BlackBoard should "opt out"

InsideHigherEd wrote about Blackboard syncing with Facebook to provide a class link (which is what ultimately worked out) through the social networking site. BlackBoard, in doing so, comes off as a the creepy old dude still trying to look cool.

One of the comments makes a link here where the phrase "creepy tree house effect" is discussed, which is pretty accurate for a neologism.

One of the comments to the creepy tree house effect discusses, quite well, how she tried twitter as an opt in class aid.

To all of this I say: keep the class out of socializing. That is, by drawing a clear demarcation between class time and social time, a whole set of confusing, embarrassing, and/or inappropriate blurring of personal/professional.

Why would BlackBoard want to interface on FaceBook? Because students don't want to log on to BB's interface? Then create an RSS feed for updates to be spammed out.

Because students spend a lot of time on Facebook and not on the BB site? Then make the BB site more usable--key interfaces with the library, with sources, may a link-in with OneNote or the like...

Point is, quit trying to be "cool" and be functional. Let the students and profs work out the time spent on task, and leave the socializing to the hallways.

Call for tech-sanity

Here is a small rant placed on InsideHigherEd today:

Despite the seeming validity of the statement, getting an iPhone won't necessarily "seal the deal" for enrollment. One or two out of a Freshman class, maybe, but these are niche schools to begin with. If you are a Church of Christ member, depending on your degree of conservative evangelicalism, you will go to ACU (insert school of choice here) because of your desire to be around like-minded folk. ACU happens to be on the moderate end of this radical group (Pepperdine is the most liberal; Harding conservative).

That aside, educationally I applaud this move. Where Duke was a little early (audio-based), the iphone is perfectly suited for web-based integration with BlackBoard, web-apps, etc. Instead of bemoaning the move, how about exploring the possibilities offered to address (read: be seen as relevant) the digital natives. Like the dot-coms, some ideas will fail miserably. Others (whoever heard of Google 10 years ago) may very well revolutionize.

So, let's discuss how we can use technology to teach, eh?

teaching on the cutting edge

I noted in my last post that ACU is going to give away an iPhone to incoming freshmen. InsideHigherEd.com has an article about Duke's foray into giving away iPods. What follows is the bulleted conclusions from Duke along with my professional, Instructional Designer opinion.

More than 600 students were in courses using the iPods each semester of the academic year that just concluded. A decent pool of students, but back in 2005 I don't think that the iPod had video capacity. This means that the school was relying solely on audio content. One sensory approach will have limited appeal/success.


Use was greatest among foreign language and music courses, although a range of disciplines used the devices. These courses will have the most accessible audio content (remember those language labs with the cassette players?)--and of course music. I can see a real boon for both of these areas.


While audio playback was the initial focus of most of those involved, students and faculty reported the greatest interest in digital recording. I don't really know what this bullet point is trying to say...Did the experiment result in more illegal downloads (hey, I have the hardware, let's get Kazaa!) or did they want to move to the newer iPods with the video screen (music videos!). Again, content, or the lack of, would be the killer (see below).


The effort was hurt by a lack of systems for bulk purchases of mp3 audio content for academic use. iTunes debuted in January, 2001. In that four years, music had begun porting, but podcasting, especially academic podcasting, was of limited appeal. It was like downloading a sermon--lots of audio of some guy talking about something or the other. Not really dynamic.


There are many “inherent limitations” in the iPod, such as the lack of instructor tools for combining text and audio. Here is the real heart of the experiment--and I think this point is mistaken. It was not so much that there was limited tools, but a profound lack of understanding or insight in how to use the tools that were available. Or, more to the point, how to envision digital instruction (see more below).


Some recordings made with the iPod were not of high enough quality for academic use. Speaking into a computer mike is the audio equivalent of using a webcam for broadcasting video. It is overreaching the mediums capacity.


The project resulted in increased collaboration among faculty members and technology officials at the university, and the publicity about the project led to more collaborations with other institutions. Don't overlook this benefit. Anything, and I mean anything, that gets faculty talking to the gear-heads is a good thing. Anything that encourages faculty to question how to present material is a good thing. I think this point would have made the whole experiment worth the cost--and to ACU, here is where you need to focus your attention.

If you are thinking about moving to the present-future, keep some of this in mind. Your students will know how to use/envision the hardware much better than you. Ask them what they might like to see (RSS feeds on assignments?; meeting notices for study groups?; better integration into a digital platform like BlackBoard?--I got more).

The kernal of the problem lies in content. The old-line book, pencil and lecture will not be enhanced by an iPhone, and if that is all the instructors will do, then they are wasting their mission money.

If, though, ACU continues along the line they are, then I feel that this experiment will produce measurable results.

For example, perhaps in anticipation to the general announcement, ACU has positioned their website to accommodate lurkers (like myself). Clicking the visitor option, you are taken to ACU's presence in iTunes.

The content available, which I am sure to grow, includes both audio and video options. For example, the theater department includes a fairly good "Staging Shakespeare" which, while a static slideshow montage moving behind a sit-down interview, the quality and content is, on the whole, interesting. And, it looks as if it could be created with standard Apple applications.

A similar selection can be found in Kyle Dickson's Brit Lit course. His approach, which I think is both smart and appropriate, is to encourage the students of a given section to create the content--group projects that are digitally updated. Again, taking spoken audio the student presentations provide voice-over for slides (images I am sure are not in violation of copyright). The engagement factor, though, comes from how the students are encouraged to approach the material. One example had a discussion of 18th century fashion presented by two, modern fashionistas (think red carpet commentary). Upbeat, engaging, it was a strong student production. It was also, even for this watcher, engaging.

More to come.

Online Adjuncting: quizzes

There are numerous reasons to create a quiz:

• One small attempt to ensure reading
• A chance to get a grade in the system
• Automated grading
• Easy upload

The first reason is pretty obvious: even more than on-ground, you can’t tell if the student has read…or even if the one logging in is the real student (it happens). But, with a handy-dandy reading quiz, you can at least ensure the student reads the material in the quiz… And that is something.

I taught mainly writing courses, so it was nice to get a grade into the system that was relatively high (reading quizzes are not meant to trip the student up, but to ensure reading) and graded by someone other than myself. Online quizzes do both. And they are easy, once made, to upload.

With that, how does one make an online quiz? Glad you asked. I used both BlackBoard and WebCT before they merged, and both handled quizzes much the same. You “code” the quiz, upload and link and set a date to run.

How to code a quiz:

1. Start with a list of questions (why write your own)…most books have a companion website or CD where they provide lists of questions. Copy/paste into a wordpad document. You will then choose the questions you want to include (I picked a decent number—around 25, unless they really didn’t read and then I picked 50)
2. Chose your questions, deleting the rest
3. You have pasted into a WordPad document because you want to eliminate all styles and formatting, and Word will try to retain these. Kill them all.
4. Format your questions. Automatic upload programs work by finding key words and tabs (similar to uploading into a database or Excel—which it really is). To define the type of question, enter the question type: MC, TF, etc…
5. Use tabs to separate question type from question from answers from answer types:

Question type Question? answer 1 answer type (is this the correct answer or not)

6. A formatted question looks:

TF A teleconference is appropriate for a group of people at the same location. False

MC The paperless office prediction was based on the belief that: real paper would be substituted with a more economic “fake” paper. Incorrect offices would eventually store information on electronic media only. Correct the world would have a tree shortage. Incorrect all of these. Incorrect onionskin paper would replace traditional paper. Incorrect

7. Save your file
8. Upload to BlackCT (the combined company will soon have a single platform—mark my words).
9. Link to gradebook
10. Define the parameters (when and how can they take it)
    

Subsequent questions are: do you let your students take a quiz more than once? Is it timed? Do you show them the correct answers? Do you show them which questions they missed?