EdTech-atouille

How are we using Twitter?

2009-06-11T23:07:00.003-05:00

Just a quick thought regarding how we use Twitter . . . This afternoon, I was observing the opening plenary session of the NMC 2009 Summer Conference (#nmc2009) which was being live video streamed and tweeted. As I watched the twitter stream, I realized that even after several comments or questions posed to the group *all* of the tweets were unidirectional; they were simple broadcasts of what was being said by the presenter. There were a few tweets with commentary, but they were also individual comments with no real discussion.

My question is this.... If we're talking about a group of people - both locally and remotely - that can all see and hear the presentation, how much value is there to broadcast tweets that simply report what's being said? Are we used to blogging followed by asynchronous comments to the extent that when presented with an opportunity for synchronous backchannel conversation when we're all sharing the same experience we miss that opportunity? Should there not be more to "liveblogging" than just rebroadcasting the presenter's comments? Is there not an opportunity to have a conversation we were not able to have previously - a backchannel kibbutz concurrent with the presenter's comments? Or, is the lack of commentary attributable to something as simple as it being earlier in the day (as @dwtno noted)? There's two pages of screen shots below. Take a look and comment. I can upload additional pages if interested; the broadcat tweets continued for four screens plus.

G.Wave Will Change Collaborative Writing

2009-06-04T22:55:00.002-05:00

In the week since Google Wave was demo'ed, I've written a couple of posts, read quite a few posts around the web, and have been giving Wave more thought. The question everyone is asking is, "Will Google Wave really change 'things' ?" Will it change the way we communicate? the way we work? the way we learn online?

Of course, all we can do at the moment is speculate. My speculation at the moment is yes, to all of the above; I'm basing that speculation on how I imagine collaborative writing activities in a college freshman level composition class may change given Wave. I'm thinking and projecting from this clip (#10 from my Digesting Google Wave post a few days ago) from the original demo at Google I/O last week:

Notice a couple of things in the video:

the wave, with all contents, can be embedded in a blog or other website.
the playback feature and the planned "power tools" for playback
as contents are edited, the changes update, character by character in all locations.
multiple users can edit a wave concurrently.

26:45 to 37:14.

Right now, if we have learners collaborate on a document, they may do it in several ways - that I can think of at the moment; if you have others that vary significantly from the ones below, please comment.

Send the document back and forth in email; discussion may occur within the email or perhaps use the "Review" features available in MS Word which allows comments and tracking changes. Problem is you end up with multiple copies of the document in various stages of editing.
Create an online document to be shared among users; everyone can access and edit the document online, and Google Docs allows simultaneous editing, to some extent. Discussions occur in a different location typically - via email, IM or sidebar chat.
Create a wiki for the writing exercise. Everyone can access and edit the document online, but simultaneous editing is somewhat limited. Discussions occur in an attached discussion forum or page or via email or IM. Generally, comments and discussion regarding the document are spatially removed from the document itself, and learners use specific methods of communication with which they are familiar.
Learners may upload a document to a personal blog space for others to access; visitors can write a comment in a singular message that appears below the text. If CommentPress, a plugin for Wordpress, is used, comments can be made regarding specific paragraphs which are identified automatically by the plugin.

In all instances, users see and engage revisions or comments when they return to the document to check it.

With Google Wave, things may occur a little differently.

Initially, John creates a Wave with the first draft of his essay. Adding collaborators is now easier because he only has to drag and drop or quickly type the names of classmates; the wave containing the document will show up, near instantaneously, in the wave interface for his classmates: Ann, Joel and Susan. There's a few admittedly subtle steps in the current processes that have been made more efficient: emailing collaborators and collaborators going to the document where it lives on the web, at least.

With everyone being able to edit the document, Wave - like current tools - maintains version control and individual accountability for revisions. The editing and discussion process is quite different though.
Ann, Joel and Susan can add comments regarding individual sections of the document, but comments are inline within the document - comments and ensuing discussion reside immediatley next to the section. That's much like the review feature in MS Word, but appears to be an improvement over the displaced comments that occur on shared documents, wikis or blogs. Fortunately, the discussions aren't permanently part of the document; they can be minimized or the current version of the document (product wave) can be copied into another wave.
If Joel's a bit of a slacker and doesn't look at the wave until three days after Ann, Susan and John have been collaborating, Joel can see all of the markups and changes, of course. However, with wave, Joel can use the playback feature to observe how the document and conversation has evolved from the beginning. Plus, once the planned/mentioned improvements for the playback feature are available, the Professor Smith can playback each individual's contributions to the development of the document - seeing juxtaposed all individual participation in the discussion and revision process.
Here's where it gets a bit more interesting... Any edits update every instance of the wave instantaneously, character-by-character. Ann and Joel are online and have their wave interface open. Susan logs on and begins editing the wave. As I understand it, in Ann and Joel's inbox, the wave would highlight (much like a new message) as having revisions or new content as soon as Susan starts typing; basically, the act of editing the document automatically generates an IM/email like notification of the revision. Ann sees the wave highlight and opens it. She can immediately see all changes that Susan is making as she types them; Ann begins typing a reply and comment on the changes as Susan makes them. As Susan types, she sees Ann's comment coming in character-by-character. In that simple exchange, current models of communication - collaborative documents, email, instant messaging and real-time document sharing - have all occurred in a streamlined work process.
It goes one step further though to a feature I don't believe currently exists - real-time, multiple, concurrent editing of a document. Ann and Susan can both be editing the document at the same time, and all changes (again, character by character) are shown instantly. Somewhere in the process, Joel and John both notice the editing and also begin editing the document and posting comments. Four learners all have the ability to instanteously make changes to the document with their cursors three characters away from one another. That is a feature not seen in any current product of which I'm aware. Even in face-to-face meetings in a conference room, it seems like this process could empower more people to collaborate more evenly (rather than one person being in control of the keyboard).
The wave can be embedded in various locations around the web; the entire editing process noted above is visible in all locations and everyone with permissions to engage the wave can do so inline wherever they see it displayed. Certainly, the interactions above could also easily include other classmates and Professor Smith which further enhances the collaboration process.

Again, this is my conjecture based on currently available information regarding Google Wave. With that type of interaction though, I do think this scenario is one instance of how Wave, in some manner at least, will change the way we communicate, the way we work or the way we teach and learn online.

Google Wave, What are people saying?

2009-06-03T09:38:00.007-05:00

With more time between now and the Google Wave presentation on May 28, more folks are reacting and responding. As I read articles or blog posts that are particularly relevant to education, I'm tagging them via Diigo and want to make them available in this space.

Amazon Kindle - Educational Uses

2009-06-03T06:30:00.003-05:00

As mentioned in an earlier post, I've recently been given the opportunity to explore and work with the Amazon Kindle. The goal of the short term project is to identify possible use cases for the Kindle within the organization. I'm going to focus on the instructional, classroom uses we've brainstormed and/or identified through research via the web; by "we," I'm referring to several conversations @sherrymn and I have had over the past couple of weeks. We are definitely interested in any thoughts or use cases with which you may be familiar.

Content Access. First of course, eBooks and, at some point, eTextbooks could obviously be delivered via the Kindle; hopefully, this would reduce learner costs over the long run, particularly after the price point on the Kindle comes down a little. Second, as we've explored the Kindle some, we've learned that registering multiple Kindles to a single account gives the account owner the ability to push content to each device. With an issued set of Kindles for a class, faculty could deliver content they've generated to learners for review as followup to a previous or preparation for an upcoming class. Third, an RSS feed could be set to deliver on a regular basis; faculty could deliver content tagged via a bookmarking or RSS reader tool. However, these two uses may only duplicate regular web access to the same content unless, as noted below, collaborative activities via the Kindle are used.

Collaborative Reading. The Kindle allows users to highlight and/or enter notes at any point in any text; the "clippings" and notes are stored online. The most interesting aspect of the note-taking function, however, is that if any notes taken are visible via all Kindles registered to the same account. With an issued set of Kindles for a class, all learners could engage the same text via collaborative note-taking and annotation exercises; while the interface would be somewhat clumsy for it, discussions could take place within the notes which are sync'ed wirelessly. These activities could be useful at a variety of reading levels: developmental readers to ESOL to honors seminars to graduate students.

Facilitated Reading. Specifically for ESOL or developmental readers, the Kindle could better enable facilitated, independent reading away from the classroom, particularly in absence of other available tools. Consider the Collaborative Reading idea noted above; the notes delivered to each Kindle could be faculty driven instead of learner generated; the purpose would be for faculty to provide additional annotations to support readers engaging a challenging text. Combining that feature with two built-in tools could be particularly useful. The Kindle has an integrated dictionary; you can browse the dictionary, or as you read, you can highlight a word and the defintion appears at the bottom of the screen. Further, the Kindle also has a native text-to-speech function which will read - in male or female voice - a text at variable speed, as controlled by the user.

There's certainly a number of logistical issues to be addressed - cost, distribution, and theft prevention, among others; I hope to revisit some of those as time permits.

Digesting Google Wave

2009-06-01T06:30:00.012-05:00

After having posted my first impressions of Google Wave, I want to go back and review specific segments of the video and capabilities of the application as it was demonstrated at Google I/O 2009 to consider how Google Wave may be applied to teaching and learning. Given the scope of that exercise, it may be useful to share the first step in that process.

Below are various segments of the video which I believe may be of particular importance or interest; I've included some annotative descriptions. The clips trim 30 minutes off of the original viewing time (as compared to the 80 minute original), and they at least make it possible to view the video in shorter clips.

Imagine, if I were able already to have Wave embedded in this blog, we could discuss each segment in this space immediately below each clip. Can't wait!

--- The Clips ---

1. 6:01 to 7:34. Differentiating the philosophical approach of Google Wave from existing communication models. The key phrase is "tight implementation" of the original model to create a single tool that enables a number of ways to communicate and collaborate.

2. 10:15 to 11:38. With email type communication already demonstrated, Lars and Stephanie show how Wave enables IM type communication within the same tool. Notice the synchronous appearance of individual characters within the Wave; for me, I believe this has a significant perceptual impact on the IM experience: as Lars states, "You literally spend 100% of your time reading or writing."

3. 13:00 to 13:42. Playback. Jan was recently added to the Wave. The playback feature allows him to observe how the current document and conversation has evolved and developed from its inception.

4. 14:34 to 15:17. Private messaging feature is integrated within the "group discussion." Any subset of the Wave can have permissions restricted to a smaller group of users. This isn't a revelation on its own; the way Wave handles and stores these private replies, however, is; that's next.

5. 65:17 to 70:14. To understand why the private messaging is actually a big deal, jump forward to Lars' explanation of the Open Protocol approach of the Google Wave product. This segment's for IT folks. Google Wave has been designed to be an open protocol; anyone can build an organizational, federated Google Wave server - even their own user interface. Importantly, the protocol supports inter-system communication while maintaining organizational privacy; only the servers involved in each instance of communication maintain a record of the communication; this is granular down within Waves. For example, if a Wave includes four people working across three organizations and two participants that work for Organization B exchange a private message within that Wave, the private message is not shared to all three server within the Wave; it never leaves Organiation B's Wave server.

6. 15:25 to 18:10 Drag and drop, real-time sharing of photos enable a group photo album; all shared photos within the Wave can be viewed within a single slideshow. The process of "uploading" a picture is eliminated. Also, Waves or parts of Waves can be shared to others; the ability to share any single part or product of a Wave is important.

7-8. 19:00 to 19:57 & 20:40 to 22:12. Embedding API. Waves can be embedded into other web pages; they specifically demonstrate embedding a Wave into a blog site using the Bloggi widget. Key feature is that responses/comments can be recorded directly on the Wave as it's shown on the blog. It updates, in real time, within the Wave client as well.

9. 25:28 to 26:45. Mobile Wave communication. Although they experience some problems with teh wireless network in the presentation center, Lars shows Waves on an Android and an iPhone.

10. 26:45 to 37:14. Collaborative, Real-time, Concurrent Editing. With it embedded around the web, there's only one actual copy of the Wave; that's not new of course; we've seen that with other collaborative documents. However, this all occurs within a single tool, and all communication occurs inline. Discussion about segments of the document can occur immediately next to that segment rather than via a separate discussion forum or listserv. With playback available as it is, you can review the evolution of the document and the conversation around it. The conversations can be hidden, to allow reading of just the document, but the current version of the document - the product - can be extracted to a new Wave. It then will be possible to merge new changes in the original Wave into the final document Wave. A string of work Wave's may all point to a final product Wave. Spreadsheets, Presentations and other document types will be added.

11. 40:15 to 43:00 Wave Links & Search Feature. To help organize Waves, it's possible to drag and drop waves into other waves; the drag and drop automatically generates a link to the wave. The search feature is real-time, character-by-character.

12-13. 44:00 to 48:10 & 54:02 to 54:46
Extensions. Spelli is impressive; damn thing uses context clues to determine the appropriate word to insert. Linki recognizes loosely formatted web addresses as links; makes inserting links relatively easy as you are typing them; but, Searchi extension makes it even easier to search for links or images or video and insert them quickly within the Wave. I believe this radically streamlines the act of composition via the web.

14. 50:30 to 53:48 Yes/No/Maybe Gadget, Collaborative Games, Maps Gadgets. This is a general example of a gadget. The backstory is that their workgroup was trying to decide what movie to go see and who was going. They created the Yes/No/Maybe gadget to better facilitate response gathering. Again, Playback adds another element to the entire process.

15. 54:55 to 57:20 Polly the Pollster. Forms and real-time audience response within Waves.

16. 57:30 to 61:28 Integrating Twitter. They use Twitter as an example of how existing communication tools can be integrated into Wave. I think it highlights how Google Wave can be used to aggregate personal communications across the Web into a single application/location.

17. 72:30 to 73:54 Real-time Translator - Rosi - is just as impressive as Spelli, Linki & Searchi.

Get Edtechatouille Kindle Edition

2009-05-30T18:19:00.000-05:00

I've recently been given the opportunity at work to explore and work with the Amazon Kindle. The goal of the short term project is to identify possible use cases for the Kindle within the organization. I will be blogging in the coming days about some of the ideas we've generated.

As I explored and read, I discovered Kindle Blogs which enables the wireless, automated delivery of blogs published via the Kindle Blogs Store. Edtechatouille is now available in Kindle Edition. If you own a Kindle, you can find Edtechatouille by clicking on the image to the right or searching all Kindle Blogs for educational or instructional technology.

Several quick notes regarding the process of publishing a blog in Kindle Edition.

First. Amazon - at Kindle Publishing for Blogs - makes the process relatively painless; it's simply a matter of completing a form with information regarding the blog: RSS Feed, home page, blog description, identifying keywords, optionally uploading screenshots, frequency of posts etc. Since Kindle editions of blogs are monetized, the process does require the author to submit a payment receipt method (checking/savings account).

Second, however. I was discouraged that the price point for the blog is set automatically by Amazon; the individual blog author apparently does not determine the price point. Specifically, when Edtechatouille published I was concerned that it was priced at $1.99/month for wireless download to the Kindle whereas most of the other educationally related blogs I've seen are listed at $0.99/month. I'm somewhat modest by nature, so I'm the first to admit that my content isn't any more valuable than that produced by valued colleagues. I was concerned. Doing a little reading, I find this comment in the support forums from Kindle Publishing Admin; since that individual has User ID# 1 in the support forum system, I'll assume it's a valid, official Amazon response.

Hello,

Amazon will define the price based on what we deem is a fair value for customers.

Thanks!

Of course, Amazon has full rights to control the pricing of products they're publishing and making available via their technology. However, I believe it would be more appropriate to allow content producers to at least select from different options. I'd be content with simply being able to select between 2-3 options: $0.99 or $1.99 or $2.99 a month. Content authors should have some say in the price charged for their content.

Finally, I was careful to enter a decent description of the blog to provide adequate information to potential readers. I included my background because where I work and what I do absolutely influences what I post in this space. None of the description I submitted actually published to the product page, and I verified it was in fact saved by the system.

I'm waiting to hear back from Amazon's Kindle Publishing support team (kindle-publishing-blogs at amazon.com) regarding the price and the description; hopefully both issues will be resolved quickly.

Google Wave & Education, First Impressions

2009-05-29T12:09:00.005-05:00

Two days ago, at the Google I/O 2009 Conference, Google introduced a new product: Google Wave. After watching the entire 1 hour and 20 minute video (with and while discussing it with @sherrymn), my first impression is going to sound hyperbolic. Over time my initial impression may prove to be exaggerated, but at the moment, I'm fairly comfortable saying that Wave may represent the next step in the evolution of online collaboration and communication, and the impact on and relevance to the education sector could or should be rather significant. I'll explain that in more depth by blogging over the next week about several different use cases for education that Sherry and I brainstormed and discussed as we watched the video.

For now, my abbreviated, big picture impressions follow; all of these, in my opinion, have serious implications for education:

Widgets like Spelly, Linki, Searchi, and Rosi combined with the ability to drag and drop contents into online communication streamlines the composition process; the act of creating and contributing online appears much easier than current methods and transcends language barriers.
The concurrent, real-time, multi-point, in-line communication - down to the individual character during document editing and messaging - has a different perceptual impact than current emails, document sharing and instant messaging tools. It's closer to a conversation than to a messaging system.
The playback feature means that late comers can catch up and experience a conversation or collaborative process which has already taken place in a manner that allows them to pick up and participate moving forward.
The openness of a platform of this magnitude being initially created and shared by such a large corproate entity, imho, is unprecedented. The extensibility of the platform combined with the ability for organizations to create and run internal Wave servers with connections to the outside world while maintaining institutional privacy makes it a powerful collaborative tool.
Given current capabilities shown in the demo and a few extensions I believe are likely to be available rather quickly (i.e. Google Talk/Video Chat), Wave has the potential to provide more efficient means of communication and collaboration than *many* current tools: email, IM, wikis, collaborative documents, discussion groups, social networking, live blogging, and conferencing (audio/video/desktop).

The best thing to do is watch the 1 hour and 20 minute video. Yes. All of it. It was worth the time and effort I spent watching it, discussing and writing about it this morning.

And... We're Back!

2009-05-28T23:26:00.000-05:00

It took a bit of time, but EdTechatouille is back! The site looks a little different, and a few things are still a bit rough. In short, a hacker, who I'm sure feels a great sense of accomplishment for hacking an education blog with a whopping 70 some-odd readers, corrupted the Wordpress incarnation of the blog we've had up since September 2008. We've transferred all of the posts Sept to current from the old Wordpress database back to Blogger, but there's some ASCII character pollution in the posts; we'll be fixing those as we have time. We'll also see what we can do to restore some of the comments, or at least repost them.

What's Missing in Online Course Quality?

2009-04-14T19:45:00.014-05:00

Attending ITC eLearning 2009 Conference earlier this week, I attended multiple sessions on course quality; the sessions were offered by a diverse group using different strategies and evaluation tools: a Quality Matters lead pre-conference workshop; Lake Superior Community College's QM-based in house rubric; Yavapia College's experience with online standards, and Burlington Community College's use of course development, grade distribution and student course evaluations. One thing was missing through all of the presentations, but I think that may be due to a gap in the literature or education sector rather than it being a failing of any one institution.

There are many variations of course development evaluation: an evaluation template that assesses the quality of the development of online courses. These evaluations address the question, "What features exist in the course content at the outset of the course?" Quality Matters, Illinois' Online QOCI, Cal State Chico's ROI, Michigan Virtual Univeristy (MIVU) Standards and other rubrics like them consider whether the syllabus is readily available, the grading policy is clearly stated, or the learning activities are aligned to the course objectives. Those are all things that can be evaluated in the absence of learners or faculty.

There are also numerous variations of the end of course student evaluations of course materials: you know - the institutionalized, (allegedly) more systematically researched versions of RateMyProfessor. These go back decades and originate from pen and paper scantron versions issued to on campus classes: a college's version of the customer feedback form. Unfortunately, these are summative evaluations rather than formative ones; they are always collected at the end of a course, never in the middle. Even if they are collected in the middle, the results aren't typically available immediately (at least in my experience). And, are they really ever included in or used to drive continuous improvement? Both of those evaluations have meaning and utility, but that meaning and utility has a specific, narrow scope in my opinion.

Course Development evaluation rubrics and end of course student evaluations will rarely, if ever in my opinion, provide insight regarding the quality of online teaching that takes place in a given course. Course development is a different skill than teaching an online course; if I don't do a good job teaching a course, I can easily negate the value of the very proficiently developed course materials. Good course design only carries you so far. Similarly, good online teaching can take place, although with a tremendous degree of difficulty and time to be invested during the course of the semester, with little to no course development. Further, student opinions of course quality may be based on wildly different criteria than what an experienced and recognized, 20 year master teacher might use to evaluate a course.

What's missing in online course quality? Every institution with which I've ever been associated - as a student or employee - has used in-class observations of teaching methods to evaluate the quality of teaching and learning experiences offered to students by faculty. Everyone's familiar with evaluation day; that's the day the faculty at the front of the room (whether us or someone teaching us) has all of their ducks in a row when the department chair or Dean quietly slides into a seat at the back of the room to see what's going on. The evaluation may occur every semester for adjunct faculty or once a year or every other year for full time faculty. However, if - as I'm assuming from my own experience - every institution uses this evaluation method for on campus classes, why is there no mention of an analogous, empirically based in-class observation and evaluation for faculty teaching online? I know the accrediting bodies around the country have a strong preference for online courses having the same rigor and requirements as the on campus courses. Is that really happening though if even our evaluation of faculty teaching online classes isn't as rigorous as the evaluation process for faculty teaching on campus? Are you familiar with any empirically validated in-class observation and evaluation rubrics designed specifically to evaluate the quality of online teaching? I'm still investigating ONE (Quality Standards Index) that was suggested by new friends from Quality Matters, and I'd definitely appreciate your help in identifying others.

Twitter Acquisition Matters to Education

2009-04-10T20:30:00.002-05:00

A possible acquisition of Twitter by one of the larger competitors for the online search and social markets has been bandied about since last November when talks between Twitter and Facebook broke down. More recently, Microsoft and Google have been rumored to be discussing a possible acquisition with Twitter's owners. While most analysts are interested in the acquisition of Twitter given the impact it would have on the technology landscape - social platforms and search revenues - I believe educators should also have interest in the acquisition as well. In my opinion, it's in the best interest of educators already using Twitter and the education community at large if Google successfully acquires Twitter rather than Microsoft or Facebook.

First, Twitter may likely remain more open and usable if acquired by Google. Google's platform, business model and philosophy, to me, are more open; the tools are tightly integrated but are easily accessible. There's not much interference when trying to get from Point A to using Google Reader or Google Docs; I can simply go to reader.google.com. In contrast, to get to specific applications within Facebook or Microsoft, from my experience, requires traveling a single straight path through other interfaces and profile pages. Further, I don't believe Microsoft or Facebook will be able to leverage Twitter to the extent Google may. The MS collaboration and cloud tools aren't as developed and as usable as Google and Facebook tools, and the only benefit I see for Facebook in a Twitter acquisition is simply keeping the tool away from competitors; I don't believe Twitter provides much of a value added service or tool since it duplicates the Facebook status in many ways.

Second, Google's Apps for Education stand above and ahead of the current education offerings by Microsoft or Facebook. At the very least, the openness and inherently cloud characteristics of Google Docs, Google Search and other tools provide a significant advantage for Google. As an educator, the possibility of integrating Twitter into Google Chat/Talk, Gmail and the rest of the Google Apps for Education Suite makes a Google acquisition more desirable. GTwitter would enhance the suite of tools and add a great deal of weight to the growing OpenSocial tools Google is developing.

Third, the Twitter interface will remain more stable and user friendly with further Google Development. Microsoft web/cloud services are behind Google in general development, and Google interfaces are typically better than Microsoft's (Gmail vs. Hotmail, case and point imho). If Facebook is willing to tinker with their core interface and, in the process, making critically unpopular design decisions, Facebook influence and development could have a significant negative impact on the future of Twitter.

While many educators are just arriving to Twitter, I think the the corporate flag under which Twitter's future will be developed may have a critical impact on the education sector. Or, maybe I'm just rooting for Google because I prefer their tools to Microsoft, and I want my Twitter network to stay separate from my Facebook network? Resources: Google, Microsoft Court Twitter, Orlando Business Journal Microsoft, Google Sparring over Twitter, CNET News Google in Talks to Acquire Twitter, TechCrunch Google news search

Twitter for Learning & Professional Development

2009-04-08T17:30:00.002-05:00

By week's end, I will have presented and facilitated four hours worth of sessions focused on learning - in classrooms or as personal professional development - with social networking tools and, specifically, Twitter. Both sessions are at the Texas Distance Learning Association 2009 Annual Conference in Corpus Christi. I'll be posting more thoughts and resources here, but I also have session content available at a sister Edtechatouille Google Sites page.

eLearning 2009 Conference Live-Blogging

2009-02-25T18:40:00.002-06:00

This weekend through next Tuesday morning, I'm attending eLearning 2009 in Portland, OR. I plan/hope to liveblog more than a few of the sessions given the requisite network and power access. I'll post links to the liveblog sessions below throughout the week/end.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Nature of Mobile Learning by Jeffrey Kissinger

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Urgency of Open Education by Brian Lamb (collaborative liveblog with Sherrymn)
Quality Improvement through Online Course Peer Review by Lake Superior College
Herding Faculty to Online Standards by Yavapai College
Quality Assessment through Multiple Metrics by Burlington Community College

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Cyberculture: Web 2.0, Gaming and Mobile Computing by Bryan Alexander (collaborative liveblog with Sherrymn)
Distance Learning Leadership
A Debate.Â Virtual Worlds are the Second Life for Online Learning.Â Chris Collins vs Barry Dahl.

Saturday, February 21, 2009 PreConference Workshop.

Using the Quality Matters Rubric to Improve Your Online Course.

Nature of Mobile Learning (ITC09)

2009-02-25T13:46:00.001-06:00

Attending ITC eLearning 2009 Conference earlier this week, the last session focused on The Nature of Mobile Learning delivered by Jeff Kissinger.Â Generally, the session focused on the design principles and implementation logistics behind a mobile learning project completed with a division of the armed services.Â I spent much of the session asking and discussing several questions that came to mind.Â I wanted to repost some of the themes through the live blog and my questions/thoughts in this space for broader feedback and discussion. Several resources may be useful.Â Sherrymn, Evinsmj and others liveblogged the session via CoverItLive, and Sherrymn tracked down a version (perhaps a little older) of the presentation Jeff used during the session. Device Specificity. One of the characteristics of early mobile learning efforts Jeff described was the tendency to develop content for a specific device; in fact, it was mentioned twice on one of his early slides.Â I know weâ€™ve encountered that tendency in my institutionâ€™s earliest conversations regarding mobile learning and computing; we tend to think of specific devices â€“ and often itâ€™s simply the device we have or want the most.Â Of course, from an instructional technologistâ€™s perspective, the inclination is to develop in a device independent manner.Â Two thoughts, however. First, isnâ€™t the mobile market, at this point in time, heavily segmented in the particular features, OSâ€™s and capabilities a device may support?Â Are the various platforms not struggling (ala Blu-ray v HDDVD) to establish a dominant standard?Â If the market hasnâ€™t yet settled, is it even possible to develop in a device neutral manner â€“ other than just making mobile web pages for our current LMSâ€™ available?Â If thatâ€™s the only thing we can do thatâ€™s truly device independent, arenâ€™t we just translating what weâ€™re already doing to a mobile format?Â Is that worthwhile (see beIow)? Second, are there any devices that have capabilities that may make it a better instructional choice?Â Does a device like the iPhone have capabilities that others do not that would enable pedagogically preferable learning strategies?Â I donâ€™t know the answer to the question, and part of the problem is that I donâ€™t know that my institution has the funds to evaluate and test a broad range of possible devices to answer the question.Â Hypothetically though, if one device better enables learning activities consistent with a social constructivist perspective of learning, is it better to develop for that one device and leverage itâ€™s capabilities or to develop â€œdownâ€� to dumber devices? Mobile Pedagogy? Alluded to earlier, when educators move into a new educational space â€“ from classroom to online or online to virtual environments â€“ they typically recreate the familiar; thatâ€™s why virtual worlds have virtual versions of traditional classrooms.Â Recreating the familiar allows educators to engage new spaces and the learning curve associated with them while minimizing the cognitive load â€“ itâ€™s easier to move old stuff over while learning new spaces/technologies than it is to be developing new content at the same time.Â However, does that practice and typical reaction to a new space present more challenges and more risks with mobile learning?Â If we begin to simply transfer access to LMSâ€™ over to mobile devices from traditional desk/lap-top machines, are we taking a larger step backward.Â One of the questions from the floor during Jeffâ€™s presentation was about the fact that the project presented learners access to content but didnâ€™t work to connect learners OR didnâ€™t work to allow learners to produce their own content.Â Mobile devices are uniquely better than larger devices at capturing content â€“ digital video, audio, pictures, text â€“ and seamlessly transmitting it to personal spaces to be shared with others.Â Doesnâ€™t that make it MORE important to incorporate those activities into the learning experience?Â If current iterations of mLearning doesnâ€™t engage those things, and leaves learners more isolated than online learning, should we not proceed with a bit more caution?Â And, getting back to the device specificity question, if the â€œlowest common denominatorâ€� â€“ developing for ALL devices â€“ isnâ€™t capable of supporting different interactions and you believe in social constructivist framework, should you not wait until the technology matures enough to better support instruction? OR, is mobile learning just a different way of accessing already, online content? Faculty Development. I think mLearning presents another definitive need to de-couple the development of online course content from the teaching of online courses.Â Those two skill sets are entirely different.Â Itâ€™s not terribly practical to attempt to train faculty to develop course content for multiple delivery platforms â€“ full size computing vs mLearning much less how to accommodate various mLearning platforms.Â Honestly, I think most faculty outside of technology related disciplines donâ€™t want to know the technical ins and outs; theyâ€™d prefer to focus on the content within their discipline and the tools necessary to teach the course.Â Any faculty development efforts, imho, should focus on the differences in how to teach a course if we *know* learners are using mobile devices to access content. Finally, as I understand it, the Japanese education market (and perhaps others) is mobile device heavy; MANY Japanese primarily use mobile devices. If that perception is accurate, seems like there's a GREAT deal to learn from those experienced educators.Â To what extent are we actively pursuing whatâ€™s already been accomplished outside of our educational system?Â I didnâ€™t hear that mentioned at this conference.

Oceans in Google Earth

2009-02-14T20:26:00.000-06:00

This posted about two weeks ago at YouTube. Ocean data, imagery and 3D objects now included in Google Earth.

Rate of Adoption Precludes "Natives?"

2009-01-21T20:28:00.000-06:00

A colleague is attending Educause Learning Initiative 2009 Annual Conference and is live blogging Michael Wesch's keynote address.Â One of Wesch's comments struck a nerve with a line of thought I'd heard recently elsewhere.

There are really no natives to the net. So many of the technologies are less than 4 years old. We are all in the same boat, faculty and students.

None of our current K-20 students have grown up with YouTube or Facebook or Twitter or iPods or RSS Aggregators or Virtual Environments etc. Â Many of the potentially, educationally disruptive technologies have surfaced with "Web 2.0" in the last 3-5 years.Â The very youngest of our K-20 students may have grown up with their parents using those technologies, and they may have vague familiarity with the technologies, but with the noted exception of a virtual environment like Webkinz World they likely aren't personally using those technologies.Â In short, there is no such thing as a student that has been surrounded their entire life or educational career by social networks and social media. The question this raises for me is, "Will the web and technology continue to evolve at a rate so quick that it will keep us off balance indefinitely? Have we reached the point where the "time to adoption" has reached a half life that precludes having in a classroom a substantial number of users familiar with current technologies?" Your thoughts?

SCORM Help Needed v1.0

2008-12-18T20:30:00.000-06:00

If you're not familiar with SCORM in some depth, this post may well be gibberish to you.Â That's okay; I'm not entirely certain that it's not written in gibberish (grin).Â If you aren't familiar with SCORM, I thought this SCORM overview at Toolbook.com was somewhat useful, and I'm digging through a number of other resources that appear useful, at first glance at least: ADLNet.gov's explanation of SCORM (ADLNET is the home of SCORM), Aaron Silvers blog SCORM category, and Ostyn Consulting's Understanding SCORM page.Â Also, I've bookmarked a number of applications and resources relevant to SCORM. I'm working with SCORM in some depth for the first time; "in some depth" is the key phrase in that statement.Â I've been researching, reading and looking for help in a variety of spaces - twitterverse, conference proceedings/notes, general web tutorials, product forums etc.Â This post will describe my current issue in more detail with the hope that someone will be able to help.Â Plus, I'm hoping that my questions in this post and any additional questions in subsequent posts may prove helpful to others that may travel the same gauntlet I'm currently enduring.Â Â ;-) I have two SCO's (shareable content objects) in folders/zips published by two tools I'm using currently: Soft Chalk and Adobe Captivate 3.Â Both SCO's work correctly when viewing with Reload SCORM Player 1.2.Â Both SCO's work correctly when loading to the LMS I'm using (Avatar, a professional development management system).Â What I need to be able to do is package the two SCO's into a single SCORM package to be uploaded to the LMS.Â I've tried a number of tools to accomplish this; the one with which I've had the most success is the Reload SCORM Editor.Â The Reload SCORM Editor has a good tutorial to get started.Â With that help, I've been able to create a basic package that includes the SoftChalk and Captivate SCO's. First problem. Despite the fact that it works in the Reload SCORM Player, the Captivate SCO does not work properly when added to the package.Â I've tried adding the entire folder for the simulation to the main organization in the manifest; that folder includes all of the files generaged by Captivate output - the manifest and other xml files, the SWF files output and the "SCORM Support" folder.Â I've also tried adding just the primary HTML file within the main organization of the manifest with the folder being added to the resource section.Â Nothing seems to work when adding the Captivate generated SCO to a new package developed within Reload SCORM editor. Second problem. This issue is one I'm anticipating rather than have experienced it directly and am currently researching it.Â For this project, I have four series of content sections followed by a simulation based assessment.Â Ideally, I'd like to package the four sets together in a single SCORM package.Â However, I encountered a comment in a discussion forum suggesting that SCORM 1.2 does not support navigation between SCO's within a package in a manner that supports reporting to the LMS.Â So, if I have four simulation SCO's, the package will only report the score from the first one rather than aggregating the scores for the user across all assessments.Â I need someone to confirm or deny that statement.

SCORM 1.2 does not allow for 'sequencing', which is jumping between separate SCOs without returning to the LMS. SCORM 1.3/2004 allows for that but, of course, the LMS has to support that functionality as well...which isn't an easy task. Without sequencing support, the SCO has just one ID which everything is tracked-back to in the LMS. And in either version of SCORM, there can only be one lesson_status and one score_raw value - so each lesson can only have one such value. So if you put your SCOs together into one lesson and one manifest, unless the manifest lists each SCO separately with their unique IDs (I think, I'm not clear on how sequencing actually works), each time a quiz score/status is sent back to the LMS it's being recorded for that one overall SCO ID. Far better to just keep your SCOs as separate lessons, upload them into the LMS, and let the LMS manage the organization and launching of them, especially as SCORM 1.2 so each SCO's score can be recorded separately.

I appreciate any help (via comments), and I intend to post any solutions or future progress/frustration in this space.

Google Friend Connect @ Edtechatouille

2008-12-05T20:31:00.000-06:00

Google Friend Connect entered open beta today.Â I've been waiting and watching for this tool to become more generally available.Â As of this posting (12/4/08), Google Friend Connect is installed in this space to experiment with the features etc.Â The members gadget is at the top of the right sidebar, if you'd like to try it out.Â I may be adding other available gadgets as well. When the closed beta for Friend Connect was originally announced, I was hoping it might be a tool that could be added to various existing educational tools - LMS's etc - to extend their functionality.Â Looking at it now, that doesn't appear it to be possible.Â Friend Connect appears to be driven at the top level of a domain; remains to be seen if it's possible or will be possible to have multiple Friend Connect instances on a single domain. Given that it's not available in existing educational tools, my next thought is how it might further extend the capabilities of Google Sites - perhaps moving that platform toward being a more capable edupunk'ed learning system.Â With many of the tools already available in Google Sites (file cabinet etc), adding the social element may make it more functional and connected to users as a learning space.Â However, at first glance, Google Friend Connect can't currnetly be installed into a Google Sites site; I hope that's on a Googler's "features to be added" list ;-)

Reply to: Definition of Emerging Technologies

2008-11-29T20:32:00.000-06:00

Dragging through RSS feeds, noticed a recent post by Darren Draper at Drape's Takes highlighting George Siemens tweeted question, "Anyone want to share their working definition of emerging technologies for teaching/learning?" Rather than starting from scratch, I'll start with Darren's initial stab (as he calls it) at a definition,

Emerging technologies for teaching and learning consist of all hardware, software, concepts, and ideas that can be employed to advance social, connective, and educational processes.

I think I would add to Darren's definition by inserting

Emerging technologies for teaching and learning consist of recently developed and mostly untested applications of technology hardware or software (including web-based tools) to facilitate educational processes.

I agree with Darren that an idea can qualify as a technology if the idea is a new and different application of a technology to the learning process.Â I believe "recently developed and mostly untested" provides the necessary reference to limit "emerging" technologies to those that are truly emerging; those for which the applications are being discovered and tested.Â Once a technology application - hardware or software - has been tested or used in classroom environments by a sufficient number of teachers, I believe it transitions from an emerging technology to a developing or established one. George posted some of the twitter responses he received to his original question. Your thoughts?Â How do you define "emerging technologies?"Â What distinguishes "emerging" technology from non-emerging technology?

Another Thought on Mistakes as Portals

2008-11-28T20:33:00.000-06:00

Randy Nelson's presentation Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age: A New Model for the Workplace provoked and helped coalesce a range of recent thoughts and ideas. In addition to ideas on collaboration described in a previous post, Nelson also commented on mistakes which immediately took me back to a post by Gardner Campbell almost a year ago, Mistakes as Portals. In relation to Pixar's search for innovative potential employees, Nelson commented:

The core skill of innovators is error-recovery not failure avoidance.

Nelson explained that resiliency and adaptability are critical skills.Â I interpreted Nelson's conversation to suggest - to me at least - that avoiding failure may just as likely indicate an overly cautious individual as it will an overly proficient one.Â It is far more important to try, fail and recover from failure than it is to avoid the failure altogether. When I first read Gardner's post earlier this year, I focused - as my comment suggests - on the "how terrible it was that schooling had kept mistakes from being turned into opportunities while the learning was taking place."Â However, revisiting Gardner's post within the context of Nelson's comments, a different statement stood out:

We must be willing to open our minds to each other as we learn, and endure our mistakes, and be alert to the possibilities of learning that mistakes can reveal or even inadvertently stimulate.

Apply this to a workgroup with an organization.Â We must open our minds to each other as we work and endure our mistakes . . . to be alert to the possibilities of discorvery that mistakes can reveal or stimulate.Â That is the skill and type of work environment Nelson highlights in regards to Pixar.Â The ability to fail and recover is critical.Â For that skill to be cultivated however, the organization must, as Gardner suggested, induce professionals to trust one another with their individual mistakes.

Explaining Collaboration to Learners

2008-11-26T20:34:00.000-06:00

I took 10 minutes to watch at Edutopia.org Learning and Working in the Collaborative Age: A New Model for the Workplace - a presentation by Randy Nelson, Pixar University, at the Apple Education Leadership Summit this past April (embedded below). I know there's a cohesive message in this presentation, but I didn't quite catch it because the presentation was densely packed with a number of thoughts or ideas that hit upon recent or important topics for me. I'm interested in hearing what you may take from the video.Â I focused on several key thoughts that ultimately may help explain to learners several things they can do to help facilitate a collaborative effort rather than a cooperative one.

Collaboration vs. Cooperation This was the last topic Nelson discusses, but for me, it brought the video segment together.Â It hits upon an issue I blogged about a few weeks ago: the distinction between collaboration and cooperation.Â Nelson describes the two concepts more succinctly, cooperation is a protocol that prevents people from getting in each other's way as they work, but their working together is a matter of convenience than true necessity.Â Nelson offers an assembly line as an example; each step of the assembly line is clearly defined; the line proceeds in a manner to prevent a worker at step 3 from getting in the way of the worker before or after them.Â Other than they're working on completing a single large task, there's no real communication or interaction required between the two workers.Â A cooperative effort usually helps make up for a lack of time or resources; many people work on the task since it would take one person much longer to accomplish it.Â Dr. Reeves described cooperation as "divide and conquer."Â Ultimately though, given time and resources, one person could run an entire assembly line single-handedly. Collaboration means something very different.Â In contrast to cooperation, collaboration is more than simply making a contribution to the work effort.Â In a collaborative workspace, people amplify one another; the good work of one person magnifies the work of another.Â Individuals enhance the impact of contributions by others on the team; interaction and communication are necessary.Â Â The question is how to teach learners to accomplish that; how to participate in a collaborative manner rather than a cooperative one; and how to design and develop activities which lend themselves to collaboration rather than cooperation. Nelson described a few approaches taken by Pixar in various business processes that may be relevant. Apply Key Principles of Improv Nelson notes Pixar encourages and applies two key principles of improv in an effort to facilitate collaboration and innovation.Â The first is, "Accept every offer."Â In improv, when a colleague hands a line (product) off to you, you don't question what you've been given; you accept it and move forward with it.Â Questioning the product halts the conversation; the conversation dies.Â The alternative is to accept it and move forward with the possibilities. The second is, "Make your partner look good."Â The key is to focus on the positive; don't judge or criticize as a first step.Â Always working to make your partner look good allows you to, as Nelson calls it, "plus something."Â Focus on "This is what I have, what can I add to it?Â How do I make my partner look good?"Â That's a more productive approach that leaves open possibilities which contrasts sharply with where the conversation goes if you focus on how to fix or improve a product you've been given.Â Focus on how you can contribute to the conversation. Be Interested, Not Interesting Nelson described several characteristics of potential employees that Pixar hopes to find - innovative, accomplished and resilient were among them. And, of course, when searching for a next employee among a group with those attributes, you find many interesting people.Â However, Nelson commented that it's more important to be *interested* than it is to be *interesting*Â When working in a collaborative environment - in contrast to cooperative - the person that's interested contributes a great deal more.Â An interested person leans in and listens closely when group members have something to say; an interested person is curious about solutions other than the first one suggested.Â An interested person is more concerned about the process than their role in it.Â An interested person does more to amplify the people around them. Communicate, Not Transmit I think similarly, Nelson stressed the importance and definition of the ability to communicate.Â Communication is more than simple transmission.Â EffectiveÂ communication inherently involves translation, and the translation must be done by the communicator, not the listener. Â For example, most everyone has encountered IT support personnel in some shape, form or fashion.Â Some IT personnel "emit" information rather than communicating; they don't consider the audience and don't make an effort to translate from tech-speak to English. Â Further, communication is bi-directional; you must be able to receive information as well as send it.Â Ideally, the information you receive helps shape the information you choose to send. Collaboration in the Classroom? So, what do learners need to know to better understand what collaboration really means?

Collaboration absolutely requires the participation of two or more people; if you could accomplish the work by yourself, you're cooperating, not collaborating.
Collaboration Is enhanced by "accepting every offer" and "making your partner look good."Â Focus on what you can add to what others have suggested rather than revising or fixing their ideas or solutions.
Collaboration is facilitated by group members that focus on being *interested* rather than being *interesting* - be curious about others' ideas, explore the possibilities, enjoy the process rather than focusing to quickly on the outcome.
Collaboration demands bi-directional communication in which your ideas are shaped by the ideas of others; you must work to make sure your ideas are comprehensible.

My Browsing Experience

2008-11-25T20:39:00.000-06:00

In my "Introduction to Computers" class this semester, I've described the "browser experience" more than a few times.Â My own personal, customized browser experience has become a critical point of efficiency when it comes to my use of the web for learning, researching, and playing.Â When I happen to use a machine other than my laptop and don't have my personal browser configuration available, I feel like a fish out of water; I'm much much slower, and browsing becomes a hassle more than anything else. To what extent is your browser customized for your use? How different is browsing for you when not using your personal browser configuration? Does your personal browser configuration make your learning easier or more efficient? Out of curiosity, the add-ons I use in Firefox 3 are:

Better GCal
Better Gmail 2
Better GReader
Better YouTube
coComment
Cooliris (PicLens)
CustomizeGoogle
Diigo Toolbar
Download Statusbar
Facebook Toolbar
Fasterfox Lite
Favicon Picker 3
Faviconize Tab
GCal Popup
Glubble
Google Gears
Google Toolbar
Greasemonkey
Hide Menubar
Shareaholic
TinyURL Creator
Twitterfox
Zotero

There's many others I've tried and disabled simply because I didn't use or like them.Â In addition to the plugins, there's a few tweaks I'm beginning to use or experiment with - specifically, loading Twitter Mobile, GCalendar Mobile, and Google Talk Gadget into the sidebar.Â Ultimately though, I consider my browser configuration an indispensable application through which I access my PLE tools.

Great Image Library for Educators? Or Not?

2008-11-19T20:40:00.000-06:00

I noticed via a post at Lifehacker today that Google is hosting the entire LIFE magazine photography archive. As Google's announcement indicates, this doesn't include just published images; it includes any and all images which can be digitized; currently, they have about 20% of the 10 million image library scanned and online:

Only a very small percentage of these images have ever been published. The rest have been sitting in dusty archives in the form of negatives, slides, glass plates, etchings, and prints. We're digitizing them so that everyone can easily experience these fascinating moments in time. Today about 20 percent of the collection is online; during the next few months, we will be adding the entire LIFE archive â€” about 10 million photos.

Whether browsing from the LIFE Photo Archive Hosted by Google start page or doing a search from Google by adding "source:LIFE" to the search, it's an amazing resource and collection with only 20% currently available.Â I'm not sure where else we might find images like this one. What baffles me about the announcement and the resource home page is that there's absolutely zero mention of copyright or license or permissions to use the content.Â Given that there's nothing posted, the assumption is that the entire library is (C) All Rights Reserved, and of course, that doesn't mean that the content can't be used in the classroom.Â But, I'm surprised that there's not at least some explicit indication of the license of the images.Â And, it's discouraging that such a collectoin isn't being made available via a more lenient and usable Creative Commons license: attribution-noncommercial-noderivative, perhaps? Maybe that's an educator's perspective, and just maybe, I'm asking and expecting too much.Â Oh well.

Resyndicating Podcasts in Your Class

2008-11-16T20:41:00.000-06:00

More than a few (as in, I don't want to say "many") faculty are generating podcasts as part of their course content, but even within that group, how many use already available podcasts to supplement their own course materials?Â In my experience, that number is relatively low even among faculty generally familiar with podcasts. Within my own class (Intro to Computers), I've identified several podcasts; in particular, The Real Deal by Tom Merritt and Rafe Needleman is an excellent supplement to my course content.Â In the past, I've always made the link to a specific episode available within the context of my instructional module; I can't confirm it, but I believe that link gets overlooked or ignored by students. So, my question is, "How can I/faculty better incorporate already existing podcasts into my/their course?" I've come to the conclusion that I need to survey my students to see how they use any MP3 player they may have and learn what podcasts they listen to if any; then I can begin to help them use podcasts and - here's the key - better integrate podcasts into the way my course functions. The first way is to integrate required reading for learners via a Google Reader tag and/or a Diigo tag.Â I already use a shared_cfclass tag in Google Reader to tag articles I want to discuss or highlight in class; that tag results in this resyndicated feed.Â I've also used, although not as much recently, a Diigo/Delicious tag to highlight specific webpages for the same reason.Â I use those as an optional resource for learners currently; I could make subscribing to those two feeds required to ensure learners are engaging the content on a regular basis.Â With learners using one or both feeds (or perhaps I could combine both into one Yahoo Pipe feed), I could easily begin including specific podcast episodes in that feed.Â An important aspect of that would be to tag the podcasts and articles on a schedule synchronized with the course content.Â Basically, instead of providing links to learners in a course module that they'll blitz through too quickly, have them reading an RSS feed through which a podcast and other content will be delivered.Â I'm wondering if that wouldn't give the content more immediacy and attract more learner attention. A second idea is apparently a bit more complex than I initially thought it would be or altogether not possible.Â I'd like to be able to tag - using any social media tool - a podcast episode in a manner which the original enclosure would appear in a resyndicated feed.Â If I tag a podcast episode using Google Reader or Diigo/Delicious, the text and description or made available in my resyndicated feed, but the original enclosure can not be accessed through my feed.Â If a tool makes that possible, learners could simply subscribe to a resyndicated podcast feed I've created using their podcatching application.Â I know the tools I'm currently using don't enable that type of functionality, so I'm looking for a tool or possibility. For general interest, what's on my iPod?Â At the moment, it's a collection of general news, technology, sports and educational technology podcasts.Â There's also music, but I generally don't use the iPod for music - I prefer radio ;-) America Votes 2008 The Buzz Report CNN=Politics Daily Dilbert Animated Cartoons EdTech Weekly EDUCAUSE Podcasts ESPN Around the Horn ESPN Fantasy Focus Football NY Times Front Page NBC Nightly News The Real Deal TED Talks

What's a test when you have a pocket encylopedia?

2008-11-10T20:42:00.000-06:00

Encyclopedia is "A complete copy of the Wikipedia encyclopedia on your iPhone/iPod.Â This app is the fastest and simplest way to browse Wikipedia on your device, and crucially, doesn't require any internet connectivity . . . When you first launch Wikipedia, you will be required to download a copy of the database which will occupy about 2GB of space on your device." I noticed this via LifeHacker and tracked through a Google Code page and the home page for the application. As an educator, think about this for a second.Â The entirety of Wikipedia on a mobile device no larger than a cell phone; that's over 1 billion words in your pocket, literally.Â That's over 25 times as many words as the next largest English-language encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica.Â What does that mean to me? My daughter lives in a world in which she thinks "Daddy knows everything."Â I'm not talking about the normal, narrow-world-view naivete of a child to whom it seems Mom or Dad knows everything; in reality, she's never asked a question for which I didn't or couldn't provide an answer of some sort; even the less definitive answers to philosophical questions are still answers.Â Most recently, it was, "Why do we carve pumpkins at Halloween?" I have explained to my daughter that I don't know the answer to every question; I just have a real good idea of how to find the answer to most any question. As an educator, that perspective and ability is a wonderful thing. As an educator, that perspective and ability creates a significant problem. It's an incredible prospect to be able to find the answer to most any objective question given an internet connection and better than average internet search skills.Â But, what implications does that have for education, in it's current, American incarnation?Â It may have been nearly 20 years since I last sat in an American History class, and many of the facts I learned then have long since escaped the clutches of my memory.Â However, if you were to put me in front of one of those same history tests along with a mobile device, could I not do fairly well on it?Â especially if I had a mobile device?Â In fact, why should I not have a mobile device available to me, as some Australian schools are now allowing?Â In terms of authentic tasks (see previous post), is remembering specific dates, facts, or information something I'll ever have to do again?Â If I can use my iPod to help me answer almost every question on a test, what's the value of the test?

Authentic Tasks in a Web-based Learning Environment

2008-11-03T20:36:00.000-06:00

This afternoon, I attended an online webinar session offered by Educause Learning Initiative.Â Thomas Reeves from university of Georgia presented "Authentic Tasks in a Web-Based Learning Environment."Â If you have access to the archive, it's worth a view, and if you haven't explored the ELI resources in general, those are worth the time as well.Â A few notes and comments regarding the session. Dr. Reeves described the concept of authentic tasks, gave several examples and then provided several rationale justifying the need for greater use of authentic tasks in higher education.Â The majority of the hour was spent describing a ten-point framework that he and colleagues have developed regarding the characteristics of authentic tasks. WHAT ARE "AUTHENTIC TASKS?" For those perhaps not familiar, Dr. Reeves defined authentic tasks as, "Learning activities that replicate the kinds of activities that learners may engage in the real world." Â Â He offered an example from his own class; rather than reading about program evaluation, his students work with real world clients to evaluate eLearning programs as part of the class: learners plan, conduct and report an evaluation. One of the better examples I use personally is one of the activities in my "Introduction to Computers" class.Â Rather than having learners simply read and take a quiz regarding the components of a PC system, I assign them to work in groups to purchase a computer whose components match the unique needs of a real world computer user they selected as a case study.Â Each group must make a specific, unique decision regarding each PC component to ensure their selected user does not under- or over-spend on a computer. RATIONALE FOR AUTHENTIC TASKS Of course, Professor Reeves believes strongly that authentic tasks are critical to all learning, online or otherwise.Â During this session, he offered two specific arguments in favor of authentic tasks. First, from the NSSE student engagement study, only about 7% of our undergraduates study as much as a typical faculty member expects them to.Â That study identified five key factors to an engaging undergraduate education: student-faculty interaction; active, collaborative learning; time on task; continuous, timely feedback; and high academic challenge.Â As Dr. Reeves argued, authentic learning tasks addresses four of the five; I'm assuming the one that it would not necessarily address is "time on task." Second, 21st Century skills and outcomes may uniquely be facilitated and assessed by authentic tasks: access/use information, communication skills, critically thinking, problem solving, and exhibiting intellectual curiosity. Unfortunately, authentic tasks may not be used widely enough in higher education.Â Dr. Reeves didnt' note any specific statistics, but interestingly, session attendees believed authentic tasks are not used more widely in higher education because of (a) a lack of models for faculty to follow (40%), (b) a lack of time for faculty to develop and assess authentic tasks (24%), or (c) a lack of incentive to implement authentic tasks (23%). CHARACTERISTICS OF AUTHENTIC TASKS I don't want to go into detail and simply repeat the characteristics Dr. Reeves noted; you can find the ten characteristics of authentic tasks detailed on one of his websites.Â I want to comment on a couple of them and the discussion that occurred in the session backchannel. Ill-defined and Complex. Dr. Reeves suggested authentic tasks should be ill-defined and complex.Â In short, activities should reflect the complexity and nature of tasks within the real world and should require the production of knowledge rather than the RE-production of knowledge.Â That left a begging question, "What does Ill-defined mean?"Â From my experience with problem-based learning, there's a very critical difference between an ill-defined problem and un-defined learning.Â As I offered in the chat session, I believe "ill defined" means that "how" learners may solve a given problem should be left more open ended; there shouldn't necessarily be a single course of action learners can take.Â Further, an "ill-defined" problem may indicate a general problem that requires learners define the situation or environment in more detail before they can begin to flesh out a solution.Â However, ill-defined does not mean that specific goals for the activity or how it will be assessed or what learners are expected to learn or supporting content should be ill-defined.Â In fact, those aspects of the assignment likely need to be more explicitly defined than non-authentic tasks.Â In short, an "ill-defined" problem describes general point that learners need to reach on a map, but it does not necessarily define the path they must take to reach that point. Afford opportunities for real collaboration. The key to this characteristic was the distinction Dr. Reeves made between collaboration and cooperation.Â It's one I've considered before, and it's also one I have a very difficult time drawing for my students.Â As a faculty member, what happens when you assign "group work" to students?Â How do they go about completing the assignment?Â Do they truly collaborate and work together to find a solution to the problem?Â Or, do they "divide and conquer" - breaking up pieces of the assignment and agreeing that members will do an equal share.Â The issue to consider when developing an authentic task for learners is how to develop the task in a manner that requires collaboration rather than cooperation.Â I'm not sure I have an answer at the moment. GENERATING AUTHENTIC TASK IDEAS Dr. Reeves presented the framework - or characteristics - of authentic tasks; that's certainly useful, but I think one challenge that many educators face is the initial process of generating authentic task ideas, "How do I come up with ideas for authentic tasks based on what I'm currently teaching?"Â I think it begins with asking several questions about the current content you are teaching,

What do I want learners to be able "to do" with this skill or knowledge?
How might learners use this skill or knowledge in their day-to-day life?
What task might an employer expect them to be able to do that requires this skill or knowledge?
When in the future might this skill or knowledge be useful for the learner?
What problem(s) would this skill or knowledge help a learner solve?
What work can learners do that allows me to participate more in the learning process?
What sort of an assignment regarding this skill or knowledge would benefit from learners working together?
Are there workplace instances where learners will have to apply this skill within the context of a team?

Answering those questions, I believe, leads to the authentic tasks that follow naturally from the skills and knowledge being taught.Â At the very least, it's a start to move toward more authentic tasks. DISCUSSION Several questions were posted in the session backchannel that I thought were particularly interesting.Â Those questions with my comments follow. Question: Authentic tasks take more time, so that's time away from other things to cover in class -- can you commnet on this tension? My Answer: I've found that the authentic tasks have allowed me to shift my time and cover more; because the authetnic tasks rquire learners to engage the text, I don't spend as much time focused on the base knowledge.Â I spend more time covering specific, more in depth questions or addressing topics that extend the content of the text. Question: What technologies provide new opportunities to embed authentic tasks in the curriculum?Â My Answer: I believe there are basically two types of technologies that make authentic tasks more possible now than before: simulation facilitation and communication.Â More than a few technologies make simulations more possible now than before; animation applications continue to bridge the gap between educators and the programming skills necessary to create simulations (Flash, online application tools etc).Â While it certainly requires a specialized skill set to create Flash-based animations, I do think creating advanced, visual animations is more feasible now than it used to be.Â Further, game platforms and virtual worlds definitely provide educators with more tools that make creating simulations a feasible alternative.Â Second, communication technologies make collaboration regarding authentic tasks more possible.Â For example, I use wikis and collaborative documents to have learners "spec out" a computer for a specific type of user (which I define quite clearly); instead of simply reading about motherboards, processors and memory (intro to computers course), they actually engage the process of purchasing a computer.