The Professor's Notes

In a recent blog post, Stevie Rocco wrote that “Professor X is a scribe.”  She wrote that as part of a larger conversation which grew from a critique of Cole Camplese’s presentation at the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Tech Forum and his defense, and I encourage you all to go read the post.

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen‘s book “youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”

This Flash animation gives a narrative view of the potential outcome (from the “future perspective of being in 2014 and looking back”) that we can expect when, as Andrew Keen warns, the “Cult of Amateur” pushes the experts out the door.  Is this a world we want to have?

View the animation, and then please, come back here and share your thoughts.  Do you see this as a potential? Why, or why not?

nb: I had originally posted a link to this well done Flash production back in 2006.  Because it gives “future  history” (that is, presents things as fact that at the time had not yet occured) the timeline is somewhat muddied.  I can certainly say it was produced before May of 2006.

In my previous post I wrote about some of my thoughts concerning three key points that I drew from Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur”.

I wanted to take a few minutes to write about ways to address the challenges of these three points.

I have commented on twitter (@SCMProfessor) that I don’t like the push to be “followed” but not to follow back.  Leo LaPorte, and many others, talk in their podcasts about how many people follow them, and either in jest or with serious intent, talk about wanting more followers.  There I find myself usually asking “why?”

Of course, people like Barack Obama, @LeoLaPorte, and my two personal favorites @BrentSpiner  and @bobbyll (two of the best TV androids around!) serve a role as thought leaders.  But what about the rest of  us? Should we want to be folllowed by millions and not follow back?

I admit, I enjoy watching the following numbers go up.  It is in some sense a boost to the ego.  But I also feel it is important to follow back.  If we are to be part of a “community” then that community should encourage discourse and exchange.  We should want to follow the people that follow us, so that we can learn from them.  @TheRealDvorak (John C Dvorak) actually was doing this.  He would follow back.  He would engage.  Of course, leading the way in following back is Scoble (@thescobleizer) who follows 70K people, and is followed by 65K.  He engages!

Here’s my suggestions for engagement on Twitter. Read the rest of this entry »

I am reading Andrew Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur: How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today’s user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values. It is a very interesting, and challenging book.  His general thesis is that our move into the world of the “Digital Natives” (see my other blog post on that) has been essentially dumbing down our discourse. Perhaps even more to the point, he puts forward three points that catch my interest:

First, “I”  matter the most. In this new world we are all equally important, and apparently all have an equal right to be heard.  Unfortunately, in our rush to be heard we forget that we should also listen.  We are rushing to be heard, and ultimately result in simply asserting our right to speak.   In discussing an event he attended, he writes

“Everyone was simultaneously broadcasting  themselves, but nobody was listening. Out of this  anarchy, it suddenly became clear that what was  governing the infinite monkeys now inputting away on  the Internet was the law of digital Darwinism, the  survival of the loudest and most opinionated. Under  these rules, the only way to intellectually prevail is by  infinite filibustering.”

He then goes on to write Read the rest of this entry »

Podcast: Play in new window | Download