Ma.gnolia, a social bookmarking site, has evidently lost all user content. I think I have recommended this service in offering options to delicious (insert your own periods), diigo, etc.. The operation evidently had a crash – this happens. Why was there no backup?
I picked this up through Twitter – a NY Times article on student expectations and grading.
If your maximum effort can only be average in a teacher’s mind, then something is wrong.
The concerns raised in this article rings true with me – when students ask How many pages does it have to be? How many references? – I am not assuming that by providing an answer I am explaining what it should take to earn an A.
I do understand the potential of rubrics and accept some responsibility for identifying standards. However, what ever happened to doing the best job I can in the hopes I might learn something.
Why is this framed as an issue regarding how teachers establish expectations?
There are several issues here:
1) The student is paying for an education. Would you rather spend $5 and get a hamburger or a steak? I guess it depends on whether you consider the steak an A or the mastery of skills and content.
2) Do students really see their performance as the equivalent of that demonstrated by others? Are they unable to see the differences or do they think such differences are inconsequential? Do they understand that it is possible that we are all good at different things and it is helpful to understand our strengths and weaknesses? Perhaps an important aspect of an education is to find realistic answers to these questions.
In our concern for students, there is one category of student i have grown to feel is being ignored. What do we have to offer to the student who knows more, does better, etc.? We belittle their accomplishments by awarding the same grade to everyone. Differentiating levels of quality is a major responsibility of accepting the role of educator and it is so easy to make it easy on yourself by ignoring quality performances.
A recent study in Computers in Education (summarized on the New Scientist) reports a study based in a simulated classroom setting contrasting podcasts with a live lecture.
Students who listened to the podcast one or more times and took notes had … [higher scores]
The study seems to find that the processing of content – the opportunity to “rewind” the podcast and take notes offers some advantages (my interpretation).
Now the authors intend to investigate a similar approach in actual classrooms.
Here is a prediction of what they might find based on my experience.
1) The use of online/downloadable audio is extremely limited. The potential value of a backup lecture that can be reviewed is largely ignored.
2) Students prefer a set of complete set of notes to online audio.
My interpretation of my own research is that a typical lecture possibly makes no more sense the second time (although the recent study seems to indicate reviewing while taking notes is helpful). Having an expert offer a set of complete notes is preferred because someone has preprocessed the content – identified what was important and summarized these ideas in a written format (much shorter review time).
Grabe, M. & Christopherson, K. (2008). Optional student use of online lecture resources: Resource preference, performance and lecture attendance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 24, 1-10.
Grabe, M. & Christopherson, K. (2005). Evaluating The Advantages and Disadvantages of Providing Lecture Notes: The Role Of Internet Technology As Both A Delivery System and Research Tool. Internet and Higher Education. 8, 291-298.
Grabe, M., Christopherson, K., & Douglas, J. (2004-2005). Providing Introductory Psychology students access to online lecture notes: The relationship of note use to performance and class attendance. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33, 295-308.
Bummer – after I “lightly hacked” my AppleTV (that is the phrase they use) Hulu no longer will offer content via Boxee. If you are not into strange tech company names, disregard this post. I wonder how one unhacks an AppleTV. I am looking for an alternative (for Hulu, not AppleTV although I have heard a Mac mini works great).
Actually, Hulu is still working this evening. So when is this going to happen? I guess I will watch one more movie (America’s Prince – “People keep telling me I can be a great man. I would rather be a good one.”).
A useful slideshare presentation Wesley Fryer offers information on copyright (note he suggests that legal advice may be necessary – everyone says this). The intent is to help educators understand copyright and realize they have rights as educators. It is worth listening.
I still have difficulty with some interpretations of fair use I have encountered recently. As a different perspective, I would encourage a review of the TEACH act. Read the provisions expected for on-iine fair use as outlined in this summary from the University of Texas.
For example consider the following provision:
d. For and technologically limited to students enrolled in the class.
Fryer does mention the TEACH Act – listen carefully.
I am still not certain I have a clear understanding of more “aggressive” interpretations. Creative commons I understand. He does mention CONFU (the source for the guidelines).
Code of Best Practices – “transformative” use – this is the popular source I would urge be considered very carefully. Most student and educator activities are not focused on media criticism or documentary work. I am not claiming Wes Fryer does not understand “who is a creator”, I am claiming educators who listen to such presentations may interpret pretty much anything they do as content creation. Transformative work, content creation, content criticism, transformative, adding value – how are such phrases interpreted. For example, is anything I embed in a powerpoint presentation and I use in a class (or more importantly make available online) part of my content creation. I might assume that my comments as an educator “add value” to any images I incorporate in a Power Point.
I ask myself the question – Why was the TEACH Act necessary?
I like the recommendations to create your own content and rely on creative commons when possible.
Psychologists suggest that negative examples are important in helping others understand the boundaries of concepts. So, one thing I always listen for are examples that we all know exist that identify things not to do. If you claim to understand copyright and encourage a more liberal view – offer examples that are on the other side of the line you decide to draw.
the real problem isn’t the impending death of newspapers, but the impending death of news
This analysis of the decline of newspapers (Salon) argues that losing access to newspapers offers more of a problem than the lose of the familiar format in which we get our news. The problem is that the likely repacement will offer some important limitations. Gone will be
reporting by trained journalists who know the subject, have developed sources on all sides, strive for objectivity and are working with editors who check their facts, steer them in the right direction and are a further check against unwarranted assumptions, sloppy thinking and reporting, and conscious or unconscious bias.
The problems of quality content in combination with the things we are likely to focus on if left to pursue our own interests are argued to result in a less informed public.
The post asks an intriguing question – should the “news” be subsidized (for our own good).
This is an interest post – a combination of Cult of the Amateur and the unique advantage of discovery as distinct from search.
BTW – MIT World offers a recent discussion of the Future of the News.
