As validated by the ECAR study over the past four years, students by and large want faculty to use course management systems like Blackboard because of the access and convenience it gives them to course content, assignments, and grades. Faculty likewise appreciate the convenience that it gives them to post materials and communicate with students.

Our challenge is that while a majority of faculty “use” Blackboard, they are not necessarily using it for learning. As a course management system, the focus has been on management - posting material, collecting homework, posting grades. Many faculty are missing a wonderful opportunity to use a course management system as a tool that facilitates learning.

When we in faculty development focus on tools such as Blackboard, we run the risk of reinforcing this faculty and student desire to develop a portal for access and convenience. Focusing on the set-up of Blackboard tends to focus one on design features (course layout, organization, navigation, etc) and on the indirect support features to learning, such as gradebooks, assignments, and loading of course material.

Our focus recently has been more to see Blackboard as a place in which to jump off into social media. As Mike Wesch noted in a recent presentation, students are interested in learning but not necessarily interested in school or classes. One way to change that perception is to give the students their voice and give them responsibility for their own learning. Web 2.0 provides some rich environments for this to occur and the use of Web 2.0 apps links nicely with Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. We have been exploring the use of social bookmarking within classes, blogging, and collaborative writing through Google Docs and wikis. There is no reason NOT to use the access and convenience afforded by the course management system, but one should not stop there.

I would be interested in comments from others on what you are doing to move both faculty and students beyond access and convenience to uses that support active learning.

An unexpected pleasure Friday night and Saturday - my old friend Perry Hidalgo and his son came through town and spent the night. I first met Perry 11 years ago when he was an adjunct at Herkimer County Community College in New York where I was a dean. I hired him as a full-time professor in computer science there and celebrated with him and his wife the birth of Graydon a year later. After I moved to Gwinnett Technical College in Georgia, I found the existing computer science chair there had a Radio Shack TRS-80 on his desk. So after a timely retirement, I asked Perry to apply for the job, which he did and which he got. Perry went on to take his second masters in sports management and start a sports management program at Gwinnett. Through the past eleven years, he has been one of my best friends, so I was delighted that he could swing through for a short visit. We both were up early Saturday and spent time on the deck with coffee talking of old times and education in general.

Perry and Graydon have been on a road trip this summer break to see historical sights (Mammoth Cave, Valley Forge, Niagra Falls…quite a list). So before they headed back to Georgia, we spent the morning at Petersburg Battlefield. I had not yet had the chance to visit this site in the two years I have lived in Richmond, and always wanted to. You may remember the beginning of the 2003 movie Cold Mountain starts with the Union army attempting to breach the Confederate fortifications by mining under the wall and packing it with explosions. The explosion was a big success but the follow-up attack was a miserable failure, and the Petersburg siege went on another 9 months.

Graydon - as any 9 year old - had a ton of questions, which Perry and I had fun answering.

It was a too short visit, but delighted it occurred!

Pretty, and some interesting words jump out at me.

And I’ll be able to list numbers again this year. I have done workshops, presentations, published an article, consulted, and served a number of faculty.

Yet this year feels different.

Since submitting my annual report last June, I have begun using delicious as a communication and networking tool, placed material on SlideShare and received feedback from people I have never met. shifted from reading blogs to active blogging, and become an active Twitter user. It has been a transformative year for me. For more than a dozen years, I have been enamored with the technology. Now suddenly, I have become enamored with the connections and this network that has accepted me.

This “social” stuff has become a big part of my life and my job…and I am struggling with how to capture that in the bureaucratic necessity of an annual report!

Clay Shirky, in a video presentation, made an interesting statement about the context of his recent book Here Comes Everybody. He said:

“We’ve reached an age…where this stuff is technologically boring enough to be socially interesting.”

He goes on to explain that the technology - whether computer or mobile - has become so ubiquitous as to be taken for granted, and as that tipping point was reached, the social effects began to manifest themselves.

Wow!

I could cite numbers - I follow and am followed by 138 people in Twitter (or 137 plus the Mars Phoenix lander). I have 45 people in my delicious network. My blog has had 1,900 visits in the past four months. I worked with 10 other faculty in a year-long Faculty Learning Community exploring engaged online learners. But, I am increasingly aware of the people behind those numbers.

I value my colleagues here in our Center - Jeff Nugent and Bud Deihl, who swim in these waters with me.

I value my students, who dive in to these same waters and grow to see the relevance. At a dinner last night, I met up with some of my grad students from last Fall, and the first thing they started talking about was how much they continue to use delicious!

I value some connections made a year ago, such as Eduardo Peirano (Uruguay) and Gabriela Grosseck (Romania) - who opened my eyes to an international perspective…yet a perspective similar in many respects to my local one. Closer to home, I added John Krutsch and Barry Dahl to my networks after meeting them at eLearning 2008, and continue to connect with them almost daily four months later.

I value the encouragement I received from superstars like Will Richardson and Wes Fryer, and up and coming stars like Sue Waters and Michele Martin. These four, along with Jeff and Bud, had more to do with my sustaining my blogging now for six months.

I value recent connections such as Ken Allan (a New Zealander who I met through the 31 Day Challenge) and Jon Becker, a fellow VCU faculty who also blogs and Twitters (and his blog is one of the best designed I have seen).

There are dozens of others I could name and I would still leave some out. Suffice it to say that the effects flowing from all of these varied social connections definitely manifest themselves daily in my life and work, and I think I am better for it - I know I am different because of it.

Am I making a mountain out of a virtual molehill, or is transformation occurring to others besides me? I would be interested in your thoughts and comments.

Not to mention my end of year report! Oh well, I’ll get back to both next week!

Anyway, that thought of “Money for Nothing” popped in my head when I saw this video created by Tony Hirst and brought to my attention by following the tag “edupunk” in delicious:

One slide says “Free is Expected”. “Free” has numerous meanings:

–adjective

–adverb

–verb (used with object)

—Verb phrase

—Idioms

I freely lifted (but referenced) these 49 definitions of “free” to make the point that free means different things to different folks…and so I am not sure which definition applies to the “FREE IS EXPECTED” slide. No cost? Exempt from authority or rules? Open access? Unrestrained?

I am the first to agree that - as Mike Wesch’s video pointed out, lots of concepts need reconceptualizing in a Web 2.0 world. I also have built a solid personal learning network by taping in to the numerous free sources on the web. I believe that I am a better scholar because I freely share my ideas and gain from others who do the same. Yet, my buddy Bud Deihl - with his fine arts background - noted this morning that free is nice, but how does one pay the bills if everything is given away? Good question (that I hope he blogs about), and it raises issues of “value” to what we are giving away.

MIT gives away its course material, but that access does not make you an MIT graduate. The value of the MIT education comes from the interactions between students, faculty and content, not the content alone. (…and MIT students pay significant dollars to be MIT graduates). So defining value in a free system seems related to the context. Web 2.0 has opened up a free exchange globally, and I know that I value the interactions I have internationally through Twitter and blogging. I also know that it took time to gain an appreciation of that value - it was not evident initially. If the edublogging community had not freely participated and given of themselves, I would not now have these connections that I use to create knowledge.

But…for the thousands of us blogging in our restricted networks, there are only a few superstars like a Will Richardson or Alan Levine who could make a living from this…and I am not sure they are quiting their day jobs! Free is expected…but I am assuming institutions of higher education are going to continue charging tuition (and paying professor salaries!). You really cannot get Money for Nothing. When it comes to knowledge creation, though, I like the idea that our students should be free to find and create content that helps us all grow.

What are your thoughts? Should “free” be expected? And what does that mean to the design of learning opportunities in your classes?

This must be the day for metaphors, because Beth Kanter twittered: “ What metaphors do you use to explain web2.0 to noobs? I used sex. David Lee King uses chain saws? And you?” Jeff Nugent has said that Twitter is “pure entertainment” and this tweet probably qualifies…particularly as it compelled me to tweet back - “Either works for me but not both!”

But the question is a GREAT question! During the past year - and I give Jeff credit for coming up with it, we have started all workshops dealing with Blackboard with the question - “What is your metaphor for Blackboard?” We hear some interesting replies - a portal, a pipeline, an on-demand storage facility, a medicine cabinet with lots of shelves, a journal, a communication transmitter, etc. Yet Blackboard (even with their coming advertisement) is soooo Web 1.0. My metaphor is that it is a control device with lots of keys. It is much better at keeping people out than engaging them once they are in….and I say that even though I think I do a reputable job at engaging my students. In many cases, I do so by jumping out of Blackboard into the Web 2.0 stream. I want my students engaged with me, each other, and the content, and the “web as content” model of Blackboard does not fit with the possibilities afforded by the read-write aspects of Web 2.0.

Anyway, Michele built off of Kevin Marks‘ post and I want to build off of hers. She gave some examples of applications :

I started thinking that there were some applications to using these ideas to spread social media for learning.

r-Strategy - scatter lots of seeds–Dandelions, frogs and other plants and animals produce many seeds with the assumption that at least some of them will stick. Most die off, but enough survive to perpetuate the species. Applying this to social media for learning, this would be the equivalent of making many tools and processes available to people, hoping that at least a few of them would catch on. The disadvantage is that this approach can be time-consuming and wasteful. Not to mention that social media thrives on other people using it, so unless you have enough uptake on the same tools/processes, things could die off rather quickly. At the same time, the “costs” of social media can be relatively low, compared to “scattering the seeds” of an LMS, for example. The 23 Things model would be an example of an r-Strategy.

Two weeks ago, Jeff Nugent, Bud Deihl and I scattered a lot of seeds at the Teaching and Learning with Technology Institute simply by modeling behavior and making small suggestions. Each morning of the institute, we worked one-on-one with faculty to refine their goals and find applications that fit those goals. Of the 18 participants, I have seen a new wiki, a new blog, assignments associated with Google Docs, and four Twitterers arise from the group in the past week. It might be wasteful given other options, but I love seeing these new flowers blossom!

k-Strategy–nurture your young–This is how mammals do it–have only a few young and then concentrate all their energies on developing those offspring. This would be the equivalent of deciding to focus on using wikis or del.icio.us and gearing all efforts in that direction. This allows you to structure a learning environment that is very focused and supportive of the particular tools and behaviors you’re trying to develop. Stewart Mader is doing a nice job of creating this kind of environment with Grow Your Wiki. Of course the down-side is that if you have the wrong tool or don’t use the right “parenting” techniques, you could spend a lot of time and energy on something that won’t turn out well in the end. While labor-intensive, this could also be the strategy that has the most pay-off in the end though.

I agree, but while I am an Obama guy, I do think that it sometimes takes a village to raise new behaviors in faculty. So part of this nurturing can come from the social environment that you add as part of the tool. I think that I speak for my other two colleagues when I say that it has been the creation of a social network that has been transformative for us.

Fruiting–wrap your seed in something sweet–Some plants wrap delicious fruit around their seeds so that animals will eat them and spread the seeds. In terms of social media for learning, this would suggest “wrapping” some kind of reward around your social media initiative–adding to the wiki gets you a prize or the best blog post is featured on the organizational website. I’m of two minds about this. I recognize that a lot of people tend to respond to extrinsic rewards. At the same time, I have to say that I’m an Alfie Kohn fan who would prefer it if we could focus on using intrinsic motivation to support learning.

Michele is on to something here, but this lies outside the purview of most of us. However, one of the strongest rewards you can give someone is to demonstrate how one of their problems could be solved. and Web 2.0 provides lots of opportunities for problem solution.

Rhizomatic–start from the roots–Another reproductive strategy favored by plants like strawberries and ginger, is to send out shoots or runners from the main plant. This suggests using more of a grass roots strategy for spreading learning through social media, perhaps finding the pockets where things are already happening and then nurturing those. Or taking “cuttings” from those pockets and planting them elsewhere in the organization by having someone who’s already using social media successfully for learning share with other individuals or units. Britt Watwood, Bud Deihl and Jeff Nugent seem to be pursuing this idea at VCU where they are continually experimenting and sending out the shoots of their experiments through their blogs.

It is an honor to be cited by Michele here. I do have a slightly different twist. Faculty respond to other faculty, so part of what Jeff, Bud and I have tried to do is use lunch brown-bag sessions to showcase work being done by others. It becomes easier to internalize a concept when you see a direct application by a colleague. Another example of planting a cutting would be Jott, which Michele introduced to us…and which today I introduced to some MBA faculty in the School of Business here. Some shoots are easy to plant, and Jott counts among them as an easy first application which can lead to more.

Jeff has used the metaphor of swimming in a running stream surrounded by lots of fish to describe Web 2.0 (one I particularly like), Michele has used gardening terms, Beth uses sex, David uses chain saws (still working on that one). So, to parrot Beth - what is YOUR metaphor? Comment and let me know!

[Photo Credits: Fort Photo, Adam, L'Iconoclaste Banal, Zesmerelda]

Our office is in the midst of packing up to move across campus to the Grace Harris Hall. Moving is one of those routine things in my life. In 22 years in the Navy, Linda and I moved 12 times. There is an old Navy saying that three moves is the equivalent of one good fire! And we sure lost some things over the years. But each move also opened an opportunity to rid ourselves of clutter and start afresh. This move from Cabell Hall to Grace Harris Hall is offering the same opportunity, so the trash bin has been filling daily!

Maybe because of all those moves, I do not have a hard time with change. Change happens! It is a normal part of life…and when you stop changing, you stop living. I have been a firm believer that passively letting life hit you is bad - one should be proactive towards change. It is too easy to let change drive you to the belief that you are out of control - or you can look at how change is occurring and proactively take a different direction.

I am trying to practice that not only in my exploring technological applications to education, but in dealing with the many stressors hitting us in “real” life. I live east of Richmond in the country and commute 25 miles daily. My Dodge Magnum is great for hauling stuff, but at 22 MPG, it is inefficient in hauling just me to work and home. So, this weekend, I joined many in purchasing a scooter. Shifting from a 22 MPG car to a 120 MPG scooter is one way to proactively deal with the gas prices - if prices level off or continue rising, the savings will pay for this scooter in one year. And I find the commute in different and enjoyable in ways I never noticed in the car.

Change happens. Embrace it or it will embrace you!

[Photo Credit: Skrewtape, Genuine Scooter]

Friday afternoon, I tweeted that I was checking out a very good list of top K12 Edublogs and asked on Twitter if anyone knew of a comparable list of higher education edublogs. I also noted that I liked the Education Alltop because it mixed higher ed with K-12. Jon Becker tweeted back with a good question: “How do you reconcile your last two tweets? Do you want to disaggregate or not?”

I tweeted back that I was looking for a better source of higher ed blogs, but that I liked the cross-pollination one sees in Alltop. But Jon got me thinking…

Is teaching and learning different for K-12 teachers versus higher education faculty? (I even unconsciously called them by different terms - teacher / faculty). As a higher education faculty developer, this seems a crucial question.

As many know, we spent the past week working directly with a cohort of faculty in the Teaching and Learning with Technology Institute. And it was an uplifting and energizing week! During our final potluck luncheon, several faculty noted that they now saw it as their role to become “viral” and infect their departments and schools with the integration of technology into their teaching. I think part of what energized them was the notion of TPCK - technological pedagogical content knowledge. They really liked this concept of integrating technology into the delivery of knowledge with an appreciation for how people learn.

[Illustration from http://www.tpck.org/tpck/]

TPCK was introduced by Mishra and Koehler, building off earlier work done on PCK by Shulman. They argued that viewing any of the three components (technology, pedagogy, and content) in isolation from the others represents a real disservice to good teaching. I definitely buy what Mishra and Koehler are selling…and see my job in faculty development as tied to this central concept of helping content-experts use technology to improve learning.

But Jon’s question pushed me to consider the differences between pedagogy and andragogy. After all, the Greek roots for “pedagogy” mean literally “to lead the child. ” Malcolm Knowles argued for a differentiation for adults. He suggested that andragogy made the following assumptions about the design of learning:

(1) Adults need to know why they need to learn something
(2) Adults need to learn experientially,
(3) Adults approach learning as problem-solving, and
(4) Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value.

I am not going to throw the TPCK baby out with the bathwater, but does TPCK change when applied in higher education settings, moving from technological pedagogical content knowledge to TACK - technological androgogical content knowledge?

In sailing, when on tacks, one brings the boat across the wind but continues sailing in roughly the same direction. Replying to Jon, I do not want to really disaggregate the lessons I am finding in the K12 edublogs, but I do think that I need to be careful to apply the andragogy lens to faculty development and to help the faculty I work with apply that same lens to their students who are entering the adult world. The learning will stick if we make it relevant to adults. For that reason, I still feel the need to seek out other higher education bloggers to help us sort out teaching and learning in an adult world.

I would be interested in what others think. Is this simply a semantics exercise or should teaching and learning - and TPCK - at postsecondary institutions be looked at differently?

We have completed two days of our TLwT Institute and are having a ball! Over the five days, we take a cohort of 18 diverse faculty from multiple disciplines on a journey of Web 2.0 exploration. During the first two days, my colleagues Jeff Nugent, Bud Deihl and I have worked with this cohort to define instructional applications for Web 2.0 sites, analyze the syntax of the web in developing search strategies, establish social bookmarking accounts, put RSS feeds to work towards building personal learning environments, and explore ways of connecting and collaborating through Google Docs, Wimba Voice tools, and wikis. I was reminded of the classic Farside cartoon yesterday afternoon when one said her brain was full!

I need some time to reflect on some of our interactions and know that Jeff and Bud will also want to post their perspectives. Jeff’s call on who gets to do one of “collaboration”…but this cohort developed a pretty powerful map of academic collaboration that we will be sharing!

Last night - as a way to unwind after a full day - I started reading The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (2007). Bad mistake…as I immediately saw a lot of relevance to what we are doing this week. I am not very far into the book, but here are some early take aways. The book takes its title from the “fact” that Europeans knew for a fact that all swans were white until black swans were discovered in Australia - which immediately upset the established norm. Taleb says that there are numerous black swan examples, and that they carry three characterisitcs:

- It is unpredictable,

- It carries a massive impact, and

- after the fact, we concoct an explanation to make it appear less random and more predictable.

9/11 was a Black Swan, as are many of the applications we use online such as Google. In fact, I was thinking last night that Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat was just such an after the fact explanation of events that were not predicted and carried a massive impact.

The lessons from black swans according to Taleb is that we should pay less attention to what we know and more attention to what we do not know - as it is the unknown, unpredictable things that have the huge impacts. We focus in on specifics when we should focus on generalities. As Taleb noted, predicting the future based on the known is a somewhat silly exercise, as it tends to be the unknowns that drive the future.

Okay…this does put a different spin on things. Yet, as one who spins a lot of time immersed in Web 2.0 apps - most unknown by the field at large, I begin to wonder whether I am swimming with black swans or am I just seeing the world through a different lens? It makes you consider faculty development (or workplace development) a little differently if you focus in first on the unknowns and their potential impacts before jumping to the specifics of how to upload a powerpoint to SlideShare. Jeff often notes that I have been transformed this past year in part due to the social nature of the web. To me, the social side of the web is a big black swan that none of us saw a few years back and yet take for granted today.

Food for thought as we move in to day three of our Institute!

[Institute logo designed by William "Bud" Deihl]