The primary and secondary schools systems are selecting a specific device and the books are content to go on that device. In this case, the system purchases the devices and the content and then delivers that to the student. So who is the consumer in this case? Setting aside for the moment the argument that the taxpayer is always the consumer, let’s focus on whether the consumer is the school district or the student. We can all agree that there are many stakeholders in this arrangement: the school board, parents, teachers, students, taxpayers, and I’m sure many others. But when I consider the consumer, I am considering their role in consumer plays in shaping the marketplace. In this case, while the students consumed the content, the school board by virtue of the purse string is the consumer. We can hope they are making wise decisions as they select the best combination of hardware, software, and support infrastructure.

Given this scenario the selection of a specific hardware platform makes sense. As a consumer the school district is selecting an all encompassing solution for all to use. This approach will undoubtedly balance the educational needs with the technological abilities, and of course the fiscal reality is the school board faces. The district will be able to leverage their scarce taxpayer dollars to get the best benefit possible. Are there limitations to this approach? Perhaps. There might be better solutions that only run on a different platform. But those are the tradeoffs one makes when one selects a technological platform on which to base decisions. We must satisfice.

Not consider the higher education model. As professors and students alike start to look towards digital textbooks as a valuable and viable alternative to the costly new-used-new book cycle we find a new challenge. In the old paper based book paradigm each professor selected the content and the medium for delivery of the material for their class. As I wrote previously this whole paradigm the content and the medium are inextricably entwined. Each selection of a book was in and of itself the selection of the ecosystem combining the technology (paper) and the content, and quite frankly the support infrastructure. Digital course content (textbooks) separate those.

In the old paradigm the student as consumer handbook three choices. They could buy the book new, they could buy the book old were used, or quite frankly they could choose not to buy the book. They controlled the purchasing decisions and there were really no other considerations of value for them or their professor since all books were delivered in the same – way as complete units. Now, we have some separation between the content and the media.

So who is the consumer and how does that shape the market? Following the old model the professor will select the textbook and the student will be expected to buy that content. If we allow the old system to continue unchanged the faculty member may continue to select what they feel to be the best possible text for the class without regard to the delivery media they will be forcing upon the student. Of course, they are decision may well be driven by the technology they happen to own and not the technology the students own. A professor with an android tablet may well selected android specific text applications while another faculty member with an iPad may well selects iPad content applications. This becomes especially problematic when faculty are selecting multimedia are rich content that may only work in one operating system and not the other.

Purchasing decisions than shift from the student who controls their own purse strings and now can fall on the faculty member who is on constrained by the fiscal realities their students face. It is quite possible for students to need three separate portable digital devices to support three or more classes. The student, by my definition earlier, is the consumer who must make the purchasing decision but that decision has been taken from them.

Once again, we see the value of interface and interoperability standards that cross the various platform divides. Rather than develop operating system specific applications, textbook publishers should work to ensure that their content can be delivered across the wide spectrum of portable devices available. Certainly Amazon has provided that ability through their multiple instances of the kindle application. If a professor assigns a Kindle book a student can easily select that content to view on nearly any device. With the maturation of HTML5 hopefully we will see more and more experience-based course content available and not tide to specific platforms were operating systems.

This will then returned the student to the role of consumer allowing them to make the decision about which media device best fits their needs and wants, while allowing the faculty member to select the content that they believe best fits their course requirements.

I would love to learn your thoughts on the role of consumer in education, and not just in relation to textbooks but who the consumer really as in both primary and secondary education as well as higher education.

Tweak me @SCMprofessor with your thoughts or share them here.

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

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…

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?

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.

I posit that there are three forces at work here.  Time, ownership, and uncertainty.

I believe that faculty are focused on their disciplines, and pursuing the development of knowledge in those areas, and view these not as technological “solutions” but rather as “technological distractions” that would steal time away from their other honorable pursuits.  TIme is a precious commodity for us all, and for newly hired faculty seeking tenure, nothing is more critical than publishing scholarly research as we “build our bones” and work towards tenure.  This often means that as faculty, when faced with the trade-off of innovating in the course-ware or conducting research, we make the understandable personal choice to maximize our long-term standing with the University (and improve our income earning potential) by focusing on the publishing aspect of academia.

The second issue is just as inward focused, but understandable as well.  As faculty members, we do spend time developing our course content.  That content is derived from our expert knowledge of our field of study, and the materials reflect both our time-commitment, and our intellectual property.  Making that material available in easily-shared media (podcasts, images/videos on flickr.com and elsewhere, lectures written in blogs) leaves the faculty with the sense that others can “steal” their work.  Even before the advent of all this “tech” faculty members were often incensed over the downtown businesses that would publish notes taken by the “good” students.  Why? Because that was publishing their materials without permision!

Finally, faculty members (rightly, or wrongly) believe that making the materials available to students outside the classroom will result in rampant absenteeism.  In this case, faculty members often believe that part of the learning experience is derived from the personal interactions one gets in the classroom, and that learning goes both ways (well, actually many ways).

• The students have a more direct opportunity to question the faculty member, and explore more fullly thoughts and ideas in a socratic give-and-take.  And while we can argue that such exchanges can take place in discussion boards and chats, I think we all must agree that only the most advanced typist can type as fast as we speak, and think.
• Other students learn from the exchanges mentioned above.  In fact, some of my most interesting “Aha!” moments came as a result of pursuing thoughts generated by classmates.  These thoughts often result in follow-up questions, but also in discussions amongst students as they leave the lecture hall, go to lunch, and so forth.
• In addition, the faculty member learns from the students.  More than once I have found (and seen other faculty who also have found) that a question posed by a student opened up a thought-process not yet explored. In fact, those questions often lead to new and potentially exciting research opportunities.

So, faculty members are reluctant to provide any excuse for students to “leave” the classroom, and instead get most of the materials through digital and technical means.  That said, I personally have found no drop in attendance in my classes even when using podcasts, and other technology, but I certainly understand the fear from the faculty in this regard.

The question is now, how can one make an argument to faculty members, a “business case” if you will, that addresses these needs, and concerns?  Certainly one could present research showing that students retain more information when bombarded (oops, exposed) to multiple media.  But we are left with a disconnect between the current system that rewards research and publication while expecting “adequate” teaching, and one that focuses on improving the quality of instruction while sacrificing (at least in the faculy members’ eyes) the research.

So, short of changing the reward system to place less emphasis on research, how can we convince faculty that it is in their interest as academics to integrate more technology into their instruction? (And remember, this is to be a persuasive argument–that is, one that is persuasive to the faculty, so must appeal to their wants/needs/desires)

That is the question I toss open for discussion.

So, when I wrote that that the babyboomers were the ones “who argued to ‘never trust anyone over 30.’ Seems they now are being asked to ‘eat their own dogfood’” I may have been mistaken. You see, Dean Dad was essentially arguing that the current crop of Adminstrators need to move along (ref his first line “Reason #456 we need to hire the next generation of administrators”). Thus I felt that asking them (the boomers) to move along and get out of the way, was essentially reminding them not to trust anyone their own age.
But the question I have is whether it is “eating your own dog food.” It certainly is “having to take your own medicine.” And perhaps it is asking for one to “follow one’s own advice.” But is it the same as using your own product?

I argue that in this context it is. You see, Dean Dad is talking about how a service organization is run. Services are different from “goods” in that there is no tangible asset, nothing to, well, eat. So one must stretch the metaphor a bit. But in this case, I believe it works, since one is being asked to follow the management principles they at one time preached. To continue down the road of “old saws” one could say for the Boomers their “Chickens have come home to roost.”

Perhaps it is time for Boomers to acknowledge that they were wrong about something. And for the Gen X’ers to realize that their parents aren’t always wrong–and perhaps should be allowed to continue to work, and lead.

The first that comes to mind is their GPA. Unfortunately, this is, while certainly a “quantitative” measure, it is not “objective.” It fails in at least two ways. First, it fails to consider that variations in content covered (pace, depth, breadth, etc) and also cannot account for the subjectivity and variability of the grading process itself. At best it doesn’t allow for cross set comparison (comparing students from different schools), and at worst, it fails to accurately provide any useful information.

In a selection process, one needs to be able to compare, say, Chris to Drew. If I only have one slot left, how do I determine which of the two are more likely to succeed? Let’s say for the sake of argument that both have identical GPA’s, but are from two different schools. Are both schools the same? Did they cover the same material? Did the teachers evaluate the students in the same way, asking the same questions, and grading the exams and other work in a similar, and consistent, manner? This of course, gets more complicated if, say, one of you has a slightly higher GPA. Does that indicate anything in the cross-set comparison?

As I mentioned, at worst we get very little useful information about the student. Without an in-depth knowledge of the school from which they come, and ideally the specific instructors/teachers they had, we cannot infer much by their grades. Did one instructor grade harshly, while another applied mis-directed compassion? Perhaps there was pressure from an administration to increase “graduation rates” at their school, or conversely it is possible one school had a more restrictive grading scale. It’s fairly common for one HS to grade 80-89 as a B, while another grades a B as 86-93.

I am not arguing that the SATs (or GRE, or GMAT, or MSAT, etc.) are perfect. They are not. But they at least provide some common ground upon which we can evaluate a student’s knowledge (what they have been able to learn) and assess a student’s potential (their ability to learn.)

So–barring a nation-wide attempt to standardize instruction, or even more challenging, document the experience in every classroom in the nation, how does a school effectively make useful quantitative (i.e. measurable) and objective comparisons and assessments of ability and performance?

Anyone?

You can listen to the presentation at the official TLT Symposium 2008 site, or listen to it right here.

Well–you decide.

A blog entry about my presentation was posted quickly, and it is a fair summary.  They recorded it, and I will make it available on here as a podcast for those interested.

My brother and I also did a video interview, but that hasn’t shown up online yet, but when it does, I am sure we both will cross-post that as well.

Let me know what you think!

I don’t know about you, but I think this was a bit inconsiderate. It’s one thing to put everyone out and call a (trivial, no more than 3 day) strike. But it’s another to, at the 11th hour, cancel the strike, and tell everyone that they are expected to report “as normal” the next day.

One would think that they would have the courtesy to at least “let them off” for a day.

So a revision of winners and losers.  The BIG LOSERS here are the students, and the parents.  But then again, we knew that one going in.

Do you think the teachers will be lenient if homework isn’t done?

If this were a real  strike, then they would emerge the winner. But with a 3 day strike cap, there are only losers.

I say “if this were a real strike” because since the  state has apparently put a 3 day time limit on the strike, the teachers have simply extended the school year.  Barring a “work slow-down/stoppage” or a “sick-out” by the teachers, there will be no real impact other than extending the school year.

Knowing that the strike will end in three days, the school board must simply wait.  At the end of three days, I can imagine the school board starting the next meeting with “Did you enjoy your vacation? Do you have anything else? Are you willing to accept our contract now?”

And before I wrap up, I wanted to remind everyone that the biggest losers are the parents, and students.  The local media has been reporting many “personal impact” stories. Parents are upset because they have had to scramble for childcare.  In the local paper, the Patriot-News, one mother is quoted as saying

“I’m angry about the strike,” said Amy Lavarto, whose three children go to Sporting Hill Elementary School. “I only make minimum wage, and I have to work. I will have to find day care for my children, which is an expense I don’t need.”

While more poignantly, a father expresses his distress over the crisis exacerbated by the teachers’ strike

Jim Perry is to drive his wife to a Philadelphia hospital for brain surgery Thursday morning.

He couldn’t care less about the contract fight between the Cumberland Valley teachers and school board. He doesn’t have time to read their proposals. He doesn’t have the luxury of considering whether Thursday’s planned teachers strike seems justified.

Whatever. Perry said he just needs school to stay open.

“The timing is horrible for me all the way around,” said Perry, whose sons attend Silver Spring Elementary and Eagle View Middle schools.

So, we have parents as losers.

As you all probably know, the Cumberland Valley Education Association was forced to initiate a teacher strike.  It is with great disappointment that I have to announce that I can not work with our outstanding children until a contract has been accepted.  To the best of my efforts I encourage all our young student-athletes to fight for what is right and fair.  That is simply all that I am currently attempting and asking for.

Regardless of my opinion concerning the merits of the strike, I am concerned at the tone put forward in the email.  There is a complete lack of acceptance of responsibility for the actions of the teachers, coming from a teacher!  The CVEA (union) was not “forced” to initiate the strike.  The union chose to reject the latest offer.  Perhaps a correct decision, but a decision on their part.  The union then chose to strike.

Also, since it is up to the coaches and advisors to decide whether or not to continue with their sporting activities, The coach could work with the players.  The school board in the “media alert” specifically wrote “Continuance of athletic events and extracurricular activities are at the discretion of coaches and advisors.” He chooses not to, instead choosing to honor the strike and the picket line.

I understand supporting one’s union.  I really do.  I just ask that we all accept that our actions are a result of our choices that we make.

Stand up.

Take ownership of your own decisions.

THAT is perhaps the best lesson we can teach our kids during times like these.

What have the teachers offered as compromise? From all reports, the teachers’ union has simply dug in their heels, and tried to convince the populace that the school board is failing to give them a pay raise.

Who wins, and who loses on a strike?

THE WINNERS:

Teachers think they will win, obviously. They have nothing to lose. They strike, they come back and teach, and even if they now accept the latest offer they get their full 9 months of pay (with a bonus check–remember the retroactive bit?)

The school board may or may not meet the (un-reported) demands of the teacher’s union. But regardless, the school board doesn’t “lose” anything.

THE LOSERS:

The students. They lose, because they have a loss of continuity in their education plan. They lose because for months now, teachers have been fostering a “hostile learning environment” keeping the students (and parents) wondering if, in 48 hours, there would be a strike. On top of that, at least one teacher told his students that, if there was a strike, he would be sending a “work packet” home for them to complete during the strike. In addition, they lose because any plans they may have had for a summer (including summer jobs, to help them earn money for, among other things, college) have to be adjusted.

The parents: For those parents of young children that work, there will be an increased cost either through lost wages, or increased childcare costs. What about those parents that can’t afford the additional costs of childcare? Well–they can just stay home from work, right? So for a few, the choice is either pay for more childcare, or lose income. Additionally, parents may have had plans for summer “break.” Imagine a job where you have to request time off for vacation, and schedule it in advance. You know those jobs–the ones where you work 12 months a year?

The taxpayers: Regardless of the final outcome, it is guaranteed that taxpayers will be paying teachers more money to teach. This is a burden that taxpayers are willing to reasonably carry to provide a good education for the children in the community. I suspect though that taxpayers are keenly aware of what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable. It would seem to me at least that unreasonable is a teachers’ union that fails to negotiate. Of course, a “double whammy” exists for the parents, here. They have the burden of increased child-care costs, only to be rewarded with an (undoubtedly) increased tax burden.

One final thought: The teachers don’t “lose” anything here. There is no cost to them for striking. In most strikes, the unions have to balance the near-term lost wages with the long term gains. They must also consider the lost good-will with their customers who may well choose to go elsewhere with their shopping dollars. In this case, students are required, by law, to attend school. The teachers will come back and teach the remaining class days–and get paid for a full year (did I mention the “bonus check” due to retroactive pay?) The teachers essentially get to hold everyone (especially students) hostage–to achieve not a “fair” contract, but one that is “over the top.”

The Teachers Union. Unreasonable. Uncompromising. Unsupportable.

Let’s start with the credibility.  I wondered about the credibility of the author of the article. So I read the credentials listed at the end of the article “Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com” He lives in Washington STATE! Yes–of course, How could I miss that credential! I should listen/pay attention to him. (And does anyone else find it, um… odd, that Mike’s email address is “FERGIE?”)

Now, I would like to take a brief moment to encourage everyone to do something called “research.” You may recall, as regular readers to this site, that I often encourage one to practice academic and intellectual honesty. Stop. Check the data. Question the sources. Challenge the techniques.

First, and most simply, I found that clicking on the source link for the article (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney/02222008.html) results in a “connection timed out” error. (as of 2/25/08, 1118hr EST) That could mean that everyone is going there and resulted in the site being overloaded, or it could mean that the article on the site has been “pulled.” Either way, the credibility of the source is now questioned. Especially since the main site, Counterpunch.org is also returning a “connection has timed out” error.

Second: There are statements that should be easily verifiable in the article. For instance, the author (Mike? Fergie?) writes: “The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds…” which is quite a bit of news! Did anyone see this high bond rate reported? Can anyone find a news source that reported this? I would think that, if Fergie/Mike was able to find the information, then it should be “findable” right? I am not saying that the information isn’t there–but I am wondering why sources aren’t given.

Now, actually, it wasn’t that hard to do. I did find this snippet:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for instance, is paying $390,000 in interest this week on one $100 million bond that cost just over $83,000 last week, before a failed auction pushed the rate on the bonds to 20 percent from 4.2 percent.

Now, I also found numerous other sites that actually state, verbatim, what Mike/Fergie wrote. For instance, the Free Market News reports:

The credit storm which began in July when two Bear Stearns hedge funds were forced to liquidate, has continued to intensify. Last week the noose tightened around auction-rate securities, a little-known part of the market that requires short-term funding to set rates for long-term municipal bonds. The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds — a new benchmark for short term debt.

That should count, right? Well, one might think so, except it really is a summary of the article written by Mike/Fergie, and points back to the (unavailable) site. Move along. Nothing to see here.

And, while I could continue, I will end with this: given that the document written by Mike/Fergie is posted on a website, and created for electronic distribution, he/she should have taken the time to provide links to the actual sources for his/her information. “Good” bloggers at least hold themselves to that standard. Heck, even bad/poor bloggers (like good ol’ Eric over at A Liberal Dose) link to sources where they get the information they then distort. This may well be a maelstrom that consumes all in the fiery demise of the world economy. But then again, without sources (reputable or otherwise) this is simply another pundit, among the many, touting gloom and doom.

Academics of all people should remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

I find this to be a humorous, and in some way, interesting quote. I also find myself “engaging” with the quote in ways that I didn’t expect. This statement challenges really two fundamental concepts–that of anecdote, and of data. When does a collection of anecdotes step out of a collection of “stories” and actually add up to real, actionable data?

Data is, at the most broad, a collection of anecdotal evidence that builds a case over time. In fact, case-study analysis is simply a rigorous approach to gathering anecdotal evidence. Yes, you are limited in the amount of pure statistical analysis that can be accomplished through the gathering of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes bring a richness to the data that one cannot get through simple “number crunching.”

In addition, an anecdote could be considered a data point of one. And sometimes “one” is all you need. How many times should a car not start before you suspect a problem? How many space shuttles do we need to blow up before we learn about O-rings? If one is seeking to improve service, enhance quality, or improve a reputation, then every negative “anecdote” is a story of failure–failure that must be controlled, corrected, and eliminated.

On the other hand, anecdotes of success should be plentiful, and instructive, if they help one overcome the failures in the other negative anecdotes. Anecdotes about repeated success help in that they demonstrate that success can be achieved, and perhaps can be “replicated” with appropriate processes.

Let’s look at one example. In a blog written by one of my students, he struggles with poor customer service from (stand by for stereotype) “the cable guy.” At the end of the day, the cable guy dragged mud over the carpets, cut two holes in the wall (only needing one) and then had to leave so couldn’t repair the damage to the wall.

The best part about the entire story was, the installer had to be at another appointment and couldn’t fix the hole in my wall. I asked what he was going to do about the wall and he gave me some putty and a sponge and explained how to fix it. He then gave me my $80 installation bill and was on his merry way.

Is it any wonder this customer was upset?

Comcast (as Wesley points out) “wants to be perceived as the leader in cable services.” If one seeks to deliver a high quality service, error free, on-time, every time, then a single story of failure is a failure. In fact, what the Comcast blog posting points out is that a service provider, Comcast, is failing in key aspects of the delivery of that service.

The Fitzsimmons’ write, in their book Service Management that reputation is often a key dimension to the provision of a service. They write:

The uncertainty that is associated with the selection of a service provider often is resolved by talking with others about their experiences before a decision is made. Unlike a product, a poor service experience cannot be exchanged or returned for a different model.

So the “take away” here is that for an individual about to make a decision an anecdote is “data.” And as negative experiences begin to collect, the weight of these anecdotes can tarnish (perhaps irretrievably) the reputation of an organization, or a person.

So, does the simple statement “the plural of anecdote is not data” hold true? I think not. Cute, but alas, wrong.

From the paper:

“Podcasting” has taken the technological and hobbyist worlds by storm, allowing for the creation of highly specialized audio (and now video) productions for delivery over the internet. This sort of capability has found its way into the classroom and into courseware, allowing professors to deliver a wide range of content to their students. (King, et al., 2006) This paper discusses the background of podcasting, the technology that enabled it, and how podcasting can be used to enhance supply chain courses with a “blended” or hybrid learning experience.

In addition to the podcast recording of the presentation, I am including the pdf of the paper, as well as the PowerPoint slides from the presentation.

Let me know what you think of it, and as always, leave comments, or send me a voice mail at the number listed in the contact section!

We talk about Chris’ social media group, Grasshoppers that is there to answer the question “How can I be helpful?”

How can podcasting be useful for students, or educators? We talk about that as well.

What is TalkShoe? Enables anyone to create, join or listen to LIVE, Interactive, podcasts… (and is a local Pittsburgh PA Company!) For those that listen to the most popular podcaster today (Leo Laporte) he uses this for many of his podcasts, most noteably, Net@Night with Amber McArthur.

• Podcast
• live audio streaming
• live chat
• takes CALLS

Who is using TalkShoe? Talkcasters. I mentioned Leo and Net@Night (id 3185), but also

• Geeza (live commentary DVD viewing… Wow!) (talkshoe ID 8230)
• Scott and Kris – The Power Hour, they are comics writers (talkshoe id 5809)
• Bill Alexander – The NETIO Show (id 1832) He broadcasted last night at the restaurant!
• Cliff Ravenscraft – GSPN.tv (is 5138)
• Adam Christianson – The Maccast (id 17436)
• The Grasshoppers (id 43023) Chris Brogan runs this one! People helping people! How cool!)
• Tech Podcasts Roundtable (id 3254)

So why do TalkShoe he asks?

• Connect with audience
• Format change
• meet people with common interests (miniatures? Doll Houses?)
• form friendships
• content that lasts
• build communities
• have fun!

HOW do we do this?

• Sign up (user ID, Pin, and install the software)
• Click “Create” button…
• Call In to the show…
  • With Skype (using skypeOut)
  • VOIP (SJ Phone, Gizmo Project)
  • ShoePhone (Talkshoe’s built in VOIP)
  • POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service!)
• Click on Record.

It’s that simple.

How much does it cost?

$0.00 (And that is in Canadian dollars… the conversion to Euros is… 0.00)

In FACT they PAY you–$50 for the first 10 episodes, and pay per download after that. How cool is THAT?

NEXT RELEASE: Codename: “Tokyo” ETA 10 Sept 07

===================================

How cool is this? My son and I are thinking it might be a great way to make our football conversations a bit more interactive, and get more people involved. Really helps us connect with the audience. That CAN’T be a bad thing!

How can I use this in education? Imagine a “virtual study group” hosted through podcast–where students can call in and ask questions, and the professor can answer.

How about a call in show to leaders in Supply Chain? Wouldn’t you love a chance to pick the brains of the movers in logistics and supply chain?

Again, how cool…

Now, without any further ado, the excerpt:

Q: Very good. (It didn’t fit the rhythm, and anyway they get the picture.) How would you react to the idea that a psychological trait, one intimately linked to the higher mental functions, is highly heritable?

A: With suspicion and unease, naturally.

Q: It’s strongly correlated with educational achievement, class and race.

A: Worse and worse.

Q: Basically nothing that happens after early adolescence makes an impact on it; before that it’s also correlated with diet.

A: Do you work at the Heritage Foundation? Such things cannot be.

Q: What if I told you the trait was accent?

A: I’m sorry?

Q (in a transparently fake California accent): When you, like, say words differently than other people? who speak, like, the same language? because that’s how you, you know, learned to say them from people around you?

A: Do you have a point to make, or are you just yanking my chain?

Q: Would you agree that accent has all the characteristics I just described?

A: Higher cognitive functions — heritable — class and race — not plastic after adolesence — correlation with diet, hah! — I guess I must.

Q: But would you say that there is any genetic or even congenital component to accent?

A: Not really. Obviously, some congenital conditions, like deafness or defects of the vocal chords, make it hard to impossible to acquire any accent. And I can imagine, though I don’t know of anything, that there might be very specific mutations which make it hard to hear a distinction between a given pair of sounds, or easier to learn a specific distinction. But, in general, no, there is no non-trivial genetic component to accent.

Q: Then why were you worried that I was about to start channeling Arthur Jensen?

A: Because those are the sorts of claims usually trotted out by people who want to claim that something is innate, un-plastic, and usually invidiously distributed; sometimes there is a “sadly” to the claims of group inferiority, and sometimes, I think, that “sadly” is even genuine.

One major input: The students like the professor “facing” the students. Additional: They like the use of colors to highlight information.

What strikes me here, along with much of the conference, is how we are discussing ways of moving what we do, and making ourselves “more productive” with new technologies but not necessarily doing “new things.”

The faculty have made good use of the existing software to deliver their content. For instance, they don’t have any fancy “education software” to present the information, but rather have used Windows Journal to combine (pre) written text with charts diagrams, and “spontaneous” hand written notes to step through the lectures.

Back in “the day” I had professors that would essentially do the same thing. They would write out their notes, then scan them as PDFs , and either email or post them to a website.

The Mech Engineer professor has found that class attendance has dropped significantly. He suspects that it is because he posts the completed documents to the course website after the lectures. To me that is a “significant” finding since I haven’t seen a drop in attendance in my classes even though I post the PowerPoint slides, and record and post my lectures as podcasts.

The final professor with a presentation actually says he “records” his presentations, so that he can make it available for downloads. He uses a software package called “Centra” and records everything as he works through the lecture with the students in the classroom.

Interestingly, he has put forward that he would like to see all the students have tablets as well, so they can all begin to work in the classroom collaboratively.

I do have a few comments about Web 2.0 and the Symposium, but I will post those “later.”

Bolting the Tablet to the Podium??  Believe it or not, there actually are people in favor of this sort of thing.  It is the classic conflict between the institution’s desire to protect assets and the faculty desire to have mobility in the classroom.

Let me explain. I see the Wiki as traditionally viewed, that is many contribute their bits of knowledge, allowing for the aggregation of knowledge (and the self-correction as required), with a limited impact on any individual as that knowledge is created. I contribute that which I feel most comfortable contributing, and hopefully take the time to provide correction when I believe something has been less than helpful, or downright incorrect. BOTTOM LINE: Big gains in accessibility to knowledge, with limited impact on any one person’s time to develop.

If we were to view this as the ideal for a course, developing a base of knowledge for a course of instruction, then I suspect we have actually just provided the faculty member with another way of putting their content forward, but not necessarily made it any simpler for the faculty member, and perhaps in fact have increased their workload if only by adding another learning curve. This is not to say that students couldn’t be used to help develop the content, but their inputs will be widely varied in content and quality, depending on their previous knowledge of the materials, their experience base, and the like. In upper level graduate courses, where students are drawing on a wealth of past educational and work experiences, then perhaps they have much to contribute and share, but can we expect that level of contribution from undergrads?

I have looked at a few of the examples of PB Wiki, and the camping trip, and I find them to be interesting ways of accomplishing what we have had other tools to do before, namely, allow for an online space for the aggregation of information. As an open forum, allowing for the development of information, perhaps this makes sense, but what if your school already has a course management system, such as Blackboard, WebCT, or Angel? Do Wikis provide a new capability, or a duplication of existing capabilities with minor tweaks and changes?

So, my question about the use of Wiki in this way (and my perspective as one faculty member) is: how does it a) make the educational content better, b) make the educator’s life easier freeing us up to focus on content rather than process, or c) enable students to grasp the information in a better/faster/cheaper way?

Ideas?

Imagine my joy when I saw that one of my favorites blogs, the Language Log, decided to tackle another mis-reported survey. Of course, this one is particularly juicy since the log-ers are chastising the press for getting it wrong in reporting about how stupid the American people are. Perhaps the best point made is after listing the question asking people essentially to name the freedoms of the first amendment. In critiquing the analysis they write: “If you’re hip to the rhetoric of survey spin, you’ll guess at this point that the survey asked people to enumerate first-amendment rights by free recall.”
Yup, they could stop there, but they don’t! They then go on to mention how challenging that sort of question is. Asking someone to list off something very specific without any hints is quite difficult. Remember essay questions in school? The dreaded “What are 3 of the freedoms identified in the First Amendment, and explain the circumstances that caused their specific addition to the Bill of Rights?” (Actually, when you think about it, this particular essay question is replete with hints!)

Cheers for the Language Log!
Now, for what for me was truly ironic. Many of you remember the gracious treatment I received from the (apparent) owner of the A Liberal Dose blog (go back if you wish and read his witty comments, if your foul language detector is appropriately in place!) Well, not only is the author of that blog a great distorter of facts (or perhaps, just a tremendous prevaricator) he is a great distorter of images. To see what I am writing about, just go see the posting for Memorial Day weekend. As they say, context is everything. In this instance, we are provided a caption, and a picture of the President smiling. Of course, we are to quickly conclude the President may well have expressed deep remorse but by his smile, he must not have “meant it.” Hmmmm… Was the picture taken at the same time as the statement? (or even within seconds, or a minute?) Was the picture taken before the speech began? Who was the President looking at while smiling? (In the interest of fairness, this is the same sort of gross mis-representation that Rush Limbaugh did with the video of President Clinton laughing when leaving following the funeral of his former Secretary of Transportation. Of course, in THAT case the clip showed Clinton crying, laughing and then crying again, in the span of 10 seconds…)
As you can see, the picture doesn’t actually convey anything other than a man who can, at times, be quite “warm” most likely to a person in the crowd. It is mis-representations like this that lead one to conclude that “A Liberal Dose” is a person with an agenda, and perhaps not much else.
But that’s alright.
To steal from an old “Greyhound Busline” commercial “Just relax, and leave the thinking to us!”
The Prof

Those who know me, know my record with plagiarists. I post this link to the Language Log, in an attempt to warn all, students and others, about the problems of plagiarism, and most importantly, about the broader impact it has, beyond the classroom.

The Pro

The above quote comes out of a very lengthy thread on the Community College Dean’s blog. There are many tangents that have come out of that thread, and this is the first one I have chosen to discuss.

This is not the first time I have heard the argument that “education is not a business.” I would have to agree. Educators have a responsibility to provide an education, to convey material to learners in an environment, and with pedagogical approaches, that enhance the opportunity for the learners to actually grasp and internalize the material. I would then also argue that McDonalds (or, Lone Star Steak House, or any other restaurant), Barnes and Noble (and other perveyors of books), Bloomingdales… none of these are businesses either. They exist to meet a requirement, or satisfy a want, for people that have a need or want. In tfact, they too actually want people to “grasp” and (in the case of restaurants literally, and bookstores not so… ) internalize the materials.

In all these cases the contact person–the educator, the bookstore clerk, the customer specialist, or the counter-kid at McDonalds, needs to focus not on the business aspect of the firm, but on the customer’s satisfaction. The “best” businesses do that–focus on the customer, understanding that the rest will follow.

Specifically, and this is the most critical point, if people see value in what they receive they will pay for it as they are able. If they don’t–they won’t!

Education, and other not-for-profit endeavours are a bit different, in that schools and public broadcasting, and often hospitals, are able to get people in general to see the benefit, and pay for services they themselves might not directly receive, but they do it because the see, and wish to encourage, the product to continue to be provided. (I wish it were possible to go to Barnes and Noble and have someone offer to subsidize my book purchases, but alas, that doesn’t happen.)

So what wordplay am I conducting here? Well, business is, according to lawyerintl.com is “A continuous and regular activity that has income or profit as its primary purpose.” Hmmm… so perhaps, either I am just creating a smoke-screen to obfuscate the point about education, or education has as its primary purpose making money. Or perhaps their is another option–the ‘legal’ definition of a business doesn’t actually fit what we in business actually do.

Businesses most often are in the business of generating revenue. Without revenue no operation can continue. Be it public radio and televion, or the local university, or the local McDonalds, all need revenue to survive. But by the same token all businesses understand that they exist to satisfy some perceived want or need, and that they can only survive through providing that.

Here’s the bottom line: yes, educators, you are not “business people.” Your charter is to serve your institution by delivering the best educational experience possible to the students in your care, and doing all you can to ensure they grasp the material and are hopefully changed by it. That is just like a counter-kid at McDonalds has as their mission to keep the customer “lovin’ it.” It’s the role of the administration, and the management, to ensure the revenue keeps coming in, and that the books either remain “balanced” (not for profits) or stay positive to satisfy the stakeholders.

So if it appears that a conflict exists, then I suggest you ask these simple questions:

1. Does the actions of the administration take the school/college/university away from it’s mission of education?

(critical point here: do not ask yourself if it takes away specific areas of education, such as medieval studies, but rather if it has changed the mission–say to providing conferences and hotel space, without an educational element.)

2. Does the administration make clear the long-term strategic direction for this change?
(perhaps outlining either a) the fiscal need that perhaps ensures survival, such as at Tulane, or b) reaches an as yet untapped clientele with the educational mission, as the discussion at the Dean’s blog has as its base.)

These are only two questions. Perhaps you have more.

I welcome a lengthy discussion here, as well.

The Professor

“Among the troops, a flood of desertions (thanks in no small part to the efforts of GI Rights Online) is indicative of the growing unpopularity of the occupation — fully 72% of American troops in Iraq support ending it this year.”

Here we go. “flood of desertions” this blogger claims. This particular blog reminds me of some of the worst writings I have seen in class. Students will do anything to get a point across in their papers, and will cite things that don’t actually argue what the student portrays it to be arguing. Unfortunately, I have actually seen articles submitted by academics for peer reviewed journals, where the authors misrepresent the argument put forward in a cited work.

This is a classic point in case. According to this blog, one would think that we are losing soldiers, sailors, airman and marines at a phenomenal rate–perhaps even greater than ever before. Wow! I was surprised enough to go check his source. Much to my surprise I saw in the graphic the heading “Desertions drop.” Hhmmmmm flood? The article goes on to point out that desertions have continued to drop since 9/11/01, and in fact “Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.”

Two points strike me here. First, the numbers are not only lower than they were in 2001, but they are also lower than they were in 2000–while that “other guy” was still in the White House! Second, most desertions happen stateside, are early in an enlistment, and more often than not are based on personal issues (failure to adapt to the military lifestyle, personal issues back home) than they are a protesting of a war the nation was engaged in at the time of the enlistment!

In the same blog entry, further down, the blogger makes the rather simple mistake of referring to election fraud in the 2004 election, when the article again and again states it was the 2002 election. Why is this a big deal, and not just a simple error? Because we are all told by the left how corrupt the ’04 election was, but not the ’02 one.

So here we are. This blogger has become so blinded by his political ideology that either he can no longer read things carefully, or he chooses to distort the sources.

I had actually commented on his blog, providing a correction, but it seems that, while he shows that comments are allowed, but moderated, he actually doesn’t put comments up for view. Hmmmm… I must admit, because of the errors on this one page, and how easy it is for someone to quickly check the facts by actually reading the sources cited, I found myself wondering if this blogger is actually a conservative make a veiled attempt at making liberals look stupid. Hey, it’s either that, or…

So students, learn a valuable lesson. Before you cite something, read it. Make sure that the document you cite actually buttresses the argument you are using it to make, or at least that you represent their argument accurately.

The Prof

Last posting, I put a story up about SAP releasing V 5 of their SCM software. I commented there on the need for software to support supply chain collaboration, among other things. It was pointed out to me by a colleague that the book, “Why ERP” presents an implementation of an SAP ERP system that failed. I have yet to read the book, but it is now high on my reading list (and I encourage those of you interested in these things to do as well.)

Hey, I make it easy for you–I am linking this posting to the Amazon site for this book. But not to get you to buy it, because if that was my goal I would have figured out a way to get a kickback. I wanted to actually link to the comments reviewing the book, like the one quoted above. It appears that this book is fairly common required reading, and that students don’t like it. Don’t believe me? Go read the comments!

This was doubly interesting to me, since it combined the ERP discussion with a discussion on evaluations by students. Over at the blog “Confessions of a Community College Dean” the Dean is trying to figure out ways to evaluate his faculty. This is often stymied by the fact that students’ evaluations are, well, sometimes less than constructive. Note, I say sometimes.

In these reviews of the book you will find there to be constructive critiques. These critiques say things like:

“Do not read this book if you are an expert on SAP or very familiar with ERP systems. This is little more than a text book put in the form of one large example.” (Hmmm one CASE example can be quite rich in individual exmplars used for discussion and study. But still, good critique.)

CAUTION: This book (actually a novel) is good only for those who do not know anything about ERP. Finish this quickly and move on to more detailed stuff like MISSION CRITICAL by Thomas Davenport. (again, the usefulness is challenged, but at least the commentator provides an alternative.)

and, Perhaps the best review:

This actually is a good read. It kept my interest for a full 2 hours, which is what is took to read it. The case study is real and on the mark. It illustrates that even if SAP is being widely adopted in your industry (in this case furniture), it may not be the right solution for you. In this instance, SAP (or the SAP implementation approach) was wrong because the company, whose business model was “make to order”, tried to cut time and costs by directly implementing a configuration which worked well for a company that has a very limited (few part numbers with minimal change) product line.

The author also did a realistic job in presenting the politics of the situation. The company president wanted an easy integration under a tight deadline. The IT geek wasn’t interested in the business model and wanted a showcase quick installation. The marketing guy wasn’t interested in the details and wanted to showcase the installation. The book’s hero is a healthy skeptic, who is trying to understand ERP, its benefits, and how it fit his company’s business.

Based the book’s title, I thought I was picking up another SAP marketing book. But it is not that at all. It’s objective and deals with business issues. No ABAP, idocs, and organization elements here.

My recommendations for anyone writing a review or a critique, including critiquing a course or an instructor? They are quite simple really:

1. Provide positive feedback if at all possible. What did you like, and why? The why is important because it helps to know how to develop future information in a way that worked well previously. Criticism need not be negative, or even pointing out weaknesses. Sometimes people need to be told the good things.

2. Be critical, with a positive attitude. Say things like “While I appreciate XXX, it didn’t work well, because…” Again, the because, or the why, is critical to helping the professor or author provide a fix for things later.

3. Understand the purpose of what you are critiquing. If you are critiquing a course, and the course is on advanced astrophysics, don’t criticize the lack of creative writing assignments. Alternatively, if you are in an MBA program, regardless of the quantitative rigour of the individual course, you should have an expectation that students will be expected to communicate clearly–after all, you are there to be better managers.

So, remember: criticism should be given with the intent of improvement, and while it may have been cathartic for the reviewer to write: “I wouldn’t even make paper airplanes with this book – because they would suck too. When millions of books were burned in WWII, why did they miss this one?” they certainly provided nothing to the discussion.

The Prof

Postscript: (In fact, the paper airplane comment was followed by a recommendation to read “The Goal” by Goldratt. An excellent book, but with a completely different message/intent. This reviewer apparently missed point number three.)

“With the package’s new tools, the company said, retailers can strike a better balance between increased customer service levels and lowered merchandise inventory, SAP said. They can replenish products with long lead times and at the same time handle seasonal products and introduce new products with short product-lifecycles using historical information on similar products to forecast demand.”

This is, perhaps, the state of the art in true Supply Chain Management software. I would recommend anyone interested in SCM that they start looking at this sort of software for managing their chain. I find perhaps the most interesting line in here is the one about managing long lead times, and seasonal products.

I am curious myself to get my hands on this. I fervently believe that for a software package to truly support SCM, they need to incorporate not only a good information system for the sharing of information, but it also needs to in some way provide a way to encourage shared decision making.

The infusion of collaboration in the supply chain will of course be THE way firms are able to be fully empowered and can reach nirvana, satisfying customers and have very low inventories.

Perhaps SAP is willing to let this professor of SCM play with the software a bit…

I have talked, since 1996, about the parallels between transportation networks, and information (Computer) networks. Both networks move items of value (cargo, or data) from point to point, and even use much of the same language. I have even posited that computer networks (read: Internet) is actually a sixth mode of transportation–a concept I am now beginning to see in print.

Part of any good logistics system is an efficient transportation network. An efficient network not only moves “things” (beit cargo, or people) at the lowest cost and in a timely manner, but does so to ensure the effectiveness of the delivery (arrives on-time, and in proper condition, and so forth.)

This website takes efficient and effective transportation the next step, ensuring that, literally, the “last mile” is covered. This system, though, is designed to ensure that the people get to where they are going–taking them from their cars to their offices, offices to meetings, and the like, quickly, efficiently, and, if you ask me, in HIGH style!

What for me is important to note is that they are using the language of the internet in describing this personal transportation network. It’s a “packet switched” carrier. It “connects a single campus bus stop to 30,000 desks.”

Perhaps we are seeing the convergence of IT and TT (Info tech and Trans Tech) in this new and innovative proposal!

At first I thought this was a well-thought-out joke (a “packet switched people network?”), or perhaps class project, but after visiting the website, I am thinking perhaps this is a serious proposal. Either way, it is quite cool!

The Prof

P.S. — Be sure to check out the marketing video as well!

I also found a discussion about bias in academia to be interesting as well. It seems that academics do not believe that there is a liberal bias in academia. Now, one could comment about fish not perceiving water, pigs and mud, etc (the implication being, you do not notice that which surrounds you as being somehow “different.”) I, though, was struck by the similarity between the liberal argument, and the conservatives they argue about.

So, without any further ado, here is my comment and the others, regarding stereotyping by liberals.

Kimmitt:

Do you not notice the stereotyping and bias you yourself introduce? By writing “the conservative movement as a whole has a very strong “know-nothing” component which is inimical to the very concept of education.” you judge a whole group based on a pre-conception (and I doubt you can show research to support your view–besides anecdote.) Given this, you dismiss as “the exception” the few conservatives who point out they are in favor of critical thinking.

This really does sound as offensive to me as “well, you may be a smart woman, but most women…” or perhaps some other stereotype.

It is perhaps in our desire to descriminate, (sic) and stereotype, based on differences, that conservatives and liberals, pin-heads and enlightened, find their true common ground.

This is why my preference for “diversity” in education is not race or gender, or even age based–it’s *idea* based. I want to encourage a diverse idea base, so that ideas can be freely exchanged, and debate encouraged, without stereotyping and dismissing from any group.

Just a thought.

This is very interesting–Apple supporting the podcasting of lectures. Forget for a brief moment that removing the students from the classroom removes the interactivity between the prof and the class, and between each other, that often leads to serendipitous learning. Additionally, ignore for the moment that this might result in the prof actually talking to a COMPLETELY empty room (and how motivated a speaker can you be with that?).

Ignoring all that, this might be a very neat idea. Several years ago, MIT started the open university project (or whatever they called it) making the materials for their classes available online. Their logic? The course materials are not the reason MIT is so good. MIT is an outstanding university because of the interactions, and the faculty. This goes that next step, and brings the faculty–at least in a one way transmission–to the viewer/listener. (MIT, to its credit, will still have an edge, since so much of their educational experience is hands-on learning.) Perhaps this is another way of extending the distance education approach, that started with mail-order classes, has recently moved to the web-based courses, and now, is supported by your little iPod.

I am curious about this, though. Do you, dear class, believe that students today are, as the story says, “digital natives”? Are they so wired in, that this is not only a good way to reach them, but perhaps, the ONLY way to reach them?

What do you think the net effect on the education of these students will be? Will they be better educated, since they can learn where and when they want, or perhaps lose out because of the lack of interaction?

Let me know!

The Prof

(Oh, and visit The Lobby–for all my wranglings with that site, I do believe it is a fun site to read, and honestly, worth anyone’s time!)

I was sent a link to this page by one of my students currently conducting research. I have many on-going discussions about qualitative vs quantitative research, and my student thought this discussion was something in which I might have an interest. Obviously–I do!

First, let me say, I find it interesting that we even have a struggle between “quant” and “qual” or between “hard sciences” and the “soft sciences.” It certainly strikes me as arrogance that one group of academics feel they can claim to be “true researchers” and thus limit the contributions of others through a claim of “lack of rigor.” I have for years argued that different disciplines have different types of rigor. The rigor a chemist requires is different from that of an electrical engineer. The rigor required to conduct solid research in History is different from that of Hebrew Literature. In the words of Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?”

Now, moving on to the website referenced: This posits another interested direction for research–that of activist. Creswell, in his text on “Research Design” refers to for different “Knowledge Claims” that we have for research, and argues that we fit in one of 4 categories. One of those categories includes “Activist.” Of course, this makes the hair on the back of many necks stand straight up. How can one be “objective” if one has as one’s goal effecting change?

The need to effect change forms an explicit assumption of one’s research. Perhaps the greatest difference here is that the assumption is explicit, and often embedded in the “problem statement.” For instance, consider this problem statement/research question: “Heroin use remains a significant killer on the streets of major cities. This research seeks to identify the many ways people die from heroin use and propose policies that would reduce the number of deaths of our fellow citizens.”

Not very objective–or is it? Certainly it is “activist” in it’s role. Embedded in this statement is an assumption (hopefuly supported in a lit review) that heroin is a killer. Also embedded is that the “solution” must involve government intervention, since it seeks “policies” to effect change.

My question for you all, dear students, is this: Can one be objective, and be an activist researcher (or an “action researcher?”)

Please, feel free to share your comments and ideas on this.

The Professors

This article, from the Chronicle of Higher Education, poses an interesting question–should religious organizations on college campuses be able to restrict their membership to only those who adhere to that faith? I say this is an interesting question, because as a question it is targeted only at religious groups. I would venture to say that only religious groups have people beating down their doors to join, that share in no way a common set of values for that organization. For instance, when was the last time you heard of someone who hated chess seeking to join the chess club? How about a Republican (and for the sake of argument, a compassionate conservative) seeking to join the College Democrats? Generally speaking, those organizations are able to self-select, because only like-minded people join them.

That now sets up the interesting predicament that was faced at “The Ohio State University.” According to the article in the Chronicle (dated 28 January 05) “In the fall of 2003, two law students at Ohio State University’s main campus complained to the administration that the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society, a student group, was violating the institution’s nondiscrimination rules… Yet the two students said the society would not let them join because one of them was not an evangelical Christian and the other was gay. The group said it would not accept students who did not share its religious views, or those who engaged in “homosexual conduct,” which, it held, is condemned in the Bible.”

Interestingly, these two students never actually say whether they attempted to join the organization, or they simply inquired as to requirements for membership. So, at the face, we have a charge of discrimination but there is no evidence of any actual harm being done.

Now, let’s deal with a few things. First, we have a group that has people trying to join it, that actually do not believe in the organization’s view. They are taking Marx’s statement to the extreme. Remember, Groucho had sad that he wouldn’t want to belong to any organization that would have him as a member. Apparently, these folks prefer to belong to organizations that would NOT want them as a member. That, in and of itself, strikes me as “odd.”

Of course, the purpose to “join” the organization most likely was simply to force their hand–to show that this organization wasn’t playing fair.

I suggest that every Religious organization (Certainly every Christian one) should encourage all to join. But I would also encourage them to continue to hold to, and preach, their ideals. If as a tenet of your faith you believe that sin is to be fled, and that righteousness is to be pursued, then preach that, teach that, and don’t hesitate to call sexual immorality on college campuses, well, WRONG. If that makes the membership uncomfortable, because of their lifestyle, then so be it–they didn’t HAVE to join.

Hopefully it will have the alternate effect of convicting, and converting, and allowing God to work in their lives.

Let em in–it just might change a life!

Ever wonder why school levies always seem to fail, and yet school taxes always seem to go up, and never go down? It’s simple– the levies keep coming back, and coming back, until they pass. It is interesting, the levies lose, and lose, and lose, but then, due to low turn out, or bad weather, or just a weird turn of events, the levy passes, often by a number of votes that can be counted on one hand. And that settles it.

I first noticed this rather odd turn of events in St Louis, where they were trying to pass a referendum to allow riverboat gambling. The referendum failed during every election for over two years, and at every defeat those supporting the referendum vowed to bring it back again. Once the levy passed, they proudly declared “this has been settled once and for all.”

So, what makes it “once and for all” when one side wins, and not another? I think it is because those that are pushing for these issues are quick to try to shut down further debate. In fact, they often use draconian tactics to make their point.

One of my favorite responses from a school district, when their levy failed, was to not only take away busing, but then add insult to injury by coming out and announcing that if any children are injured by having to walk to school, that the fault would lay with the taxpayers who were “too cheap” to pass a levy. Yup–rather than find waste in their budget (and there was a large administrative staff that could have been cut) they went for the jugular, playing roullette with the lives of children for the sake of money.

Another school district said they would have to eliminate the advanced placement and honors classes. When pressed, they said they wouldn’t fired any teachers. Why not? Because they still had full classroom loads of students. So, this was another effort to lower the education of students, simply to “blackmail” the community into paying higher taxes.

So what would my solution be, for school districts? Let me say, my suggestions are focused not on how to defeat, or repeal, the levies, but rather on how school districts could do better without them. These suggestions at times may require a rethinking of what “public education” means, but that isn’t an insurmountable obstacle.

First, make students buy their own textbooks. College students have to do it, so why not public school students? I hear the screams now “but what about poor families that cannot afford the books?” Simple: we help them. If you are below a certain income level, then you get “free” books. If you aren’t, then you can also economize by purchasing used books, and then selling them back, just like the college model. The books in public schools now are often used for several years in a row. Requiring the purchase of the books would perhaps result in students taking better care of the books, since parents will have a direct financial stake in the care of the books.

Second, continue to require students to pay to play. Participating in sporting events and teams at taxpayers expense shouldn’t be viewed as a “right” of students. They should be required to take physical education classes, and that should be community funded, but anything beyond that should be seen as “above and beyond.”

Third, permits for parking (at local High Schools) should be purchased. This would perhaps reduce congestion (price it high enough so many would choose not to drive) and also help subsidize the busing system.

Fourth, identify any additional “above and beyond” programs, and charge fees that are appropriate for sustaining the program. If it is an event with spectators, then charge an appropriate fee for that program, and have that money go directly to support that program. Any money generated by a program should be used directly, and not subsidized a “lesser interest” program.

One quick aside on this point: If taxpayers subsidize a program, such as the football team, they should be allowed to attend for free. They already paid for it–they should get to see it!

One of these days, I want to see people insist that a referendum that passed be brought back just one more time. after 4 defeats, to finally win and declare final victory seems “odd.” How about “best two out of three.” Think we could convince people to go for that?

Don’t forget, the midterm exam is coming. Leave your homework in a pile on the desk on your way out, and make sure your name is on your work.

Wow!! Here I was preparing to write a blog about how both sides can present “true” facts (yes, I realize the humor in that…) and still hold opposing views.

It turns out that the Democrats chose to distort the facts anyway. Why would they do that? Because the facts from the CBO report show that everyone–yes everyone benefited from the tax cuts. In fact, refer to my previous discussion about why the tax cuts were a good idea to help recover from the slowing economy that Clinton passed on to Bush.

So, let’s start with the distortions. According to the Democrats, as reported in the Yahoo/Reuters news story, The CBO report shows that “the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.” While this is most likely “accurate reporting” (that is, the Democrats did say this) it’s not actually to be found in the data of the CBO report. In fact, if you look at Table 3 of the report (use the link above, and read this for yourself) you will find that the share of “Total Tax Liabilities” for the top 1% of the population hits 21.2% by 2010, when the tax laws sunset (that is, revert back to the higher tax rates of 2000.)

So first, the Democrats actually understate the tax burden by 1 full percentage point. Not “even” a rounding error mistake. But what’s worse, they are arguing that it is “not fair” in some measure that 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Read that again, slowly. 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Let that sink in. That’s apparently too low, according to the Democrats.

Wow.

As if that isn’t enough, Table 4 actually is more “telling” since it presents the differences in tax Rates and liabilities. Yes, the tax rates for the top 1% dropped by a greater percentage. Could that be due to the fact that we are taxing them at a much higher rate to begin with? Remember, the more money you earn after you hit the highest tax rate, the greater percentage of your income you pay at that rate. If today, you happen to earn one dollar over the line, pushing you into the highest tax bracket, you will pay that rate–but only on one dollar. On the other hand, if you earn 1 million dollars over the line, you pay that higher rate for that total amount. So the total effective tax rate for a person one dollar over the line is far lower (given that the vast weight of the rate is the lower tax rates) than the rate for the person one million over who, for all practical purposes, earned all their income at the higher rate.

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

Please, Democrats, let’s be intellectually honest here. Present the facts. The facts being simply this–The tax cuts put more money back in everyones’ hands, and at the same time did maintain the progressive tax structure that you believe is so important.

The other fact is even more insidious. Most people won’t go read the report, and the CBO won’t engage in political debates, so they won’t correct you.

But I will. And hopefully so will others.

Your homework today? Find truth. Seek truth. Live Truth.