Month: October 2015

#GoOpen – I’m not impressed

The Department of Education has just announced a new initiative – #GoOpen . The initiative is intended to encourage school districts and educators to make greater use of open resources.

To encourage the development and dissemination of resources, two specific “opportunities” were identified.

  • First, resources generated as a consequence of federal grant funding should be made available as open resources.
  • Second, multiple commercial entities (Amazon, Microsoft, Edmodo, ASCD) will put their resources behind curating, serving and training initiatives associated with open resources.

Grant byproducts

The one thing here that I see as a mild opportunity is the requirement related to grant projects. However, unless new grant initiatives are offered specifically to create content in a form appropriate to distribution what is generated already is either not ready for prime time OR is already available. I make these statements based on personal experience.

Some examples follow:

I worked with my wife’s million dollar Teaching American History grant. The whole purpose of this grant was to organize lessons allowing K-12 students to use primary sources in learning about history. Part of the grant funded a server that made these resources available. This server was maintained for multiple years after the end of the funding cycle and eventually shut down. Potentially, this content could have been transitioned to servers provided by the GoOpen partners, but there would have been costs in doing so. During the years the resources were freely available, any cost in placing the resources on additional servers would have been redundant. In addition, the professional development associated with the transition from textbook-based history instruction to the use of primary source resources was likely the main contribution for those classrooms using the resounces.

My work in developing and evaluating tools to improve introductory college student study of textbook intensive content was partially grant based. Some my earliest software developed for this program was specific to a particular operating system. My later efforts were Internet-based and cross platform. All efforts were customized for individual textbooks. This software would have very limited value for others because a) considerable effort would be required to prepare the backend database for a particular textbook and b) the software was not designed for instructors with limited technology skills. Without a knowledge of PHP, MySQL, etc., a novice user would require either considerable support or an additional development effort to make the software more user friendly. The software may have been of some value to a book compnay looking to improve the supplemental resources accompanying a textbook and willing to invest in futher development.

My point – much grant-supported activity does not involve the allocation of time and resources to make what has been accomplished transportable. I know that “continuation” is an issue to be addressed in many grants, but this often seems to be interpreted as “how will the grantee” continue the work once funding ends.

What about the promises from the commercial providers?

I am trying to find a way both to think through and explain what I think of various companies (e.g., Edmodo, Amazon, Google) making commitments to the #OpenEd initiative.

Imagine a hypothetical situation in which Hardees somehow convinces McDonalds to give away McDonalds french fries at all Hardees locations. Which business would you interpret as being most altruistic? Which business would you interpret as being most foolish? Would it matter whether the french fries were provided in Hardees or McDonalds’ packaging?

I have little appreciation for what  companies offering to host and serve the resources provided by others are providing. Even if no ads or other sources of revenue are involved, getting customers “in the door” when other services that do generate revenue exist is alway part of the business plan. I guess this is where my Hardees and McDonalds scenario breaks down. Hardees is likely to sell a burger and a soda to supplement the free french fries so I guess they might actually promote McDonald fries.

Educators are always looking for “free stuff”. I get that. Educators often have inadequate budgets to provide learning experiences to their students and either do without or subsidize their instruction out of pocket. I am just not a fan of free. I understand the process of creating educational resources and offering them for a price. I know for certain what labor was required to generate that content. To me, content generation is just another way to teach and like any teacher I assume the work invested should be appreciated and compensated.

There are important questions here. What about education is over-priced and who gets to decide? Are educational materials too expensive? Are teachers, administrators and other school personnel paid too much? How can those “in the middle” (administrators, school board members) make ethical decisions when compensating “in the flesh” people you see and invisible workers you do not face?

I am guessing the #GoOpen will surface some resources.  I just do not see the resources to be made available as solving a meaningful or expensive problem.

If the Department of Education wants to offer lower cost resources, then it would seem most productive to offer grants for the development of what commercial entities already provide. This approach would likely encounter considerable opposition from those who believe that the private sector can do everything more efficiently than the government, but it might encourage a little more innovation (if that is what was emphasized in the grant process) and it change how the generation of educational resources are funded. The location of the competition would be shifted from what now occurs between different companies to the grant award process.

Loading

Online charter schools concluded to be inferior

Wait for the numbers has long been my recommendation. Those promoting online K-12 education have made statements about the need for innovation and have suggested that online environments are more responsive to individual needs. I am a fan of the individualization argument specifically when explained as a form of mastery learning (not so much learning styles). You seldom see what I would describe as a mastery system in a traditional school setting.

Studies comparing educational treatments are very difficult. It is nearly impossible to create the right circumstances for a treatment/control study. Without random assignment to conditions, the actual causes of any differences between groups are difficult to identify with precision. You might find quality methodology in small sample studies, but not with large numbers of participants from multiple settings.

Researchers from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Mathematica Policy Research, and the Center on Reinventing Public Education have done their best to apply methodological alternatives to a randomized assignment methodology to investigate academic performance of students enrolled in traditional and online charter schools. The results clearly support the traditional approach. While some data suggest specific limitation of online education (e.g., poor supervision) that might be a target for improvement, supporters of online education are going to have to rethink present offerings before contending they provide a superior educational experience.

 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (2015). Online charter school study 2015. Available online – http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/OnlineCharterStudyFinal2015.pdf

Loading

Teaching as triage

I recommend you read a wide-ranging article from Salon (Will Oremus) on the changing focus of the textbook industry.

The article is about a shift from traditional textbooks to individualized content for student learning, but push on one part of the educational environment and all parts move. The article admits that proposed content delivery systems take on some of the traditional roles of the instructor. Hence the title of this post – a phrase from the article – teaching as triage. The article suggests teachers will review the data provided by the instructional system and make decisions – tutoring, small group instruction, etc.

The article uses ALEKS as the primary example of such a system and examines how this system originally developed as a grant project and then commercialized (now McGraw-Hill) works. Including in the analysis is how the publishing, now technology, company attempts to differentiate their commercial product from other services such as the Kahn Academy.

I wonder what most practicing teachers know about such systems. Most of us have little personal experience. I have used Lynda.com heavily and completed some required professional development instructionals required by my university, but this is different from being a participant or instructor for a full-length course. I wonder if this is not part of the challenge. How do you provide the personal experiences necessary to secure buy-in when the model obviously requires different behaviors than one has experienced.

The recommendation I make is that educators take the time to work their way through a Kahn Academy experience that requires they function as a learner. For many, this might be a topic such as programming. I also believe large school districts need to be open to public charter or magnet schools based on what is probably best described as a “hybrid” model. You will not see this experimentation in smaller district, but fully functioning examples open to visitation will likely be necessary to encourage broad change.

Loading

If a dog can have blog ….

If a dog can have a blog, why not an academic?
None of my peers blog. I have never asked what they think of my commitment to the activity. Perhaps our lack of interaction on this activity is for the best. We obviously see professionalism in different ways.
I do get excited when anyone of note seems in agreement with my perspective. Janet Napolitano, now president of the Univesity of California, makes the argument that academics (she focuses on sciences, but I see no reason not to broaden the argument) need to do more to bring their expertise to the public. She uses programs she has supported as examples. Napolitano argues that important issues often lack the input of those who study topics at a deep level. Part of her focus concerns issues which have been influenced by political positions, but she also makes the argument that interest in STEM careers would be easier to promote should scholars be more open and social when it comes to their work. She cites the popularity of Neil DeGrasse Tyson.  (I would add Bill Nye)
I have given some thought to why scholars write so frequently, but spend so little time writing for the public. This would make a great survey topic for some graduate student, but I would be hard pressed to identify the program that might find this an important issue. Perhaps it would fit within the general mission of Communications.
Here are some personal thoughts. It seems academic peers may look down on public scholarship. In other words (administrators such as Napolitano aside) content offered for this audience counts little or even negatively in the very competItive world academics populate. I have always proposed that senior academics having proven themselves as a function of achieving tenure should be obligated to produce some work suited to public consumption. However, I also believe the work of academics is not well received. Academics tend to be conservative (not a political label) in what they claim and the public wants simple, decisive answers. Hedging is partly the result of the combative nature of reporting conclusions to peers who are quick to attack positions that cannot be substantiated. The public might learn from this perspective. A willingness to recognize modifiers, special conditions, and probabilistic outcomes is often the best way to understand reality.

Loading

Fair Use

Fair use is one of those topics that drive me crazy. I understand that most educators have a vague understanding of the topic and this level of knowledge serves them well. Because I write about student authorship I feel a need to be able to answer those questions I raise for myself. Representing a position to others requires a higher standard. I read the law and interpretations. Laws are often like standards (reference likely to be understood by educators) – laws and standards give general guidelines, but often lack specifics. The legal system has a solution – take it to court. Case law is the solution to the desire for specifics. I would prefer there be something else.

What tends to set off my anxiety about this topic is a pronouncement by someone else. Two recent experiences got me going again. The first was a podcast offered by a prominent educational podcaster that was the recording of one of his conference presentations. In this presentation, the podcaster contended that under fair use students can use 30 seconds of music to back a video created for YouTube. The second experience came as I reviewed a graduate student instructional project focused on fair use.

The interpretation I offer educators is that the authorship of web publications requires a more conservative approach than say a student presentation in the classroom. I would not propose that teachers allow students to include commercial music in any video offered to the public.

I wish I could point to definitive statements on this matter, but I can locate a variety of perspectives online. My position is partly informed by a reading of the TEACH act. This act was intended to allow the same instructional opportunities online that are allowed in a face to face classroom. To apply, the TEACH act requires instructors meet certain expectations. These requirements involve provisions that limit access to online materials to those enrolled in an active course and limitations on the time material will be made available. If you read the resource linked to above, note the reference to limited portions as required for fair use. If the limited portion standard applied no matter what, why would the act require the limitations I have identified? The one specific example I can think of would involve the use of entire work – say an entire song in a music appreciation class. Some audio and video work is purchased specifically for educational use and public exposure would void the agreement of the purchase.

Online commentary does more directly support the position I take. For example, check #9 on this list of fair use guidelines for college students.

Teachers seek guidelines and remember specifics. The 30 seconds of audio/video is an example. However, if the issue is really more complex, I think “experts” should be more cautious in making complex issues simple.

 

Loading

Logic in evaluating arguments for and against the long form

Much has been written and argued in opposition to the “long form”. Whether it is opposition to textbooks or lectures, those thinking something different is required argue that the long form is too passive, too boring, and not sufficient to develop the skills required for some new form of job or citizenship. I am careful to use the term “argued” because to my knowledge there is little data to authenticate these claims. Reliance on argument over data seems a more acceptable practice in politics and social sciencs in constrast to what are typically labeled “the sciences”.

One of the challenges in evaluating “logical” claims is evaluating such claims without bias. We tend to accept what we think should be.

When someone offers a defense of the “long form”, what is your approach in interpreting the arugments advanced? It is challenging to recognize that similar arguments can be advanced for competing positions.

If you are in favor of active thinking, how do you interpret the position that active means developing the capacity for sustained attention and personal processing of information provided by others (thinking and note taking related to lecture)? How do you interpret the position that what the future requires is the capacity to critically evaluate the positions taken by others and contrast them with your own. What do think “spoon fed” implies – extended arguments by experts or isolated bits of experience assuming the capacity to integrate? Where should the personal commitment (motivation) to learning originate – the student or the instructor?

Loading