I’ve been reading a fair amount about some more liberal views of fair use in educational settings. It’s depressing to see how much fear and misinforamtion is associated with the topic. It really seems like we (our country/government) need to clean this up in a more measured way.

Mostly, I am trying not to place one form of media or even one form of learning over another. And, I agree that we learn from other people and experiences. Don’t forget…books are written by people so as I read I am learning from that person and from my own experiences that I bring to the book (or article, or podcast, etc. etc.) Then, as you point out, I can write about it online and through conversation with others (including sometimes the writer) further my own ideas and understanding. But, I’m reminded that it was a shared reading experience that led to this conversation.

I think the main thing we need to think about is how we define reading and writing in this digital age. We can read a film and a podcast. We can write a blog post and a video. There are some shared skills for those types of reading and writing but there are also some unique skills as well. It’s important that we are providing the wide range of reading and writing experiences in our classrooms and that’s probably the biggest challenge for teachers who themselves only experienced analog, text-based learning.

Thanks for the invitation to share our interpretation of filtering. I enjoyed learning from this experience (both from the other panelists and the audience). It inspired a dream I had of a future filter that anticipated our needs, gauged whether or not what we wanted to seek was legitimate, and just a tad of Minority Report creepiness to it.

If Cruise is available, you can help me write the script…

> I continue to believe in the linear, author-driven narrative for educational purposes.

He can believe all he likes. Kids today, typically, complain if you give them too much to read, and they hate to write too much. Papers, paragraphs, argh!

They’ll create, however, a 15 minute video. And they enjoy trying to circumvent filters to get at online video.

So, the problem I see is this: Are “traditional” books, presented in a “author driven narrative,” “linear” the only way to learn?

Well, those books are a way to learn. For better or worse, we now have more types of media available. And, as I’ve suggested, many of these newer types (many of them moving with sound) are far more palatable to our current generation of “screenagers.”

And while the author suggests all types of media might have their place, the Web (as a medium or as conductor of this medium) is some how ill-prepared for education because it’s just quick jolts of information? He suggests there isn’t depth, just narrow nuggets.

I’m sorry to admit I don’t believe books are a great way to learn. I think we learn from other people and experiences. For as much I have erred in lecturing at times, I’m a constructivist at heart and while books have their place, I’m not sure I agree that they alone have something above the Web.

I do see handicaps in the way the Web current works but wouldn’t say it’s the “Web’s fault” for scanning and skimming. It’s in the devices we read on, it’s the ergonomics of looking into a laptop screen, and it’s the distraction of buttons, links, and blinking ads that surround content. The Web, however, is far more flexible than the author of that article is willing to make it out to be.

I’d much rather being calling for better design that’s humanist, classroom-friendly, and continues to push the features available in a book. Karen, you mentioned the Kindle, and it’s one progression. But I’m also interested in where this technology is taking us. Is Bauerline just too sentimental for a book? Recently, I saw some of the research Xerox PARC was working on that presents a new idea for book-reading: a digital display puts one single word in the center of a screen. You read by not moving your head; instead, the text moves. I found the experience enjoyable. I could read much faster, and I was less fatigued.

But what of the podcast? The Audible-books? I’m all out for ditching opinion at this point and testing our own evolution of media to determine what actually allows us to communicate the most efficiently, emotionally, and the most clearly.

My experience here is that this very webpage, Karen’s blog, and its comments, and the pasted-text from Bauerline’s article, and the metadata around it (including links)… my participation in a discussion, despite the small “soundbite” of Bauerline’s quote… is far richer than reading alone what he had to say. And I think that’s what he’s likely arguing about — richness - in education. For me, the Web-based experience is among the more rich mediums or delivery-vehicles ever invented.

I agree with what seems to be the consensus of your panel that internet safety is more of a teacher and student training issue than a technological one. Although I rant alot about filtering, I’m pretty lucky to be in a school system (Fairfax) that gives staff great flexibility in choosing web resources to use in their classes along with the ability to unblock those pages they want to use.

But–I do think the basic idea behind a webquest is to build searching strategies and how to apply what you find in a problem-solving strategy. We should continue to capitalize on these strengths in the webquest model.

Webquests can improve by taking advantage of the new Web landscape–not so much by the tools themselves — but by the changing face of the communities online. No longer are authoritative websites the only options for where we drink from. Students should be given the opportunities to post questions in online forums, search blogs, not to mention collaborative spaces as part of their search strategy.

I don’t look at these so much as web 2.0 as “read/write.” And to echo what you found, I think read/write does compliment the model.