Distance Education Clearinghouse, University of Wisconsin- Extension:
List of Certificate Programs
http://www.uwex.edu/disted/certificates.cfm
Includes University of Wisconsin Madison, University of Wisconsin Stout, University of West Georgia, Appalachian State, California State Hayward, University of Illinois Springfield, Indiana University, Learning Resources Network, Manakau Institute of Technology, Nova Southeastern University, Pace University, Penn State, Portland State, St. Lawrence College, Simon Fraser, Texas A&M, Touro University, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, University of Colorado Denver, University of Maryland, University of Washington
- Sheryl Hansen, Director, Professional Development Programs, Ohio Learning Network

Stephen F. Austin State University, Texas:
http://www.oit.sfasu.edu/facdev/certprogs.html
Online Instructor Certification Series: This set of three workshop series is designed for faculty who are developing or delivering complete web- based courses. After successfully completing the three series, faculty will be certified by the Office of Instructional Technology as an Online Instructor.
- Lauren Scharff, Ph.D., Director for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, United States Air Force Academy

New Mexico State University: http://extended.nmsu.edu/academics/otl/index.html
Graduate Certificate in On- line Teaching and Learning (OTL): for professionals in business, government, education, or other settings who want to develop their knowledge and skills in online teaching and learning. OTL utilizes technology- based environments to actively engage students in designing formal educational projects that meet professional objectives. The five 3- credit course sequence provides an intense immersion in a dynamic online environment and culminates in an online teaching practicum.
- Eugenia D. Conway, Associate Director, The Teaching Academy

University of West Florida:
Peer review for on- line courses: Quality Matters process, http://uwf.edu/atc/QM/
Training: Offered by UWF Academic Technology Center, Sloan- C, and Quality Matters.
Quality Matters (QM) is a faculty- centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. Sponsored by MarylandOnline, Inc. Quality Matters has generated widespread interest and received national recognition for its peer- based approach to quality assurance and continuous improvement in online education.
- Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D., Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment; Associate Professor, Psychology

DePaul University: http://www.idd.depaul.edu/dots/index.html
DOTS: DePaul Online Teaching Series: DePaul Online Teaching Series
(DOTS) is a faculty development program that trains and assists faculty to become successful facilitators of online learning. The program builds online readiness among faculty through an immersive, hands- on experience. 36 Hours; includes hardware, software, support, stipend, and certificate.
- Todd Diemer, Teaching Commons Program Manager

Illinois Online Network (ION):
http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/courses/students/mot.asp
Master Online Teacher (MOT) certificate: part of the Making the Virtual Classroom a Reality series. The MOT is a non- credit award earned after successfully completing 6 courses in the MVCR series; there are three required courses, a core option, an elective, and a capstone practicum course. Over 400 people from around the world have earned their MOTs since the first recipients in 2001.
- Scott B. Johnson, Program Coordinator, Illinois Online Network

Ball State University:
Certification for Online Instruction (COI):
This certification is not required to teach online, but a few departments are leaning that way, and the associate provost is encouraging more departments to consider it.
COI is 6- week course based in Blackboard that includes modules on the following topics: Introduction to online teaching (theory/pedagogy); Content delivery; Communications; Assessment of student learning; Local resources Each of those modules is built around the same structure: Reflections on the teacher’s current face- to- face teaching practices in that area; Readings or videos; Asynchronous discussion board activity (with standard post/reply/summarize cycle); Individual assignment (Planning Document).
We think the strongest part of the class is this Planning Document.
After each module, participants are prompted to apply their learning and reflection to their planned online course. They actually plan out what they will do in the course (e.g., how they will deliver content- readings, lecture videos, interviews, virtual field trips, student- generated content, etc.), and what they need to do/learn to make that happen. By the end of the course, each participant has a concrete plan for their online course- very applied.
We have only been doing this for about a year and a half now (and are off this fall as we revise the course to match our Blackboard 9 upgrade), but we have gotten very good responses from everyone who finishes the class (obviously, a few drop out each semester when they realize the time commitment). The only down side to the program is that it takes a big time commitment for us to teach, and administrators didn’t factor that into our load when they asked me to create/teach the course.
- Greg Siering, Ph.D., Faculty Development Coordinator, Office of Teaching and Learning Advancement

On Thursday I shared an hour with Terri Rowenhorst of NROC introducing folks at WCET 2009 to open education and some of the ideas and directions orbiting around it. Mine was just a half-hour pres, and didn’t get into some of the meatier bits that interest me; nonetheless the slides and video may be of interest:

• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” slides on SlideShare
• “Openness as a Catalyst for Education” video on ustream

You may have already heard some of the Twitter buzz about Chris Lott’s presentation, “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis”, so here are links to his slides, video, and wiki:

• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” video on ustream
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” slides on SlideShare
• “Closing the Gutenberg Parenthesis” wiki with matrix

Chris let me moderate this session, and it was exciting to monitor the backchannels on Twitter and ustream for questions, ideas, or challenges that I could interrupt him with. As always, Chris did a fabulous job presenting a continual stream of rich ideas on technology and learning. I must admit I may have underestimated both Chris and the WCET audience prior to the session; both seemed quite comfortable with complex and provocative notions embedded in our connected culture and interplaying with Ong’s concept of a “secondary orality”.

Coincidentally, I watched 49 Up last night, and took particular notice when Nick, a physics professor at UW Madison, commented on how his job in the classroom is to (misquoting, surely) “show the students why they should care about this stuff” and to “make the books more interesting”.

It sounds like such a simple thing, and teachers have been doing it since textbooks and formal schooling began. But it’s a thing most textbooks (and perhaps most packaged, static content) are inept at. Why? Perhaps because teaching provides a human-to-human interaction wherein participants can, on-the-fly, read and respond to each other appropriately, strategically building interest and engagement. These human-to-human interaction can trigger affective responses that enlarge perspective, enhance interest, or increase retention.

Live classroom teaching also allows the teacher to follow tangents, abandoning pre-planned curriculum entirely and ending up a places not originally intended, but nonetheless valuable for the divergence. I have experienced the pleasure of such tangents many times as a teacher; indeed, I usually end up learning about the subject myself, learning about student needs, and learning how to teach better the next time.

So that’s my initial thought. What’s yours? What is not replaceable in teaching? What do we risk losing as we move more and more instruction online, as we realize grand dreams of opencourseware, self-directed learning communities, etc?

17. Use electronic flash cards (p 184). (Coincidentally, @KenWoodward and I are working on providing an extremely reusable flash cards app for both desktop Web browsers and handheld devices.)
18. Drag-and-drop activities for self-assessment within a lesson (p 194).
19. Use pre- and post-assessments to demonstrate the value of the e-learning (p 205).
20. Provide flowchart(s) to illustrate processes (p 216). (I’ve found these are easy to create in most spreadsheet programs.)
21. As part of prototyping and design, write a learner scenario to describe possible interactions with e-learning (p 221).
22. Tap into learners’ “emotional brain” with personalized learning models (Concrete experience; Reflective observation; Abstract hypothesis; Active testing) (p 226). (This model is similar to Stevick’s Observe – Span – Do, which I’ve found to be effective in language learning.)
23. Use content templates to rapidly turn out lesson pages with a consistent look and feel (p 228; p 232).
24. Use concept maps and causal loops for navigation as an alternative to linear navigation for complex concepts (p 240). (I do recall some early studies of hypertextual learning suggested that non-linear navigation is risky at best.)
25. Embed hyperlinks to glossary entries within the lesson content (p 249).
26. Provide a printable summary of lesson content as a study aid (p 265).
27. Develop a virtual campus to help wholly distance learners orient themselves and feel connected (p 287).
28. Use visuals to show relationships between course concepts (p 291).
29. Slow down or speed up motion to demonstrate complex physical skills (p 301).
30. Create an interactive, multidimensional timeline for subjects such as history that weave events in places and times (p 308).
31. Use still and interactive graphics for complex or obscure physical concepts (e.g. atoms, cells, galaxies, tidal pools) (p 312; 315; 318; 321; 324).

These 31 ideas are the choicest out of Shank’s 95+ picks. Note that I’ve written 95+; Shank explains at the end that there are more than 95 ideas in this book, despite the title. She suggests that the element of surprise can help learning along, yet at the same time she notes that she herself wouldn’t have noticed, and the book doesn’t even number the ideas so that you could know there were more than 95. Really, who’s going to be keeping count in their head?

Length and those minor complaints aside, I recommend this book to instructional designers or technology-minded teachers, if only to see the screen-shots illustrating the most useful and innovative ideas.

I might correct myself on that last point to include “common sense” ideas that are of significant value; yet even so, I think I could edit Shank’s book down to simply 31 useful and noteworthy ideas for technology-enhanced teaching. My version would include just the following.

1. Provide a detailed, weekly study schedule (p 16).
2. Embed performance tips to direct study and discipline toward learner success (p 20).
3. Anonymous weekly surveys to collect formative feedback (p 31).
4. Have contingency plans in place for learning in the case of technology failure (p 39).
5. Explain discussion message protocols to keep students focused and comfortable in forums (p 78).
6. Let learners evaluate their own contributions to the course through online quizzes or surveys (p 82).
7. Use tables as graphical organizers to illustrate relationships between information or concepts (p 94).
8. Ask students to enter their answer and compare it to an expert’s response (p 101).
9. You mouse rollovers to show ancillary info, allowing students to learn more about topics or passages (p 105), or use collapsible layers for text or illustrations (p 244).
10. Share bookmarks to web sites online (p 112). (Surprisingly, del.icio.us or other online tools were not mentioned.)
11. Show an expert’s view of a question or issue surrounding a topic (p 118).
12. Use a table, or Word’s track changes for easy peer editing (p 132).
13. Moderate student chat rooms (p 142). (They recommend a “knowledgeable assistant”, but I say that’s the teacher’s job!)
14. Use word games, such as 5 summative words that start with the same vowel to reinforce concepts (p 161). (I like acrostics, such as are found in the Nintendo DS game, Brain Age 2.)
15. In synchronous lectures, let learners determine the order in which topics are presented (Gordon MacKenzie-style) (p 163).
16. Use games and puzzles to review (e.g. crosswords, fill-in-the-blank (p 180). (I recommend our GameGarten, aka The Play Station hosted by John Krutsch.)

I’ll stop at number 16 to give you the information in two manageable chunks. Chunking is one idea that I think is pretty useful in e-learning, though it is overlooked in The Online Learning Book. I’ll post the last 15 strong ideas on this blog tomorrow.

1. The Cheatability Factor at Distance Teaching and Learning 2008, Madison, Wisconsin
2. How to Cheat Online & The Cheatability Factor at Teaching with Technology Idea Exchange 2008, Orem, Utah

Here are some details, reproduced from the proposals:

Promotional Summary

What is your online course’s “cheatability factor”? 75% of students have admitted to cheating during their college career, and according to some studies online assessment makes cheating easier. This session considers technical, philosophical, and environmental factors that may increase or decrease the cheatability of online courses from design to delivery, and presents a rubric used to assess those factors.

Objectives and Description

Presentation objectives:

Participants will..

1. Discover the extent to which cheating-related problems exist in online education and online-based assessments
2. Consider factors that may contribute technologically, philosophically, or environmentally to online cheating
3. Examine a rubric used to measure the “cheatability” of online course
4. Discuss practices and strategies to avoid or minimize the impact of cheating

Presentation description:

Nobody wants students cheating in their online class, yet an estimated 75% of students have admitted to cheating during their college career, and according to some studies online assessment makes cheating easier. The problem is not only one of practical importance for educators, it is one of growing importance to instructional technologists, administrators, and anyone else with a vested interest in the validity and reputation of distance education and technology-enhanced teaching.

This session will first present information and collected research data that summarizes the state of cheating in higher education in general, and in distance education specifically. While a general awareness of the pervasiveness of cheating may be in and of itself an eye-opener to many educators and administrators, the motivations behind cheating and the responsibility teachers have to recognize their own influence on cheating can provide an alternative perspective on what is normally considered a quite simple choice. McClusky’s theory of Power-Load-Margin, for instance, informs teachers of the impact they may have on students’ lives, and the impact students’ lives have on their studies, both of which can lead students to choose to cheat. A number of environmental factors are particularly salient in online courses, such as ambiguity of definitions of cheating, actual or perceptual “distance”, level of instructor-student interaction, individual relevance or meaningfulness of activities and assessments, etc. Additionally, there are a number of more technical and technological factors that can increase or decrease both a student’s propensity to cheat, and his/her ability to cheat.

By considering these technical, methodological, and environmental factors, Distance Education at Utah Valley University has developed a rubric to assess online courses and report on potential factors that may increase or decrease the cheatability of online courses from design to delivery. This rubric is (1) provided to teachers engaging in distance education course development or instruction, (2) made available to administrators and department chairs as an example of our mutual interest in preserving the integrity of online education, and (3) implemented internally as a tool in our course design process to better evaluate and recommend online assessments before, during, and after an online course is delivered.

Because cheating itself is a complex and sensitive issue informed by experience and diverse perspectives, this session seeks to engage participants in a dialogue on cheating, online assessments, and technology. We predict there will be naturally flowing discussion and debate between participants who may favor one approach over another, e.g. a “direct assault” approach which seeks to thwart any and all attempts at cheating using technology or applied strategies, vs. “hearts and minds” pedagogical approaches that focus on course environment, assessment design, and student engagement.

In the comments of my last post several thoughtful readers pointed to other impedances to student usage of instructor-designated educational or social technologies. I myself tried to consciously limit the scope of my definition to target:

• compulsory student-instructor social engagement
• compulsory student-student social engagement
• compulsory use of education technologies in general
• the artificiality of educational technologies the mimic existing technologies already adopted by the community

We’re essentially talking about so-called Web 2.0 tools that emphasize connectivity, social interaction, and collaboration. Teachers and ed-tech’ers who support the use of such tools recognize their potential as facilitating not only teacher-student interaction, also student-student interaction, which Wentzel and Watkins summarize as having positive effects on learning outcomes, especially from a Vygotsky-influenced perspective. Yet when one’s efforts to force students into these socially-connected environs is met with resistance or even repulsion, one may be experiencing a result of the creepy treehouse phenomenon.

I see a perhaps unintended relationship between social learning approaches and the shift in some Western cultures from “traditional” teacher-student relationships (which were generally akin to a master-apprentice relationship), toward relationships that at least pretend to be co-equal. Regardless of your opinion on this shift, I see this as a consequence of an over-projected form of egalitarianism that has been grasped at from both ends. For instance, I know many college professors who allow and even ask their students to call them by their first names, creating an illusion of peer-peer relationship. This goes hand-in-hand with the metaphor of teachers as “guide on the side”-again, a abolition of hierarchy presumedly to foster more authentic learning and collaboration discovery.

And yet we may find that students see, as Eric pointed out in comments on my last post, compulsory socializing in the context of education as “a violation of the work/not work boundary, and one of the reasons I think students respond so viscerally to that violation is that it impinges on the separation of identity constructs for students by asking them (implicitly) to merge their professional with their casual selves.”

I think this is as true for instructor-student socializing/social learning as it is for compulsory student-student socializing/social learning. This certainly corresponds to my own experience as a student, and suggests that while some instructors are re-articulating their identity constructs based on their own repulsion to their negative perception of the hierarchical relationships of the System, students themselves may continue to desire to hold own distinct casual self apart from their professional/academic self.

A report out of The Guardian late last year suggests that though student’s private and academic “online spaces are blurring” and despite efforts to engage students at an academic utilizing technology, students who are otherwise competent IT users but are either technically or willfully ignorant of educational applications of “Web 2.0? or other social networking tools. While the article makes it clear that the students surveyed don’t know what they want (they “‘appear to want to keep their online persona private but when you ask them whether they’d like instant communication with tutors or feedback on essays (via Skype or Facebook) the answer is always yes.’”), it also implies that educators who embrace social networking software may end up alienating students who choose not to engage academically along the same channels that they engage socially.

On the surface, it makes sense to me that the very social networking technology which many students are immersed in (“That’s not technology. That’s what I do.”, one of them poignantly states), in the hands of academics, becomes “the thin end of the wedge” as the Guardian suggests. It is, despite educators’ best efforts, nothing more than a Cog in the Machine, a tool of the Man, which will invariably push the Youth away from the Establishment. OK, this is clearly hyperbolic of me, but it has a scent of truth, and I daresay this mentality is precisely the reason some educators are so fervently in favor of utilizing Web 2.0: to connect with students, to show that We Are Not the Enemy, and even to abashedly but with persistent vicariousness try to reclaim something of our youth. Oh, I don’t mean you of course…

The reality remains that students as colleagues is a myth. Professors need not treat students as peers, though they must be treated as potential peers. It may be a gap that is never fully filled, but it does narrow as the novice gains experience, expands his knowledge base, and develops his skills.

Perhaps the more appropriate question we should be asking is neither how do we merge technologies into academic exercises nor how do we utilize the technologies that learners are already immersed in to leverage our pedagogical outcomes, but rather one that is more abstract and essential: does their ultimately need to be a distinction between our social lives, our academic lives, and our professional lives? I think any active practitioner in the field of educational technology would instantly recognize that the answer is, “No”. Many edtech’ers seem perfectly at ease not merely crossing over from one sphere to another, but embracing these sphere simultaneously, almost as if they were one and the same. Is this just because we are all friendless geeks who have no other outlets for our social inadequacies? Is it because we are forced to be perpetual learners in order to excel professionally? It could be, but I think more importantly we recognize a clear meaningfulness in the socially-connected professional relationships that we maintain. We learn as we socialize, we socialize as we learn; it’s an ever-evolving mesh network, and if we’re lucky we’re better professionals because of it.

This epistemological observation implies to me that rather than utilizing Web 2.0 technologies to induce students to enter our academic and professional worlds, or forcing our educational practices to fit into the social technologies, we might instead focus simply on training students on how they can leverage social technology for their own individual educational and professional benefits. As my wise American lit professor Mr. Jan Bakker often said, “I can’t teach students anything; all I can do is open the doors.” To that end, let us open doors to effective learning tools, educate them on why the ability to meaningfully connect the social, academic, and professional spheres can lead to a meaningful career that integrates life-long learning with rewarding social connections in their adult life, and model effective and efficient online learning environments that support our own professional endeavors.

If teachers want to dissolve or reduce the traditional teacher/student hierarchy, understand that students may not want to. For teachers who desire social learning engagement with students, we can expect that as students grow and develop stronger academic skills and begin to enter the professional world we may naturally connect with them. I found this to be increasingly true as a student finishing up my Bachelor’s and then entering and completing grad school. It’s natural that as their academic professionalism and educational intensity grows our common interests and experiences bring us together.

We as educators need to be available to our students. We need to share our expertise, our professional networks, but not our personal lives. We must be careful not to confuse personal, subjective enthusiasm for Web 2.0 tools with broad, objective effectiveness and relevance of these tools re. specific learning objectives. We need to facilitate, not build, learner-owned networks that provide long-term opportunities for individual learning, engagement, and professional development. As student Tyrel Kelsey said in Students should build their own tree house. I think a better approach to education is right in line with the idea of fostering students to develop their own Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Students’ existing or developing online literacies simply need to integrate academics, academics don’t need to integrate their social networking. The question, then, is how do we best support their development?

George Siemens blogs up just exactly the news I’m interested in week after week, and on the 28th he posted up a reference to Peter Tittenberger’s short piece The Strength of Garden Walls found on his a touch of frost blog. This article describes the percieved value of institutionally administered learning management systems and social software tools as “walled gardens” for their ability to provide teacher control over user access to learning materials and tools, and the distribution of the participants’ input and output.

(I should restate that, for most institutionally administered social software tools are set up specifically to inhibit or even disallow public access and public viewing, often out of fear of legal repercussions for providing access to students’ personally identifiable information (e.g. in the United States, FERPA in higher education and K-12). For example, LMS’s natively restrict public access, typically don’t allow publishing of student work outside the password-protected site, and authentication access is often provided only through the institution’s student information system. So walled gardens don’t really provide teachers with control, they simply give teachers a box of handcuffs, sans keys.)

My perception is that most of the prominent folks involved in new teaching and educational technology believe that the walled garden approach is “bad”, that LMSs are “bad”, and that open, learner-centered strategies, such as personal learning environments (PLE) are “good” (or at least “better”) because they better reflect or adapt to current Internet-driven trends in networked information and social connectivity. To elaborate:

• Educators who believe in fostering authentic learning experiences have become increasingly disillusioned with the walled garden of the LMS. Increasingly popular “real world” Web-based social software has cast many LMS tools as redundant.

• Many institutionally adopted learning tools, driven by the perceived needs of the institution, directed by non-faculty IT, and limited by the pace of administration, are rarely able to maintain currency with readily available “real world” tools simply because the institution has neither a massive, global audience to demand innovations, nor the breadth of competitive capitalism to fund and incentivize them. Tools provided by education-centric companies such as Blackboard often come in packages, overproduced versions of real-world tools tightly bound to provide a one-stop-shopping experience, and therefore a supposed panacea for all educational technology needs. Few Web application companies would commit such an act hubris–Google has proven itself fairly capable of such a Heraclean act, with competitors Yahoo! and even Microsoft taking tentative stabs of their own.

• Educators personally committed to ideals and philosophies of openness–open source, open access, open publishing–are also frustrated with LMSs and other institutionally controlled software for their innate closed-ness through restriction of access for both contributors and readers.

• And while distinctions between the accuracy of definitions and theories of collective intelligence and connective intelligence are being debated, they share a common recognition that there is significant value in community-involved (influenced?) and socially-invigorated education. Educators who ascribe to such learning theories also find the walled garden approach to be too limiting and lacking provisions for social networking within the institution, let alone the world.

These common postures (I’m abusing that word this week–thanks, Scott) taken against the “walled garden” approach to educational technology are sound, but I do not want to suggest that the LMS is therefore obsolete, for I have presented (and probably insufficiently) only one side of the issue. I daresay there are as many sound arguments the use of walled gardens and even the traditional LMS. And though I have seen Scott Leslie weigh pro’s and cons of “loosely coupled” approaches and even one or two ed tech bloggers recognize the continuing significance of the LMS, I’ve not yet seen a full and complete debate involving people genuinely committed to each of the two sides. (If anyone is game for staging one, my alter-ego would be happy to suppress my doubts completely and take the pro-LMS side–in fact, my ego would probably not let me resign that side to anyone else!)

In my opinion, a really good debate on the subject would illustrate philosophical differences between the two sides, and might even invoke political stances (technology adoption in education [if not pedagogy in general] as “conservative” vs. “progressive”; information access and publishing as an issue of power, definable through capitalist or socialist anarchist ideals, etc).

Even if the outcome of such a debate was largely in favor of an authenticopenconnectedcollective strategy, there are of course still questions about how a PLE is LE really looks and acts like, if it is teachable. Just today on Twitter there were a number of provocative questions about the value of PLE, either as a term or as a “single”, methodological approach.

Add to that the problem that I personally still can not say with total conviction that the LMS is obsolete. Folks like myself have talked up the potential value of PLEs, but broad adoption of the PLE is currently impossible because key technologies and services are still being developed (e.g. good hubs of aggregation [go eduGlu]) or have not yet been widely adopted (e.g. OpenID). Compound that with faculty and administrative anxieties regarding new technologies and teaching approaches, and I can only conclude that the LMS will be around for a long time yet. So until fully viable (every need) and broadly accessible (every application) alternative strategies and methods become available, we might as well openly examine, in good-faith, the value of the LMS, the benefits of walled garden systems, and our reasonings for choosing one or the other.

During the first week of Web Design I have students read The Expert Mind, an article by Philip Ross featured in Scientific American. This is a great article for those gearing up to master any field of study. Among it’s arguments is the idea of effortful study“:

Effortful study is the key to achieving success in chess, classical music, soccer and many other fields. New research has indicated that motivation is a more important factor than innate ability.

Web design is a field that mixes many other fields together, and today’s expert Web designers must have a foundational knowledge of design theory, including it’s elements and principles as well as knowledge of information architecture, usability, accessibility, computer graphic applications, and, of course, languages such as XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc. These areas require memorization, rote practice, problem-solving, examples, and independent exploration. In general this relates to the cognitive aspect of learning, one which can be mediated at least in part through a behaviorist approach (see Bill Kerr’s article on Minsky for a clearer introductory explanation on this notion, though as I learned as a grad student and witnessed first-hand as a language teacher, there is an affective domain which, when attended to appropriately, can positively impact learning as information is made personally meaningful, as emotion is stimulated, and as neural connections formed/forged and reinforced.

But to become an expert, to master Web design one must have intrinsic motivation as the SciAm article suggests, and as we learn from ed researches such as Maslow, Schunk, etc . I believe that part of that motivation is inherent in stduents decision to become a Web developer/designer. But students can fuel yourself by feeding off of the larger Web design community. And with the current manifestation of the information age, the increasing popularity of social software and online networking (the so-called “Web 2.0″), there has never been a better time to be connected to experts and professionals in the field.

This is not to say that I encourage my students to harass the current luminaries of Web design; rather I want my students to read about them, observe their activities through social software tools such as blogs and twitter. I want them to use folksonomies, and use tools like del.icio.us and digg to find the best and most talked about articles in the field. In essence, I want them to go, read, and do what the professionals go, read, and do, whether that’s taking in the latest ideas and commentary in periodicals such as A List Apart, or asking questions and providing answers on discussion forums and mailing lists such as CSS Discuss.

As my students develop their skills and rack up experiences, they can become more and more a part of this professional community. At the same time, I believe there is value in students forming their own community to support, learn from, and show off to each other. That’s part of why I’m now having students create and write in a blog designated to the subject of Web design and development. Not only can they emulate some of the practices of the experts by sharing, analyzing, and even writing Web design related news, they are creating nodes through which they can find and connect with each other.

And the blogs are something they can take with them. By independently finding and analyzing news or information articles related to Web design, they are building a highly visible portfolio piece that they can (1) continue after they finish the course, and (2) incorporate into resume materials to present to prospective employers. Definitely one of the pros of embedding authentic social software tools (see Scott Leslie’s Pros and Cons of Loosely Coupled Teaching for an idea of where this could end up taking us).

At the same time, I recognize there may be a natural reluctance in students for whole-hearted embracing of the idea of writing a blog for class. It’s the whole creepy treehouse notion, and it’s probably also some insecurity–these are, after all, novices for the most part. For students who are wary of the meaningfulness of the blog assignments, just remember:

You don’t have to be an expert yet to write a blog, you just need to be interested, teachable, and energetic. You have to be motivated to learn.

You are apprentices, and this is effortful study.

The real issue with any of these tools isn’t finding one that works, it is learning– and then teaching colleagues– how to teach in a way that takes advantage of the capabilities and doesn’t merely replicate the lecture mode in a distributed format. That’s deadly. As I always say, the only thing more deadly than the PowerPoint drone and lecture model is that same model through a mediating tool like Elluminate…About Elluminate

I agree that when video-conferencing avoiding replication of ineffective lecture modes is important; however, always the devil’s advocate (well, at least 50% of the time), have to ask, first, if this is a blanket condemnation of the lecture mode regardless of delivery method, or if the technology itself interferes with, disturbs, or detracts from the traditional lecture (which may in a classroom actually be effective).

I’m guessing most folks in educational technology or instructional design lament the continued use of straight lecture format (“sage on the stage”) regardless of delivery environment, but I, having been a student in more than a handful of damn good and several quite memorable lectures (from which I still retain a significant amount of information), causing me to assert that straight lecture is not de facto a bad thing.

At this point I have absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests straight lecture is or can be highly effective, but now (from this small comment tacked onto the end of a technology tool review, no less) I’m inspired to look into it. Comparitively speaking how effective is lecture for learning? What makes lecture more or less effective? There has to be a good deal of research on this already. (Any recommendations on salient books/articles are now being accepted!)

I can name some ailments of lectures delivered via video conferencing that I have witnessed. In both edtech informational sessions and in vendor presentations delivered via video conferencing, presenters do tend to follow a simple, generic pattern (much informed by PowerPoint) which centers on providing text-and-talk-heavy information in tedious spurts with brief pauses for “questions” (which, in and of themselves, often occur too late or at moments so ill-planned moments that they actually increase the presentations/presenter’s anesthetizing qualities). Any questions posed rarely lead to real dialogue or discussion; rather, questions are merely a challenge that the presenter must overcome before being allowed to continue with his/her script.

And though these ailments can certainly be present in a live, in-person classroom-style lecture or presentation, my instinct tells me that there’s something about phsyical human presence that either reinforces the delivery of the information, or provides for better audience attention through either overt or more subtle person-to-person engagement.

The next question, then, would be how does technology deliver methods affect the effectiveness of lecture? Video conferencing in particular should be examined, though of course some common attributes will need to be agreed upon so as to include a live fiber-optic system like we have at UVSC, or an Internet-delivered system like Elluminate.

I would hypothesize that a boring lecture in the classroom becomes worse when video-delivered, either because it becomes (a) less interesting for lack of physical presence (for whatever reason…engagement?), or (b) less compelling to one’s attention when technology-delivered (possibly because of the presence or availability of more distractors, or because of the absence of social pressure to show interest/passively participate).

It would be interesting to brainstorm presentation effectiveness on tech-delivered platforms with some ed researchers and public speaking experts. How does one leverage the live delivery method so that the end results are superior to static information delivery? How does one construct information to affect better learning? How does one engage with the audience and make an impact that may stimulate memory a la the affective factor?