However, as video is a mainstream means of communication on the web, I suspect it’ll increasingly be integrated into broadly defined media literacy/ communications courses.

Thanks for the very interesting and informative article!
What about video production environments and curricula? Do you think they have a place in the future of education or is it too niche of a market?

– Shauna

This is a really good blog post. I think your insights will end up being rather prophetic. First, adaptive learning systems that support both differentiated instruction and personalized learning pathways hold significant value in the Internet age of disaggregated, unstructured content. Second, I already see IWB + distance collaboration making its way into many other industries outside education (anywhere multiple people collaborate around a surface displaying visual information that needs to be shared and manipulated in real-time). This is not a flash in the pan trend, but rather a permanent paradigm shift… well, until the next one…

Ron,
There is a market for IWB apps/content and it will be growing larger and larger as the software “dial tone” that powers the IWB-centric classroom becomes more of an open, pluggable framework upon-which 3rd-party developers can build new curriculum solutions for teachers and students (via new API’s that enable software developers to harness the interactive response clickers, document cameras, IWB’s, multi-touch tables, etc…).

Full disclosure: I work for SMART Technologies. http://sen.smarttech.com and http://exchange.smarttech.com

-Emilio

A great, comprehensive article.

My personal thoughts shared within linkedin follow:
+
http://mcdonaldsalesandmarketing.biz/11380/digital-classroom/
+
Tom

Where it gets murkier is in cross-compatibility for content specifically developed for one whiteboard brand — say, by classroom teachers — using that IWB maker’s lesson creation software to then work on IWBs from other brands. There is at least one standards efforts of which I’m aware that would provide such file-level compatibility. But it’s not done yet, as far as I know.

Question: is there an open market in “IWB-optimized” software, web-based or native os app?

Probably better if it is the VP – if it flops the stink won’t adhere to the CEO.

On one level, the naming criteria build a creative sandbox in which to play with a well-defined boundary. However, the criteria themselves can lead to making connections across criterion; e.g., what word or words means both A and B? So in some respects, just having criteria can provide creative fodder.

It also helps if you have brainstorming participants who read and experience broadly outside of their industry. I’ve found this really helps my own brainstorming. So organizations should solicit participants of varying backgrounds and levels (if the organization is a large one) or add outside participants. And I still adhere to having not one, but several dictionaries and thesauri at my disposal (including those with archaic words and not just the ones in Microsoft Office or found via Google). These may not have the exact words, but may spur other ideas.

And you just have to have people willing to think creatively. That’s perhaps the hardest. Sometimes people don’t give themselves permission to be speculative, worried about how it might look. But having criteria can give them a safe sandbox, if they’re willing.

All in all, the creative process is the hardest part of this to analyze. And I’m afraid if I did it too well, it would become the analog Swiss watch I took apart that I’d never be able to reassemble for my own use.

I agree with your basic premise, that criteria function as necessary constraints without which brainstorming becomes a meaningless meander. These are the nuts and bolts of collective decision-making.

However, it would be useful for you now to explain how people come up with names in the first place — how they must reach inside and discover connections and allusions that make it possible to pull out metaphors, similes, and analogies that lead to compelling names. For example, it’s one thing to name a kid Bob, another to name him Thor or Laurence or Victorious. How does one reach deeper? With greater resonance among the target audience?

The same goes for products, services, and events.

To me, this is the naming challenge that too often goes unspoken and thus unmet.