Educational Technology and Change Journal

Are Full Teaching Loads the Answer to the Recession?

Posted on August 22, 2009 by JimS

As we tighten our individual and collective belts in the university system where I work, I can’t help but worry about some of the decisions administrators are making to weather the current recession. I’m sharing these concerns in this publication because I sense that the underlying issues transcend the state I live in and weigh heavily in other systems throughout the U.S. and the world.

The decision that has my attention is the insistence on full teaching loads for faculty this fall and elimination of nearly all reassigned time activities. The assumption seems to be that non-instructional activities are expendable. This may be true, but it is not true in all cases. Many activities are actually aimed at exploring and developing innovative ways to accomplish traditional tasks, and in many instances, this involves the use of computer and internet technology. The point is that technology has the potential to cut costs and improve the quality of instruction and services.

The problem with indiscriminately cutting reassigned time funds for those involved in technology activities is that colleges may be simultaneously eliminating the sources of potential solutions and answers. By closing the door on innovation, we may be exacerbating instead of ameliorating the problems caused by the recession.

When I look back on tech-oriented activities that I pursued with reassigned time, I can clearly see the direct relationship between research and cost effective practice.

Like many of you, I’ve been involved in online instruction and college-related projects for many years. I began teaching completely online semester-length classes in spring 1997, over a decade ago, and nearly a decade earlier, in spring 1988, I experimented with a primitive bulletin board system (BBS) in one of my freshman composition classes. This was before the web was more than just an idea. I set up the BBS via a 2400-baud modem connected to an IBM-PC XT with a whopping 10MBs of storage. IIRC, it had the full 640KBs of RAM. The BBS ran off the standard phone lines. I had a 1200-baud modem on my home XT, and the two students who joined me in this experiment had a 300-baud and a 2400-baud modem connected to a Commodore 64 and an XT. I don’t think I’ll ever forget the stream of high-pitched electronic squawk that the modems produced when they made contact.

We hooked the PC-based BBS into a phone line in the college’s study lab and logged in to the board to complete the full cycle of activities for a single assignment that lasted about three weeks. The two students received, as a reward for participating, permission to be absent from class during that period. Despite a steady series of crashes (if anyone in the lab inadvertently picked up the receiver on the phone, the BBS went down), we persevered and were excited about actually teaching and learning online. It was our equivalent to walking on the moon.

For me, the upshot of the experience over twenty years ago was the conviction that completely online instruction was not only possible but cost-effective and potentially highly effective. Still, it took another nine years to convince my department to allow me to teach a fully online course.

The point of this story is that, throughout all these years, I received reassigned time from my instructional duties to pursue these interests. Without the release time, I wouldn’t have been able to do any of it. The result, today, is fully online classes and other cost-effective technology, and in the remainder of this essay, I explain the savings that these represent.

Today, at the start of the fall 2009 semester, I find myself for the first time in nearly twenty years with a full teaching load and zero reassigned time. The mandate is from the top down. All instructional faculty are to teach a full load. An exception has been made for a few, for administrative functions, but the vast majority are left with no time to do more than teach. And for community college instructors, a full load is five classes. (In all fairness to the administration, though, I should say that I would have received a release from one of my classes if paperwork had been submitted in time.)

I’m teaching three different writing classes, all of them online: a transfer-level freshman composition class, two advanced expository writing classes, and two creative nonfiction classes. Those who have taught or are teaching fully online classes understand just how much preparation goes into each class. Far more, by a very wide margin, than that for traditional face-to-face (F2F) equivalents.

This teaching load means little time for innovative activities that directly or indirectly impact instruction. As part of my special assignments in the past, I’ve been developing and experimenting with blogs for student assessment and for planning student services. Much of what I’ve been learning about blogs is finding direct application in my online instruction, and, in turn, much of what I’m learning in instruction benefits my other activities.

For instruction, I no longer use the college’s server for course webpages. Instead, I’ve placed all of my course material in blogs that are provided free of charge by WordPress and Google’s Blogger. In this medium, the amount of developing power and speed over the old webpages is staggering. I do use the college’s Sakai CMS, but for its discussion forums and bulk mail services only. My students use Blogger to share their drafts with classmates.

I’ve been developing an online open textbook for my freshman comp class, and for the last year or so my students haven’t had to spend a dime for required texts. I’ve also created electronic journals to publish selected works from students in my advanced expository and creative nonfiction classes. One is already up and running, and the other is about half done. These, too, are based in blogs, and they allow me and the student editors to quickly select, edit, and publish exemplary papers. Publication costs such as printing, special equipment, and office space? None.

The use of web resources, such as blogs, that are off-campus represents a savings that’s difficult to measure. One of the most obvious is the elimination of reliance on college IT personnel to maintain, secure, and instruct users on the technology. Another is the elimination of reliance on the campus’s server resources.

But there are many other cost-saving results that may not be obvious. Instructors and students who learn to use non-campus technology and resources begin to realize that they can accomplish many other tasks with the same technology, thus placing little or no burden on the college in terms of cost or maintenance. Students will be able to use blogs for their other classes and eliminate the need to use the college’s resources to accomplish the same purposes. Staff will learn to use blogs to accomplish web-based tasks that currently require the assistance of the college’s IT staff and resources. This independence that off-campus technology offers can reduce the cost of campus-based technology, and the savings could be put to good use elsewhere.

Other “invisible” cost-savings that derive from the use of technology developed via released time are related to online classes. Online classes don’t require classrooms. If all of my classes were F2F and met twice a week, they would take up ten 75-minute time slots for an entire semester. This impact on the available classrooms is not trivial in terms of dollars and resources. To make the F2F classes viable, they need to be offered at times when students are willing to commute to campus. If rooms aren’t available in these prime times, the classes have to be canceled. Or new classrooms need to be built.

Traditional classrooms require a tremendous amount of electrical power for air-conditioning, lighting, daily maintenance, security, furniture, and equipment. Because writing instruction is heavily tied to the internet, many F2F classes are run in classrooms equipped with computers. The cost of maintaining computer labs and classrooms is absolutely staggering.

Finally, online instructors seldom use campus offices so the college realizes a savings in this regard. Furthermore, online faculty and students don’t drive to campus as often as others so they don’t add to the cost of maintaining parking facilities.

If administrators devote time to examining the full implications of faculty involvement in developing innovative practices through the use of technology, they may not be so quick to order a blanket cut of nearly all reassigned time. They may realize that, in the long run, the new technology may actually help to reduce costs at a rate infinitely greater than the dollar amounts for reassigned time. They may realize that the cost, today, may literally be an investment in the college’s future.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Encounters: USDE 2009 Report on Effectiveness of Online Learning

Posted on August 17, 2009 by JimS

Introduction: This encounter begins with a bump from Judith McDaniel (ETC editor, web-based course design), who posted a comment to Steve Eskow re Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies (Washington, D.C., 2009), conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.

After reviewing the excerpts or the complete report, please post your extended comments re the findings. Some or all of the comments will be appended to this article as they are submitted.

Here are some of the key findings:

• Students who took all or part of their class online performed better, on average, than those taking the same course through traditional face-to-face instruction.

• The observed advantage for online learning in general, and blended learning conditions in particular, is not necessarily rooted in the media used per se and may reflect differences in content, pedagogy and learning time.

• Most of the variations in the way in which different studies implemented online learning did not affect student learning outcomes significantly.

• The effectiveness of online learning approaches appears quite broad across different content and learner types.

• Studies in which analysts judged the curriculum and instruction to be identical or almost identical in online and face-to-face conditions had smaller effects than those studies where the two conditions varied in terms of multiple aspects of instruction.

• When a study contrasts blended and purely online conditions, student learning is usually comparable across the two conditions.

• Elements such as video or online quizzes do not appear to influence the amount that students learn in online classes.

• Online learning can be enhanced by giving learners control of their interactions with media and prompting learner reflection.

• Providing guidance for learning for groups of students appears less successful than does using such mechanisms with individual learners.

John Thompson, editor, green computing, on 17 August 2009, at 5:43 am, said:

This discussion on F2F, blended, and online learning reminds me of Matthew Arnold’s quote:

Wandering between two worlds, one dead,
The other powerless to be born.
With nowhere yet to rest my head
Like these, on earth I wait forlorn.

F2F proponents (right up there with the Luddites supporting print publications against digital encroachment) refuse to acknowledge a broken system. F2F served educational purposes well in another age (in a galaxy far, far away). And while there are still excellent F2F synchronous instructors (e.g., Randy Pausch), by and large the student audience has moved on. This government study merely confirms the obvious — almost anything is as good or even better than F2F instruction, at least as too many F2F instructors practice it. For all intents and purposes, F2F instruction is dead. Yet, online still remains in the wings, albeit with one foot on stage.

Harry Keller, editor, science education, on 17 August 2009, at 7:53 am, said:

I also noted the small coverage of K-12 learning.

I did not see any discussion of the self-selection effect. Students in online or blended learning may have chosen to do so. Such students may be more motivated to do well, on average.

I believe that the instructor remains the key to success. Really good teachers manage to get good results regardless of the surroundings. By providing excellent tools to instructors, we can make the good ones very good. Perhaps, these same tools can help us identify and weed out the poor ones — emphasis on perhaps.

Even if online learning does not, by itself, make learning better, it has and will continue to provide incentives for new ideas in education from which these important new tools will arise.

Of course, as a creator of such a new tool, I have a bias.

Jim Shimabukuro, editor, on 17 August 2009, at 11:15 am, said:

We tend to forget that communication is at the heart of learning, and that schools and classrooms are basically a medium or form of communcation. The problem is that we’ve become so accustomed to the classroom that we no longer view it as a medium of communication but equate it with learning. The danger of this equation is the tendency to dismiss other critical media such as the web.

Another way of viewing this dichotomy is the notion of formal and informal learning. For many educators, the distinction is clear: formal happens in the classroom, and informal, outside. Since the web appears to be clearly “outside” the classroom, it’s informal and irrelevant.

Fortunately, students don’t buy into the belief that learning is limited to what happens in the classroom. They understand, intuitively, that the web is a natural medium for communication and learning, and that the distinctions between formal and informal learning are all too often arbitrary and meaningless.

John Thompson, in his comment above, says, “By and large the student audience has moved on” to online modes of communication. I agree. For them, traditional F2F classrooms are becoming, like telephone landlines, anachronisms, sharing the same fate as typewriters, newspapers, and horse-drawn carriages. The web’s instant, anywhere, anytime communication with anyone or with any information source in the world is a given in their daily lives.

Increasingly, for students today, the question isn’t “Online or F2F?” but “Why limit learning to classrooms?” And increasingly, they’ll want to know, “Why do we have to gather in a classroom for instruction that could be delivered much more effectively and efficiently via the web?”

In their lives outside the classroom, students have become expert at informal learning or learning that’s not guided by an instructor. They use their mobile electronic communication devices to get information instantly on the latest news, entertainment, products and sales. If they need information, they automatically turn to the web simply because it’s there and they have access to it from anywhere at anytime. And more importantly, it’s a way to keep in touch with friends, allowing for the creation of social networking that’s unprecedented. Through the web, they can stay in touch with all their friends 24-7. They’re never more than a few seconds apart, regardless of the physical distances between them.

Replacing some of their F2F class meetings with online activities is a way for educators to acknowledge the undeniable impact of web technology in the lives of their students. This adjustment is considered “blending,” and the result is blended instruction. It seems to be working very well, and many if not most claim that it’s superior to both completely F2F and completely online methods. The USDE report seems to support this contention, but the gap between online and blended is apparently closing.

My concern with the term “blended” is its inclusiveness. It includes such a wide range of practices that it has little or no power to define an actual pedagogy.

Like a storm building at sea, online learning is gradually making its way to landfall, and all indications are that it’s strengthening rather than weakening, and when it hits shore, the impact will change the educational landscape.

The significance of the USDE report is not so much in telling us where we are but in showing us where we’re headed. There’s a trend, and its direction is unmistakable and unavoidable. In the meantime, as Harry Keller says above, “Even if online learning does not, by itself, make learning better, it has and will continue to provide incentives for new ideas in education from which these important new tools will arise.”

The coming years will be exciting, but we can’t really see the dramatic changes that are coming. However, we can read the signs and imagine.

John Sener, ETC writer, on 17 August 2009, at 10:41 am, said:

There is an inherent danger and limitations to these studies, even meta-analyses such as this one. In particular, the danger is in absorbing the report’s summary findings (e.g., “the use of video and online quizzes…does not appear to enhance learning”) and applying it in a blanket fashion, when in reality the report itself describes findings which indicate that a more nuanced interpretation/response is needed. (Why reports like this one are so schizoid about this is one of the things that bugs me about them.)

For example, the actual language of the report states that the existing research on online quizzes “does not provide evidence that the practice is effective,” which means that:

1) The research does not indicate that the practice of using online quizzes is ineffective either.
2) As the report indicates, each study looked at slightly different things. The above comment was based on very few studies.
3) There are several important but unstated qualifiers. For example, one study found that discussions worked just as well as quizzes; that doesn’t mean that the quizzes weren’t effective.
4) Effectiveness depends on other variables. (Duh!) Interestingly, one study found that one LMS platform was better than another (WebCT vs. IDLE), suggesting that “details of their user interfaces” may have been the key variable in that case. As this example shows, there are LOTS of elements that can explain differences — elements that IMO are impossible to control using (quasi-) experimental designs.

Likewise, the Media Elements section of the report provides clues about possible practices related to using video effectively. For example, the Zhang study “found that the effect of video on learning hinged on the learner’s ability to control the video.” Now, read that sentence juxtaposed with the report’s summary paragraph for this section:

‘In summary, many researchers have hypothesized that the addition of images, graphics, audio, video or some combination would enhance student learning and positively affect achievement. However, the majority of studies to date have found that these media features do not affect learning outcomes significantly.’

Do you see the same disconnect that I do? On one level, this is simply an echo of Clark’s findings from 25+ years ago, as the report itself notes:

“Clark (1983) has cautioned against interpreting studies of instruction in different media as demonstrating an effect for a given medium inasmuch as conditions may vary with respect to a whole set of instructor and content variables.”

On another level, the report’s summary findings do NOT point out significant findings such as the Zhang study because, as one of my colleagues has put it, they are asking the wrong questions. But if you take the summary findings at face value, it’s easy to lose the more important and useful findings such as Zhang’s.

Also IMO, here is the report’s real message:

“That caution applies well to the findings of this meta-analysis, which should not be construed as demonstrating that online learning is superior as a medium. Rather, it is the combination of elements in the treatment conditions, which are likely to include additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration, that has proven effective. The meta-analysis findings do not support simply putting an existing course online, but they do support redesigning instruction to incorporate additional learning opportunities online.”

To me, that means that you’re much better off in looking at the “combination of elements in the treatment conditions” than in taking the report’s summary findings as stated and running with them.

One other important point about this report: it apparently fails to take differences in learning outcomes assessment methods into account. in some cases, they simply report that learning outcomes were the same (or not) without telling us what methods were used. This is a clear yellow flag IMO.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Evaluation, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning, Judith McDaniel, Office of Planning, Online learning, Policy Development, Steve Eskow, U.S. Department of Education | 2 Comments »

Brian Mulligan

Posted on August 10, 2009 by JimS

[This bio was first published on 10 Aug. 2012]

Brian Mulligan
Programme Manager
Centre for Online Learning
Institute of Technology
Sligo, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland
Online bio: http://brian.mulligan.googlepages.com/
Email: mulligan.brian@itsligo.ie

Brian Mulligan graduated as a Civil Engineer in 1978 from University College Dublin and later with a Masters in Engineering Design. His early employment was mostly in mathematical modelling and simulation and the application of information technology within engineering. He is currently on secondment as a Programme Manager responsible for online learning development in the Centre for Online Learning at the Institute of Technology Sligo where he has lectured since 1984. He has been instrumental in the rapid growth in online learning in IT Sligo since 2002 and significantly involved in the growth of e-learning in Ireland since 1999, organising the EdTech series of conferences since 2000 and as a founding member of the Irish Learning Technology Association in 2002. His main areas of expertise are now in web-casting, webinar management, synchronous online training, instructor-led online training, lecture capture and the rapid development of online training. He is the organiser of the IT Sligo/NDLR Teaching and Learning Webinar Series. He has recently started a blog on education here: “Well I wouldn’t start from here anyway!“. His personal website is: http://brian.mulligan.googlepages.com/

ETC Publications

Constructing a Sustainable Model for Higher Education: Part 1 – Disaggregation of Teaching

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Encounters: Blended Learning Is Largely an Illusion

Posted on July 25, 2009 by JimS

Introduction: This encounter begins with an idea, a “bump,” from Steve Eskow. It was originally posted as a reply to Lynn Zimmerman’s “Computers in the Classroom Can Be Boring.” Please participate in this encounter by posting a comment. I’ll append most or all of the comments to this page as they’re published. -js

Steve Eskow, editor, hybrid vs. virtual issues, on 24 July 2009, said:

What Lynn is confirming, I think, is that blended learning is largely an illusion.

The “campus” is a collection of spaces designed to feature a standing and speaking “instructor” and a sitting and silent “student.”

The “lecture hall” is designed for lecturing, not for computers.

Again, the “classroom” is designed for a standing instructor speaking to sitting students.

Despite all attempts to to mute or end the lecture, it continues to be–overwhelmingly–the favored mode of instruction in our elite colleges. And it should be: Why pay distinguished scholars to teach and not listen to them?

Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that the classroom and the computer are oil and water.

Claude Almansi, editor, accessibility issues & site accessibility facilitator, on 25 July 2009, at 11:09 am, said:

“Blended learning” always reminds me of the mush I prepared in a blender, scrupulously following sadistic pediatricians’ instructions to wean my daughter. She contemptuously spat it out. Then our landlady asked me: “Have you tried that revolting stuff yourself?” and had hysterics when I did. Then she suggested tiny pasta with peeled and seeded raw tomato and some parmesan cheese and real olive oil. It worked.

By the same token, maybe computers still do have their place in the classroom, but a separate, not blended one. I once organized an intensive French workshop for which I’d made a wiki, with the precise purpose that students would not be distracted by note-taking during discussions and other active things. There were the active moments, then there were other moments when they wrote about these activities in the wiki, or did other writing assignments, like captioning videos. It worked too.

Steve Eskow, on 25 July 2009, at 2:19 pm, said:

Claude, suppose we added the video captured lecture to the blog and the wiki, and occasional web cam interactgions between teacher and student.s Is there something important lacking in this pedagogy that requires us to bring teachers and students to specially constructed buildings for face-to-face interaction?

(I like very much your gastronomic illustration of “blending,” and will steal it shamelessly. I may change it to what happens when you “blend” two splendid fluids, wine and water.)

Claude Almansi, on 25 July 2009, at 8:10 pm, said:

Replying to: Steve Eskow’s July 25th, 2009 at 2:34 pm comment:

Steve, for foreign language learning, I still believe that F2F can produce better results, as discussing in real time is part of using a language. But I left the wiki online (micusif.wikispaces.com so that the students who took part in the workshop could refer to it during their MA course. And others too: they can use the references to the materials we used and the activities we did with them, and even a link to some abominable snapshots I took with a webcam of what we wrote on flip charts. No videos: I don’t know how to. Had I lectured, I might have made an audio recording (did some of their discussions).

Harry Keller, editor, science education, on 25 July 2009, at 11:11 am, said:

How many lectures have you attended that inspired you? What is the percentage? Most lectures I’ve attended would be just as good as pages in books.

Exceptions may abound. I was always engaged by Richard Feynman’s lectures. Perhaps, it was his engaging grin along with an infectious love of discovery and of explaining things so that his audience could comprehend. Still, the exceptions are rare.

Large lecture halls have been around for centuries. Maybe it’s time for them to give way to smaller venues and to social networking tools. My junior English literature classes typically had 3-5 students attending. Imagine having the professor (not a teaching assistant) almost to yourself.

I have sat in lectures by enough distinguished scholars. I’m talking about CalTech and Columbia. With few exceptions (e.g. Feynman), I could just as well as had a teaching assistant. Having distinction in scholarly affairs does not indicate lecturing talent. Great scholars are not always great teachers. Besides, they get paid for bringing in grant money and making the institution more famous. Undistinguished scholars (read assistant professors) are the ones who really get paid to teach.

So, yes, computers in the classroom take away from the interactive flavor that can be established by good teachers. Classrooms full of computers *look* boring. Computers at home or in the dorm room are another matter.

What will the future of instruction be? We’re in a state of extreme flux. The situation is too fluid to know for sure. It will include computers and the Internet. It will, for a long time anyway, include instructors. I predict that it will not include large lectures except as entertainment, which can be educating at times.

Steve Eskow, on 25 July 2009, at 2:34 pm, said:

Harry, if you were in charge of staffing for a new university, would you hire folks such as Richard Feynman and ask them to teach?

(I’m assuming that to take get faculty such as Feynman you’d have to offer them teaching loads no larger than five or six hours a week, right?)

Or would you not hire distingusiehd scholasr and researchers as teachers?

Harry Keller, on 25 July 2009, at 5:54 pm, said:

[@ Steve] Not ever having been a university administrator, I’m not certain what I’d do given the chance. I feel that the traditional role of institutions of higher education is being challenged. For many decades, students at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, et al. have discovered that their famous faculty is rarely seen by them.

These institutions perform two services. One is research and publication. The other is teaching. As much as I decry the University of Phoenix’s excessive concern with their bottom line, they have set out a model of the university solely as a teaching institution.

Universities have plenty of non-teaching researcher/publisher personnel who are called postdoctoral fellows. I was once a member of that tribe. Many professors view teaching undergraduates as a necessary evil they perform in order to hold a job at their chosen school.

The whole concept that undergraduate students will benefit from the crumbs that get scattered from on high makes little sense. What do they get for their high tuition? Mostly, they seem to get associations with their fellow students that will stand them in good stead in the future. The courses can be as good or better in other schools.

To answer your question, I would not be in charge of any part of a new university. If forced into it, I would have to understand fully the goals of that school before I could make such a decision.

It’s just as I harp on regarding science labs in secondary school. You shouldn’t do them until you know why you’re doing them. Teacher impose labs on students just because. Without clear reasons for having them, they’re a waste of time and money.

There are just too few Richard Feynman and Harry Gray types in the world to staff all of the universities that could use their services.

Claude Almansi, on 25 July 2009, at 8:10 pm, said:

Harry Keller’s July 25th, 2009 at 11:11 am comment. Re “I could just as well as had a teaching assistant” – when I had to take the history of the French language course in the 70’s, the professor was on sabbatical and his lectures were being read by his teaching assistant, who’d say things like “here the professor inserts a little joke:…” It was all the more zany as most other professors had agreed to have their lectures they repeated from year to year a) published as “polycopiés”; b) recorded on audio-cassettes, for students who could not attend lectures.

But like you, I also remember great lectures, like you: Jean Starobinski’s, George Steiner’s for instance. But thei impact was also due to the fact that they were combined with seminars where we could discuss with them.

Carrie Heeter, editor, games development, on 25 July 2009, at 4:22 pm, said:

Blended learning is the best!

I feel that my fully online courses finally became as good as or better than in person classes when I added one hour of synchronous time per week. My students report valuing the mix, claiming to enjoy it much more than fully online classes.

I never lecture during our precious hour. The online aspects of my blended courses include lots of mini-lectures (10 to 20 minutes of audio, often plus power point or video) and guest interviews (10 to 15 minute edited audio interviews with industry professionals), plus online readings. Individual and group project work also occurs outside of the hour “together.”

I use the hour to answer and ask questions. We often use polleverywhere,com to have small breakout discussions and come back and vote on an intriguing question. We negotiate changes in class assignments, and coordinate forming groups for group projects.

It would impair the quality of the student experience if I were not allowed to blend a dash of synchronicity.

Harry Keller, on 25 July 2009, at 5:58 pm, said:

[@ Carrie] You are reaching the perfect blend of blended instruction. You have figured out what instructors really can do best. You plan the course and then you execute it while making yourself the moderator of the discussions that you engender. The last part is critical for science and, I assume, for many other subjects as well.

Students should be full of questions raised by the curriculum you created. By having them discuss these questions among themselves with an expert helping to guide them, they’ll learn more than from a hundred hours of lectures.

Jim Shimabukuro, editor, on 25 July 2009, at 8:00 pm, said:

Carrie, I think your definition of “blended” is unique. I believe most people would define “blended” as combinations of F2F physical meetings in a classroom and online activities such as participating in forums and logging in to webpages for readings. I also believe that many define “blended” as a smart classroom where instructor and students meet, F2F, and use the equipment to extend the learning environment to incorporate the web as well as social networks that allow all participants to communicate virtually. In some cases, the blended class replaces F2F meetings with online synchronous or asynchronous activities.

Then there are online classes that require a very small number of F2F physical meetings, sometimes as few as 1 or 2. I’m not sure exactly how to categorize these, but I think most would say these are online classes with minimal F2F requirements. Purists, though, might argue that even a single F2F requirement makes this a blended class. The point is that that requirement automatically excludes large numbers of students who cannot meet the F2F requirements. I tend to be a purist, but I’d be hard pressed to come up with a viable justification for my position.

IMHO, Carrie, your classes aren’t blended. They’re completely online but with synchronous requirements. Students and instructors can participate from anywhere without ever having to physically attend a required F2F session. I believe most online instructors require or at least encourage synchronous activities. For my completely online classes, I know that I always enjoy impromptu live interactions in the chat room that’s built into our university’s Sakai course management system. I drop in at times when I know many are online, working on assignments.

But I also know that, at least for my students, a synchronous requirement would be a huge stumbling block, negating the primary attraction that online has for them, which is the freedom to log in when it’s most convenient for them. My guess is that your population of students differs from mine, and this is why synchronous works for you and wouldn’t work for me.

Carrie Heeter, on 26 July 2009, at 6:31 am, said:

Jim,

Actually, my students are F2F together (in Michigan) for the in person part, although I am online, for our synchronous hour. Since my department currently does not offer an online curriculum, the students are physically on campus. I Skype and Breeze in to the group. For my Serious Game Design class, they meet in a lab. For the Design Research class, they meet in a classroom.

However, I do entertain a mixed blended mode for those who live relatively far from campus. Students have the option of coming in person, or coming electronically.

It depends on the class composition each semester, but typically either all or most are F2F in the traditional sense, except that the instructor telecommutes.

Jim Shimabukuro, on 26 July 2009, at 8:05 am, said:

Thanks for the clarification, Carrie. I should’ve remembered this from your earlier articles Online Hybrid as Asynchronous, Co-present, and Remote and Adventures in Hybrid Teaching: The First Day Is the Hardest. Your courses are, indeed, unique. Still, the fact that you’re in San Francisco and the students are in Michigan tells me that the course is theoretically fully online — and the only major physical difference with other online classes is that the students happen to regularly gather in the same place at the same time, F2F, for sessions. They could just as easily be scattered throughout the world for instruction to occur, with their peer-to-peer interactions occurring virtually instead of F2F. However, I do realize that the students’ in-person interactions on site are qualitatively different from virtual interactions.

Harry Keller, on 26 July 2009, at 1:16 pm, said:

Carrie, I still think you’ve got the right idea. The tools may be incomplete, but the direction is good. The real advantage for young people to go to universities lies in getting away from their home towns, meeting diverse people, making friendships that will be useful in the future, and stuff like that. As our network tools mature, those goals also may be achievable in online settings.

The courses are just an excuse these days because you can learn course content without “being there.” You may even learn it better.

I went to an atypical school and have to carefully avoid using my own experience as a guide most of the time. I did not obtain the advantages I listed above because: I lived at home; everyone was a nerd and most were white males, and I maintained contact with none of my schoolmates. I am ready to be corrected if I have misread the more usual university environment.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: age of Twitter, Blended Learning, campus, classroom, Colleges, computer, Computers in the Classroom Can Be Boring, editor, Encounters, etc, Hybrid, illusion, instructor, issues, lecture hall, Lynn Zimmerman, scholars, Steve Eskow, student, Twitter, virtual | 10 Comments »

Computers in the Classroom Can Be Boring

Posted on July 24, 2009 by JimS

By Lynn Zimmerman
Editor, Teacher Education

The headline of an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education this week caught my attention: “‘Teach Naked’ Effort Strips Computers from Classrooms.” The article, posted on July 20, 2009, is written by Jeffrey Young and is actually called “When Computers Leave the Classroom, So Does Boredom.”

Young writes that, according to studies, students think lectures and labs depending on computer technology are less interesting than those relying on discussion and interaction. PowerPoint presentations (one of the main areas of complaint), for example, are often used as a replacement for transparencies shown on an overhead projector and make no substantive difference in lesson delivery. An effective use of video technology should be to spark discussion and not be a replacement for a lecture.

Young says students also complain that these interactive classes require more effort than lectures. He says that students who are used to the lecture model are often resistant to this type of participatory learning. I can attest to this from my own experience. I teach my face-to-face classes seminar-style with small group and large group activities and discussion. I will never forget one student telling me, “Instead of all this group stuff, why don’t you just tell us what you want us to know.” (Unfortunately, that student is now a teacher who probably lectures to his students.)

Despite its title, the article is not insisting that all technology and all computers should be thrown out of the classroom. It is making the point that the way technology is used in the classroom needs to be reassessed and changed so that it is not just being used to replicate the traditional modes of delivery.

Many of the authors in this journal have advocated just such changes (most recently, Judith Sotir in Two Steps Forward . . . Several Back and Judith McDaniel in What Students Want and How to Design for It: A Reflection on Online Teaching). As McDaniel pointed out, we need to “design for a structure that challenges and rewards.”

I agree that this attention to design is important not only in the online environment McDaniel was referring to but also in the face-to-face classroom with or without technology. As Young says, with stiff competition from online courses, face-to-face courses need to engage students so that they see a reason for being in the classroom.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: A Reflection on Online Teaching, Boredom, boring, Chronicle of Higher Education, classroom, Effort Strips Computers from Classrooms, face to face, Jeffrey Young, Judith McDaniel, Judith Sotir, lecture, Lynn Zimmerman, Online, PowerPoint, So Does Boredom, Teach Naked, Two Steps Forward . . . Several Back, Video, What Students Want and How to Design for It, When Computers Leave the Classroom | 6 Comments »

Two Steps Forward . . . Several Back

Posted on July 22, 2009 by JimS

By Judith Sotir

I absolutely agree with Judith McDaniel (What Students Want and How to Design for It: A Reflection on Online Teaching, posted on July 19, 2009) that online learning of any sort requires a different dynamic than traditional teaching techniques. Although technology has moved from an interesting idea in the latter part of the last century to a defining role in this century, I don’t see schools necessarily following suit.

A good example is a recent workshop I did for staff from a local school district. The instructors specifically requested a workshop on “Using Blogs and Wikis in the Classroom” and were willing to give up some summer sun hours to attend. The tech coordinator (or facilitator, since the position of technology coordinator was eliminated and a principal stepped in to fill the gap) was more than willing to set up the workshop. However, when I got to the school (and remember, the TOPIC was blogs and wikis), I found that the firewalls blocked all access to any form of social websites, including blogs and wikis. I spent a good amount of time with the IT department getting access to a limited number of blogs and had to verify the content of those (even my own, by the way) I was given access to.

Even after gaining access, throughout the workshop, that access was spotty, as links were sometimes allowed and sometimes blocked. From the instructor viewpoint, wanting to bring these tools into the classroom was questionable, given that experience. While filtering websites is important to schools, better dialogue is needed to allow instructors the access they need to teaching tools while still maintaining control of questionable content.

As a former school board member, I recall similar issues in the late’ 80s and ’90s with the IT department, administrators, and even board colleagues regarding having access to the Internet itself from the classrooms. While they saw the value of administrators and staff using the Internet, they balked at allowing the same access in the classrooms. I understand well the frustration of instructors who want to use these tools with their students but run into brick walls when they try.

While not identical, limiting access to Internet resources strikes me as similar to banning books. Instead of allowing instructors to develop educational content as needed, a concern from a limited group blocks all access to these sites. A better dialogue needs to be developed, including perhaps even a faculty liaison committee to bring these concerns to the proper channels. Simply assuming that teaching with computers is the same as traditional teaching keeps students from the tools they need to succeed in the real world.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: A Reflection on Online Teaching, Access, administrators, blocked, blogs, classrooms, coordinator, filtering, firewalls, instructors, Internet, IT department, Judith McDaniel, Judith Sotir, learning, Online, principal, school board, social, Staff, students, tech, Using Blogs and Wikis in the Classroom, websites, What Students Want and How to Design for It, wikis | Leave a comment »

Science Labs Don’t Have to Cost an Arm and a Leg

Posted on July 21, 2009 by JimS

By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education

A recent article in District Adminstration magazine discusses the aging science labs in schools across our nation and the cost of upgrading them all.

The article points out that science standards have been raised recently while lab facilities have been left to deteriorate. It says that the costs of fixing the existing labs run between $150 and $200 per square foot, meaning that an adequate lab space for 24 students will cost around $250,000 to upgrade.

In these days of plunging school budgets, this allocation of funds is simply not possible. When you add in the cost of including science labs in new school construction and count all of the schools around the country that are likely to require upgrades, the cost of fancy science lab facilities can reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

However, there’s another answer. Scale back the full upgrade of the lab spaces so that only inexpensive, safe, and efficient hands-on labs remain. Safety equipment may be partially eliminated. Gas would no longer be required. Bunsen burners come from the 19th century and are really archaic today. Highly chemical resistant desktops could be replaced with less expensive alternatives.

Why can we make this adjustment? Because the primary advantages of hands-on labs are two-fold.

They provide a kinesthetic learning experience, rounding out the other learning in science classes.
They allow students to do experimental design and redesign, providing excellent experience in understanding the nature of science and in developing scientific reasoning skills.

Any other purpose cited for having hands-on labs either can be handled in alternate, safer, and less expensive ways or is not really necessary for high school students. The two purposes listed above are easily achieved in a facility that is no more complex or expensive than a kitchen. While such facilities are more expensive than ordinary classrooms, they fall far below the cost of a fully-equipped science lab.

What do you then do to provide the science experiences that can’t be conducted in a kitchen? After all, simulations will not do. They misrepresent the nature of science and can even deliver erroneous results. The data all come from a programmer’s pencil, which cannot represent the real world and may have other flaws as well.

To many, simulations are the “new thing.” Actually, people have been using simulations for a very long time. Uranus and Neptune were discovered with the assistance of simulations. Note that these simulations were not being investigated but were a tool being used to investigate the solar system where the real data was being collected. The recent widespread availability of inexpensive computer time simply meant that simulations could be done with less expense and in less time.

Replacing science labs with simulations has become popular with some for a number of reasons, including cost, safety, and the “gee-whiz” factor of using a computer and seeing animations. None of these are valid excuses for cheating students of the opportunity to investigate the real world.

Instead, we must find newer ways to use the available technology to provide true inquiry science experiences. Ideally, science labs should allow students to inquire, explore, and discover. Even when this goal is only partially realized, the labs should advance the goals of understanding the nature of science and of developing scientific reasoning skills. Any other use wastes valuable class time.

It’s time to harness our country’s ability to innovate and convert new ideas into great products. My personal efforts have centered on prerecorded real experiments. Others must also have ideas that can bring us better science education for less money. The future will require no less, and we can no longer afford these show-piece science labs that don’t deliver learning value in proportion to their cost.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: District Adminstration, Harry Keller, inquiry, Labs, Schools, Science, Science Education, simulations | Leave a comment »

Green Computing – Clippings from the Web

Posted on July 21, 2009 by JimS

By John Thompson
Editor, Green Computing

Green computing. Green IT. Whatever you call it, it still means the same thing – doing what you can to reduce the carbon footprint associated with technology use, whether using technology at home or on the office desk or in the IT department’s lair.

Here are a few snippets from recent Web sites, blogs, etc. Click on the associated link to finish reading “the rest of the story” (as Paul Harvey would say).

Green Computing – Laptop Only Offices

There are ways to go green in IT that might not be obvious. Some businesses may have already made the change to laptops for reasons other than portability and a traveling workforce. Laptops are power savers, and saving power is a green goal. Let’s look at how laptops can help you go green.

http://superbatteryy.blogspot.com/2009/07/green-computing-laptop-only-offices.html

MIS 1 Assignment4: Green Campus Computing

The growing use of computers on campus has caused a dramatic increase in energy consumption, putting negative pressure on CU’s budget and the environment. Each year more and more computers are purchased and put to use, but it’s not just the number of computers that is driving energy consumption upward. The way that we use computers also adds to the increasing energy burden.
http://emilios-blog-emilio.blogspot.com/2009/07/mis-1-assignment4-green-campus.html

Seven Design Considerations for a Green Data Centre

IT departments are under increasing scrutiny and pressure to deliver environmentally‐sound solutions. Large data centres are one of the most significant energy consumers in an organisation’s IT infrastrucure so any measures that can be taken to reduce this consumption (and therefore also carbon dioxide emissions) will have a positive impact on an organisation’s environmental footprint.

http://expressiongreen.com/2009/07/19/seven-design-considerations-for-a-green-data-centre/

Green Campus Computing

Green computing is the study and practice of using computing resources efficiently. The primary objective of such a program is to account for the triple bottom line, an expanded spectrum of values and criteria for measuring organizational (and societal) success. The goals are similar to green chemistry: reduce the use of hazardous materials, maximize energy efficiency during the product’s lifetime, and promote recyclability or biodegradability of defunct products and factory waste.

http://juvz14.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-green-computing-green-computing.html

Google banks on data centre with no chillers

Google has taken a radical new approach when it comes to cooling data centres. The search giant has opened a unique data centre in Belgium that has no backup chillers installed but, instead, relies totally upon free air cooling to keep its servers cool.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/311616/google_banks_data_centre_no_chillers

The Sustainability Potential of Cloud Computing: Smarter Design

If you listen to venture capitalists and tech gurus, cloud computing is “the new dot-com,” the “biggest shift in computing in two decades” or even the “Cambrian explosion” of the technology era. Among its other heavenly attributes, the cloud is being touted for its ability to address the enormous need for energy efficiency of IT’s own footprint.

http://ow.ly/15IfwE

Greening the Internet: How Much CO2 Does This Article Produce?

Twenty milligrams – that’s the average amount of carbon emissions generated from the time it took you to read the first two words of this article. Now, depending on how quickly you read, around 80, perhaps even 100 milligrams of CO2 have been released. And in the several minutes it will take you to get to the end of this story, the number of milligrams of greenhouse gas emitted could be several thousand, if not more.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/07/10/green.internet.CO2/index.html

Sustainable Desktop Computing

To achieve a sustained reduction in energy consumption associated with desktop computers we recommend groups across the collegiate university to work through these five steps:

Step 1: Estimate. First estimate how much electricity your desktop computing infrastructure will consume if computers are (a) left on all the time or (b) switched off at the end of the day.

Step 2: Research. Many groups within the university and around the world have implemented projects to reduce IT-related greenhouse gas emissions and costs. OUCS is working with these groups to write up a variety of approaches in the form of case studies.

Step 3: Implement. There are many tools you can implement to reduce IT-related electricity consumption. How you achieve this within your group will depend on the needs and skills of your users, and the hardware and software infrastructure you own.

Step 4: Communicate. You will need to encourage as many people as possible to “do their bit.” Behavioural change is likely to be a significant and critical part of any initiative that aims to improve environmental performance.

Step 5: Share. In step two we suggest you read about the work of other groups. In this last step we encourage you to share your experiences by documenting your approach in the form of a case study.

http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/greenit/desktop.xml

Happy reading “the rest of the story.” Where/how did I find this material? Using Tweetdeck, I set up Twitter searches on “green computing” and “green IT,” although almost all the URLs were found in the “green computing” (without using quotation marks) search. Using “green it” (with and without quotation marks) yielded mostly junk results. There was redundancy in the resulting tweets as people send retweets of the same information, plus there were soft/hard sells for related products. But you also find such information as cited above. You also might want to view my archived “Webinar, Blueprint for Green Computing,” found at the inaugural Virtual FOSE show’s site, http://virtual.fose.com/. It is a free registration.

Besides all this material, I hope that the resulting comments to this blog posting will contain more such green computing sites chockfull of more good information.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Belgium, Blueprint for Green Computing, Clippings from the Web, Cloud Computing, computerworld, Desktop Computing, emilios-blog-emilio, expressiongreen, Google, Green Computing, Green IT, green.internet.CO2, greenhouse gas, hazardous materials, John Thompson, juvz14, Laptop Only Offices, Laptops, new dot-com, Paul Harvey, superbatteryy, Sustainability, Tweetdeck, Twitter, Virtual FOSE, Webinar | Leave a comment »

What Students Want and How to Design for It: A Reflection on Online Teaching

Posted on July 19, 2009 by JimS

By Judith McDaniel
Editor, Web-based Course Design

I just finished teaching my Women in Western Culture course online for the third time. The course materials span from prehistory—in the form of various creation myths in diverse cultures—to modern art and literature. It’s a quick overview with a theme: How were women seen in each of these instances and did the literature create or reflect women’s positions in the culture? Topics for discussion include the effect of religious myth on gender stereotypes, gender expectations of men and women, gender biases in language, among others. This is a class that I have taught at least a dozen times in a face-to-face format over the last 15 years. In the summer of 2008, I designed the class for online presentation for the first time.

Here are a few of the comments from students at the end of this summer term. I offer them not to compliment myself but to lead into an examination of what these students appreciate in a university level course and how we can design experiences that will take them there.

Preference for online format—personal interaction and group dynamics:

Ellie—I would definitely recommend a class like this, whether it was a boy or a girl. I think that an online class like this may be an even better experience because people can express their feelings and reactions to certain readings without having to worry about the reactions of their classmates. I am very glad I took this class.

Grant—I’m glad I’m not the only one who felt like it was easier to post my opinion online than in a classroom. When I started posting I was sort of nervous about posting my ideas, but after a little while I felt a lot more comfortable with it than I would have in a classroom. I’m not sure what it is exactly, but I guess just not having to see everyone’s responses immediately kinda changes things.

Ashley—I would definitely recommend this class to a friend. I would tell them to take it in an online format over a classroom format. This class requires your opinion and not everyone is comfortable in expressing their opinion in a classroom format because they don’t want to be judge. The online format makes you worry less about other peoples judgments which makes it easier to express your opinion.

Hoi Ying—I agree with you that this class is perfect for web-delivered. Since some of the topics that we discussed were relatively controversial, it was better for us to discuss it online, where we would not see each other’s races and sexes. I know I certainly would be too embarrassed or timid to voice my opinion in the classroom.

How do we design for anonymity and protection of opinions?

We don’t. To a large extent, this is one of the gifts of the online format. Students don’t see one another and any intimacy they develop (and they do grow to know and like one another in varying degrees) is based on their expression of ideas and exchange of ideas. The one important role for an instructor in this regard is making sure that appropriate online etiquette is described, modeled, and enforced.

Significant learning from online interactive discussions:

Arlene—The most surprising thing that happened consistently over this semester, was not necessarily in relation to the readings, but to the responses that my classmates had for each discussion. I was so surprised by the numerous postings, holding such high quality and different responses. There were definitely remarks made that I had never considered before reading their posting. All I can say for my fellow classmates is job well done, you made it easier for me to discuss the readings – whether it was giving me a new perspective or answering a question that I simply couldn’t answer. Actually, to be completely honest, I enjoyed every day that we had discussions because I could write what I thought and have the ability to comment on the totally opposite idea that someone else had. There were definitely some good discussions from this semester.

Keith—The thing that surprised me the most was that the course wasn’t about women’s oppression in the business world or the objectification of women in the media but the course was more about the oppression of a woman’s ability to think and act for herself. The most important thing I learned was to listen to not just women but to other people as they express their opinion because i never know when they may bring up a topic or have an idea that I never thought about. This will help me with being a doctor and being a better human being.

Carley—When you mentioned that each classmate has very different ideas and opinions that they bring to the discussion, and it helps you form your own ideas, I can honestly agree. In the beginning of the class I would always read what everyone said before me but I realized that wouldn’t help me when it came to my turn to write my initial post. I think it really helps to go with your gut instinct of what you pulled to the reading. It brings more conversation, cause you might find people agree and disagree with you but it helps you learn.

How do we design for interactive discussions?

The first time I taught this course, I was pretty pleased with myself when I looked at the discussion forums I had created. And then I wasn’t. Student responses were perfunctory, not expansive. I required them to “respond” to one or two other postings, which they did in very limited ways: “Oh, great idea!” or “I guess I hadn’t thought of that.” I went back to the drawing board with the discussions remaining and was more specific. “Respond to an opinion that disagrees with yours.” That was better, but an even greater improvement came when I asked them to “Respond to an opinion that disagrees with yours and ask a question about the source of that opinion.”

I also developed a rubric to give the students along with the syllabus: “How will I be graded in these online discussions?” A response that is social rather than an intellectual engagement will receive no points. A perfunctory response that indicates the reading has been done will receive one point. The highest level (5 points) requires engagement, a reference to the reading for the post (or previous posts), and a question that will further the discussion. It did not take long before most students became very good conversationalists.

Hard work that is rewarding and rewarded:

Brittany—It was somewhat difficult because I worked everyday of this course, but it was not impossible to do in any way, shape or form. It definitely kept me on my toes though! In fact, I read more for this course than I did all last semester…I learned a lot, but each of us had to put effort into this class, it wasn’t to be taken lightly or for an easy grade. This course was structured to learn and grow, which is honestly what I believe happened for us all. I have not read one posting that said my fellow classmate learned nothing during this semester.

Cameron—I agree this class was a lot of work but I feel that McDaniel did her best to structure this class in a way that all people are able to do the work especially when they work everyday. This was also the best history class I have taken and would also recommend it to anyone

How do we design for a structure that challenges and rewards?

When I am designing a course for web delivery, I spend more time than otherwise attempting to balance the amount of time and work a student will need to commit. I want the reading to be fairly even across the course, which is hard when I have some poems, some short stories, and some novels. I bring in feature length films, video excerpts, both short (3 minutes) and longer (up to 20 minutes). I try to alternate straight reading assignments with time spent in interactive research on the web.

I use no lecture material in this course. All of the information is included in the prefaces to the discussion prompts, the background for the Essay responses, and in my interjections during the students’ discussions—just to make sure they have all of the pieces I want them to be considering. Moving away from the lecture format was both scary and freeing for me. After 30 years doing it one way, I had to be reassured over and over that students would have an equivalent (if not better) learning experience as I began to adopt this new format.

Discovery through original research:

Corey—I also found it interesting to learn about the Bloomsbury group. I had no idea that a group like that with such sexual differences existed in a time era that anything out of the ordinary would classify you as different.

Erika—I was actually really excited when I saw today’s assignment because I already had an idea of who I wanted to talk about! I come from a family of photographers (My grandfather was a published photographer) so it has been a passed-down passion. The female artist I wanted to reference and discuss was Annie Leibovitz. She has taken many famous photographs that many people may not know that they were hers. Annie became interested in photography in high school and then went to learn at the San Francisco Art institute and then started doing photography while living in the Philippines during the Vietnam War. She returned to the states in 1970 and became a photographer for Rolling Stone magazine, which she worked for until 1983. Her most famous photograph was that of John Lennon and Yoko Ono where Lennon is curled up next to Ono.

How do we use the web and its resources for original research online?

What I have learned since I started teaching online, which I had not been aware of in quite the same way before, is what extraordinary resources are available for teachers and students. I need to make sure the quality meets my standards, but I would never be able to find a better intellectual resource, for example, than the website produced by a Brandeis University professor on a Shinto shrine in Japan—the history, the present day use, the myths that support it, and the art work that has grown up around it.

In this Western Culture class, I had three original research projects: one on creation myths, one on women artists from 1975-2009, and one on the social and historical background of Virginia Woolf’s novel, Mrs. Dalloway. I think the danger for a course designer is to become trapped in the idea that “equivalency” means using all of the same tools but somehow just shifting them from the classroom or library to the web. To some extent, we can do that, but if we do that we are missing a huge potential learning experience for our students. To me, encouraging our students to live that classic goal of higher education, the life of the mind, means giving them engaging research to do and a forum in which to discuss it with peers and mentor(s).

And in conclusion:

Sarah—I think the most important thing I learned from this class is being a better writer. Having to write a paper each week, and a discussion each day really improved my writing skills. I found out that I really enjoyed talking to people in our discussions, and finding ways that I could add to the conversation. I think this type of learning is very important because you learn from your other classmates. They might have found something in the text that you missed or didn’t understand. I also really liked this class cause it breaks you out of your shell and requires you to converse with other classmates. Overall I think this class has brought great improvements to myself as a writer. I’m not as afraid to write papers each week.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Annie Leibovitz, Bloomsbury group, Brandeis University, course, creation myths, Design, diverse cultures, Japan, John Lennon, Judith McDaniel, literature, modern art, Mrs. Dalloway, Rolling Stone, Shinto shrine, Virginia Woolf, web, Western Culture, Women in Western Culture, Yoko Ono | Leave a comment »

Google Book Search Settlement Unfair to Non-US Authors

Posted on July 12, 2009 by Claude Almansi

By Claude Almansi
Editor, Accessibility Issues

Of Books and Vegetables

I first thought of calling this post “Of Books and Vegetables” because, when I half woke up the morning after I sent a letter of objection to the Google Book Search Settlement, I remembered Ms B. and the building site for a middle school in Cortona. The building activity had stopped just after the ground had been cleared, due to blocked funds. So for two years, Ms B., who lived on the other side of the street, used it to grow very tasty tomatoes and zucchini No one objected to this private exploitation of the site: it would have been silly to waste its potential, and Ms B. generously shared her vegetables with friends and neighbours. When the funding issue was solved, the building started again and her vegetable patch was bulldozed.

I chose a more conservative title because the analogy with Google scanning out-of-print works in libraries is imperfect: if a big canning industry, instead of Ms B., had started to grow vegetables on the building site, the borough of Cortona would probably have tried to levy a rental for this use. But the principle remains: it is silly, even immoral, to waste potential revenue – especially if its exploitation will serve the public.

Challenging or objecting?

So I did not object to the Google Book Search Settlement for the same proprietary reasons as the eminent cultural personalities who signed the Heidelberg Appeal (English text – German text with signatures):

Actually, I did not mean to object: at first I only challenged the Settlement Registry’s classifying as “not commercially available” the Google scan of Theatre of Sleep, an anthology my late husband Guido Almansi and I had edited and published with Pan Books in 1986 – and for which, after his death in 2001, I was the remaining mentioned copyright holder.

The physical book has indeed been out of print for years, but it contains many excerpts from in-copyright and commercially available works, which we had obtained permission to use in – and only in – the Pan Book version. Even if the Settlement foresees the possibility for right holders on such excerpts to claim them and forbid Google to display them, some right holders might not know about the Settlement, or not remember exclusive permissions granted decades ago; besides, the search engine of the Settlement registry often does not find the authors of such excerpts. Under our initial transactions for Theatre of Sleep, I am answerable to these right holders – no pact between parties who had nothing to do with these transactions can change this.

Another reason not to allow Google to display even the rest of the anthology under the Settlement’s conditions was the absolutely unacceptable digital restriction of what – paying – users would be able to print or copypaste from Google books. Such digital restriction measures just don’t work: in Copying from a Google Book, I show how easy it is to do so even with theoretically thus restricted works. And if users pay for an e-book, they should be able to do what they want with it for personal use. So I made an unprotected e-version of what was legally offerable in Theatre of Sleep, and uploaded it in archive.org/details/TheatreOfSleep, an in-progress version because I will re-add in-copyright texts when I get permission again.

Foreign authors and the Settlement

I could have left things at that, without objecting to the Settlement. But Peter Brantley of the Internet Archive pointed out in an e-mail that many people who are hit by the Settlement and utterly dislike it do not object because it is too complex and they have no legal training. This is my situation too, so I included the excessive complexity of the Settlement in my objections.

Then there was another reason for objecting. Guido and I also did an adaptation of Theatre of Sleep for the Italian readership – Teatro del Sonno – which was published by Garzanti in 1988, is out of print, and has been scanned by Google. For that one we had ceded the copyright to Garzanti, mainly because we did not want to send the permission requests all over again and Garzanti could do that more easily.

But Garzanti has not yet claimed Teatro del Sonno under the Settlement. Its editorial director explained to me that Italian publishers have chosen to wait for the result of the Final Fairness Hearing about it, in case it results in its invalidation: due to the imprecision of the Registry’s search engine, checking what Google has and has not scanned is very time-consuming. Though they are very displeased with the Settlement, Italian publishers are not objecting either, apparently. Above all, they are not systematically informing their authors about the Settlement.

Considering what little info non-US media gave about the Settlement, we are left with the impression that it was a US-only affair. However, this lack of information puts non-US authors at risk. As Mary Minow explained in Google Book Settlement, orphan works, and foreign works (LibraryLaw Blog, April 21, 2009):

The largest group of non-active rights holders are likely to be foreign authors. In spite of Google’s efforts to publicize the settlement abroad, I suspect that most foreign rights owners of out-of-print books will fail to register with the Registry. There are a couple of reasons for this. For one, they may not know that their book is still protected by copyright in the US. In addition, they may assume that international network of reproduction rights organizations would manage their royalties, and not understand the need to register separately. . . .

If there is an injustice being done in the settlement, it is with foreign authors.

Also, if foreign right-holders do not object to the Settlement, how is the US Court to know that they disapprove of it?

Letter of objections

Hence my letter of objections, below. Not because I think they are representative of non-US objections, but because I believe it is important that non-US right-holders object to the Settlement if they disapprove of it, even if their reasons are very different. The deadline for doing so is Sept. 4, 2009, and for the modalities, see 24. How can I object to the Settlement? in the Settlement’s FAQs.

View this document on Scribd

Direct download links: PDF – ODT

Links

I have gathered / am gathering some bookmarks about the Settlement in diigo.com/user/calmansi/googlesettlement. Several of those, in particular about its repercussions outside US, come from the very useful Google Settlement Information, Documents, News & Links page in Michael W. Perry’s Inkling Books.

Credits

By order of appearance:

Tomato: from commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tomato-cut_vertical.png, under a creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0 license.
Book: from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dubbel2.jpg , under a creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0 license.
Cattle Rustlers!: Uploaded to Flickr by Divine Harvester ™ NOW DISHWASHER SAFE!!!, under a creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license.

Filed under: Accessibility | Tagged: authors, books, Brantley, Cortona, foreign works, Garzanti, Google, Google Book Search Settlement, Google books, Heidelberg, Internet Archive, Italy, LibraryLaw, Mary Minow, Minow, non-US, objection, orphan works, Pan Books, Peter Brantley, Settlement, Teatro del Sonno, Theatre of Sleep, US, vegetables | Leave a comment »

‘At-Risk’ – Concerns About Its Effectiveness

Posted on July 11, 2009 by JimS

By Judith McDaniel
Editor, Web-based Course Design

[Note: Judith McDaniel originally posted this as a comment to Carrie Heeter’s “Review of ‘At-Risk’: A Simulation Training Program for College Staff.” We’ve decided to publish it as an article to stimulate further discussion on this and similar simulation programs. -js]

Carrie – thanks for the interesting summary and analysis of At Risk. I had several responses myself after trying out the same “free” sample interaction that you did. Let me see if I can summarize some of my discomfort with this product.

First, I don’t think I have had a class at the university level with only 20 students in it since the 1980s. So for me, one necessary assumption is that most instructors are going to be dealing with far larger classes than the one represented here – at least double, probably triple or more. That makes this entire process problematic for me since it assumes that I will be talking to these students about their work outside of class – and in very large classes that seldom happens.

I am concerned too that my role as an instructor, not a therapist or counselor, not be confused – by me or by my students.

Further, the self-reporting of changed attitudes is interesting. I did not have the same experience that you did with feeling more comfortable. But that aside, self-reporting, no matter how well-meaning, is not evidence that the program works. Changed behavior in terms of frequency of reporting would be more relevant, but of course that takes years and $ investment.

I also found the “flags” for what we should notice in our students to border on the ludicrous. Does a student come to class looking tired and with messy hair? Yes, that describes about half of a freshman class in early November. Is a student anxious or withdrawn or sullen or non-participative? Yes, inevitably when there are 100 or more students in a class, that describes some of them. I have never found that to correlate to a need for referral . . . that I would have known.

And, finally, that is my last discomfort. I did have a student who disappeared last semester two-thirds of the way through class. She had been doing really well. Emails did not get a response. Finally, the last week of the class, she reappeared. She had been hospitalized after a suicide attempt and was back. I am still working with her to finish her Incomplete. But could I have referred her sooner? I honestly can’t imagine how. Would having taken this training have let me identify her? Not from what I have seen of it.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: At-Risk, attitudes, Carrie Heeter, counselor, instructor, Judith McDaniel, self-reporting, students, suicide attempt, therapist | Leave a comment »

Meet the Endless Summer – A Review of ED-MEDIA 2009

Posted on July 10, 2009 by JimS

By Stefanie Panke
Editor, Social Software in Education

The 21^st annualWorld Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA) attracted 1200 participants from 65 countries. A diverse crowd, including K-12 teachers, university faculty members, researchers, software developers, instructional designers, administrators and multimedia authors, came together at the Sheraton Waikiki Hotel from the 22^nd to 26^th of June with a common goal: to share the latest ideas on e-learning and e-teaching in various educational settings and at the same time enjoy the aloha spirit of tropical Oahu, Hawaii.

Organized by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), the annual conference takes place at varying locations in the US, Europe and Canada. Thanks to funding by the German Academic Exchange Agency, I was able to join my colleagues in Hawaii to present two current research projects on social tagging and blended learning and en passant absorb the international flair and information overflow that go together with a packed conference program.

The attendees experienced a full program. In addition to various invited lectures, 210 full papers and 235 brief papers were presented, complemented by numerous symposiums, round tables, workshops and an extensive poster session. The conference proves to be exceedingly competitive with an acceptance ratio for full paper submissions of 37%, and 56% for brief papers. Eleven submissions were honored with an outstanding paper award. My favorite was the work of Grace Lin and Curt Bonk on the community Wikibooks, which can be downloaded from their project page.

Beginning with Hawaiian chants to welcome the participants at the official conference opening and the local adage that “the voice is the highest gift we can give to other people,” audio learning and sonic media formed a recurring topic. The keynote of Tara Brabazon challenged the widely held perception that “more media are always better media” and argued for carefully developed sonic material as a motivating learning format. She illustrated her point with examples and evaluation results from a course on methods of media research (see YouTube excerpt below). Case study reports from George Washington University and Chicago’s DePaul University on iTunesU raised questions about the integration into learning management systems, single-sign-on-procedures and access management.

Among the invited lectures, I was particularly interested in the contribution of New York Times reporter Alex Wright, who reflected upon the history of hypertext. The author’s web site offers further information on The Web that Wasn’t. Alan Levine, vice-president of the Austin based New Media Consortium, clearly was the darling of the audience. Unfortunately, his talk took place in parallel to my own presentation on social tagging, but Alan has created a web site with his slides and hyperlink collection that gives a vivid overview on “50+ Web 2.0 ways to tell a story.”

A leitmotif of several keynotes was the conflict between open constructivist learning environments on one side versus instructional design models and design principles derived from cognitive psychology on the other. Stephen Downes advocated the learning paradigm of connectivism and praised self-organized learning networks that provide, share, re-use and re-arrange content. For those interested in further information on connectivism, an open content class starts in August 2009. This radical turn to free flowing, egalitarian knowledge networks was not a palatable idea for everyone. As an antagonist to Downes, David Merrill presented his “Pebble in the Pond” instructional design model that — similar to “ADDIE” (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation) — foresees clear steps and predictable learning outcomes. Tom Reeves, in turn, dedicated his keynote to a comprehensive criticism of multimedia principles derived from the cognitive load theory, picking up on an article by Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006), “Why Minimal Guidance Does Not Work . . . .” The audience, in particular the practitioners, reacted to this debate true to the Goethe verse “Prophet left, prophet right, the world child in the middle.” As Steve Swithenby, director of the Centre for Open Learning of Mathematics at Open University (UK) posted in the ED-MEDIA blog: “Well, actually, I want to do both and everything in between. I can’t see that either is the pattern for future learning – both are part of the ways in which learning will occur.”

With blog, twitter feed, flickr group and ning community, the conference was ringing with a many-voiced orchestra of social software tools. Gary Marks, member of the AACE international headquarters and initiator of the new ED-MEDIA community site, announced that he has planned several activities to foster interaction. So far, however, the few contributions are dedicated to potential leisure activities on Hawaii. The presentation “Who We Are” by Xavier Ochoa, Gonzalo Méndez, and Erik Duval offered a review on existing community ties of ED-MEDIA through a content analysis of paper submissions from the last 10 years. An interactive representation of the results is available online.

Twitter seems to have developed into a ubiquitous companion of conference talks. Whether the short messages add to the academic discourse and democratize ex cathedra lectures or divert the attention from the presenter, replacing substance with senseless character strings, is a controversial discussion. Accordingly, twitter received mixed responses among the conference attendees and presenters. In the end, 180 users joined the collective micro-blogging and produced approximately 2500 postings — an overview may be found at Twapper. As a follow-up to this year’s ED-MEDIA, participants were invited to take part in an online survey, designed by the Austrian/German twitter research duo Martin Ebner and Wolfgang Reinhardt. The results will hopefully further the understanding of the pros and cons of integrating microblogging in e-learning conference events.

The AACE used ED-MEDIA as an occasion to announce plans for future growth. Already responsible for three of the largest world-wide conferences on teaching and learning (ED-MEDIA, E-LEARN and SITE), the organization extends its catalog with two new formats. A virtual conference called GlobalTime will make its debut in February 2011. Additionally, the new face-to-face conference GlobalLearn targets the Asian and Pacific regions.

Is ED-MEDIA worth a visit? The sheer size of the event leads to a great breadth of topics, which often obstructs an in-depth discussion of specific issues. At the same time, there is no better way to gain an overview of multiple current trends in compact form. Another plus, all AACE conference contributions are accessible online through the Education and Information Technology Library. The next ED-MEDIA will take place in Toronto, Canada, from June 28 to July 2, 2010.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: 2009, AACE, ADDIE, Advancement of Computing in Education, Alan Levine, Alex Wright, Austrian/German twitter, blog, Canada, Centre for Open Learning of Mathematics, cognitive load theory, community Wikibooks, connectivism, Curt Bonk, David Merrill, DePaul University, E-LEARN, e-learning, e-teaching, ED-MEDIA, ED-MEDIA 2009, Education and Information Technology Library, educational, Educational Multimedia, Endless Summer, Erik Duval, Europe, face-to-face conference, flickr, Gary Marks, George Washington University, German Academic Exchange Agency, GlobalLearn, GlobalTime, Gonzalo Méndez, Grace Lin, Hawaii, Hawaiian chants, Hypermedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, hypertext, instructional design model, iTunesU, keynote, Kirschner, Martin Ebner, microblogging, Multimedia, New Media Consortium, New York Times, Ning, Oahu, Open University, Pebble in the Pond, Sheraton Waikiki Hotel, SITE, Stefanie Panke, Stephen Downes, Steve Swithenby, Sweller & Clark, Tara Brabazon, telecommunications, The Web that Wasn’t, Tom Reeves, Toronto, Twapper, twitter feed, US, virtual conference, Who We Are, Why Minimal Guidance Does Not Work, Wolfgang Reinhardt, World Conference, Xavier Ochoa, YouTube | Leave a comment »

Review of ‘At-Risk’: A Simulation Training Program for College Staff

Posted on July 7, 2009 by JimS

By Carrie Heeter
Editor, Games Development

I vividly remember the day I received email from a graduate student who had gone missing from my online class, announcing that he had “just gotten back from the loony bin.” He wrote that he had checked himself in to a mental hospital and was now back and ready to start making up late assignments (with one week left in the semester). Over the years as professors each of us comes to realize our students are enrolled in classes other than just the ones we are teaching, and beyond that they have real lives, jobs, and families. Our official job is to teach well, to inspire, and to grade fairly while juggling our own impossible to meet demands of work and life. Unofficially, the unfolding joys and concerns experienced by everyone’s whole self may enrich or undermine teaching and learning.

At-Risk is a simulation training program designed to addresses one specific, potentially lifesaving dimension of this complex milieu.

At-Risk was created by Kognito, in partnership with the Mental Health Association of New York City (MHA-NYC). MHA-NYC programs help raise awareness about mental health problems and encourage people to seek treatment. The At-Risk training simulation teaches college faculty to identify mental health problems among their students and to refer mentally distressed students to the college counseling office for assistance.

In the simulated 20 person class, 6 students have been flagged as potentially experiencing mental distress. As the instructor, your goal is to talk with each of those students and, if appropriate, refer them to the counseling center. You can review each student’s grades, behavior in the class, and appearance. You are told at the beginning that three of the six are at-risk, but you are not told which three. The training simulation lasts approximately 45 minutes. It is 2D web based and includes many lengthy narrated explanations before and after the interactivity.

At-Risk uses “conversation menus” organized by category to offer choices of what to say next. The animated student responds, choices of what the instructor says next are presented, and the simulation offers encouragement or criticism about the conversation choices.

I played through the free online demo of one of the six students. Wendy’s problems were exaggerated and extreme. She is a 4.0 student who is so nervous she comes in to talk about every assignment. Heart palpitations caused her to go to the health clinic, causing her to skip the class presentation. As I played through the simulation, I argued with myself about whether it is reasonable for professors to call a meeting with 4.0 students who are nervous about speaking in class, even if the student is very nervous. I made a note to myself to check whether my university counseling center still exists, after the latest round of budget cuts, and what services they offer.

I also found that experiencing the simulated conversation was helpful and informative, even though I was trying to figure out what the simulation expected me to choose. It was useful to choose and hear spoken exactly how to bring up the counseling center. If sending students there has a chance of helping them cope better with life and with school, that’s something I would be willing to do. And now I have a better sense of how it’s done. The simulation was more useful in convincing me of the importance of identifying mental health problems and in showing me how to refer people than reading a brochure would have been.

I also naively expect socially useful serious games to be free. At-Risk is definitely not free. Licensing fees are way beyond what any individual faculty member would consider paying. I am not familiar with how universities prioritize nontrivial expenses like this for 45 minutes of online simulation, especially in times of deep budget cuts. The online free demo for one of the six students was informative and useful. Playing the other five conversations would not add five times more value — just playing one was enough to get the most important message: referring students is not hard to do and could help them a lot.

Serious game design needs to be accompanied by research to determine whether the serious goals have been met. Kognito has taken this important step. They are studying their own product and using the findings in marketing. And yet, product specific efficacy studies are not an expected domain for academic scientific research. The research findings offer a window onto desired and achieved impacts of the At-Risk simulation. I contacted the company for details about the sample size that I didn’t see online. They responded that 42 colleges and universities (who were not paying customers) were invited to use a trial subscription. The first 35 individuals who completed the training at each institution were automatically invited to complete an anonymous online survey. Respondents who were full time practicing psychologists were excluded from study results which, instead, focus on faculty and staff reactions. A total of 375 respondents are represented in the results. No response rate percentage is known.

Key findings from the Kognito.com online research report:

Over 80% reported that At-Risk increased their awareness that identifying and referring students is part of their job role and that At-Risk made them more likely to engage in identifying and referring at-risk students.
87% of respondents indicated they were better prepared to identify, refer, and approach at-risk students, and 82% felt better prepared to help a suicidal student.
99% of respondents said the simulated conversations were realistic representations of conversations they were likely to have with at-risk students.

If I had been a respondent, I would have answered the way the majority of respondents did, based only upon playing the demo.

For more information about the simulation see http://www.kognito.com/atrisk/

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: 2D, At-Risk, Carrie Heeter, college, conversation menus, Kognito, Licensing fees, mental distress, Mental Health Association, MHA-NYC, New York City, Program, Review, simulation, Staff, students, training, web based | 1 Comment »

A Review of ‘The Opportunity Equation’

Posted on June 29, 2009 by JimS

By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education

In 2009, a commission formed jointly by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Institute for Advanced Studies released a report titled “The Opportunity Equation.” This report, in the strongest terms, called for improving mathematics and science education in the United States. Furthermore, it set out a series of recommendations on how to achieve this improvement.

In the executive summary, the report states:

The nation’s capacity to innovate for economic growth and the ability of American workers to thrive in the global economy depend on a broad foundation of math and science learning, as do our hopes for preserving a vibrant democracy and the promise of social mobility for young people that lie at the heart of the American dream.

The report immediately suggests that three very important societal goals depend critically on our ability to educate our young people successfully in mathematics and science. If we do not do so we may lose

our competitiveness in a global economy,
our democratic way of life, and
hope for a better life for our children.

These are very serious statements. However, the question remains: If we concentrate much of our resources on the goal of improving mathematics and science education, will other educational goals suffer?

When the No Child Left Behind act was passed by Congress, it focused specifically on basic mathematics and English skills. With all of the mandatory testing required, curricula were revamped to spend more time on these subjects. Necessarily, less time was spent on social sciences, science, and the arts. In my opinion, that was a poor decision. It ignored, without any rationale, the importance of motivation for students being taught rudiments. It also diverted resources. For example, I visited one school whose computer labs were given entirely over to programs that drilled students on these basics and so were unavailable for science teachers or others with valid reason to use this resource.

In response to my earlier question about other educational goals suffering if we concentrate our resources on improving mathematics and science education, my answer is no. I believe that a balance can be achieved if we view schooling differently. The commission came to a similar conclusion:

For the United States, the “opportunity equation” means transforming American education so that our schools provide a high-quality mathematics and science education to every student. The Commission believes that change is necessary in classrooms, schools and school districts, and higher education. The world has shifted dramatically — and an equally dramatic shift is needed in educational expectations and the design of schooling.

The report goes on to suggest more specific changes. Here’s where many of my colleagues and those in the education community at large may dispute the commission:

Mobilize the nation for excellence and equity in mathematics and science education. Place mathematics and science at the center of education innovation, improvement, and accountability.

Yes, there’s a problem, but is it really that grave? Note that the numbers of postdoctoral students in science and engineering include well over half with temporary visas, according to the National Science Foundation’s report on enrollments in 2007. Our own schools aren’t producing graduates interested in continuing their schooling to its logical conclusion in science and engineering. I was once a postdoctoral fellow and can appreciate the sacrifices these people must make to complete their education and be ready to take their places among the top ranks of science researchers in the world. They certainly will make more money elsewhere. For example, I was working in industry when I made the decision to move back to academia, and I had to take a 50% salary cut!

There are more statistics that carry with them all of the built-in problems of statistics. Mark Twain suggested the problem when he said that there were lies, damn lies, and statistics. Different people focus on different aspects of statistical reports. I have looked over some of these reports and see a growing problem. Anecdotally, a local paper publishes two columns regularly. One is called “Mind Games” and contains math and logic problems. The other is the astrology column. The former runs on alternate weeks. The latter runs every week. The former delivers useful mental calisthenics. The latter provides pablum to a deceived public. It’s truly sad to see superstition rank higher than reality.

Once you agree that our schools really do have to improve the math and science product they create, then you start looking for a solution. Can you really put math and science at the center of your school’s educational curriculum as the commission suggests?

I hold a slightly different view. Of course, I’m biased by being a scientist.

A Curriculum Based on Social Science and Science

I would like to see a curriculum that uses social science and science as its root. Both engage students in real-world ideas and challenges. Both are important to a functioning democracy and to a nation that can compete in today’s world. Both provide opportunities for learning the more “basic” skills of mathematics and communication. Both can engage students in artistic expression. Science certainly can engage students in learning mathematics, not for itself, but for the benefits it can bring to studying the world. By the way, I’m not suggesting that we eliminate multiplication tables. Arithmetic must be learned the hard way. But beyond the elements of arithmetic, the motivation for learning any more mathematics should come from real-world oriented goals.

I’m very inexpert in the social science area and so will say little. I imagine that great art can illuminate the social sciences very well. I know that communication skills are very important to social sciences as they are to science as well.

How would you rearrange a school like the one I envision? You might extend the time spent on science and social science and have the teachers who previously taught mathematics and English in unique classes join the other teachers appropriately to support the learning of the other subjects. It would be a variant of team teaching.

Whatever the approach, we as a nation must agree to devote substantial resources to preserving those three crucial things that will allow us to continue to exist essentially as we have: competitiveness, democracy, and a better future for our children. The alternative may well be decay into just another country.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Carnegie Corporation, Commission, competitiveness, Education, English, executive summary, global economy, Harry Keller, Institute for Advanced Studies, mathematics, Mind Games, National Science Foundation, No Child Left Behind, Science, Science Education, The Opportunity Equation | Leave a comment »

Web 2.0 – Challenging Didactic Teaching

Posted on June 29, 2009 by JimS

By Tom Preskett

Web 2.0 and didactic teaching may not seem directly related, but Web 2.0 challenges the way we teach across the board, and the impact will be felt as much in higher education as anywhere else. In general terms, in England, didactic delivery of lectures is prevalent. I’m happy to be challenged on this, but that is my experience. Whatever my motivation for starting this job (as a learning technologist), my motivation for continuing is very much to do with trying to change this status quo. There are others, but this is dominant.

Why? This is difficult to get to the heart of. But it might have something to do with my experiences of education. What worked best for me. What was negative for me. It might have something to do with the fact that where I perceive bad teaching, it usually involves didactic, transmissive models. Didactic teaching is also the setup that requires the least planning, sometimes no more than deciding on the content. In some ways, it’s lazy teaching. People who don’t want to think about how they teach, will be didactic.

Coincidentally, these people will also not want to hear about learning technology. I never saw myself as championing particular pedagogies, but the various collaborative models lend themselves to everything that is positive about Web 2.0 and, therefore, my way of thinking. I have used the phrase “Web 2.0” rather than “learning technologies” because some learning technologies are concerned with presenting content (albeit in a flexible way) rather than offering different ways of delivering and learning. Web 2.0 gives us the right social, collaborative, creative idea.

So how does Web 2.0 or any learning technology challenge didactic teaching? The simple answer is that when you show educators any learning technology, they are forced to think about how they teach. For higher education in England, the didactic, transmissive model is prevalent so this is being challenged. So, by making people think about how they teach, you are breaking down the status quo as I called it earlier. It’s worth noting that I’m not convinced our educators think about how they teach enough. My role is not ostensibly about challenging teaching methods; it’s about learning technology. But the didactic approach is often the issue underlying resistance to change.

This is where the obvious impact of Web 2.0 on all of our lives is important. The more the impact, the harder it is to ignore. The more obvious the benefit, the harder it is to ridicule. Just look at Twitter and the Iran elections.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Didactic Teaching, England, learning technologist, lectures, models, Tom Preskett, transmissive, Web 2.0 | Leave a comment »

What Can Colleges Learn from Online K-12 Schools?

Posted on June 22, 2009 by JimS

By Jim Shimabukuro
Editor

K-12 school systems, such as California Virtual Academies (or CAVA), are providing completely online programs. Obviously, colleges are very different from K-12 schools, but are there lessons to be learned from the school model? At a time when budgets are being slashed, colleges are forced to look closely at their online programs as a possible means to reduce instructional costs. If existing programs aren’t as effective as they ought to be, colleges may want to examine K-12 models for elements that could be adapted to college programs.

In this article, I provide resources and links to information about CAVA and how California public schools are approaching completely online learning. After reviewing the information and, perhaps, conducting your own research, please join the discussion on the question, What can colleges learn from online K-12 school systems such as CAVA? To post a comment, click on the title of this article. This will take you to a page that displays the article, the ongoing discussion, and a box to compose your comment. Alternately email your comment to me at jamess@hawaii.edu, and I’ll post it for you.

The California Virtual Academies

The California Virtual Academies is a completely online K-12 charter public school system. CAVA is fully-accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Schools (ACS) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). In place of an actual campus, the State loans students a complete computer system and textbooks, and pays for broadband connection. “There are no buildings to heat or maintain so costs per student are low. Kids are assigned a teacher and software links them to their class and curriculum. There is also daily attendance and homework.”

According to the general FAQs, “The K-8 program is self-paced and flexible within the parameters specified by state law. The high school program is a combination of self-paced work and scheduled lessons and activities.”

Audio excerpts of Len Ramirez, KPIX reporter, from the video:

Click here for the video.

(Sources: Len Ramirez, KPIX reporter, “Virtual High School” [CBS News 4.7.09] and “More Calif. Kids Schooled at ‘Virtual Academy’” [CBS5 3.9.09]; the California Virtual Academies site)

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Accrediting Commission for Schools, ACS, broadband connection, California Virtual Academies, CAVA, CBS, CBS5, Colleges, Completely, computer system, K-12, KPIX, Len Ramirez, More Calif. Kids Schooled at 'Virtual Academy', Online, programs, school, system, Virtual High School, WASC, Western Association of Schools and Colleges | 1 Comment »

Computers – The End of an Era

Posted on June 21, 2009 by JimS

By Bert Kimura
Editor, Ed Tech in Japan

[Note: Bert Kimura posted the following as a comment on 19 June 2009, in response to “‘The College of 2020: Students’ – A Chronicle Report.” We’ve decided to publish Kimura’s comment as an article to facilitate further discussion. The original comment has been expanded to include a note from his email message to me on 6.20.09. -JS]

Jim, thanks for posting the summary. From my own experiences teaching online classes at UH-Manoa in Educational Technology and also having tried such classes with Japanese students, the items summarized certainly make a lot of sense.

There are three items that I believe will become important by then, if not, perhaps passé by then:

1. The 2020 students may not have had any familiarity at all with desktop computers and traditional operating systems. Instead, all of the communications, creation, and retrieval of info will be done with mobile devices. I also believe that, as may of us have two or mobile notebook computers today, 2020 students will have multiple devices to accomplish their online tasks. The proverbial “toaster” could still be one of them. :-)

The idea of the end of the desktops should also be attributed to Alan Levine, CTO of the New Media Consortium. He also does a very informative (with a unique perspective) blog: http://cogdogblog.com/. Alan was formerly the instructional technologist for the Maricopa CC system and was tremendously influential in getting faculty in the system to adopt technology in teaching and learning.

2. Texting such as this comment will be replaced by or, at least, on par with verbal, visual or multimedia communication modes. Consequently, faculty need to be able to reach visual learners in an effective pedagogical manner as well.

3. Internationalization will enable many more distance learners to participate in online courses, and thus the online student community will be more multicultural than the current group. I believe that this will result in a much richer student experience.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Alan Levine, Bert Kimura, Chronicle, Computers, courses, educational technology, faculty, Internationalization, Japanese, Maricopa CC, mobile, multicultural, Multimedia, New Media Consortium, Notebook, Online, Report, students, Texting, The College of 2020, toaster, UH-Manoa, visual learners | Leave a comment »

‘The College of 2020: Students’ – A Chronicle Report

Posted on June 19, 2009 by JimS

By Jim Shimabukuro
Editor

In the the first of a three-part series in the Chronicle of Higher Education (6.19.09), Chronicle Research Services reports on what higher education will look like in the year 2020. Click here to view a copy of the free executive summary. The first report focuses on students. Here are some quotes from the summary:

More students will attend classes online, study part time, take courses from multiple universities, and jump in and out of colleges.
By 2020, almost a third of respondents [121 institutions that responded to a survey] said, students will be taking up to 60 percent of their courses entirely online. Now almost no students at those colleges take courses only online.
Colleges that have resisted putting some of their courses online will almost certainly have to expand their online programs quickly.
Many colleges are learning from the for-profit college industry that they must start courses and certificate programs at multiple times throughout the year.
Students will increasingly expect access to classes from cellular phones and other portable computing devices.
Classroom discussions, office hours with a professor, lectures, study groups, and papers will all be online.
The faculty member . . . may become less an oracle and more an organizer and guide, someone who adds perspective and context, finds the best articles and research, and sweeps away misconceptions and bad information.
The average age of students will keep trending higher as expectations shift in favor of people going back to college again and again to get additional credentials to advance their careers or change to new ones. The colleges that are doing the best right now at capturing that demographic are community colleges and for-profit institutions.
At some point, probably just after 2020, minority students will outnumber whites on college campuses for the first time.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Chronicle of Higher Education, Chronicle Research Services, community colleges, for-profit, students, The College of 2020 | 3 Comments »

Accessibility and Common Sense

Posted on June 12, 2009 by Claude Almansi

By Claude Almansi
Editor, Accessibility Issues

Technology and technology guidelines are very important in implementing accessibility. Yet accessibility is not a technology issue — it is a common sense issue, both because it is logical and because making things as accessible as possible for as many people as possible becomes an obvious necessity once you “sense in common” with the other person, put yourself in his or her place.

Accessibility in 3D life

(I am not sure if what follows makes sense to readers in America, as accessibility in real life seems to be part of the American culture.)

People without motor disability usually don’t notice steps at the entrance of public buildings or toilet doors too narrow for a wheelchair. If you are in one, or often accompanying a person in one, you do. Builders’ decisions at times can lead to strange absurdities, though they know about accessibility rules and architectural technology. For instance, in 2000, a grand accessible toilet was added to the Museo d’Arte in Lugano (CH), while at the same time accessing the museum in a wheelchair was made well-nigh impossible by adding of a visitor-counting turnstile at the main entrance: people in wheelchairs had to be carted by on a spiral staircase up to a back door.

True, building decisions were made by the town administration, which, though it had a public works departments where people should know the rules and the technology to implement them, was not known for its common sense — in either meaning of the term. However, in 2001, after a protest by a disabled people’s association was taken up in the local media and caused questions in the local parliament, the administration finally provided a lift to the level of the back entrance for people in wheelchairs.

Computer accessibility: non-text objects

Guidelines for computerized and web content accessibility says that equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content must be provided for deaf and blind people (see the first WCAG 01 guideline, for instance). For instance, if a video is used, this means captioning audio for deaf people and giving an audio description of nonverbal actions for blind people. Or at least, if this is not feasible, offer an alternative text transcript that can be read by both blind (through text-to-speech) and deaf people.

Alt attribute

Static images that convey information should be provided with an alternative content description: when a short description is enough, this can be done in the alternative content description attribute (alt=”description”) in the link that shows the image. This should be fairly simple: nowadays, authoring tools — be they desktop or online, like the one for this blog — prompt you to add such a description when you insert an image through the “rich text” editor (see Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) Overview and links therein), which will add the alt attribute.

Nevertheless, while the above-mentioned Museo d’Arte of Lugano gave in to public pressure about wheelchair accessibility, its website remains blithely callous in ignoring basic accessibility precepts, in spite of directives to make all public administration sites accessible. It still has a “no right click” script that disables the contextual menu, thus hampering people with motor disabilities, despite the long-averred uselessness of such scripts to prevent users from saving images (either by saving the whole webpage or by looking up the URL of a given image in the source code). And it uses text images without any alt attribute instead of normal text for its navigation. Therefore, if you view the homepage in “replace images by alt attributes” mode in order to get the same content a blind person using a screen reader would, the result is:

Empty alt attribute

If the image is purely decorative, you still provide an alt attribute, but you leave it empty (alt=””): this way the text-to-speech just ignores it. Nevertheless, there are websites that use the empty alt attribute (no description) for images that convey information (and vice versa add a useless description for decorative images, which means that the screen reader will read a lot of bunk).

Limits of automated accessibility checkers

Automated accessibility checkers are very useful to spot accessibility problems. But as they only check the source of the page, they won’t fail a page for inappropriate uses of the empty alt attribute — they will just suggest you check that the image really doesn’t convey information. Maybe at times the empty alt attribute is deliberately used to pass the automated check, for instance if laws or regulations state that a given type of computerized content (educational in particular) must apply accessibility guidelines and if this is only checked with an automated program.

Embedding an inaccessible page into a frame is another way to bypass automated accessibility checks. www.mantecausd.net (mentioned in Microsoft Case Studies: Manteca Unified School District) does pass Priority 1 level of accessibility with the CynthiaSays checker, in spite of evident lack of alt attributes (and misuses of the empty alt attribute in some cases). But it does so thanks to the use of frames. What the checker reads is the source page, which only says: “Welcome to the Manteca Unified School District. Our site uses frames, but your browser doesn’t support them.” The realcontent is in http://manteca.schoolspan.com, which is embedded in a frame of www.mantecausd.net. CynthiaSays does fail http://manteca.schoolspan.com for the lack of alternative description, but a hasty check on just www.mantecausd.net might misleadingly give the impression that the page conforms to the Priority 1 level of accessibility.

Be it through the inappropriate use of the empty alt attribute or of frames, though, the result is that blind people don’t get the information conveyed by images. This is why it is so essential to apply common sense, to put oneself in the other person’s place

Accessibility in education

Fortunately, most educational web sites are designed for real accessibility to the greatest possible number of students, not just to pass automated accessibility tests. And while this can be time-consuming, it also offers great advantages to all students:

Designing for accessibility leads to greater educational usability

In the 3D world, removing — or better, avoiding from the beginning — architectural barriers to facilitate access for people in wheelchairs also improves usability for other people: mothers with a child in a pram, aged persons for whom the staircase access is too tiring, etc.

This is also true with designing computerized content with accessibility to the greatest possible number of users in mind. If you structure a text correctly, using hierarchical heading styles for subtitles (instead of just playing around with bold and font size) to make navigation easier with a screen reader for blind people, you can also automatically extract an interactive table of content. This is handy for everyone. And adding explanatory graphics to help people who have other, non-visual, text reading impairments (dyslexia for instance) will also help people who are more visually inclined.

The point is that accessibility leads to redundancy in order to cover as many cases as possible of disabilities. And hence it also covers different learning styles.

Teachers’ and students’ content

While main educational web sites tend nowadays to apply accessibility guidelines, course materials uploaded to a course management system or platform can at times remain an issue. It is therefore necessary to educate teachers about what accessibility does and does not entail and about simple tools to implement it (captioning etc.).

Web 2.0 and accessibility in education

Some education authorities are very wary of public Web 2.0 tools being used in schools, but usually because they fear they’d have to answer for students being exposed to inappropriate contacts and content. However, even when there is no such veto from the powers above, Web 2.0 tools can also present accessibility issues, especially for authoring. Jennison Asuncion has created the LinkedIn Web 2.0 Accessibility Forum where questions about these issues are discussed (you have to join, but anyone can).

Universal accessibility?

Some education authorities require that links to the Nth level be checked for appropriate content in course materials. This is not feasible, not even in the limited “non-pornographic” sense of “appropriate” they usually have in mind. Let alone for accessibility. Each person is different, and so it has been claimed that there is no such thing as universal accessibility because persons with a disability will each have different requirements. However, they will also each have their own way to address barriers.

Faced with a reading requirement presented as an image PDF, for instance, blind students are more likely than non-blind ones to think of putting it through an optical character recognition software to get a text version their text-to-speech can read — and to have such software on their computer. Yet why not start by giving the reading requirement as text to start with? It would be far more usable for everybody. One problem is that accessibility is often perceived as something very complicated and technological, “for geeks.” This is discouraging. So are some myths like “accessibility and usability are not compatible,” whose propagators at times allege to prove it by saying that “a black text on a black background,” like the one below¹

This is an example of “black on
black” text that might pass automated accessibility tests.
But who – except kids wanting to write “secret messages”
– would do that?

would pass accessibility checks. Automated checks, maybe. But as explained above, automated checks are useful tools, but just tools.

So even if universal electronic accessibility is not concretely reachable, accessibility to the greatest number of people, according to their various capacities and impairments, must be the goal. To this end, there are some basic “common sense” design principles that are useful to all, and there are free, easy-to-use tools to implement them. And for fine-tuning, there are experts ready to answer questions. It is necessary to make people — and teachers in particular — who produce electronic content aware of this.

Pet bitch

One of the accessibility design principles is the already mentioned use of heading styles for titles and subtitles in a text, rather than messing about with character size and shape and bold and what-not directly on the text. See Using Headings Correctly in WebAIM’s Creating a Semantic Structure page.

Indeed, heading styles are semantic because they identify for others — not only for the screen-readers used by the blind — what you consider as main and subsidiary content, and they allow you to draw an interactive table of content². Yet, somehow, it is at times difficult to convey the usefulness of headings, even to teachers and to people otherwise endowed with strong logical capacities. So why don’t blog platforms — this one included — almost never offer the possibility to choose heading styles in their visual editor while wiki platforms do?

Sure, authors can switch to the html version and add the necessary tags, as I have done here. But I can still remember the not-so-distant time when I had sworn I would never learn a single html tag, because I thought it was “geek stuff”. . .

______________________

1To view the text, just highlight the black box by mousing over it

2Like this, for instance:

Accessibility in 3D life .
Computer acce ssibility: non-text objects | Alt attribute | Empty alt attribute .
Limits of automated accessibility checkers .
Accessibility in education | Designing for accessibility leads to greater educational usability |Teachers’ and students’ content | Web 2.0 and accessibility in education .
Universal accessibility? | Pet bitch

Filed under: Accessibility | Tagged: Accessibility, Asuncion, common sense, CynthiaSays, educational, guidelines, Jennison Asuncion, Manteca, Microsoft, Tools, Web 2.0 | 2 Comments »

The New Social Networking Frontier

Posted on June 9, 2009 by JimS

By Judith Sotir

The idea of using social networks in the classroom is still outside the comfort zone of many classroom instructors. Sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter have connotations that many instructors instinctively avoid. They see the pitfalls, but not the value. There are warning flags all over the place. I’ve heard educators say, “If you allow students to use a site like Twitter in the classroom, students will abuse it and just network with friends.” Sure, always a possibility. But if you allow students Internet access on computers, they can always access sites you don’t want them accessing. It all comes down to the control an instructor has in the classroom. An ineffective instructor with no classroom discipline doesn’t need Internet access to fail. Those are the teachers who would not notice handwritten notes being passed around the classroom in the pre-tech days.

We’ve (reluctantly) moved to acceptance of using academic websites in the classroom. Instructors see the value, and students know and like using them. We’ve found the value in YouTube, but have developed Teacher Tube to combat many of the content concerns. Social network sites are still a new frontier. First, instructors are not all that familiar with them. I think every instructor (and parent) should get on the computer and sign up for one or more of the social network sites, if only to know what it is that the kids are doing. One thing is certain, the KIDS are on them, daily, and even hourly. They can access them from classroom computers or cell phone browsers. I have Facebook and Twitter buttons on my iPhone so access takes less than a second. Of course they also let me know via email when someone has added something new to my page. It’s all about accessibility, and for kids, accessibility is like breathing. They just do it. My nephew once said that if he had to go more than a few hours without Facebook he would implode. I honestly believe him.

(Video source: “Twitter for Teachers” by Thomas Daccord, added to TeacherTube on 20 March 2009)

So how do educators use these tools? Tom Preskett in his article Blogs for Education, Blogs for Yourself referenced the Write4 website, which allows one to publish articles, photos, videos, etc. without set-ups or logins. Your work is published to your Twitter account. What’s the value? Easy and fast access. You give your students one site (such as your classroom Twitter account), and give them the ability to access these sites wherever and whenever they wish. You simply tell them to follow you on Twitter. It’s simple and effective because students are there anyway. Will all students actually read your Tweets? No, but not all students will read the homework you assign or even participate in class discussions. But the point is that students are familiar with social networking and use it regularly. And as educators, we have to believe that most students want to learn and want to succeed.

(Video source: “How Do You Use Twitter” by David Di Franco, added to YouTube on 8 April 2009)

I’ve never been able to understand instructors who believe students want to fail. They may not hang on your every word, but they do listen and know the correlation between work and success. Give them something they can use, and they will pay attention. Will they push the envelope? Of course. But that happens with any age group. Case in point: professional development programs. Put a group of instructors into a professional development class and watch them as they stare out the window, play with anything but the prescribed websites on the computer, and even talk and laugh with each other. In a training setting, most professional educators mirror the behavior of their students. The key to success is the same as the key needed to succeed with students: give them something they find useful and they will pay attention.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Blogs for Education, Blogs for Yourself, Facebook, iPhone, MySpace, Teacher Tube, Thomas Daccord, Tom Preskett, Twitter, Twitter for Teachers, Write4, YouTube | 2 Comments »

Bend It Like a Lab Instructor

Posted on June 9, 2009 by JimS

By Judith Sotir

People often comment on the quality of my lab staff. They ask me my secret for getting the best and most talented candidates. My answer is: flexibility. Yes, I work in an ed-tech environment, but I never consider a person’s background in technology as a key factor in whether I should or shouldn’t hire him/her. I’ve learned that tech skills can be taught. Indeed, they change so often that even the most highly skilled technicians would be at a loss if they didn’t keep up. Instead, I look for a great teacher who is able to effortlessly share her knowledge with students, and someone who is flexible enough to try out new apps and ideas without a sense of dread.

I’ve also built-in my own openness to the mix. Whenever we’re faced with a changing set of circumstances, such as a new grant that takes us in a different direction, I open the floor to ideas. How should this be approached? What’s the best and most efficient way of developing the educational plan to effectively teach this new subject area? Which apps would make this content easier for students to access?

A simple example is the development of hotlists for subject areas. We had lists of Websites. Lots and lots of lists. My specialists said that while the lists were useful, there were several aspects that they found frustrating. One issue was that students had a difficult time accessing the sites because the URLs were impossible to type correctly. We found that apps such as Tiny URL would solve that problem, though students still had to type out something to get to the site. Another issue was that it was difficult to add to the printed lists, and we ended up throwing out a lot of lists when we needed to update. Our solution was to switch to a web-based list that could be printed (and updated) as needed but was, unfortunately, specific to the computers in our labs. Both of these tools worked but never offered the usability that we really wanted to achieve. We tried putting the lists on disks, but those too became outdated pretty quickly.

One day I was reading through the blogs and found a site called Filamentality which gave us the ability to create hotlists of Websites that we could add to a blog site. Suddenly we had the kind of tool that actually worked for giving students and instructors the access to the academic Websites they needed, was available to them wherever they had Internet access, and could be updated and shared immediately by accessing one simple web address. A sample of the Filamentality hotlists can be seen on our AELC Instructor Blog. These can be organized by area, and a simple click on the title of the URL would take students exactly where they should be on the site. Although the other methods worked, this method had the flexibility to allow for immediate changes as new Websites became available. Even though the original lists took a lot of effort to put together, this newer system accomplished the same goal, but in more efficient way. Overnight we switched to the hotlists, and our ability to share the Websites increased dramatically.

Change is always difficult, especially in education. Educators are always pressed for time, and change requires effort. You have to learn a new application. You have to take what you previously had (which may still be somewhat effective) and change it to the new format. Often it means tossing out the old ideas and developing a new system from the ground up. It takes a certain amount of courage to move from the old “If it isn’t broken why fix it?” mentality. Ed-tech is all about change. What is new and exciting today is old news in six months. You don’t need to change constantly, but you do need to assess constantly and review new apps and ideas with the idea that they can make your program or classroom, work more effectively.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: AELC Instructor Blog, Filamentality, flexibility, hotlists, Tiny URL | 1 Comment »

Blogs for Education, Blogs for Yourself

Posted on June 3, 2009 by JimS

By Tom Preskett

Some things are obvious about blogging, some are not. Anyone familiar with blogs knows that it’s a way to publish content online. I used to think that the journal aspect was also a given. That is until I facilitated on a Web 2.0 distance learning module recently and found that many of the blogs the students created consisted of descriptions and links without much personal thoughts and opinion. This was surprising because I assumed that giving your perspective made a blog a blog. I should mention that many of them had a job which required them to share Web 2.0 resources with colleagues. But you can do this and still give your perspective, for example, Jane’s Pick of the Day.

A blog that presents information with little or no opinion is fine if that’s what you want to do. My point to the students was that if you just blog information then you might as well have a website instead where you can organise things better. This is especially pertinent as we were studying a course where the nature of blogging is the subject matter.

When I look at the use of blogging in courses, I often see that instructors don’t fully appreciate the social networking aspect of blogs. They are attracted by the reflective nature of blogs and ask students to record their learning at regular intervals. But the instructors treat the blogs as a private space between them and their students and often use blogs that are built into VLEs (virtual learning environments). I find this a great shame. Why? Well, the social nature and openness of blogs (and anything Web 2.0) is very important. It’s the essence, the lifeblood of what makes blogging so successful. It’s a shame to cut this off.

I don’t mind so much if the educators made an informed choice on this issue, but often it’s a natural instinct to keep thing private. “Of course, no one else will see it,” they say to the students. As if public exposure would be abhorrent to them. Why? What are they afraid of? This is partly a reflection of the insular, controlling nature of education and partly a reflection of their experiences and expectations of learning. Even if a student doesn’t want to blog public facing, it’s worth building in because creating and publishing online in a Web 2.0 setting is an important skill in the 21st Century. I don’t have a ready made study to prove this, but I’m going to say it anyway. At the least, instructors ought to create links between the student blogs to give them a ready made support network.

It may well be the case that blogging has diminished and will diminish due to social networks (at least for the teenagers), but blogging is still a valid and vibrant tool in the adult world. It’s not important for people to learn about blogging for blogging’s sake, but it’s important they learn about the ethos and the spirit of blogging, which is the essence of Web 2.0. It’s important they learn about collaboration, self-direction, independent learning, and networking. The new CLEX (Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience) document Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World characterises these as “soft skills” which are desirable in the new job market.

When it comes to using blogs for your own learning as part of your CPD (computer professional development), the plea I would make is don’t do it in isolation. Instead, immerse yourself in the blogosphere. In my context, this is true because reading others’ blogs is a really good way to keep up in my area of interest, learning technology. But this is true for any subject. Maybe not to the same extent, but it’s still true. It’s quick and easy and, most importantly for me, bitesize. With bitesize, I can knit things together much easier (tagging is very important here). The concepts can stick to my brain much easier, and I can make links better. I also approach it with less dread than I would an academic paper or book although my motivation might be different to yours. You can do all this without having your own blog, but this is where the knitting occurs. Well, some of it anyway. Also, one of the things that drew me to blogging was it’s conversational nature although this might be more my style than a rule.

To feel part of the blogosphere or a network of bloggers may be difficult if you don’t know anyone directly who blogs on your subject and if no one visits your blog. Just because you publish a blog doesn’t mean anyone is going to read it. You need to be okay with this, otherwise you’ll get disappointed very quickly.

My motivation for blogging is to capture my learning for myself. By making it public facing, I’m forced to be coherent, and it’s in that process where the learning happens. Quite often I end up in different places than I expected. So for me, if no one reads it, the blog is still valuable since it serves my purpose.

I’ve used Blogger for mine with the presentation Learning from Blogging: Creating Your Own and Learning from Others, by Tracy Hamilton, as the starting point. WordPress is the other main player but there are many more. The best way to start is to spend an hour browsing the blogosphere (not my favourite term) on Technorati or Icerocket. However, if you are reading this, you probably know all that.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: bitesize, Blogger, blogosphere, CLEX, Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience, computer professional development, CPD, Creating Your Own and Learning from Others, Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World, Icerocket, Jane's Pick of the Day, knitting, Learning from Blogging, tagging, Technorati, Tracy Hamilton, virtual learning environment, VLE, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments »

ESL/EFL Teachers and How They Use Technology

Posted on June 3, 2009 by JimS

By Lynn Zimmerman
Editor, Teacher Education

There is a wide variety of hardware and software available for teachers of English as a Second Language (ESL) and of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Even though the contexts between the two types of teaching/learning are different, the motivations are the same. Teachers and students want and need access to techniques and strategies that effectively teach English. Depending on the specific context, the teachers and students may have more or less access to various types of technology.

Before we go any further, for those of you who are not familiar with this field, I will define ESL and EFL. The ESL teacher is teaching English in an English immersion context. The students are learning English in an environment where English is the primary language spoken, such as the US or Australia. The EFL teacher is teaching English as a Foreign Language in an environment where some other language (or languages) is primary, such as in France or Taiwan.

As I stated earlier, context often determines the type and amount of technology that is available. For example, ESL teachers who teach adults in American community colleges also often incorporate teaching computer skills into their classes. A teacher in an online program, whether ESL or EFL, uses a variety of web technologies for his/her class, which may include Skype, Ning, or other such online tools. A teacher in Peru may not have classroom access to a computer, but have access at home so that she/he can find lesson ideas online to use in class.

I decided to interview several ESL/EFL teachers to find out how they use technology, especially computer-based technology, in their classes, and I will start with myself. I do not usually teach English, but this semester, spring 2009, I am teaching EFL to university students in Poland who are studying to be English teachers. There is a computer with Internet access in the teachers’ office and I have my own laptop and Internet access at home, so I can reproduce and create classroom materials. One classroom where I teach has a computer and projector for showing DVDs and PowerPoints. Therefore, I have been able to integrate some computer-based technology into lessons. Most of my students have regular access to computer-based technology and use it regularly, so, besides my own use of the computer for presentations and the Internet for gathering materials, I set up a Ning so students could engage in a couple of online discussions.

In addition to classroom teaching, I have been tutoring a woman in another country using Skype, and I also email her occasional homework assignments. Since she only has access to a computer at work, we talk during her lunch break about once a week. I often use the chat feature to type a correction as she is speaking, so I do not interrupt her flow. Her spoken English is quite fluid, and, because of the slight lag in Skype, I have found that if I correct her verbally, it is more disruptive than when I type her the note. She can look at the note when she pauses and can then ask me about it or repeat it as necessary. I also use the text function sometimes to give her the phonetic spelling of a word or to write a phrase out for her. Combining these two functions has worked well for us.

Even though I am not an English teacher, I meet them through conferences, online courses and workshops, and the invisible network that English teachers seem to have. I decided it would be interesting to see how some of my colleagues in different English teaching environments use technology in their classes. The following comes from interviews with two of them.

Australia, Adult Intermediate ESL

Teacher A told me that she has “been involved in teaching ESL with computers since 1995, starting with using ESL programs in a computer lab.” She said that she learned very quickly that she needed to upgrade her computer skills “and since that time,” she said, “I haven’t stopped doing that, formally and informally. Formally I’ve done many computer-related courses, including a Graduate Certificate in Multimedia, Certificate III in IT, and Masters in Education (Computers in Education). Informally, though, I haven’t stopped, being involved with CoP Webheads in Action for quite a few years.” Since 1999, she has also trained ESL teachers in her college in the use of computer technology.

She then went on to tell me how her use of computer technology has evolved. “I’ve tried using various applications,” she said, “through MS Office, ESL programs, blogging, wikis, and IWBs [interactive whiteboards]. Each of them has been useful for different purpose and audience.” In an attempt to maintain a paperless classroom almost everything is set up so that it is done on the computer, including grammar exercises, reading activities, and listening activities. Over her years of teaching English using technology, she has found that hands-on activities, either individual (in the computer lab) or individual/group with Smartboard have been effective.

In her present class she has access to a wide range of technology. She uses an interactive white board for web-based and Notebook (Smartboard proprietary software) interactive exercises. These activities can also incorporate audio and video, so she often uses a camera to take photos and short videos to enhance her lessons. She also has access to a Student Response System (clickers) that she uses for tests and other assessments. Teacher A also relies on email to stay in contact with students and has found that wikis are useful for developing and posting class programs, files, and links. They are especially helpful for students who are absent to keep up with what is happening in class.

However on the downside, she has found that technology is not always an effective learning tool for some of her students for a variety of reasons. One form of technology which she has found problematic with her students is SMS (text messaging). She stated that the English they have learned through this medium is a different kind of English and that once students learn it, it is difficult to unteach.

She has also learned that student blogs require too much time for many of these students so that they do not do them at home and have too little in-class time for them. She said that the students in her present evening class are a mixture of young and old people (21 to 50), long-term residents and new migrants (from 3 to 23 years in the country). They either come to class after work or after swapping childcare duties with their husbands. Most of them have no energy or time to study at home, let alone to use the computer (often occupied by younger generation). Only a few students in her class check the class website/wiki.

United States, College-Level Academic ESL Writing

Teacher B originally told me that she doesn’t use technology much in her classes, but I encouraged her to talk to me anyway. She said that one reason she doesn’t use technology much is that she has “an incompetence complex.” Then she went on to say, “Ironically, I run my school’s computer lab.”

She said that another reason she does not use technology a lot is that she thinks it can be overused. She found that, because young people “feel comfortable with this low-context, people unfriendly medium,” they will often overuse it and ignore other ways of interaction. She gave an example of teaching students irregular verbs with flashcards. Most were not interested. However, when they discovered an online irregular verb quiz, they were eager to participate. Her comment was that “they obviously prefer the impersonal to the personal.” She thinks that this type of interaction “does not include important human contextual clues during discourse” and is concerned that the development of interpersonal communication skills will suffer as a consequence.

However, do not get the idea that Teacher B is a technophobe. She uses the ELMO document camera with a Smart Board to display papers for group discussion and uses audio equipment to play Jazz Chants, rhythmic chants for teaching English pronunciation and stress. She said that she likes “to refer students to on-line exercises, but it takes a lot of time to find good matches for each student.” She also encourages use of the computer lab for independent reading comprehension work using the Kenmei Internet Reading Lab.

Teacher B also uses other technology with her students, but she thinks it should be moderated and mediated by the teacher. For example, she likes to use Pronunciation Power software, but she commented that “It is useless if used unmonitored, and that is the way it is promoted!” In the fall semester she is planning an inductive grammar activity for her students using an online corpus, which she believes will help them improve their writing.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: clickers, CoP Webheads in Action, document camera, EFL, ELMO, English as a Foreign Language, English as a Second Language, English immersion, ESL, Graduate Certificate in Multimedia, interactive whiteboard, Internet, IWB, Jazz Chants, Kenmei Internet Reading Lab, Ning, Notebook, online corpus, Poland, Pronunciation Power, Skype, Smartboard, SMS, Student Response System, text messaging | 8 Comments »

Can Virtual Labs Replace Hands-On?

Posted on June 2, 2009 by JimS

By Harry Keller
Editor, Science Education

[Editor’s note: The author, Harry Keller, is president of Paracomp, which owns Smart Science®, the PRE system mentioned in this article. -JS]

With the proliferation of virtual science lab systems these days, someone must ask whether it’s even possible to replace a hands-on science experience with a virtual one. One group of educators insists that this replacement is impossible. Another group stridently declares that hands-on is old-fashioned, even obsolete, and that virtual is the future.

Florida Virtual School has just announced that it’s abandoning its long-used hands-on labs for middle school students and replacing them with online simulations. With the largest state-run online school leading the way, will others follow?

Until recently, only traditional hands-on experiments and simulations have vied for student science lab time. The success of online courses has put the spotlight on the latter. However, new technologies have opened the way for alternatives. Below, the two common approaches are compared and contrasted with a newer idea that effectively straddles them. Can either the new approach or simulations supplant hands-on labs as valid methods for scientific investigations?

Three Approaches

What sorts of science lab experience can students have? There’s the traditional lab experience (TLE) that involves direct physical involvement with the materials. Usually, TLE is investigating the real world, but sometimes it’s some sort of simulation as with nuclear decay being simulated with a can full of dice.

Low-cost access to computers made possible rapid calculations and, as a result, simulations (SIM). A simulation, which could be done by hand, uses equations or algorithms to compute the results of an experiment. Students set the experimental parameters and are provided with calculated results, often in the form of an animation and some summary results. Simulations can have essentially unlimited precision.

The advent of the Internet expands the options. Some educators have students investigate large online scientific databases. Some are experimenting with remote robotic experiments. However, both of these approaches have limitations of scope.

The sole new approach that has truly broad scope is prerecorded real experiments (PRE) as exemplified by the Smart Science® system (www.smartscience.net). Experiments are recorded on video many times. Students select which experiments to investigate and are provided with software that allows them to take data directly from the videos. Their judgment and care affect the results.

These three approaches have their advantages and disadvantages depending on the pedagogical goals.

For the purpose of understanding science, high data precision is a negative. On the other hand, for memorizing scientific principles, equations, or laws, it is useful.

Examples

Concrete examples will aid in understanding the essential differences between these three approaches. Below are four examples, one each from physics, earth science, chemistry, and life science.

Projectile Motion

TLE: One of the first experiments to be simulated, projectile motion, poses significant challenges for traditional labs. Using safe (light and soft) projectiles results in significant air resistance and complicates the data analysis excessively. Using dense and hard projectiles makes the experiment unsafe in classrooms.

In any event, students cannot track the projectile over its trajectory and must measure only the distance travelled. They might also measure the time but would have difficulty in correlating that measurement to investigation goals.

SIM: Simulations allow students to alter the angle, the projectile mass, and the launch force (or energy) and watch an animation of the trajectory. The data collected depend on the particular simulation and may include maximum height as well as distance. Usually, these simulations assume that the launch height is zero, an assumption not true in real life. The simulations ignore air resistance and produce results that fit Newtonian physics with great precision.

While high precision simplifies analysis, it also creates a false impression in students. They don’t realize that science requires extracting meaning from often ambiguous data that may contain significant random errors. These errors can obscure the conclusions and can allow different people to come to different conclusions.

Because the data collected are summary data (height and distance), students don’t have the opportunity to see the quadratic nature of the trajectory or to understand that the vertical and horizontal components separate and can be individually analyzed. These latter issues also exist for the TLE experiments.

PRE: Real projectiles, e.g., bocce balls, are launched with a reproducible launching mechanism. A video camera records the flight of the balls. With proper calibration, students can track the ball in fractional second intervals and determine the horizontal and vertical positions and speeds.

The mass of the projectile can vary, for example, by using hollowed-out balls or lead-weighted balls.

Students now have real-world data. They may have had to skip collecting some data points because the balls were not clearly visible in every video frame. Their positioning of a mouse on the ball provides the x and y coordinates at each frame. The inter-frame time provides the “clock” for the experiments.

The number of experiments available depends entirely upon the number of videos recorded for the experiments. For example, having three masses, three angles, and three values for launch force, you’d get 27 experiments. Each experiment might have 20 or more data points collected for analysis.

Daily Tides

TLE: No classroom can have measurement of tides over a period of hours and also do so for many days during a month. Most classrooms aren’t even close to the ocean.

Teachers can provide students with tables of tidal data to analyze, but then students don’t collect their own data.

SIM: Simulations of tides generally ignore the fact that the nature of tides varies considerably depending on location. The motion of tides may be simulated as a sine wave, which is a rather inaccurate representation.

Students have to take on faith that the simulations of tides are accurate representations, which they cannot be.

PRE: By simply placing a pole in a bay and photographing the motion of the water level as it moves up and down the pole, students will have ample opportunity to examine real tides. They’ll discover, depending on the class level, how the amplitude, phase, and period of tides vary (or don’t) day by day.

The smoothness of the water changes throughout the day and provides ample random error. Yet, the patterns remain clear even with some points omitted and the random error.

Analysis of Hydrates

TLE: This experiment has become a standard in chemistry classes everywhere. Students dry and weigh a crucible. Then, they place some chemical in the crucible and weigh again. Finally, they heat the crucible to remove the water of crystallization from the chemical and weigh once more.

The mass of unheated and of heated chemical provides the data required to measure the mass of water lost and, along with the molecular mass of the anhydrate, the molecular ratio of water to chemical.

This experiment is fraught with burned fingers and broken crucibles. Only a few chemical hydrates are safe enough to use in a classroom. Few students have enough time to analyze more than one sample in a class period. Most of the time is spent weighing and waiting for the crucible to cool.

SIM: Simulations of this experiment tend to focus on the procedure more than on the science. The weighing and heating operations clearly are unreal. Students don’t see the interesting physical changes in the appearance of the chemicals. Attempts to simulate these changes are inaccurate.

Using simulations for this experiment results more in repeated exercises in calculations than in understanding the nature of science.

PRE: Just about any chemical hydrate can be used. In the case of the Smart Science® system, ten were chosen. For each chemical, ten masses were carefully weighed in one-gram increments. One hundred experiments were run. Students must read the triple beam balance to obtain the masses of the heated crucible plus chemical. The empty crucible provides an eleventh point.

Students make their own choice about how to handle the data. Should they calculate the water of hydration for each mass and then average them? Should they fit a least-squares line to the dry masses and use the slope to determine the water of hydration? If they find outliers, how should they be treated?

With so much data, especially when compared with the TLE approach, students begin to gain an understanding of what science really is like. Of course, the data are not precise and may not all be accurate. Some compounds may decompose on heating and provide results that do not match textbook answers.

Biodiversity and Relationships

TLE: Unless you’re from New York, you may not have heard of this lab from the Regents’ “The Living Environment.” The portion being considered here relates to performing an enzyme test and doing chromatography to discover the chemical relationships between various plants.

The enzyme test being performed uses a number of phony plant “extracts” that really are just food colors mixed or not mixed with a little vinegar. When a special enzyme test powder (baking soda) is mixed with the “extracts,” some fizz and some don’t. Students record the results.

Paper chromatography on the “extracts” depends on whether blue food coloring has been added to the green coloring present in all samples.

In reality, this lab is a hands-on simulation. Only the most clumsy student could avoid coming to the same conclusions as all of the other students. This simulated lab has no nuances, no ambiguities, no opportunity for error except the most extreme. It’s just pretend and play.

SIM: I haven’t seen a computer simulation of the hands-on simulation yet. You can, however, discover simulations of enzymes and of chromatography. As with the TLE case, they tend to be very clear-cut without the flavor of real science.

Because of the low cost of the hands-on version, don’t expect anyone to make a computer simulation soon.

PRE: In this lab unit, a large number of plants were grown. For every plant, a time-lapse video shows the plant from germination to about four weeks afterward. Students are shown the physical aspects of the plant (seed, leaf, stem cross section). They also are shown the effect of hydrogen peroxide on ground leaves and thin layer chromatography of the leaves. The TLC videos also show the progress of the TLC in motion.

Students must decide on the intensity of the enzyme reactions and record their results. Two students may readily rank the same experiment differently. They must also decide which three of ten possible chromatography bands to use to distinguish between the plants. Then, they must rank the intensity of the bands based on a scale of their own making.

Here, the advantages of the PRE approach over the TLE and SIM approaches becomes most obvious. Also, students can be provided with some leaf samples by their teacher and can perform simple paper chromatography on them in class to gain further understanding of the process. By combining real virtual experiments with some hands-on activities, the students end up with the best possible learning opportunity.

Which is Better?

You’re welcome to make your own decision and to comment here. As should be obvious by now, this writer prefers the PRE approach, especially when combined judiciously with TLE experiments. An example should help to explain how this is done.

In the PRE example of analyzing hydrates above, the hands-on components was left out. A very inexpensive and safe compound can be purchased inexpensively at any grocery or drug store. A piece of aluminum foil, an oven heated to 450 ºF, and a cheap postal scale provide the remaining materials. Despite the poor precision of the scale, students readily can find the correct ratio of water to dehydrated compound. They should perform this experiment at least three times on different masses of compound. They’ll begin to get a feeling for how the amount of compound used can affect their results and also for the effects of their care in weighing and handling the materials.

In the Smart Science® system, the combined PRE and TLE labs are called “hybrid labs.” Some labs, such as inorganic synthesis, really don’t lend themselves well to being virtual and are strictly done hands-on. Others, such as colorimetric determination of copper, are too dangerous and require expensive equipment. So, they are left as only virtual.

Nevertheless, the example of analysis of hydrates demonstrates the power of combining the two approaches into a single lab. Students have kinesthetic experiences and do experimental design. With the PRE experiments, they also are able to investigate a range of materials and obtain much more real-world data than they could with the TLE approach. As a result, they achieve a full science experience.

What should also be apparent is the relative paucity of real learning in the SIM approach. Truly, these attempts at online lab substitutes are really more like the early computer drills once popular. Like textbooks and videos, their focus is on the parts of science that don’t require lab experience: words, laws, equations, and procedures. These are the results of science and not the nature of science. They are best left to the non-lab portion of a science course. While lab experience may support this learning, its primary purpose must be to expose students to the nature of science, to give them an opportunity to perform scientific reasoning, and to come to appreciate the complexity and ambiguity of the sorts of empirical work that scientists actually do.

Some will argue for the classroom hands-on experiments despite the foregoing. They should realize that the classroom limits the ability of students to do experimental design and to explore ideas. Having to report to a classroom, set up equipment, run some experiment, clean up, and exit the room within a strictly determined period makes doing science quite difficult. In high school, the time alloted is usually less than an hour. Colleges know better and allot three hours for a lab period.

One large high school in a huge urban district is beginning to transition to entirely Smart Science® labs right now. Hopefully, this school signifies the beginning of a trend that can take our science education to new heights.

By providing a means for students to do their real experiments online and means to do at-home experiments safely and at very low cost, a good combination of PRE and TLE provides the best overall science investigation possible for our students.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Are Online Programs Growing or Dying?

Posted on June 1, 2009 by JimS

By Jim Shimabukuro
Editor

Judith McDaniel, in her response (28 May 2009) to John Sener‘s article, “The Recession Is Affecting Online Higher Education – Duh…,” points us to an article that appears in the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Rocky Start for Colorado State U.’s Online-Education Start-Up” (28 May 2009). She gives us a paradox to think about. As we receive glowing reports on the growth of online programs, we’re also seeing signs of their possible demise.

I did a quick google and found two more articles that suggest a decline. Citing “low and declining enrollment,” Butler Tech is eliminating one of its three online learning programs (Lindsey Hilty, “District to Revamp Online Programs,” JournalNews 5.31.09). The Navy, in response to a lack of funding, is dropping nearly 4,000 online courses (David J. Carter, “Navy Cuts Online Business, Technology Courses,” Stars and Stripes 6.2.09).

Which is it? And perhaps more importantly, why are we getting these mixed messages?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Butler Tech, Chronicle of Higher Education, David J. Carter, District to Revamp Online Programs, John Sener, JournalNews, Judith McDaniel, Lindsey Hilty, Navy, Navy Cuts Online Business Technology Courses, Rocky Start for Colorado State U.'s Online-Education Start-Up, Stars and Stripes, The Recession Is Affecting Online Higher Education – Duh… | 3 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »

	Why AI Tutors And Ch… on Review of Kestin et al.’…
	Ed on Review of ‘Using Artific…
	Jamaica Launches UNE… on AI in April 2026: Three Critic…
	What Does an OpenCla… on OpenClaw Is a Self-Hosted, Ope…
	Why AI In Classrooms… on Three Best Uses of AI in Educa…
	Anonymous on Dark Horse 2028 Presidential C…
	Preparing Hawaii… on AI and the Disruption of Educa…
	JimS on Is AI Serving the Special Need…
	Anonymous on Is AI Serving the Special Need…
	Best AI Digital Asse… on Five Emerging AI Trends in Jan…
	Anonymous on In 2026, Is Tracking the Answe…
	Anonymous on In 2026, Is Tracking the Answe…
	Krs Blogs: AI and Sc… on AI Could Surpass Schools for A…
	Who Is Actually Ahea… on Humanoid Robots in Our Homes b…
	Virtual Photoshoot O… on Five Emerging AI Trends in Jan…

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

To Comment

Archives

Categories

ETC Publications

Of Books and Vegetables

Challenging or objecting?

Foreign authors and the Settlement

Letter of objections

Links

Credits

A Curriculum Based on Social Science and Science

Accessibility in 3D life

Computer accessibility: non-text objects

Alt attribute

Empty alt attribute

Limits of automated accessibility checkers

Accessibility in education

Designing for accessibility leads to greater educational usability

Teachers’ and students’ content

Web 2.0 and accessibility in education

Universal accessibility?

Pet bitch

Creative Commons License