What do I think of Steve Hargadon

His first point I really like, "You don't really know what social networking sites you create will take off or succeed." You really don't know what is going to succeed or fail on the internet. It's just a gamble that you have to take if you really want it. And a gamble it is, for if you succeed with this you make millions, and if you fail you lose millions.

One of his points I didn't agree with though, "topic or content is maybe not as important as the act of engagement" I think that Topic or the content of the site is just important as the hook to get you into the site. Just because you look at the website doesn't necessarly mean it has the interest to keep you hooked. That's why the content needs to be great. Otherwise, the site isn't very popular. Just because of the number of views you have, doesn't make the site popular. They could just be looking at it in passing.

Social Networking

The social neworks I researched were Facebook and Myspace since they are practically the same thing.

What was the target audience for this social networking site?
--The target audience are the younger generation and those who want to keep in touch with friends using bulletins (where they can update others on the day's events), games(where friends can challenge each other, seeing who can get the better score.), sharing pictures, (for those who aren't in each others lives, they can glimsp into a friends life), blogging and chatting (in chattrooms designed specifically for those social network sites).

How long was the site in existence?
Myspace has been up longer than facebook. Myspace started in August of 2003 and Facebook started in Feburary of 2004. So these websites are relitively new in some sorts because they are always updating.

Why was it popular?
Facebook is more popular than Myspace because it has more option to stay connected with your friends than Myspace. But now Myspace is taking a tip from Facebook and adding some technolgies to its website that is the same as Face book. Why these are popular are because they have cool applications, like uploading videos to your page and playing games with yourfriends and chatting at the same time.

What was its demise?
Myspace's demise is that it's slow to upload to a new page. Especially if you want to play a game that is on it's website, it takes at least 2 minutes to upload. Facebook's downfall will be that of the critics saying that we should go back to Myspace, and that Facebook is just a copy of it.
Is/was there another competitor in the same market that was more popular?

Would you ever consider creating an account and using it? Explain your reason using a personal experience as an example.

I have accounts with both websites, and for my personal use I mostly use Facebook. I find it more faster in uploading pages and has more games I like to play with my friends.

Thoughts on Wiki

So in this blog we're supposed to be talking about Wiki's and how we could use it in our classroom lives. Well, first off I'd like to say Wiki isn't for me. I've tried for two hours just trying to create my own, which was really freaking hard.
I always thought I was really great with technology and was up to date on all things internet wise, but apparently not because Wiki knocked me over to the ground real fast.

The wiki I created couldn't really be used in the class because it's mostly personal. If the people wanted to get to know me more, I guess that they could take a look and seen all the places I've gone. But in all I wouldn't use Wiki in the classroom. Some of us are just not into all that creating your own space on the internet. Look at me, the only places I can say are really mine is this blog right here, and the others I've created on this site. Otherthan, myspace, or facebook pages that I created thats all that really is mine on the internet. Why do you need more? What really is the point to a Wiki? Granted, I use Wikipedia all the time, to get info on things I didn't know. That site gave me a deeper understanding on how hard it must have been to create all those Wiki's embedded into Wikipedia. I couldn't even stand creating one Wiki. Imagine trying to create over a hundred of them.

If I was to create a Wiki for the classroom I was teaching my purpose would be to get the children engaged in what I was teaching. I would make the post comments on that Wiki, and maybe add a little info on what they've learned on the subject I'm teaching that isn't on the Wiki I created. I would expect my students to contribute their ideas on the subject that the Wiki is on, and actually edit and maybe display their thoughts on there too.

A New Pedagogy- Assignment

In this assignment we were supposed to go look at the author of our class textbook's blog and see if we agree or disagree with any of his arguments on the new teachings of the emerging technology and what all this means.
Okay, so he made this argument on one of his blogs that I totally agree with:
"It’s not the technology, we both agreed, as much as it is the shifts in transparency and privacy, and the emphasis on writing and creating that go along with putting yourself out there online. “It’s not about blogs,” he said “so much as it’s about human development.” I totally agree, but since our conversation I’ve been thinking about what the implications of that are, exactly. The Web and the social connections and learning it affords is moving us, I think, to a different type of consciousness, a different way of being in the world." In this statement he's saying when we are putting ourselves out there on the Web, we're moving and expanding our creative and intellectual ability, in reality we are making ourselves better.

Another blog he did, totally blew my mind.

“On My Mind 08 Jun 2009 02:04 pm
The Future of My Kids’ Work
So in case you don’t know it, I’ve got kids. They’ll be 12 and 10 this summer (omg) which makes me perk up when I run across magazine covers like this one from Time last week titled “The Future of Work.”
Throw away the briefcase: you’re not going to the office. You can kiss your benefits goodbye too. And your new boss won’t look much like your old one. There’s no longer a ladder, and you may never get to retire, but there’s a world of opportunity if you figure out a new path.
Welcome to my world. Seems I’ve stepped right into the future. What catches me, however, is that while I could never imagine making the shift back to the life I once knew (or some semblance of it), when I think of my kids, that description of their futures makes me shudder. Ironic, isn’t it?

Inside, Time says:
We will see a more flexible, more freelance, more collaborative and far less secure work world. It will be run by a generation with new values–and women will increasingly be at the controls.

Which would seem to me to suggest that we need to create a more flexible, more freelance, more collaborative learning experience for my kids, right? If as the article states fully 40% of the US workforce is predicted to be independent contractors by 2019, shouldn’t we be rethinking what it means to prepare them for that?

What I want for my kids regardless of what school they are in is to be able to pursue their passion, to be problem solvers in the face of adversity, to be provided a different picture of their own working futures in light of this huge shift that’s taking place. Yet I wonder how many classrooms discussed that Time issue (or any other different visions) even in passing. And while I know Time’s vision may not come to fruition, I have little doubt that’s the way things are trending. Doesn’t feel like we’re doing much about it”

So what if this comes to pass? Is it really so bad if the future is less structured and more free-flowing? And so what if women will succeed more? Isn't that what the Woman's Rights Movement was all about? I thought we got past all that, but I guess I was living in a dream world. That blog just really irritated the heck out of me.

Instructional Design Models Assignment

For the following assignment I chose the instructional designs ADDIE and the A.S.S.U.R.E. prescriptive design models.

1) How are the two models of instructional design similar to one another?

One thing similar in these two designs is that use the mnemonic device, meaning for each letter of the word that letter stands of a word or another meaning. Using this technique makes it easier to remember it. I know this to be true, because I've used the mnemonic device on several things to make things easier for me to remember, since I forgot a lot.

A-nalyze learners
S-tate objectives
S-elect instructional methods, media, and materials
U-tilize media and materials
R-equire learner participation
E-valuate and revise

A-nalysis
D-esign
D-evelopement
I-mplimentation
E-valuation

2) How do the two models of instructional design differ from one another?

These two designs differ though because of the objectives they're trying to cover. Yes, they are both instructional designs, but they also cover different things. The ASSURE instructional design is used to assure effective use of media in instruction. The ADDIE instructional design is used to identified a learner's problem and trying to correct it. So you see, they both try to instruct but one is just in general instruction, and the other one has a more specific goal in mind when instructing.


3) Define the process for starting the design phase for a specific lesson you can use in your own curriculum. You should describe your potential audience (general characteristics, prior knowledge, demographics, and motivations). List any societal factors that may affect your lesson as well.

If you want to start a design phase for your lesson your planning in your curriculem when trying to teach your target audience, for example a class of first grade children you should know what they know and what they don't know. So asking in the beginning of your lesson plan "So kids, what do you all know about (insert topic here)?" If no one raises their hands you can assume they don't know anything about what you're teaching and you can go from the basics to the more complicated things. If your class does know a little something about what you're teaching, you can skip the stuff they do know or just do a quick overview. No child likes to be talked at about things they already know in their mind.

Teaching Philosophy

My teaching philosophy is something that I really haven't finished. I think it would go along the lines of catering to the learning styles of each of my students. Since I will becoming a preschool or something along those age lines, I want to try to to care about each one of my students. I plan on getting to them individually and hope that will help me teach them better.

Now, granted not all of my students will be on the same level as the others learning wise, that's why if I get to know them personally I can assess their needs and help them in anyway possible. I want to be able to say at the end of each day that I'm a teach that I helped each and everyone of my students that day in achieving their dreams.

Helping children at this young age is really the most crucial. You want to cherish and nurish their dreams and help them realize that even that they are so young in age, that it really is possible to reach for your dream.
A student who is supressed and has their dreams crushed by a teacher when they're in their early years can be very tramatizing. Having someone say to you "You can't have that. You've reached too high." can be very hurtful to hear. But so what if that's true? Isn't it best for you that you have a goal you always have to reach high for? In reaching high you strengthen what your abilities are and have the motivation to strive for something more than what you have. You should never be happy with what you have, but try to go for something more. Even if it's unattainable shouldn't it matter that you just tried to get it? And in trying you made you life worth living.