Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Empower kids through technology

I feel strongly that one way to challenge our gifted kids is by empowering them... give them a laptop computer and teach them how to use it for work and play. Teach them how to demonstrate their learning in a more creative way. Encourage them to bring the laptop into school and watch the way it changes the learning environment. How many kids (ages 8-13) do you think own a laptop? Do you think parents would be interested in after-school computer classes that do just this in a "club" like fashion that is fun for kids?

If the school wasn't very high tech, I'm sure the idea would be a hit and fill a required need.
DD's school is very computer oriented; the kids do power points in grade 1 and all the classrooms have smart boards, so I'm not sure many parents at our school would be interested, but it never hurts to ask!
My kids love to learn anything new on the computer, especially if the task was to take it apart and study it LOL!

My DD10 has her own laptop for her birthday since she goes to charter gifted school and do a lot of paper. I can say that she is technology savvy since she is using power point for presentation or word document for school work.
It think it's a great investment so far for her even though we still limit her internet and games time.
DD's school also computer oriented, now they have several laptops in the class thanks for fundraising. They teach the kids how to type 10key since 4th grade.
So personally it's a good thing.

My daughter has been using the computer since she was a preschooler. She is extremely technologically savvy, having begun building her own web content, etc. by the time she was about 10-11. Certainly she finds it liberating to be able to type rather than laboriously write out research papers, and to use the multimedia capabilities of powerpoint and other programs to create presentations. She loves to use the computer to produce animated short films.

It has been somewhat freeing for her. BUT.

I'd also caution that doing things without technology is important, and just like using a calculator to do basic mathematics, the technology can actually prevent kids (even gifties) from learning some of the skills that they need to develop.

Neuroscience has shown pretty clearly that computer 'writing' is definitely not the equivalent (biochemically) of doing so manually. It is for this reason that I still insist that my daughter MUST do note-taking on paper.

The difference in what she retains is astonishing.

I'll also say that when you are dealing with an HG+ child and technology-- oooooooooo.... it's a VERY scary (virtual) world. We all recognize that adolescents frequently do and say things on the web that are inappropriate/dangerous-- but remember that our gifties are intellectually more capable... and often as not, emotionally and executively asynchronous. That's a VERY toxic mixture.

In other words, I have a 12yo who has the ABILITIES of a college sophomore with the impulse control and life-experience of a 12 yo. It just doesn't really occur to her that there are child-predators in the world, or that other people would LIE in chat rooms and on message boards.

She's entirely capable of defeating any and all parental limits/controls on her computer usage, and that virtual world is extremely seductive, because it opens up the world of ADULT communication and on-level interests/information to her without the "you're just a kid" judging from others that can come in real life.

I guess what I'm saying is twofold:

-- a computer is no substitute for alternate methods of real-world discovery, but it can become so preferred as a tool that it's easy to discard the others entirely (which is a costly mistake in the long run),

and perhaps more importantly,

-- we as parents may have trouble placing controls on usage because our kids have the skills to do things to work around them, but not the maturity to know why they shouldn't.

My twice-exceptional son with dysgraphia retains more when he does not write notes himself and instead listens to the lesson. He is a very strong auditory and visual learner and trying to take notes only distracts him.

Having a computer or access to a computer was a requirement for my son's writing composition class. The teacher said it would prepare the kids for college. He had to write a story and either draw or use pictures from the internet in his book. He had to create a portfolio for his poetry, short stories and business letter. Creativity was part of the grade. He chose artwork that he found online for the cover that fit some of his poetry and he made 100 on the assignment.

His dysgraphia and lack of ability in handwriting and drawing would have made it very difficult for him to do quality work. I am so glad that his teacher encouraged the use of technology.

I don't think most of the kids in our small town would be interested in after-school computer classes. They are too busy with sports. The homeschooled kids would be very interested.

I don't have any 2eness, but I also find that taking notes reduces the amount I retain, especially if I have to take extensive notes. Lectures at university were pretty much a waste of time for me, back in the day when they didn't provide handouts, because I couldn't both write and think, and I had to write, so... These days, I take either a computer or a small piece of paper on which to write not more than a few words or a URL.

I used to not take a lot of notes.

But I now type up short synopses of my work, what I read, etc.

It really helps a few years down the road to recall the details.

The smartest person I know is a compulsive synopsizer and I learned to be disciplined about it from him.

Sneak in their homes, install Scratch, and see what happens . Seriously, children may not need computer classes before middle school, but many will teach themselves rudiments of programming just by playing with something like Scratch.

Dissenting vote here. I don't think tech in schools is a good idea at all, much less tech for young kids, or kids at all, because it's too early and their brains are still developing. My feeling is if we want to encourage creativity, what's less creative than mechanical formulas and the dull-mindedness of YouTube videos?

Along with that, I would urge any educator(s) or system thinking of bringing Nintendo DS or iPads or iWhatevers into the classroom to read -- read! And not on an e-reader, but in print! -- The Shallows, by Nicholas Carr; iBrain, by Dr. Gary Small (who also designed the groundbreaking Alzheimer's Prevention Program and wrote the book of same name); The Winter of Our Disconnect, by Susan Maushart; Alone Together, by Sherry Turkle, and perhaps some of the most notable classics on divorcing ourselves (and consequently, our kids) from industrial progress and domination and to channel creativity through nature and each other, rather than the superficial (and often dangerous) connections brought about by machines. Civil Disobedience, Silent Spring, The Jungle, etc. ...

I'm not saying to read these to the kids, but rather to have a well-versed background in the concept that the iPad as babysitter is no better than the TV as babysitter or any substitution for human interaction as electronic "babysitter." Rosie the robot from The Jetsons rather than Jane the human mom? That's not a direction I'd want my kids, if I had any, to head in, and nor do I want the world's kids in general to head in that direction. Unfortunately, with technology, and an expansion of education in this capacity, comes the potential for future profits, from the potential for future engineers (or at least the ones who'll work the factory lines). Which is REALLY the reason why the STEM disciplines are so attractive to the American school system. Defense contractors, probably, Big Pharma, actively recruiting the Future (German) Engineers of America already before preschool. I'd react to my kid coming home with an O'Reilly guide like Otto Frank probably would to Anne coming home with little "Ich liebe Adolf" hearts drawn all over a copy of Mein Kampf.

I sure wish J. Robert Oppenheimer had grown up a farmhand instead of building the H-bomb. That China was more about noodles and kite-flying than running democracy advocates over with mechanical war machines. Tanks for the memories...

Teachers and parents need to take time, the most important and precious time that nowadays, is "nano"-fleeting, more so than ever, and sit down to interact with these kids rather than just sticking them in front of a video game or Facebook. I worry that the rise in anti-social behavior is a byproduct of the fact that a lot of anti-social so-called "nerds" run society today, the Zuckerbergs and Gateses of the world who love technology and all it supposedly "creates," without being concerned for what we're losing because of it.

Emotions.
Social cues.
Individuality.
And... childhood.

Not to mention how all the sit-down time and the crackdown on P.E. and recess is contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic. Why not play outside and run and jump rather than staying indoors hitting buttons to make Mario jump on a toadstool? Technology is creating a world of Big Bang Theory-esque recluses who don't feel the need to go outside, since the whole world (wide web) is at their fingertips, and Second Life far more interesting than what's out there in society!

I say give these kids coloring books and Crayolas instead of Photoshop and a stylus. Read them a story and let them physically turn the pages instead of letting Siri do the voice-over or text-to-speech on a Kindle. Play-Dough over programming; Legos over Linux; baby dolls and teddy bears over A.I. and Firefox. Real words over "LOL" and other abbreviations. Let them play pretend, using their own imaginations, rather than having them apply some pre-fab scenario to a stock list of avatars on Club Penguin. Let them have a real-world encounter with some real-world animals at a petting zoo or the class pet rather than bobbing their heads mindlessly to some incoherent babble about "Lol Cats." Really, is that what we want for the children of the future, "Old McDonald" and "Bingo" replaced with "Never Gonna Give You Up"?

Forgive me if I sound backwards and outdated or if I've offended anyone by sounding intolerant of engineering as a viable outlet for creativity, but I just don't think giving school-age kids laptops and iPads is doing anything but harm. I've seen The Terminator enough times to know we have to protect little John Connor from the Schwarzenazis at Micro$oft and their sociopathic 'ceps of steel.

I remember kids that would take apart transistor radios or clocks because they were so curious about how they ran. It is no different than Bill Gates spending all his waking hours as a teenagers learning about computers. If children are really interested in technology, it is not a bad thing.

Though I am not an advocate of hours of video game playing. DD7 has 10 inch tablet. She makes videos, she does play games on it, but she has limited time to do that. But I do want her to feel comfortable with technology. She does read, though when reading Charlotte's web, the classic, she had a hard time, questions every paragraph because too many outdated terms. The car did not pull up, the DeSoto did.

Right now I am reading George Eliot. And yes, it is interesting to read about the society back then but it also annoying in the class system, the attitudes, the lack of depth in people. She dealt with that in a ground breaking way for that time, but it is not that time.

Ren

Technology is the future. Regardless of what your child "wants to be when they grow up" they will be using technology every single day. I understand limiting access to video games, and youtube and whatnot, but not access to the medium such that they cannot use it in school. Personally, I think they aren't using computers nearly enough in school yet. Kids are going to graduate from school this year, having basically zero understanding of how the modern computer works. Not just a few kids, the vast majority of them. The same will happen next year. These kids know how to txt and upload youtube videos, but they have no idea what function a transistor plays in any of their equipment. They have no idea what the major components are of a PC. How can we be allowing an entire generation to grow up ignorant of so much what they touch on a regular basis?

DW's laptop died on her last week and refused to power up again. I disassembled it to see if there were any obvious problems I could address (loose power jack, etc.), or if I could see any obvious giveaways that the thing was useless (scorch marks on the motherboard, etc.).

Naturally, DDnearly7 found the process interesting. Not as naturally, non-technical DW found it even more so, occasionally exclaiming, "That's so cool!"... a sentiment that draws many of us to technology in the first place.

DD got her own laptop for Christmas.

Oppenheimer was a highly literate, sensitive, and humane man who decided to build the bomb to stop Fascism. He was a great leader. The bomb saved millions of American and Japanese lives and kept the Soviet Empire from plunging us into another world war.

The Terminator series is dark fantasy.

The people at Apple and Microsoft are good people who are deeply concerned about turning out good products. The advent of the computer has saved millions of lives and made our lives much better.

My own personal life has run the gamut from growing up in wilderness to living and working with the most advanced technology there is. When I was 12, I was reading Homer in the morning, hiking and hunting all day in the mountains, and programming at night.

I do not think technology separates us from the world. That is a decision that people make. And people separated themselves from the world long before we even had steam power.

Sorry as a librarian and former teacher, Web 2.0 (meaning interactive, immersive) tools are going to change the way we think, communicate, and learn. The whole human society, especially in the Western world.

Most schools are still word and print-based or auditory-sequential learning. Meaning the main transmission of knowledge is through words with the focusing on reading, writing, and doing math. If you're going to be a lawyer, politician, English professor, you will benefit tremendously from a classical (word-based) education where logic, reason, reading, writing, grammar, Latin, etc. are emphasized.

If you think in words, you've got a natural advantage with a word-based curriculum and learning. It's easy for you to remember addresses or directions by words (i.e. Take Essex Street to Broad Street) rather than by landmarks or what you see.

I've got news for you - not everyone thinks in words! It also doesn't necessarily foster creativity for those of us who do not think in words.

Some of us visual people think in images and learn more effectively and efficiently when information is presented this way. This means playing free online interactive, immersive math games or watching a educational video where someone uses color is better than a teacher lecturing us on multiplication or writing problems in b/w on the blackboard or whiteboard.

Some of people are visual-kinesthetic learners and can process information better when they play with their hands or create for themselves. These are the kids who learn more from taking apart machines than studying them from a book.

Don't believe things are going to change BIG time. Google web 2.0 tools for students or teacher or look at sites like www.livebinders.com. Having a laptop or iPad is the very, tiniest tip of the iceberg.

Jane Goodall completely changed the way we think of ourselves as humans, as well as chimps, - by observing them (using her own eyes!) and not by having a science degree. Thank color photography and National Geographic magazine and TV shows in the 70s for bringing Goodall's work to the masses.

Today it's digital technology and the open source movement that is helping to revolutionize society. We are moving from an analog to digital world.

Exactly. Google has raised everyone's IQ by 20 points. And we are going from a society where very little was known to one where everyone knows everything.



Exactly. Knowledge is no longer controlled. The printing press ushered in the Reformation and the resulting rise in freedom and capitalism. The rise of google and the ipad has changed things permanently.

As for Goodall, Chimps are not very human at all in many respects. They are violent, vicious little things. We are just as close to bonobos as we are to chimps.


Its more about people having and being able to use information. Before you and I had to talk face to face for me to learn about something. Now, I can search or go to Ted or search for books. It great speeds up understanding.

It also allows for people to collaborate better and faster.

Hello, thanks...

Google, Facebook, YouTube, Second Life, etc. are created by adults for adults with revenue in mind. Google's retrieval system is geared to advertising and profits; not to serve the public's best interests.

We don't stop and think; or most people don't. There are non-commercial free lessons or games on the web but we're programmed to pay for things so we turn to ixl.com or starfall.com instead of http://www.e-learningforkids.org/ or the Internet Public Library (http://www.ipl.org/div/kidspace/)

There are many reasons why we're in a stuck in an analog type mode of thinking. Part of the reason is the belief that only the wealthy, elite, educated, and powerful have access to knowledge. Part of the reason is due to copyright issues and proprietary systems. Part of the reason is due to IT professionals and business people taking over the Internet who aren't always known for making things user-friendly. Part of it is due to the teaching and library professions still stuck in words and print-based mentality.

Yes, it's about everyone having a voice and having access to knowledge. Yes, it's about collaborating and sharing knowledge and not having it restricted to the dons at Oxford or Harvard or the old (white) boy's network at Phillips Academy.

Yes, knowledge is no longer controlled. This will include teachers no longer controlling the flow of information either.

Yes, it's about our relationship to knowledge and technology. It's about empowerment. Are we satisfied with others presenting information to us and being controlled by others or do we prefer generating information or creating and finding things out for ourselves? Creative and divergent thinkers like to tip things over with control.

One problem today is that the world's information is doubly every two days and no one can keep up with it. It's too much to digest and process. How many top 100 lists can you scroll through?

Another problem is the way we think and retrieve information. Change often provokes the fight-flee response. Right now, I think many people are in flee mode or cannot handle the sheer volume of information. Sorry, but I think of Gordon Ramsay and Kitchen Nightmares here. I wish libraries and schools had a version of it for Web 2.0.

Google is looking obsolete to me when I start looking at the amount of Web 2.0 tools. It's gotta change.

Web 2.0 involves users creating the content (your own FREE virtual book, newsletter, 3D binder, games, computer program, etc.). I believe students will be creating their own sets of digital knowledge, information, or libraries, if they're not already in some capacity.

But what good is Web 2.0 if information isn't being disseminated or users cannot find it?

Hopefully, Web 2.0 will cause people to question the status quo!

I doubt it, for reasons documented in the book "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future" by Bauerlein http://www.dumbestgeneration.com/home.html .

Sure, the Internet permits access to incredible amounts of information. But how are people actually spending time online?
Sites like Facebook encourage youngsters to stay in a hive of same-age peers 24/7 . I've read that newspaper reading, including both online and print versions, is lower than it was 20 years ago.

Adults and teens use Facebook. A 6-year-old or 3-yr-old?

We should be asking - how can emerging digital technology help children learn, share, or connect? How can children use digital technology to create their own information or sets of knowledge?

Those born in 2005 (this means my son) or later are digital natives. They're born with Web 2.0. I believe it's our duty as parents, teachers, librarians, and others to foster and practice global digital literacy in safe, legal, and appropriate ways.

I see Web 2.0 as a perfect opportunity to encourage children to use digital technology to create, dream, and follow a passion using their active minds. It's a way to engage kids (gifted, learning disabilities, attention issues, visual learners, divergent or creative learners, etc.)

As a librarian, yes, I can say book readership is down. Book readership has been declining for some time. No denying it. ALA (American Library Association) has figures if you like. Most public libraries track (not individuals) the figures on book readership too. Enter a public library. Are people in the stacks or are they on public computers or checking out the video or music selection?

Newspapers are bleeding. No denying it. There's a bunch of studies online. I think there's a belief that heavy users of the NY Times and Boston Globe, for instance, will still be willing to pony up the money. However, I think it's going to be an increasing issue because reading newspapers (as a medium for information) is also generational and not surprisingly relates to the level of education.

Pew did a study about the challenges newspaper face
- http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1133/decline-print-newspapers-increased-online-news

USA Today was the first newspaper to make heavy use of color, graphics, and images in 1982. At the time, it was a bit pooh-poohed in the industry as being rather breezy and less erudite with news. USA Today also relied more on AP stories than employing journalists to actually write articles. Since then, can you find a newspaper today that doesn't include color or rely more on AP wire stories?

We've become a more visual society. It started with color lithography, photos, and film, but it's escalated with television, computer games (ie. Pong vs. Nintendo) and the Internet. That's the reality. That doesn't mean newspapers or books will go the way of the dodo. But I do think that things will change whether we like them or not.

Television changed a generation. Joan Cooney Ganz founded the Children's Television Workshop and started Sesame Street to help children learn. Sesame Street helped children learn to read, write, and do math. Joan Cooney Ganz viewed television as having a powerful impact on a child's life and a source for positive societal change and action.

Joan Cooney Ganz saw how kids were mesmerized by television, like addicts. She had a powerful idea - if you capture a child's attention, you can educate them.

Internet is no different - except we've got a new generation here!

Amy, I think your child is still in very early elementary? FWIW, when we were kids we grew up in a world full of tv and most kids never learned about how a cathode-ray tube worked (I grew up way before digital tv lol!). The science-inclined kids went on to learn about science in depth, but most kids didn't learn anything about the technology behind tv and radio, but instead schools and parents taught kids about how to decipher what you read and heard vs what was real vs hype etc. Today, in school, my children had computer technology integrated into the curriculum starting in very early elementary, and although they didn't learn about the mechanics of programming early on, they were taught a lot about how to research, how to verify that the information you are reading is believable, basically *how* to use the internet and computers responsibly. My kids have also had opportunities to attend computer-learning camps during the summer which they've loved, and my ds12 has had programming classes at school.

polarbear

It seems to me that a laptop with a decent sized hard drive could be loaded with enough educational software to cover everything form pre-k through high school. Text, Games, videos, practice, evaluation and tracking software. The software could identify what type of learner the student was, and suggest content that would be the most beneficial. No internet access would be required, but of course, the laptop itself would have to be cared for. Perhaps updates could be downloaded when the internet could be reached.

Just because the content was stored on the hard drive, doesn't mean that instructions couldn't be given for building things or working with manipulatives.

If something like that could be created without tremendous costs, then it could benefit children who don't have their needs met at school anywhere, for whatever reason.

Just because most of us drive cars doesn't mean we have be able to build them or design them. Often times an engineer is just someone who makes science accessible to those that aren't technologically inclined. If we've done our jobs well, we've eliminated the need for knowledge of absolutely everything that isn't critical.

No need for educational software with Web 2.0 and open sources. That's the whole point! The stuff you're suggesting already exists online for FREE and there's no need for updates or downloads either. That's the old way and obsolete.

http://web20guru.wikispaces.com/Web+2.0+Resources - An example.

Open source means that open, free, accessible, for all - i.e. not propriety system or subject to a fee. Try searching through some livebinders.com folders to see what mean, as another example. There's stuff freely available from preschool to college, but teachers and libraries are not always knowledgeable about Web 2.0 (of course, many schools have cut librarians due to the Internet and thinking Google will suffice; not to mention the amount of teachers and librarians who like being in control and the leader).

There's no need to pay for educational material, including a textbook. You still have to pay for the Internet though. Oh, wait, where wifi is free? The public library!

Indeed. For the Baby Boomer generation, it was a critical survival skill to be able to perform all general auto maintenance procedures yourself... everything from changing fluids to rebuilding a carburetor. Everyone either had to learn to do these things themselves, or collaborate with friends and family to get them done. Cars broke down all the time, and having a mechanic do it for you all the time was not generally an option.

These days, advances in auto engineering have made some of these processes less necessary, and others of them less accessible to those without specialized tools and training. As a result, these are no longer necessary everyday skills.

For Generation X, the critical skills are around electronics, specifically the abilities to manage your own PCs (hardware and software), set up and manage home networks, etc. These things are ubiquitous and require regular attention at least as often as '60's muscle-cars did, so again you either need to be able to do these things yourself, or get friends/family to help out on a regular basis.

Nobody knows yet what the critical skills will be for our little ones, but I'd say a lot of the current skill set is already headed for obsolescence, because as miniaturization continues in the computer industry, the idea of building and upgrading your own desktop system is going to fade away.

I really, really agree with this. And since I have a daughter who is obsessed with being older and being treated as an adult, your second point is particularly relevant.

Not everyone has internet access, and browsing the web with the same device means it needs to be protected with antivirus, etc. Where kids are concerned, you're opening yourself up for extra complexity, responsibility, and cost. I'm picturing a device that accommodates the student's learning style and progress with minimal parent and teacher involvement.

Many pieces that could fit into the software package I'm picturing have been created, but to my knowledge, they've never been brought together and managed appropriately. The Khan academy does nothing to cater to different types of learners (afaik). I'd also like to see games that can be tailored to the individual student's preferences, so if one student wants to practice money management at a virtual clothing store, and another wants a virtual hardware store, they just select a different skin for the same game, and they are both more interested in what they're doing as a result.

Much of what you're suggesting already exists online in Web 2.0. One problem is finding these sources. If you dig and dig and dig or use the precise keyword search terms, you will find it. Another problem is using Google to retrieving systems.

A teacher is supposed to cater to a child's learning ability. That's kind of why teachers take those education classes - to learn about multiple intelligences and how to appeal to different learners. I'm not saying they practice it. Some do. Many do not and keep to the drill/kill, rote memorization route (dead and obsolete way).

There's a lot more than Khan Academy online, but that's the one many people are familiar with. Know Watch Learn (http://watchknowlearn.org/default.aspx) is a non-profit organization that hasn't gotten nearly as much notice as Khan.

There's tons of educational videos and virtual stuff (games, activities, virtual clothing store, etc.), but again unless you know where to look you won't necessarily find it; of course I'm guessing that you're motivated to find it and have the time, patience, and effort to do it.

Yes, it's true not everyone has Internet access. That's one of the goals to Creative Commons - http://creativecommons.org/education. Public libraries provide free Internet access through our taxes. And, in the Western world, the percentage of people with Internet access is high, though this doesn't mean that they know how to fully utilize it most efficiently and effectively.

Yes, it's true the Internet differs from television in one glaring respect. With television, the US Government has some control through the FCC over profanity and inappropriate content. But, it does not have as much control over cable television stations or pay-for-view stations.

As responsible parents, we monitor our children's television viewing. At an early age, we introduce our children to Sesame Street and encourage appropriate television viewing habits (ie. place limits on time and usage).

With television, there's appropriate stations and there's inappropriate stations. Do we place locks on our televisions or do we use our common sense and try to steer children appropriately?

Children learn with television to make good or bad decisions; they'll learn and have to learn with the Internet as well. I see that as part of a parent's job.

A lot of what you're asking has to do with control and trust. It's about thinking of the Internet from an adult's perspective and not from a child's. If a child is on e-learning and playing games, they can get a certificate when they finish to prove they completed it and not been on some inappropriate site.

Children, today, are going to grow up in a world with less governmental control, but look how much is allowed on television today than what was allowed 20-40 years ago. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that's the reality today.

Look, teens are always going to find inappropriate stuff whether it's online or not. If you get a child engaged in learning, then they're less likely to get into trouble. Plenty of research to point this out.

If you want to let you children stay on commercial, fee-paying, propriety systems, that's your choice. But what I'm saying is that there's another entirely different world out there with Web 2.0. There is a non-commercial, FREE, open source one as well.

The Internet can be for commerce and adults, but it can be a wonderful world for children and for positive social change and action.

Sounds great. What is web 2.0. Is it a web browser?

No. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 .

No, there isn't a Web 2.0 browser at the moment; probably because private industry wants to steer people to commerce and advertising revenue than free, public, open source material. That's part of the problem from my perspective.

Web 2.0 tools are both private (propriety-system like Second Life) or public (open source like Open Sims) and available on the Internet. The Open Source movement is trying to make knowledge free and accessible to all, but remember there are copyright issues and dissemination issues with the Internet.

Who controls how information is disseminated or retrieved or consumed - you or Google? Who enters the search terms? Is it easier to click on wikipedia or worthwhile to try Googling for other ways to find what you're looking for?

There's a global open source movement. Global digital literacy skills are long overdue. Other countries have already made global digital literacy and citizenship a priority. Unesco, the UN, etc. have online sources, if interested.

Facebook is a social networking Web 2.0 tool that most people are familiar with. But there's also many non-commercial, free, open source Web 2.0 tools that are not getting the coverage or knowledge about them disseminated.

If you are motivated, savvy and have the time, energy, and patience, you can retrieve open source Web 2.0 tools. Google free educational math games instead of just math games and you'll see the difference. That's one method.

Another method is to look at Web 2.0 sources like by entering (notice Creative Commons sponsored this wiki):
http://web20guru.wikispaces.com/Web+2.0+Resources

Or from Web 2.0 lists by typing in Top 100 Web 2.0 tools for students/teachers:
http://edudemic.com/2011/11/best-web-tools/
http://www.onlinedegree.net/100-essential-2-0-tools-for-teachers/

Or look at what others are doing on sites like www.livebinders.com

Years ago, in the dark ages of print, we were taught basic research and library skills; in many ways it's no different with the Internet.

Perhaps everyone thinks Google will suffice and we don't have to stop and think and question (especially our sources) and use common sense any more???

cdfox: You're clearly mixing your terms here, because many of the highly-valuable Web 2.0 services out there are not open source. They're revenue-generating proprietary systems... and what's wrong with that? If someone designs an infrastructure and an application solution that's so revolutionary that everyone wants to take part, why not use it to generate revenue? Isn't that the point of capitalism?

I'm a supporter of open source, too, but you have to realize there's a crapload of time, energy, and money that's required to keep something like Wikipedia online, and someone has to pay the bills. There's only so much you can reasonably expect for free.

If you don't like Google's search results, you can always use DuckDuckGo. I've tried them both, and I find Google still gives me more useful results, even if the first three are ads. If you're worried about privacy, you can always switch to the https version of the page and access it through a public proxy server.

And this statement here is just wrong:


Web 2.0 isn't fundamentally different from Web 1.0 from a technological standpoint... it's just a buzz-phrase for web content that's collaborative and user-generated. This is a Web 2.0 site, and you're using a Web 2.0 browser right now.

Web 2.0 is different than Web 1.0 from a user perspective. A passive, fixed website (like ones created before 2003) does not allow interaction like watching a television program or video. An interactive, immersive website can pump the creative juices.

Sorry, maybe there's no difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 to you or adults, but from a young child's perspective a Web 2.0 world is different. The Internet is not the same static, fixed medium it once was. It is constantly growing and evolving but many adults stick to the same websites due to the lack of time, energy, etc. as you've pointed out.

There's nothing wrong with revenue-generating proprietary systems. That's called capitalism. It's your choice to pay money. It's your choice to use Google or not. It's your time, money, energy. It's your decision. Yes, adults have to make a living.

People are using Web 2.0 tools like Facebook and Twitter in very creative ways; the food truck movement, for instance, is using it to reach out to their customers and notify their daily whereabouts.

Open source is an alternative. That's the free market.

Here's the interesting part though, even the profit-generating, proprietary systems are starting to offer FREE basic services. I recently tried out video mail (www.eyejot.com). Eyejot offers free accounts, but if you want more advanced features and services then you've got to pay for it, which is fair.

A BBS or a newsgroup would fit the description of interactive, user-supplied content. These things are as old as networking. When the web came about, we immediately had chat rooms, web forums, blogs, and file-sharing sites. Again, they're as old as the web. I was a registered contributor to a predecessor to Wikipedia back in 1999.

Again, Web 2.0 is a mostly-meaningless buzz-phrase.

Facebook and Twitter are outrageously overrated.

The stuff I've seen is ReadingEggs, PBS kids, Jumpstart World, and the Kidzui kid browser. �They are not user-generated. �IRL Books and music are not user generated or free. �If it's all about free content then I'm firmly on the fence since I have several family members living in the entertainment industry, including video-game design. �

�So, more to the point, what would you like to tell the kids? �What would you consider a computer literacy lab? �The first time I saw anybody using a search engine they told me, "scroll down past the first section because it's advertisements."


On the third hand i love the Star Trek the next Generation show. �Here's wishing for a computer like that. �Sometimes I pretend. �I type in my google questions like this.. (computer) "define web2.0". �Patiently awaiting a transporter. �Hopefully it's a shareware version. �

But I guess you mean YouTube & the SAM Gallery.

If children will be playing a lot of games, it will not improve their intelligence.