Flexknowlogy – Jared Stein

Reposted with added commentary from DEIDS.on.uvu.edu.

The UVU Blackboard server now allows designers to require Respondus Lockdown Browser (LDB) on assessments. This means that if an assessment is set to use LDB, the end-user (test-taker) computer must have the free LDB software installed (Bb should prompt the user to install it before the assessment can be accessed). UVU’s Testing Center has installed LDB on all its computers and is testing it before next semester. We presume this is pointless unless the Bb assessment has LDB selected, but are looking into it. In any case where LDB is used to take an assessment, “lock down” happens according to Respondus’s descriptions–even if the exam itself is not triggered to require Lockdown. I asked Respondus to clarify the “switch” in Bb, and they responded this afternoon:

The “switch” in Blackboard and other course management systems helps insure (sic) that the assessment can only be taken with the Respondus LockDown Browser. Without enabling the switch, students can take the assessment using any browser they want, including the secure browser.

For Distance Ed this means that if an instructor wishes to use LDB, we must ensure proctor locations have the LDB software installed. This may require adding wording to the proctoring info web page. For the UVU Testing Center, if they make LDB the only web browser installed on lab computers, all assessments have no option but to be “locked down”.

Brian Swaney has written a lengthy post on LDB, explaining why he thinks it’s an awful idea that only inhibits cheating in limited scenarios, and though Brian’s post gets a little bit out of hand, I do agree with most of his points. Here’s a summary of these, some of which John Krutsch, Marc Hugentobler, and I have brought up in our conference sessions, “How to Cheat Online” and “The Cheatability Factor“:

1. LDB may encourage institutions to take advantage of broadly accessible but ill-suited environments for testing, like open student computer labs.
2. Unless the physical environment is also “locked down” the LDB will do little to inhibit cheating (crib notes, use of a 2nd computer, mobile devices).
3. Unless student identities are verified, LDB does not prevent impersonation (note: LDB doesn’t claim to).
4. There is a line between securing assessments and respecting student privacy. I don’t think LDB crosses it by any means, but Brian raises some legitimate concerns about requiring software installation.
5. All technology, including LDB, can be hacked.
6. The kinds of assessment best protected by LDB may not be good at assessing important kinds of learning. But LDB may be alluring as a (false) panacea for measuring all kinds of learning.

I began the following Google Wave yesterday as a means of orienting myself to its functionality and features, but more importantly as a way to move past the more mundane and obvious applications for education. As you will see, I invited a number of colleagues and contacts to join, then made the Wave open to the public (more…)

Earlier this week my boss asked “what I had” on capping class size in online courses. I had nothing, but it’s an interesting question. In Distance Education at UVU we have seen online class sizes vary from just one student to hundreds of students–the decision is made by the academic department chair in consultation with the instructor. This question is therefore pertinent for our academic department chairs, especially as UVU moves to reduce enrollment-based instructional compensation. Administrative pressure to free up class space and meet students’ demand enlarges this issue. However, a review of recent and available articles reinforced what I already suspected: there is no single optimum size for an online class; instead, class size should be informed by learning objectives, curriculum, instructor load, and teaching philosophy (more…)

In my Web Essentials online course I facilitate a discussion on the future of internet technologies. One student focused on how education is, and, as you’ll see here, should be affected:

The internet is a rebel and a bully, threatening to destroy the established system of education that dictates how we learn. Shocked? Well, this is a good thing any way you look at it (more…)

A member of the ITForum mailing list asked about the legality of using Audacity to create MP3 files for an educational project, because patents on the MP3 technology are claimed by various different companies and organizations (more…)

In David Wiley’s Intro to Open Education course students were asked to randomly choose and then examine 5 MIT OpenCourseWare (MIT OCW) courses, and 5 Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative (OLI) courses. I’ve done random examinations of OCW/OER in the past, so I changed this up a bit to fit my own inclinations: first, I made my choices semi-randomly (more…)

I’ve suggested that “open education” should not be seen as synonymous with various related efforts. Just as there are only approximations at a manifesto for the open education movement, there is no single definition of what efforts constitute or contribute to open education, and open education can not be fairly defined by more granular efforts for the production of open educational resources, opencourseware, etc. That is as much due to conflicting definitions of “open” as it is to organizational motivations (more…)

When I think of open education I tend to think of it at a granular level, in terms of open educational resources (OER), opencourseware (OCW), or even the OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCWC). At these more limited levels engaging in open education makes a lot of sense to me, and offers very attainable, short-term goals which serve bot the “target audience” (whoever that is) and my institution. But OER, OCW and open education are not synonymous. Open education, though often referred to as a “movement” is a broader philosophy, one which prescribes aspects of the creation, release, and access to education (more…)

WebCT was infamous for it’s calculated column formula textarea that you couldn’t type in. When John Krutsch developed a clever Javascript hack for it (just one of several cool IE-only hacks packaged as WebCT PowerTools), crafting unusual formulas was suddenly more viable, and we began dropping not just the lowest score, but several low scores (more…)

Darren Draper stirred up another conversation on his blog yesterday (Hacking the Curriculum) which intersects a number of my interests: independent study, reusable course content, and open education, and reiterates the question, what is not replaceable in teaching? In the live classroom? In individual instructor-developed curriculum? And how far can we stretch the re-usability of online educational materials? (more…)