K12 Open Ed

I often talk about the difference between free vs. free and open.

There are a lot of great free tools out there: all the Google apps, Photoshop Express, etc., but free is not open. Increasingly as there are free and open alternatives (Open Office, GIMP, etc.), we all consider migrating to them.

Here’s a quote about this that I really love from someone discussing various blogging tools:

“[WordPress] also has the advantage of the school owning the data and access.

Telling students to use Blogger is instructing them to give over their data and browsing patterns to a third party.”

– from Steve O’Connor

The open dictionary now has definitions for 10% of all of the words in it. This is a significant milestone after just getting started a few months ago. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

If you haven’t had a chance yet, stop by and add a definition or two!

There is a new export option for glossaries in the open dictionary — PowerPoint presentations. To use this, just build a glossary and select the PPT option when you build. (If you just want to try this out, you can test it with one of the sample glossaries.)

I’m really excited about this, because I think the classroom applications are huge. Have kids create a PowerPoint for their vocabulary lists and add pictures. Add pronunciations. Output it to jpgs and make a movie. Put the PowerPoints on the web, handhelds, or iPods and use them to differentiate instruction. All of these ideas fit well into research on vocabulary instruction and are also manageable and not time consuming.

(For those more advanced or with ample time on your hands, you can use the wikitext export option and build a vocab wiki.:)

(We’re still working on getting this to open automatically in Open Office. Stay tuned.)

One of my frustrations with mass collaboration in general and some wikis in specific is the lack of editorial direction. As a former book editor and software executive producer, I appreciate the role of a guiding vision and someone to make sure the work stays true to that vision. In many Web 2.0 works that involve many parties, I find that the vision is vague, if present at all, and the work of the many meanders as a result. In some works, this is less problematic, but in many, especially those in education, it leads to an end product that is not very valuable.

This point was brought to the forefront for me again by the recent post by Jeff Jarvis, which asks “Are editors a luxury that we can do without?” In the world in which everyone can publish, and many rely on news coverage that is more amateurish (though also more democratized), it strikes me that editors are more important than ever. I like Jarvis’ suggestion that one of the roles of the “new” editors is as curators.

There are many objections to the use of Web 2.0 applications and mass collaboration in schools. Many strike me as ridiculous, but one that merits serious consideration is the call for high quality content. In a mass collaboration environment in which everything can be edited by everyone, all types of content inaccuracies, as well as bogus or profane content, can and does appear. (I’ll leave aside, for the moment, my own feelings that kids need to be taught to how to discern this, screen content, and find alternative sources. This is a real 21st century skill.) At the most basic level, one role of an editor is to screen content for accuracy.

When we started on the kids open dictionary, one of our most important objectives was to produce something that is high quality and kid-appropriate. While we wanted to tap into the wisdom of a mass of people to create content, we also wanted to be able to exert some level of editorial control. Ultimately, a group of trusted experts will be evaluating each word, seeking changes, and deciding when it is time to “freeze” words. By producing products (ebooks, database dumps, etc.) that have gone through this process, we will be able to ensure a level of quality.

More importantly, we’re evolving a working editorial process at the dictionary that is somewhat subtle. Initially, we had an idea of what a dictionary for kids should be — simple, comprehensible, not comprehensive or exhaustive. We wrote some style guidelines, but didn’t expect them to be read by many (and I don’t think they have been). As people came and began writing definitions, it was clear that everyone came with a different idea of what a dictionary for kids should be. Some were very simple. Others resembled encyclopedic entries.

The beauty of a wiki is that you can edit. And believe me, it is easier to edit almost anything than to create it from scratch. We are hoping that through careful editorial attention, editing, and gentle guidance, this will evolve to a work that has consistently high quality content that is true to our vision.

So far, most of the editing has been done by our staff here. (It’s interesting that many others have added definitions, but few have edited existing ones. It may be because we are in an early phase of development.) I am hoping that over time, we get a cadre of core users who will embrace the vision and edit copiously to reach it. (I really like the style taken by this project which challenges users to improve upon content. I am wondering if something similar can be done with the dictionary.)

I’m finishing up a great book that I would highly recommend for anyone involved in teaching and learning: Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement by Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jane Pollock. In it, the authors go through nine instructional strategies that are backed by research demonstrating their efficacy and provide pithy, easy-to-understand classroom examples for using them.

At the end of the book, there is a chapter that talks about how these strategies can be applied to different types of knowledge. There is a section on vocabulary that is particularly interesting to me, especially in light of the dictionary we are developing.

First, the authors say, there is not a lot of explicit instruction in vocabulary in schools, largely because of the large number of words to be learned (85,000 print academic words — need to find out more about this figure; does it include multiple forms of the same words?) and the small number that can be explicitly taught (10-12 per week). Instead, most schools have opted to emphasize extensive reading and learning words in context. The authors make a compelling case, though, that this is not always an effective way to learn new vocabulary.

The authors make these key points:

1. “Students must encounter words in context more than once to learn them.” (In fact, an average of 6 times.)
2. “Instruction in new words enhances learning those words in context.” (Even giving students a very superficial exposure to words before seeing them in context is apparently immensely helpful.)
3. “One of the best ways to learn a new word is to associate an image with it.” (This is an idea that has permeated mainstream education in the U.S. Many teachers have embraced the idea of having students draw pictures they associate with words. The research is that nonlinguistic representations are much more effective than sentence writing, which is how I always was taught vocabulary. I’m curious on research about student-generated vs. teacher/publisher-supplied visuals.)
4. “Direct vocabulary instruction works.”
5. “Direct instruction on words that are critical to new content produces the most powerful learning.” (This seemed obvious to me, but bears emphasis I suppose.)

Very interesting information. It makes me think of all kinds of new ways to use the open dictionary.