“Google is not research.”

On the surface, this seems to be a self-evident truism; a bane of all instructors looking at the paltry bibliographies of their student’s “research” papers. A topic is assigned, the student does their due diligence by “Googling” expected key words, and undoubtedly one of those key terms turns up Wikipedia. Information is found, two more sites consulted and the topic is, according to the students, covered. Laptop case closed, time to move on.

InsideHigherEd today offers a story about the Cornell Undergraduate Information Competency Initiative, which seeks an “understanding [of] how students perceive university research.” One of the expressed goals, as stated by Cornell professor Kathy Lee Berggren, is “to ‘really learn how to use a library whether they’re in it or not.’”

Cornell’s summer seminar seeks to build on the work from Berkeley who, undergoing an accreditation review, sought to understand how to incorporate research skills into the course level of instruction. That is, instead of requiring a specific research course, Berkeley, on a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, sought to set up the framework by which research skills could be woven into the instruction of any course.

What Berkeley and Cornell are both wrestling with is the complication of performing research in an iPod age. The players as I see them: “digital native” students, cranky, if well-meaning professors, Google and brick-n-mortar libraries. Oh yea, and Steve Jobs.

First, the natives. Contemporary students come to college with a different set of expectations than they did even ten years ago. These students are not agog at the level and breadth of information available to them. Rather, they expect to be able to, within a few key strokes, to gain access to whatever information they seek. And, with aggregated search engines like Yahoo! and Google, they are, to a large extent, able to accomplish this. Want to know the background of the Boston Tea Party? Want to see dissenting opinions? Conspiracy theories? The YouTube parody? Incoming freshmen can provide, usually while listening to downloaded music streaming from a video-enabled iPod (or, if you teach at ACU, all accessed on their school-provided iPhone). Research is done dude!

The cranky, if well-meaning professors, once confronted with such a bibliography, stare at the creatures seated in front of them and wonder, probably correctly, if these poor deluded punks have ever set foot in the hallowed halls of the school library. They haven’t. In their minds, they do not need to. Wake up old man, all of the information is now available online. If you want “deep” research, go to Google Scholar. There are all sorts of articles and things like that—even whole books now.

And expectations clash.

Libraries have done wonders in cataloging, compiling and generally making information accessible. I have no beef with them. They are, with a few notable exceptions, often lone wolfs, wandering the information plains with little support, scratched-together technology, and low budgets. They yearn for the students to come on in and use the catalogs so painstakingly compiled, the databases built from competing platforms. They even have an online portal offered up for dorm access. They have built it…they will come.

A user is able to access a vast catalog of downloaded/ripped songs by using only one fingers—usually the thumb. By spinning the wheel, even a novice user can quickly find the song/podcast lecture she is seeking within a few seconds, even from a list of thousands. Form meets function, and the case is cool and sleek and it works and the information becomes subordinate to the users. The thumb is in charge, and the streaming sounds confirm that, at least here, the world works, as it should. Steve Jobs has provided the user with a user experience that confirms, at least for most, the promises of the web hype—the tool from the bubble.

What the Natives don’t get, and the Profs know, is that the Net does not cast the skein that one might assume. That is, there are some big holes in that Net. The Libraries have worked to fills these gaps (consortiums, partnerships, etc.), but their work doesn’t always get the notice or exposure. Here is where the fault lines of generational expectations come into stark relief: Profs expect students to march into the library and acquaint themselves with the subject’s/discipline’s fiefdom. If not, then the student is lazy and lacks the necessary drive or will. The Natives don’t expect to have to navigate fiefdoms. For them, at least thus far, knowledge and data have been without borders. It does not occur to them that there would be a specific database for articles about Colonial literature that is not accessible through a quick key-word search from their dorm.

So, committees will form, grants will be given and studies will recommend that individual professors seek to imbue a research skill-set into their objectives. And without a standard (either a collective standard (MLA) or an organizational approach (ie Google)), the Natives and the Profs will continue to lament just how odd, lazy, out-of-touch, etc. the other is.

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?

What a student sees: OR learning today

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.

Are you a teacher or an Educator

[copied from an e-mail forward]

According to a news report, a certain school was recently faced with a unique problem.

A number of 12-year-old girls were beginning to use lipstick and would put it on in the washroom. That was fine, but after they put on their lipstick they would press their lips to the mirror leaving dozens of little lip prints. Every night, the maintenance man would remove them and the next day the girls would put them back. Finally the principal decided that something had to be done. He called all the girls to the washroom and met them there with the maintenance man.

He explained that all these lip prints were causing a major problem for the custodian who had to clean the mirrors every night. To demonstrate how difficult it had been to clean the mirrors, he asked the maintenance man to show the girls how much effort was required.

He took out a long-handled squeegee, dipped it in the toilet, and cleaned the mirror with it.

Since then, there have been no lip prints on the mirror.

There are teachers, and then there are Educators

WIKIs in the classroom

I am ambivalent about the use of WIKIs in general. Don't get me wrong, I think that they are useful (see my query about a Grace Slick song here), but to be used in the classroom seems to be an exercise in busywork.

WIKIs work by employing those with knowledge and time. It also appeals to a certain strata (who I am glad are around, but I am just not one).

Now, if I force my Freshmen to go to a WIKI to compile a set of collective knowledge about something, I will get some interesting results, but I wonder about the utility. Will a classroom be a large enough pool to gather "expertise"?--without which the whole endeavor, from the student's point of view and my own, seems to be only mildy interesting.

Would I create a grammar WIKI? God no! Horrible, horrible idea. A style WIKI? One shade up from the pit of Hell...

I see no real use.

BUT, if you do know of a use, please let the fellow below know. He works for WetPaint, a free WIKI hosting service, and he is interested.
--------------------------------
My name is Michael Bolognino and I'm writing to you from Wetpaint Central in Seattle.

I'm working on building out a dedicated area at Wetpaint.com to help guide educators through the benefits of creating wikis in the classroom, and I'd love to get your input.

If you are an educator, please take 3 minutes to answer a few questions about using wikis in Education. If you are not an educator, please disregard this email.

Cheers, Michael

Michael Bolognino
Community Manager
Michael@wetpaint.com


http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=U27EQP2L56BC