Friday, February 26, 2010

Post # 5: A Reflection

I dreaded the blogging assignment because I thought it would be too much preparatory technical reading - - instructions written by engineers and not actually for anyone to read and comprehend. While it seemed that it would be good to know how blogs work, given that I read them every day, I did not feel that I would have anything to say to the universe in general. It turns out that I was wrong about both setup/operations and posting.

There were four free hosting sites offered in the assignment and I had no reason to select one over the other. I did, however, want to avoid the one(s) with the steepest learning curve. Online evaluations were not particularly helpful so I asked people whom I know who do blog for their recommendations among the four and why. Blogger became the clear choice – it was simple yet powerful, linked with Google so it would have a coordinated interface, and the price was right (free).

As I start to think more about blogging post this assignment I think I will move away from Blogger and toward a paid site. It is my understanding that whatever is posted on Blogger becomes the property of Google. As much as I believe in social capital and contributing to the commons, I want to have more control over what could be a longer term body of communications.

Easy though Blogger is easy, and it is easy, almost every step had to be retraced and redone. With some repetition this quickly became less so, but I still sometimes wonder how to get to where I want to be from where I am. After the basics I experimented with a different format, with embedding and with gadgets. It has been fun to see some tangible results. Perhaps best of all, and unexpected, the comments from my friends (even if not posted) generated discussion and, for me, further reflection. That may have been the best result. As an asynchronous communication, blogging loses some of the person dimension that synchronous technology has, but the comments on the posts and the ability to receive comments in return, with all communications open to view by others, makes it more communal and less impersonal. Although Bates and Poole’s Table 3.1 A Classification of Educational Technologies by Structural Characteristics in Bates (2003) would place blogging under asynchronous two-way communication, its support for more varied information (personal profile, other links, following, favorites) made it feel like a hybrid between asynchronous and synchronous, even though it is not.

There have been more supports for generating ideas than I had expected - even deciding what to include in this reflective exercise: there was an article on "Application of Blogs to Support Reflective Learning Journals” (Pang 2009). The specific readings for this unit are all timely and address different dimensions of DE, however, I think that in addition to being good practice, it was critical that the assignment be based on readings beyond our two class texts. Neither Moore and Kearsley (2005) nor Bates and Poole (2003) have “blog” as a separate indexed item, or even listed as “web log,” in the back of the book.


Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Pang, L. (2009). Application of blogs to support reflective learning journals. Retrieved from http://deoracle.org/online-pedagogy/teaching-strategies/application-of-blogs.html

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Online Demos Should Be More Like Dating and Less Like Marriage

In class we are experimenting with different products that support online instruction, basically course management systems – mainly by reading articles about different media and technologies and through viewing demonstrations. It has been an awakening for me – the first link for a demonstration led me to a moodle’s site, where after two clicks I was at the demonstration page. At that point, I had to login using one of three different predefined names and passwords depending on the perspective I wanted to see: administrator, student or teacher. The screen was busy and even after I logged in as one of the three standard categories, I could not determine how to run the Demo. Not an auspicious beginning.
________________________________________
Moodle Demonstration Site
Welcome! This site is for you to try using the most recent stable released version of Moodle and to explore some courses which demonstrate a few of Moodle's many features.
Here are some demo accounts for you to use:
• Admin - username admin, password FunMood1ing!
• Teacher - username teacher, password FunMood1ing!
• Student - username student, password FunMood1ing!
The database and files are erased and restored to a clean state every hour on the hour, so don't worry if you make a mess.
Also note that you might not be the only person using one of the demo accounts at the same time, so you may see unexpected things happen occasionally
________________________________________

The next site, Blackboard, was slightly better – although I had to login for this one, it was a straightforward process. The site was hosted by North Carolina A & T State University’s Center for Distance Learning (http://fac.ncat.edu/dist/blackboard_demo.html ). Once logged in, the Demo units were clearly identified in each section of the webpage (Courses: Quick View, and My Courses) – much more intuitive.

Actually, I went to three different web sites for Blackboard – the first from the University of Minnesota School of Business Online (http://online.msbcollege.edu/online-support/blackboard/ ), but when I clicked on the clearly indicated Blackboard Demo on the home page, I was directed to a page that stumped me so I abandoned the site. It said:

Globe Education Network (The Network) provides academic support and manages shared resources, including Blackboard Academic SuiteTM, for the benefit of students of Network colleges and universities. The Globe Education Network name appears on the Blackboard e-learning Web site. Classes, however, are delivered by individual member colleges:
Globe University
Minnesota School of Business
Utah Career College
Institute for Production and Recording (IPR)
Duluth Business University

Have an Account? Login Here.
Enter login information here and click the Login button below.
Username:
Password:

Forgot password?

Blackboard Academic Suite™
© 1997-2010 Blackboard Inc. All Rights Reserved. U.S. Patent No. 6,988,138. Additional Patents Pending.
Accessibility information can be found at http://access.blackboard.com.




I did *not* have an account so I tried another web address for a Blackboard demo.

The next was at the University of Missouri (http://mudirect.missouri.edu/getstart/_step1_Demo.shtm ) and it worked similarly to the one at North Carolina A & T State University’s Center for Distance Learning.

Elluminate’s site is better organized (I think). The Demo with word and Icon are clearly indicated at the top of the home page. Better still Elluminate offered the option of scheduling a live online demonstration. Bates and Poole (2003) identify different learning styles, citing Barbe and Swassing (1979): “auditory, visual, and tactile-kinesthetic.” The effectiveness of a technology depends in part on the fit between the technology and recipient / student’s the learning style. For me, auditory linked with visual is essential if I am to learn in a reasonable period of time. Alternatives are painfully slow.

My assessment is that those who provide course management products, or at least my small sample of those mentioned above and one more, have lost the view of the novice and speak ineffectively to someone who wants only to view the demos and *then* commit to the time and resources to learning more about the product.

That is, there should be more emphasis on showing what it can do, with less on the how and demanding too much up front commitment just to get acquainted.

Barbe, W., & Swassing, R. (1979). Teaching through modality strengths: Concepts and practices. Columbus, OH:Zaner-Bloser.

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elluminate.Home page http://www.elluminate.com/

Moodle. http://www.elluminate.com/

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Distance Education, Part-Time Faculty and Migrant Workers

Moore (2007) provides abundant challenges to conventional beliefs about higher education. With stark assertions such as “… we must grow beyond the old idea that instruction should be the monopoly of people full-time on the college payroll” he also raises concerns that he has too sanguine a view on the higher education enterprise, that higher education governed by administrators would in some way act in the best interests of students. The theory that doing otherwise would self-correct by market mechanisms, espoused by Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, is directly implicated in the current financial crises (). What seems logical and rational in theory turns out to be simply wrong in practice.

Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. (AP, 2008)

Similarly, faculty governance is a critical safeguard to quality control and open investigation – hallmarks of higher education. A university comprised of only part-time or consultant faculty may be responsive to customers in the short-term, but with what threats to quality and mission in the long term? Such a university lacks a countervailing power to administrative governance and we have seen how aberrant this can become in the extreme.

Accreditation standards for academic programs rightly ask about the adequacy of resources for programs undergoing review for accreditation, and consider full-time, terminally credentialed faculty a critical resource.

Absent governance by full time faculty with a long term interest in higher education and in the institution they serve, and accreditation requirements, the economic imperative when using less than full time faculty is the seasonal harvest worker model. Despite Moore’s many insights, on this matter his theory leads to a conclusion that empiric results are unlikely to support.

Moore, M.G. (2007).Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 177–183.





AP Associated Press. Greenspan admits ‘mistake’ that helped crisis. October 23, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/

Monday, February 22, 2010

Mistaking Distance Education for Domino’s Pizza

The better single mode educational institutions (the ones which focus exclusively on DE) adhere to a systems model, where the direct services of the institution are supported by planned linkages and adequate resources for the necessary types of support services (Moore and Kearsley, 2005). Of course, not all single mode institutions do this, and external accreditation and oversight will continue to be essential for high quality educational services and learning opportunities. However, this kind of integration and systems view is still beyond the practices of many dual mode institutions. I assume this is due to their reasons for initiating the DE component – were they mainly due to mission, pedagogy or finances? Pullen and Snow (2007) caution “When expanding a course to online delivery, consideration needs to be given to administrative support.” They emphasize that asynchronous DE is more not less costly than f2f, but advocate simulteaching as a cost efficient hybrid. Similarly, Bates and Poole (2003, p. 127) stress the "design, organizational, and administrative issues that result from different mixes of face-to-face and technology based teaching."

Domino’s achieved financial success by vastly expanding the revenues for a very limited fixed preparation and business space. No need to have capacity for seating, no need to have a fleet of vehicles as the drives bring their own automobiles, low rent and utilities costs, and a limited menu. It was a recipe for success, and Domino’s explosive growth shows it captured those advantages.

For administrators under growing pressure to cut costs, increase productivity and demonstrate competitive offerings, DE must seem a ready-made solution. With modest technology investments and relying on existing f2f faculty as the front line face of DE to students, it promised to be the solution to numerous fiscal and enrollment challenges (no more need to expand parking capacity!). Unfortunately, it is too often not accompanied by a reorganization of institutional resources or accountabilities beyond continuing the end of term instructor evaluations by students. Needless to say, it is an unsatisfying experience both for the instructor and for the student when DE is applied like a paste rather than integrated into the learning experiences for DE learners.


As Moore (2007, p. 181) notes: “… it should be a matter of more concern that higher education accommodates so many people in positions of influence who have no training in pedagogical theory and practice …” To be effective in practice, DE cannot be treated as just another flavor of pizza – the easy advantages disappear quickly if there isn’t fundamental integration of DE into the organization and mission of the institution. Even Domino’s has had to respond to its customers complaints.

( ).

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M.G. (2007).Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? The American Journal Of Distance Education, 21(4), 177–183.

Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Pullen, J. & Snow, C. Integrating synchronous and asynchronous internet distributed education for maximum effectiveness. Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), pp.137-148.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Why do people still attend community theater productions?

One of the courses in which I'm enrolled has had a conference on the relative merits of asynchronous versus synchronous technologies for distance education (DE). As a slow and error prone typist I start with a bias against the main means of communicating online, though the approach does seem to have potential and appears a permanent fixture in the future of education. This Conference demonstrated enough advantages that I now see that both technologies can be integrated to provide a positive learning experience at a distance.

Some of the readings, however, seemed to be written by advocates rather than investigators of DE and if not directly then by subtext disparaged face-to-face (f2f) in-classroom instruction. (Moore and Kearsley, 2005; Kurz and Sponder, 2010; Heider, et al, 2009). At first I thought that may be true for some subject matter, but not for quantitative reasoning (aka, statistics and analytics). An informal poll supported my belief that students who would prefer to take quantitative courses online are likely a minority. So, if online education is going to continue to grow, it will require some creativity in how quantitative reasoning is taught, what supports exist when it is taught, and what pedagogical innovations can provide the experience of thinking in quantitative concepts without necessarily using symbolic mathematics to do so. Our readings (Bates and Poole, 2003) emphasize the need for more research and evidence to support when to use technology and when to use face-to-face to provide an optimal learning experience.

Blogging offers, in theory, an opportunity for networking among students in course and between students and external persons with domain expertise (McGreal and Elliott, 2008). This short blogging experience will be my experiment to see if that is correct. As someone who has grown up with hard copy books and actually owned a slide rule in high school, the multiple technologies and media can be overwhelming – I want to just stop all of the e-communication and pick up the phone and talk with someone. Carr (2008) asks Is Google Making Us Stupid?, noting the “twitch-speed” at which those who have come of age with internet technologies as the normal.
Which brings me back to the questions of why do people choose to attend community theater when they could rent a video and watch the same performance, supported by more elaborate sets ad production resources, in the comfort of their own homes? The answer to this applies to DE, and particularly to mathematics DE.

What do we know about evidence-based learning theory that would guide us in drawing the correct lessons from support for community theater? The attendees are not universally of my age group, so it is not necessarily a generation issue. The economics actually work against going to the theater, even though it is a bargain for live entertainment. In a time of H1N1 scares and public health awareness, staying home may be safer.
Recently I read in Bates and Poole (2003) about Professor William Harkness’ award-winning Stat 200 initiative. Dr. Harkness’ work was done under a Pew Grant, specifically the Program in Course Redesign, focused on a required statistics course that enrolled more than 2,800 students. The revision was “intended to make the material more relevant to students by shifting the role of the instructor from strictly a lecturer to facilitator of self-directed learning. The redesigned course stresses hands-on practice activities using technology“ (http://www.psu.edu/dept/itscss/news/nlsp03/stat200.html ). His evaluation of the revised mixed-mode course demonstrated that it was less costly per student and based on online quizzes, students are performing progressively better.

I think that while the technological advances have improved support for DE, and extended opportunities for many learners, it is not yet ready to replace the experience of sharing live experiences in real time. Close ... but not yet.

Bates, A. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heider, K., Laverick, D. & Bennett, B. (2009). Digital Textbooks: The Next Paradigm Shift in Higher Education?. AACE Journal. 17 (2), pp. 103-112. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved October, 1, 2009 from http://www.editlib.org/p/27054

Kurtz, G. & Sponder, B. (2010). SoTL in online education: Strategies and practices for using new media for teaching and learning online. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning4 (1).

McGreal R. & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of Online Learning (E-learning). In T. Anderson. T. (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (Second Edition). (pp. 143-165).

Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.