 |
This issue of Netweaver was distributed in October 1989
To leave comments about a particular article, click on its title to get to its page.
|
Volume 5 ---CONTENTS--- Fall 1989
1 Masthead and Index
2 ENA UPDATE
by Lisa Kimball
3 POWER ON! New Tools for Teaching and Learning Part I
OTA Report Brief
4 POWER ON! New Tools for Teaching and Learning Part II
OTA Report Brief
5 A Framework for Implementing Computer Telecommunications in the Nation's Schools
by Griff Wigley
6 TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEFINITIONS TERMINOLOGY
by Al Rogers with comments by Chris Clark
7 COMPUTERS AND DISABLED
by Nancy Jennings
ENA Update
by Lisa Kimball
ENA F-T-F Conference 1990
=========================
Mark your calendars NOW for another great f-t-f gathering of electronic networkers.
May 23-26, 1990
San Francisco, CA
We're all very excited about taking our annual conference to the West Coast and looking forward to the participation of many who haven't been able to join us at previous conferences.
You'll be able to attend sessions on applications of networking in education, corporations, government, the arts, and much much more! Come talk about how to develop business teams online, how to facilitate distance education programs, and making connections with networkers in other countries.
If you'd like to join the planning committee, you can contact:
Jill Small: 415-923-0900
Margaret Chambers: 415-582-8874
Our main online conference "office" is on The Well where you are welcome to join us in the ENA conference. We're also using DASNET to connect many other systems so contact your porter for information about how you can participate in the fun!
NETWEAVER
=========
You'll notice that NETWEAVER is currently being published quarterly. The next WINTER issue will be a special issue on networking and the Arts with guest editor Ray Gallon. If you'd like to submit material for that article you can contact him at
29 First Place, Brooklyn, NY 11231.
ENA MEMBERSHIP
==============
ENA members will get advance information about the conference and the chance to sign up early at special rates. If your membership is not up-to-date contact our membership chair:
Nan Hanahue: 215-821-7777
POWER ON! New Tools for Teaching and Learning
OTA Report Brief
American public schools have acquired close to 2 million computers in this decade, along with a wide range of educational software. In 1981, fewer than one school in five had a computer. Today, almost all do, and over 90 percent have VCRs as
well. In addition, distance learning projects are proliferating: 35 States have projects or plans to deliver instruction via satellite or other electronic communications systems. This dramatic growth reflects the desire of school districts, administrators, teachers, and parents to use new learning
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Computers are widely distributed, and student access has
improved. But most schools do not have enough computers to make
them a central tool of instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. public schools average 1 computer for every 30 students, but there are wide variations in availability of computers across school districts and States, and between relatively poor schools and those in more affluent schools. School size is a major determinant - larger schools have proportionately fewer computers. Reflecting this, black students, who tend to be in larger schools, typically have less access to computers than do white students, especially at the elementary school level. Students with limited English proficiency have the lowest access of all. Overall, those students who use computers do so an average of little more than 1 hour per week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no one "best use" of technology, but there are many
promising applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The varied capabilities of the technologies are key to their power. New interactive technologies are now contributing to improvements in learning. They can play an even greater role by helping children acquire basic skills as well as more
sophisticated learning strategies, so that they can continue to acquire and apply knowledge over their lifetimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational technologies are not self-implementing. They do not
replace the teacher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investments in the technology will only be effective if teachers receive training and support. But only one-third of the Nation's teachers have had even 10 hours of computer training, and most of it has been devoted to learning *about* computers, not how to teach *with* computers. Less than on-third of all recent education school graduates consider themselves prepared to teach with computers.
For most teachers, using computers makes their job more difficult at first, but few would choose to return to teaching without computers. If teachers are to use technology tools effectively, they must be provided training in the skills needed to work with technology, education that provides vision and understanding of
state-of-the-art developments and applications, support for experimentation and innovation, and - perhaps most valuable of all - time for learning and practice. These elements should be part of teacher preparation and inservice teacher training. As technology changes and research provides better understanding of how children learn, teachers will require continuing support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There are over 10,000 software products on the market today
intended for educational use in school or at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Many are for drill and practice, although advances in technology have allowed development of more complex software applications. Distribution of software titles across subjects is uneven, but generic programs for word processing, data management, and desktop publishing offer teachers flexibility for a range of
classroom uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite steady improvement, the quality of educational software
could be much better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased capacity of hardware and advances in programming have removed many technological barriers, but economic risks in the market lead software publishers to play it safe and offer products that are familiar to most teachers. The result is a
relatively homogeneous supply of software products that fall short of the technology's potential. Reliance on the private sector alone will probably not yield an adequately diverse, innovative, and responsive set of educational software products. Because affordable and effective educational software is critical to the success of interactive technology in schools, Federal, State, and local governments will need to play larger roles in support of software development.
Technology is changing rapidly, but educational technology R&D is not keeping up. The absence of a coordinated Federal policy, limited and short-term funding, erratic political support, and disorganized R&D efforts across agencies have resulted in delayed or lost opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A substantial investment in R&D is needed now to exploit more
fully the power and potential of technology for education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the most promising research directions are:
* intelligent tutoring systems that are responsive to the
individual learner;
* applications that exploit the computer's ability to be a
multimedia controller, enriching curriculum with video, graphic,
and audio components;
* simulations, microworlds, and laboratories that extend
understanding through exploration, manipulation, and guided
discovery;
* integrated tools and "intelligence extenders" that help
students move beyond low-level tasks and concentrate on more
demanding problem solving skills;
* new assessment measures that track learning, diagnose
students' conceptual understandings, and evaluate the attainment
of complex skills;
* design tools, "authoring systems," and "knowledge kits" that
enable teachers to create and customize their own teaching
materials; and
* new curricula based on the skills students need in the
information age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Research in cognitive science, developments in information
technology, and schools and teachers willing to experiment, all
create today's "window of opportunity" for improving education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
At the current rate of investment, the Nation can expect continuing experimentation in some schools, steady but slow improvement in software, and spotty access to the technology by students. If the Nation wishes to accelerate realization of the educational potential of the technology, a greater investment will be necessary. Policy-makers at all levels of government will need to focus their attention on four closely related areas:
* expanding the amount and capability of technology in schools;
* providing training and support for teachers;
* encouraging innovation in educational software; and
* supporting research, development, demonstration, and
evaluation, with emphasis on ties between research and the
classroom.
***************
Copies of the OTA report are available from the U.S. Government
Printing Office for $11. Call (202) 783-3238 for information.
The GPO stock number is 052-003-01125-5. A 25-page summary is
available at no charge. Contact Project Director, Linda Roberts,
at OTA (202) 224-9241 to get a copy of the summary.
A Framework for Implementing Computer Telecommunications in the Nation's Schools
by Griff Wigley
More and more companies and education agencies are creating online computer networks for education. Increasingly the cry for one, all-encompassing, national network is heard among telecommunicating educators at all levels as the frustration of accessing multiple networks builds. Yet no non-profit organization currently offers a comprehensive network, and many people are opposed to the idea of one
single education network run by a for-profit corporation. This paper argues for the development of a distributed educational network that can tie together both commercial services and those run by states, associations, post secondary institutions, regional education service agencies, school districts and even school buildings. A model of a healthy system (family, business, school) is used as both the philisophical framework for such a network as well as for guiding its development on a local and national basis. Recommendations for policymakers are included.
Healthy Systems
===============
One of the characteristics of a healthy system, i.e, one that "works" for most of the people who are members, is that it provides a sense of belongingness while allowing for individual autonomy. In other words, we like to be a part of a group which allows us to pursue our own independent agendas to varying degrees, much like a clarinet player in a jazz group.
In any system, problems can occur when members function at either extreme on this relationship scale:
| Normal |
| Rigidity | Belongingness Autonomy | Chaos |
A healthy family allows for age-appropriate independence for its children while providing the security and stability of age-appropriate rules and nurturing. Parental "smothering" or overcontrolling at one end of the spectrum are as problematic for
children as the chaos resulting from a lack of rules and nurturing at the other end.
Autonomy in Organizations
=========================
An organization such as a business or school district is generally more effective when its employees can carry out their tasks with varying degrees of autonomy and independence, while being keenly aware that their efforts are part of the overall mission of the organization. Overly rigid organizations tend to sap individual
initiative, while chaotic ones undermine the collective strength of team efforts.
Many large corporations, having centralized much of their business to save money, are now taking steps to decentralize selected operations in an attempt to improve innovation and productivity by giving employees more ownership and autonomy. The education reform/restructuring movement in the United States is pushing for
similar changes to address the overcontrolled, bureaucratic structure of schools. Educators and politicians are gradually beginning to understand that innovation and performance improvements can't happen to any significant extent until various policies and structures which empower teachers, students, and parents are in place.
Computers in a Rigid or Chaotic System
======================================
The implementation of an innovation such as computer technology in any system will reflect its position on the scale. For example, a chaotic district might end up with five different types of computers, none of which can share software or communicate with each other. A rigid district might purchase a central mainframe serving proprietary software accessible only by its own brand of dumb terminals. The technology itself is relatively impotent to change the system, unless it is used in a therapeutic way by change agents who have the power to control how the technology is disseminated. But whatever the health of the district, the successful implementation of technology must both encourage the autonomy of innovative teachers within the stability of district-wide procedures for the common good. The
process and strategies employed may differ widely, but both needs must be thoughtfully addressed. Healthy schools would do well to follow the lead of business, where personal computers either double as terminals for a mainframe, or share files, email, and peripheral hardware on a LAN. This allows the best of both worlds: desktop-empowered individuals working in a networked and information-
accessible organization.
Telecommunications for Individual and Organizational Needs
==========================================================
Computer telecommunications on a district, state or national level is best implemented with these same principles in mind. In many districts, individual teachers are discovering the power of telecommunications to enhance student learning and combat professional isolation. They like its ability to connect with
distant schools and colleagues. In other districts, administrators primarily use telecommunications for data sharing and its ability to enhance intra-district communications. But if the organizational needs of the district are given too much priority over the individual needs of the teachers, teacher resistance and/or disinterest may develop. And if the individual needs of the teachers are given too
much priority over the organizational needs of the district, expect administrative hurdles in the form of new restrictions and/or a lack of funding.
Likewise, state departments of education often create statewide computer networks for districts to send and receive administrative data with the state. Yet teachers and administrators often resist using the system for instructional and professional use once email and conferencing capabilities are added. They typically want more
capability to communicate with others outside the state, but the state may not feel any responsibility to provide this capability.
On the national level, several commercial vendors are developing and operating online networks dedicated to education. But the more services there are, the more educators must deal with the frustration of having to belong to several different networks, each with their own access procedure and software environment. While a single, comprehensive network might solve this problem, this type of
centralized system would be a swing to the other end of the scale. A better solution would be to promote the development of a distributed educational network.
Distributed Online Networks: Connected Autonomy
===============================================
A distributed educational network would mean that any organization of any size could create and operate its own host network, but would have the capacity to share selected data with other hosts of any size who agree to connect. This accommodates the need for autonomy by the local school, district or state. The individual organization has an incentive to make its local host "work" for its constituents as well as for its organizational needs. The local host retains primary
control, and therefore must be responsive to its users or suffer the consequences. Each local host can choose to provide varying degrees of information resources and "global belongingness" for its users by connecting with other hosts around the country and even the world. The local host can further increase its value to local constituents by contracting with those commercial networks willing to distribute
classroom projects and services. The commercial network attracts a wider audience through a local champion who is more closely attuned to the needs of local users and who can provide training and support at a level not otherwise feasible.
BITNET is a distributed network that exists at the higher education level, linking hundreds of colleges and universities around the nation and the world. Many other networks in turn link to BITNET. It's now feasible that this kind of network can gradually be "grown" at the K-12 level. Powerful microcomputers can now run the popular Unix operating system, whereas in the past, large mainframes were
required. The UUCP (Unix-to-Unix Copy) communications feature of Unix makes this kind of distributed networking technically easy to do.
Getting There on a District Level
=================================
How can a school district implement policies and procedures which accommodate both ends of the belonging-autonomy scale? It may realistically take the form of a pendulum, swinging from one end to the other, in a chaotic path (an oxymoron clearly not destined to join George Carlin's list, including the infamous "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence.")
For example, a teacher might get approval to have a phone installed in a classroom. The district might want the next phone line installed in the building's library to equalize access. As more teachers request classroom phone lines, the district might install modems servers on the building LAN, a more cost effective means for sharing modems and phone lines. Teachers might request more accounts on several national networks. The district might insist that intra-district email be installed first, with connections to the state department's network to follow. Teachers might then press for access to the LAN from their homes, or even the ability to have students and parents access portions of the network from their homes. Once again, if the pendulum gets stuck at the organizational end, teacher resistance will likely develop. If it gets stuck at the individual end, administrative hurdles will likely appear.
Getting There on a National Level
=================================
Policymakers at all levels can promote the long term development of a national distributed network through the same seemingly disorganized approach. In other words, there should be both experimentation with guidelines and policies while simultaneously offering incentives for adding further ingredients to the primordial soup. We must be willing to tolerate this necessary evolutionary chaos if there is to be a comprehensive structure more satisfying to everyone.
For example, individual teachers who are considered innovators and early adopters of innovations should be able to connect directly to national networks until state or local networks are in place to make this more cost effective. A school district host in Alaska might want to connect with another district host in Florida for their own defined project. A university hosting it's own network for reaching out to schools in its region connects with another university in a distant state doing the same. A state department may develop a hostthat in turn serves district and regional hosts for professional development, and then wish to expand the project to other states. A group of national associations may each decide to operate their own hosts but wish to provide distributed email among themselves to encourage cross-disciplinary sharing among their members.
Not only are the types of connections limitless but they are constantly changing. After a year or two, any these sample projects may terminate, as different needs and agendas emerge. Educators who operate any of these local hosts may tire of trying to provide the necessary content needed to keep a system alive and stimulating, choosing to supplement their systems with content from a commercial network. Or just as likely, once a local organization becomes experienced through using the services of a commercial network, theymay decide to operate their own host.
The following diagram illustrates what a distributed network might look at any moment in time:
(Imagine a graphic of a collection of computer network "nodes," some of which are connected to each other by lines... sort of a random matrix.)
Connection paths would be ever-changing. For example, a teacher maybe dissatisfied with only having a connection to a closed district or state host one year and choose to connect directly to a national host. The following year, the district or state host might themselves connect to a national host, thereby eliminating the teacher's need for his or her own connection to the national host. The key is flexibility. Everyone, both individual educators and various organizations, should be able to continually choose the degree of connectivity appropriate for them.
Offering Incentives While Developing Guidelines ===============================================
Federal agencies and national foundations should continue to fund telecommunication networks and projects at the local, regional, state and national levels. But any funding should require the recipients to use host software which has the built-in capability to connect with other networks in a distributed fashion, should the recipients choose to do so at some time. An increasing number of host software packages now offer both distributed email and conferencing capabilities, as communications "standards" begin to emerge. Funding agencies should help promote the development and acceptance of these standards by wielding their funding clout with this criteria in mind.
Funding agencies should also require grant recipients to have a continuation plan for migrating their users to other networks, if and when the local host discontinues operation. It is extremely counterproductive for local users to be cut off from the electronic world, with no way to maintain recently developed skills, relationships, and the all-important "habit" of using telecommunications in their daily life. If the host has been part of a distributed network, this transition will be far easier to make.
Funding agencies should be reluctant to fund the creation of new host networks in areas where alternatives clearly exist. The expense andeffort to develop and operate an effective host system can often be better channeled into content development, promotion and training. While "having our own online community" may be cited as important tothe goals of the project, the advent of small but powerful computersmakes it possible for many systems to host multiple networks that appear separate but in reality run on the same computer.
State departments of education and education associations should resist affiliating with commercial networks who do not offer this distributed capability. Business and industry have long called for this type of connectivity from national and international email vendors, and are finally getting their way as several of the major vendors are now providing transparent email access to one another. It's time for education agencies to make the same demands.
National Coordination
=====================
Would it be worthwhile for representatives from the Department of Education, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), or any number of agencies involved with this technology to form a National Commission on Educational Telecommunications? Some might suggest that this would create an unnecessary addition to the education bureacracy, an idea hatched bythe Department of Redundancy Department. Yet in the absence of one central education authority, leadership from such a group might prove critical to the success of a distributed network.
Tasks of the commission might include "certifying" educational networks as meeting certain standards that it deems important to thedevelopment of the medium, offering annual awards to those networks that exhibit exemplary service and innovation, seeking financial support from business and industry for the funding of grants to educators seeking to implement this technology in innovative ways, and lobbying policymakers at the state and national level on legislation of importance to the effective use of telecommunicationsin education.
Summary
=======
Computer telecommunications can enable educators in states, associations, and districts to be more cohesive, teachers to become more empowered, parents to become more involved, and students to become more engaged in learning. A distributed national education network will most effectively realize the potential of the medium.
------
author's note: Griff Wigley is the former director of MIX, the McGraw-Hill Information Exchange for education. He is currently theDirector of Iris - The Network for Teachers and Shools. Contact himat P.O. Box 382, Northfield, MN 55057. Phone (507) 645-9347
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEFINITIONS TERMINOLOGY
by Al Rogers with comments by Chris Clark
Below is a letter I sent to a number of educators who were in attendance at the recent Southern California Computer Using Educators' Conference. This letter raises some important considerations regarding the terminology and metaphors connected with using computer mediated telecommunications in the classroom. This meeting turned out to be terribly brief, and barely scratched the surface of the
topic. However, there was considerable consensus that this is a topic in great need of discussion.
Therefore, I am posting this information in the hopes of stimulating some relevant discussion here, and to try and develop a compendium of creative definitions and metaphors.
Please read the attached documents and add your comments and suggestions. I will collect your contributions, compile them, and report back with the results.
Furthermore, I propose that those of us who attend NECC in Boston in June agree to make this a topic of discussion at one of the Telecom Birds of a Feather sessions which will be taking place there.
I begin with a poem to this technology by David Kern of Los Angeles:
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
A Toast
by
David Kern
(Haruumpph)
To this silicon intellectual rummage sale;
ASCII Bazaar
Silent-machine-inhabited-by-a-thousand-friendly-ghosts;
Shrine of the Spinning Data Disk
To this modem Mafia;
1980's American "samizdat";
Free-firing occupational-group synapse;
Pedagogues' electro-political Ouija board;
To this Electron City;
Anglo-Roman cypher-warp;
Cybo-democratic podium;
Land of the Phosphor Thought;
To this carbon-unit techno-social device;
Land-line camarilla;
Late 20th-century tertiary-media barrio;
Broad-area literary palimpsest;
To this High Alter to Hermes;
I give you, Ladies and Gentlemen,
a Toast
to its High Awesomeness
our BBS
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From Al Rogers
April 14, 1989
Dear Classroom Telecom Using Colleague:
I am writing to you regarding the uses and applications of simple
digital telecommunications networking technologies in education.
Many of us have seen first hand the power that the combination of
computers, modems, and telephone lines have to inspire and motivate
teachers and students as they go about the business of teaching and
learning.
Nevertheless, the phenomenon of instructional networking is undergoing
a serious identity crisis. Up to this time, many of us have
essentially been engaged in experimental research, in more or less
formal ways. We have been trying to answer the question, "Does this
technology really have a place in the classroom of the future?" We
have met with varying degrees of success. Many of us have maintained
our optimism regarding its potential. Yet there are many obstacles
to progress.
* We lack clear definitions and appropriate terminology (Do we
agree on the meanings of the words "networks," "networking," and
"telecommunications;" can we use those words productively outside
our own clique?)
* We lack an appropriate metaphor which succinctly pictures the
power inherent in electronic networking. It's not the
telephone; it's not the U.S. Mail; it's not even EMail. Much
of my time is spent trying to explain what it is that we do.
For instance, I have a hard time explaining to my mother what I
am trying to do with this technology.
* Politics, power, complexities of the technology, expense,
time.... and many more problems, all conspire against acceptance
and implementation of instructional networking technology.
I have included below some definitions and questions for you to
consider. Please record your reactions, suggestions, and comments,
and post them here on this forum. I will compile your responses and
report them back here.
Definitions to Consider:
We need several unique and specific terms to describe what happens
when we use telecommunications in instructional settings. The terms
"network," "networking," "telecommunications," and others have a
variety of meanings depending on the context. For instance, it is
difficult to clearly communicate what we are doing if we use the term
"telecommunications" when we are speaking with someone with a
television or video background or point of view. They will envision
satellites, uplinks and downlinks, interactive video, distance
learning, and other phenomenon we are not involved in. The term
"network" can be applied to people, Corvus or Novell networks, or
television stations.
I believe that the following definitions are hampered with arcane
and/or ambiguous terms which often fail to clearly explain or describe
the definition. I would like to discuss this problem, and these
definitions. Perhaps we can appropriate or coin some terms which are
less "technical," and which more clearly communicate what we are using
and what we are doing. I realize this may not be possible, but I
submit this for discussion anyway. I'll be interested in hearing
your response to this area of concern.
[A. ______________________________] consists of simple, digital
telecommunications technologies, consisting of computers, modems, and
telephone lines, to transmit and receive a variety of data from one
site to another. (Suggestions: electronic telecommunications,
electronic networking, teletext, teledata, teleascii, telenetworking
......)
[B. ______________________________]: the network of people who are
joined together by [A. _______]. (Suggestions: Network, ......)
[C. ______________________________]: what [B. _______] (people) do
when they are using [A. _________]. (Suggestions:
telecommunicating, .......)
[D. ______________________________] the use of [A.______] to transmit
and receive text in synchronous (or real-time) mode. As text is
typed on one terminal, it immediately appears on another terminal.
(Suggestions: synchronous telecommunications, real-time
telenetworking,......)
[E. ______________________________] the use of [A.______] to transmit
and receive text in asynchronous mode. Text typed by one user is
stored on some central location for later retrieval by one or more
persons at some later date. (Suggestions: asynchronous
telecommunications, EMail, real-enough time telenetworking,
[F. ______________________________]: the use of [A.______] to
communicate in a one-to-many or many-to-many modes. (Suggestions:
electronic bulletin boards, teletext conferencing, teletext
partylines, tele partylines)
[G. ______________________________]: the use of [A.______] to link
teachers and students for the purpose of conducting collaborative
learning activities. (Suggestions: Instructional Network
ing, .......
Questions for discussion:
1. Does electronic telecommunications have an important role to play
in the life of teachers and students? If so,
a. What is that role (what are the best applications of this
technology in the life of teachers and their classrooms?)
b. Are the costs of equipment, training, time, and communications
worth the benefits?
c. Is there really a pony underneath all of this manure?
2. How do we best define telecommunications technologies currently in
use in classrooms today?
3. What changes will take place with these technologies in the next
five years? Next ten years?
4. In light of those changes, what should we be doing now? What
should we be planning to do next?
5. What are the major obstacles for wider acceptance and
implementation of this technology?
6. How can we support and assist one another in our efforts to develop
this technology and this industry?
7. How do we inform and persuade decision makers?
8. Can we develop a de-facto California instructional network?
9. Is the reliance on commercial telecommunications services creating
issues of equitable access to a powerful technology which public
agencies (such as school districts and libraries) should seek to
address?
10. Where do we go from here?
Below are some prelimary comments from Chris Clark, telecommunications
editor for The Computing Teacher Magazine and organizer of ICCE SIG-
TEL, which I hope you'll all join.
Date: 29-Apr-89 18:58 PDT
From: Chris Clark
Subj: Your Letter 4/17
Yes, we will be having a Birds of a Feather session for SIG/Tel.
Maybe we could make this the main topic of discussion, or an agenda
for later debate on various electronic fora.
A few weeks back I took on the task of drafting bylaws for SIG/Tel,
and I tried to define what it was that we were going to be doing.
Here's the beginning of the draft:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST DRAFT - Bylaws of the Special Interest Group for
Telecommunication,
International Council for Computers in Education
Article I - NAME
The organization will be known as the Special Interest Group for
Telecommunication, or SIG/Tel, of the International Council for
Computers in Education (ICCE).
Article II - PURPOSE AND FOCUS
Section 1: SIG/Tel will support and promote the use of
telecommunication as a tool for the enhancement of learning and
the delivery of instruction. Specifically, SIG/Tel will:
a. Promote the appropriate use of telecommunication technologies
in learning
b. Initiate and encourage research on instructional
telecommunication
c. Collect and disseminate information on educational
applications of telecommunication
d. Assist in the development of communication links for students
and educators.
Section 2: The main, but not exculsive, medium of interest will be
computer-based communication, alone or combined with television,
radio, telephone, and/or other media.[and so on]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I got a call on Section 2 from one of the people on the committee; it wasn't clear to him what I was trying to get across. Did I mean that we weren't going to be dealing with other media? Wasn't all of that part of telecommunication? My answer was that I wanted the group to be focused on computer communication.
Maybe that little anecdote helps you see why I was thinking on the bus home from school the other day that a great column topic would be "What do we call it? Defining What We Are Doing".
When I talk to computer coordinators about telecommunication, they think I'm using a computer. When I use the same word with AV people, they think I mean television, and others think of satellites, etc. The words "telecommunication", "conference", and "network" are vague and have different meanings in other contexts. Even people who understand the technology confuse the names of different activities - databasing, private mail, public bulletins, live conferencing, and file transfer. Some people lump hard-wired
It is imperative that we get together and come up with some terms we can all buy into and start using in a uniform way.
Here are a few definitions I pulled out of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (c.1970).
1. Communication (n) - 1. the act of transmitting 2. a) a giving or
exchanging of information, signals, or messages by talk,
gestures, writing, etc.
2. Telecommunication (n) - communication by radio, telephone,
telegraph, television, etc.
3. Message (n) - a communication passed or sent between persons by
speech, in writing, by signals, etc.
4. Conference (n) - 1. the act of conversing or consulting on a
serious matter 2. a formal meeting of a number of people
for discussion or consultation.
5. Network (n) - 1. any arrangement or fabric of parallel wires,
threads, etc. ...; netting; mesh 2. a thing resembling this
in some way, specif. ... c) a group, system, etc. of
interconnected or cooperating individuals.
Word roots (Greek and Latin):
communicare - to impart, share, make common
mittere - to send (-mission, message)
conferre - bring together, compare, confer
tele - far off
trans - across
nodus - knot [related to net ]
In response to your "Definitions to Consider" letter, these are the terms that I use and that I teach when I do seminars. They are not perfect or without holes, but I have given the matter some thought over the past couple of years.
A. Computer communication - telecommunication via phone lines using
computers equipped with modems to send and receive
information.
B. Telecommunity - a network of people joined by a telecommunication
technology.
D. Live computer conference - the use of computer communication in
real-time (synchronous) mode, where messages are sent,
received, and answered by a group of persons connected to
a network at the same time.
E. Electronic messaging - the use of computer communication in an
asynchronous mode, where messages are stored by the network
for later retrieval.
F. Bulletin - an electronic message which may be read by many people
(one-to-many). The term "mail" describes a private
message (one-to-one).
G. Computer communication in education.
For fun, I tried to imagine some new words. It turned out not to be as easy as I thought it might. Here are the ideas I came up with:
telescribe (-scription),
telemessaging,
telemit (-mission).
Some of the modifiers that seem to fit some of the time for some of the terms are words like: electronic, computer, computer-based, data, digital.
And some of the similar terms, which you have referred to as "Metaphors" are: Network, Mail, Message, Conference, Bulletin. I have juggled them around in my head and not found any really outstanding new ideas.
Well, this has rambled a bit, but I wanted to get my ideas to you while they were fresh. It's also a break time between semesters for me, so I have the time to think clearly about it. One of the reasons people use different terms is that we have all had different experiences with computer communication. I am anxious to hear your responses to what I've suggested.
This is a partial response to your msg. on the need for standard definitions in educational telecommunications which includes some thoughts on Chris Clark's comments.
What the technology will do may, and probably will, continue to outstrip our ability to "keep up" but defining the actual pedagogical goals of computer mediated communication and learning puts the ball back in our court. After all, it is clear that very near future increases in bandwidth, vocal command parsing (AI), peripheral buss extensions, etc. will soon (withing 5-10 years create a PC which is virtually indistinguishable from a current TV (including "real time" pictures of the people you are talking to .. in their separate windows of course) but which will have enormous "outreach" and personal environmental control potential. I am not indulging in "futurism" here. I have seen demonstrations of (current mind you) telephone and satellite technologies which have sufficient bandwidth to carry astonishing amounts and varieties of information. It reminds me of the second Daniel Olavaw/ to "viewing" each other (machine mediated) that actually "seeing" someone (in the same room as yourself) was a shock (and socially unacceptable to boot).
My point is that we are in an interesting intermediate stage of knowledge evolution which causes problems because the things that we wish to do are still somewhat difficult (arcane) to implement. English is a sufficient analytical language that we could make up almost any terminology we wished it might even enter the lexicon if we can get enough people to agree with it but the words that "stick" are the ones that get "used" ... from that standpoint, I would argue that, for the time being, Communication, instruction, research, workgrouping, etc. is either machine mediated or not ... the actual mechanism (isolated, multiuser, local area network, wide area network workstations) is, in my opinion, not worth mentioning unless it has an immediate impact on the scope of implementation; ie, if your goal was to
enhance cross cultural exchange then a wide area network via phone lines (possibly with a FIDO or CMS front end) would be necessary to gain access to the ECHOs of interest ... otherwise, of what interest is it (unless your goal is to expand technological awareness of course).
Related to this, I would contend, is the fact that the current diversity and complexity inherent in these developing technologies makes them difficult to learn and, certainly, no easier to teach. This is not an argument for abandoning the attempt to do so, (even temporarily) until things "get easier (they are unlikely to get easier for us if we don't rattle some chains), only an argument for the imperative of setting goals and scope (and restricting jargon).
I have difficulty remembering how I got along without my lab LAN, BBS, wordprocessor and terminal software and, I must confess, it has been much easier to entice fellow professionals into the coils of the technological beast when they see what I can DO with these things ... as we all know, there's a certain leap of faith here.
COMPUTERS AND DISABLED
by Nancy Jennings
Reading a periodical, I learned about the beginning of PresbyNet. This was a network that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) was experimenting with telecommunications for outreach, news media, communication, and resources within the denomination.
I was interested in reaching persons with disabilities, providing help, and resources when possible. A meeting on Disability was established on PresbyNet.
A request came from a clergy in New York regarding a member that was spastic, could not write but able to type. He owned a computer and software, but the word processors had auto-repeat keys, this created repeated letters such as aaaaaaa, etc. because of his slow hand motions. I contacted local computer stores, software manufacturers with no assistance. Online, I noted a member with computing expertise. I sent an urgent note for help.
A response came online that his daughter was a school teacher using word processors. Two days later a public domain word processor from the schools in Canada was sent to this individual making it possible for him to use the computer for communications. Twenty minutes online, eliminated major communications barrier through telecommunications.
Sharing worship experiences, biblestudy, special hardware, special software, self-help groups are just a few of the branches on the disability meeting. This illustrates the opportunities to reach out through this new media.
Another request regarding a person with visual impairment could no longer read or use the computer because of the size of screen print or hard copy. Contact was made with IBM, and information provided on computer programs.
IBM has a research center for Persons with Disabilities. This center is exploring all areas and the development of materials. One of the latest developments is a speech analyzer. This program records the pitch and develops programs to assist the individual in using the computer for speech therapy.
Apple Computing also has a research center, provides training for specialists and is establishing demonstration programs across the U.S.
Computing has provided many new opportunities. Several industries have learned that a person does not have to be behind the desk at specific hours. Many industries including IBM are now engaging in employment and training programs for persons with disabilities. The individual can work at home if needed,
flexible schedules to meet any special needs such as rest, comfort, yet be a productive, self-sufficient and contributing involved with others preventing possible isolation. Telecommunications has eliminated many barriers, with technology
providing adaptability.
Special hardware available to make computing adaptive for/with persons with disabilities. Illustrative examples are braille printers, foot control mouse, adaptive keyboards, special switching devices, speech synthesizers, optical controls, voice
activated control. Some new technology under experimentation is a mechanical hand that provides sign language for teaching and learning.
Special software provides one-finger access, eye controlled input, optical pointer, single key word-processors, braille video presentations, sign language tutorial, enhanced learning, voice input, memory skills, voice recognition, and speech analyzer.
Psychological, employment skills, and evaluation testing programs are already available with adaptability.
A totally blind individual obtained his B.A. in computer programming, with special programs and devices.
Social interaction, reaching others and sharing is a wonderful opportunity through telecommunications. A quadriplegic with use of only one finger and thumb, confined to bed except two hours a day joined the network. He is very grateful as he can now help reach out and help others while in bed using special
adaptability. He says, "For once I can give rather than always receiving". He also is serving on the Advisory Board of PresbyNet with tremendous insight.
Having public and closed meetings provides the opportunity for confidential self-support groups without breaking individual confidence and helping re-establish self-esteem.
In conclusion computing has opened many wonderful opportunities of employment, learning, research, evaluation, independence, and social interaction for persons with disabilities.
--------
author's note: Nancy Jennings is National President - Presbyterians
for Disabilities Concerns, Chair-Presbyter Special Committee on
Handicapped, Chair - NM Conf. of Churches task force on Caring and
Inclusive Congregations.