What Digital Books Mean for Everyone in Higher Ed

As a student who dreads checking out the cost of books at the beginning of each semester New Digital Tools Let Professors Tailor Their Own Textbooks for Under $20 in the Chronicle earlier this month caught my eye. The story talks about AcademicPub, a company started in April, that customizes textbooks for professors by using book chapters, case studies and journal articles from over 75 publishers. The site tracks royalty costs and charges students for the specifically-designed textbook accordingly. One example was from a marketing professor who designed a book that students could get for $14.95 digitally, $27 in paperback or $45 in hardcover.

Of course the benefits of AcademicPub are the lower cost to students in a time of ever-growing education costs. I would also imagine that a benefit to faculty would be getting to pick and choose materials from different areas without having duplicate books. On the other hand, the article states that the “big five” publishing companies do not have agreements with AcademicPub so their materials are not available. One also has to wonder about the reading materials being considered for use if the cost becomes the number one factor.

This is a newer concept in higher education, I believe partially driven by technology and what is available in academics. The article also mentions Connexions, an online database that shares educational material for free, and Flat World which “finds scholars willing to build peer-reviewed textbooks published under a Creative Commons license, which lets others edit and customize the books and allows students free online access to them.” Furthermore, there was an article in the Chronicle just yesterday about Steve Jobs having a plan to make textbooks free on the iPad. While his concepts were supposedly geared more for K-12 education, I believe it would only be a matter of time before the notion would spread to higher ed.

I’m curious to know what other people think about all of the concepts that these articles bring up: the use of technology that replaces the need for physical books, the lower costs to students, a professor’s ability to piecemeal a book together, the repercussions of the printing and publishing companies that no longer get the business, and what it means for the authors.

Beyond the loss of money, I have no idea what this means for authors and printing/publishing companies. I see the great benefit to students because of the cost of some books these days. On the other hand, I do think the disappearance of actual books is sad. It’s just a sign of the times I suppose. If the “big five” companies aren’t involved in AcademicPub, what does that say about the materials that do get used? Are they less credible? Contain lesser information? Will faculty members feel pressure to use books and materials they don’t necessarily favor because of the cost to their students? The thought of even books in today’s world going digital is a concept that is hard for me to wrap my head around. I’d love to hear what others think about some of the questions I have!

New blogs are open

Current Issues Students:  the new blog have been created for the second half of the course. Each is based on a student recommendation.  You should receive invitations to join these 5 new blogs this afternoon.  If you do not (or if you need the invitation to go to a different email address), please let me know.  The older blogs will remain open for students who want to post in them for this week.

The new blog titles are: Higher Education in Colorado, For Profit, International, Protest and Conflict, and Graduate Education.

Technology in Elementary Classrooms

Below are the first few sentences of an article appearing in the New York Times (NYT).

LOS ALTOS, Calif. — The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard. But the school’s chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home. Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools don’t mix.

We would certainly want some more rigorous data about the actual number of tech-rich parents who send their kids to a Waldorf school before reaching too many conclusions. However, this does raise questions about what young kids should be learning and why people who have the money to send their kids to any elementary school have them attending a place that keeps technology out of the classroom. I don’t know anything about early childhood education and technology except that I am usually troubled to see a 5 year-old with his/her own Ipad (probably because I am jealous!). Technology is sometimes problematized as a ‘haves’ and haves-not’ situation but this situation suggests a more nuanced frame is needed. Perhaps we need to first ask, ‘technology to what end’?

A commenter on the article observed that “over the history of education we have closets and storage rooms FILLED with defunct technology—some out-dated before it was ever used. In our consumer culture, the nature of technology is to perpetuate consumerism—it isn't having the new thing but the next thing. Education is and has been wasting precious resources for a century trying to stay ahead of a technology curve, instead of putting 20 or 30 books in each child's hands every single year of school: a commitment that would dwarf any technology investment in a matter of years.” I can attest to having seen warehouses filled with 2 year old technology considered out-dated and at the same time wondering why it couldn’t be instead used in school-districts that didn’t have the resources to buy the technology when it was new.

In both course sections we spent the weekends talking about the demise of a “coherent intellectual experiences” at all but a limited number of small, liberal arts colleges. Interestingly, small liberal arts colleges are also the last type of institution to embrace on-line learning and instead have stuck primarily with small classrooms taught in-the-round. Is the general use of technology in elementary schools a new assault on the coherent experience we hope our kids have in school?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share

Online Education

Having recently had a conversation with a colleague on online education this article from Inside Higher Ed caught my attention. It caught my attention for two reasons...it addressed faculty burnout in relation to online education and cheating. The article points out that the idea of faculty burnout in relation to online education is more of a fear. It suggests that faculty may be confusing burnout with the amount of time it takes to learn a new application of education.

This got me thinking...how difficult is it really to teach an online class? Is it difficult simply because many faculty have never really used this medium of instruction? Does the learning of how to teach in a different medium cause the feelings of burnout? It is hard to say I think either way.

The article goes on to address cheating. It is stated by the article to be one of the areas online education is often questioned on. The article does not directly address this issue by quoting Philip D. Long in saying "many issues endanger the integrity of online learning, such as assessing individual contributions to group projects, are not unique to online education." And he has a point. Group work, something I am sure we all enjoy, is difficult to assess in the classroom as well. Each person has an their own view of how the work went and it makes it difficult to assess. However, online education is making strides in one realm, if universities can afford it and see the value in it.

It is Proctor U. An interface via webcam that a distance education student can have for proctoring work. If a professor decides they want tests proctored, Proctor U allows for students to comply with this requirement without having to come to campus. From viewing their online videos, Proctor U seems to be fairly user friendly and effective. Student sign into their account (anytime and anywhere) pick a date and time for their exam and when the exam day arrives they log on with a Proctor U representative that verifies their ID, remotely access their screen, and double checks their work space via web cam to ensure their are no other materials out. Then the students takes the test while being viewed by the proctor and is assisted by the proctor if technical issues arise.

I see Proctor U as a successful step in response to the concern of cheating when it comes to distance education. It also seems many universities and colleges do as well. Proctor U has over one hundred universities and colleges listed as partners including Colorado State University and the University of Northern Colorado.

Student ID's tied to Financial Institutions

I read most of my news online, so when I came across an article entitled, "Student banned after debit card/student ID card complaint is reinstated" I had to click.  A student at Catawba Valley Community College (Hickory, NC) was suspended after his complaint that his student ID card had to be tied to a bank.  While his complaint is unclear an the nature of how he complained is unclear, I think he has a fair point.  Why do institutions of higher education offer the "amenity" of linking student ID's to banks?  Not credit unions, banks.  Many schools do this, including Metro State (though theirs is optional, not required--you can get two types of student ID's), Texas A & M, UC Irvine, Creighton University, San Diego State University, and countless others.  These were just the top, relevant hits in my Google search of "student ID bank".  Most of their websites speak of this feature as a Bonus! or a Convenience! or a perk of some kind.

There have been numerous posts on student loan debt and what an issue it is for students to be incurring unreasonable amounts of debt to go to college and beyond.  There's even a a White House "We the People" Petition to eliminate all student loan debt in order to stimulate the U.S. economy (yeah, that is not happening, but what a great thing to wish about).  With that in mind, and with many of us rather irate at the cost of education, why are we allowing our students to incur debt AND making it incredibly easy for them to do so?  We know that banks tend to be predatory to our students, so much so that the Credit Card Act of 2009 actually began to regulate how banks and our student populations are allowed to interact.  The bill includes:

·         Credit card issuers must verify proof of income or otherwise require a co-signer before issuing a credit card to consumers under the age of 21.

·         Credit card issuers cannot send prescreened card offers to those under 21 unless they have consented to receive such offers.

·         Card issuers cannot raise a credit limit on an account for persons under 21 with a co-signer, without written permission from the co-signer.

·         Credit card issuers are prohibited from providing free items in exchange for applications when marketing to students on or near campus. The days of "credit card swag" (free t-shirts, frisbees), in exchange for credit card applications are over. Rewards programs offered with credit cards are still allowed, however.

This just makes me wonder if the Feds are so willing to regulate banking relationships with students, why the heck aren't we as institutions doing the same?  Or at least requiring some sort of financial literacy requirement prior to doing so.

Of course, in all of this there has to be some sort of benefit to the institutions, otherwise we wouldn't do it, or at least I hope not.  I would love to know what kind of money we are making off of these banks by giving them marketing right on our student ID's.  I couldn't find this information on any internet resources, but I suppose there's a good reason for keeping that information close to home.

Connecting more with students through technology – too good to be true?

Two articles this week caught my attention, both focusing on technology but from different directions: marketing and promotion vs. retention and attrition. Separately, the articles had merit enough but I believe the strong discussion is when the concepts emphasized in both are linked together.

The first article, “How colleges use, misuse social media to reach students” on CNN.com by Umika Pidaparthy, discusses an idea that is not entirely new and some people in this class have already blogged about this week: social media.


Colleges are more and more frequently using social media as a pubic relations tool to entice students to attend a particular school or to reach out to students who have already been accepted to the institution. While many schools have been incorporating Facebook and Twitter feeds into their public relations, some schools are doing a poor job of keeping their accounts up to date. The Washington Post subsidiary, StudentAdvisor.com, has been doing critiquing of how schools marketto potential students in its “Top 100 Social Media Colleges” list.

The site’s main purpose is to help students of all ages find the school that is right for them through online information provided by advisors and peers. The idea of letting potential students of any kind ask any questions in a relatively professional forum that is not managed or controlled by administrators for a particular institution is close to what youth in society today expect from the Internet.

Think of this as the Wiki of Higher Education institutions. 

Of course, it is also a not so subtle marketing tool for the Post’s special advertisement sections pertaining to being a college student. Ads and commercials from Bed, Bath and Beyond, Staples and others mix with hot tips and insights, supposedly from other student product testers. However, perhaps this is how youth of today prefer to receive their marketing. They would rather not to be advertised to unless it is catered to their desires and needs, such as with the commercials on Facebook. Needless, irrelevant print material sent by colleges and universities are tossed away without a glance. The “magazines” offered by StudentAdvisor are there for the taking but not forced into someone’s face in the manner of pop-up ads or direct mailings.

Having an alum from particular a school share the inside scoop on the best meal to get on a Tuesday in the dining hall or having a peer relate what to expect at a basketball game makes the potential college seem real and welcoming. Is it all true? Can the real answers be found by asking what seem to be random strangers? Maybe not, but that isn’t stopping potential students from trying.

The other news story from Inside Higher Ed coveredtechnology used as a personal assistant for students who need a little extra boost to their academic motivation and perseverance. 

Paul Smith’s College, akaThe College of the Adirondacks, in upstate New York is known for degrees ranging from the culinary arts to forestry. Now the school may be known for a groundbreaking method of student interventions.

When a student’s grades drop below a certain mark, or if the student has forgotten to submit a form, multiple college personnel are notified through the use of an early warning database. These instructors, advisers and administrations then contact the student and initiate the reminder or conversation about the circumstances that caused the warning. 

Proponents of the “behavioral intervention team” hope this is another way to provide student support and not allow anyone to fall through cracks in the higher educational system. They have put much thought into how much information can be shared and used, according to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). But has there been thought put into how to best help students begin to advocate for themselves? By increasing the amount of guidance provided by the school, are we then taking away from the student’s development? How can students learn responsibility if they are not allowed to fail once or twice?

Considering how popular the Siri personal assistant on the new iphone 4S has already become, I imagine the use of personalized checks and balances to ensure student retention and success will be something students appreciate, if not outright request.

Both the StudentAdvisor website and the database early warning system are new technologies being used to associate with students in a more effective manner. Even though the method of communicating online or electronically may seem less personal, the connection established is meant to be unique for each student. People in society today as a whole expect individualized attention. This attitude bleeds over into how the students of today and tomorrow expect their relationships with their institutions to begin and continue beyond graduation. As professionals in higher education, we’d better be on our toes.

Readings

If you have not received the readings for tomorrow evening please let me know immediately so I may send them to you. It is critical for tomorrow's class that all students have completed them.

Social Media's Slow Slog into the Ivory Towers of Academia

Social Media's Slow Slog Into the Ivory Towers of Academia

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/social-medias-slow-slog-into-the-ivory-towers-of-academia/244483/

To be a “digital native” or a “digital immigrant” are terms that are being thrown around for those students who were born at the beginning of the technology boom opposed to those born before it. For those born in 1992 and after are known as your natives and immigrants are the ones prior to that that are learning how to use modern day technology and its ever changing upgrades. The interesting part comes in to how hgier education used technology and adjusts their curriculum to meets the needs of today’s society and learning practices.

This article has an interesting take on how and why higher education uses digital media within its classes and discusses if it is using it effectively. It is one thing to say that you are using it and another to say that you are using it effectively, meaning using it with the correct pedagogy to help students get something out of the class and expand their understanding of social media.

The argument that this article is using is that there are professors who are saying they are teaching a social media class, or a technology class, but they are not using the resources at all. "It's like studying to be a doctor and never touching a body, and then going into practice. You gotta get your hands on it, know how it works. You can only theorize about how these communities work if you're not willing to actually go in and see how they function.” (Smith-Robbins)

Another interesting part of this article discusses the myth that arises with social media in that NOT all digital natives know modern technology and it would be a false assumption for every student to be able to know the fundamentals of modern technology and social media. Further, the argument is also raised that teachers today should not be so hesitant in actually learning from their students, especially in this arena. I think this is so true.

Being around students on an everyday basis, I see how quickly they are at getting on line and engaging in technology as a form of learning. However, it is one thing to just let them use their computers and social media as a form of “learning” and then to actually have a theoretical practice behind it. To have a lesson and an exact measure for what students are supposed to be doing would help narrow the gap within the “digital natives”, but if the professors were able to put their ego aside (if that is the case, not sure if it is) and allow for students to show them how social media can really be of a great assistance in the classroom. I think of the scene of Transformers 2 where Sam is in the college classroom in the beginning of the movie and he “shows up” the professor about what he is lecturing on, and the professor responds by saying, “I will not be punked by a student in front of the dean.” I just thought that was fitting.

Nevada Higher Ed: Visionary or Off Their Rocker?

Having spent almost ten years living in Las Vegas and working in higher education for most of that time, I am always interested in issues facing Nevada, particularly related to higher ed. Nevada's state slogan is "Battle Born" because it obtained statehood during the civil war...it seems this slogan can also describe the current state of higher education there.

I read the Inside Higher Ed article, then read the actual report submitted by Bruce James (Chairman of the Fresh Look at Nevada's Community Colleges Task Force) to the Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor, Daniel Klaich. The report highlighted issues similar to those faced in other states: shortage of trained workforce, need to improve college graduation rates, large numbers of students needing remediation, need to establish pathways from K-12 to and through college, be more strategic regarding program offerings at state institutions, and evaluate tuition and fee structures.

After outlining the issues, the report provided recommendations for the Chancellor to consider and while most of the recommendations were fairly routine (be more strategic about program offerings, raise tuition since it is very low in Nevada, focus on the increased use of technology, increase college graduation rates, create pathways from K-12 to college, etc.), the most controversial recommendation was to create a completely online community college called Nevada Virtual College (NVC).

The controversy comes because NVC would be separate from any other community college in the state, offering courses "priced to students on a full-cost recovery basis" and created and operated by a vendor chosen by the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE).

If you just read the Inside Higher Ed article and comments (and not the report itself) it may seem as though the concept of NVC is the worst thing ever suggested. Quotes from various faculty and other education leaders / administrators in Nevada ranged from subdued but straightforward "I am opposed to the creation of Nevada Virtual College" from College of Southern Nevada president, to a Dean at Truckee Meadows Community College calling the proposal to create NVC "ludicrous and without merit". One College of Southern Nevada faculty states "people had already been kicked and slapped around, and then they're told their jobs are being outsourced". Unless I missed something significant in the report, I didn't see any mention of eliminating faculty positions at the existing community colleges in the state. One might make the assumption that the online institution will cannibalize existing online enrollments from the other community colleges (or even four-year institutions), which might ultimately lead to elimination of faculty from those institutions. In all honesty, that seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

The article refers to NVC as a "privatized online college" and when I read that, I was somewhat surprised as that was not my initial interpretation. The report actually states that proposals may be solicited from all of the community and four-year colleges in Nevada (the Universities are excluded), Western Governors University, "and carefully selected for-profit institutions". I may be naive, but I'm not seeing anything in that language that immediately suggests that this endeavor would automatically be undertaken by a for-profit, which would make it a private institution.

Some comments question the ability to ensure academic quality when you are paying an operating organization based on students passing courses. At first blush, it does seem like a slippery slope, but the report clearly states that there would be an independent third party chosen by the Nevada System of Higher Education to evaluate the course mastery of each student...which to me is vastly different than simply providing reimbursement after a student passes a course. Additionally, the idea to provide bonuses to the operating organization for getting students to graduate is certainly novel. Now, I'm not saying that either are perfect ideas and both certainly would have the potential to go awry, but as an administrator at an institution with a fairly low graduation rate (albeit not as low as College of Southern Nevada's 9% which is really...really...really low, even for a community college), any help in increasing an important measure like graduation rates would be welcomed.

Granted, the recommendation to create NVC is fairly unique in several ways and potentially not viable; however, I would be very interested in seeing if it gets more fully developed and watching where it goes from here. I also understand that it is much easier for me to take the 'let's just wait and see' attitude because I no longer live and work in Nevada, but still I wonder if we fast-forward ten years, will this idea be a "remember when they thought about..." joke at a cocktail party, or will the concept be seen as ahead of its time and proven successful?

Multi-Tasking Technology and the "Need" for Physical Campus Libraries

Think back to your undergraduate years in higher education. How did you research, write, and submit a paper or project to your professors? How did you study for exams? Where did you do so?

I received my Bachelor's degree is May of 2005. That doesn't seem like that long ago to me. Yet, it technology-times, it is another galaxy! I remember how the procedure of research went very clearly. I would sit with a paper and pencil, draw out an outline or idea, then head to the library. I would wait my turn to sit down in front of a library portal computer. These computers didn't have internet explorer or firefox browsers for seemingly infinite search results. They were used to simply search for materials in the physical library. I'd type in keywords, and find journals or books that contained information of interest. Next, I'd write down the series of letters and numbers associated with the work's location, and I would go on my quest. Once locating the physical journal or book, I had two choices. (1) Sit down at a table, take notes and write out citations; or (2) Head to the copy room--loaded with a pouch of dimes. Ten cents a page, and I would copy journal articles one page at a time. The typing was done at my home computer--a large (aka not flatscreen) monitor with tower. The information was saved an a hard 3-4 inch diskette, and printed from this disk back at the library, before turning in this hard copy to a professor. When it came to exams, everything was in "hard copy" form. Hand-written notes, textbooks, and handouts.

Looking back, a lot has changed. That "old way" seems like a lot of work! So, now that I have the ability to write a research paper from my living room or study without a mass of paper in front of me, does that make me lazy, distracted, or ungrateful for my resources on campus?



I came across a recent blog posted in Inside Higher Education titled, "Booting Down." The argument was unpacking whether or not students using a variety of technological devices within their study rituals was distracting, lazy, or ineffective. The author describes a study of 560 students interviewed from a variety of institutions (4-year universities, community colleges, etc.). These students were studying for final exams in their local libraries, and were using technology as a study tool.

The study’s key findings included:

• 85 percent only had 1 or 2 information technology (IT) devices running when interviewed
• 61 percent only had 1 or 2 websites open and in use, most of which were being used for course work
• 81 percent checked for new messages such as email messages or Facebook
• 65 percent said they used social media sites, like Facebook and Twitter, to coordinate study sessions or group work.

The author of the cited article within the blog was determined to set the record straight, in reaction to the negative stereotypes associated with this "dumb generation" full of "multi-tasking slackers," and their inappropriate use of technology. It may be an inaccurate assumption of university faculty and staff that students clicking around on a laptop or browsing on a smart phone or using these methods to simply choke out their boredom or fuel their entertainment quick fix. A majority of students interviewed in the study used technology to advance their learning, not to distract themselves from it.

The researcher is quoted saying, “The technologies are so ubiquitous and they are also interruptive and disruptive and convenient … so they have to be managed, and students are doing this in a creative way.”

Whether uploading a YouTube video explaining a difficult concept from class, or using cites such as Google Scholar to locate full-text articles not contained within the walls of their local library, students are using technology to advance the scope of their education.

These ideas got me thinking...these students were interviewed in campus libraries...but did they really need to be there?



This brought me to a place of examining the "need" for campus libraries. In an article titled: "Re-Positioning Libraries: A Consideration of Obstacles," (UNC library database--ProQuest) the author quotes, "Information technology is the friend of libraries! Information technology is the enemy of libraries!" These contradictory statements are supported by noting that technology has immensely increased accessibility to valuable educational materials, yet issues such as copyright "commercialization," and drastic declines in gate counts, circulation, and reference transactions show trends that are beginning to alert stakeholders. Library advocates fear that administrative and government support (including funding) may also decline with the perceived notion that "libraries are a thing of the past and withering."

This article brought new light to my eyes. In the past six years, throughout my MS degree and year and a half in my doctoral program, how often have I "needed" the physical library on campus? Without a doubt, I "need" the online database of scholarly journals and books...but what about the hard copies and physical space a library holds? I've met group members at libraries, used computers to email or print articles, and climbed the stairs to sit in silence to study materials I already had with me. Yet, my actual need to use physical materials within those walls has been very scarce (not entirely non-existent). What does this say about the future of our libraries in higher education?

I'm confident many students, faculty, and staff alike would hate the idea of seeing libraries across campuses disappear. I know I would. I believe this topic brings up unique considerations for technology in higher education. Are we starting to "out-smart" our own cornerstone resources?

Kylie

Bye Bye Blackboard?

According to stories in today's Chronicle of Higher Education and another in InsideHigherEd, Pearson Publishing is now providing a free learning management system that will allow institutions to focus their limited technology funds on purchasing educational content rather than paying to license and customize an information platform. In lay terms, they have developed a beta-version of a free learning management system that will go head to head with the industry leaders including Blackboard and Desire2Learn.

OpenClass is a free commodity marketed directly to individual faculty members whereas most universities implement learning management systems on an institution-wide basis. Pearson's self-stated intent is to encourage the purchase of "products that the company’s higher ed division sees as the future of its bottom line: e-textbooks, e-tutoring software, and other 'digital content' products." The learning platform acts as a type of gateway drug that leads users to want electronic resources sold by Pearson. Although Pearson is open to the idea of allowing other publishing companies to upload resources onto the OpenClass system, Case Western Reserve University’s Chief Information Officer Lev Gonick notes that it is somewhat analogous to expecting Microsoft to team with Apple in order to sell its products. Whether or not the competition will “play nice” is unclear at this point. That issue will likely be the limiting factor for a publisher-based management system. Often, faculty members demonstrate loyalty to a particular publisher. For some, that publisher of choice is Pearson. For others, it is not. If OpenClass attracts products from a variety of publishers, then it may indeed steal market share from Blackboard and Desire2Learn. If not, it will be another technical solution with limited potential.

Personally, I am hoping that this new system takes off because my co-worker and I are currently in early negotiations to author an e-textbook of the type described in the InsideHigherEd article. Rather than a traditional textbook, the e-text would include links, videos, and other resources that students could engage with in whatever manner they deem most useful to learning the topic. Whereas a traditional textbook is provides the reader with the author’s version of what is required to learn, an electronic textbook is interactive and somewhat customizable to each individual student’s learning style. For some students, reading the text may suffice. For others, learning would be enhanced significantly by having an opportunity to delve into a video of the real-life applications of a theory or equation.

Online v Face-to-Face - Slow down! Think about it...

The article, Community - College Students Perform Worse Online That Face to Face, raises some interesting issues regarding the efficacy of online course instruction. Highlighting a study of 51,000 community-college students, the article reveals that there is an 8% gap in completion rates between students enrolled in online courses and traditional courses. This gap widens to 11
% when we consider students enrolled in developmental education. The study further suggests that students who enroll in online courses are better prepared academically and that students who enroll in online courses early in their college career are more likely to drop out.

The article also suggests that online courses are necessary to cater to the busy lives of our students, but warns that online courses that are "thrown-together" will not effectively serve our students. I have often wondered what sort of thinking goes into the design of the online courses that colleges offer. It seems to me that a well-designed online course, with changes in the curriculum to accommodate online learning will bring students much more success than a course which simply provides the same readings and tests that students would be expected to complete in the classroom. Without deliberate consideration of the environment that students choose to learn in, and a consequential decision to tailor the course materials to the particular environment, educators run the risk of providing sub-par instruction.

This is especially crucial as we consider students attending a community-college. Often these students enroll in courses without seeing an advisor, with remedial education needs, and without a real understanding of the expectations of a college student. According to the article, community college students tend to be low income and disadvantaged and therefore not as tech savvy as many of us assume young people are. This is important as we consider the need to provide orientation for any student who chooses to enroll in an online course for the first time. The study suggests that online courses create a time-management issues for students. Although online course offerings have been developed to provide flexibility for students who are balancing competing responsibilities, too often the result is that students are unable to monitor their progress through the course and keep up with the coursework without reminders and encouragement that come with face to face interactions. I cannot remember how many times a classmate reminded me that a particular assignment was due in a course. I also can't remember how many times I sought the assistance of other students as we helped each other stay on track and find success.

For community college students who choose to take courses online, especially those right out of high school, it seems necessary to provide an orientation to online learning. They already face the struggles of adapting to the rigors of a college education and coming to the realization that high school is very different than college, to leave them alone to navigate complicated technological platforms borders on irresponsible. I find it interesting that for many years a local community college required all students to complete and introductory computer class as a part of their degree, because faculty and staff determined that computer skills were necessary to find success in future employment. What was not necessary, apparently, was for students to complete this course prior to signing up for an online course. We recognize the need for computer skills, and by requiring the course, insinuate that students don't have computer skills, but we then allow them to sign up for a course that requires a deep understanding of computers.

It seems to me that if we are going to continue to move toward online instruction as a viable option, administrators need to begin thinking about the ramifications of this decision in all aspects of the student experience. I understand that it is cheaper to run online courses, but if our students are not being successful and dropping out of college, isn't it time to consider how to provide the support services necessary to assure that students have their best chance at success?

There was a recent stir in Inside Higher Ed about a forthcoming U.S. News and World Report college ranking survey which focuses on on-line learning. Amidst rebuttals by some in Higher Ed as to the validity of the survey U.S. News developed, they say themselves that their methodology is not complete. Arguments are being made that the inclusiveness of the survey is flawed - others are saying that it does not look at outcomes. One question which is NOT be3ing raised and should be is: "what do you consider on-line learning?" (Operationalize that for me!)


The subject comes up frequently in both The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed. Some universities and colleges which have been losing ground over the last several year are looking at the on-line environment as their chance at revitalizing their institutions. My own experience with on-line learning has been very positive and has given me enough knowledge about the area to raise a few questions I thought interesting and which I hope you will enjoy pondering as well.

First:

There are many different "flavors" and "shades" of on-line classes. One which is probably well familiar to us, given its surge in popularity in the local market, is the "hybrid" class. In a hybrid, the students meet part time with their instructor and on-line.

The hybrid is distinct from the "on-line lab" variety (don't know the technical term for it) which is in most respects very similar to a brick-and-mortar class excepting only that a majority of the required homework 'out of the box' so to speak, is completed by the students on-line.

We then have the "straight on-line" format but there are at least two main varieties of this. In one, the class structure is reflective of hte traditional semester format - where the class roster changes every semester (and, subsequently, the student peer-group). In cohort-format on-line courses the students progress in lock-step with a cohort.

Any of these (and a variety of others - most of which are simply off-shoots of one of these) could be classified as "on-line." So, a study which aggregates for each would be much more revealing of the reality of the effectiveness of on-line learning and how effectively Institutions of Higher Learning are leveraging this new resource.

The real problem with the issue of on-line learning, however, is one of the relationship we form with IT.

It has been well documented that IT professionals have severe communication issues with non-IT professionals. Their assumptions about IT are completely different. One critical failure in IT inititatives (and the platforms and solutions implemented in them) is caused by just exactly this. (The Standish Group's 2001 CHAOS report "Extreme CHAOS" mentioned this and it is consistent in almost all of their annual reports.) When steering committees don't understand 'IT-speak' and the assumptions of IT professionals, often the result is a solution designed and implemented from the perspective of the designer - not that of the end-user. The latter, in our case, is students and instructors. Instructors themselves are another key point of failure in rolling out IT-driven learning environments. The on-line environment relies on the same competences of instruction as the brick-and-mortar, namely securing student engagement and facilitating discourse which revovles around course objectives. The on-line revolution is still in its infancy and it has arrived so quickly that there are many instructors who are not fluent enough with the environment, culture and assumptions about IT to translate their in-class practices to the new environment. It may not always be the students at fault and we need to be aware that Faculty need support in optimizing ROI of on-line learning both for the institution and the students.

Another critical point of failure is in how we solve the problem of explosive demand for such offerings. Namely, that we don't. Often when the demand is so high and awareness of IT assumptions so low, we borrow best practices and platforms from other institutions. The easy solution for the administration when faced with an urgent need is to see what other people are doing. "Well they use this platform at Harvard so we'll use it too because it must be good and it's working well for them!" -And true it may be but no two universities will have the same student culture and no two cultures have the same relationship and history (or lack thereof) with technology. But we have to provide a solution to the demand and that's our best shot. The students at, say, Front Range may have a completely different cultural competence with technology than do the students of, say, Truman State. To think the same platform will have the same results "here" as it does "there" is to dismiss, outright, the needs of our unique student body. So, the amount of research and development that goes into a given institution's solution - while not an indicator of its success - would be interesting to take into account.

It is quite common for IT technologies to be mismatched with the culture of their organizations - this happens in industry all the time (and is one of the leading causes of failure in such initiatives). And, obviously, if we are going to pursue the on-line frontier it is important that we equip our faculty with the knowledge and skills they need to successfully deliver content there.

Another consideration, and, it seems an easy fix - killing two birds with one stone - to accommodate the increase in traffic in remedial courses (due to the overall increase in access to higher learning) through on-line teaching. It seems so humanitarian too...so ethical. We are giving busy students the opportunity to further themselves. But the reality is that college is a learned behavior - the habits required to succeed in academia are not engrained in the overall population and students in remedial classes are not necessarily known for embodying these habits. There is a freedom that comes with on-line learning...but with freedom comes responsibility for one's self and, well, this is something that is increasingly lacking in American society (of course, the word "responsibility" is nearly impossible to operationalize so it's a tough one to discourse productively about). Not all students are ready to succeed with that level of freedom.

Finally, what's good about on-line learning? Well, whether reflective of industry or contributing to it (chicken and the egg) the cultural assumptions about mastery of knowledge are changing some in our field would say, and I'd agree with them. We are, more and more, equivocating mastery of knowledge with breadth of fields - not only depth in a field. In industry, more and more American companies are out-sourcing linear, easily structured, functions off-shore and focusing local competences to the more profitable and better paying jobs which require the ability to think abstractly, creatively and out-of-the-box. Knowledge emphasis in industry is shifting to questions of "fuzzy logic." In order to be marketable we need to expand our known assumptions in our respective fields. No format, I believe, does this better than the on-line cohort format. In such an environment we inherently expand our assumptions to include those of other cultures and regions. Our ability to aggregate practices and solutions is strengthened. In addition, it provides us that covetted asset in gaining employment - a professional social network. This alone increases our value-proposition to students, if we can match pedagogy, delivery and technology to our unique cultures of assumptions at our respective institutions. These are just some of my thoughts. This is an important topic for us to dialog about because we are the ones who are going to inherit the current solutions and practices of the academy and take them to a more optimal level.


Thanks
David Dorr

Steve Jobs: Technological Progress.... For Whom?

The passing of Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder, has reminded us of the great technological advances that our world has witnessed in the last decades. Media outlets throughout the world have praised Jobs as a “true visionary” a “creative genius” and someone who “transformed everyday technology from the personal computer to the iPod and iPhone.” Jobs’ influence on education, innovation, learning and teaching has undoubtedly made a difference for many individuals, organizations and educational institutions, especially in the western world.

Nevertheless, his death also reminds us of the lack of access to information and communications technologies that continue to exist throughout the world.

In the mid 90s the concept of digital divide was used to describe the lack of accessibility to technology to individuals with respect to their socioeconomic status. In 2000, The National Telecommunications and Information Administration explained that the term digital divide refers to “the disparity between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in the technology revolution.”

Since then, the term global digital divide has been coined to describe “the information technology disparities between different regions of the world in relation to generalized rates of social and technological development. It is evident that the global digital divide increases as new technologies and access to them become more sophisticated.

Furthermore, Hwang & Joonho (2006) argue that the “discourse of the global digital divide is not only an emerging discourse in the current age of globalization, but also is the succession of the modernistic discourse of technology and development constructed by the dominant power countries since World War II.”

An article published in the Chronicle clearly points out that the digital divide in “American society is getting worse, not better, and it is perpetuated in part by a technology gap between elite universities and minority-serving colleges.”

In the Guardian newspaper, Timothy Sowula, when writing about online social networks reminds readers that while a lot of people in Britain and America are signing up on Facebook there are “over a billion people in the world who have never made a phone call, let alone used the World Wide Web.”

At UNC for the last three years I have had the opportunity to meet and work with Latin American elementary and secondary rural school teachers from the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua who have participated in a six month teacher training on our campus. Although they may have demonstrated some familiarity with new technologies they also commented on the limited accessibility that their students have to the digital world in their rural communities. In fact, they mentioned that in some of their schools there is no electricity, thus, technology is inconceivable.

Steve Jobs’ creative and innovative ideas, in the era of information age, have indisputably contributed to the transformation of societies vis-à-vis new technologies. However, if we are to provide equity and promote social justice and inclusion for all, we should all address the issues of inequity of access –in all societies- to new forms of information technology and commit necessary resources and means required to provide for all, and for a more equitable and just world.