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 “Cult of the Amateur.”  He argues that experts are essentially being pushed out of the arena and replaced by those whom I will call the “dabblers.”  These are people that some would say “know enough to be dangerous” but are not well-versed in the detailed specifics to be experts, and therefore unable to deal with the nuances.  In fact professors, as an integral part of their earning their terminal degree, learn the research methods necessary to truly understand the data they are viewing.  Regardless of whether one is a Hebrew Literature scholar or a theoretical physicist, the opinions of the Professor are informed by their understanding of how to interpret their data. Without such a background all interpretations are considered valid, and truth becomes subjective.

I am anything but a technophobe, but I am concerned that, as we start touting the role of 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.”

On Tuesday, I gave a presentation on using collaborative tools as an integrated part of our research processes.  I recorded that presentation, and have it available here as the 22nd podcast in my series here.

I broke the presentation into three areas of collaboration:
1.  Data gathering (del.icio.us)
2.  Structuring of the research (wiki)
3.  Writing (Google Docs, Microsoft Live Mesh)

(note:  I say in the presentation that Live Mesh is Windows only.  Turns out I was a few versions wrong. It is now available for Mac OSX as well.)

Much of these tools allow us to work asynchronously, sharing information as we find it, and learning what our team has discovered as we have the time.  That said, I also talk about using communication tools such as Skype and Google Talk to work synchronously with your team when geographically separated.  I briefly referred to Twitter, but unfortunately, as much as I love Twitter (and you can find me on Twitter as @SCMProfessor) I don’t see it as a real engine to facilitate collaboration in conducting research.)

I also identified a few things that collaboration in research does:

1.  Fosters cooperation rather than competition
2.  Enables other researchers to share in the research (long discussion about what is and isn’t the outcome of our research).
3.  Speeds the cycle time of research (idea-data-analysis-draft-publication)

Finally, we discussed that the tools should:

1.  Be freely available
2.  Easily understandable audit trail
3.  Provide some levels of security

In the presentation I refer to a few documents (as Google Docs) that I have built to help my students collaborate in their research and project efforts.  First, I have the “Tools and Tutorials” document, where I provide links to not only the tools listed above, but links to helper sites for using these tools, as well as links to “really cool stuff.”

I also mentioned the document I give my students to guide them in the development of their podcast projects.  I even have a 12 step program for them!

So go, listen to the podcast, and please–come back and let me know how YOU are using Web 2.0 to work more closely with your colleagues.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Ah, well, I won’t be answering that question here.  I will simply post a survey for now.  I will share my thoughts a bit later.

This conversation started over at Twitter (follow me– @SCMProfessor) as an outgrowth of reading and thinking about a survey conducted at Penn State as part of their Rock Ethics Institute.  Students at one of the Penn State campuses were asked several questions.  Each question presented a situation, and they were asked if that situation was “cheating” or “not cheating.”

As I said, we have had some good discussions over on Twitter (in 140 characters or less!).  Let’s see what others think.

I will share the results in a coming post.

Thanks!

I gave a presentation last month to the Advisory Board here on campus for our Business School.  I thought I would share the presentation and also the talk as recorded that morning.

I welcome any thoughts you might have on how we can better use technology in business education, and specifically how we can better prepare students to use technology in the “real world” when they graduate.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Wow–talk about game-changers.

Seth Godin has a reputation among marketing circles (new and old media types) for shaking things up and helping us see the world “different.”

He has written some amazing books that challenge our thinking (my favorite “All Marketers Are Liars: The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low-Trust World.”)  But I think this one just about takes it.  He is offering a few, select people, a chance to work with him for 6 months.  Unpaid. And I think it is worth it!

In his words:

If you’re stuck in a dead end job in publishing, or if you made a not-so-great choice in getting your career started, or if you thought Wall Street would be a different place, or if you just got laid off, or if you’re not crazy about fretting away the next six months waiting to get fired and you’re not quite ready to start your own gig… this might be the turbolift you were hoping for. Yes, it’s free.

It’s a chance to get off that track and onto a new track, faster and cheaper than most of the alternatives. And it might even be fun.

[The rest of this page has various details about the program, so I don't have to answer the same questions again and again. It also has a bit of encouragement to it, since I realize it's a very big deal for you to drop everything to do this. It's also a big deal on my end, so hopefully it'll all work out.]

Read more about it here.

I received a comment on the previous post, and wanted to share it with those who may not check out the comments.   Please, share your ideas with us here!

Brief and quick thoughts about Kindle and higher education.

Like you I see the Kindle as a ‘killer device’ in higher education.
Just as I saw the mobile phone/smartphone in 2002. Colleges & Universities were motivated by finances to devise a way to recapture the income lost to dorm phones on traditional landlines. 6 years later and few schools have been able to construct a means to generate revenue from mobile student based mobile technology. A segment of the faculty don’t want mobile devices in their class. Some faculty adopt the technology to aid learning (interactive, polling, twitter, etc.). The administration can’t figure them out.
They got sidetracked with the cell phone as an emergency notification device.
Where is the $$$$?

So, how to motivate higher ed leadership to adopt the Kindle as an instructional tool integral to learning? The answer may be in the money stream.

Your suggestion of self-publishing or co-publishing with commercial publishers has merit.
The landscape is strewn with disjointed efforts to self-publish. Use of learning management systems, faculty blogs, twitter, course/faculty facebook accounts, iTunes University, faculty generated web pages, etc. etc.
The challenge here is to provide a platform to aggregate ‘published’ works across diverse platforms.
How to get all these self-published works loaded onto the Kindle?

There is the green consideration. As more faculty select e-texts for their courses students inevitably will print pages/chapter(s)/books at college provided printers or printers in their dorms. Defeats the inherent value of e-texts: lower unit cost, ease of transport, bookstore floor space & inventory management, etc.
Interesting side note. I use an e-text for my digital photography course. The primary rationale is the text is updated more frequently than publishers can print new version. The main argument from students is they are restricted to read the text while at a computer. Can’t time-shift reading assignments, read on the train/bus/standing in line. Annotate, highlight, dog ear pages, etc. And there are the inherent challenges of laptop technology.

There is the possibility of providing all incoming freshmen with a Kindle: included in the tuition. This is no different than colleges that require the purchase of a laptop. In fact it is better, IMHO. A joint effort with Amazon would seal the deal. As would a partner relationship between Amazon and publishers.

In any case it seems Amazon has given this some measure of consideration. Where do they go from here?

How quickly can those of us who have a shared vision for e-readers like the Kindle advance this technology along the Rodgers innovation adoption curve?

This podcast took off from a conversation a few of us were having in Twitter.  Cumberland Valley High School was having another “non-emergency lock down” so that police could conduct another drug-dog sweep.  I started asking in Twitter what people thought of locking 2600 students in their classrooms to find (what has historically been) 15 students with illicit drugs in their lockers.  Given that we are constrained to 140 characters per “tweet” you can imagine the limitations we felt in our conversation. So… I asked..
“Should we podcast?”

Dominic Salvucci and Jimbo Lamb both thought it was a good idea, and we set a time, and the podcast proceeded from there!

It turns into a discussion about technology in the classroom, and we are setting stage for further discussions on technology, and how we introduce and allow students to use technology.

Let us know what you think in the comments here, and if you want to join us in a podcast, let us know!

-S

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Just yesterday an impromptu discussion in taxation and representation occured over at Community College Dean’s blog.  Apparently “anonymous’s” comment was “uncalled for” when anonymous (in response to the question about including tax-payers in selecting a college’s Board of Trustees) suggested that taxpayer has less of a say than does the voter (and I would agree, these two concepts are not synonymous!)

Having just made made my estimated tax payment (late, yet again, I know…) was reading through the IRS 1040 ES tax pamphlet, and came across a list of list of expiring tax benefits.  I have (using the power of the Jing Project!) excerpted from that document that list:

Why would I list this?  Well, I find it quite interesting that, as part of the Democrats efforts to eliminate Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” they are letting these evil tax cuts die.  You know the ones..  That credit for encouraging energy efficiency?  Oh, and that pesky credit for research (darn those tax-evading scientists!)¹

Interestingly, despite his obvious leftist leanings, Dean Dad hasn’t commented on the expiration of the tax benefit called “Tuition and fees deduction.”  He also hasn’t commented on the loss of the educator deduction from the AGI.  I wonder why?

So my question for you, dear readers is this:  Why were these tax cuts/benefits evil, and how do they only help the rich?

¹ Interestingly, several of the podcasts I have listened to lately have applauded the Obama election, and talked about the expectation that the floodgates of funding will be swinging wide. Hmm… at the same time that we remove the tax credit for conducting research? Apparently (and I just surmise here) the only “good science” is that which is directly funded by the government.  Ahh, yes, suckling…

My eldest daughter gave me the book “Fooled by Randomness” Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I have enjoyed reading it “so far.”

The premise of the book is that life is “random” or at least in large partt driven by likelihoods and probabilities.  Those of you that actually know me, know that I appreciate the random nature of life, and that I believe no outcome is “certain.”  Even knowing that, intellectually, I find myself reflecting on the various lessons in this book, particularly after my recent automobile accident.  In that accident, I started second guessing my decisions.  What if I had gone to Home Depot first?  What if I had decided to go back to the main road to get between stores?  What if I had waited a few seconds before leaving Lowe’s?  What if I hadn’t asked for help, and had left Lowe’s 2 minutes earlier?

The timing of receiving the book (and reading it) helped my put all this in perspective.  All those decision points, and actions arising from those points, are what quatum physicists would call “alternative realities” (and some would tell you they all occured, in parallel universes!)  But there is little one can do to control the outcome.

According to this book (at least, up to my current point in reading it) we see patterns in most things, after the fact.  We play an elaborate game of connect the dots, to make “sense” out of what happened.  We ignore the role of chance, the importance of sheer “randomness” in the events.  The author writes:

Past events will always look less random than they  were (it is called the hindsight bias). I would listen to  someone’s discussion of his own past realizing that  much of what he was saying was just backfit  explanations concocted ex post by his deluded mind.

I realize that, in some way, (perhaps some warped way) I am taking solice in the fact that the accident was just a statistical probability that for some reason, on Thursday, decided to “realize” itself on the side of my car. BAM!

Now, that said, the book also plays a role in explaining the importance of “managing” randomness.  In the book, the author discusses a man, Nero who, as a trader in Chicago, learned early on to play the “game” of moderation.  Nero (being a statistician by education) understood the role of probability even in the market, and understood even better the impact of the “statistically rare event” or what the author calls “The Black Swan.” (He then later writes a longer book on this topic “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable — This one is on my shelf and will be next in my reading queue).

According to Taleb, Nero chose to limit his gains by not seeking the high rewards, because those carry with them the greatest risk, in the event of the “statistically unlikely” black swan. In my accident, Honda helped moderate the risks by providing side curtain and seat-embedded airbags.  We were t-boned, but my wife (sitting on the side that got hit) doesn’t have a single scratch and given the extent of the damage to the door, we believe the airbags protected her.

These are the sorts of things that we teach our students in decision analysis.  Assess the probable outcomes, and the likelihood of the event.  Understand the possible gains and losses.  Then make your decisions based not on the certainty of your ability (flawed) but on your knowledge of the impact of randomness.

This book arrives at just the right time to console me, to remind me that sometimes “stuff happens” and it’s just random.  Accept it, acknowledge it, and plan as best you can.  It’s a great read, and I highly recommend it to all.  But it leaves me with this question:  If it’s arrival was truly at “just the right time” –

Was it’s arrival… Random?

I have been privileged to be witness, and be part of, many of the exciting ways technology can be implemented in the educational process at Penn State.  The major innovations seem to come from two areas.  The first is the  Education Technology Services division.  They have as their mission “to provide leadership and support in the appropriate use of technology for teaching, learning, and research.”  The other major area seems to be faculty that are “tech-saavy” and want to find new ways of integrating technology into their learning environments.

There are some remarkable success stories, but there doesn’t seem to be a groundswell of adoption for much of the technological opportunities the are proposed.  I suspect that there is a disconnect between the “art of the possible” and the wants, desires, and needs of the faculty.

Perhaps the most successful tech solution has been the Course Management System (ANGEL here at Penn State.)  This is a system that allows faculty to communicate electronically with students, make slides and readings available, and even host synchronous and asychronous discussions.  I suspect, through anecdotal evidence, the most used features are the delivery of documents, and the least used are the more interactive features of discussion groups and chat.

In addition, we have blog initiatives, podcasts, and wiki initiatives ongoing at the University. All great stuff, and “spaces” in which I also play.  But each of these comes at a cost. (And often several costs.)

So what keeps faculty from using these technologies?  Are most faculty simply “Luddites” unwilling to step into the 21st Century?  Or is there something else at work here? I suspect that, while some faculty are reluctant to move outside their technological comfort zones, there is something else at play here. Read the rest of this entry »