Google Squared

This came from a recent TechLearning newsletter [post], which is well worth subscribing to (free).

Google Squared is still under development and I'm not quite sure if I can see an actual worthwhile classroom application of it but it's at least a different way to search and does allow you to add and take away results.

Disappointing that "Google Squared couldn't automatically build a Square about classroom technology", though it did rather better on "teaching methods" (see screen capture, above).

With or without learners, maybe it would be better anyway just to brainstorm such things, rather than let Google-is-Evil do all the thinking for you?

Searching without Google

I've been landed a job that looks tough: persuading the teachers and trainers in the school where I work (International House Barcelona) that they should use the 10 eBeam interactive whiteboards (IWBs, or "smartboards") that we've just acquired (image, right, the annotation tool palette).

It looks tough first of all as I don't have a lot of experience actually using an IWB as a teacher; secondly because I've preferred not to, being cynically unable to see the return on investment -- by which I mean the amount of learning produced for the time invested.

So -- obviously -- the first thing I did, this morning, was open my browser... and then I didn't go straight to Google-is-Evil. What I wanted was a few expert opinions on how the technology should be used, how we might increase that return on investment.

Instead, I went to places I already knew and trusted and thought might well have ideas (not something I can say of Google), and used the search options there:

• Doug Johnson's Blue Skunk Blog
• TeachingEnglish.org.uk
• Nik Peachey's Learning Technology Blog and his Quick Shout Blog
  

I did go to Google-is-Evil afterwards to search for "interactive board": the Wikipedia interactive whiteboard entry was first, there were some resources, particularly for UK schools [here and here], but not necessarily for language learning and teaching -- but what I was really looking for, expert opinion, wasn't there, at least not in the hundreds of results for people trying to sell me an IWB.

But that's Google-is-Evil for you... Fortunately there are some excellent alternatives.

Would you still hate Micro$oft if you took full advantage of it?

Dare to explore those menus!

Everyone hates Micro$oft, don't they? I'm not actually one of them, myself, as I wonder how people would do their jobs today without it.

One of the things I like Micro$oft for is its Insider Newsletter, which you can subscribe to and get tips and tutorials and links that will help you to learn more about Word and Powerpoint and Outlook and so on.

I always read it when it lands in my mailbox, and make a habit of actually picking at least one link in it and going to check see if I can learn something new about programs I've been using fairly proficiently for years -- and I can and do (like copying and pasting multiple items, or things I didn't know about using BCC in email...)

Most people -- myself included -- use only a small proportion of the potential of their computer programs. They learn the basics and then they just stop learning, and make-do with the basics (not something they would encourage their language learners to do).

On the training courses we run at IH, I always suggest the following: explore the menus in whatever program you use (Micro$oft or otherwise), try some of the things on them.

Using Word (or whatever) is like being in a restaurant in a foreign land: are you just going to eat chicken and chips every mealtime, or are you going to try something new that is there on the menu. Try something new, I'd say: you might like it -- and find that it's useful to you!

And here's a thought for you: why do people hate Micro$oft but love Google-is-Evil...?

Book, Boing Boing say so, so it must be true!

Just in case you haven't heeded our previous warnings, .-)!, here on the wonderful Boing Boing, there's a review of a book by Greg Conti Googling Security, a book that opens your eyes to how much you disclose to Google.

Be worried!

Is Google making you stupid?

In an article on TheAtlantic.com, Nicholas Carr asks "Is Google making us stupid?"

Yes.

More evidence that Google is Evil ,- ) !

My husband... Now would that be "Google search" or "I'm feeling lucky"?

Ananova.com's bizarre news "Quirkies" section is one of my default start pages -- partly because some of stories amuse me greatly and partly because there's often a text there that you can use in class.

Among the headlines this morning, "Wife's £5m Google surprise":

A woman is suing her husband after she Googled his name - and found out he had won £5m on the lottery. >> Full story

What could you do with such a text...?

• Before reading, you could speculate from the headline what the story might be, something which you might do in pairs, with each pair then telling the whole class "their" story
• During reading, you could get people to determine which pair they think got closest to the actual story, which can get them to read more closely, and gives a natural reason for "talking about meaning"
  
• After reading, there are any number of discussion points that might come up -- do they believe the story, what can they guess about the people involved, have they ever "Googled" their own names (or those of their spouses!)
  

Persuade your learners to change their default start pages to a website where they are going to get themselves some reading (or listening) practice -- it's one of the most useful things you can do for them!

More sources of (good) images

Things that matter to me... the pictures of my kids in my wallet

In one of the CELTA sessions this week I mentioned the website of the freebie newspaper 20Minutos as an alternative source of images. They have a great Fotogalerías section, which is a much better source than Google-is-Evil if you are looking for topical photographs, especially ones that will be relevant to Spanish students.

An alternative is Yahoo News, which has a similar, magnificent news photos section.

Newspapers have a vested interest in providing quality images; Google has zero interest in the quality of the billions of images it steals from other websites.

I still think that an even better alternative is for your learners to create their own images (above, another one someone took during the session Wednesday -- my own kids, so I gave myself parental permission to publish ,-) !

(Not) Happy Birthday, Google

Google is nine years old today... Although there were search engines before Google came along, it's still incredible to think that it's been around less than a decade.

I won't say "Happy Birthday" because I don't actually think it's cause for celebration. It's taken under ten years for it to become an Evil Empire. It's perhaps not that Google itself is Evil but -- in its self-proclaimed bid to "organize the world's information" -- it has become so important to business, that the latter will stop at nothing to appear "first in Google", with the result that the Internet is being swamped with c..p, written for that purpose [example].

Google is also bad for English teachers and their learners. Instead of doing and creating things, you just Google them, and then steal them off of someone else.

When I was at university, we used to say that the definition of a lecture was "the process by which the lecturer's notes become the student's notes without passing through the minds of either".

The danger is that Googling your lesson plans, your images (etc) starts a similar process, if you ask me...

Now you too can steal images off other people's blogs

Not sure if I've understood this correctly (surely they don't mean that!), but now Google-is-Evil is offering you a nifty little tool [FAQs] that enables you -- automatically -- to steal and display images at random from other people's blogs, without their permission, or any possibility of them being able to opt out if yours is a public blog.

If it's public, steal it -- which is just what Google Images does...

Ungoogle your cats!

Titi the Cat...

Someone asked me the other day whether or not an image of a cat found on Google (not that shown above) was going to print out well for use in class -- on the black-and-white printer they had access to.

As the contrast in the picture was low, I said I thought not and suggested looking for a different one.

And to enlarge it? Possibly the best way to enlarge is by using the photocopier to do it for you.

It was actually for use in a class on our young learners extension course and so I suggested that, rather than using Google, that the young learners themselves should draw the pictures -- and would then be able to describe their cats.

I've got no idea how the lesson eventually went, but I later happened to be in the actual classroom used and noticed the drawings of cats on the walls (see one example above) -- and like to imagine that the lesson meant much more to the kids, that they learnt more because they participated and were more involved in it.

Ungoogle!
I thought I'd just invented the word "ungoogle", but Google itself currently finds around 34,000 results for it.

But, because I think Google-is-Evil, and perhaps sometimes has an adverse effect on the lessons we take into our classrooms, it's one I think teachers should adopt.

There are better places to search than Google, there are better places to find images...

Why is it wrong to steal images... and text

Not actually stolen from Google, legally downloaded flashcards... But, if there's no involvement, that's almost as bad!

Why is it wrong to steal images?
First a misconception most users are under: no one has given Google (or any other search engine) permission to grab all their images off their websites. It is therefore wrong for Google to steal images in the first place -- and that doesn't make it right for you to steal the same images from Google. Neither does the fact that "everyone else does".

As an educator, I think that you have a moral responsibility: you cannot condone and must condemn theft, and therefore can neither steal other people's images and use them, for example, on a blog, nor allow your student's to do that.

Images or content -- text, that is.

Why bother creating your own?
But there's more to it than the moral considerations, which I imagine are not going to convince many people nowadays.

For example, with text, in a webquest you have asked your learners to find the answers to certain questions, and then to "publish" them in some way -- in a Word document, as a PowerPoint presentation, on a blog. If they merely "copy and paste", as many will do, they are very unlikely to be doing very much manipulation of the language; they are not getting to grips with it, getting "under the bonnet" and getting their hands dirty, tinkering with it and reformulating it in any way. Merely copying and pasting it isn't going to do a lot for their language learning.

Teach your learners not to copy and paste, but to copy and paste; select judiciously, cut ruthlessly and quote correctly... And provide the language for that ("(....), according to Yahoo News"; "says a report on CNN" [+hyperlink]; etc)

And images...
If it's images, it's far better for them to create their own, than handle stolen property from Google. Why?

What you want, for learners to be truly engaged in their learning, is for them to be creative, to be imaginative. Google Images is not creative.

You want affective involvement in their learning -- you want them to care. When they do, they learn more.

What you want is for them to be proud of what they've created. There isn't a lot of pride to be had in handling stolen goods.

How do they create their own images?
Images can come from digital cameras, from mobile phones, from hand-drawn art work (which is then either photographed or scanned), or be created in a simple image editing program like Paint.

Is it worth the effort?
Yes. Why? Because of the pride to be had in the creation...

Official: Google IS evil!

A post on Jack Schofield's excellent Guardian technology blog drew my attention to this Observer report on something that's been obvious for a long time: Google is Evil.

Not just evil, note, but the most evil, according to the original Privacy International analysis The Observer is quoting, which ranked Google last on privacy among some of the leading Internet companies.

You've been warned!

How to murder your teacher

How to murder your teacher... nearly 1.6 million results!

It was a "Good Week" for the prosecution [says The Week]. An expert testified that somebody Googled "how to commit murder" on the PC of a New Jersey woman charged with murdering her husband.

I did a quick "Google" myself, as you can see. Teaching is a lot more dangerous than previously thought, it seems ,-)!

Don't waste time looking for pictures on Google

Of course you could get your images off of Google-is-Evil (assuming that you don't mind a spot of stolen property, that is...)

But one problem with that is that Google has zero interest in the quality of the images... or in how much language you could get out of them.

An alternative soure are newspapers and magazines -- which do have a vested interest in presenting their readers with striking, interesting photos (including ads:..).

I habitually rip images out of the newspapers and magazines that are about to go in the recycled bin, and store and classify them in folders (in the image above, you can see my "transport" and "sports" folders)... just in case they might be useful in class one day...

Why is Google Evil?

Maybe Google is Evil is the wrong verb form -- it's more a question that Google has become evil.

First, and from a practical point of view, it's (now) evil because we turn unthinkingly to it when in fact we would find better, more authoritative information somewhere else, and a lot faster: if it's something for your class, ask your tutor, or look in a book, or go not to a search engine like Google-is-Evil but to a portal like TeachingEnglish.org.uk.

So, to some extent, we've allowed it to become evil.

Apart from that, Google is Evil because it has become so important to businesses. As a result, businesses have stuffed the Internet with junk -- simply so that their websites turn up top in Google (and other search engines). So a lot of what appears "top" in Google is in fact junk. Look carefully at what sites appear in the top 20 or 30 results for any search that is of "commerical value" and you'll see what I mean. How many of those sites exist simply and solely to drive traffic to other sites...? A lot...!

And because Google earns so much of its rapidly increasing revenue (99%, according to some estimates) from advertising, and now has to answer to shareholders, does it care if its results are stuffed with crap? No -- Google is like television. TV stations really don't care that what they broadcast is garbage, so long as their advertising revenue grows.

Also, Google deliberately sets out to pretend not to be Evil: "Do no Evil" is its corporate motto. You have to be deeply suspicious of a company that sets out to dupe its customers in that fashion. It also says that its mission is "organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful": the first four words of that make me highly suspicious.

Google is Evil because it steals things from people -- from publishers and from anyone who owns a website, images for example.

Is Micro$oft Evil? Yes. Google is Evil for exactly the same reasons... and one additional reason: it deliberately seeks to con you into thinking that it is not.

"What is Evil?" I read someone saying the other day. "Evil is anything Google decides is Evil". Now that's worrying...!