Wiki Use In Social Studies

     The use of Wikipedia in Social Studies has long been forbidden in my personal experience. I've never know a class that allowed students to cite a wiki as a source. That said I've never started a research paper in the last 10 years without first consulting Wikipedia to set myself up with a general understanding of what I'm researching. Hoping that at least 80% of what I read was accurate before I began looking into books, articles, and other sources. Often I found in situations where I had to take a side on an issue that I could at least get a feel quickly for different sides of arguments and pick on or two to dive deeper into.
     Am I arguing that a student can just look at a Wikipedia article and write their whole report? Not at all, just as no one would argue that a student could consult a single encyclopedia and write a whole report. All I'm saying is that there isn't a real reason that students can't use Wikipedia like they would any encyclopedia. Now the first thing people say in response to that is that anyone can edit an article and therefore you can't be certain they are accurate. This is true but also doesn't hold water. You see Wikipedia has hoards of people that exist soul to check every edit made to an article, these same people can ban users from editing pages, and lock pages that are being targeted for regular abuse. More often than not one finds that Wikipedia pages are most likely accurate and flagged accordingly for bias or lack of evidence. Thus depending on the resources available to a student it may be that a Wikipedia article is far more accurate than the 50 year old encyclopedia in the school library. I agree that we don't want to see an in text citation from Wikipedia but as I said, using it as a jumping off point and method for getting a general idea about a subject seems completely legitimate. Besides we all know that students are looking at Wikipedia any way and I'd rather a student honestly list their sources in the bibliography than have to lie about it and start down a road of plagiarism.

Cursive & Penmanship

     Is there a place for cursive in school? Or should there be a greater focus on typing and word processing that replaces it in the classroom? It's an interesting question and has a modern parallel. In Japanese there are several alphabets and the language itself is complex. A common trend in the last decade has been the romanization of the language(I.E. printing Japanese words via english approximations of the pronunciation). This westernized Japanese is easily accessible by the younger generations and they prefer to see it in newspapers and other text sources, while the older generations still rely on kanji or katakana to understand text. The way kanji and katakana are letters but also words and names and words are often represented by combinations, thus the complexity of the language allows for an interesting display of creativity and uniqueness in the creation of work or when naming a child. As us the art of writing has been elevated in the culture for many centuries, not unlike we see with cursive in the West. Due to the conflict newspapers often print articles both ways while other sources like websites for instance may choose to cater to one audience or the other.
     The change we're discussing has, in essence already occurred in Japan. Generations are left writing in two different languages and are irreconcilable over who is correct and which way is better lading to newspapers being printed twice. Would the effect be so dramatic for us here in the US? No, we're not really changing the alphabet after all but isn't there still a place for the written word in modern society? I would argue yes, there is. A great deal of business, both private and public, revolves around printed legal documents that require signatures, descriptions, agreements to be written in cursive. Additionally, the act of writing is important for the creation of notes, drafts of essays/reports, organizing ideas and thoughts, etc. Simply put the written word still has a place in life, it's often easier and quicker to physically write something that to type it. If we're going to be in the business of saving time the quickest way to write something is to use cursive and if we're going to be writing something for ourselves or a larger audience to read then we must be able to write clearly.  
     Penmanship was once an art and calligraphy still is, I'm not arguing that ever page of notes should be the ornate word art of a Medieval monk's hand written Bible but there is something to be said for clean, clear cursive. It commands a respect and says something about the individual that wrote it even to this day. Some reading this may wonder why I care so much? Why do I think cursive is needed if penmanship is enough? I'll tell you. At a young age, right before entering elementary school, I was tested to see where I was developmentally. I was regarded as ahead of most children my age, except for my psychomotor abilities. I didn't realize it at the time but I was put through a lot of programs and extra work to help me deal with this. Thanks to that I was able to reach an acceptable level of penmanship and manipulate objects normally. I even learned to play guitar and I'm grateful for that, but my handwriting will never be perfect. I've had that held against me in college and in professional setting thereafter and it's caused me to continually address and work on my hand writing. I can tell you that I'm the first person hoping I can get away with typing up whatever documentation I need to provide in almost any setting but I can also tell you that there are still many times one needs to be able to write clearly and often in cursive.

Online or Face-To-Face?

     Studies have show that distance learning is as effective as face-to-face instruction, the only difference appears to be that the drop out rate is high for distance learners. Should this dropout rate be considered in determining the quality of the education provided through distance learning? That's a hard question to answer. I think the first thing to consider is why that dropout rate is higher.
     I feel that what research is saying is that regardless of the situation that information is presented in the information, when well presented, remains of the same quality. An engaged and active learner will absorb quality information and be able to work through exercises and activities using it. With distance learners dropping out more it would stand to reason they are not engaged or have some sort of issue with the environment. The primary difference between the two environments is of course the teacher. A physical presence over the shoulder with immediate accountability is a real motivator and it's a conditioned one. Students have traditionally spent a lot of time in a classroom, surrounded by peers, and with a teacher. Why is that so different? Pressure. An enormous amount of self disciple is required to sit in a room by one's self with nothing to motivate them in the moment to do something they may not feel like doing. Then by the time due dates roll around a person may be under huge pressure to fulfill what the need to do. If this classes with other situational factors such as a teacher the student doesn't get along with, another class having assignments due, a personal emergence, the perception the student can't finish in time, etc then the logical response is to quit. If the situation by all accounts seems hopeless it only makes sense the student would drop out. Even the simple realization that distance learning does not fit with a student's own learning style could provide sufficient motivation to drop out. Unfortunately I feel like the former is more likely than the latter.
    Despite this I don't feel that this situation effects the quality of distance learning, only represents something that both teachers and students need to better understand to make distance learning work better for more students. Recognizing that online courses need to be designed with a lot of support and have charismatic, engaging lessons and work to help keep students engaged and involved. Holding a student's interest and providing ample support can help students with maintaining discipline or even dealing with their lack of it may prove to be the a good response.

Interactive Whiteboard: Worth It?

     Interactive whiteboards are the combination of a touchscreen computer display and a whiteboard. They are linked to a computer or have their own onboard cpu and can be used in conjunction with the internet or installed software. Many champion them for their ability to combine multiple pieces of technology into a single unit while providing novel classroom activity and interactions. Still many of these "novel" interactions are things accomplishable via other technology, most likely at a cheaper cost.
     Of several uses often enumerated for interactive whiteboards: virtual field trips, use of online textbook companions, pre-made sharable lesson plans, and displaying student powerpoint stick out as things that are easy to do without such a device. Virtual field trips are in essence videos and videos can be show via a projector or tv, the same is true of power points and online resources. Pre-made sharable lesson plans have been something teachers have made use of online for several years now and can easily be used without a giant touch screen. Now this is not to say that the idea of the interactive whiteboard is without merit. People didn't always feel computers would be practical, but as they grew in power and their cost fell the utility of having what as once several pieces of technology in one machine became apparent. However, at this time the sum total of the parts is not greater than them.
     A driving argument for interactive whiteboards are that they are exciting and help capture student attention. I'm sure that the first couple weeks that a student gets to see a teacher stepping away making things flash and more along with the student getting to to a few exercises where they get to use the board are very exciting and engaging but once adapted to the technology, something that current generations are most adept at, then it just becomes another whiteboard. To a person that lived through the 80s the idea that a giant touch screen computer is on their wall is mind boggling, it's like Star Trek come to life,  but to a 16 year old who has had an iPhone since they could talk, it's just another iPhone.  Your power point or video is just another power point or video and the money you spent on it could have been used on something else.

An Argument For Fun

     Some institutions and individuals are against and forbid the use of instructional games or simulation software for educational purposes. Arguments against the use of games range from "video games cause children to become violent" to "video games desensitize people to reality" to "video games are not a manful form of expression". Often times these criticism lack and real scientific evidence or draw conclusions from extreme and isolated cases. Video games can be effective teaching tools even when not specifically designed to be educational. Video games incorporate play, something fun that children inherently want to do, with learning. In a worst case scenario by playing a video game a child is familiarizing themselves with technology and building the basic skills needed to use graphical interfaces with confidence. In the best case scenario a child is practicing a key skill or learning new information via educational software and doing so willingly. It is a known fact that a student that is actively engaged in a lesson learns more than one that is passive. Lecturing to a student about a concept or walking them through a math problem is likely going to be a passive interaction, but while playing a game a student is going to actively problem solve and try to understand concepts to advance with in the game, meaning that the student will learn more.