Learning Aloud

I have not focused much attention here lately due to preoccupation with another writing project. I am working with a grad student to author a book chapter on cyberbullying in the United States. My interest in this topic originally resulted from the realization that schools may block students from using many of the participatory web resources I felt had such great potential. In attempting to understand the threats from predators and cyberbullies, I concluded that filtering was not the proper reaction to either threat. Anyway, in attempting to become involved in the literature on cyberbullying and collecting some data with a graduate student who works with me I have become a good deal more knowledgeable and moved past the issue of what schools block useful opportunities.

Two initial observations:
1) research on cyberbullying is far less mature than research on bullying
2) assuming that cyberbullying is an outgrowth of bullying may limit the perspective on many researchers.

Here a few comments on observation #1.

In reviewing literature for the chapter project, it seemed that the terminology applied in addressing online or phone-based aggression and victimization was more variable than that applied to face to face aggression and victimization. What was not always evident were reasons that might account for this difference? Perhaps bullying has been studied more extensively and for a longer period of time allowing for greater standardization. There seems to be agreement on a relatively small number of characteristics that define “face to face” bullying. With perhaps the addition or elimination of a characteristic, this list seems to include:
    a) the targeting of an individual or small number of individuals,
    b) experiences that are defined as negative and damaging by the victim,
    c) repetition of these experiences, and
    d) a power differential making it difficult to terminate or escape the negative experiences.
Establishing such a set of characteristics allows bullying to be differentiated from other forms of interpersonal violence and makes it easier to identify the perpetrators and victims involved.

Much of the research on cyberbullying fails to focus on events that meet this set of standards.
1) Often victims are defined based on a single incident
2) Often victims are not “distressed” by the experiences
3) Often victims can handle events (they know what to do online to discourage attackers) implying that they are not at a power disadvantage

Bad things can happen as the result of a single experience. Those who attempt to bother others have issues that must be addressed. The label applied does not mean that these realities do not exist. However, as a topic of research, some focus needs to be brought to this area so that the journals get beyond publishing the results of conflicting survey studies.

Tags: cyberbully

So, Cindy and I are driving home from Bismarck listening to podcasts. A podcast from Conference Connections (FETC) on cell-phone applications generated the following discussion.

Me: This guy is making assumptions about the potential of cell-phone applications in education that are naive. Kids have cell phones, but how many kids from lower income families have the data plans that would allow most of the examples he presents? Educators can’t go forward with major ideas that not all students can apply.
She: Sure, but sometimes you have to take advantage of what is there.
Me: If I had the choice of requiring parents or schools to provide a device it would not be a cell phone. It would be some kind of netbook – I read companies are selling netbooks at a very low rate if you commit to a data plan.
She: Parents are going to be more interested in getting their kids a cell phone.
Me: Have you ever tried writing something with a cell phone. Try writing something that is longer than a paragraph.
She: You are out of date with your ideas. Why do you think writing is so important? Kids can just speak their ideas.

Hmm – any help out there?

A week or so ago I commented on the “education” chapter in What would Google do (Jarvis). After generating this post, Cindy and were listening to TWIT podcasts (This Week in Tech) while driving to and from Minneapolis and the guests on one of the podcasts (TWIT 197) included Don Tapscott (Growing Up Digital; Grown Up Digital; Wikinomics) and Jeff Jarvis (What would Google do?). These are very interesting books (and authors) and I would recommend them all. I would encourage you to listen to this podcast. You can just use the link I provide if you would rather not subscribe using iTunes. The entire episode does not address education, but tech types will likely not mind.

When people outside a field tell those within a field what is necessary for improvement, I assume there is often a sense of frustration among the “insiders”. Serious professionals usually have strong opinions about the practice of their profession and these opinions often include both positives and negatives. However, when outsiders take the position that your profession is a lost cause the reaction is likely to be one of bemusement.

A few bemused comments:
a) Educational institutions cannot be innovative? My initial reaction was that such a position could not possibly be further from the truth. Research is pretty much equivalent to innovation and many researchers supported by institutions of higher education can pursue innovation without regard for whether the developments can be monetized. We are cheap in comparison to the private sector and spend time on long term goals. We also share our results for free (if you read the research literature). Then, I decided the concern for the lack of innovation was intended as a focused criticism of teaching/learning? Perhaps, but ….
b) Educational innovation requires an active “learner”. Jeff Jarvis brought his son to the program. His son, a high school junior, develops apps for Facebook as a sideline .. The anecdotal approach to argument is unsuited to logical thinking in the social sciences. Yes, Bill Gates did not graduate from college. Yes, the same was true of the Google guys and Steve Jobs. It may be relevant to note these folks dropped out of Harvard, Stanford, etc. and worked with faculty members while in attendance and afterward. If we were talking about professional basketball and inner city kids, how would the reaction go? Don’t be a fool, finish school! Consider the reaction to a proposal that anyone over 6’6” ditch classes and spend more time working on his cross-over. Visionary? Follow your passion? Or perhaps, this advice only works for those interested in tech. How many can make it in either of these fields without advanced and general training? Does the fact that a very gifted individual who has already had many unique opportunities (e.g., the younger Jarvis, with mentor parents, a summer at MIT, etc.) and can presently make some money offer a model for most high school students? How much time has this adolescent invested (see Outliers for a discussion of the 10,000 hours and the story of Bill Gates)? So – pick an area in which you think you have talent and spend 10,000 hours. Too many wannabe actors waiting tables already.

c) Opportunities for innovative experiences are not available in higher education? Nonsense – we have experiential courses (field based), individual readings, research, etc. We have equipment to share, work Saturdays, etc. – what more could you want. Often, these pursuits can be lonely for us. If you find a connection and are willing to invest the time, we are thrilled by the opportunity to share our interests and our time. The IF thing here is important – if you are starting from scratch, you have very little to offer to this process. We will likely find something for you to do, but few stick with repetitive low level tasks for long. The general courses are a way to acquire the background and are an efficient way for both the student and the institution. The TWIT conversation and many reformers seem to ignore the money thing. Jarvis, in his book, seems to assume that we find mentors online. I will stick with higher education until I see proof that there are enough freebie mentors out there willing to meet the educational needs of the masses.

Making it in the NBA is a long shot. What do you think the odds are of any given HS student working in her garage becoming the next Bill Gates?

Open yourself up to enough sources and contrasting perspectives will soon become evident.

My present “read” (actually listen, but that sounds funny) is “What would Google do?” (Jeff Jarvis). Jarvis, a real Google fanboy, sets out to demonstrate that the values and techniques employed by Google could successfully modify various trades and services. Toward the end of the book, Jarvis gets to higher education.

GoogleU – typical statements:

• My children should not be limited to the courses at an institution.
• Education continues past 21.
• Blog or perish (I wish).
• Value more in your portfolio of work rather than in the degree.
• Connections to enable job opportunities (networks) can be found online.
• In the real world, the tests are all open book.
• Connecting those who want to know with information.

You get the idea. I can’t take the time to address what I think of each of these concepts. You have to pay for that type of analysis. I am not certain that institutions of higher education will not be forced into change by Google and by specialized online education businesses. The question is whether these changes will represent improvements. I do think some competition is a good thing – the concern I have is what scope will be considered in pushing toward improvement.

Education businesses offer an example of what concerns me. I refuse to call them colleges, but that is the point isn’t it. A business model may be more flexible and responsive to the needs of the customer. So, if education as a business is better, why not describe the coming alternative as  educational businesses vs. traditional colleges and universities. Actually, we have had educational businesses for some time, but vocational or technical colleges kept trying to become something else. What was wrong with having the focus of a more direct connection to a vocation? My actual concern is that educational businesses are not replacements for colleges and universities, but rather peck around the edges to compete where there is easy money to be made. That seems a bit unfair, but the priority of the business mentality. I see higher education as a complex system addressing multiple constituencies and meeting multiple needs. Any given service or group might perhaps be serviced more inexpensively in some other way, but that is not necessarily the idea. Rather, what is best way for a society to accomplish the wide range of services provided by existing institutions? Society sometimes needs to take a broader view. You want to teach large classes, but not provide advanced training. That is a narrow, short term view. You want to service the motivated, capable learners, but not those who benefit from counselors and learning service professionals. That is the narrow, short term view. You want to outsource research to special institutions that compete for external funding sources. Actually, that is pretty much already the way it works. In addition, colleges and universities address research topics that may have little apparent immediate benefit and mentor undergraduates and graduate students as future professionals in the process. That is the long term view.

College profs probably understand better than anyone that learning does not end at 21. In the unique world within which we must compete, no one is relying on his/her original knowledge. Skills perhaps, but not knowledge. BTW – this is why research expectations make some sense in certain categories of institution. If I only had to teach, I could rely on my capabilities to read the book and investigate online ahead of my students. I would propose that the students in my classes deserve an instructor with greater depth of experience and background in at least some of the topics we explore.

I propose that all of us believe we have insights into the limitations of occupations other than our own. We tend to see conspiracies and self-protective mechanisms. Lawyers, car salespersons, insurance companies, college professors, physicians – overpaid, charging for unnecessary services, playing the system to take advantage of those with few options, etc. Those in such professions simply respond that those who do not need to meet the day to day realities of the demands of the profession do not understand. College profs, at least the vast majority, actually do work more than 6 hours a week. I guess it depends on how you define work. The 30 second, $30, “check” by my dentist when I get my teeth cleaned probably helps pay for the office facilities and some pro bono work that he does. Perhaps that $30 allowed some time to keep up on new advances it filling my cavities. We typically support a range of things when we engage with most areas of skilled performance.

I am skeptical of completely self directed learning, not that it is not possible, but that it is not probable. I understand Jarvis’ proposal that we don’t need required courses if we have required certification testing (my interpretation). I suppose, but this to me sounds like pure speculation based on a fairly naive view of human nature. We pretty much have such opportunities now – they seem very seldom used. College students can CLEP out of basic courses. One could, for example, go to iTunes U and listen to one of the series of lectures covering “Introduction to Psychology”, pay your money (not sure what it is anymore, but not that much) and see if you could pass the CLEP exam. Supposedly, these lectures are from some of the most prestigious institutions in the country (they are) and taught by great profs (hmm – listen and draw your own conclusions). I can’t figure out why each Fall my class is still full and students pay tuition. You really think these students are not interested in saving a thousand or so? maybe students already understand that it is really about more than passing the test.

The Jarvis book cites a blog post from W. Richardson addressed to his children – you don’t have to go to college if you do not want to. There are options for preparing yourself for life. Of course. So, if you are a parent or a high school graduate considering your future, what course of action should you pursue? I would agree that there are many tremendously important life lessons one learns in other ways. Travel and exposure to all it brings is tremendously important in my book. Connections with people who do meaningful things is important. Many of us, college profs included, do what we can to provide such opportunities to our children. Read the book “Rich dad, poor dad” – want to bet on the category the Richardson family would fit? Want to bet on whether the kids will go to college? I would propose that those with money do all of these things. If you earn 30K a year, what would be the best thing you could do for your recent high school graduate?

Today, Sec. of Education Duncan released a statement accompanying the release of the 2009 “Conditions of Education“. In commenting on the importance of a college education and doing what can be done to give capable students access to a college education, Sec. Duncan stated:

It appears we are playing for high stakes here.

One of the supposed benefits of the participatory web, at least according to the books I read, is that it brings parties into more meaningful conversation with each other. This works at the individual level, but also at the level of companies, political parties, local government, etc. communicating with customers, members, etc.  I am of the opinion that this communication should be balanced – both positive and negative. So, if I promote a product or service, I should also be able to complain.

I have been a fan of the Flip camera. We have owned one and purchased others for our kids and friends. I think it is a good product. Six weeks or so ago, our Flip stopped working. It would turn on, but then froze before it would get to the menu. I searched online and found that this was a common problem in the original Flip and later versions had a reset button. The idea of having to reset a computer device made a lot of sense to me and it seemed a good description of the problem I was having – no way to reset. Anyway, I contacted customer support, sent the camera in, and three weeks or so later my Flip was returned and it would start again.

Last weekend I had the first occasion to actually use the camera. I was fishing and someone in the boat caught a nice walleye. I started the Flip and encountered the same problem – no menu and no way to turn the camera off. If this was a car, at some point I think they declare the product a lemon. Perhaps this was the case with my camera. I connected to the Pure Digital site again and filled out the customer support form including the “incident number” from the first problem and waited. The customer support site indicates that Pure Digital will respond within 4 hours (during working hours). That was several days ago. No response. Last night I filled out the form again. Nothing so far, but it is not quite 4 hours.

Now it is time for fair and balanced. This is a complaint.

P.S. I received a reply two days after submitting my inquiry. This time instead of sending in the Flip I was asked to take the batteries out for 2 days and then put in fresh batteries. This can’t be a reasonable solution if this happens often.