Google and Pearson Announce New LMS Option

Last week Google and Pearson announced that they were entering the learning management system marketplace with a totally innovative product stating, "OpenClass is a new kind of learning environment that goes beyond the LMS, stimulating social learning and the free exchange of content. It’s open to everyone, easy to use, and completely free." There is no hardware to install, no licensing fees, and no hosting costs. That right there would make it a totally new way of approaching how we look at online education.  However, Pearson and Google weren't content to stop there. They wanted to reinvent course interactions and activities to reflect the modern world.

The following is the description from the Google Apps Marketplace:

OpenClass integrates seamlessly with Google Apps for Education, enabling easy setup and single sign-on and includes tools that support the automatic import of content from external sources. Users can launch OpenClass directly from within their Google Apps experience and access their Google applications through OpenClass.

Features

• Collaborative spaces for students to interact with coursework
• Ability to create and edit course content directly from within the platform
• Deep integration to Gmail, Google Docs and Calendar

Data access requirements

• Calendar (Read/Write)
• Docs (Read/Write)
• Email, new messages (Read only)
• User Provisioning (Read only)

Just the beginning

Out of the box, OpenClass has all the LMS functionality needed to manage courses. But that’s just the beginning. OpenClass actually advances education by leveraging modern social technology to encourage collaboration and communication for students, faculty, institutions, and administrators around the world.

Digital course-management tool is used to engage students

Connect, a new interactive course-management tool by McGraw-Hill, is being used by college professors and their students to share materials over the Internet. At a cost of about $40 a semester -- or $80 with a digital textbook included -- students have access to video lectures, class notes and practice exams that offer more questions in the areas where an individual student's scores are poorest. The Wall Street Journal (10/28)

The Dynamics of Change and Fear

Carly Fiorina, former HP CEO, was the featured speaker for Stanford's Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Lecture May 2, 2008. This is a short snippet from her lecture that I found appropriate to remember when I am working with early and late majority technology adopters.

1) We are all afraid of something. What distinguishes those who are successful and those who are not is what they do with their fear. Courage is not the absence of fear; courage is acting in spite of fear.

2) Change involves risk-taking. What people are most often afraid of is something new. As people grow older, they become afraid of trying something new; therefore, change is always resisted. The only way to help people overcome their fear is to give them a vision of something that is worth striving for, worth taking the risks for.

3)It is momentum for any organization (family or institution or government) to seek to maintain the status quo. People become invested in maintaining their current position. This is simply human nature.

4) Change has to have enough power (vision) to overcome fear and status quo.

Dissertation Prospectus

My Dissertation Prospectus (see below) was approved by my faculty mentor yesterday and I submitted it to the three faculty members I have requested serve on my dissertation committee. Two have already responded in the affirmative. Now I have to get busy and finish writing Chapters 1-3 by September 10. I've got Chapters 1 & 2 pretty much done, but I need to work on finalizing elements for Chapter 3--Methodology.

Dissertation Title: Faculty Perceptions and Attitudes Toward the Use of Course Management Systems in Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Georgia

Statement of Your Research Problem or Area of Inquiry:

Course Management Systems (CMS) provide an integrated approach to developing courses and teaching using web-based technologies. The integration of CMS in higher education has become an important issue recently (Eighth Annual EDUCAUSE Current Issues Survey, 2007). Buzzetto-More and Sweat-Guy (2006) found that while HBCU students came to college less technologically prepared, the use of e-learning is slowly rising in popularity with student perceptions of online learning viewed positively. Although many HBCUs have CMS, online learning has not been a priority for many faculty. It is important to study faculty perceptions because faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology influence its successful adoption and implementation.

Theory/Theories or Conceptual Framework(s) Related to the Problem or Area of Inquiry:

Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovation Model suggests that researchers simultaneously examine characteristics of the individual adopter, the institutional setting, and the technology itself—steps that have not been taken in research on faculty adoption of online teaching in higher education. In addition, examining the adoption of online teaching as a process, rather than an event is pertinent to theories such as Hall and Hord’s Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) in order to facilitate change in education. These models provide the framework for identifying the most commonly expressed concerns stated by faculty regarding their motivations to participate in online teaching and learning.

Current Research Related to the Problem or Area of Inquiry:

Research on motivations and barriers for faculty adoption of online learning has been extensive (Betts; 1998; O'Quinn & Corry, 2002; Schifter, 2000, Shea, 2007). Even in cases where institutional support is high, Hutchins (2001) and Johnson and Howell (2005) found that faculty attitudes may be hard to change to meet new technological demands. Although online opportunities continue to increase (Butler & Sellbom, 2007), Arnone (2002) found it to be less prevalent and a “hard sell” at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Studies about CMS adoption are limited but suggest that CMS may positively influence adoption of online learning by faculty (Black, Beck, Dawson, Jins, & Di Pietro, 2007).

Goals, Purpose and Potential Significance of Your Research:

The purpose of the study will be to describe faculty attitudes toward and their use of a course management system (CMS) as part of their teaching practices. Specifically, the study will assess faculty perceptions with regard to the software and its pedagogical advantages. This study helps fill a gap in the educational technology literature concerning faculty attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of CMS in higher education. Finally, the study addresses a specific gap in the literature regarding the adoption of online learning and CMS in historically black colleges and universities. Findings from this study can be used by faculty development professionals to encourage faculty adoption and implementation of course management systems.

Your Research Design and Methodology:

Type of Inquiry: Mixed Methods (Quantitative and Qualitative)

Method of Inquiry:

The survey instrument is based on the University of Wisconsin Course Management Survey (2002) and University System of Georgia: Faculty Course Management Systems Survey (2005). After completing the survey, respondents will have the option of volunteering to participate in a synchronous virtual focus group discussion or an individualized asynchronous online interview.

Your Research Population and How You Will Draw Upon This Population for Your Research Inquiry:

The seven institutions chosen represent public and private, 4-year liberal arts HBCUs in the state of Georgia. The public institutions (Albany State, Fort Valley State, Savannah State) are members of the University System of Georgia, which has recently undergone a conversion to WebCT Vista in all its colleges and universities. The private institutions (Clark Atlanta, Morehouse University, Paine College, Spelman College) utilize either Blackboard or WebCT course management systems. Academic Affairs Officers will be contacted for permission to contact faculty members. Initial contact with faculty will be conducted by e-mail. E-mail addresses can be obtained from online faculty directory listings or via secretarial staff in each department or through the Academic Affairs offices. Each faculty member will receive up to five contacts: a pre-notice, an e-mail with the link to the web-based survey, two reminder e-mails with the link to the survey, and a thank you e-mail. Arrangements for the follow-up interviews or focus group discussions will also be conducted via e-mail.

Examples of Research Data That May Be Collected:

Quantitative data--ordinal, nominal, interval, ratio: demographic data, factors influencing use of CMS, CMS usage data, features used, faculty familiarity with CMS

Qualitative data from focus group discussions and online interviews coded by researcher: expand on data collected in survey: functional and pedagogical uses of CMS, what value in CMS, what find less useful, effects on teaching practices, wish list of features, concerns, motivations.

Other Information About Your Dissertation Proposal:

Research Questions

1. What factors motivate faculty members to use a course management system?

2. What factors hinder faculty from using a course management system?

3. What factors determine whether faculty increase or decrease their use?

4. What is the extent of faculty use of the CMS on each campus and in aggregate?

5. For what purposes is the CMS used?

6. What CMS tools do faculty members use, and how do they use them?

7. What differences are demonstrated in CMS uses in varying delivery methods (traditional/in-class, hybrid/blended and solely online courses)?

Stereotypes--Learning Disabilities in Higher Education

Louis Schmier posted this discussion on the POD Network listserv yesterday. Although it is long, I found it touched several important points in my life. Like Louis, I have a very bright and talented son who also is ADD. Throughout his educational career, I have seen how teachers' perceptions and lack of understanding of his "disability" impacted his learning--both positively and negatively. My sister is a special education teacher in Maryland. She also has three "special" children. All three are intelligent and capable. However, she has had to fight (sometimes tooth and nail) to get them the services they deserve. Luckily, she has the background knowledge. What about all those others who do not have that support? I became a teacher because I wanted to work with others in the learning process. I knew that this would not always be an easy task. We all learn in different ways--and we have to be aware of this when we step into the classroom. It's not about imparting our knowledge. It's about facilitating the learning process. We can all learn together. It is sad that there are still persons in academia that do not consider education an inalienable right for all persons. Perceptions. Sometimes they have the ring of truth--all because we think they are true, not because they are.

I interrupt my series on teaching with passion with an important reflection. I was in this South Georgia sweating and whiffing by my flower garden when my cell phone rang. It did not take long before I was listening with intense ears to an harangue, gentle in tone but not in meaning, from a professor at a university that was ironically a pioneer in special education. She called to tell me that she was "deeply disturbed" by the likes of you" and took issue with a Random Thought I had written about eleven years ago supporting accommodation for special needs students or what she called "learning and physically disabled students." She found my number! Called me!! On my cell phone!!! At my house!!!! Talking about pushing your own buttons! Anyway, she rejected my position insisting that it wasn't that she didn't think such students should be educated, but it should not be done on her watch. After all, she said, "they're letting anyone in....with all I have to do, I don't have the extra time to devote to such a person....I don't have tenure yet....It's an inconvenience......not at ease....not inclined to offer assistance....giving accommodation an expense we can't afford to spend....giving special attention to such a person an unreasonable disservice to others in the class whom I can better serve....they won't have a happy educational experience....special consideration skews the validity of the transcript?" And, so on she went.

She assured me with a patronizing "I didn't mean anything by it" tone that there is nothing "threatening" or "demeaning" in her view, and it is nothing "personal." Isn't it? As the father of a son with ADHD, I took her words very personally. I had heard all this before during the years of my son's struggle in schools from teachers and administrators while they were hacking off his pleading hands, cutting out his legs from under him at his supplicating knees, sucking the self-esteem out of him, diminishing his sense of humanity, and throwing him on the trash heap. Because of that, respectful as I was to this professor, I was not about to be coldly intellectual about it all, was not about to be clinically objective, and was not about to be distant with a spectator mentality or a passer-by un-involvement or a disengaged onlooker consciousness.

This professor's medieval views and mine are a collision of conflicting paradigms. Now, I do not believe she is an icy monster though I'm not sure about her sincere caring, her assurances not withstanding. Throughout her entire side of our conversation, however, she displayed a warped kind of benevolence and charitable mentality that categorized such students as pitifully "unfortunate" or sad "standouts like sore thumbs," or admirably "amazing," but not particularly as just another student. To her that accommodation document seem[s] to indicate that the student was another specie of human being, maybe an inferior specie. Anyway, waving aside everything I said, she believes that giving such students access to the classroom is setting them up for a fall by offering false hopes and expectations. She seems to assume that their "disabilities" somehow get in the way of their intellect and that they can't have a life well-learned. Because this view is apparently dominant in her thinking, it has become for her an undeniable self-evident truth. After all, the "disturbing" part takes place in her head, not in the classroom. What sets these students apart is her perception. The classroom, as life, is the way we see it and the way we perceive it and experience it. We read into others what we want or expect to find, and whatever we expect to find, will be there. At that moment, we ourselves have a learning disability and are unable to move beyond our own stereotypes and prejudices.

The flaw in her attitude is the unexamined, shallow assumption that "disabled students" cannot be enabled to become able, that such students who need accommodation inherently have less prospects of achievement and less possibilities of attaining a "successful and happy educational experience," that the disabled students' "irrational" and "unreasonable" preference for an education at a "regular university" must yield to society's "rational" economic limits, that caring and attention are quantitatively fixed, that the added attention given them subtracts from attention given to others, and that they somehow have lost their inner sacredness and nobility. This all too common prejudice taken to its logical conclusion leads to the kicking in a tragic of rejection of their humanity, of disconnection, of lack of community, of dismissal, and of selectively weeding out such "distractions." It leads to an infection of what I call a "Dick Wittington Syndrome." That is, bag and throw these intrusive students afflicted with LD and other disabilities off a bridge like the unwanted runts of a litter. The cure for this syndrome is to accept the truth that we are all challenged in one way or another and that the classroom, like the faculty and staff and administration, is filled with flawed human beings. We just need to have room for all the different challenges and flaws.

As I listened, I thought of grabbing my Shakespeare and reading to her Shylock's soliloquy. I thought of past disability discrimination and the once accepted illusion that we have the choice to educate or not to educate, and that we prefer the latter. So I ask quietly but forcefully: how dare any one of us? How dare we undervalue such persons? How dare we define what is "better" for such students by what is better and easier for us? How dare we create an inequitable caste system among students? How dare some of us have so little respect for such persons? How dare we see the entrance into college of such students as avoidable mistakes? How dare any one of us even engage in a discussion of whether another person's education should happen? How dare any one of us should think such an issue is debatable? How dare any one of us decide that certain people "don't belong" among us or who are among those we define as among "they're letting anyone in" are non-persons with no right to reach for their as yet unseen potential solely on market considerations or personal convenience? How dare any one of us draw the line between those who are "entitled" to our attention and those who are not? How dare any one of us count any one among the uncounted and unnoticed? How dare any one of us get annoyed or feel inconvenienced at the prospect of having to put in time and effort for all people to experience the fullness and the fulfillment of life? How dare we find it’s in our heart to deny any person, categorically, our empathy, affection, faith, compassion, and our love? How dare any of us presume to define the capability of becoming for anyone else, to set the value of an as yet "unprepared" person lower than our high and mighty degreed and published personna [sic], or to conclude that such a person lacks the potential for happiness and dignity because some of us are so arrogant, close minded, self-righteous, and self-centered that we cannot imagine how it could?

After all, what is the role of an educator but service and assistance? Too many of us selectively and conditionally assist others with our support, encouragement, empathy, faith, kindness, and love so that they can fully affect their choices. Why can't we do that unconditionally for each and every one? Why can't we deny that a "problem of disability" exists? Why can't we pick up the gauntlet of challenge? Each of us requires different modes of assistance. In that sense, every transcript is tainted. Shall we underestimate a person's capacity, ability, talent, and potential based on an accommodation letter? Shall we stare at such people with annoyance, pity, condescension, and hostility? Shall we weed out for convenience and comfort sake rather than cultivate? Shall we educationally euthanize them, or at best hide them away in darkened institutions? Shall we decide who shall go to the educational left and who to the educational right? The whole of academia has a stake in making sure each of us is not tainted by prejudices, myths, discomfort, and supposed inconvenience, emblematic of broader, deeper attitudes toward disability that sometimes slide from fear to disgust and from disgust to hatred.

I didn't expect to straighten out this academic's head and heart however I politely and respectfully tried. She would hear none of it. She, and others like her, think they know everything there is to know just by looking at someone's accommodation request. That's how stereotypes work. It deludes people into thinking they know the world of others. They don't ask who these people are and act as if they will always remain the same. It ignores the fact that each of us have a combination of gifts, strengths, weaknesses, and flaws so peculiar that they can't be measured on the same scale. She and others like her don't know that they're confused; they're ignorant to the fact that the presence of a special need, disability, or challenge does not predict quality of any aspect of life. She doesn't know how to look at such people beyond an accommodation agreement, a wheel chair, a hearing aid, a talking book, signing, or a reader other than as if they were curious or pitiful animals in a zoo. She is unaware she is marginalizing such people and rendering them invisible with selfish and self-serving prejudice and ignorance, and even oppression. She doesn't realize she has to be remolded with the constant pounding of a caring heart, with the shaping of respect, and with the working in of faith, hope, and love. She should learn what to make of such students. She should stop gawking and wincing, and learn to see. What is equally sad is that within educated people such as she resides an emptiness; they will not know what both the fullness and the fulfillment of life mean unless the consciousness of the kindred spirit that lies latent in their own very selves comes to life within them.

Make it a good day.

--Louis--

Louis Schmier

Department of History

Valdosta State University

Valdosta, Georgia 31698

http://therandomthoughts.edublogs.org/

Why is this study important?

One of the things I noticed in conducting my literature review for KAM I is that there is little recent research about what motivates faculty to adopt online teaching. In fact, much of the research was conducted back when faculty had to create their own web spaces. Almost all institutions that offer online courses/programs use a CMS (whether its a commercial product or open source). However, there has been little research done on the impact of CMS use on teaching or learning (Lane, 2008)--or even adoption of online learning methods.

According to Roger's diffusion of innovations theory, 5 characteristics of an innovation determine how quickly the innovation is adopted: relative advantage, compatibility, ease of use, trialability, and observability. So, how do CMS fit these characteristics? How might use of the CMS also encourage adoption of online teaching? With the advent of course management systems, putting courses online became much easier. In addition, I have been interested in developing a more constructivist online learning environment from the beginning of my studies. Can that be accomplished with the current CMS? Lisa Lane in a recent issue of EDUCAUSE Quarterly argues that commercial CMS limit instruction creativity and pedagogical approaches. Therefore, I'd like to explore HOW faculty are using CMS. This relates back to Roger's 5 characteristics--compatibility with the adopter's values and assumptions. Are faculty just perpetuating the old model? Are they actually integrating the technology in their teaching--beyond just offering the course online?

Another gap in the educational technology literature in general relates to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). There are 102 HBCUs in the United States. While they constitute only 3% of US colleges and universities, they enroll 28% of all African American college students and graduate 40% of the African Americans who earn doctorates or first professional degrees (Hubbard, 2006). This is a large segment of the higher education population that has not been addressed. Research has shown that many African Americans come to college lacking in technical skills. In addition, research has shown that faculty at many HBCUs are reluctant to adopt technology and/or online learning. Howard University reports that out of the 102 HBCUs, only 45 offer fully online courses/programs. However, most of the HBCUs have links to course management systems. In fact, only Paine College and Savannah State were listed in Howard's list; yet all the institutions in Georgia had links to Blackboard or WebCT. So, how are the CMS being used on these campuses? As higher education (and HBCUs especially) combat reduced funding, it is important to evaluate the return on investment in these CMS. Buzetto-More and Sweat-Guy found that students' (at HBCUs) interest in e-learning has been increasing. In addition, technology continues to be a major element of many jobs. If HBCUs are to remain competitive, they also need to make sure they offer their students skills they can use when they graduate.

Understanding why faculty do and don't use the CMS would be helpful in order to address their needs and perceptions. It may also help to identify the "opinion leaders," key players in the adoption process--to help frame the meaning of their experiences over time. Another essential element in the change process is whether the system (or institution, in this case) is open to new ideas or not. It could be that the institutional model for HCBUs does not lend itself to change. Faculty demographics would be an important indicator.

Hubbard, D. (2006). The color of our classroom, the color of our future. Academe, 92(6),
27–31.

Web 2.0 and Change in Higher Education

I found a new online journal yesterday--The Knowledge Tree--tagged as Australia's premier e-journal of learning innovations.

Edition 15 is dedicated to the infiltration of Web 2.0 tools into teaching. Since the concept of Web 2.0 is only a few years old, the practices discussed are definitely from innovators and early adopters. In the lead article, How Did a Couple of Veteran Classroom Teachers End up in a Space Like This? Extraordinary Intersections Between Learning, Social Software and Teaching, Ganley and Sawhill (2007) explore how the integration of blogging into their teaching transformed their practice. The truth of one statement caught my eye.

"There is ... a new form of tension in today’s classroom: between the students we once were and the students we now find ourselves teaching, a tension between what we have to teach and what our students want to learn, and a tension between their passions and interests and the Academy’s curricular obligations."

I am reminded of the digital divide between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants. Today's students fundamentally process information differently from their predecessors. My mother retired from teaching high school in 1998 noting the change in students even then. Ten years later, the NET GEN has reached our college and university campuses enmasse. However, higher education, in general, is still stuck in the Industrial Age. Of course, there will be tension.

"[M]any teachers who do not have difficulty releasing old ideas, embracing new ways of thinking, may still be as resolutely attached to old ways of practicing teaching as their more conservative colleagues. That’s a crucial issue. Even those of us who are experimenting with progressive pedagogical practices are afraid to change" (Hooks 1994, qtd in Ganley and Sawhill).

Hall and Hord (2007) reiterated that change occurs gradually as individuals "come to understand and become skilled and competent in the use of the new ways (p.4). They indicated that most changes in education take 3-5 years to implement at the high level, and for each new adopting unit such as a school, district, or state, the countdown begins all over again for another 3-5 years. Mort (1964) chronicled educational innovations from the 30s, 40s, and 50s and concluded that the time lag between perception of a need for change to the introduction and diffusion of an innovation to meet that need was 50 years. Rogers (2003) also found that a "considerable time lag was required for the adoption of educational innovations" (p. 61), usually 25 years. So, how is technology affecting this process?

Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2007). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. (2^nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Mort, P. R. (1964). Studies in educational innovation from the institute of administrative research: An overview. In M. B. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in education (pp. 317-328). New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5^th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Faculty Development and Technology Integration--research proposal

I am currently taking my final course for my Ph.D.--before I begin working on my dissertation (that is if I finish my two independent study modules--which I plan to do by May). I put off taking Quantitative Research because I am not really a math oriented person and I knew it would be a killer class. Well, I was right. At first I had a little problem with the course project since we can't propose a descriptive research project--it has to be experimental or correlational. Everything I want to research seems geared toward descriptive research. So, I had to modify my idea for an experimental design.

Purpose of Study: To determine whether participation in an 8-week faculty development course will influence instructors’ attitude toward and integration of technology in their teaching practices.

The following research questions will be used to guide this study:
1. What relationship exists between instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online) and their integration of technology in teaching?
Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their integration of technology in teaching.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their integration of technology in teaching.

2. Does instructors' use of technology in their teaching change as a result of their participation in the faculty development course (facilitating learning online)?
Ha: There is a statistically significant increase in instructors’ integration of technology in their teaching following participation in the faculty development course.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference in instructors’ integration of technology in their teaching following participation in the faculty development course.

3. What relationship exists between participation in the faculty development course (facilitating learning online) and their teaching perspectives?
Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their teaching perspectives.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their teaching perspectives

4. Do instructors’ teaching perspectives change as a result of their participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online)?
Ha: There is a significant change in teaching perspectives as a result of instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online).
Ho: There is no significant change in teaching perspectives as a result of instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (Facilitating Learning Online).

5. What relationship exists between instructors’ participation in the faculty development course (facilitating learning online) and their attitudes toward technology use in teaching?
Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their attitudes toward technology use in teaching.
Ho: There is no statistically significant difference between FLO (Facilitating Learning Online)-trained and Non-FLO trained online instructors with respect to their attitudes toward technology use in teaching.

Interaction Economy meets Interactive Education?

In searching for information on personalized homepages today, I came across the following information on Tim Leberecht's blog iPlot: According to a McKinsey & Company study of US economic activity, "Raising the productivity of employees whose jobs can’t be automated is the next big performance challenge." The study argues that "as more companies come to specialize in core activities and outsource the rest, they have greater need for workers who can interact with co-workers, partners, and vendors," supported by highly personalized organizing and communication tools. 40 percent of labor activity, says McKinsey, comes not from making things or from traditional transactions but from what the consultancy calls the "Interaction Economy," which it defines as the "searching, coordinating, and monitoring required to exchange good[s] or services."

Think of how this impacts higher education! It boggles the mind. The whole purpose of education must change. It's not about defining a set body of knowledge that every learned individual must know. It is more about how we enable students to efficiently/effectively access information and collaborate in solving problems. The traditional behaviorist model worked for the industrial age, but today's service-driven economy requires more. Students must be allowed and encouraged to create their own meanings--based on their experiences and interactions with others. We also need to make sure that they have a wide variety of experiences--exposure to alternative ways of thinking and approaching problems. I am reminded of Taco Bell's slogan "Think outside the bun" and now Wendy's new promotion which suggests that just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean that it is right. Just because this was the way you or your parents were taught doesn't mean that it is the "right way" or only way to teach/learn.

Higher education (especially the 4-year institutions) has been the bastion of tradition--changing slowly. The technical schools and 2-year institutions have seen the need to change to meet the needs of their student population. Most adopted technology in teaching and learning years ago, offering online programs (not just online courses). 4-years institutions held out--sticking to chalk or dry erase markers and the lecture model. The professor was hired for his/her content knowledge, right? Then it is up to him/her to pass on that knowledge to students passively waiting to receive it. The problem comes when the students are passive--learning is active/interactive. Students must be involved in the process. Web 2.0's user-created content tools (blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, etc.) allow that interaction--in a public sphere. No longer must students create, synthesize, and produce for just the instructor or classroom. Instead, their ideas can go out into cyberspace for others to read, comment, and digest. There is an authenticity to this kind of publication.

CAVEAT: This also means that we, as instructors, can no longer "control" what and how our students learn. How does this affect assessment--what exactly are we assessing, then?

Finding Time for Faculty Development

Time is listed as one of the major barriers to effective faculty development initiatives in several studies I have read. That is definitely true here! Our Technology Faculty Learning Community is having trouble finding a time when all of us can meet. Our 11:00 on Friday spot has been hijacked, so we set up 4:00 on Thursdays. Despite good intentions, only four of us were able to make the meeting this week. We have yet to meet with three who have expressed interest. Knowing that time would be a problem, we initially decided to also create a Technology FLC "course" in our Blackboard CMS. Our thought was that we would meet once or twice a month and then communicate online in between. It may be that the online discussion may form the bulk of our discussions. We did decide to hold the Thursday at 4:00 period open every week. Those who are able to meet can do so. I will facilitate the discussion. The face to face discussions will not necessarily be used to "present" information unless we decide to. Those who cannot meet on Thursdays have the opportunity to participate in the online discussions and take advantage of the resources, links, etc. located there. Time can also be a problem here as we must be committed to checking into to Blackboard on a regular basis. If we to truly develop into a learning community, then we must be willing to commit a piece of ourselves (time included) to this project.

We talked about needing a paradigm shift on Thursday. We have the opportunity to spearhead that shift in thinking (and doing). Several of us indicated that our students' technology literacy is often limited to gadgetry--mobile phones, IM, MP3 players. They use the web for socializing--FaceBook or MySpace--or shopping. However, there is so much more available to them (and to us, as teachers). Technology changes to quickly--it reminds me of the fashion world. Purple is in; pink is out. We are digital immigrants, those of us not born into today's technological world but at some later point in our lives became fascinated with it, adopted it, and use it. The importance in making this distinction, as Marc Prensky points out, is that like all immigrants, some learn better, quicker, more efficiently than others. We will always keep a foot in the past--our educational system was okay for us.... However, that educational system was not designed for today's digital natives. Technology has caused a "singularity," as Prensky notes, an event that changes things so fundamentally that there is no going back. As educators, we must embrace this change.

The first step in embracing that change was that we all agreed to explore the world of Web 2.0. As per the 2007 Horizon Report, user-created content and social networking are already established on many campuses and, therefore, will have the most immediate impact on teaching and learning. Check out Vicki Davis' classroom project entitled the Horizon Project based on a study of the Report. Here are two videos on the Horizon Report from her site. Our FLC decided to start with blogs--all of us are to create our own blog. We are then going to research how blogs are being used in higher education classrooms.