Bridging the Digital Divide with Laptops

From the Wired Campus Blog comes word that the University of Wyoming is considering a plan that would require new freshmen to purchase a university-approved laptop computer. The motivation is to level the playing field by ensuring that every student goes to class equipped with identical technology. Ah, but the real question is what would students be doing with those laptops?

There's nothing in the posting to suggest that faculty training in how to effectively utilize laptops is part of the plan. It's easy for universities to provide hardware and then assume that users will figure out how to use it in pedagogically sound ways. As you might guess, that assumption is usually wrong. The digital divide among faculty is probably wider than among students. When I directed my university's Teaching and Learning Center, I came to find out that some of our faculty didn't know how to use email, while others had already surged forward to effectively use Tablet PCs in their teaching. Now there's a digital divide to bridge.

Direct Link to Online Workshops Page

I've had several requests to post the direct link to Georgia Southern's Online Workshops page and so here it is. The CET at Georgia Southern is doing an AWESOME public service by making these videos and other materials available to the public.

A Blue Ribbon Award for Online Workshops Open to Faculty Everywhere

The Socrates Technological University Award of Excellence

This award is being given to the Center for Excellence in Teaching at Georgia Southern University. Their excellent series of online workshops show how to teach with technology in a pedagogically sound manner. No password is needed. I'll be giving out more of these awards as I find Teaching and Learning Centers that do an excellent job of providing accessible online materials relating to teaching with technology. Thanks, Georgia Southern.

A Culture of Copy-and-Paste--What Hath Technology Wrought?

In my March 23rd posting, Reducing Plagiarism the New-Fashioned Way, I wrote about the application of technology to decrease the amount of plagiarism. Along comes this spiked article to give us a student's perspective. Jessica Durkin, a student at Boston University, has done her homework on this issue and so should we, the professioriate.

Would it surprise anyone that in a survey of students, 54 percent of them admitted to Internet plagiarism? That's not really a question, but a comment. Sure, as an economist I can understand why that percentage is so high. Reduce the cost of plagiarism and there will be more of it. And the Internet sure reduces the cost. The time and effort needed to plagiarize is a fraction of what it was when I was a student. Just click, copy, and paste. But the lower cost doesn't tell the whole story.

From Jessica's perspective, many college students are motivated to attend college by the promise of careers with lucrative salaries rather than by the love of learning. For students motivated by money, technology offers an easy way to a diploma. Get, get, get. Me, me, me. Plagiarize, get the grade, get the degree, and get the job. If they can keep that job, that is. Committing fraud to get a degree surely lowers the internal barriers to committing fraud to keep a job later in life. (See Mission Impossible? Ethics in the Mission Statement.)

The invention of a new technology to alleviate problems created by another technology has been a pattern throughout human history. It started in ancient times. Someone invented the club, so someone else countered that technology by inventing the shield to deflect the blows delivered with clubs. The more things change, the more they stay the same. To counter North Korean nuclear missiles I heard President Bush propose tonight the counter technology of a missile defense system. Teaching in a techology-enhanced environment, the problem is the same--to stay one step ahead of the students.

I like Jessica's values-driven conclusion. The ultimate solution to reducing plagiarism has to be with instilling values that motivate students to learn rather than plagiarize. The goal of faculty should be to win the hearts and minds of students by being role models with a passion for learning and love of subject. The dismal statistics on cheating tell us there is a failure somewhere in the system--one that technology can't fix. (See my April 9th posting below, Beyond the Statement of Teaching Philosophy--A Personal Mission Statement to Improve Teaching.)

Malcolm Knowles, Andragogy, and Technology, Part II

Last month I promised to continue the conversation about Knowles' distinction between andragogy and pedagogy by talking about learning objects. A key tenet of andragogy is that adults are ready to learn . . . what they need to know. I like the way this paper (all 52 pages of it! Hang on, I'll summarize it for you in a minute.) on learning objects ties in with the "ready to learn" aspect of andragogy by connecting learning object design to constructivist learning theory.

Let's go back to that "what they need to know" aspect of readiness to learn before going on to the specifics of learning objects. One way to create the expectation in students that they need to know something is to say to them, "It's going to be on the test." Instructors get the question "Is this on the test?" often enough anyway. The problem with this approach is that the motivation for deep learning is going to be weak for a significant number of students. They may study cursorily and become just familiar enough with a topic to have a shot at passing the test. All learners benefit by feeling that knowledge is valuable to them personally. The internal desire to learn will strengthen the motivation to learn beyond the level provided by the negative external motivator from testing. Remember when you were a little kid and you got your first bicycle? Is there a better example of the personal desire to learn than a kid who is learning to ride a bike? You didn't need a test to motivate your. You wouldn't give up until you could ride that bike. I don't want my students giving up until they learn economics. Is there a possibility that learning objects can help provide a positive motivation to learn?

OK, so what's a learning object, anyway? This paper gives us a good insight. Wikipedia has a good entry on learning objects, too. Let's go into the Merlot tasting room and nail down the specifics:

A learning object is a reusable instructional resource, including:

• Simulations, games, classroom experiments
• Animations
• Tutorials
• Practice sets
• Lecture-related materials
• Cases
• Quizzes/Exams/Other Assessment materials
• Collections of materials
• Reference materials

Let me try to distill the essence of the 52-page paper mentioned in the first paragraph and relate it to the readiness to learn aspect of andragogy. The key observation of constructivist learning theory is that learning occurs when learners are able to relate instruction to their own personal experiences, knowledge, and beliefs. Learning objects built on this principle will enhance students' readiness to learn. Thus, effective learning objects will be learner centered. [Aren't you glad I saved you the work of reading the whole paper? :>)]

I'll end today's post with an example from my Principles of Microeconomics course. Last night I authored and posted a learning object on WebCT that involves the Microsoft antitrust case. The assignment requires students to reflect on Microsoft's behavior and the court's ruling from their own perspective as computer and software users, and then answer several questions, also from their perspective. By personalizing the case learners should be motivated to tackle the study of the economics of antitrust. I'll know how successful this approach has been after I see the exam results over this topic.

Thinking About the Effective Use of Video

The economics is simple to understand: Video production costs are dropping while the cost of the printed word is rising. Ergo, the increasing use of video for educational purposes. The question on my mind is whether anyone really understands how to effectively utilize videos for teaching and learning.

I've used two types of videos in my economics classes. One type utilizes professionally produced segments illustrating key economic issues. These tend to be about 15 minutes long and they include interviews with experts, narration, music, and scenes of everyday economic life. The second type of video I've used are those that I've produced in my office. These have me talking about an economic issue for about 2 to 3 minutes.

Regardless of the type of video, I've always implicitly understood that videos are primarily devices to increase student engagement. The real learning takes place as students, their interest piqued by a video, approach the tasks associated with deep learning with an attitude that makes them want to think and learn. The linked CBS News item tells a different story.

Increasingly, videos are being used as the primary or even sole learning tool for some kinds of courses. The title of the story asks the question, "Can Video Replace the Written Word?" I don't want to seem old fashioned, but my answer is a resounding, "NO!"

It strikes me that watching a video is even more passive than listening to a lecture. If we want to create an active learning classroom environment using video then we need to create interactive video presentations. Interspersing videos with questions, surveys, and activities promises to increase the value of videos as learning tools. But videos should still mostly be used as supplements because the written word is indispensable for most educational purposes. For proof, I offer you Meet the Press. Yes, you can tape the show, but you'll notice that the producers offer during the closing credits to sell viewers a transcript. Most of us don't need a transcript because the level of information content we require is satisified by watching the show. Professionals, however, need a deeper understanding and so they buy and read the transcript. Our students often need a deeper understanding too, and so faculty should assign a textbook and students should buy and read it. If the typical student is anything like me, maybe they should read it more than once. It won't hurt the textbook a bit if it's read over again.

Fractal Depth, Part II--If I Could Only Do It Over Again

phlezk responded to my first posting on "fractal depth" by asking about the term. To answer, I'll quote from page 117 of Hagel and Armstrong's Net Gain:

A community's "fractal depth" is the degree to which it can be segmented. The spirit of community, as reflected in the importance of the relationships between and the roles of community members, is what makes a virtual community such a powerful business model. If this spirit tends to be greater in smaller groups where it's possible for people to have more in common, then the more ways a community can be split into smaller subcommunities the better. We call this a community's "fractal depth."

Bear in mind that I'm still reading the book and still reflecting on what I've read, but my current interpretation of the significance of fractal depth is pushing me to make changes in the way I teach. First, one school of thought holds that the best way to structure groups is to assign students to groups randomly. Larry Michaelson demonstrates a way to do this when he conducts his workshops on team-based learning. I've been assigning students to online groups randomly using the Generate Groups feature of WebCT. Proponents of this approach say that diversity is a valued quality in groups and that diversity is better ensured by this approach.

Another school of thought holds that students work better in groups when they self select into groups. The idea here is that they will select friends as members of their group. Proponents of this approach recognize that friends have something in common, which is a strength.

Because of Hagel and Armstrong what I now realize is that both approaches are WRONG! The "spirit of community" will be strongest where students have a great deal in common with their group members. Too often, though, the things that friends in a class have in common are things that matter little to the efficient functioning of a team.

My thinking now is that the rapport and trust that DrTammy emphasizes can be better and more easily established by grouping students according to shared interests. Thanks, DrTammy for introducing me to Palloff and Pratt. I haven't read their book yet, but I think what I want to do would meet with their approval. Next semester I will create a survey of students' academic and personal interests and use the survey results to match students as I place them into groups. This will be lots of work in big classes, but if the fractal depth that leads to rapport and trust mean improved student learning it will be worth it.

Fractal Depth--How Deep is Deep Enough?

Which of the following descriptions of higher education sounds more dynamic to you?

1. We are a community of learners, utilizing the Internet and other technologies to enhance learning.
2. Our classes are web enhanced.

I like the first because it implicitly embodies a goal, which is to create a community of learners. The second is a mere description. The question on my mind is the role of technology in contributing to the creation of community. Here's an insight that comes from the world of business consulting:

If your forum covers a wide range of topics, it may be a good idea to break it down into narrower subtopics: Smaller, more focused sub-communities can create more commitment and stronger member ties than larger, more diffuse communities (this is referred to as creating "fractal depth" by the authors of Net Gain).

Let me interpret for you. Like many instructors, I utilize the Discussion Board feature built into my university's CMT (course management tool, which in my case is WebCT). At the instructor's option, CMT's offer learners the opportunity to become part of a large online community (in my case the 300 students in the class). Instructors have the further option of putting students into groups (the better word is "team" because that word implicitly embodies a significant goal that is absent from "group"). What I'm trying to do in utilizing WebCT groups is to create fractal depth. But how deep is deep enough?

Teams created for specific courses are ephemeral. When the course is over the team members will likely go their own separate ways. Too, teammates exhibit different levels of committment to a class like mine, which is taken to meet a core curriculum requirement. Initially, fractal depth is probably going to be about as thin as a layer of topsoil in Dust Bowl Oklahoma in the 1930s.

Part of my job then is to enrich the soil, to build fractal depth among teams and among the class. We can easily teach faculty how to point and click, but teaching them how to build the optimal level of fractal depth is more challenging. I'm not sure I know how to do it myself. I do know that it has to start with me. I'll be talking more about fractal depth in future posts as I clarify my thoughts.

The Trve University is a Library

I found the statement in the title of this post (and yes, the u looked like a v--some sort of effort to appear erudite, I suppose) printed on a sticker glued inside an old book I purchased at a thrift store. I took that statment to heart as evidenced by the thousands of books in my own personal library. Lately, though I've been thinking about the space all those books take up and how difficult it is to find the one I need when I need it.

If the true university is a library, then the Internet is the mother of all libraries. Nowadays, I rarely leave my desk when I need to look something up. Instead, I use a search engine, usually 20 to 30 times a day. Google Scholar is especially useful when searching for stuffy, academic-type references.

If the true university is a library, then the Encyclopedia Brittanica is a little university unto itself. I've been considering giving away my trusty 20-some-odd-volume Brittanica to a little neighborhood thrift shop. The origianal cost of those books must have been in the hundreds of dollars, maybe even in the thousands. Now, they're just outdated dust catchers for the most part. But a thrift store will be able to get at least $5, $10, or even a little more for them. They do look nice on the bookshelf, what with their rich covers and gold lettering.

You can't say that for the Internet.

Beyond the Statement of Teaching Philosopy--A Personal Mission Statement to Improve Teaching

Every teaching portfolio that I know anything about requires a faculty member to draft a statement of teaching philosopy. That's a good idea, since it forces each instructor to think about teaching. However, statements of teaching philosophies that I've read often seem a bit vague, and pardon the expression, grandiose. Can we do better?

I propose that in addition to the statement of teaching philosophy a teaching portfolio also contain a personal mission statement. I love the work that Dee Fink has done to promote effective teaching and learning. The significant learning concept that Professor Fink has conceptualized is quite useful, I think, in terms of creating a personal mission statement. For example, I wonder how many statements of teaching philosophy, when examined closely, go beyond Foundational Knowledge and Application. There are four other kinds of significant learning that can be easily ignored. Unless, that is, they become part of one's personal mission statement.

By reflecting upon and creating a personal mission statement--one that jibes with one's university, college, and department mission statements--finding the appropriate role for technology can be more easily accomplished.

Hmm. I think I'll draft my own personal mission statement as it relates to teaching and post it soon.