Thinking about competency-based education

Several years ago, I had the chance to work on a committee implementing competency-based education (CBE) in several programs at my university of record. We had already gone through a process of “modularizing” courses, and now we were working on creating single-credit courses. Let me explain a few things before I continue.

A degree—associate, bachelor, master, or doctorate—consists of a certain number of credit hours, depending on whether those credits are offered based on semesters or quarters. In a semester system, courses are usually offered in three, 15-week terms per year. In a quarter system, the academic year is divided into—you guessed it—four terms. Semester hours are worth about 1.5 times quarter credits (or quarter credits are worth about two-thirds semester credits) (Tilus, 2012). Thus, it generally takes fewer semester credits to earn a degree. For example, most institutions require 120 semester credit hours for a bachelor’s degree, which converts to 180 quarter credits (Johnson et al., 2012). This is NOT an assessment of rigor, but rather on the time spent in class.

Each course a student takes is worth a designated number of credit hours. For more than a century, institutions have used the Carnegie Unit to establish credit hours. Under the Carnegie system, one credit hour equates to one classroom period taught 5 days per week (International Affairs Office, 2008). In simple terms, a three-credit course would meet for three hours each week. Under the semester system, you could assume for a three-credit course the student would spend three hours in class each week and another six hours of preparation, or out of class, time. 

As we further evolve into the information age, the traditional structures of higher education are inadequate to gauge student progress and learning. Seat time—or the hours spent in class—do not truly represent what the student learns or how hard the student works. This is becoming painfully obvious as traditional brick-and-mortar institutions are forced online in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic. What, then, is the solution? How do we calculate or evaluate learning in the absence of seat time?

The answer is simple and complex. The simple answer is that we evaluate learning on the basis of competencies. Many of you are probably nodding your heads. In fact, several institutions (including my own) are doing this. The complex part is how to determine what constitutes a competency. This is where instructional design theory comes into play. Stay tuned for further thoughts.

International Affairs Office. (2008). Structure of the U.S. education system: Credit systems. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/credits.doc

Johnson, N., Reidy, L., Droll, M., & LeMon, R. E. (2012, July). Program requirements for associate’s and bachelor’s degrees: A national survey. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/Program%20Requirements%20-%20A%20National%20Survey%281%29.pdf 

Tilus, G. (2012, September 27). Semester vs. quarter: What you need to know when transferring credits. https://www.rasmussen.edu/about-rasmussen-college/news-center/semester-vs-quarter-need-to-know-when-transferring-credits/

War on Grad Students

These are my thoughts on the political attempts to restructure the tax code and the impact on higher education. It is only tangentially related to technology insofar as technology benefits from the research often completed at universities. The catalyst for this post is a segment last week from NPR.

While we sit around and vilify higher education, and make huffy statements that "not everyone needs to go to college" (not everyone does -- less than 70% of high school graduates enter college; BLS, 2017a), our government is attempting to assault graduate students by taxing their assistantship benefits. Certain grad students pay for their degrees by accepting positions as teaching and research assistants at universities. In exchange for their service, the students receive tuition remission and a small monthly stipend (typically $1000 to $3000 per month, depending on the institution). In doing so, they are able to complete their degrees with little or no loan debt and they earn valuable experience as teachers and researchers. The institution benefits by having an affordable source of assistants to support their research professors. The more research professors and institutions are able to contribute to the body of knowledge, the more funding they are able to bring into their departments. So it's a win-win for grad students and the institution.

Our Congress, in attempting to retool the tax code, wants to treat the tuition remission graduate students receive as taxable income. (Stipends are already taxed.) This could have a massively detrimental impact to graduate students, particularly those at more prestigious universities with higher tuition. Imagine having a $30,000 salary and then suddenly having an $80,000 salary (on paper) on which you have to pay taxes. The result is that your spendable income from the stipend gets eaten up to pay the tax on your tuition benefit. Now you have no money left for living expenses.

I hear you thinking, "Well, that's too bad. Maybe they don't need to go to grad school. The world needs ditch diggers, too." Yes, the world does need ditch diggers. We also need sanitation people (thank goodness for those folks -- possibly the most important job in society), mechanics, plumbers, electricians, cosmeticians, phlebotomists, and a whole host of other tradespeople. You might not think much about sociologists, who study societal behavior, or philosophers, who study the nature of human thought and its relationship to the universe, but people in those disciplines seek to understand the issues, problems, and complications of humanity and find ways to improve society. They also seek to preserve a history of humanity. Think also about scientists and mathmaticians, who work on complex problems that exist in health, the environment, engineering, space, and other fields. We need these people. You might not think so, but think about what could happen if we ceased trying to document, understand, and improve our society and culture.

Across all occupations, those who have attained a master's degree account for about 10% of the population; doctoral degree holders account for just 4% (BLS, 2017b). Only a small percentage of those people accept assistantships. (For example, I earned both of my advanced degrees part-time while working. I borrowed for one, and paid on-the-go for the other.) The tax gain for the government would be small, while the negative impact to graduate students and their institutions would be significant. We do need people with advanced degrees in this society. They are the thought-leaders who seek the answers to the problems in our world and help to educate future generations. If you are so inclined, I encourage you to contact your congressional representative and stand up in defense of graduate education.

References:

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2017, April 27). College enrollment and work activity of 2016 high school graduates. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm

BLS. (2017, October 24). Educational attainment for workers 25 years and older by detailed occupation. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_111.htm

Microlearning -- making use of your spare time

I have a hate-hate relationship with my mobile device. In other words, I hate it. It's a necessary evil, though, and I know I'm in the minority. Almost everyone has a mobile device, and most people at least like theirs. But let's face it, all that time spent texting, playing games, tweeting, and surfing social media is mostly wasted.

What if you could do something other than play solitaire in your free time? What if you could actually learn something while waiting for your Chinese takeout?

Great news -- you can!

The concept is called microlearning. It consists of bite-sized chunks of learning that you can easily digest in a few minutes -- learning while you wait. Check out my August blog post for LxD Insider Guide on using microlearning in organizations.

Using Twitter to Support the Learning Process

Twitter is getting lots of attention these days. While political battles and celebrity slap-downs are all the rage, Twitter still has a multitude of useful functionality. Recently, I reached out to my colleagues in the instructional trenches to see how they are using Twitter in their educational practices. The results were interesting. I compiled their input into a blog post for a client. Check it out and get inspired by the creativity!

Buy or Build?

When it comes to creating training, most organizations have faced this dilemma: do we buy it or build it ourselves? What do we need to consider? While I can't tell you how to solve that conundrum, I CAN give you some points to ponder. Check out the post I just wrote for a client on this very topic.

Revisiting Low-Threshold Apps

Several years ago, low-threshold applications (LTAs) were all the rage. As the web became more interactive and more producer-driven, little tools and technologies emerged that allowed users to create and share information quickly. Most were free, although a few charged a nominal fee. Popular tools were Jing®, VoiceThread®, and Prezi®. Jing is still free, but both VoiceThread and Prezi have moved to subscription-based models. The rates are quite affordable, and include individual and education options. Prezi also still offers a free basic account.

LTAs were fun to use. I loved them because you could experiment with different ways to present media without making a huge investment. If you didn't like an app, you just abandoned the account. No love lost. Using LTAs is also an easy way to get learners involved in creating media. Again, LTAs are low risk for student use.

Recently, a client asked for a blog post on a learning-related topic. I decided to brush off my LTA info and see what's still available (quite a bit, actually). I was pleased to see that many LTAs have kept up with the times without sacrificing the cheap/free options. Check out the full article here.

What's the opposite of a MOOC?

Okay, friends in higher education. I am reaching out to you for a little help. As I am working on my capstone proposal, I need  a term for standard online courses. My study surrounds MOOCs. I need to distinguish between MOOCs and "traditional" online courses. (As if online courses are traditional.) The literature isn't really helping. An instructional designer from Vanderbilt (see http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2013/08/lessons-learned-from-vanderbilts-first-moocs/), reflecting on Vandy's first attempt with MOOCs, refers to "closed courses" and "traditional settings," but is referring to both the on-ground and online classrooms. A white paper published by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (available at http://agb.org/sites/agb.org/files/report_2013_MOOCs.pdf) refers to "traditional online learning" and "other forms of online education." Much of the literature I've read focuses strictly on MOOCs and does not attempt to make a distinction.

MOOCs, as most of us know, refer to "massive open online courses." The courses allow anyone to enroll with no fees, no participation requirements, and no prerequisites. Enrollment is not capped or limited (hence, "massive"). I need to differentiate between MOOCs and online courses that are commonly offered as part of a degree, with class size limitations, prerequisites, participation and completion requirements, and -- usually -- tuition. Would it be enough to call these simply "closed online courses"? The term "traditional" doesn't seem appropriate, given that we are talking about maybe 20 years in the scheme of thousands of years of higher education studies.

Thoughts? Suggestions? No pressure, but I'm trying to complete my revisions by Tuesday night. :) I've spent several hours reviewing literature again, and I'm still no closer to a term.

Get ready for BYOD!

The BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) trend is one to watch. A recent Gartner report predicts that about half of all global companies will migrate to a BYOD policy over the next 4 to 5 years. The report also suggests many of those companies will no longer provide computing devices to employees (Kanaracus, 2013). This trend is clearly coming, but it's worth considering the implications from both sides.

Chief among those considerations is maintenance and security. For corporations, this means providing at least some level of support for a vast array of devices. Whether it's as simple as troubleshooting connectivity problems or more complex problems with operating systems or hardware failures, having employees using their own devices rather than a standard configuration increases demands on support. Virus prevention is another concern, although not as complex if the company chooses to push virus updates out to devices connecting to corporate resources. Security becomes a risk. Virus prevention is only part of the security picture. If employees are using their own devices and connecting to multiple networks with the same device, it opens the possibility that corporate data stored on a personal device can be compromised.

Cloud computing can solve some of the security concerns, of course. Storing and accessing resources in the cloud can limit the volume of corporate data stored on personal computing devices. Cloud computing still has a way to go, however, to be fully reliable for mass scale access. As cloud computing becomes more reliable and prevalent, some of the data access concerns will decrease.

From the personal standpoint, many employees may welcome the option to use their own device. Throughout my career, I've always been either a full-time or part-time consultant, and thus have kept my own technology updated. During times when I've been a captive employee, my personal computing devices have almost always been more high tech than what my employer offered. Still, using one's own device for the benefit of a captive employer raises concerns about mixing business and personal use on a single device. Employers should be concerned about this as well. Using a single device for both purposes can blur the lines between business and personal. Of course, productivity is really what matters, but employers need to ensure they have clear processes and metrics for gauging business accomplishments. From the personal side, concerns arise about allowing the employer to access the computing assets. Furthermore, the possibility exists that personal data could be lost if the employer decides to reconfigure a device for whatever reason. Again, cloud computing and regular backups can guard against this danger. Compensation for using a personal device is also a concern. A BYOD policy pushes responsibility for purchasing and maintaining computing assets onto the employee; employers must be prepared to offer at least some remuneration for this convenience (Kanaracus, 2013).

What is your opinion of BYOD? Do you have reservations about it? Or is your attitude, "Bring it on?"

Reference

Kanaracus, C. (2013, May 1). Half of companies will require BYOD by 2017, Gartner says. CIO. Retrieved from http://www.cio.com/article/732649/Half_of_Companies_Will_Require_BYOD_By_2017_Gartner_Says

Thoughts on Opening the Learning Environment

In my work with online instructors, I keep hearing a lot of talk about using wikis and blogs "as they are intended to be used" or "they way they should be used." By that, the individuals are referring to the way we generally think about wikis and blogs: a wiki is a collaborative web space with potentially multiple contributors, and a blog is an individual journal-type site generally maintained by a single entity and facilitated as an ongoing conversation with readers.

These concepts have merit, but I've begun to wonder if we are restricting instructors, learners, and the knowledge-building process by trying to define these spaces. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if we should allow learners to make their own choices about which spaces to use rather than prescribing which space learners should use for an activity. Even if learners make the "wrong" choice (i.e., using a blog when the instructor believes a wiki would have been more appropriate), it would still present a learning opportunity (Parry, 2012). Perhaps it would even allow for the emergence of innovative uses for these spaces.

Of course, in a "traditional" online classroom, allowing such choice presents challenges for evaluation and grading. What is more important: demonstrating mastery of concepts or choosing the appropriate media for presentation? How do you evaluate mastery of concepts when various media are used for the same activity? Maybe allowing a more open forum for learners to demonstrate mastery will, by necessity, require a more open evaluation process. Now, I know that sounds blasphemous in light of all the work that has been done over the past century (nearly) to develop reliable methods of assessment. But an open evaluation process does not have to mean subjective, invalid, or unreliable. It means we have to rethink the evaluation criteria we establish and how we measure it.

I don't consider myself a particularly creative person. But I do know that when I've been challenged with having to make something work with limited or restricted resources, I've been able to find ways to exploit whatever technology I had available. Maybe that is the challenge we need to present to our learners. Instead of prescribing what tool to use, give them a task and allow them to leverage the tools available. Make the environment more open. While some learners might prefer more structure, others will run with the autonomy. In doing so, they may be able to aid or inspire the more reluctant learner. This shifts the paradigm of the learning environment from one of knowledge transmission to knowledge production, possibly improving the "stickiness" of the learning.

Thoughts? Is it our responsibility to direct learners to use technology "appropriately" or are we better off designing an open and autonomous environment that encourages exploration, collaboration, and knowledge construction? If so, how do we adapt assessment methods for the open environment?

Reference

Parry, M. (2012, March 7). Could many universities follow Borders Bookstores into oblivion? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/could-many-universities-follow-borders-bookstores-into-oblivion/35711 

Is it fair to lurk?

I'm doing research on MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) right now. I've only participated in a few, but the concept intrigues me. My focus areas are instructional design and instructor activity. The literature on MOOCs is expanding, but much of it centers on individual experience in the MOOC. As researchers consider individual goals and motivations for participating in MOOCs, participant profiles begin to emerge. One participant type that was inevitable – at least in my opinion – is the lurker.

The lurker is present not only in MOOCs, but in any networked situation both face-to-face and online. You know the lurker. You've probably been the lurker; I have. In fact, I lurk a lot. I lurked in face-to-face situations. One time, my sister and I went to the dog track and decided to lurk to see if we could pick a few winners before actually placing a bet. We never did get comfortable enough to wager, so we just watched about 17 races. We felt kind of conspicuous after a while. Lurking online is much easier. Your name shows up on the participant list, but you just never contribute. Or you have a Twitter account and follow people, but never tweet. That kind of thing.

So what's the big deal with the lurker? Well, some authors see lurkers as "free-riders" (Tschofen & Mackness, 2012). In other words, lurkers take and don't give. Connected learning environments offer the ability for participants to interact and share knowledge (Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010). Such environments, in fact, rely on individual contributions and sharing for knowledge creation. According to Siemens (2010), lurking is never a good thing nor is it ever acceptable. Siemens believes that even newcomers to a situation should be sharing and helping to create understanding. He asserts that newcomers may be better positioned than experts to help other newcomers.

I don’t know about you, but that makes me uncomfortable. The last thing I want to do is reveal my ignorance in a public forum (although I wind up doing exactly that all too frequently). I like to look around, get comfortable, and see what's going on: how smart is everyone else? If they are too smart – meaning smarter than I am – I may decide just to hang out and absorb or perhaps leave the forum all together. It's unlikely my exposed ignorance will add much, and will likely only annoy the smart people. And online, people are none too shy about informing you of your ignorance, sometimes rather unpleasantly.

How do you feel? Is it fair to lurk in an open forum? Does everybody have an obligation to participate? Have you ever been a lurker yourself?

References

Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. University of Lancaster, Lancaster (pp. 266-275). ISBN 9781862202252

Siemens, G. (2010, December 1). My personal learning network is the most awesome thing ever [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/12/01/my-personal-learning-network-is-the-most-awesomest-thing-ever/

Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience.  The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 124-143.

Testing an Open Course

My home institution, like many, has immersed itself into the world of open courses. I'm participating in a beta test of the first open course. Rather than start yet another blog (since I already have 4 or 5), I thought TechMate would be ideal to serve as my test stomping grounds. We were instructed to create sections for the blog, but I'd rather not disrupt my existing setup. Therefore, I will add appropriate labels as needed.

If your tumble down the rabbit hole has landed you here, ignore this post. Read some of my other posts; they are fairly interesting (I hope). Leave a comment; nobody ever seems to comment. I'm guilty of that myself. That's one of the failures of most blogging attempts -- nobody comments. I wonder if it's because we are ashamed or embarrassed to proffer our opinions; if we think others won't value our thoughts or ideas; or if we are just not interested. Any thoughts on that? I think for many people, myself included, it's that we think others won't appreciate our insights. Am I wrong?

EME5404: Stupid is as stupid does, sir.

In my wanderings this week to find resources for my journal, I stumbled down the path we explored in Instructional Computing I: Is the internet making us stupid? I don't want to completely veer off onto that path, but considering that question does help to further understanding of how digital technologies have changed the way we access, consume, and process information. In the previous course, I stated that my reading patterns have changed. I now tend to skim material rather than read it closely. My attention span is maybe a few pages at a time. In an online article, if the author doesn't grab my attention and keep it within the first few paragraphs, I'm gone. So, as Carr (2008) believes, we humans are sacrificing our capacity for deep thought and linear processing. Rather than taking in high quality information in a logical way and processing it in a linear fashion, we now grab bits and pieces from various sources, clicking from link to link to link – and we LIKE getting this constant flow of new information. To put it in more common terms, we've been formally dining at the Waldorf Astoria for millennia; now we are grazing at the Golden Corral.

Alang (2010) believes this shift in human thought and processing is not necessarily a bad thing. He argues that this change in thought patterns may be necessary – and even beneficial – for the complex, multi-layered world in which we live. He further suggests that our world is so interconnected that we need to be able to navigate through the web of information, and linear thinking just won't serve that purpose.

Okay, so where does that take us in terms of accessing and evaluating quality information? Obviously, the web puts a plethora of information at our fingertips. Some of it is excellent, but quite a bit is garbage. I think I can address the issue of quality and put it in the context of changing thought patterns, and tie it all back to this week's reading. Hear me out, because I'm going to jump around a bit.

Let me first start with the issue of eBooks and changing thought patterns. Electronic publishing is on the rise, and much of the impetus is provided by textbook publishers (Miller, 2010b; Young, 2009). It only makes sense; publishers can cut costs and increase revenues by selling more eBooks. That's not the only incentive, however. As Miller notes, some education entities – California, for example – are establishing mandates to move to eBooks, citing in part reduced costs for students. From a student perspective, I can see additional advantages beyond cost savings. Modern eBooks aren't just electronic copies of the paper text; many are interactive, media infused learning experiences that function in the non-linear fashion that more of us tend to think. Students can bookmark, highlight, notate, and even share comments. They may be able to access a linked podcast or simulation, or possibly even an interactive assessment. So publishers are responding to the "new way of thinking" by creating non-linear, cross-connected electronic texts (Young, 2009).

That brings us to finding and consuming valid, reliable, high quality information. Another movement that has been afoot for a while and continues to grow is open source, or open access, digital publishing. This refers to collections of texts, journals, multimedia, and learning objects that have been developed by knowledgeable professionals and, in most cases, vetted by a panel of experts via peer review. The technology infusion of these resources may vary, but they offer a valid and reliable alternative to both expensive commercial products and non-peer reviewed resources. Many good examples are available from the Open Educational Resources Center for California, which was set up to support legislation in California that requires textbooks to be available in electronic form by 2020 (Miller, 2010a; Miller, 2010b).

As always, I want to leave you with a couple of videos to consider. This week, I have two. The first, from Money Talks News (1:24 mins), addresses the high cost of college textbooks by suggesting a few ways students can locate cheap or free resources. The other is from Texas Curriculum (1:36 mins) and addresses legislation that establishes a foundation for adopting open source textbooks in primary and secondary education. I think this second one is particularly important, because we often think of open source publishing in terms of higher education (I do, anyway). With the budgetary challenges faced by the nation's primary and secondary schools – both public and private – open source materials may provide one way to stretch finances further without compromising instructional integrity.

What are your thoughts or experiences with open source materials? What about your thought processes? Has the internet changed the way you find and use information?

 

Money Talks News (Producer). (2010, January 4). 3 Places to get free textbooks [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/HxryAJ6N67o

 

Texas Curriculum (Producer). (2011, February 3). Open source textbooks [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/YRLvCoq_BjI

References

Miller, M.H. (2010a, February 9). New web site lists free online textbooks. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/New-Web-Site-Lists-Free-Online/21165/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Alang, N. (2010, June 15). For better and worse, the web is changing how we think. Techi. Retrieved from http://www.techi.com/2010/06/for-better-and-worse-the-web-is-changing-how-we-think/

Carr, N. (2008, July/August) Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/

Miller, M. H. (2010b, January 14). California law encourages digital textbooks by 2020. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/California-Law-Requires/20526/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

 

EME5404: On the move

When I was a kid, mobile devices consisted of a slingshot, pocket knife, magnifying glass, and pocket-sized book of flower and insect classifications. The guide-on-the-side was my grandmother, who knew everything about every tiny plant or living creature. Together with some of my many cousins, we roamed through fields and trails picking up rocks, bark, grasses, flowers, and bugs, carefully examining them, discussing their features, and skimming through the book trying to classify what we had. Grandmother coached us, giving hints to help us find the right match. Sometimes we broke up into groups and would meet up to share our finds, collaborating to determine just what we had found.

I often wonder how things would have been different if I had mobile technology as a kid. In a way, the natural curiosity that was fed by my primitive "mobile apps" is what has fueled my adoption of technology as an adult. As new technologies have emerged, I've immersed myself in learning about them and trying the ones that appealed the most to me. Sometimes I find things I love, like my laptop, and other times I adopt things that I consider necessary evils, like my smartphone. For years, I put off buying a smartphone because I like being untethered at times and didn't want to spend the money for the data service. Now, however, I find that my smartphone has become as important as my laptop. The smartphone provides me with access to all my email accounts, texting, GPS, the web, a camera, my reading apps (Nook and Kindle), voice recorder, and even radio and TV. As much as I loathe the device, I now cannot live without it.

Thinking back to my days as a kid, a smartphone would have really supported my investigative hikes. I could see myself using the web to replace my pocket classification book. I could have photographed my finds and posted them to a site like Facebook. It would have made sharing finds with my cousins on another trail almost instantaneous. Grandmother could have managed us all via Twitter. Given that opportunities for in-depth learning about plant and animal life were not part of the formal curriculum at school, having my own device to support informal investigation of the world around me would have helped broaden and enrich my formal learning in class.

Making connections between people and leveraging technology to share content and solve problems are advantages of using mobile devices (Wagner, 2007). In a world where the learning environment is constantly challenged by lack of funds, high-stakes testing, overcrowded classrooms, and overworked teachers, mobile technology offers an informal intervention that individual students can use to augment and expand on what they learn in class.

This week, I leave you with a short (6:36 mins) video of teachers discussing the hows and whys of integrating mobile technology into the learning environment. From my perspective, I think one of the things we have to consider – especially with children – is the role that natural curiosity plays in the learning process. If we could use mobile technologies to harness that curiosity, we may have a powerful intervention on our hands. What do you think? Is it possible to leverage natural curiosity? What would the benefits or drawbacks be?



References

ACU (Producer). (2011, March 1). Thoughts on the state of mobile learning [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/AQgCXEoTap4

Wagner, E. (2007, February 20). Mobile matters: Why learning professionals need to care [Archived web conference presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/mobile-matters-why-learning-professionals-need-care

EME5404: Virtually Yours

Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs)

The challenge in delivering effective distance education remains the same: establishing and supporting presence.  We have come a long way in figuring out infrastructure, pedagogy, accessibility, collaboration, communication … but we still have work to do in terms of helping online participants establish and maintain presence in the online environment. Presence refers to the perception that others are present and engaged in an online exchange. But just how do we facilitate that element of presence online?

Varying opinions exist, of course. We can look toward theoretical approaches, pedagogy, instructional design, and so forth for the answers. Technology is another source to consider. Some experts believe that the use of multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) can help to support the development of social presence, and, by extension, the learning experience. The videos and readings this week all gave various examples of MUVE implementations for different age groups that served, at least in part, to facilitate online presence. Presence is just advantage of using a MUVE, however. The readings cited numerous other contributions MUVEs can offer when used to facilitate learning delivery.

MUVEs improve opportunities for and support activities such as team building, collaboration, and community building (Gee, 2008; Ussery, 2010; Wallace, 2010). Furthermore, the virtual environment opens up opportunities for students to act in novel and creative ways (Bers, 2008; Ussery, 2010). Ussery (2010), in particular, provided numerous examples of things that could be done in the MUVE that would otherwise be difficult or impossible:

• In-world presentations: Overcomes some of the logistical issues with trying to facilitate presentation skills in online classes. 
• Student-led field trips or field trips to 3D simulations or models of concepts. 
• Access to resources or experts that would require significant travel or money to access otherwise.

Ussery (2010) and Gee (2008) both noted that the MUVE environment allowed students a safe place to practice skills that could not be pursued in real life. Examples included simulations of emergency situations, dangerous experiments, or any scenario where the cost of failure in the real world is high. I once reviewed a simulation created for military applications where a "terrorist attack" had taken place. Simulated bodies were all over the place, buildings had been "blown up," and so forth. The players had to evaluate and care for the injured and work on locating the perpetrators. It was very easy to become engrossed in the simulation.

In reviewing the literature this week, it seems that MUVEs could offer benefits to various individuals and groups. Wallace (2010) noted that high context (relies on communication factors other than speech) and highly sociable individuals seem to be more willing to participate and interact with the broader range of participants in MUVE. So it is reasonable to believe those individuals my benefit from the MUVEs. Individuals who are more hands-on in their learning styles could also benefit, because MUVEs offer the opportunity to apply new knowledge immediately. Bers (2008) cited some advantages to having children engage in a MUVE to develop civic engagement. Children were able to engage with other participants and the environment on their terms, to listen in on conversations where they were less prepared to participate actively, and to take action privately. They were also able to apply new knowledge and concepts immediately within the environment. This is not to say that MUVEs are a solution for any of these demographics, but rather that they may offer certain benefits.

I want to close this week with a look at virtual worlds in education. It seems like their use is slowing down, but there are still some interesting initiatives taking place. One is the MERLOT 3D Campus. Some may know MERLOT as a repository for learning objects and other learning materials. So it makes sense that MERLOT would voyage into the land of MUVEs. You can watch a brief over of MERLOT's Second Life based virtual environment, and then visit the Center for Learning in Virtual Environments (CLIVE) website.

Sify Innovative Solutions (Producer). (2011, November 28). Virtual worlds in higher education [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/PDgmR4sbUaM (2:17 mins)

California State University. (2012). The Center for Learning In Virtual Environments (CLIVE). Retrieved from http://clive.merlot.org/index.html

If you are feeling adventuresome, visit CLIVE in Second Life. The link is on the CLIVE website. I have to admit, I visited and did not find much – perhaps because this is the weekend and very few people were visiting. But I have heard from other educators that Second Life is losing some of its popularity. Indeed, I found several "islands" I used to visit that either appear to be abandoned (outdated or broken information) or are gone all together. What do you think? Has the day of the MUVE come and gone, or is it still a viable option for online learning delivery?

References

Bers, M. U. (2008). Civic identities, online technologies: From designing civic curriculum to supporting civic experiences. In W. O. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 139-160). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.139

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 21-40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.021

Ussery, J. (2010). Expanding educational realities – Exploring interactive and immersive learning experiences. Session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative 2010 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/eli-session-expanding-educational-realities-%E2%80%93-exploring-interactive-and-immersive-learning-experiences

Wallace, P. (2010). Some of my students are not human! Avatar interaction and collaboration in virtual worlds. Session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative 2010 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/eli-session-expanding-educational-realities-%E2%80%93-exploring-interactive-and-immersive-learning-experiences

EME5404: Credibility and Your Online Self

Last week, I ended with the thought that verifying authenticity of web content is the reader's or consumer's responsibility. It's kind of the "caveat emptor" of the web. This week's topic considers that responsibility, and addresses how information consumers can improve their ability to evaluate web resources. Related to that is how we represent ourselves online, because an individual's online presence goes hand-in-hand with his or her credibility. So in addition to evaluating the credibility of resources we consume, we need to build in credibility to the resources we produce by creating and maintaining a reliable and professional online presence.

Although source credibility has traditionally included factors like the speaker's physical appearance and composure, online source credibility boils down to credentials, web presence, and the integrity of the associated web site (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008). In terms of web site integrity, consumers can consider several factors including the sponsoring organization, the currency of the information, and the presence of contact, copyright, and privacy information. For example, when the sponsoring organization is a university or other academic institution, the government, or the military, the information can usually be considered credible.  Likewise, if a website appears to be updated and maintained regularly and lists contacts and policy information, the sites credibility is probably fairly strong (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008; Lankes, 2008; Nortel, 2011). This short (6:05 minutes) video from Nortel describes ways information consumers can evaluate the integrity of online information.

 

 Obviously, the Internet has certainly had a hand in vastly expanding the resources educators and learners have available to them. In my own situation, being able to direct students to resources like an online video or a blog allows me to bring in expert testimony or opposing viewpoints that might otherwise be hard to access. It also gives students the flexibility to locate resources to support their own work and to publish what they then create. In fact, some learners might find they no longer need to be part of an institutionalized learning environment. Certainly, the "open education" movement has brought actual course material from well respected universities, such as Stanford and MIT, right to Joe and Jane Internet's computer screens. Not all open sources are as clearly reliable, however, which makes learning to discern credibility even more important (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008).

Because source credibility is a key factor in identifying authentic and reliable web resources, content creators need to be concerned with how they present themselves online. Therefore, managing your web presence is important to establishing yourself as a reliable source (Lankes, 2008; Nortel, 2011). Lowenthal and Dunlap (2012) recently published an excellent piece on establishing and managing web presence for academic professionals. It is an excellent and quick read, and provides images and short video tutorials to demonstrate some of the principles discussed. You can access the article here: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know

Academics may wish to follow some of the suggestions in the Lowenthal and Dunlap (2012) article and consider publishing draft materials to a web site, blogging, Tweeting, and engaging in other forms of collaborative web publishing and interactions. As the authors point out, it is essential to leverage all your connections in the best way permissible to help build your own credibility. In addition to building and maintaining a current profile, academics should also consider contributing to peer reviews, critiques, and recommendations of the work of their colleagues. All these activities can affect an individual's online credibility. The more complete an individual's profile and the easier his or her work is to find, the better he or she will look when others find an academic's work (Nortel, 2011).

So while consumers are ultimately responsible for validating the credibility of the sources they visit online, they are also responsible for helping form the credibility of different resources. Consumers can offer their own critiques, reviews, and recommendations of various online resources and contributors. When consumers transition into the producer role, they can make their own case for credibility by providing an accurate representation of their identity, qualifications, and connections in the online world. It's a balancing act where we all have a role to play.

Resources

Flanagin,A., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 5-28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005

Lankes, R. D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 101-122). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.101

Lowenthal, P., & Dunlap, J. (2012, June 6). Intentional web presence: 10 SEO strategies every academic needs to know. EDUCAUSEreview Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know

Nortel (Producer). (2011, April 23). Discovering the internet: Credibility [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/WQXPtveRevc

 

EME5404: "I'm sure you are who you say you are…"

This week's topic was social networking. The subject matter dealt with participation in social networking, online identities, and privacy. This week's literature focused primarily on teen agers and young adults, but much of it is extensible to all netizens. (You youngsters can look up "netizen.") As a participant in online social culture since the Wild, Wild, West (www) days, I've been through several iterations of my online self. As I mentioned in my post last week, I've had many identities, including my "real-life" identity, in the online world. Many services now are forcing participants to use their real-life identities. I was shocked last summer to find out that a blog I kept anonymously on Blogger (a Google service) was suddenly public with my REAL NAME attached to it! As much as I loved that blog, I had to delete it. The reason I kept it anonymously was so I could voice some controversial viewpoints that might cast me in an unfavorable light with some people. It wasn't really bad or offensive – just controversial.

Privacy – for whatever reason – is a key concern for many online participants, even younger users (boyd & Hargittai, 2010; boyd, 2007). boyd (2007) notes that teens tend to falsify their online profiles mainly to block their parents, but adults have reasons for doing so as well. Women, for example tend to be more cautious online to protect themselves from becoming crime targets. Others may wish to protect their personal identity from known connections for various reasons (boyd & Hargittai, 2010). While users may feel justified in masking their real identities online, many service providers, as I have mentioned, take the opposite view. These service providers take the position that having users reveal their true identities is essential for an "authentic" web experience (Carnegie Council, 2011). Who should have the final say in how users present themselves online? Is that an individual right, or are service providers justified in insisting that we all present our true selves? Under what circumstances should users be permitted to conceal their identities, or is that right undeniable?

I stand in the corner of user-controlled identities. The responsibility for verifying authenticity belongs to the reader/consumer. Producers may have many reasons for remaining anonymous, not all of which are nefarious. Further, initial research suggests that authentic identities may not be effective in promoting more civil online dialog (see last week's post).

Check out the video from the Global Ethics Corner, a Carnegie Council initiative, and let me know what you think!

References
boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation series on digital learning  - Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

boyd, d., & Hargittai, E. (2010). Facebook privacy settings: Who cares? First Monday, 15(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3086/2589

Carnegie Council (Producer). (2011, November 18). Privacy and responsibility on the internet: Who should control your identity on the web? [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/6cN5XJ_02_o

EME5404 - Self perception in the real and digital worlds

Just a quick disclaimer: As part of a course I'm taking on instructional media, I am required to keep a journal. It seemed to make sense to use TechMate for that purpose. If you are reading along from the course, my journal posts begin with the course ID, EME5404. If you are here for the ride, well, enjoy. Feel free to let me know what you think in the comments.

---

Every time I wander down the path of real versus digital life, I am reminded of my own journey over the past 18 years or so. I am also reminded of how those two lives, real and digital -- once so distinct, now seem to converge. Part of that convergence has to do with the way people use technology now, while some aspects rely on the push by certain service providers to have all online profiles under the users' real names. Is that good? Bad? Or is it just the evolution of technology.

In the Wild West days of the World Wide Web, everybody wanted to be somebody else. For whatever reason, we all valued our privacy. We knew the web was filled with cyber stalkers, perverts, identity thieves, and various other unsavory creatures. So people chose "handles" or nicknames for their online profiles. Some people used the same handle for all their profiles while other people chose to project a different image on different sites.

Over the years, I have had various online handles. Most of them have been named after cars. Usually, the handle I chose depended on my purpose for a particular site. If I was there to be friendly and sociable, I used a handle I cared about and identified with. If I was at the site to be a troll (an obnoxious poster), I used a handle that represented my purpose and, I hoped, would not link back to me. But that was the beauty of the early web – you could hide behind an assumed identity. You could make up a profile and give it a persona that represented the type of person you always dreamed of being. Or you could be a troll and nobody would be any wiser.

Of course, that troll part was (and still is) a bit problematic. Acting under a pseudonym seemed to embolden people. That became especially apparent in certain discussion forums and in the commenting sections of news stories. Some people would say whatever came to mind, regardless of how cruel or inconsiderate it was. It seemed as though the ability to remain anonymous overcame the restraint that most of us would show in a face-to-face conversation. Civil conversation was abandoned. As a result, some sites have taken steps to move away from anonymous profiles. Facebook, Google+, and other services now require users to register under their given names and not a pseudonym.  Certain news sites now require commentators to use their Facebook profiles to post comments on news stories. Whether the move is or will be successful is yet to be seen. If recent observations in Korea are any indication, the use of real names does little to reduce aggressive behavior online (Ferenstein, 2012). So while we are busy becoming our real selves online, is it possible that we will one day revert back to our assumed identities? And is our "real self" online even the same as our real self in person?

I often say that my online self is more interesting than my real self. Online, even though anonymity is not what it used to be, we still have the ability to be funnier or friendlier or wittier than we are in person. Given time to think up a comeback or Google something, we look much better online than when we are stammering in person, struggling to find the right words or grasping to remember what some pundit said on the news last night. We have the chance to become that "techne-mentor" Ito et al. (2010) describe.

If you consider what Ito et al. (2010) found in their study of youth culture and media ecologies, that the use of online media is often an integral part of real life, it is really not feasible to return to the Wild West days of the web. We really cannot go back and become anonymous again; we can't be trolls, or pirates, or mermaids, or Jedi knights. But maybe we can be better versions of ourselves – something to live up to.

References

Ferenstein, G. (2012, July 29). Surprisingly good evidence that real name policies fail to improve comments. AoL Tech. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/29/surprisingly-good-evidence-that-real-name-policies-fail-to-improve-comments/

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittani, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., … Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google launches 'Drive' cloud storage service | StAugustine.com

Google launches 'Drive' cloud storage service | StAugustine.com

Another choice for cloud-based storage rolls out to consumers this week. Personally, I already use Box and like it, but I'm willing to look at Google because I already use several Google services. Although I'm hesitant to store sensitive information on the cloud, certain data is a no brainer. Take photos, for example. Over the past two years, I've copied nearly all my digital photos to web storage. I still have them on personal media, but having them in the cloud gives me a back up. The importance of this is critical. Cloud storage is more secure against crashes and regularly backed up by the service. About two years ago, had both my main computer and my external hard drive back up crash with weeks of each other. Between the two, I had years of digital photography stored that chronicled my childrens' early lives. The media on the computer was totally lost after back up to the external drive, so when the external drive crashed I lost all access to those image (and other important data). The external drive can be recovered, but it's expensive and I haven't had the funds to do that yet.

Obviously, cloud computing isn't perfect. Google would be well served to remember that many users still  have unreliable data access, making total cloud computing impractical. For users like me, who choose not to subscribe to mobile access, cloud computing is likewise not a full-time solution. Data protection is also a concern. What assurances do I have that other entities are not accessing data I consider confidential if I put it in the cloud? So there are still several critical concerns that need to be addressed before full-time cloud computing becomes a reality for all users. For now, however, cloud apps are a great way to share and collaborate, and cloud storage is excellent for easy back up. 

elearn Magazine: If Mobile Learning and Support are Wonderful, Why aren't They Everywhere?

elearn Magazine: If Mobile Learning and Support are Wonderful, Why aren't They Everywhere?

Why aren't more of us developing for mobile delivery? Allison Rossett ponders this conundrum in her recent article. With the prevalence of mobile devices, it seems only logical that e-Learning developers would be moving toward the mobile channel. It's not happening at the rate expected, however – at least according to Rossett. It pleased me to see that she didn't just open Pandora's box but attempted to account for its inventory as well. Of course, that's the beauty of Rossett – she doesn't leave us hanging without answers. She has provided us with a solid base to begin our own exploration of the topic. Here I'll add my own thoughts about the road blocks to mobile delivery.

As with any type of electronic delivery medium, the primary question comes back to design and delivery. If we refer ourselves back to the notorious methods or media debate (Richard Clark and Robert Kozma), we might ask if it is necessary to develop for mobile delivery at all. While I stand squarely in favor of first assessing the content need and then determining the best way to deliver it, I think we cannot ignore the fact that our learners are using mobile devices with increasing frequency. A paper case study might be an adequate way to deliver a learning activity, but if we can enliven that case study by making it interactive and delivering it directly to a learner's smartphone or tablet, shouldn't we? I believe the answer is yes.

That brings us to the first roadblock I see. Many designers and developers are just now beginning to grasp the particular merits and shortcomings of mobile devices. We are at a design crossroad. Can the same interactive experience designed for computer-based delivery simply be ported over for mobile delivery? Possibly, but we need to consider mobile platforms, device characteristics, and user habits, among other things. For example, when moving from paper to electronic media, researchers soon identified the "three-click rule" (users will typically only click three links deep before they give up). We also know that users will typically only scroll down a web page 2 or 3 times before leaving. When consuming audio or video, users typically have an attention span of 5 to 8 minutes. So we need to answer some questions about design requirements for mobile devices.

Another problem for many of us is that not all of our learners are using mobile devices. We cannot deliver required material strictly to mobile devices when not everybody has access. Until all our users have access to mobile devices, or organizations and schools are willing to require the use of mobile devices, designers and developers are limited to creating only enhanced content for mobile delivery.

From my personal perspective, I must admit that I have chosen to shun mobile computing. I don't have anything against it, but frankly I do not wish to be that tethered to a device. I like the feeling of being disconnected when I step away from my computer. Mobile computing options are expensive, as well. With the expenses of raising a family and maintaining a household, it's difficult to justify the additional $100 or so per month that mobile access would cost. And while I CHOOSE not to assume that cost, some folks quite simply don't have the means for mobile access. That's another roadblock.
So where do we go from here? Obviously, we cannot ignore the presence of mobile computing, and clearly the demand exists. I would propose that mobile delivery is something we ease into gradually. First, identify learning activities that can easily be delivered cross-platform with minimal adaptation, thus allowing universal access. Next, begin assessing the rate of mobile use and the interest of users; not everyone who has a mobile device will be interested in using it for learning. It will also become necessary to decide what types of learning experiences may be well suited for mobile learning. That means that even the reluctant, such as myself, must force ourselves into adopting mobile technology. It is impossible to understand how to create for a medium when you are not adept at using.

I still won't be giving out my number.

Elaborating on Online Accessibility - Inside Higher Ed

Elaborating on Online Accessibility - Inside Higher Ed

Listen up, onliners! The Department of Education is rapidly clearing up any misunderstandings that accessibility laws apply to non-public, online institutions. The sticking point in the latest proclamation, however, is whether universities can pursue technological innovations without worrying about being penalized if the new technology is non-compliant. Unfortunately, new technology is often not accessiblity compliant when first introduced, and the only effective way to make it accessible is to implement it and work with it.

I am a huge advocate of accessible digital content, but would hope that we can pursue a balance that would continue to encourage and promote innovation.