SimScience

A tweet led me to this site. SimScience is a product of a National Science Federation project between departments at Cornell and Syracuse (and perhaps others). It isn't a particularly 'fancy' web site, but the information provided more than offsets any issues one might have with the presentation.

The lessons presented are physics-based, which I find fascinating because of the ability to apply lessons to real-world applications. I live near two large dams, as do many of my readers. There are a series of lessons on cracking dams, ranging from beginning to advanced.

Given my interest in sports, I couldn't resist the leading questions to the content on fluid flow. Why does a golf ball have dimples? What makes a curve ball curve? I'm not sure I would become an immediate expert on drag and lift coefficients, but I would think lessons like these would be easy to apply to our everyday lives.

There's other content as well, including a section on crackling noises and info on membranes. Some of the simulations use Java, so be sure you have that on your workstation.

A few points about "in line" filters

Our region has been talking about Internet filtering/monitoring quite a bit recently. Some vendors have proposed hardware solutions that are "in line", essentially forcing all traffic through the hardware appliance. There are a few pros and cons about this and, since I've been talking about it recently, I thought I'd add it to the blog.

Pros:
The best chance you have at capturing all Internet-related activity is with an in-line filter. Other proxy-based filters rely on browsers to direct traffic to them. Savvy users have found multiple ways to alter these browser settings to route directly to the Internet. A filter with a single NIC (essentially just another device on the LAN) would never see this traffic that may have been re-routed. Remember the OSI model. With a properly configured in-line filter (e.g. the physical layer), nothing would enter or leave the LAN without passing through the appliance.

It's part of the same 'pro' really, but seeing this activity gives you insight into what's going on in order to deal with it appropriately. Knowledge is power and I deal with many strong CIOs who will admit that they don't entirely know what's passing across their networks. A solution like this would give this type of visibility.

Cons:
In our Kentucky networks, certain traffic other than Internet traffic would need to pass through this filter. For example, antivirus updates reside on a local box that would be on the outside of the appliance. Proper exceptions would have to be made to allow this traffic to pass. In addition, districts would need to ensure that the hardware is sufficient to pass all of this traffic without causing problems or becoming a bottleneck.

An in-line solution would also introduce a single point of failure. Most vendors claim that traffic will continue to pass in the event of a hardware failure, so districts would want to verify that fact. Many support issues would have this appliance as an additional factor that would need to be considered.

In-line filters are an interesting concept and may serve some districts well. We have certain state product and configuration standards that must be followed, but I have no problem with districts who want to investigate these solutions while maintaining those standards. I will say, though, that I don't think this solution fits every district. A device that sees (and potentially manipulates) all traffic is nice, but it definitely puts an additional burden on local districts that use them. These districts would now be more responsible than ever for having a keen understanding of the traffic passing across their networks.

Cell phones in school - forming an opinion

Seeing recent blog posts and tweets about this topic has placed it on my mind (again). In my mind, I've been mulling around the topic of cell phones in school. I looked back to find that I have blogged about this once already. In that blog, I listed some of the pros and cons and stayed away from stating an opinion.

Let me preface my opinion by saying that this isn't an black/white, right/wrong issue. Smart cell phones ARE very powerful computing tools and can absolutely be used for countless educational purposes. They can also be a huge distraction and can be abused. So, if your school district is promoting or preventing the use of cell phones, they aren't alone on either side of the aisle. To bolster your opinion or find a differing opinion, there are many search results to be perused. I've really enjoyed reading various opinions on this issue at Helium's web site. If you're looking for a clearinghouse for well-articulated opinions on this topic, this seems like a good place to start.

At the risk of being labeled as "behind the times", I'll state that I am not a proponent of widespread cell phone instructional use in schools. I've read many articles for and against their use and, as I said, I have no problem with a school, district or CIO that promotes or is in favor of the use of these phones as part of instruction. Right now, though, I feel like this issue is one where the cart is trying to pull the horse. Most articles I read discuss the phones, their power and the countless ways one could use them. I would challenge districts and leaders to list their true educational needs first and then determine what tool best meets those needs.

A quick aside: Our state implemented student email several years ago. Every Kentucky school district has the ability to create email accounts for children 4th grade and above as needed for instruction. It was mandated. In reality, many districts chose not to implement student email or, if so, it was done on a very limited basis. When I talked to CIOs about this, I heard that the teachers weren't ready, the instructional need wasn't there and that students were creating many discipline issues with the emails that were being sent. Some principals were adamant that the best solution was to disable email for students, as the discipline issues were outweighing the benefits of an email account.

I see this as a similar debate. The biggest concern I've seen is with the ability of the teachers to effectively manage these devices in the classroom. There should be little debate that cell phones are a distraction. Many states (and I'd say Kentucky will be one soon) have laws against distracted driving. We acknowledge that cell phones are a distraction while driving. Even with proper education, are we prepared to say that they won't be a distraction to learning?

Yes, you say, but kids today are different. They can multitask. Can they? I'll admit it - I sometimes use the Internet as a diversion. I'm not alone. I'll also admit that there were times in school that I wanted every diversion I could find. I'm being cynical and will acknowledge that many students are on task and using the Internet effectively, but I've seen too many proxy logs to believe that the "diverted" population is miniscule. I suppose my point is that, if we can't keep our users on task with the tools and measures in place today, why do we believe teachers can keep a roomful of students on task when they have their own very small device in front of them.

Should we punish everyone, then, for the mistakes or opinions of a few? We've done exactly that in other areas. Why do we have dress codes? Why do we ban certain books? We block certain web pages for reasons beyond the explicit. There are debates about teaching evolution vs. creation. We have drug checks on campuses. We have security cameras on school buses and throughout many buildings. In many areas of school life, issues have bubbled up and it has led to a restrictive policy for any number of areas. Maybe we're being overprotective at times, but a few of the items above boil down to a distraction from learning. For now, I'll stay on this side of the fence on the large scale, with the understanding that certain schools and districts may find ways to keep this from being such a distraction.

More broadband talk...

I blogged months ago about the $7.2B in ARRA 'stimulus' funding to expand broadband connectivity around the country. I wanted to touch on another recent development. The FCC is asking for public comment on cost estimates to connect 'anchor institutions' to fiber.

In the linked public comment notice, there's an appendix that shows a presentation that the Gates Foundation gave to FCC representatives. The Gates Foundation has several areas of focus. One of those areas has been the improvement of Internet connectivity to public libraries.

There's much to consider and I haven't had time to process it all, but it certainly isn't lost on me that the term "anchor institutions" is being floated around by different groups at the federal level, with public schools squarely in definition of this. E-Rate Central speculates the following:

This could be a hint that the FCC is focusing on the role of schools and libraries, particularly in rural areas, to support wider broadband connectivity. If so, this would probably require changes to the E-rate program.

The questions the FCC has in their notice are certainly an effort to clarify or validate some of the assumptions that are being made about the connectivity needs. There is an assumption that 80% of these anchor institutions lack fiber. I would assume this NOT to be the case in KY K-12, though E-Rate funds are heavily relied upon to subsidize the cost of fiber connectivity. Also, when thinking of that fact, I'm hopeful that comments are made related to question 7:

Should operating expenses be a consideration when calculating cost for connecting anchor institutions to fiber? What operating expenses would be associated with running these networks, and how would those vary by type of institution and geography?

Of course, these comments may be related to operating costs of the service provider. Whatever the result, the "anchor institution" will want an affordable option for fiber-based connectivity. Many of Kentucky's current options are affordable only because of the federal E-Rate program, so I'll be interested to see how all of this shakes out.

"To Fee or Not To Fee" - What Should Be Free?

Granted, the title of this post isn't well thought out. I'm sure that's why I'm blogging and not publishing a novel. I did want to briefly touch on a coming debate that could impact us in education. An eSchoolNews article today mentions the topic. It's probably in the current news based on comments made at the World Media Summit. Comments from the summit by Rupert Murdoch center around the need for 'traditional' news sources to charge internet search engines and other web sites for news reports.

There's some validity to the point. I regularly read news stories from any number of popular search engine sites. I can't say with 100% certainty that they are paying for that content. I haven't been paying specifically to read those stories. However, a reporter somewhere is being paid to write much of what we consume as 'news'. We've read about it as newspapers struggle to maintain subscribers, as network news programs struggle to maintain viewers. Our methods of news consumption have changed. The medium for delivery has changed. At this point, though, many of the sources of the news have not.

How does this affect K-12? As the eSchoolNews article points out, it might leave students scrambling to access certain resources (assuming that some resources go out of business or price themselves beyond some of their customer base). The debate goes beyond newspaper sites. Tech-savvy users tend to gravitate toward free, easy-to-use products with great features. YouTube is a great example and is used by many K-12 teachers. One of the biggest questions asked since Google's purchase of YouTube (and asked here) revolves around the eventual need to generate revenue.

The same could be said for popular sites such as Facebook and Twitter. How do these sites make money? I'm not sure they do as of yet. "Advertising" is always the most common answer, but there are no ads on Twitter and only limited ads on Facebook. However, both companies have had sizeable investors. Why? Because people are gathering and communicating and this is where they're gathering. Become a part of it, we're told.

Just as newspapers are dipping their toe in the water of fee-based content (in an effort to survive), I think we'll see companies like this do the same. The ad revenue won't be there forever and these free services still require a hefty infrastructure and personnel to maintain and update.

I think the business model will be similar to the highly-profitable text messages we all send. Perhaps it will be similar to another very profitable model, iTunes. Eventually, I think we'll be asking ourselves whether it's worth a penny per tweet to use Twitter or worth some minimal fee to 'subscribe' to Facebook and keep up with others.

Can it all really be free forever?

Web 2.0 - Recommended Reading

In this blog, we've spent a good bit of time highlighting tools and have also spent some time discussing some of the general difficulties with seeing technology truly integrated into instruction. I've stumbled across a couple of articles that, while nearly a year old, do a fantastic job of capturing some of the hurdles in the "Web 2.0" debate.

On the Encyclopedia Brittanica blog, Steve Hargadon discusses why Web 2.0 will be a significant factor in learning as we move forward. The reasons have been heard before, but are stated very well. They include the engagement of the student, the collaboration that Web 2.0 is built upon and the well-reasoned discussions that can often be generated in a Web 2.0 environment.

In the same blog area, Daniel Willingham posts a response on why Web 2.0 will not be a significant factor in learning moving forward. The crux of his argument is that any type of project-based learning is difficult to do well, is difficult to map to content standards and requires much more of the teacher than more direct instruction.

Wherever you find yourself in this debate, I think both articles are well worth your time. In addition, I could see where the Encyclopedia Brittanica blog site could be of great benefit as an educator, where bloggers and commentators are engaging in all sorts of lively and thought-provoking conversations.

Humbled by rootkits, a hard lesson is learned

Most of my blog entries are entirely work-related. I'm going to deviate from that because (1) I can tie a personal issue to work and (2) this has been on my mind for a few days. I feel a rant of confessions coming on:

On my personal desktop, I haven't been following best practice. I have an outdated AV product that hasn't updated its virus patterns in years. I consider myself a pretty savvy user of technology and, rather than burden my desktop with resource-eating AV programs and real-time spyware tools, I run the occasional scan and avoid attachments and sites that appear to be suspect. This has served me well for quite some time.

Earlier this week, I'm virtually positive that I got some kind of rootkit infection on my personal desktop. I clicked a link on a web page and my browser acted strange. I saw the word 'updating' and I think the browser shut down. For minutes thereafter, my hard drive began to churn. After a few minutes of horror, I disconnected the network port.

Since then, my evenings have been a blur of Google searches and attempts to run various removal tools. Having an IT background, these sorts of issues become a consuming challenge and I'm not quick to admit defeat with the wealth of tools available. Some of these tools ran to completion, finding nothing or next-to-nothing. Other tools didn't run to completion. How do I know something's up? Aside from the hard drive and browser behavior at the moment, I've found suspect entries in my Event Viewer that correspond to the proper date/time. Warnings from Windows Defender, a couple of 'services' with long registry key alphanumeric patterns starting, a login by the HelpAssistant account (which I've learned is related to Remote Assistance). Let's face it... SOMETHING is on this machine.

Ah, but what to do? School district support staff would have a new image installed after very minimal troubleshooting. In fact, the wikipedia entry on rootkits spells out this recommendation in very clear terms:

Direct removal of a rootkit may be impractical. Even if the type and nature of the rootkit are known, the required time and effort by a system administrator with the necessary skills or experience may exceed the required time to re-install the operating system.

Well, that's where I am. I've told myself for the past three evenings that I have the "necessary skills and experience" to beat this. At this point, I'm low on sleep and I suppose I'll swallow hard, back up important data and reformat.

I suppose a few good things may have come of this. A few notes and recommendations:

* This is why end users in school districts should save important data to a network share. It would be completely impractical for a technician to spend the number of hours I've spent on a problem like this.

* Even if I had 'solved' the problem, how safe would I feel? A rootkit, by design, hides itself. At any moment, my machine could be compromised. Was a keystroke logger installed? Did it capture critical users/passwords? How do I know it's completely gone? Again, the only certain solution at this point is a fresh installation.

* Have a backup of your critical data. I have a dated copy and, thankfully in this case, my machine can still function well enough to make a copy of critical data.

* There are tools like the Windows Ultimate Boot CD and BartPE that can be used to create a CD with a bootable OS. I'm sure there are Linux tools available as well. In my journeys, I've learned that one way to attempt to find these rootkits are via an external OS. Smart ones can hide from these as well, but these resources are good nonetheless.

* Even though they have provided limited help to me in this case, there are many good tools available to help detect viruses, spyware and (I'm told) some rootkits. Sophos has a tool for rootkits. McAfee's Stinger tool is also worth a shot.

My home machine is a mess, but maybe someone else can benefit from my tale of woe. **sigh**