "We only have dial-up, and it's killing us." Beehan and Phil Bertolini, Oakland County deputy executive and CIO, outlined their respective counties' progress toward free wireless Web access to a crowd of about 100 at Lawrence Technological University in Southfield. Bertolini said the inspiration for the project came from a 2004 visit by Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson to Dubai, which has universal Web access. "Brooks said there's four square miles of Dubai, there's 910 square miles of Oakland County -- make it so," Bertolini said. Both counties' projects involve no government investment or ownership. Instead, the counties are making government assets such as power poles and radio towers available for free to a private sector partner that provides the actual service. A basic level of service -- 128 kilobits per second, about twice as fast as dial-up -- is provided free, with higher speeds available at a price. The provider also gets advertising revenue from a portal start page that all users begin at. In Oakland County, those upsell rates and prices range from $19.95 a month for 512 kilobits per second download speed to $39.95 a month for 1.5 megabits per second. Berolini said Wireless Oakland's Phase I has covered 18.5 square miles, an area comprised of 35,000 households and businesses. So far, 11,000 of them have signed up -- far exceeding the county's initial projection of a 5 percent signup rate. Of the 11,000, about 200 are paying for higher speeds, Bertolini added. Bertolini said Wireless Oakland is currently developing its rollout schedule for the rest of the county, which should be complete by the end of 2008. Roughly the same schedule is in effect for Washtenaw County, which has a 15-square-mile pilot system operating in Saline, Manchester and downtown Ann Arbor. In Washtenaw, though, only 300 have signed up. Both counties said government is one of the "anchor tenants" of the system and will use it extensively. And Bertolini said the system is already paying off in terms of economic development. "We already have companies contacting Oakland County and saying that part of the reason we are looking to locate in Oakland County is that the county is building a wireless network across 910 square miles," Bertolini said. Behen said Washtenaw County got its inspiration not from Dubai, but from the fact that the private sector simply doesn't seem interested in providing broadband to rural areas. "I'm not going to argue with the private sector," Behen said. "But in my position as deputy county administrator and CIO, I have to think a little bigger, and think about the quality of life for those areas." Both plans also include programs to bridge the digital divide, once the wireless network is up and running. The counties will be providing free or low-cost computers and training for low-income residents. Both speakers also said they're watching the development of WiMax technology carefully, but that it's still years away from widespread use. Oakland County is already using WiMax for backhaul, Bertolini said.

21st Century Digital Learning Environments

FLIP the SWITCH! Let there be Enlightenment!

---

August 14, 2007

The Beam of Light That Flips a Switch That Turns on the Brain

By INGFEI CHEN

It sounds like a science-fiction version of stupid pet tricks: by toggling a light switch, neuroscientists can set fruit flies a-leaping and mice a-twirling and stop worms in their squiggling tracks.

But such feats, unveiled in the past two years, are proof that a new generation of genetic and optical technology can give researchers unprecedented power to turn on and off targeted sets of cells in the brain, and to do so by remote control.

These novel techniques will bring an “exponential change” in the way scientists learn about neural systems, said Dr. Helen Mayberg, a clinical neuroscientist at Emory University, who is not involved in the research but has seen videos of the worm experiments.

“A picture is worth a thousand words,” Dr. Mayberg said.

Some day, the remote-control technology might even serve as a treatment for neurological and psychiatric disorders.

These clever techniques involve genetically tinkering with nerve cells to make them respond to light.

One of the newest, fastest strategies co-opts a photosensitive protein called channelrhodopsin-2 from pond scum to allow precise laser control of the altered cells on a millisecond timescale. That speed mimics the natural electrical chatterings of the brain, said Dr. Karl Deisseroth, an assistant professor of bioengineering at Stanford.

“We can start to sort of speak the language of the brain using optical excitation,” Dr. Deisseroth said. The brain’s functions “arise from the orchestrated participation of all the different cell types, like in a symphony,” he said.

Laser stimulation can serve as a musical conductor, manipulating the various kinds of neurons in the brain to reveal which important roles they play.

This light-switch technology promises to accelerate scientists’ efforts in mapping which clusters of the brain’s 100 billion neurons warble to each other when a person, for example, recalls a memory or learns a skill. That quest is one of the greatest challenges facing neuroscience.

The channelrhodopsin switch is “really going to blow the lid off the whole analysis of brain function,” said George Augustine, a neurobiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Deisseroth, who is also a psychiatrist who treats patients with autism or severe depression, has ambitious goals. Brain cells in those disorders show no damage, yet something is wrong with how they talk to one another, he said.

“The high-speed dynamics of the system are probably off,” Dr. Deisseroth said. He wants to learn whether, in these neuropsychiatric diseases, certain neurons falter or go haywire, and then to find a way to tune patients’ faulty circuits.

A first step is establishing that it is possible to tweak a brain circuit by remote control and observe the corresponding behavioral changes in freely moving lab animals. On a recent Sunday at Stanford, Dr. Deisseroth and Feng Zhang, a graduate student, hovered over a dark brown mouse placed inside a white plastic tub. Through standard gene-manipulating tricks, the rodent had been engineered to produce channelrhodopsin only in one particular kind of neuron found throughout the brain, to no apparent ill effect.

Mr. Zhang had implanted a tiny metal tube into the right side of the mouse’s partly shaved head.

Now he carefully threaded a translucent fiber-optic cable not much wider than a thick human hair into that tube, positioned over the area of the cerebral cortex that controls movement.

“Turn it on,” Dr. Deisseroth said.

Mr. Zhang adjusted a key on a nearby laser controller box, and the fiber-optic cable glowed with blue light. The mouse started skittering in a left-hand spin, like a dog chasing its tail.

“Turn it off, and then you can see him stand up,” Dr. Deisseroth continued. “And now turn it back on, and you can see it’s circling.”

Because the brain lacks pain receptors, the mouse felt no discomfort from the fiber optic, the scientists said, although it looked a tad confused. Scientists have long known that using electrodes to gently zap one side of a mouse’s motor cortex will make it turn the opposite way. What is new here is that for the first time, researchers can perturb specific neuron types using light, Dr. Deisseroth said.

Electrode stimulation is the standard tool for rapidly driving nerve cells to fire. But in brain tissue, it is unable to target single types of neurons, instead rousing the entire neural neighborhood.

“You activate millions of cells, or thousands at the very least,” said Ehud Isacoff, a professor of neurobiology at the University of California, Berkeley. All variety of neurons are intermixed in the cortex, he said.

Neuroscientists have long sought a better alternative than electrode stimulation. In the past few years, some have jury-rigged ways to excite brain cells by using light; one technique used at Yale made headless fruit flies flap away. But these methods had limitations. They worked slowly, they could not target specific neurons or they required adding a chemical agent.

More recently, Dr. Isacoff, with Dirk Trauner, a chemistry professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and other colleagues engineered a high-speed neural switch by refurbishing a channel protein that anchors in the cell membrane of most human brain cells. The scientists tethered to the protein a light-sensitive synthetic molecular string that has glutamate, a neurotransmitter, dangling off the end.

Upon absorbing violet light, the string plugs the glutamate into the protein’s receptor and sparks a neuron’s natural activation process: the channel opens, positive ions flood inside, and the cell unleashes an electrical impulse.

In experiments published in May in the journal Neuron, the Berkeley team bred zebrafish that carried the artificial glutamate switch within neurons that help sense touch.

“If I were a fish, and somebody poked me in the side,” (in this case, with a fine glass tip), Dr. Isacoff said, “I would escape.” But when the translucent fish were strobed with violet light, the overstimulated creatures no longer detected being prodded. Blue-green light reversed the effect.

One advantage of the Berkeley approach, Dr. Isacoff said, is that it can be adapted for many types of proteins so they could be activated by light. But for the method to work, scientists must periodically douse cells with the glutamate string.

In contrast, Dr. Deisseroth’s laboratory at Stanford has followed nature’s simpler design, borrowing a light-sensitive protein instead of making a synthetic one.

In 2003, Georg Nagel, a biophysicist then at the Max Planck Institute of Biophysics in Frankfurt, and colleagues characterized channelrhodopsin-2 from green algae. This channel protein lets positive ions stream into cells when exposed to blue light. It functioned even when inserted into human kidney cells, the researchers showed.

Neuroscientists realized that this pond scum protein might be used to hot-wire a neuron with light. In 2005, Edward Boyden, then a graduate student at Stanford, Mr. Zhang and Dr. Deisseroth, joining with the German researchers, demonstrated that the idea worked. And in separate research published last spring, Mr. Zhang and Dr. Boyden, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, each found a way to also silence neurons: a bacterial protein called halorhodopsin, when placed in a brain cell, can cause the cell to shut down in response to yellow light.

The Stanford-Germany team put both the “on” and “off” toggles into the motor neurons or muscle cells of transgenic roundworms. Blue light made the creatures contract their muscles and pull back; yellow let them relax their muscles and inch forward.

Dr. Augustine and associates at Duke next collaborated with Dr. Deisseroth to create transgenic mice with channelrhodopsin in different brain cell populations. By quickly scanning with a blue laser across brain tissue, they stimulated cells containing the switch. They simultaneously monitored for responses in connecting neurons, by recording from an electrode or using sensor molecules that light up.

“That way, you can build up a two-dimensional or, in principle, even a three-dimensional map” of the neural circuitry as it functions, Dr. Augustine said.

Meanwhile, other researchers are exploring light-switch technology for medical purposes. Jerry Silver, a neuroscientist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, and colleagues are testing whether they can restore the ability to breathe independently in rats with spinal cord injuries, by inserting channelrhodopsin into specific motor neurons and pulsing the neurons with light.

And in Detroit, investigators at Wayne State University used blind mice lacking photoreceptors in their eyes and injected a virus carrying the channelrhodopsin gene into surviving retinal cells. Later, shining a light into the animals’ eyes, the scientists detected electrical signals registering in the visual cortex. But they are still investigating whether the treatment actually brings back vision, said Zhuo-Hua Pan, a neuroscientist.

At Stanford, Dr. Deisseroth’s group has identified part of a brain circuit, in the hippocampus, that is underactive in rats, with some symptoms resembling depression. The neural circuit’s activity — and the animals’ — perked up after antidepressant treatment, in findings reported last week in the journal Science. Now the team is examining whether they can lift the rats’ low-energy behavior by using channelrhodopsin to rev up the sluggish neural zone.

But human depression is complex, probably involving several brain areas; an easy fix is not expected. The light-switch technologies are not likely to be used for depression or other disorders in people any time soon. One concern is making sure that frequent light exposure does not harm neurons.

Another challenge — except in eye treatments — is how to pipe light into neural tissue. Dr. Deisseroth’s spinning mouse demonstration suggests that fiber optics could solve that issue. Such wiring would be no more invasive, he said, than deep brain stimulation using implanted electrodes, currently a treatment for Parkinson’s disease.

An even bigger obstacle, however, is that gene therapy, a technology that is still unproven, would be needed to slip light-switch genes into a patient’s nerve cells. Clinical trials are now testing other gene therapies against blindness and Parkinson’s in human patients.

But even if those succeed, introducing a protein like channelrhodopsin from a nonmammal species could set off a dangerous immune reaction in humans, warned Dr. Howard Federoff, a neuroscientist at Georgetown University and chairman of the National Institutes of Health committee that reviews all gene-therapy clinical trial protocols in the United States.

In the near term, Dr. Deisseroth predicts that the remote-control technology will lead to new insights from animal studies about how diseases arise, and help generate other treatment ideas.

Such research benefits could extend beyond the realm of neuroscience: The Stanford group has sent DNA copies of the “on” and “off” light-switch genes to more than 175 researchers eager to try them in all stripes of electrically excitable cells, from insulin-releasing pancreas cells to heart cells.

From Time to Time a SUMMARY is Necessary. THAT TIME IS NOW!

Connectivism:


A Learning Theory for the Digital Age


December 12, 2004
George Siemens


Update (April 5, 2005): I've added a website to explore this concept at www.connectivism.ca


Introduction


Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are the three broad learning theories most often utilized in the creation of instructional environments. These theories, however, were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology. Over the last twenty years, technology has reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes, should be reflective of underlying social environments. Vaill emphasizes that “learning must be a way of being – an ongoing set of attitudes and actions by individuals and groups that they employ to try to keep abreast o the surprising, novel, messy, obtrusive, recurring events…” (1996, p.42).

Learners as little as forty years ago would complete the required schooling and enter a career that would often last a lifetime. Information development was slow. The life of knowledge was measured in decades. Today, these foundational principles have been altered. Knowledge is growing exponentially. In many fields the life of knowledge is now measured in months and years. Gonzalez (2004) describes the challenges of rapidly diminishing knowledge life:

“One of the most persuasive factors is the shrinking half-life of knowledge. The “half-life of knowledge” is the time span from when knowledge is gained to when it becomes obsolete. Half of what is known today was not known 10 years ago. The amount of knowledge in the world has doubled in the past 10 years and is doubling every 18 months according to the American Society of Training and Documentation (ASTD). To combat the shrinking half-life of knowledge, organizations have been forced to develop new methods of deploying instruction.”

Some significant trends in learning:

Many learners will move into a variety of different, possibly unrelated fields over the course of their lifetime. Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience. Formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning. Learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks.

Learning is a continual process, lasting for a lifetime. Learning and work related activities are no longer separate. In many situations, they are the same. Technology is altering (rewiring) our brains. The tools we use define and shape our thinking.
The organization and the individual are both learning organisms. Increased attention to knowledge management highlights the need for a theory that attempts to explain the link between individual and organizational learning.

Many of the processes previously handled by learning theories (especially in cognitive information processing) can now be off-loaded to, or supported by, technology.
Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed).

Background

Driscoll (2000) defines learning as “a persisting change in human performance or performance potential…[which] must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world” (p.11). This definition encompasses many of the attributes commonly associated with behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism – namely, learning as a lasting changed state (emotional, mental, physiological (i.e. skills)) brought about as a result of experiences and interactions with content or other people.

Driscoll (2000, p14-17) explores some of the complexities of defining learning. Debate centers on:

Valid sources of knowledge - Do we gain knowledge through experiences? Is it innate (present at birth)? Do we acquire it through thinking and reasoning?

Content of knowledge – Is knowledge actually knowable? Is it directly knowable through human experience?

The final consideration focuses on three epistemological traditions in relation to learning: Objectivism, Pragmatism, and Interpretivism

Objectivism (similar to behaviorism) states that reality is external and is objective, and knowledge is gained through experiences.

Pragmatism (similar to cognitivism) states that reality is interpreted, and knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking.

Interpretivism (similar to constructivism) states that reality is internal, and knowledge is constructed.

All of these learning theories hold the notion that knowledge is an objective (or a state) that is attainable (if not already innate) through either reasoning or experiences. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (built on the epistemological traditions) attempt to address how it is that a person learns.

Behaviorism states that learning is largely unknowable, that is, we can’t possibly understand what goes on inside a person (the “black box theory”). Gredler (2001) expresses behaviorism as being comprised of several theories that make three assumptions about learning:

Observable behaviour is more important than understanding internal activities
Behaviour should be focused on simple elements: specific stimuli and responses
Learning is about behaviour change

Cognitivism often takes a computer information processing model. Learning is viewed as a process of inputs, managed in short term memory, and coded for long-term recall. Cindy Buell details this process: “In cognitive theories, knowledge is viewed as symbolic mental constructs in the learner's mind, and the learning process is the means by which these symbolic representations are committed to memory.”

Constructivism suggests that learners create knowledge as they attempt to understand their experiences (Driscoll, 2000, p. 376). Behaviorism and cognitivism view knowledge as external to the learner and the learning process as the act of internalizing knowledge. Constructivism assumes that learners are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. Instead, learners are actively attempting to create meaning. Learners often select and pursue their own learning. Constructivist principles acknowledge that real-life learning is messy and complex. Classrooms which emulate the “fuzziness” of this learning will be more effective in preparing learners for life-long learning.

Limitations of Behaviorism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism

A central tenet of most learning theories is that learning occurs inside a person. Even social constructivist views, which hold that learning is a socially enacted process, promotes the principality of the individual (and her/his physical presence – i.e. brain-based) in learning. These theories do not address learning that occurs outside of people (i.e. learning that is stored and manipulated by technology). They also fail to describe how learning happens within organizations

Learning theories are concerned with the actual process of learning, not with the value of what is being learned. In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring. The need to evaluate the worthiness of learning something is a meta-skill that is applied before learning itself begins. When knowledge is subject to paucity, the process of assessing worthiness is assumed to be intrinsic to learning. When knowledge is abundant, the rapid evaluation of knowledge is important. Additional concerns arise from the rapid increase in information. In today’s environment, action is often needed without personal learning – that is, we need to act by drawing information outside of our primary knowledge. The ability to synthesize and recognize connections and patterns is a valuable skill.

Many important questions are raised when established learning theories are seen through technology. The natural attempt of theorists is to continue to revise and evolve theories as conditions change. At some point, however, the underlying conditions have altered so significantly, that further modification is no longer sensible. An entirely new approach is needed.

Some questions to explore in relation to learning theories and the impact of technology and new sciences (chaos and networks) on learning:

How are learning theories impacted when knowledge is no longer acquired in the linear manner?

What adjustments need to made with learning theories when technology performs many of the cognitive operations previously performed by learners (information storage and retrieval).
How can we continue to stay current in a rapidly evolving information ecology?

How do learning theories address moments where performance is needed in the absence of complete understanding?

What is the impact of networks and complexity theories on learning?

What is the impact of chaos as a complex pattern recognition process on learning?
With increased recognition of interconnections in differing fields of knowledge, how are systems and ecology theories perceived in light of learning tasks?

An Alternative Theory

Including technology and connection making as learning activities begins to move learning theories into a digital age. We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections. Karen Stephenson states:

“Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people (undated).”

Chaos is a new reality for knowledge workers. ScienceWeek (2004) quotes Nigel Calder's definition that chaos is “a cryptic form of order”. Chaos is the breakdown of predictability, evidenced in complicated arrangements that initially defy order. Unlike constructivism, which states that learners attempt to foster understanding by meaning making tasks, chaos states that the meaning exists – the learner's challenge is to recognize the patterns which appear to be hidden. Meaning-making and forming connections between specialized communities are important activities.

Chaos, as a science, recognizes the connection of everything to everything. Gleick (1987) states: “In weather, for example, this translates into what is only half-jokingly known as the Butterfly Effect – the notion that a butterfly stirring the air today in Peking can transform storm systems next month in New York” (p. 8). This analogy highlights a real challenge: “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” profoundly impacts what we learn and how we act based on our learning. Decision making is indicative of this. If the underlying conditions used to make decisions change, the decision itself is no longer as correct as it was at the time it was made. The ability to recognize and adjust to pattern shifts is a key learning task.

Luis Mateus Rocha (1998) defines self-organization as the “spontaneous formation of well organized structures, patterns, or behaviors, from random initial conditions.” (p.3). Learning, as a self-organizing process requires that the system (personal or organizational learning systems) “be informationally open, that is, for it to be able to classify its own interaction with an environment, it must be able to change its structure…” (p.4). Wiley and Edwards acknowledge the importance of self-organization as a learning process: “Jacobs argues that communities self-organize in a manner similar to social insects: instead of thousands of ants crossing each other’s pheromone trails and changing their behavior accordingly, thousands of humans pass each other on the sidewalk and change their behavior accordingly.”. Self-organization on a personal level is a micro-process of the larger self-organizing knowledge constructs created within corporate or institutional environments. The capacity to form connections between sources of information, and thereby create useful information patterns, is required to learn in our knowledge economy.

Networks, Small Worlds, Weak Ties

A network can simply be defined as connections between entities. Computer networks, power grids, and social networks all function on the simple principle that people, groups, systems, nodes, entities can be connected to create an integrated whole. Alterations within the network have ripple effects on the whole.

Albert-László Barabási states that “nodes always compete for connections because links represent survival in an interconnected world” (2002, p.106). This competition is largely dulled within a personal learning network, but the placing of value on certain nodes over others is a reality. Nodes that successfully acquire greater profile will be more successful at acquiring additional connections. In a learning sense, the likelihood that a concept of learning will be linked depends on how well it is currently linked. Nodes (can be fields, ideas, communities) that specialize and gain recognition for their expertise have greater chances of recognition, thus resulting in cross-pollination of learning communities.

Weak ties are links or bridges that allow short connections between information. Our small world networks are generally populated with people whose interests and knowledge are similar to ours. Finding a new job, as an example, often occurs through weak ties. This principle has great merit in the notion of serendipity, innovation, and creativity. Connections between disparate ideas and fields can create new innovations.

Connectivism

Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories. Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual. Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing.

Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday is also critical.

Principles of connectivism:

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

Connectivism also addresses the challenges that many corporations face in knowledge management activities. Knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected with the right people in the right context in order to be classified as learning. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not attempt to address the challenges of organizational knowledge and transference.

Information flow within an organization is an important element in organizational effectiveness. In a knowledge economy, the flow of information is the equivalent of the oil pipe in an industrial economy. Creating, preserving, and utilizing information flow should be a key organizational activity. Knowledge flow can be likened to a river that meanders through the ecology of an organization. In certain areas, the river pools and in other areas it ebbs. The health of the learning ecology of the organization depends on effective nurturing of information flow.

Social network analysis is an additional element in understanding learning models in a digital era. Art Kleiner (2002) explores Karen Stephenson’s “quantum theory of trust” which “explains not just how to recognize the collective cognitive capability of an organization, but how to cultivate and increase it”. Within social networks, hubs are well-connected people who are able to foster and maintain knowledge flow. Their interdependence results in effective knowledge flow, enabling the personal understanding of the state of activities organizationally.

The starting point of connectivism is the individual. Personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual. This cycle of knowledge development (personal to network to organization) allows learners to remain current in their field through the connections they have formed.

Landauer and Dumais (1997) explore the phenomenon that “people have much more knowledge than appears to be present in the information to which they have been exposed”. They provide a connectivist focus in stating “the simple notion that some domains of knowledge contain vast numbers of weak interrelations that, if properly exploited, can greatly amplify learning by a process of inference”. The value of pattern recognition and connecting our own “small worlds of knowledge” are apparent in the exponential impact provided to our personal learning.

John Seely Brown presents an interesting notion that the internet leverages the small efforts of many with the large efforts of few. The central premise is that connections created with unusual nodes supports and intensifies existing large effort activities.

Brown provides the example of a Maricopa County Community College system project that links senior citizens with elementary school students in a mentor program. The children “listen to these “grandparents” better than they do their own parents, the mentoring really helps the teachers…the small efforts of the many- the seniors – complement the large efforts of the few – the teachers.” (2002). This amplification of learning, knowledge and understanding through the extension of a personal network is the epitome of connectivism.

Implications

The notion of connectivism has implications in all aspects of life. This paper largely focuses on its impact on learning, but the following aspects are also impacted:

Management and leadership. The management and marshalling of resources to achieve desired outcomes is a significant challenge. Realizing that complete knowledge cannot exist in the mind of one person requires a different approach to creating an overview of the situation. Diverse teams of varying viewpoints are a critical structure for completely exploring ideas. Innovation is also an additional challenge. Most of the revolutionary ideas of today at one time existed as a fringe element. An organizations ability to foster, nurture, and synthesize the impacts of varying views of information is critical to knowledge economy survival. Speed of “idea to implementation” is also improved in a systems view of learning.

Media, news, information. This trend is well under way. Mainstream media organizations are being challenged by the open, real-time, two-way information flow of blogging.

Personal knowledge management in relation to organizational knowledge management

Design of learning environments

Conclusion:

The pipe is more important than the content within the pipe. Our ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today. A real challenge for any learning theory is to actuate known knowledge at the point of application. When knowledge, however, is needed, but not known, the ability to plug into sources to meet the requirements becomes a vital skill. As knowledge continues to grow and evolve, access to what is needed is more important than what the learner currently possesses.

Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity. How people work and function is altered when new tools are utilized. The field of education has been slow to recognize both the impact of new learning tools and the environmental changes in what it means to learn. Connectivism provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in a digital era.

References

Barabási, A. L., (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks, Cambridge, MA, Perseus Publishing.

Buell, C. (undated). Cognitivism. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://web.cocc.edu/cbuell/theories/cognitivism.htm.

Brown, J. S., (2002). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. United States Distance Learning Association. Retrieved on December 10, 2004, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.

Gleick, J., (1987). Chaos: The Making of a New Science. New York, NY, Penguin Books.

Gonzalez, C., (2004). The Role of Blended Learning in the World of Technology. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://www.unt.edu/benchmarks/archives/2004/september04/eis.htm.

Gredler, M. E., (2005) Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice – 5th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education.

Kleiner, A. (2002). Karen Stephenson’s Quantum Theory of Trust. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://www.netform.com/html/s+b%20article.pdf.

Landauer, T. K., Dumais, S. T. (1997). A Solution to Plato’s Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction and Representation of Knowledge. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://lsa.colorado.edu/papers/plato/plato.annote.html.

Rocha, L. M. (1998). Selected Self-Organization and the Semiotics of Evolutionary Systems. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/ises.html.

ScienceWeek (2004) Mathematics: Catastrophe Theory, Strange Attractors, Chaos. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031226-2.htm.

Stephenson, K., (Internal Communication, no. 36) What Knowledge Tears Apart, Networks Make Whole. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://www.netform.com/html/icf.pdf.

Vaill, P. B., (1996). Learning as a Way of Being. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Blass Inc.

Wiley, D. A and Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: The decentralized future of online learning. Retrieved December 10, 2004 from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/ososs.pdf.



http://www.elearnspace.org/images/h_line.gif

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Creativity + Innovation + Technology = Success 101

http://www.eschoolnews.com
Contents Copyright 2007 eSchool News. All rights reserved.

Innovation a key theme at NECC '07
New tech standards for students launched

Dennis Pierce Managing Editor
August 1, 2007

The need to produce a generation of students who are creative thinkers and innovators was a key theme at this year's National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) in Atlanta.

More than 18,500 educators and exhibitors gathered at the Georgia World Congress Center June 24 through 27 for the nation's premier educational technology conference, hosted by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).

Conference-goers heard from keynote speaker Andrew Zolli, a futurist and author who urged those in attendance to cultivate students' creativity to maintain America's position as a global leader in innovation. Later in the conference, Zolli moderated a roundtable discussion on what it takes to unlock the creative potential in all of us.

In between, ISTE released an updated version of its National Educational Technology Standards for Students, a set of standards for defining what students should know and be able to do with technology at various grade levels. The revised standards include creativity and innovation at the top of the list of traits to be measured.

The innovation ‘imperative'

Zolli's opening keynote speech on June 24 had two parts. In the first half, he explained why it's "imperative" for educators to encourage students' innate creativity.

"You are shifting our whole civilization onto a new platform," he told attendees, using a metaphor the audience was familiar with to describe the changes in society brought on by advancements in technology. "We're watching an exponential curve ... an amazing set of shifts."

Two key ideas underlie these shifts, Zolli said: Everything that can be done by machine (eventually) will be, and many more things will be able to be done by machine than we now think.

"What happens when we're successful?" he asked attendees. In other words, what would the world look like if everything we needed were plentiful, fast, and cheap? "What is left to humanity is the essence of the creative spirit," he answered--and it's that creative spirit that educators must nurture in their students.

These capabilities are latent in all of us, Zolli said. He illustrated his point with an example from science. Scientists, he said, now have the ability to "shut off" various parts of the brain temporarily. In one research experiment, scientists turned off various inhibitors and had subjects draw a picture of a dog. In almost all cases, he noted, the subjects' drawings were much more rich in details than they were capable of before the experiment.

"We all have to find our own creative center," Zolli concluded. "The good news is, science tells us it's there."

In the second half of his speech, drawing on fields as diverse as demographics and psychology, Zolli outlined five key trends that are shaping education's future. And it's clear from these trends that creativity and innovation aren't necessary just for students: Educators, too, will need these traits to cultivate new approaches to teaching and learning.

The first of these trends is what Zolli called "demographic transformation." The world and U.S. populations are changing in ways that will have profound effects on education in this century, he noted.

For example, the world is becoming increasingly urban, and many of the largest cities in the world soon will be in East Asia. Women now make up 56 percent of undergraduates in the United States, and this figure is rising. The population in the Western part of the U.S. is rising at a much faster rate than in the East, and whites will be a minority in the United States by the middle of this century.

"The next generation is going to be more multiethnic and female than ever," Zolli said--and schools, too, will need to evolve to address these changes.

The second trend Zolli described is a shift in the way we think about our relationship with the natural world--or, as he put it, a growing awareness of "the need to navigate our moment in human civilization in relationship to our ecosystem." These social forces are going to meet new technological forces, he said--and as a result, "we're going to see hundreds of examples" of so-called "eco-innovation," or efforts to "rethink the world."

As examples of this phenomenon, Zolli cited a plant that scientists have engineered to turn red when its roots come into contact with the chemicals associated with landmines--and "ecotiles" that use the kinetic pressure of your stepping as you walk to power the lights around the town square.

"Someone you educate," he said, "... is going to win the Nobel Prize in this century for having solved a problem like this that also makes them a trillionaire." He added: "That's the opportunity in front of us."

The third trend, Zolli said, is a change in our perception of ideal "learning places."

"We are animals," he said, and as such, "we have preferred habitats." These are places that are rich in resources, multisensory and vibrant, adaptable and reusable, and mix public and private spaces. Zolli then showed a slide of a typical school building, with rows of bland lockers all looking the same.

"We send [students] to a place almost guaranteed to elicit psychosis to a social primate," he joked. His message: Educators must rethink their learning environments to elicit innovation from students.

The fourth trend is the need to cope with choice and complexity. In our "surplus society," Zolli said, we're now awash in choices. A key skill for educators to impart to their students will be the ability to manage these choices.

The final trend is the redefining of what "literacy" means. In our post-Sputnik model of intelligence, Zolli said, you're smart if you either know more facts than the average person, or you know unique facts that most others don't know. But as technology evolves and puts knowledge literally at the fingertips of students, that definition must change.

"Today, when students take the [SAT], they can take a programmable calculator into the test with them--and that's a bridge to a day when that device contains access to all the world's present information," he said. "The question is, what are we testing when we enable people to come in with the cloud of human knowledge behind them?"

It is inevitable that students will bring those tools with them to future tests, he said, and when they do, "we will have changed the nature of what we test to something a lot more like our ability to find, build, and use complex information tools in real time."

[Editor's note: For video highlights of Zolli's speech, as well as other aspects of NECC 2007, go to: http://www.eschoolnews.com/cic.]

New ed-tech standards

On day two of the conference, ISTE formally unveiled a new version of its National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S), the culmination of a yearlong process to revise this rubric for what kids should know and be able to do with technology.

Launched at last year's NECC, the NETS*S Refresh Project convened students and stakeholders in town-hall style meetings around the country during the past year, inviting their feedback. The project reportedly included participation from representatives in 50 states and 22 countries, including China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.

ISTE first issued its NETS for students in 1998, and this framework has since found its way into the standards of as many as 48 U.S. states. Now, nearly 10 years later--and having also issued NETS for teachers and administrators--ISTE has revised its NETS to keep pace with the changing demands of a new global, information-based economy, the group says.

Toward that end, creativity and innovation head the list of characteristics the new standards seek to measure.

According to ISTE's chief executive, Don Knezek, the original NETS*S focused primarily on technology tools, "because that was okay at that time, but that's not true now. ... [We need to focus on] what students need to learn effectively and live productively in an increasingly digital age."

Knezek has described the changes as a shift away from a focus on "competency with [technology] tools" and toward a focus on the "skills required in a digital world to produce and innovate" using technology.

The differences can be gleaned by looking at the categories that define each set of standards.

In the original standards, the skills necessary to define technology proficiency were outlined across six categories: basic operations and concepts; social, ethical, and human issues of technology use; productivity tools; communication tools; research tools; and problem-solving and decision-making tools.

The revised draft standards also are organized into six categories: (1) creativity and innovation; (2) communication and collaboration; (3) research and information retrieval; (4) critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making; (5) digital citizenship; and (6) technology operations and concepts.

"The first set of standards was about learning to use technology. This set is about using technology to learn," said David Barr, a retired educator and a member of ISTE's accreditation and standards committee.

Breaking the rules

Continuing the theme of creativity and innovation at this year's NECC, Zolli moderated a June 26 roundtable discussion on how educators can encourage the development of these characteristics within their students.

The discussion involved four experts with different perspectives on creativity: Mary Cullinane, a Microsoft employee and technology architect of the company's School of the Future project in Philadelphia; Michael McCauley, creative director for a Chicago-based communications agency; Francesc Pedro, senior analyst for the Paris-based Center for Educational Research and Innovation, a division of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; and Elizabeth Streb, a nationally renowned choreographer.

The conversation centered on the question: What kind of environment best stimulates creativity?

The School of the Future project (see http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=6579) was about "fundamentally questioning the norm," Cullinane said. She added: "One of the things we wanted to focus on was creating a place where failure was an option--where kids weren't afraid to fail." That's hard to do in an era of increased school accountability, she acknowledged. In terms of its physical space, the school's designers sought to create "gathering places" where kids could come together and collaborate on projects.

Streb described a place she created in New York City, called Slam, where dancers, acrobats, and students come together to explore movement and flight. She portrayed it as resembling a large "garage," where it's OK to break things and get dirty. "We also allow complete sovereignty," she added, noting there is a "thin line between when play stops and class begins."

Streb also had a few words of advice for those in the audience: Ask seemingly unanswerable questions, and break the rules. "Discovery is going in with a clean question and then ignoring everything you thought you knew," said Streb, who has revolutionized modern dance by challenging many widely held assumptions about this art form.

Zolli noted that the panelists seemed to be talking about taking risks and empowering individuals (that is, students). So, he asked, how do educators deal with the structural impediments to these notions that typically exist in today's schools?

Cullinane acknowledged this can be difficult. She said Philadelphia's School of the Future was designed to exist within the traditional constraints common to school systems, such as budget limitations--yet its goal was specifically to loosen the structural barriers that often impede progress.

"Imagine if we were all swimming downstream--imagine how fast we could go," she said. "Yet, in schools, we're often swimming upstream" against a current of policies and procedures.

Zolli then asked what it is about the culture at Microsoft that encourages innovation. Cullinane responded that it's a place where individuals are self-critical and constantly questioning: How can I get better? This behavior is modeled every day, she said. Also, employees are given time to just think.

"You didn't have to justify that you were doing something," said Cullinane, a former teacher before joining Microsoft. "Thinking was doing something--and that, for me, was a fundamental change, coming from a school environment."

Cullinane ended the discussion by urging educators to remember the word "motive," asking: What motivates students? What do they value? What is their environment? What are their challenges?

"If we can't answer these questions, we're not going to be able to create the kinds of environments like the School of the Future," she concluded.

In a case reportedly involving the brother of Rep. William J. Jefferson, D-La., who was indicted recently on federal bribery charges, a former president of the New Orleans Public Schools board has admitted accepting $140,000 in bribes to help JRL Enterprises, a producer of educational software, obtain a lucrative New Orleans school contract.

The former board official, Ellenese Brooks-Simms, 67, pleaded guilty in a U.S. District Court in New Orleans to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery. Her lawyer told reporters outside the courthouse on June 20 that Brooks-Simms "fully acknowledges and regrets being involved in this." The charges against Brooks-Simms did not identify a business consultant who was said to have paid her to win school board contracts for the company.

JRL, which was founded in New Orleans and moved to Jackson, Miss., after Hurricane Katrina, was not accused of wrongdoing in the case. But JRL's "I CAN Learn" software has been involved in controversy in the past over its efficacy and the circumstances surrounding its contracts with the school district of Fort Worth, Texas (see Officials freeze ‘I CAN Learn': http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/ showStory.cfm?ArticleID=5679).

In the New Orleans case, JRL's founder, John Lee, acknowledged that he hired Rep. Jefferson's brother, Mose Jefferson, to "facilitate introductions to the decision makers" in Orleans Parish. But according to the city's newspaper, the Times-Picayune, Lee said he never authorized bribes.

Brooks-Simms was accused of accepting bribes on three occasions for "promoting and approving" school board contracts that "illegally benefited" a person known to federal prosecutors but not named in court papers. A news release from U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said the person in question received more than $900,000 in commissions for software contracts with the New Orleans school board.

Brooks-Simms served on the Orleans Parish School Board from 2000 to 2004. She is the latest person to plead guilty in a wide-ranging probe that began in 2003 and has resulted so far in 23 guilty pleas, Letten said. A string of plea deals has revealed kickback schemes involving construction and insurance activities, as well as school payroll thefts.

New Hampshire officials release new high school model

The New Hampshire Department of Education has released a document intended to develop "a new high school delivery model," in which learning is tailored around students' interests and teachers mentor instead of instruct.

"This is the next step in moving forward with school redesign," said Fred Bramante, a member of the state Board of Education. "If we do this right, why would any kid drop out of high school?"

The vision document, "Moving from High Schools to Learning Communities," is closely tied to the state's minimum standards for school approval. Those standards were revised in 2005 to allow schools more flexibility.

Among the changes were a provision that would allow high schools to maintain a school year of 990 hours instead of 180 days and a mandate that by the 2008-09 school year, students must have the option to earn credits by demonstrating mastery of a subject instead of taking a course in that subject.

Six "guiding principles" for redesigning high schools are outlined in the new vision document:

· Students should feel a personal connection to their high school experience. School guidance programs are important, as are internships and lessons customized to each student's learning style.

· All students should be held to high academic and personal standards.

· Students must believe that what they learn is relevant to their lives; students should be able to personalize their learning.

· Teachers should be facilitators, mentors, and coaches.

· Each student's learning should be monitored and documented.

· Data about that learning should be used to tweak the system to make it better. State education officials say some schools already emphasize personalized learning.

For example, Merrimack Valley High School offers online courses and internships, and its staff members are developing a charter school that would assess students based on their demonstrated abilities. The CSI Charter School would "profile" students and then adapt the curriculum to fit their needs.

Merrimack Valley Principal Mike Jette said he hopes to pilot the concept of awarding credit for "real-world learning," as outlined in the revised minimum standards, at the charter school next year and then bring it to the high school in 2008-09.

South Dakota joins effort to teach 21st-century skills

South Dakota has joined a national effort that seeks to teach students the skills required to succeed in a rapidly changing world, Gov. Mike Rounds said on June 19.

South Dakota is the fifth state to join the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, an organization that includes major corporations and education groups. The other four states are Massachusetts, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The group's members include Apple, Cisco Systems, Ford Motor Co., Microsoft Corp., Texas Instruments, and Verizon.

"We have a powerful vision for the 21st century. We feel we need to infuse different skills into the core subjects," said Kathy Hurley, a representative of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills.

Students must graduate with skills that allow them to think critically, solve problems, communicate, be leaders, and use computers and other technology, Rounds said. Such skills are needed, he added, so South Dakota businesses can hire highly qualified workers to compete in the global economy.

"If we start now teaching these critical skills, we have a better chance of being economically successful within our state," Rounds said.

An advisory council of South Dakota business and education leaders will make recommendations on what skills should be taught to students at all education levels. The panel met on June 19 for the first time.

State Education Secretary Rick Melmer said the new effort could require some additional training to help teachers emphasize the targeted skills, which would be integrated into existing courses.

Rounds said the new skills program will be tied to his existing 2010 Education initiative that already has set goals for improving education in South Dakota.

By this fall, 25 percent of South Dakota's high school students will have laptop computers they can take home with them after school, Rounds said. Other programs let students take courses over the internet or television if their high schools do not offer those subjects, he said.

Seattle offers iPods as incentives for test-prep classes

Seattle high-school students who failed reading or math on the 10th-grade Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) are being given the chance to earn an iPod Shuffle from Apple Inc., the Seattle Times reports. The catch? They must spend five weeks in one of two WASL-prep summer programs.

The city hopes the programs, a joint project with Seattle Public Schools and Seattle Community Colleges, will help students pass the state exam--and city officials are offering the iPods, which retail at $79, as an incentive to get students in the door.

"For the subset of students who have lost motivation ... this is worth a try," Holly Miller, director of the city's Office for Education, told the Times.

A tutoring company helping with the programs came up with the idea of the iPod incentive, Miller said, saying it has worked well in other cities.

An anonymous donor is paying for the iPods for all students who complete the math-tutoring program. The city said it would buy iPods for students in the reading program.