And what if that resource is required?

I had the privilege to speak with a representative from a textbook publisher about their new technological advance, designed to help students learn better, and even more, help faculty by automating the grading and evaluation process.  At first blush I was convinced we had a win-win here. Students would be able to learn at their own pace, seeking out knowledge to help them with their problems while simultaneously lifting some of the administrative burden that faculty like least–the grading of homework.  ¹  In the presentation, I was shown how students could not only work through their homework problems, but also click a link to take them directly to the section of the textbook that discusses the approaches needed to solve the homework problem.

While all these solutions are browser based and would work on a wide range of netbook, notebook and desktop computers (Mac, Windows and presumably LINUX based) I was beginning to see just how a digital device such as the Apple iPad could be perfect for such a solution.  The iPad could easily contain all the textbooks a student would have in a semester, could then also assist in the completion not only of the homework but could be instrumental in integrating their understanding of the material with their communications with their classmates and their professor and, given the right writing tools, could be the hub for their homework, email and writing assignments.

Then my thoughts came to a screeching halt when the representative started to talk about prices.

*SIGH*

Access to the homework tool (included in the purchase of a NEW textbook) would cost students $10 if they chose to instead by a book used.  Of course, that would only give them access to the homework assignments.  There was an additional fee ($30 I believe) if they wanted to have the “PLUS” features, including the hyperlinking to the appropriate section of the text.  Of course students could simply purchase the complete digital version, integrating the textbook with the online supplemental materials, and read the books on their computer ²

As I listened, I started hearing the dollar signs tally up quite quickly–and all because of decisions I would make concerning the structure of my class.  Would I require students to complete their homework online?  Would I choose to be considerate of their purse-strings and instead make the online homework an option–requiring me as a faculty member to not only NOT see a time savings but now instead have to manage two separate streams of assignment turn-ins, along with separate grading schema as well?

And what about the students who feel they learn best when they can sit, with a pencil and piece of paper, textbook open before them and their trusty calculator by their side, plugging and chugging their way through to the solutions each problem challenging, then leading to the epiphany they so richly enjoy?

So now I sit here, faced with the interesting challenge–Do I push forward into the technology of pedagogy, and require students to spend more money for digital learning, or do I resist, ironically clinging to paper texts with the twisted ideal of helping students more frugally achieve their learning objective?  Or do I try to chart a course, mandating neither, and potentially creating chaos in the wake? ³

How do we know if it is working?

I have had a simple measure:  Do some (or even any) students use the tools, and when they use them do they feel that they are grasping the material better?

My thought has been that numbers don’t matter as much as outcomes for individuals and if some students find value then these approaches are worth continuing.

What are your thoughts?  Must we have numbers to be considered successful?

=====

Books are wonderful things. Millenia ago, our predecessors shared their histories, and explained the world around them, through an oral tradition, passing stories down from one generation to another. Over time, these stories were written down, essentially “locking” the stories down on paper. Ever since, books have been a way to disseminate information for thousands of years, and with the advent of the printing press, to do so quickly, and broadly. We can partake in the imaginations of a Tolkien, a Lewis, a Shakespeare, or a Plato. We can read the political thoughts of Aristotle, Marx, and Obama, or the theological insights of Paul, Aquinas and Spong. We can even allow our minds to drift as we read romance novels through the ages, or the horror stories from Beowolf, to Frankenstein, to any Stephen King novel. Each book brings new thoughts, new images, and new imaginings.

In the 21st century we have even more ways to disseminate, and enjoy, the works and thoughts of others. Just as the printing press made paper books available to the masses, we have digital ebooks to take dozens of books with us, to read anywhere. We now also have stepped beyond “books on tape” to truly digital audio books that, when combined with personal media players such as the iPod, enable even those who cannot read to enjoy the panoply of thoughts.

If the printing press was the first revolution, sharing ideas with the literate masses, it was limited in the very requirement for literacy. In order to read, one must be able to read. Thus is its limitation it provided the impetus for literacy as more people sought to embrace the ideas made possible through literature.

This latest revolution both extends and hinders the reach of literature. Certainly, if one defines ‘educated’ and ‘literate’ as being exposed to ideas, then we can see how a more informed, and thus more literate, populace will result from such broad access to reading. And through the efforts of Project Gutenberg many of the classics through the ages are now available to the masses. People with internet access can now enjoy the thoughts of the ages, wherever they can reach the internet. And with the One Laptop per Child initiative, children in developing nations can be exposed to ideas global in scope, and timeless as the ages. And finally, whether one can actually read, or not, the proliferation and easy transportability of digital audio files has opened literature to everyone.

Alas, this great awakening may yet be returned to slumber. In the great confluence of enlightened self-interest we find that several challenges remain for making this the greatest literate population ever.

First, it is possible that, when provided with ample reasons to not learn to read, the population reverts once again to an “oral” tradition. Admittedly this is a different oral tradition. In this “new” tradition, the stories are told, and frozen, and remain accessible to those that can’t read. But in this “new” oral tradition the strengths of the oral tradition, the committing the stories to personal memory, embedding them deep in the social soul, is replaced by committing them to digital memory. The stories are retold, but not necessarily embraced. And perhaps worse, these stories then are so easily accessible as to render the impetus to read almost impotent. ¹

The second great challenge is the rush to protect the “digital rights.” Cory Doctorow, in a This Week in Tech podcast, (42 minutes, 50 seconds in) points out that Audible books, and other electronic book distributors, will not allow for the distribution of digital rights free books. Cory Doctorow actually insisted that his books be distributed without DRM, and audible refused.

So why is this the “second great challenge?” Perhaps the best way to explain the impact of DRM is to ask this set of questions: Have you ever given away a book? Loaned a book? Borrowed one from the library? The way digital rights are currently implemented, you cannot loan out a book that you have already read. You can’t say, as so many of us have, “this is a great book–I will give it to you when I am done.” In fact, the terms of service are such for the Kindle that you can’t sell, it loan it or give it away! If we are to experience the benefits of this greatest age of literacy, we need to allow for information to be shared. I honestly understand the concept of intellectual property (what professor doesn’t?) but I also understand that once we share an idea (and perhaps, get paid for it) the idea not only can enter the mainstream, we should hope that it does!

¹ In fact, this is one area in which I struggle with podcasting for courses. If I make my lectures, notes and answers available as audio podcasts have I disconnected the students even further from the richness that is “the text?”

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.”

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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