I was going to write a post about my concerns regarding the demonization of college and university faculty for their fair use of digital materials in class, but I think I’ll let the graphic I developed sum up my feelings.

If you wish, you may

• read about AIME’s charges agains UCLA here,
• take in a perspective from Kevin Smith, of Duke University Libraries, or
• peek into Allen Dohra’s mind in 2009 when he served as a conversation leader for a discussion entitled Strange Rights? Or how to stop worrying and love…common sense! (text which, ironically, is licensed under Creative Commons)

“No” image CC from Flickr user nathangibbs

There is a race for governor going on in Iowa this year. Earlier this week one of the men who is vying for the Republican nomination, Bob Vander Plaats, stated that if he’s elected he would free Iowa schools from “senseless mandates” and kill the Iowa Core Curriculum (ICC) project.

This is good political hay for Mr. Vander Plaats, a former business teacher and school principal, because it appeals Iowans’ strong belief in local control of schools.

But is it good for children?

Dumping the ICC might be a plausible idea if we knew more about what Mr. Vander Plaats had in mind once he dumped it.  He says that he will push for higher standards that are promulgated at the local level.

Risk of Moving Down the Scale

The problem is that if Mr. Vander Plaats does away with the ICC, how will school boards ensure students in Iowa would be learning at the highest levels of Blooms Taxonomy?  What’s Bloom’s Taxonomy?  Mary Forehand describes it as a tiered model of classifying thinking, and in the case of schools, student thinking.  The higher up the taxonomy one goes, the “better” the thinking that occurs.  Think of it as a way to assess how rigorous an activity is and how much cognitive effort a student is putting into that activity. So, in Bloom’s Taxonomy, learning facts is at the bottom (“remembering”). “Understanding” is next to the bottom. “Evaluating” what you remember and understand, and “creating” new knowledge are the top. If a child can operate at the top of the taxonomy, it’s assumed they also do everything else below it. But if all a child is taught is to remember what they’re told, there’s no guarantee they can “apply”, “analyze”, “evaluate”, or “create.”  In sum, if you teach at the highest level of the scale then you’ve covered the rest.

Right now, in Iowa, the current standards are at the low levels of the scale.

How Does the ICC Compare to What We Have Now (and to Other States)?

A research team from Iowa School Boards Foundation analyzed the state curricula of several states that were strong in improving achievement and closing gaps between high and low achieving students (Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Virginia). They assessed the rigor of the curricula of those states according to Bloom’s Taxonomy.  The team also analyzed the rigor of the current Iowa Standards and the future ICC according to Bloom’s Taxonomy.

What did they find?

The ICC is significantly more rigorous than the current Iowa Standards. Further, the ICC is roughly as rigorous as the state standards of the states they identified as strong in improving achievement and closing gaps.

What’s most frightening to me is that the neither the math nor literacy standards that Iowa currently expects of its students call for learning that is considered to be in any the top three tiers of Bloom’s Taxonomy.  Conversely, the forthcoming ICC adds a significant amount of material that addresses higher order thinking.

Fair to Districts?

It could be the case that dumping the ICC puts an undue burden on local school boards to develop and adopt rigorous curricula and not benefit from the economies of scale that a rigorous, well-research curriculum could bring. Worse yet, districts may do nothing and revert to relying on the current Iowa Standards.  Local control is important, yes. But district viability in Iowa is not a constant.  Many rural communities are struggling. With 360 school districts currently in place, 360 sets of standards doesn’t seem viable nor fair. Iowa is in the center of a world that is changing around it. Parents deserve to know that the curriculum their children learn from is rigorous, just and fair. Returning to current standards does not seem viable.

[Chart source: Iowa School Boards Foundation]
[Photo CC via Flickr user Divergent Learner]

How did the State of Iowa do on it’s Race to the Top application?  With a ranking of 24 (Delaware was #1 and South Dakota was last at #41) and a final score of 346 (Delware: 454.6; South Dakota: 135.8), there were both strengths and weaknesses in Iowa’s review.

Here is a graphical breakdown of the reveiwers’ scores, shown as an average of all 5 reviewers’ individual scores (reviewer scores for all states can be found here).

I am not privy to all the reasons behind the high and low scores, so I welcome comments from you on why you believe the application was strong in some places and weak in others.

State Success Factors

Much of the discussion in Iowa during the run up to apply for Race to the Top funds centered on whether enough LEAs agreed with the overall plan. The score for conveying how LEA participation will translate into statewide impact suggests how well that went.  While some scores in this section were high, the big  points were lost on being able to demonstrate significant progress in improving student outcomes, building capacity to implement the plan if awarded, and translating LEA participation into impact.



Standards and Assessments

It’s hard not to see the score on adopting standards (5 out of a possible 20 — ouch).  This is interesting in light of the work to roll out the new Iowa Core Curriculum.  I clearly don’t know enough about the criteria the Dept. of Education was using for that category.

Data Systems to Support Instruction

Good marks on two categories, but a low mark on ability to convey plans on how a statewide longitudinal data system would work.

Great Teachers and Leaders

Iowa’s plans for developing and retaining great teachers and leaders did not review well. Yes, there were pretty high marks for supporting teachers and principals as well as for using student growth as a teacher/leader quality measure.  But the state was hit with low scores for plans on using evaluations to inform decisions on teacher and principal effectiveness, and a low score on plans to provide high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals.

Turning Around the Lowest Achieving Schools

While Iowa did OK in two categories here, the state only received half the points possible for being able to intervene in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs.

General

Iowa received no points (none!) for whatever was written about other significant reform conditions within the state. The state was also dinged pretty hard for not being able to show it could ensure successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools.

Update

Here’s a chart summarizing the scores by major section for the two winners (Delaware and Tennesse), for Iowa, for the worst (South Dakota), and the average score for all applicants. Iowa is at or below average in most categories, with Delaware and Tennessee clearly different from the rest. I have to believe it would be instructive to read the applications for South Dakota and Delaware to examine the differences.  You can if you like. All the applications and the reviews that ensued are available here.

Ottumwa High School: CC flickr user BRrivey

I learned a great deal this week by being in Denver to see the slideument presented by staff from the U.S. Department of Education at the Investing in Innovations Fund (i3) Pre-Application Workshop.

First off, Michele McNeil was right on Monday. If you don’t know what internal validity and external validity are, then you shouldn’t be applying for an Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) grant.  Or at least you should go find help.  “If these (terms) are too technical, I recommend you find outside partners to help you,” said Jon Jacobson, IES Senior Research Scientist in the Evaluation Division.

In other words, it’s not our problem to figure this out for you. Bring quality or go home.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

There are three things I’d highlight in addition to the issue raised by Michele:

1. Requirements for Eligibility and Requirements for Selection—the Same but Different
2. Evidence – Get Thee to the WWC
3. Forget your Ps and Qs. Watch your “Ands” and “Ors”

Requirements for Entry and Selection Criteria—the Same but Different

Whether it was Jim Shelton, Erin McHugh, Ron Petracca or Jon Jacobson, the refrain was the same from all throughout the presentations: you must understand there is a barrier to entry, and once you’re in you better kick ass.

Essentially, there are numerous instances throughout the RFP where applicants will need to demonstrate their project, initiative, plan is first eligible, then whether that which makes them eligible is of high quality.

“Everybody is bringing their A-game,” said Petracca, an attorney in ED’s office of general counsel, in reference to the slough of applicants that are expected to send in proposals this spring.

So to get into the dance (be reviewed) you must meet the requirements for the type of grant you are going for:

• Scale-up applications must be supported by strong evidence
• Validation applications must be supported by moderate evidence
• Development applications must be supported by a reasonable hypothesis

and show evidence that an adequate outside match will be obtained.

Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will not be eligible for a grant award, regardless of scores on the selection criteria.

That means if an application is judged by reviewers not to meet the “standards of evidence” of the grant type applied for, it will not be considered for a different type of i3 grant. So there is a cost to aiming too high (applying for a scale-up award and only bringing validation-award level evidence, for instance).

Then your application will be vetted on the quality you bring to the table with regard to the selection criteria.

For instance, to be eligible for review, proposing applicants who are non-profits must

Demonstrate that the non-profit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools.

Fine, except that “achievement,” is not specifically defined. As Ron Petracca put it, “we are dealing with 15,000 LEAs and variety of circumstances, so it’s up to the applicant to come up with the evidence, analysis and description [of what achievement means]. It’s a requirement for entry AND a selection criteria.  How well you make that case is important.”

This was reiterated throughout the day.

Evidence: Your Plan Needs to Match Past Research. Oh, And Get Thee to the WWC

Jon Jacobson discussed the importance of demonstrating your application has strong internal and external validity.

Strong internal validity means, according to Jacobsen, that there is strong evidence that the practice you are proposing has, as demonstrated in the literature, the effect you claim.

Strong external validity means that the range of participants and settings in your project will apply.

Because the evidence has to be strong, the practices and strategies have to be the same (at the highest evidence standard) as those in the prior research you cite.

That’s what he said. The same.

How does this play out in the different awards?

For Scale Up Grants

Participants in your project have to have the same kind of participants and settings that are discussed in the research you cite.

Furthermore, the research you cite has to demonstrate that the effects of the practice, strategy or program you plan to unveil is statistically significant.  This means that the research you cite must indicate that the programs you are interested in developing have, in the past, produced statistically significant effects and that statistical significance is likely again in your project.

I’ll note that the absence of the term “effect size” was deafening.

If you intend to cite experimental or quasi-experimental evidence for your practice, strategy or program, the evidence should meet the standards of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC).  This may be the sleeper criteria that sends many inexperienced applicants packing.

As for magnitude, Jacobson defined that as the breadth of the impact. For scale-up awards the magnitude of the effect has to be “substantial and important” (both explicitly left undefined but couched with the following advice from the ED: because these will no doubt be context-specific issues for every applicant, you must make the case for how and why your magnitude will be substantial and important).

For Validation Grants

Herein the bar is lowered a smidge. The level of evidence you must bring to the table, based on prior research, must be moderate. That means you can make a kind of mix and match validity salad:

• High internal validity and moderate external validity, or
• Moderate internal validity and high external validity

But not

• Moderate internal validity and Moderate e

Your program or practice has to be the same or VERY similar to what you cited has occurred in prior research. You are allowed to have participants in more limited settings, and the statistical significance bar is lowered. You must demonstrate that it is likely that the sample in your project will attain differences or gains that are statistically significant.

On the magnitude front, you must demonstrate that there the magnitude is substantial and there is potential for it.

For Development Grants

This is the lowest bar. You must show that the theories and reported past practices have shown promise, and that you will engage is the same or similar practices. The participants may be a limited subset of what you have cited in the prior research, and the significance bar is set at “this warrants further study.” Likewise, the magnitude of your effect must show “promise.”

For instance, in a development grant you must have evidence that your proposed practice, strategy or program, or one similar to it, has been done in the past and is promising. You must have a rational for the practice that is based on research findings.

Bottom Line

In your application, the more evidence you have on prior research, the more competitive you will be. There is no penalty for stronger evidence. You have to meet the bar to get in. Once you do, you’ll be judged against everyone else who met the bar as to how strong you are once you’re in.

Forget your Ps and Qs. Watch your Ands and Ors

I think my favorite quote of the day came from Jim Shelton, when he said “the government doesn’t care what you think it means.”

Boy is that true. As Ron Petracca underscored in his talks, the federal government goes to great lengths to ensure it says only what it means to say. In other words, follow directions.

For instance, if an LEA wants to apply, it must show its eligibility by

(a) significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students or demonstrated success in significantly  increasing academic achievement for all groups of students, and

(b) made significant improvement in other areas

So you can show one of the things in (a) and must show (b).

Look how this differs from the eligibility requirement for a nonprofit as applicant, wherein it must show its eligibility by

[Demonstrating] that the non-profit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools.

That’s an “or” statement, my friend. You get to choose.

I’m willing to bet that many applications will get tossed because applicants treat “and” requirements as “or” requirements.

In Sum

With the myriad of eligibility and selection criteria, it’s clear that there will be many, many opportunities for reviewers to reject your proposal for not following directions.

So I take back what I said. Mind your Ps and Qs and your Ands and Ors. Or you will be out.

Here are some images from the workshop.

Quite an imbroglio has emerged in Iowa regarding the inner workings of the Iowa Association of School Boards, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to equip school boards and superintendents with knowledge and skills to better serve the learning needs of students.

The precise details of the mess are too numerous and intertwined to rehash here, what with the coverage the story has already received.  Suffice to say it’s a public relations mess.

What saddens me about the entire situation is that the narrative regarding IASB’s trajectory through this scandal, and its path out of it, has yet to involve IASB itself as an author.  The organization is absent from its own story.

I’m not a public relations expert, but when you have a state senator shouting in public meetings that he hopes staff from your organization “…all wind up in prison…for 100 years,” I’m thinking that this is an issue you’d want to get in front of.

The hard part is that advocacy groups, educational entities, and nonprofits are not schooled in crisis management.  However, I think there are are lessons that IASB could glean from the past: one from over a quarter century ago, one from this year, and one from just yesterday.

Tylenol, 1982

In 1982, Tylenol was the most successful over the counter drug in America. Then seven people died after taking capsules of Extra Strength Tylenol laced with cyanide.

Maybe you’re thinking, “What could IASB learn from the Tylenol murders?” A great deal, actually, because what Johnson and Johnson (Tylenol’s owner) did in the aftermath became the textbook case for managing a corporate crisis.  Gene Grabowski, who recently appeared on NPR’s weekly radio program, On The Media, outlined the template that has become the gold standard for public relation messes (even those caused by homicidal maniacs):

• Identify what the problem is.
• Apologize.
• Very quickly describe what is you’re going to do to make sure this doesn’t happen again.
• Then do it. Follow through on your promise.

Toyota, 2010

In January of this year Toyota announced a recall of a staggering 2.3 million vehicles to fix a sticky accelerator pedal.  By Febrary 12, according to National Public Radio, “more than 27 percent of those who were considering a Toyota prior to the recall now say they no longer are, and the Toyota brand has dropped to third place, behind Ford and Chevrolet.”

Ouch.

What did Toyota do?

The president of Toyota, Akio Toyada (yeah, that’s his name on every car), did some things that were revolutionary in the context of corporate Japan. He dusted off Johnson and Johnson’s playbook and started contributing to the narrative:

• He sent an Op-Ed to The Washington Post on how he had pulled the andon cord.
• He spoke with United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
• He apologized directly to American consumers and said what he’d do next to fix the problem (video below).

Tiger Woods, Yesterday

Why care about Tiger Woods? Well, actually I don’t. But, in an era where the cult of personality carries the day, it can be instructive to look at how a star athlete like Woods attempts to get in front of an embarrassing story.

Last night Tiger woods gave his first public interview since his marital and moral transgressions became public last November.  He allowed ESPN five minutes to ask whatever they wanted.  We could debate whether or not five minutes was fair, but to Wood’s credit there was no vetting of questions, no topics off limits. ESPN’s Tom Rinaldi went for it. Here’s a sample:

• Why did you lose control of the car?
• How would you, in your own words, describe the depth of your infidelity?
• How do you reconcile your behavior with your view of marriage?
• What was your wife’s reaction when you sat down and had that first conversation?
• When you look at it now … why did you get married?

What did Tiger do?  He was composed in the face the difficult questions and OWNED UP.  When you own up you say things like this (quoting Woods):

• I saw a person that I never thought I would ever become.
• Well I didn’t know I was that bad, I didn’t know I was that bad.
• I was living a life of a lie, I really was. And I was doing a lot of things, like I said, that hurt a lot of people.
• [I’m] living a life in amends, and that’s just working at it each and every day.

What’s Keeping IASB From Getting In Front of This?

It’s hard to say why IASB isn’t better in front of their story.

Two issues come to mind:

First, there’s no one technically at the helm. The executive director, who is involved in the dustup, is on leave. But surely a board member could step up.

Second, it may not be in the DNA of the organization to get in front of the story. This is not uncommon, as Gene Grabowski noted in his OTM interview: “[T]he corporate courage to [get in front of a story] has always been in short supply. When a crisis hits, typically what happens is corporate executives at the top huddle together and worry about the stock price, worry about their image, worry about production, worry about profits and losses.”

In sum, the same as IASB seems to be doing: Worrying about everything and thus saying nothing.

Let’s go, IASB. Your good work with school boards and on student achievement has been lost in the discussion. Hopefully you can take a page from other groups who have weathered difficult public relations crises and begin to own a bigger portion of the unfolding narrative.

[Akio Toyoda AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye]

“What’s that? We have 10 minutes in front of a room of academics to help them improve their dry, dull, verbose, text-dense, eye-drying slide presentations? Sure, no problem.”

That was essentially the task presented to Scott McLeod and me for today’s Iowa State University ComETS Symposium.

In the context of the ComETS “lightening strike” format, we selected three tips to help advance our colleagues to the next level in terms of slide design:

1. Know your audience
2. Let go of text
3. Get to know Ignite.

Tip 1: Know your audience

This is a key and oft overlooked tip from Nancy Duarte, author of slide:ology, a wonderful book on the art and science of creating great presentation. Nancy suggests seven questions you should know the answer to before developing any presentation:

1. What are they like?
2. Why are they here?
3. What keeps them up at night?
4. How can you solve their problem?
5. What do you want them to do?
6. How can you best reach them?
7. How might they resist?

For many people it’s probably easy to see how these questions would be important to answer in a business or sales presentation. However, amongst academics I think these questions are too often overlooked when designing a lecture or conference presentation.  I’m especially drawn to question 5, which reminds me that every presentation should be viewed as a call to action on the part of those viewing it. Rare is the call to action in a presentation by a teacher, lecturer or professor much more than a tacit “please listen.” Nancy Duarte reminds us that our presentations should invite action beyond the moment.

Tip 2: Let Go of Text

One of the hallmark features of the renaissance in slide design is a drastic reduction in the use of text.  What’s hard about giving up text? Text on a slide has become a crutch for presenters who are time-pressed, who procrastinate, or who perceive they lack the self confidence to operate without what Garr Reynolds calls a “slideument.”

Yes, it takes time to develop a great slide deck, but self confidence is not really this issue.  Duarte suggests three steps to letting go of text:

• reduce
  • Practice presenting your slides a few times, then highlight only one keyword per bullet point.  Focus on the highlighted word.  Then try delivering your slides from the keywords, use the rest of the words as notes, and eventually consider replacing the keyword with an image.
• record
  • Try reading your presentation or lecture out loud and record the delivery.  Play it back in the car if you’ve taped it or on your computer if you have a microphone built in. Once you get over the horror of hearing your own voice, you’ll be able to concentrate on your content and not focus on the slides.
• repeat
  • Practice, make note cards, draw a mind map, do anything that helps you visualize or create a cheat sheet. Then look at your slides and delete as much as possible that’s covered already on your cheat sheet.

Tip 3: Get to Know Ignite

Ignite is a series of presentations sessions that take place in locales around the world on a multitude of topics. As noted on the Ignite website, “in talks that are exactly five minutes long, Ignite presenters share their personal and professional passions, using 20 slides that auto-advance every 15 seconds.”

Getting to know Ignite means that you’ll get to know what it takes to deliver an interesting story, from a point of passion, using minimal text, images that refer to literal and metaphorical concepts, and remain story-focused (and thus, I argue, more audience focused).

If you don’t have a lot of time, watch just the first 75 seconds of Tara Horn’s presentation. I dare you to say you don’t adsorb far more information that you would expect to get in any other minute of your day. Notice how she uses minimal text, good images, and a great story to grab your attention.

How To Be A Refugee

Here are two more of my favorite Ignite presentations:

It’s Really Just A Series of Tubes

I love this one because it’s just so darn fascinating. And Molly Wright Steenson cleverly uses Ken Burns like pans to “add” slides inside the 20 slide limit.

The Schools We Need

This one is tremendous because it’s on a topic near to my heart, and it also gives you a sense of the fun and energy that is present at an Ignite event.

Here is the slideset from our presentation on February 18, 2010 at the ComETS Lightening Strike session:

Extreme Presentation Makeover

Image CC http://www.flickr.com/photos/cogdog/ / CC BY 2.0

I am surprised that Iowa has the lowest pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 population in the United States (51st ranking with 0.6 deaths vs. 2 deaths in California, which ranks 8th) considering the fact that I’ve nearly been killed twice in crosswalks in Iowa by approaching cars. Drivers don’t slow down for pedestrians, even when the pedestrian is in a crosswalk. Couple that behavior of the Iowa motor vehicle operator with that of a cavalier, right-minded Californian in a crosswalk and you’ve got a recipe for disaster, mister.

by Colin Purrington

In 1940 John Steinbeck sailed in a sardine boat with his great friend, the biologist Ed Ricketts, to collect marine invertebrates from the beaches of the Gulf of California.  In this excerpt from Steinbeck’s chronicle of the trip, The Log from the Sea of Cortez (Steinbeck, 1951), their problems were not far from that which many researchers experience. Here we see the value of pilot studies (and reporting their results) in conducting research.

Said Steinbeck:

“In a small boat, the library should be compact and available. We had constructed a strong, steel-reinforced wooden case, the front of which hinged down to form a desk. This case holds about twenty large volumes and has two filing cases, one for separtaes (scientific reprints) and one for letters; a small metal box holds pens, pencils, erasers, clips, steel tape, scissors, labels, pins, rubber bands, and so forth.  Another compartment contains a three-by-five-inch card file. There are cubby-holes for envelopes, large separates, typewriter paper, carbon, a box for India ink and glue. The construction of the front makes room for a portable typewriter, drawing board, and T-square. There is a long narrow space for rolled charts and maps. Closed, this compact and complete box is forty-four inches long by eighteen by eighteen; loaded, it weighs between three and four hundred pounds. It was designed to rest on a low table or in an unused bunk. Its main value is compactness, completeness, and accessibility. We took it aboard the Western Flyer. There was no table for it to rest on. It did not fit in a bunk. It could not be put on the deck because of moisture. It ended up lashed to the rail on top of the deckhouse, covered with several layers of tarpaulin and roped on. Because of the role of the boat it had to be tied down at all times. It took about ten minutes to remove the tarpaulin, untie the lashing line, open the cover, squeeze down between two crates of oranges, read the title of the wanted book upside down, remove it, close and lash and cover the box again. But if there had been a low table or a large bunk, it would have been perfect.

For many little errors like this, we have concluded that all collecting trips to fairly unknown regions should be made twice; once to make mistakes and once to correct them.  Some of the greatest difficulty lies in the fact that previous collectors have never set down the equipment taken and its success or failure.  We propose to rectify this in our account. “

Steinbeck, J. (1951). The Log from the Sea of Cortez. New York:Penguin

by Chrissy Olson

There aren’t that many tech tools out there that I’ve met that I didn’t like or try to break. In the grand scheme of geekdom, I’m not that geeky (I’m not a coder, for instance). But I am, according to the InnerGeek geek test, a “Total Geek,” which is some geek cred, (but not as high as Major Geek,  Super Geek, Extreme Geek, Geek God, or Dysfunctional Geek.

A good deal of my geekiness comes from a desire to systematize my life with useful web-based tools. So, herewith is the “things-that’ll-enrich-our-interactions-if-you’d-just-listen-to-me-and-use-these” list.

Gmail account or Google account

Create a Gmail account, or sign up for a Google account if you don’t want a Gmail account. Then we can create and collaborate across many of Google’s tools, including the following that I use quite a bit in my teaching, research, and service.

• Google Reader
• Google Docs
• Google Moderator
• Google Talk
• Picassa
• YouTube

Schedule a Meeting: TimeBridge

Send one invitation with 5 time slots that fit with your schedule and find out if others can join the meeting. I love using this tool to set meetings and I love people that use it to invite me to meetings. TimeBridge also plays nice with your Google Calendar or Outlook.
TimeBridge

Screen Capture: Talon

Capture any webpage, crop it, add arrows, text labels, etc. by putting aviary.com in front of any web address in your browser.
Talon

Writing Together: Etherpad

Edit the same document with multiple people simultaneously.
Etherpad

Screencast: Jing

Record and share screencasts.
Jing

Sharing and Syncing Files: Dropbox

A really easy way to sync files across computers or share files with friends and colleagues.
Dropbox

Free phone calls and video conferencing: Skype

Skype has become an indispensible tool for me over the last 5 years.
Skype

What Else?

These are the main tools I use. What have I overlooked? What tools are indispensable for you?

by .TommaSorchiotti.

Last month I had the privilege of giving a talk at the annual meeting of the Directors of Educational Technology for California Higher Education (DET/CHE).

View more presentations from John Nash.

Image by go mustangs