The for-profit, course management system (CMS), Blackboard, is trying to attract the attention of institutions that prefer an open source approach. They're doing so by creating plug-ins (some of which are referred to as "Building Blocks") for systems such as Sakai. Similar connectors are in the works for Moodle as well.
While Blackboard is the top dog among CMSs in higher education, there is a growing number of individuals and developers moving toward the open source approach. Blackboard obviously recognizes this and wants to make sure they are in on the action. But will this mean the end of open source CMSs? Or, alternatively, will a for-profit become more open?
More on these Blackboard partnerships can be found here.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Future of Higher Education
Hot off the presses! NMC, along with The Economist and Apple Computer, Inc. just released a white paper on the ways in which technology is shaping the future of higher education. The paper reports on the findings of a survey of almost 300 executives - CIOs and tech leaders both inside and outside education. Twelve interviews were conducted with individuals from this group as well. The results suggest that technology will profoundly change higher education over the next five years. Here are some specifics from the survey data:
As was the case with the students who participated in the 2008 ECAR study, the respondents of the NMC survey reported that social networking sites (SNSs) were popular tools among those in campus administration. Career services and alumni groups are examples of units that favor the use of SNSs.
Also becoming more popular in higher education throughout the world is online learning. Many of the institutions are making connections with other countries through the formation of foreign location sites. Overall, many of the higher education respondents said that technology has positively impacted their institutions.
While this NMC report is suggesting that we will see more technology in our classrooms over the next five years, the ECAR students stated that they wanted only moderate amounts of technology. In fact, they claimed that face-to-face interactions with their instructors was very important to them. So, who is driving this push toward more technology? Because this report was produced, at least in part, by those with corporate interests (The Economists, Apple Computer, and tech leaders inside/outside academia), one could posit that they have a vested interest in promoting the use of technology and encouraging more partnerships corporations and higher education institutions.
If we as educators blindly accept technology without assessing the actual learning benefits associated with the technology, are we really serving our "tech-savvy" customers? Based on the ECAR study, these customers may say "no." It appears that today's students make a clear distinction between use of technology for personal and academic reasons. While they are enthusiastic technology users in their personal life, they are less enthusiastic about these tools for learning purposes. Perhaps the tech leaders are viewing higher education their their own adult, corporate lens rather than really finding out what the users want.
- 60% of all respondents expect that professors will teach in more than one medium by 2013
- 60% say that online learning will be a fundamental component of the education experience
- 64% of respondents expect that universities will frequently partner with corporations and other third parties to create new areas of study over the next five years
As was the case with the students who participated in the 2008 ECAR study, the respondents of the NMC survey reported that social networking sites (SNSs) were popular tools among those in campus administration. Career services and alumni groups are examples of units that favor the use of SNSs.
Also becoming more popular in higher education throughout the world is online learning. Many of the institutions are making connections with other countries through the formation of foreign location sites. Overall, many of the higher education respondents said that technology has positively impacted their institutions.
While this NMC report is suggesting that we will see more technology in our classrooms over the next five years, the ECAR students stated that they wanted only moderate amounts of technology. In fact, they claimed that face-to-face interactions with their instructors was very important to them. So, who is driving this push toward more technology? Because this report was produced, at least in part, by those with corporate interests (The Economists, Apple Computer, and tech leaders inside/outside academia), one could posit that they have a vested interest in promoting the use of technology and encouraging more partnerships corporations and higher education institutions.
If we as educators blindly accept technology without assessing the actual learning benefits associated with the technology, are we really serving our "tech-savvy" customers? Based on the ECAR study, these customers may say "no." It appears that today's students make a clear distinction between use of technology for personal and academic reasons. While they are enthusiastic technology users in their personal life, they are less enthusiastic about these tools for learning purposes. Perhaps the tech leaders are viewing higher education their their own adult, corporate lens rather than really finding out what the users want.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
ECAR Study on Undergrads and Technology Use
A new ECAR study, with a focus on social networking sites (SNSs), was released earlier this week. For those new to the ECAR study on undergraduates, this work began in 2004 and the reports are produced on a yearly basis. More than 27,000 student participated in the 2008 study, and a majority of those were "traditional" students (i.e., individuals under the age of 25, attending 4-year institutions full time).
The findings: Slightly more than 80% of the students had laptop computers, and the majority of those were new devices. More than 65% of the respondents owned an internet-capable cell phone; however, they don't access the internet in this manner because of cost, difficulty of use, and slow response times. On average, these students spend more than 19 hours/week online for work, school, or recreation. But, 69% spend less than 20 hours/week online. This varies by major: engineering majors spend more time online; education and life/biological sciences majors less. Almost all of the students have high-speed internet. Less than 2% still used a dial-up connection.
For these students, technnology is about communication. Social networking sites (especially Facebook) and text messaging are popular with over 80% of ECAR respondents communicating in this fashion. While many students are involved in creating audio and video materials, as well as engaging in gaming activities, the males do so more than the females. There are also gender differences when examining early adopters: almost 53% of the males considered themselves early adopters; in contrast, only 25% of female students responded in a similar fashion. When looking at Second Life specifically, only 8.8% (or only 1 student out of 11) are involved in this world.
Many students consider themselves tech-savvy; however, many educators are beginning to question these students' abilities. While the students are enthusiastic about technology, they report that they only want moderate amounts of technology in their courses. This is consistent with the 2007 ECAR findings. According to the authors of the 2008 report, this is consistent with the findings over the past 5 years. Males prefer slightly more technology in courses than females, yet both value face-to-face time with instructors. When asked what specific technologies students liked to learn through, more than 50% said they preferred video games and simulations. Only running internet searches ranked higher.
Almost 12% said they were taking an online course(s) during the time of this study. Most of the comments about online courses were negative: 1) lack of face-to-face interaction; 2) online courses facilitate cheating; 3) technical problems; and 4) online courses are more demanding because students have to "teach themselves." Less than 25% of ECAR respondents believe that institutions should require them to take an online course. Most have used a CMS.
Overall, less than 50% said that IT improves their learning or improves their engagement. Convenience is listed as the top benefit of IT in courses. This report includes a section that focuses on SNSs. One issue that is also examined is related to privacy and security. As Genevieve Bell suggested in yesterday's talk, students aren't really concerned about this. The authors of the ECAR report speculate that the lack of concern may be due to a lack of knowledge about the risks associated with SNSs. Further, they point to the ability to place restrictions on the type of information SNS participants can make public. While the ECAR students are enthusiastic about technology for personal use but are less enthusiastic about it for educational purposes.
An aside: According to this report, 1.5% of students do not own a computer. Who are these people? It would be very interesting to do a more in-depth study of these individuals to find out why they don't own a computer. Do they access the internet in other ways?
The findings: Slightly more than 80% of the students had laptop computers, and the majority of those were new devices. More than 65% of the respondents owned an internet-capable cell phone; however, they don't access the internet in this manner because of cost, difficulty of use, and slow response times. On average, these students spend more than 19 hours/week online for work, school, or recreation. But, 69% spend less than 20 hours/week online. This varies by major: engineering majors spend more time online; education and life/biological sciences majors less. Almost all of the students have high-speed internet. Less than 2% still used a dial-up connection.
For these students, technnology is about communication. Social networking sites (especially Facebook) and text messaging are popular with over 80% of ECAR respondents communicating in this fashion. While many students are involved in creating audio and video materials, as well as engaging in gaming activities, the males do so more than the females. There are also gender differences when examining early adopters: almost 53% of the males considered themselves early adopters; in contrast, only 25% of female students responded in a similar fashion. When looking at Second Life specifically, only 8.8% (or only 1 student out of 11) are involved in this world.
Many students consider themselves tech-savvy; however, many educators are beginning to question these students' abilities. While the students are enthusiastic about technology, they report that they only want moderate amounts of technology in their courses. This is consistent with the 2007 ECAR findings. According to the authors of the 2008 report, this is consistent with the findings over the past 5 years. Males prefer slightly more technology in courses than females, yet both value face-to-face time with instructors. When asked what specific technologies students liked to learn through, more than 50% said they preferred video games and simulations. Only running internet searches ranked higher.
Almost 12% said they were taking an online course(s) during the time of this study. Most of the comments about online courses were negative: 1) lack of face-to-face interaction; 2) online courses facilitate cheating; 3) technical problems; and 4) online courses are more demanding because students have to "teach themselves." Less than 25% of ECAR respondents believe that institutions should require them to take an online course. Most have used a CMS.
Overall, less than 50% said that IT improves their learning or improves their engagement. Convenience is listed as the top benefit of IT in courses. This report includes a section that focuses on SNSs. One issue that is also examined is related to privacy and security. As Genevieve Bell suggested in yesterday's talk, students aren't really concerned about this. The authors of the ECAR report speculate that the lack of concern may be due to a lack of knowledge about the risks associated with SNSs. Further, they point to the ability to place restrictions on the type of information SNS participants can make public. While the ECAR students are enthusiastic about technology for personal use but are less enthusiastic about it for educational purposes.
An aside: According to this report, 1.5% of students do not own a computer. Who are these people? It would be very interesting to do a more in-depth study of these individuals to find out why they don't own a computer. Do they access the internet in other ways?
The Sacrifices IT Women Make
I'm in the process of revising my gender and computerization syllabus for the spring and came across this report. The study, conducted by the Anita Borg Institute and the Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University, examined IT women at the mid-level of their careers. What the researchers found was that women in these positions were making personal sacrifices such as delaying marriage and motherhood to promote their careers. In other words, these women felt that they had to make a choice between career and family to be successful in the male-dominated world of IT. Unfortunately, these sacrifices did not led to great rewards. Gender stereotypes (women aren't as technical as men) are still prevalent, which result in women being passed over for promotions. Instead women are placed in low-level positions that have minimal visibility. While some women interviewed for this study claimed that promotions in their early careers were based on merit, they found that gender became an obstacle at the middle management levels. Thus, it is not surprising that 56% of mid-career IT women choose to leave their organizations and pursue other opportunities. One thing both the men and women interviewed for this study noted is that women have to be assertive in order to survive in IT.
The gender bias and stereotypes in IT fields is not new. Women (and their male colleagues) have been aware of this situation for quite some time now. Yet year after year, reports like this one surface. The problem is that these studies report similar results. The IT industry claims that it needs more workers and would like to recruit more women. However, the IT workplace of today continues to be a good ol' boys club. Because of the current financial situation, the number of IT jobs filled by people in places like India are no longer as cost efficient as they once were. Therefore, they are looking to fill those positions with people in the U.S. But, the number of students enrolled in computer science has been on the decline since the mid-1990s. This is true for men and women. So, who is going to fill these positions? If middle management continues to foster a climate that promotes gender bias, it won't be women who will be there to save them. It's time for a change.
The gender bias and stereotypes in IT fields is not new. Women (and their male colleagues) have been aware of this situation for quite some time now. Yet year after year, reports like this one surface. The problem is that these studies report similar results. The IT industry claims that it needs more workers and would like to recruit more women. However, the IT workplace of today continues to be a good ol' boys club. Because of the current financial situation, the number of IT jobs filled by people in places like India are no longer as cost efficient as they once were. Therefore, they are looking to fill those positions with people in the U.S. But, the number of students enrolled in computer science has been on the decline since the mid-1990s. This is true for men and women. So, who is going to fill these positions? If middle management continues to foster a climate that promotes gender bias, it won't be women who will be there to save them. It's time for a change.
Andrew Keen and the Web 2.0
Wonder how the latest financial crisis will impact the future of the internet? While Genevieve Bell didn't address that issue in her discussion of the future of the Internet, Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur recently did pontificate on the topic. In this piece, Keen paints a dire picture for Web 2.0 and the participatory age. As Keen remarks, "'Free' doesn’t fill anyone’s belly; it doesn’t warm anyone up."
My thoughts: I think Keen oversimplifies the behavior of those who participate in the Web 2.0 economy. While financial reasons may drive some people, I posit that it is more complicated than that. Keen fails to factor in the need for attention and the way that impact people's willingness to freely contribute to Wikipedia, for example. Also neglected by Keen are the following: the belief in the community; the expectation of future reciprocity from the community; the creation (and maintenance) of reputation; and a sense of efficacy (e.g., Bryant et al., 2005; Donath, 1999; Kollock, 1999) . The current economic crisis may indeed impact the Web 2.0, as Keen suggests, but I would argue that financial reasons are only one part of the equation.
Update: According to a recent Time magazine article, the traffic on one Web 2.0 site has increased during this economic downturn. LinkedIn, a site that allows visitors to post resumes and contact information, is finding that its use by job seekers and recruiters is one of its main revenue sources. For example, from August to September 2008, the number of job searches in LinkedIn rose 19%. Using the Web 2.0 to connect employers and employees may be one use Keen neglected to consider.
My thoughts: I think Keen oversimplifies the behavior of those who participate in the Web 2.0 economy. While financial reasons may drive some people, I posit that it is more complicated than that. Keen fails to factor in the need for attention and the way that impact people's willingness to freely contribute to Wikipedia, for example. Also neglected by Keen are the following: the belief in the community; the expectation of future reciprocity from the community; the creation (and maintenance) of reputation; and a sense of efficacy (e.g., Bryant et al., 2005; Donath, 1999; Kollock, 1999) . The current economic crisis may indeed impact the Web 2.0, as Keen suggests, but I would argue that financial reasons are only one part of the equation.
Update: According to a recent Time magazine article, the traffic on one Web 2.0 site has increased during this economic downturn. LinkedIn, a site that allows visitors to post resumes and contact information, is finding that its use by job seekers and recruiters is one of its main revenue sources. For example, from August to September 2008, the number of job searches in LinkedIn rose 19%. Using the Web 2.0 to connect employers and employees may be one use Keen neglected to consider.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Genevieve Bell
Genevieve Bell, an anthropologist at Intel, spoke on campus this afternoon. While I was initially reluctant to brave the elements, I am so glad I decided to attend. Bell's talk was one of the best I've heard since I arrived more than 3 years ago. While not the speech Bell gave today, this clip does give you an idea of what her presentations are like.
In her talk - "The next internet revolution is already happening!" - Bell used an ethnographic lens to examine what the Internet might look like in 10-20 years from now. She began by noting that the internet is not just about technology: it a social product; it is ideas; it is a set of forces. In other words, the internet comes with cultural baggage wrapped around it. And now, the internet, according to Bell, is fragmenting into a series of technologies.
Bell outlined six different signs that the next internet revolution is currently underway. First, the internet is not just in laptops and desktop computers. Its is "feral" and on the move. It is in mobile devices such as cell phones. It is also in televisions, game consoles, etc. Bell argues that this move to a feral internet changes people's behavior. For example, people don't surf on an iPhone; instead they locate very targeted information. Further, Bell pointed out that not all individuals use the internet in real time. They may drive 150k to access it at McDonald's. They may tell a relative what to say in a message, and the relative goes to an internet cafe to compose and send the message. This relative then prints any received messages to read to the relative the next a.m.
Second on Bell's list is the end of the "anglosphere"; there are more languages appearing on the internet, and Bell contends that this trend will increase. Also, Bell suggests that a lot of information is hidden in plain sight. It is no longer about what is being said that's important; rather what is not said. Thus, Bell argues that language on the web is not just a translation problem.
Next on the list is infrastructure and the range of upload and download speeds. This will look different in different cultures. Bell believes that internet behavior and the way people participate online will change depending on these speeds. Moreover, the costs associated with participation is likely to increase not decrease, and in Bell's mind, the concept of a free and open internet is unrealistic.
Fourth is regulation of the internet. Many countries are connecting good citizenship with technology use. Korea's U-Society is one example. Bell says that this is a new frontier for government activity and agendas; each one is different from the other.
Number five on Bell's list was related to porn, trolls, and social regulations. According to Bell, everyone lies on the internet, and she points to the Cornell study on online data as one piece of evidence to support this claim. She continues by noting that crafting ourselves online is an art.
And finally, the sixth item are socio-technical concerns. Bell refers to the internet as a form of aggressive self-presentation. We worry about what other people think about us, which impacts what we post online. Also, Bell notes that what we worry about has moved away from discussions about privacy, trust, and security. "Creepy" as in your Mom is in the house with you all the time creepy is the latest term used rather than privacy violations. Today, we worry about authenticity, ownership of information, digital literacy (e.g., Is the internet making us stupid? Is the internet destroying our language? Is the internet making us homogeneous?), and the identity of "Big Brother."
So, what does Bell foresee in the future? She believes that there will not be a single web - there will be no single use and no single trajectory. Bell mentioned that a really interesting group of people to study are the non-internet users and ex-internet users. Why do they choose not to have the internet? Another area for future examination are the ways in which people are beginning to resist technology. Some of Bell's interviewees remarked that they intentionally book vacations to areas where they cannot get a signal to connect to the internet. Maybe that's why I like being out on the XC - no internet, no phones, no computers, just me and Mother Nature.
In her talk - "The next internet revolution is already happening!" - Bell used an ethnographic lens to examine what the Internet might look like in 10-20 years from now. She began by noting that the internet is not just about technology: it a social product; it is ideas; it is a set of forces. In other words, the internet comes with cultural baggage wrapped around it. And now, the internet, according to Bell, is fragmenting into a series of technologies.
Bell outlined six different signs that the next internet revolution is currently underway. First, the internet is not just in laptops and desktop computers. Its is "feral" and on the move. It is in mobile devices such as cell phones. It is also in televisions, game consoles, etc. Bell argues that this move to a feral internet changes people's behavior. For example, people don't surf on an iPhone; instead they locate very targeted information. Further, Bell pointed out that not all individuals use the internet in real time. They may drive 150k to access it at McDonald's. They may tell a relative what to say in a message, and the relative goes to an internet cafe to compose and send the message. This relative then prints any received messages to read to the relative the next a.m.
Second on Bell's list is the end of the "anglosphere"; there are more languages appearing on the internet, and Bell contends that this trend will increase. Also, Bell suggests that a lot of information is hidden in plain sight. It is no longer about what is being said that's important; rather what is not said. Thus, Bell argues that language on the web is not just a translation problem.
Next on the list is infrastructure and the range of upload and download speeds. This will look different in different cultures. Bell believes that internet behavior and the way people participate online will change depending on these speeds. Moreover, the costs associated with participation is likely to increase not decrease, and in Bell's mind, the concept of a free and open internet is unrealistic.
Fourth is regulation of the internet. Many countries are connecting good citizenship with technology use. Korea's U-Society is one example. Bell says that this is a new frontier for government activity and agendas; each one is different from the other.
Number five on Bell's list was related to porn, trolls, and social regulations. According to Bell, everyone lies on the internet, and she points to the Cornell study on online data as one piece of evidence to support this claim. She continues by noting that crafting ourselves online is an art.
And finally, the sixth item are socio-technical concerns. Bell refers to the internet as a form of aggressive self-presentation. We worry about what other people think about us, which impacts what we post online. Also, Bell notes that what we worry about has moved away from discussions about privacy, trust, and security. "Creepy" as in your Mom is in the house with you all the time creepy is the latest term used rather than privacy violations. Today, we worry about authenticity, ownership of information, digital literacy (e.g., Is the internet making us stupid? Is the internet destroying our language? Is the internet making us homogeneous?), and the identity of "Big Brother."
So, what does Bell foresee in the future? She believes that there will not be a single web - there will be no single use and no single trajectory. Bell mentioned that a really interesting group of people to study are the non-internet users and ex-internet users. Why do they choose not to have the internet? Another area for future examination are the ways in which people are beginning to resist technology. Some of Bell's interviewees remarked that they intentionally book vacations to areas where they cannot get a signal to connect to the internet. Maybe that's why I like being out on the XC - no internet, no phones, no computers, just me and Mother Nature.
Wikitruth
For individuals who are familiar with the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, much of this article by Simson L. Garfinkel (not Simon Garfunkel), a professor of computer science at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, will not be new.
What is interesting about the discussion put forth by Garfinkel is the distinction between truth and verifiability. According to the author, the Wikipedia model supports verifiability through policies that encourage the use of third-party sources rather than self-published original research. Editing your own entry is another act discourgaged in the Wikipedia structure. One example given by Garfinkel is about Jaron Lanier, whose Wikipedia entry stated that he was a film director (he claims he is not). Every time he deleted that statement, it returned. (NOTE: On October 24, 2008, the Wikipedia entry on Lanier did not list him as a film director.) Lanier also was criticized for his self-editing practice, which some consider a "wikisin." One would assume that Lanier would be an "expert" about himself, moreso than others.
While many consider Wikipedia a useful tool, especially when gathering preliminary information about the topic, and is considered a model of the wisdom of crowds concept, the question remains: What is truth? In Wikipedia, according to Garfinkel, truth is "the consensus view of a subject." Given the approach used for more mainstream publications where only a few individuals are involved, the Wikipedia method potentially allows for more input on what counts as complete and accurate information. But do more eyes taint the information or improve it? Who counts as an expert when it comes to a particular topic? What is the difference between expertise and self-promotion/self-marketing? Can information seekers ever expect to find the truth, or is verifiability good enough?
What is interesting about the discussion put forth by Garfinkel is the distinction between truth and verifiability. According to the author, the Wikipedia model supports verifiability through policies that encourage the use of third-party sources rather than self-published original research. Editing your own entry is another act discourgaged in the Wikipedia structure. One example given by Garfinkel is about Jaron Lanier, whose Wikipedia entry stated that he was a film director (he claims he is not). Every time he deleted that statement, it returned. (NOTE: On October 24, 2008, the Wikipedia entry on Lanier did not list him as a film director.) Lanier also was criticized for his self-editing practice, which some consider a "wikisin." One would assume that Lanier would be an "expert" about himself, moreso than others.
While many consider Wikipedia a useful tool, especially when gathering preliminary information about the topic, and is considered a model of the wisdom of crowds concept, the question remains: What is truth? In Wikipedia, according to Garfinkel, truth is "the consensus view of a subject." Given the approach used for more mainstream publications where only a few individuals are involved, the Wikipedia method potentially allows for more input on what counts as complete and accurate information. But do more eyes taint the information or improve it? Who counts as an expert when it comes to a particular topic? What is the difference between expertise and self-promotion/self-marketing? Can information seekers ever expect to find the truth, or is verifiability good enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
