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.

Higher Ed pay

The Dem debate sparked a TTD (tempest in a teacup dabate) over at InsideHigherEd.com when Chaz Gibson claimed an average of $200k annual for professors.

What is interesting about the debate (the IHE, not the Dem's) is that the comments range from pissed off adjuncts to FT profs all parsing out if they are "cush" or not.

My take, and I have been slow to realize this, is that higher ed is a choice (mission field if you would) that few should choose. Those who do, accept the negative consequences. Those who would wish to but can't afford it...realize that higher ed has always been a sport of the rich. There is no Right to Educate.

PhD Attrition

Harvard (full article) has instituted a policy that for every 5 PhD wannabes, the incoming graduate class will lose one slot. So, if there are a lot of ABDs clogging the system, the whole thing grinds to a halt.

Of course, the comment section has laments about "mercy" PhDs and the like, but on the whole I would think that my old department would have benefited greatly from this. Once I finished my coursework and took my distribution reading exams, I was left to my own devices. And, here I sit, 10 years ABD with a wife and child, mortgage and lots of student loans.

The state of writing today

I was doing my daily reading, which I haven't been able to do for months, and this article about teen girl's and writing sucked me in. Pookie is only 5 odd years away from teendom, and I am already starting to worry.

With story after hand-wringing story about the decline of literacy due to short attention spans, texting, et al, it is refreshing to note that the "kids" are doing pretty well by themselves. Doing pretty damn fine, really.

Perhaps the text-laden, word-saturated world they live in now (you are, yourself, reading a blog) actually increases a sense of rhetorical power...makes it tacit, like grammar. Perhaps those time-wasting movies (Saw IV, anyone?) provides a sense of pacing, story-telling and framing for effect.

Infants learn to speak by listening. Perhaps, to a greater degree than has been acknowledged, teens learn to write by "reading" their world.

Distressing note leads to diatribe

A loyal reader wrote a note that was for me most distressing. I present a culled, anonymized version:

… I also work as an "instructional designer." It is kind of bogus work, though, mostly doing grunt work for existing professor to build online classes, further depleting the need for actual living, breathing, teachers. Most of these teachers are building classes outside of their core competency, which is easy, they just read the textbook manufacturer's provided power points into a camera and no student interrupts to actually find out if they really know what they are talking about. I transcribe said powerpoints into HTML and it pays as much as I probably deserve as an entry-level assistant professor. But 40-hours a week without vacation.

I recently took this job when I relocated to [southern state]. The colleges and Universities down here pay $550 per credit hour, so as the fall semester winds around I may be forced to turn this down, or to "moonlight" as an adjunct instructor just one or two classes. How much teaching do you do vs. "consulting?" My ID job is full time, so I don't know if they would let me go down to part time or "consulting," but that might make giving my time away for free in the profession I really wish to pursue, manageable.

I find many parts of this note distressing, in order:

• The writer is not employed as an Instructional Designer (I mean no disrespect, we work where we can), but rather an instructional destructor. No good can come from reading PPTs, whether in person or {shudder} on video
• If a professor is moving his materials online, he should only do so when he himself knows enough to perform the necessary tasks. If he outsources these skills, his students will know. They will pity and loath said professor. More educational destruction will ensue
• The writer does not deserve (as s/he seems to indicate) to put up with a job like this. Even entry-level asst. profs should be able to design and craft the material – true instructional design – rather than convert the bloviating of others.
• My advice is to look for night classes to adjunct. I have found that these students are more motivated (your job easier) and willing to put forth effort (your job easier). Community Colleges are a great place to adjunct. Really. If you are doing for the love of teaching, ignore the cattle-call university courses and go CC. Just keep your day job. One has to, like in any mission field, eat.
• I wish the writer luck.

Academic freedom, tenure and Ward Churchill

I have been interested in the ongoing saga of Ward “little Eichmanns” Churchill for quite some time. And I am not alone, do a quick search of the InsideHigherEd site and you will find a lode of articles and commentary.

Here are some of the links that caught my eye:

• A recent posting that explores the possible results of firing Churchill for plagiarism (the internal BU faculty review recommendation) and a possible chilling effect on freedom of speech. I would especially note the comments…they get pretty funny at times
• An older article on the Truth and Consequences – a pun that actually works here.
• The CU special reports page where the actual source documents can be found

After reading the committee’s reports, I found a lot of the commentary to be verbal dysentery. The committee, while elitist and snooty to the Ethnic Studies department, did a good job of teasing out freedom of speech from poor academic work (he plagiarized). What was missing, though, were the TurnItIn.com Originality Reports, which I would like to see.

A few culled excerpts (source):

· “As one example, Professor Churchill stated in his response to the Investigative Committee that ‘I doubt that any even marginally prolific scholar’s publications could withstand the type of scrutiny to which mine has been subjected.’” -- Sure, poison the well for other lazy academics.

· An overarching question that emerged in our discussions is whether different scholarly "standards" apply in ethnic studies than in other more
traditional fields, such as history.

· Professor Churchill's academic background and choice of publication venues are untraditional. Although many of his writings, including nearly all those discussed in this report, address historical and/or legal issues, he does not have formal training at the graduate level in those fields. Professors writing on the topics he addresses would typically have a Ph.D. in history or a law degree; Professor Churchill's graduate degree is an M.A. in Communications Theory.

· Many of Professor Churchill's publications predate his employment as a tenured Associate Professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder in fall 1991 and his promotion to (full) Professor in fall 1997. Our Committee therefore believes that at the time he was hired, the University was aware of the type of writing and speaking he does.

It seems that Churchill was the victim of not submitting a paper according to the (often unwritten) rules of “scholarship.” That is, he is not the typical child of the academy and will be punished for that.

One should know his place.

Education has no class

Insidehighered.com has an intriguing Q&A with Peter Sacks (Tearing Down the Gates: Confronting the Class Divide in American Education) from which I pull a string of quotes below.

In a recent posting, I described how higher ed discussions should include the terms “Access” and “Exposure.” Peter Sacks falls directly into the access side—that is, instead of a degree providing access, there is a strata whose access is limited or denied.

Libertarian Free-marketer: “So what? Each person will succeed or fail according to his merits. It is natural. Hell, it is natural selection. The best and brightest go to the good schools and get the good jobs. So there it is. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Bush Whack-job: “No Child Left Behind was crafted to address just this sort of thing. Why, back in Texas there were plenty of poor kids who couldn’t read or nothin’. With NCLB, as we like to call it, these kids and their teachers get the kick in the butt they need in order to pass the test. I like it. It has compassion.”

Kerry Liberal: “I think that the current administration has failed the American public. With its over-attenuation and attention on standardized metrics, this administration has illustrated an unnerving capacity for obfuscating the real problem: that the lower income families, hard working families, are being denied basic social services—namely access to quality education.”

Clinton moderate: “I know such people as these. I grew up among them. If not for the good graces, I would have, myself, stalled in the backwaters of Arkansas. But I was given a hand up, given a chance, and I took that chance. You can too. We can bring hope to Hope, Arkansas and everywhere with your help.”

Me: Sacks offers up a brief history of the shift of national attention (see Paglia from earlier post) from the higher class getting an education to opening up educational access to all:

After the Second World War, presidents from Truman through Nixon held up the ideal of equal educational opportunity as a centerpiece of the American enterprise. We believed that higher education was so fundamental to our nation that federal and state policy would ensure that nobody would be denied higher education because of an inability to pay.

And so the Staffard loans go out (to the right vendors, apparently) and the Pell grants given all with the hope that education will bring a brighter future. And it will. Don’t get me wrong here, I am a direct product of a higher education taking a working-class kid from West Texas and opening up his thinking and opportunities. That said, the present system is based on fundamental inequalities that continually go ignored, overlooked or otherwise unaddressed:

We are creating a system in which ability to pay is the main thing that separates those who go to college from those who don’t go to college.

Paglia called it “brand name college” seeking. With the better brands come a higher cost—if one is considered at all. But, fine, branded colleges in a free market should seek to raise their market cap to its fullest. But public schools?

While UM President Mary Sue Coleman was making wonderful speeches about diversity, something like just 12 or 13 percent of Michigan’s undergraduates were receiving Pell Grants, ranking the public University of Michigan among the most elite private institutions on this measure.

Branded schools, to be honest, are good for the student. Brands give access. A graduate of the Wharton School of Business will run companies. A graduate of UofM’s business will run companies. A graduate of Western Michigan University (a land-grant, teaching university) will work for companies. We are not being naive here. What we would like, though, is truth in advertising. If America is the land of opportunity, then so be it. If it is, truthfully, the land of opportunity for some, not so much for others, and none for you…then let’s own up to that as well.

For example, the average SAT score of students whose families earn between $30,000 and $40,000 a year is 1436. That’s compared to the average of 1656 for students whose parents earn $100,000 or more — a 220-point difference

220 points erases Uof M’s affirmative action padding.

I will seek to specific more concretely what I would like to see.

Access and Exposure

College degrees (or should I just say college classes?) are a handy indicator that the person has been exposed and should be granted access. That is, a college education provides exposure and access. Skills are secondary; thinking is optional.

I am taking my inspiration for this post from the Marilee Jones firing from MIT. Apparently the dean of Admissions lied about her education way back, and it was ferreted out. She was fired—as she should be.

The discussion about her, though, quickly moves to the value and role of education. Ms. Jones was an excellent dean by all accounts, so why fire her now? Does the degree mean that much?

First, it wasn’t the lack of degree that was cited as the reason for her getting fired, but that she lied. So, take the lack of degree off of the table. Could she do the job without a degree? Well, she had been doing so for quite a while, so yes.

Then what is a degree for? Access and exposure. Let me explain. First, a few caveats: not all degrees are created equal. A liberal arts degree is all about exposure (although access is to be debated), while a science, engineering, business, etc. degree is, arguably, more about access. It is a sliding scale, with factors of specific degree plans, job positions, etc. But, for discussion purposes, it falls like this:

Access Exposure

Sciences/business Liberal arts

Of course, as with any spectrum, there are some middling ground (archeology would be an exposed/access; fine arts an access/exposure).

Pretty much any job is a club of some sort. Entry is only permitted if a person has X, Y and sometimes Z. For a range of jobs, X is a degree in the field (AA, BA, MA, etc.). One needs a law degree and bar exam to practice, doctors need med school and internships, etc. So, access is limited for these fields. I suppose is should be.

Exposure, though, is what people trot out when they speak of higher ed. “The best that is thought or spoken” sort of thing. A college grad will be exposed to various paradigms, cultures, practices, etc. that will expand her mind. At least, that is the argument. In fact, the exposure side exists almost exclusively when higher ed discussions arise. People will get apoplectic about the importance of exposing, or not, young minds to the world of ideas.

That is a load of crap.

Sure, I think that the exposure side should be included. It should be expanded. To assume that a college grad will be exposed (who is the judge for this anyway—is there a standard or measure here) to “enough” by a survey of British literature puts a lot on Donne and the like. And really, I could care less if my surgeon felt the pathos of ball turret gunner. I do care that she was paying attention to her gross anatomy labs. For the skilled professions, exposure helps more at dinner parties than in obtaining a job (see super-important caveat to this below).

What about business? Entry-level is entry-level. The college brand will do more to give a guy access than will the specific courses. Got an MBA from Harvard, then come this way to higher-exec-ville. All others, get at the end of that long line and await your cube assignment.

So, here are the terms of the discussion: access and exposure. My personal interaction with this tomorrow (or so).

----------------
Super-important caveat: I don’t think there is enough exposure of the skilled professions to other paradigms. I wish the doctors would open up to non-medical interventionist approaches—that holistic or homeopathic approaches were more explored. But, why I wish to be and what is are world’s apart. So, in a sense the pathos of the ball-turret gunner might show the way to realizing an open-minded approach to medicine. Yet, even typing this I feel as if it is too much to expect, given the noise of job obtainment and advancement (“witch” doctors don’t work at Mayo).