Kruse has also posted his paper that expands on this topic.

I’m sharing this particular post with some of our Sales team as a baby step toward understanding some of the fundamental underlying challenges of teaching with technology.

Engrade also integrates enough built-ins (messaging, discussions, quizzes) that it could be used as an LMS alternative–especially for those who dislike the idea of a totalitarian LMS but need basic class management tools. (If you’ve used Engrade as a LMS, let me know how it went!)

And while Engrade will probably suit the needs of higher ed instructors, features such as “Attendance”, “Seating”, and “Discipline” seem clearly targeted at K-12 scenarios.

A quick search on Google shows that David Walsh has already worked out a very elegant script that approximates this. My own idea would be to not use a “flashlight” effect, but a “frosted window” effect using moveable, translucent PNG layers (rather than a background) that retains basic shapes, features, and colors, but obscures microfeatures–i.e. the graphemes–of text. Here’s one mock-up to illustrate the idea:

Now there are a number of obvious problems with this idea in research practice–the obfuscation may significantly alter the layout and (potentially distracting) elements of the page; it may negatively affect users ability to gauge document length and position; it wouldn’t necessary reflect normal reading behavior; and, of course, it could be terribly annoying to the reader, etc. That’s just off the top of my head; if you have more ideas, please share.

Now like the iPhone/Touch the iPad can use thousands of “apps”– miniature applications developed solely for use on iPhone/iTouch/iPad, and sold through the Apple store. What’s always been disconcerting about the app development process is that Apple controls not only the specifications for apps, but also restricts what apps are made available for use on their product, censors content, and even denies what technologies can be used to produce such apps.

Apple has the right to do all this, of course–it’s their device. Even though the approach out-M$s Microsoft, Apple’s restrictions on production and content of the apps is only one side of a larger problem. What really concerns me is how Apple’s app model will impact digital content on the open web, and I’m not talking about Flash.

The Web as an App

We’ve seen already a number of apps that replicate core functionality of web sites. We’re starting to see more apps produced by content providers as a supplement to their existing web-based content (e.g. Wired, NPR, WSJ). But how long until this supplement supplants the web-based stream? How long until consumers are hooked into fee-based access to this content under the illusion that it’s only available through the app?
I believe Apple has been rather insidious, if clever, in their iPhone/iPad app model, wherein the closed nature of their system requires a kind of fake innovation in the development of “new” apps that do little more than their web-based cousins; certainly little more than what’s already possible with a web browser and a little creative use of standards-based web languages. Instead, these appear to be little more than an opportunity for approved providers to elicit fees in new ways from end-users.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for businesses finding new ways to make money by improving service or a product, but is that what we are getting here? The drive to develop web-based products as apps seems entirely backwards, for we already have the one tool we need to facilitate mobility of both content and services: the standards-compliant web browser. What technologies do we need? Not C, C++, or even Flash, but how about HTML, CSS, Javascript, XML, and PHP? How about the open web standards that have facilitated the information access revolution we are experiencing?

Now a “special” path to mobile device development is nothing new; even the W3 tried to sell us on HDML rather than alternative CSS and minimalistic but semantically correct XHTML. But I think time has proven that this is wasted effort in the face of a broadly-accepted, dually-purposed web site constructed on sound principles of web design and utilizing creative applications of open technologies. Even NPR seems to prove this point by the fact that it has not only released it’s own iPad app, it’s also reworked it’s web site to be “iPad-friendly” for those who don’t want to download the (free) app. And at first glance it looks like the web site provides the same essential features.

Enter Blackboard

As expected, in an attempt to capitalize on the iPad buzz and finally make good on years of broken promises for mobile accessibility, Blackboard has unveiled its iPad app, which

recreates the course experience of Blackboard Learn™ … and lets students check grades and assignments, add discussion board comments and blog posts, email instructors and classmates

How stunningly innovative! I surely couldn’t do any of that on a mobile web browser?

I probably rehash this example too often, but I remember sitting in a session at a WebCT conference 5 years ago that was supposed to reveal WebCT’s innovations in mobile delivery of content. Turned out the WebCT rep had nothing to share, but hoped to take ideas from the audience. Disappointed, I turned to my Palm Treo phone and did some grading through Blazer on Moodle. Though the HTML, CSS, and Javascript of Moodle was still disappointingly primitive at the time, it was just good enough that the weak Blazer browser could handle it, and demonstrated the power of using open web standards.

Michael Feldstein suggests that this sort of “innovation” will promote the iPad itself, saying, “if I were a student or faculty member heavily using Blackboard and thinking about buying an iPad, I might find this app to be an additional motivator to buy one”. I bet Bb is hoping the reverse of this will be true: that by providing all their students with an iPad colleges like Seton Hill and George Fox will create a scenario that fits just right with their particular e-learning solution, which is “the industry leader” with full support for “mobile devices”.

This restrictive piping of information that we currently take for granted on the open web is of greatest concern to educators, perhaps, because it has the potential to retard the development of new models of learning. I don’t mean “learning by doing”, though iPad’s failure to support creative production is notable (Jeff Jarvis writes, “It turns us back into an audience again”); I mean particularly developing models that encourage increased learner self-regulation and networked direction along variable learning paths. Such models require access–both broad and deep–to information and depend upon content aggregation, parsing, and re-dissemination. These capabilities have only recently begun to be realized through the open web, thanks in large part to web standards. What schism might the apps model cause in this new standard of information accessibility? What locks and limitations may now encrust upon the ideals of the open web?

As our semester crawled into the second week and I began to enter scores and feedback for the students’ first assignment–a blog post–I noticed a couple unusual features:

1. When a student submits an URL for an assignment, Instructure grabs a screenshot of the rendered URL in addition to providing a hyperlink. This ensures that students actually have completed what they claim to have completed at the time of submission.
2. Students and instructors can each reply to an assignment’s score and feedback seamlessly within the system. For instance, after I submitted scores for this first assignment, one student explained in the assignment feedback why I failed to notice that she had in fact completed the assignment. I confirmed this, changed her score, and replied back, much like I would in private e-mail, but without any of the hassle of opening a message, choosing an addressee, etc.

Not only is this feedback discussion feature both seamless and the default, I can also use a built-in rubric, attach individual files (though Instructure has an even better way to upload assignment feedback en masse) and even record audio feedback inline (uses a Flash-based plug-in [still buggy for me on Win 7 in FF3]).

This is a great way to negotiate feedback and scoring with students. This also provides an opportunity for learners to engage in the assessment process. And since the features on this particular tool are easy and even intuitive to use, there is no excuse for accurate, timely corrective feedback that is understood by both instructor and learner.

How do (students’ | faculty | staff) attitudes toward institutional learning and communication systems differ from attitudes toward informal learning and communication systems?

This isn’t nearly as relevant to the WPMU system as originally intended, but I do expect to be able to address the system through this survey without overwhelming participants. Some of the survey questions that pop into mind ask about personal use of social media, perceptions of institutional technology, relevance of both toward learning, perceived efficiency for learning, likelihood of using new institutional technology, etc.

I’m posting this here in case any readers (who I haven’t lost yet through neglect) have ideas on how to keep this useful while maintaining a sharp focus. Suggested questions are, of course, welcome.

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. The internet will transform the way you and I learn. It will provide a customized and individual learning experience. Okay, maybe the “internet” alone won’t start the revolution, but it definitely facilitates it. Producers of educational media content already provide fully customizable websites that utilize learning management systems that let you choose what you learn, when you want to learn it. … this means that you get more bang for your buck. Which is more than you can say for the “established” educational institutions that just bark out education in hopes that you’ll keep returning. The future of education online is bright. The things we do with the internet can transform education. It can transform the world.

…

Here is one scenario:

UVU gets rid of the physical school except for one building used to house administration and an office for each teacher. Each teacher is provided with computers, webcams, microphones and other equipment. The teachers now have resources to teach lessons live, record them, and archive them for students to view at a later time. Teachers also have virtual office hours where they can chat with students, they all use email, and have personal LMS tracking their own progress. (customized and specific to the school; and better than Moodle or Blackboard) Students collaborate online.

For those of us in ed tech, nothing here is really new, but there is a palpable frustration re. the absence of teachers’ use of very basic networked technologies. This is the future he’s talking about; when I was an undergrad over 12 years ago I wanted many of the same things! Speaking of being frustrated with teachers, what he said next really grabbed me:

[I] don’t think that enough effort is being put into developing the tools that would empower us as students…

The implication here should have been obvious: if the teachers are not satisfying the students needs, at the very least students should be given tools they need to empower themselves.

I would love to see examples of your reuses/remixes so I can highlight them in future posts, and gain new ideas and insights. Please comment, pingback, or e-mail me URLs or details!

(For those of you who have been in a coma for the last 13 years, MP3 is the most popular digital audio file format. It uses a lossy encoding and compression technique to ensure small file size while preserving audio quality.)

A lot of the “MP3″ legal concern is over MP3 encoding or decoding technology, but the patents also affect the distribution of the .mp3 file itself. Emusic.com is just one of many who pay a patent royalty for the distribution of it’s MP3s. But what about educational institutions? For instance, MIT OCW uses MP3 technology for compression of audio lectures; do they pay off Thomson for each file?

Not likely. Thompson’s web site declares…

A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like).

However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

This appears to exempt non-profit educational usage, so I e-mailed Thompson directly. Reeder Grant of Thompson replied swiftly and courteously:

If you are not receiving, or you do not anticipate receiving more than $100,000 annually from mp3 distribution activities, you do not need a license. From your described use below (distribution of non-profit educational MP3s), it would seem that you would fall into this latter category of not needing the license.

Good news, right? Based on this information I suggest the following options for educational creation and distribution of .mp3 (which in no way should be considered legal advice):

1. Proceed. Create and distribute .mp3s without a license if they are clearly for non-profit educational purposes. But make sure you use a legally purchased and licensed, or, even better, an open source MP3 encoder like LAME (open source MP3 encoders have been specifically ignored by the legal actions). And consult a lawyer.
2. Contact the patent holder(s). I would go with Thompson for the above-stated reasons. Then consult a lawyer.
3. Break into the open. Use a different, widely supports audio compression format. OGG seems to be the most popular “open” lossy audio compression technology. OGG is not natively supported by iTunes or Windows Media Player (two of the most popular desktop media players), but plug-ins are available for both (make these available to users on the file download pages). No lawyer required.

Hardcore edupunk’s might lean toward option 3, but while nearly everyone is ready to play an MP3 in some form or another, few are ready to play an OGG, and less are comfortable with the change of file format.

(I will add that though I’ve never played with OGG, I am fascinated by the claim that OGG can “contain” lossless audio file information from other formats such as FLAC. FLAC is an open “lossless” audio compression codec, and I’ve always ripped my CDs as FLAC and MP3 simultaneously using EAC, Mareo, and LAME [FLAC for archive, MP3 for portability], but this FLAC + OGG marriage may be more suitable in the longterm.

(If you’re thinking of trying OGG, audiophiles recommend that you not “transcode”, that is, convert from MP3 –> OGG. Convert from CD, original WAV, or other “lossless” format.)

P.S. With respect to the original ITForum question, I should point out that Audacity is not a MP3 encoder as implied, nor does it contain an MP3 encoder, thus exempting it from the patent licensing bane. Audacity is an audio file editing software that uses it’s own file format. Audacity does, however, work with external MP3 encoding software (like LAME). Basically Audacity triggers the external encoder to compress the audio file.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KsEQnOkTZ0

Richard references Johnathan Harris, so you might want to check out his web site here.