technology and a different kind of virus

Mention virus anywhere near a technology professional and the response is likely to be a cringe, followed by a series of questions: “Is your anti-virus software up to date?” “Are you playing safe on the Web?” “You’re not clicking on links in emails, are you?” Recently, though, higher education has been worried about a virus of the biological kind–H1N1.

I’ve overheard (on one listserv) more than a dozen colleges and universities discussing plans of how to keep their semesters going if droves of students are unable to make it to class, or told not to come to class to prevent the spread of swine flu.

One solution, or emergency response has technology coming to the rescue, sort of. No, your computer won’t make you better, but it might allow you to continue to conduct your classes at a distance. Here’s one example of a readiness strategy from the University of Oregon: <http://libweb.uoregon.edu/cmet/fluedtech.html>. They try to cover all the bases, from changing your syllabus, to widening the use of Blackboard, to re-thinking your face-to-face course as a hybrid.

In some cases, faculty will still be able to hold their classes and accommodate only a few students too ill to attend, but there just might be areas of the country that are so hard hit as to seriously affect semester completion. Are we (you) ready for that? Can you imagine how you might change your course organization and delivery to meet what the U of Oregon calls “radical adaptation,” particularly if you get sick? Perhaps the pandemic won’t materialize. After all, we remember the Y2K dud. But maybe we were safe, rather than sorry, because we were prepared. I’d start packing that teaching first-aid kit now.

Filed under: administration, communication, computers, document delivery, education, online learning, teaching, technology

form follows function?

I missed last Friday’s post because of all-day training with WIDS software, so I guess I should talk about such software and its application in course and program development.

WIDS (Worldwide Instructional Design System) allows you to generate documents from information you input into a variety of database forms, such as syllabus–in GREAT detail. I am a novice, having had the introductory training (only the first of two sessions) and just beginning to fill in forms for myself. First, I’m seeing how one of my own syllabi fits into the template; then I will probably see how it might work for both a program of faculty development and individual workshop planning.

But even as a novice, I do have some impressions of WIDS.

1. For faculty it’s a little overwhelming at first. After having taught and created syllabi at several institutions, it seems like overkill for faculty. I’m guessing that the up front investment of time is high, but that it becomes easier and more useful the more you use it. For the organized of you out there, it will beome the place for all course information modules. 
2. In the long run, it could help ensure that all your syllabi and course information is consistent from course to course. Could you be consistent using your own documents as models rather than filling up a database, yes.
3. The real value seems to be for program directors who need to organize standards and collect course data for accreditation. The ability to create documents about course and program requirements for new faculty would be an added bonus.
4. I have not seen how the software aids in course design, only in document creation. I have not found any forms that discuss course design, so I’m not sure how it lives up to that claim. 
5. If I can be forgiven one negative impression, having only gone through half the training, it is that the whole idea of filling in forms and conforming to a rigid glossary of terms is stifling. I would prefer that we promote and learn the core elements of good courses and learning methods and creatively design from those. Teaching is the kind of craft that works differently for different personalities–both teachers and learners–and there needs to be some flexibility to stretch for it all to work. I’m willing to be persuaded that WIDS can work that way, and will come back with an update, when I find out how.

Filed under: administration, course design, document delivery, software, work

"whose technology is it anyway?"

The last session I attended at the SUNY CIT 2008 conference in May was conducted by three terrifically interesting scholars from the Fashion Institute of Technology, Steven Zucker, Beth Harris, and Eric Feinblatt. [read about my poster presentation on my Second Life blog].

Titled “Whose Technology is it Anyway?” they blew me away with the concept of opening up the source code of our institutions to allow the kinds of collaboration we see in open source software that lets the larger community of software developers, professional and amateur, work to create better tools. The open source movement attempts to harness “the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in” (http://www.opensource.org/).

What would it mean to open the source code of our institutions? Here are a few thoughts on that topic. Pardon the randomness and the thinking out loud:

• first we would have to identify what that concept means in terms of an organization instead of software. I guess we could start with an organizational chart, but those seem to me more like the friendly user interfaces that mask code. What lies beneath the organizational chart?
• what community would we be inviting to join in development? The session moderators suggested students as the primary users of the technology tools we deploy. I agree, but would add faculty who may use a tool for research, in which case, are we also inviting faculty peers in their disciplines, wherever they may be?
• are we inviting chaos and dumbing down a high level of sophistication for a low and common result? That’s the old highbrow/lowbrow argument, as well as the argument against such collaborative enterprises as Wikipedia. Are we inviting the end of expertise in favor of consensus?

I don’t know any of these answers, but I’m fascinated by them, partly because the question of why students need traditional education in a world where so much information and collaboration is just a click away keeps nagging me. So the big question in my mind is “what would students build or modify if they could get their hands on the source code of our institutions?”

Filed under: administration, collaboration, education, open source, peer review