The Web is home to thousands of great images, and now that copying and saving images off the Web is so quick and easy, sometimes students (and teachers!) can forget that the rights to these images may actually belong to someone. Somehow, we've come to believe that "freely available on the Web" means "free".

One helpful tool that I've been using is Flickr's Creative Commons search feature. Some Flickr contributors have decided to offer their work under a Creative Commons license, which means that others are free to use their images as long as certain conditions are met. Under Creative Commons licenses, creators choose the set of conditions they want to apply to their work:

Attribution means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.

Noncommercial means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only.

No Derivative Works means:
You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

Share Alike means:
You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

Using Flickr's Creative Commons site, you can search just those images that are licensed with conditions you're willing to meet and then download and use the images without worrying about violating copyright.

I've found it easiest to use only images that require attribution, and I typically use the following format to do that:

Photo: (CC) J. Thomas: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthomasj/2876512221/

You can find out more about Creative Commons licenses at the Creative Commons web site, and search Flickr's Creative Commons images at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/.

Streaming video in the classroom

Occasionally, faculty at my university will contact me to request videos to use in their classes. They want to provide students with a learning opportunity that's a little different from the usual lecture or discussion format, and they are generally quite pleased if I can locate titles that work well with their course content.

One barrier has been that adjunct instructors need to request video titles well in advance because their classes are held off-campus, and the discs must be sent by mail from the library. And of course the videos have to be returned soon after the class, which can be inconvenient.

A recent addition to our library collection is streaming videos. Through a company called FMG, we now offer a several video titles, mainly in business and education, that can be viewed over the Web. An instructor can either stream the video through a projector during class, or assign students to view the video on their own computers outside of class. Faculty and students can see a list of available titles and get more information (such as video descriptions and running times) through our online catalog. The catalog record provides a direct link to view the title.

While the collection is still quite small, I'm glad we have found a better way to provide video resources to students who take classes off-campus or online.

I believe that universities that offer distance education programs really have to work to stay abreast of new technologies that will enable them to provide the same learning experiences for all students, regardless of location.


Photo: (CC) Kevin Stanchfield: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sgt_spanky/3970722137/

A Cloudy Year

In my position as a reference and instruction librarian, I travel fairly regularly to visit off-campus classes. I have come to rely on quite a few "cloud computing" tools to make working from the road a little easier.

I have tried several Google applications over the past year or so, but this class has really prompted me to make fuller use of them.

With the blog assignment, I needed some way to keep track of 17 other blogs, so I subscribed to each of my classmates' blogs through Google Reader. Since I organized my list based on the Sunday and Tuesday class subgroups, I can quickly navigate to blog submissions by those in my own group. Whenever I have a few extra minutes, I can easily browse new posts and link out to the blog itself to make comments.

I have also made steady use of Google Documents. The lesson plan assignment has a number of different components, so I found myself starting a document at home, then working on it over lunch during the workday, then referring to it while using my laptop. Although I do store most documents on a flash drive, I'm finding that uploading and downloading current versions stored in Google Docs is quicker than grabbing an external device and remembering to take it with me.

While I haven't needed it for this class, I also use Google Sites to support my work as an adjunct instructor. I occasionally teach for an organization called Lyrasis, and I've found that Google Sites is a great tool for navigating the long list of web resources that I demonstrate during my online classes.

I think as more pc-resident software is replaced by web-based "cloud" applications, users will need much less sophisticated hardware. We see this trend already with the popularity of Netbooks and hand-held devices. Why run programs from your own computer when there are tools that do the same thing "out there on the Web"? Why carry around your files and documents when you can access them from anywhere that has Internet access?

Of course there may be privacy and stability concerns, and I will state right now that I will never store critical information (like medical records) with a third party service. But for many other purposes, I find that cloud computing helps me to work a little more efficiently.

Community Debate: iPod Touch in the Classroom

A community blog in my area recently reported that the city school board had approved a three-year agreement with Apple to lease 124 computers at the cost of $129,540. These computers would also allow students to use the iPod Touch as an educational tool, and in a separate, grant-funded project, the school system has plans to expand the use of handheld devices like the iPod Touch and its applications throughout the system.

This kind of news is not particularly groundbreaking; school systems all over the country are steadily increasing the use of educational technology as their budgets (and policies) allow. But I found the confusion surrounding the announcement and the reactions from the community to be quite interesting.

First, it appears that the two local blogs covering the story managed to confuse the board-approved lease of the Apple computers with an existing grant project that purchased iPod Touches for one classroom in one school (but would also fund additional iPod-related purchases). One blog post was titled "iPod Touch Coming to Decatur Classrooms" when the story really concerned the lease of computers that would pave the way for the use of iPod Touches.

But it turns out that the facts really didn't matter all that much, because the announcement prompted a firestorm of debate about the wisdom or folly of allowing the use of iPods as an educational tool.

Some readers worried that scarce resources were being spent on devices that would be stolen, or misused, or just not as effective as traditional teaching methods. "What happened to just teaching kids?" asked one reader.

Others outlined various educational uses for handheld devices, or posted links to information about similar initiatives in other states.

One reader lectured the naysayers by providing an historical listing of classroom technologies that were initially questioned (film projectors, calculators, computers) saying, "Technology will happen whether we embrace it or not. So rather than dismiss them as gadgets that will inhibit learning, why not take advantage of what they can offer?" Another reader's response, "Because we can't afford it!"

Several of the comments related to the use (or misuse) of public funds, but to those who opposed the use of taxpayer dollars to buy electronic gadgets, one reader responded "in public school, not everyone has the same access to online resources and providing these Touches can help to level the field a bit."

I'm afraid the discussion eventually turned into angry vents about overspending on the new high school building, and the negative impact a new grading policy (that doesn't allow a grade below 60%) is having on already under-achieving students. But I found this snapshot of community feeling related to the introduction of a new educational technology to be a real eye-opener.

I'll go out on a limb and describe this community as fairly progressive and forward-thinking. There's a city-wide wifi service and the small school system is generally considered a jewel in the somewhat tarnished public school system crown. But blog readers were clearly divided on this issue, and I think I have a clearer understanding of why it's so hard for schools to keep pace with technology - even when it's useful. Even with adequate funding for technology tools, schools will have to demonstrate the value of any new approach in order to change the attitudes of many in the community.



Resources:

Decatur Metro: iPod Touch Coming to Decatur Classrooms

Calling All Adult Learners

I admit I've been a little anxious about completing an assignment that involves a lesson plan (which I don't use) and an actual class (which I don't have). While I do provide instruction to adult students, I'm really more guest lecturer than teacher, and I don't have access to the same group of students over multiple days or weeks. I provide my lesson during one meeting of someone else's course, so my dilemma is how to compare the effectiveness of a technology-based lesson to a non-technology lesson without a group of students to be my guinea pigs.

To overcome this obstacle, I decided to prepare a short class on a single topic, but deliver one session in a face-to-face classroom, and another session as a self-paced online tutorial. I would give all of the students the same pre- and post-tests, but the face-to-face group would complete their tests on paper and the tutorial group would submit their responses online.

Since I work with a number of colleagues who are enrolled in various degree programs, I thought they would do as an audience of adult learners who could be taught how to use Google Scholar to research a topic. I invited some of them to the classroom session and others to do the online tutorial. I thought I'd have to bribe them with food, but as it turns out, several were quite willing to participate simply for the opportunity of learning something new about doing research. Although the groups are small, I expect them to be similar in terms of technical skills and familiarity with the content, so I'm hoping to get interesting results.

Of course I still don't have any experience with writing lesson plans, but I've found some good examples to follow, and more importantly, standards that make sense for my learning environment.

Some might call this "making it up as you go along", but I prefer to think of it as improvisation.

Going Virtual

Reading about Michigan's Cyber School initiatives made me curious about similar programs in my own state. I was aware that Georgia had implemented a statewide virtual school a few years ago, but I didn't realize that the courses were offered to private and home-school students as well as public school students. I had also assumed that the program was intended for only high school students, and was surprised to learn that middle grade courses had been added in 2007.

The state of Georgia's program supports currently enrolled students, but it is interesting to note that some reasons given by Georgia students who enroll in online rather than traditional courses match those given by at-risk students participating in the Michigan programs. Although some students take online classes because a course is not available in their area or simply for enrichment, others require the flexibility of online classes due to scheduling conflicts or medical issues. Some need remedial classes to catch up to their peers, and some need to repeat courses they've failed.

The Georgia Virtual School offers a credit recovery program that allows students who fail to retake classes. Unlike regular classes, which are teacher-led, the credit recovery courses provide teacherless instruction with a longer timeframe for completion. This allows students to complete their coursework while managing other obligations.

Working with adult learners in higher education, I see this need for flexibility as a primary driver for students taking classes online. It would be impossible for them to manage a traditional class schedule along with the demands of work and family. The sad truth is that many young people face similar demands, so the availability of online programs like the metro Detroit Cyber School or the Georgia Virtual School's credit recovery program can help to meet the needs of these students.

The Southern Regional Education Board's 2008 State Virtual School Report, indicates that 5720 students participated in the Georgia program during 2007/2008, and according to a recent Sloan Consortium report, "the overall number of K-12 students engaged in online courses in 2007-2008 is estimated at 1,030,000" representing a 47% increase since 2005-2006.

Clearly, interest in online education is increasing at all levels, and I think each state will need to carefully consider the impact this will have on budgets, policy, standards, infrastructure and faculty development.




Resources:

Southern Regional Education Board. (2008, August). Report on state virtual schools. Retrieved from http://info.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/SVS/2008_report_on_state_virtual_schools.pdf

Picciano, A, & Seaman, J. (2009, January). K-12 online learning; a 2008 follow-up of the survey of u.s. district administrators. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf

The Internet that Ate My Brain

For the past decade, I have spent my work weeks at a computer, searching the World Wide Web for information. I use the Internet daily to assist students and colleagues, and going to the Web has become second nature in meeting my own information needs. In the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", Nicholas Carr discusses the Internet's potential effects on human cognition, worrying that it is "subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies." According to Carr, the Internet "is becoming our map and our clocks, our printing press and our typewriter, our calendar and our telephone, and our radio and TV."¹

I'm not sure when the Internet began shaping the way I think, but there were signs along the way. I dropped my newspaper subscription because I got most of my news online. I renewed library books again and again because I couldn't finish a book - even a good one - before the due date. When I do read, my thoughts distract me and expect any concept that interests me to lead immediately to a related concept, background information, an image or a map. Basically, I want my book to hyperlink.

Watching the video below, it's easy to pity or scorn poor Joe for his expectations. Joe and the rest of the Net Generation have been surfing and linking since pre-school. It's funny to see a kid as befuddled by a textbook as his grandmother's generation was by a cell phone. But in some ways, Joe's information-seeking behavior is uncomfortably close to mine, and it's important to acknowledge that at least Joe is seeking information.



If the picture of Frederick Douglass in his book prompts Joe to search for more information, why shouldn't that be as easy as a double-click? Of course he could turn to the index in the textbook, then browse alphabetically for the correct entry, then flip to the appropriate pages, and then - finally - read. But if that same information is stored just behind the image in a Web environment, then I suspect Joe could read up on Frederick Douglass and move on to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the same time it would take to find page 43 in his textbook.

Carr's article also points out that "the kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author's words but for the intellectual vibrations that those words set off within our own minds."² I'd like to think that using the Internet has increased our knowledge, that like the printing press, it's a tool that enables us to access and share information across a broader audience. But I do miss having the ability to become engrossed by a long passage of well-written text, and I find it a little sad that students like Joe may never have that experience.


Resources:
Carr, N. (2008, July/August). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic, 201(6). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

Teaching and the Curse of Knowledge

While it is interesting to consider the principles associated with "sticky" ideas in the introduction to "Made to Stick", I was really struck by the concept of the "Curse of Knowledge". The authors propose that one reason it's difficult to consistently communicate ideas that stick is because we have knowledge that makes it impossible for us to imagine what it is like not to know what we know.

As teachers, we build expertise in specific subject areas and then share that knowledge with students in ways that seems clear enough to us. If students don't retain much of what we've communicated, it certainly can't be because we didn't know enough about the subject. But when we consider how our familiarity with a subject can actually cause us to make assumptions about our learners' understanding, it’s easy to see how we can over-complicate the message and lose the audience.

In teaching my students (mostly working adults enrolled in graduate programs) to use online information resources, it's tempting to assume that they will have a certain degree of familiarity with research and technology. But because they come from a wide variety of backgrounds and have different research needs based on their programs of study, I really have to make an effort not to allow my "curse of knowledge" to detract from the effectiveness of the instruction I provide.

As a librarian, my expertise is research, but while the adults that I teach may be experts in their own professions, they could be novice researchers. Their interest in the process of research is limited to what is necessary to complete the assignment at hand. These students use research to develop the content knowledge required for their degree programs - they don't need or want to become librarians - so I am faced with the challenge of teaching students how to do research without making them learn all of the principles and theory behind this practical skill.

Resources

Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York: Random House.

Technology Plans – Aligning IT with Institutional Goals

I began reviewing the 2010 State of Michigan Educational Technology Plan with the idea that I might not find it applicable to my environment. I work for a Michigan university, but I am located off-campus and provide service to students from all over the country. I just wasn’t sure that technology goals and strategies designed to support learning for PK-16 students could be relevant for each type of educational setting that is encompassed in that range.

But then I looked at my own institution’s technology plan, and began to see some correlations. While I still suspect that a university’s technology plan is probably more complex than a plan for a single K-12 school or even a school district, any educational technology plan should have as its overarching purpose an effort to improve learning outcomes “through effective application of educational technology and data to inform instruction”¹.

If there is one thing I’ve learned through participating in strategic planning efforts at various types of organizations, it’s that any departmental plan must be aligned with the broader organizational mission. With this in mind, I gave some consideration to how well my institution’s technology goals match the university’s priorities, in the same way that the Michigan Educational Technology plan supports the broader mission of the Department of Education.

My university is coming to the end of a 5 year strategic plan called CMU 2010. In support of the organizational priorities outlined in this vision plan, the university’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) developed the following goals:

1. Maintain an exemplary learning environment - on- and off-line
2. Protect the university's data and systems
3. Use data to drive decision-making and support continuous improvement
4. Build comprehensive communications and services environment
5. Support the research and creative mission
6. Understand the IT services we offer

Just as with the Michigan statewide plan, the university’s technology plan is focused on using technology to improve the learning environment for its students, preparing students and faculty to meet the demands of an increasingly technical global economy, and providing the systems and services that enable decision-makers to use institutional data to further student-centered objectives.

I think both plans demonstrate the need to communicate technology-related goals to a broad audience. Students, parents, faculty, and other stakeholders can become more invested in their organizations’ efforts when the goals, strategies and actions outlined in the technology plan are clear and accessible. The CIO at Central Michigan University provides updates about the institution’s technology-related activities through a blog on the OIT web site. The invitation for public comment on a draft of the Michigan plan is also an example of how important it is to have the learning community – whether elementary, secondary or higher education – involved in the process.

Resources:
2010 State of Michigan Educational Technology Plan: Teaching for Learning in a Digital Age (DRAFT) December 2009..

Wikipedia - Collective Wisdom or Gateway to Misinformation?

Since the Internet now connects us to nearly everything as quickly as our bandwidth will allow, the expectations we have as information seekers have changed significantly. In today’s world, we want instant information and rely on collaboration with others to answer questions and solve problems. Even if what we find isn’t perfect, it is often “good enough”.

Perhaps in response to this new frontier of user expectations, Wikipedia provides a collectively built information resource that covers almost every topic. Of course we assume that anything formed by committee will be imperfect throughout its development, but eventually, individual contributions will be merged into a single, superior idea that represents the collective wisdom of the group. The trouble with using an information resource that is maintained under this model is that information stays in a constant state of development, never quite stabilizing into a final version or “truth”. In addition, each version can be manipulated by any contributor, creating what Stephen Colbert has labeled “wikialty” or a reality that is created simply because a number of people have agreed upon it (Colbert, 2006).

But isn’t this the evolving nature of all information? Crovitz and Smoot (2009) indicate that Wikipedia’s malleability mimics the research process itself. When we consult a traditionally published encyclopedia, we find well-researched articles, authored by experts, but which provide information that is only factual as of the date the words were printed on the page. Depending on the time elapsed and events that may have occurred since, this trusted, authoritative print resource may no longer provide the best information on a given topic. And unlike Wikipedia, it’s probably not free, accessible, searchable, and filled with hyperlinks to related information.

Because today’s information seekers tend to expect instant answers, Wikipedia’s evolving nature can actually make it a better entry point for researchers on some topics, especially those related to recent events. Crovitz and Smoot (2009) describe an example in which Wikipedia contributors were able to collaboratively compile information about the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007, beginning with a short entry on the morning of the event and developing into a detailed article with over 5000 words and 127 references. If researchers are concerned with the credibility of the information contained in the article – and they should be – they can view the article’s revision history page and check the primary sources listed in the references (“Wikipedia: Virginia Tech massacre”) to evaluate whether the article is factual, unbiased, complete, and supported by other research. If not, then at least Wikipedia has provided a starting point for additional research, and in my view, that makes the work of its many contributors worthwhile.

If using Wikipedia as a secondary source has value, then why is it sometimes banned from use by educators? I believe that this same shift in user expectations may be to blame. Students expect instant answers and go immediately to the Web. They search Wikipedia (or Google, which often leads them to Wikipedia) and consider the first information they find to be good enough. It is no suprise that on the basis of what they see in their students' papers, many teachers have come to doubt the quality of the information that Wikipedia provides. Much of Wikipedia's information is “under construction” but students have accepted it as the beginning and end of their research.

Rather than ban the use of Wikipedia as a reference source, why not educate students on evaluating its content? Students can learn the process of knowledge creation through a tool like Wikipedia. They can be taught to distinguish fact from opinion, to identify bias, to contrast competing perspectives. Learning to mine the best of Wikipedia's collective wisdom will better prepare students to critically evaluate all information. I prefer to think of Wikipedia not as a flawed information resource, but as a learning opportunity for information literacy.

Works Cited:

Colbert, S. (2006, July 31). The word: Wikiality [Video]. Retrieved January 9, 2010 from http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/the-word---wikiality

Crovitz, D., & Smoot, W. S. (2009). Wikipedia: Friend, not foe. English Journal. 98 (3), 91-97.

Virginia Tech massacre. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January 19, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre