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

Use of ad blockers

I have generated several posts making the argument that the use of ad blockers ignores the desires of those making the effort to generate content. I recognize that the use of pop-ups and multiple banner ads on a page can be obnoxious, but the solution is to avoid this content. Avoidance allows the author to offer content as he/she desires and prevents you from experiencing content in a framework you find annoying.

Anyway, I do use Google ad links. These links are minimally intrusive. An issue with ad blockers is that most block everything whether the ad content is actually intrusive or not. I have been interested more as a matter of principle than income. My use of ads makes only a minimal dent in the cost to me of renting server space.

I have been tracking the percentage of viewers who examine content on this site and block the ad that appears in the left-hand column. Here is graphical summary from the past month. The red section represents the use of an ad blocker.

adpercent

Loading

Screen Time

Watching my kids raise their kids is interesting. I am a psychologist with some expertise in the area of adolescence, but I can’t say that my approach as a parent was that planned. I guess I would describe my approach as be supportive, be aware, and try help when problems develop. Perhaps my wife was more prescriptive, but I don’t think so. We wanted our kids to do well and be well rounded, but beyond sharing expectations we required few specific choices. Again, what I describe is my impression and not necessarily the impression of all involved.

Screen time is one of those issues that seems new to me. I do not think we had household rules regarding screen time. My kids missed out on several technologies we now take for granted. Internet activities were not part of their experience. We had two phone lines (no cell phones), but this abundance was allowed so we could use the “teen line” for a phone modem. Disputes were related to who had priority on the second line, but not how much time was allowed. What I don’t think we had were rules regarding how much television viewing time was allowed.

My own children as parents vary in their expectations but they do talk about screen time. Of course, we gave our grandchildren iPads so we have played a role in shaping the environment that must be addressed. Specific time limits do come up and I sometimes hear reference to a specific number – you can have 30 minutes of iPad time and then you need to do something else.

Our kids get these numbers from somewhere. All are well educated and with their spouses seek out information on parenting. One influential source of such information has been American Academy of Pediatrics. I must admit a bias here. As a psychologist, I am always surprised when folks from the medical profession weigh in on topics such as child rearing, bullying, etc. My major professor (a WWII military veteran) refused to refer to MDs as doctors. He always called them medics. The preparation of PhDs was different with far more time focused on doing and reading research without a biological connection. I admit to a certain ignorance regarding the preparation of medical professionals (our two daughters are in the field), but I do know how much course work and field experience goes into the preparation of clinical or developmental PhD psychologists.

Anyway, the AAP had a rather absolutist position on screen time – nothing before 2 and then up to two hours by adolescence. Simple rules are easy to follow so I understand the impact on parents seeking simple guidelines. Of course, the world is far more complicated and everyone should have considered that screen time can mean very different things. Unless there was specific evidence that focusing one’s attention on a light emitting surface did neurological damage, what is viewed and heard can now expose the viewer to such a wide range of experiences with varying consequences. Some can be interactive. Many can be educational. Some can be damaging.

AAP has released a new report (there is an executive summary if you do not want to read the entire document) with specific suggestions and a more nuanced position. The recommendations require judgment on the part of parents, but the ideas seem pretty much what I would regard as common sense. The real issue here may be getting parents to forget what they were told previously.

Perhaps if I explain screen time as similar to food consumption the medics may understand. Some is good and necessary. Different inputs have different consequences. It is possible that too much of anything can reach the point of causing problems, but how much this amount is will be determined by many factors.

Loading

Reading – paper vs screen

If you are concerned that tablets provide learners an inferior reading experience you might be interested in this Educause article. The article outlines a study conducted at the Coast Guard Academy, but also offers an introduction that reviews the existing literature on the topic.
I regard this as a multi-level question. There is the question of reading behaviors as they might exist in the “real world”. There is also the question of reading under controlled circumstances. Reading in the real world involves additional factors that go beyond the basic question of whether comprehension is influenced by whether text is accessed from paper or a tablet. In the real world, it appears that factors such as attractive distractions or display format may impact the reading experience. These issues have practical significance, but can be potentially addressed via technological means. For example, the larger IPad pro will allow more complex page presentations. The reason Kindle text is unadorned is partly to control cost. Access to other apps on an iPad can presently be controlled if distraction is an issue. Tools for deep reading (highlighting, navigation, etc.) will improve.
The bare bones comparison of reading from different displays seems quite different. I can think of no reason I would expect the display type to make a difference, but I guess this is an empirical question. The study reported in this article describes an experiment (and references others) addressing this basic question. The study found no treatment differences (but also reached what I thought were strange conclusions related to the pattern of scores associated with each treatment). The pattern finding and interpretation seem a bit of a stretch. The author suggests that paper may be suited to more capable learners. The data on which this proposal is made would also then encourage the conclusion that more average learners should use tablets.
If you care interested, you can view my Highly highlights associated with this article. I describe Highly elsewhere.

Loading