Author: grabe

A Netscape News article for today caught my eye. The article concerned the pros and cons of a new online service – rate your professor (or teachers for the high school crowd). My own institution has been in an uproar over just such a service (Pick a Prof). The student body voted to spend some of the money they pay to support technology on campus to fund this program. The faculty objected (at least collectively). Among some of the specific issues raised by the faculty was the lack of accountability on the part of students in submitting ratings/comments. Unlike the evaluation forms handed out in class, the online service does not offer a way to assure that those providing the ratings are actually in the class being evaluated. Examples of ratings found on the site were also offered as evidence that the process is not entirely constructive and some inappropriate comments seem to be ignored by the individuals who are supposed to assure meaningless and spiteful comments are not included.

The Netscape News article offers comments on Rate My Prof (a related site called Rate My Teacher also exists). The opportunity to rate faculty members on physical attractiveness (how many chili peppers if I remember the comment from the article correctly) is the kind of thing that does annoy faculty members. I suppose some consider this good clean fun, free speech, a way to inform class selection, etc.

Your 5 chili pepper ed psych prof signing off for the day.

We recently signed off on the 4th edition of our book. In the final chapter, we discuss copyright issues and we took a conservative stance on online publication. We described online publication even for instructional purposes as different from classroom instruction in fair use of content. The key to the distinction we were making is the word “publication” – online resources are published in the sense that a book is published. It is out there for anyone to use. It now appears that this conservative position can be relaxed a bit. The TEACH act (signed in late 2002) allows technological protection measures (password protection systems) as a way to restrict access and allow fair use.

An online video prepared by SERC (Satellite Educational Resources Consortium), CoSN (Consortium for School Networking), explains the TEACH act (note the video was made before the TEACH act was signed).

The Center for Digital Government has released rankings for state performance in several areas (including education). You can find whether or not your state made the top 10 and read about the accomplishments of the most highly ranked states.

The U.S. Department of Education and the No Child Left Behind initiative are now soon to offer us all a web-based “What Works Clearinghouse?”. The idea is to get research methodologists together to identify standards for quality research (I guess the peer review process has been deemed inadequate) and to use the standards developed (e.g., random assignment of subjects) to identify quality research to answer specific questions teachers might have. A draft of the standards is available at the web site.

Hmmm … I used to think that organizations like the American Educational Research Association had this as their core mission. I have spent a good part of my professional career attempting to distill research for nonresearchers. I am of the opinion that some of the most essential questions do not have simple answers. The question of What Works is often determined by the more essential questions of what are we trying to accomplish.

Still — if some group feels there are some obvious processes that have been overlooked in attempting to specify “what works” I guess I am willing to read what they have to say.

The World History Project Cindy works on had a session for Grand Forks teachers today. The guest presenter was UND professor Dr. Kim Porter. Among her professional interests is the collection and use of oral histories. One example she presented to the group was the “Man on the Street” recordings made the day after Pearl Harbor. If you take the time to listen to the comments, the comments about war, what the country should do, will bring immediately back to the present. This material is part of the impressive collection of primary sources that make up the American Memories Collection (Library of Congress).

The World History Project Cindy works on had a session for Grand Forks teachers today. The guest presenter was UND professor Dr. Kim Porter. Among her professional interests is the collection and use of oral histories. One example she presented to the group was the “Man on the Street” recordings made the day after Pearl Harbor. If you take the time to listen to the comments, the comments about war, what the country should do, will bring immediately back to the present. This material is part of the impressive collection of primary sources that make up the American Memories Collection (Library of Congress).’

I work in a psychology department so my professional interests (technology, education) are a little out of the mainstream for my colleagues. Like all of us with diverse interests that bring us into contact with diverse groups of people, every once in a while, there is an intersection of interest areas that offers a unique perspective typically not noted by those totally focused on a specific area. (Now with this build up, I hope you find the following post to be interesting.)

I have been reading a review paper written by a graduate student (Brent King) focused on the topic of Internet Addiction. His paper considers various theoretical perspectives on Internet Addition before attempting to argue for a behavioral model of addiction. I was aware of a couple of studies in this area (e.g., Kraut, et al – Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and well being, American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031), but I had no idea that this “problem” was receiving the amount of attention that it has.

One study that caught my eye (Kandell – Internet addition on campus: The vulnerability of college students. Cyberpsychologgy and Behavior, 1, 11-17) argues that college students are particularly vulnerable to Internet Addiction. This vulnerability is a combination of:
a) Characteristics of the Internet — active, controllable
b) Developmental sensitivities of typical college students – engaged in identify formation, desire for meaningful, intimate relationships — alternate online identities may be perceived as safe
c) Characteristics of the environment — free time, easy access to the net, expectation that students use Internet as a productivity tool

What strikes me about this list is that I would consider all of these to be positive opportunities — including the fact that college itself is an environment that encourages the exploration of alternate values, vocational possibilities, belief systems (at least as I read the psycho-socio developmental literature). I suppose there is a problem when one becomes so infatuated with the “Internet world” that it replaces reality. I sometimes wonder the same thing about those of us who have spent our lives in college settings — certain properties of this “life” offer an alternative to what some would argue is reality. I think I have found a new addiction — perpetual student — the addiction to college life.

Internet addiction? Sitting here in my office, by myself, typing away to a faceless and perhaps fabricated audience, I am starting to become concerned. Time to go home and watch television.