Here’s the video I ended up creating, with some help from one of my students. The title is predictive. It really might be offensive, but that’s the point.
Yesterday afternoon, I participated in a conference call with four intelligent and passionate women. We’re working on a presentation about combating fear of technology in higher education, specifically fear of web 2.0. Barbara Ganley said something that stuck with me, so much that I couldn’t sleep last night. She encouraged us to think about pushing our own thinking, to get out of our own comfort zone. As I was trying to go to sleep last night, I kept thinking about that, and kept thinking about what my comfort zone is. One of the reasons I wanted to do this presentation was that the format was going to be out of my comfort zone. We proposed doing a “digidrama,” an interactive and multimedia-laden session. My comfort zone is text. I enjoy writing, even when it’s hard. And although from a technical standpoint, I’m comfortable with video, audio and images, from an artistic standpoint, I feel like a complete dolt.
Barbara is always having her students use different media to express their ideas, to bring forth what’s in their heads via images and audio and video instead of words. She also has them working with multiple media at the same time: words with audio, audio with pictures, etc. So, I tossed and turned last night thinking about how I might do that myself. I determined that I would bring my digital camera and my video camera to campus and begin documenting some of my thinking about technology and fear.
I was interrupted in my project by another project that fell in my lap this morning. I was asked by our acting CIO, who also serves on the Diversity Council, to help her put together a montage around the issues that have come up on campus over the last few semesters. She brought me some materials and her ideas. A student and I worked on it most of the day. And, boy, was it hard. First, diversity and the racial tensions we’ve experienced are difficult issues to address in any medium. And second, as I was charged with finding images or words that would spark conversation, I had to be careful not to pull images that were too controversial. Sadly, it’s not hard to run into such things online. Third, as I started to put things together, a story kind of emerged and so I had to work to get the story “right” as I saw it emerging.
Although I’m disappointed that I couldn’t tackle my own presentation while I was gung ho, I think putting this project together was a real opportunity to begin wrestling with the media. If it’s possible, I’m even more gung ho than I was before.
Barbara is always having her students use different media to express their ideas, to bring forth what’s in their heads via images and audio and video instead of words. She also has them working with multiple media at the same time: words with audio, audio with pictures, etc. So, I tossed and turned last night thinking about how I might do that myself. I determined that I would bring my digital camera and my video camera to campus and begin documenting some of my thinking about technology and fear.
I was interrupted in my project by another project that fell in my lap this morning. I was asked by our acting CIO, who also serves on the Diversity Council, to help her put together a montage around the issues that have come up on campus over the last few semesters. She brought me some materials and her ideas. A student and I worked on it most of the day. And, boy, was it hard. First, diversity and the racial tensions we’ve experienced are difficult issues to address in any medium. And second, as I was charged with finding images or words that would spark conversation, I had to be careful not to pull images that were too controversial. Sadly, it’s not hard to run into such things online. Third, as I started to put things together, a story kind of emerged and so I had to work to get the story “right” as I saw it emerging.
Although I’m disappointed that I couldn’t tackle my own presentation while I was gung ho, I think putting this project together was a real opportunity to begin wrestling with the media. If it’s possible, I’m even more gung ho than I was before.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Last night, I made my way through this article on the use of digital resources by humanities and social sciences faculty. There was a considerable amount of food for thought, some good, some not so good. I was reading it with an eye toward finding a clue as to how to improve our own services. The study generally asks the question “What do faculty want?”
One finding that bears out my personal experience is the presence of personal collections. Many faculty have a huge collection of slides, digital images, maps, etc. that sit in file cabinets and boxes in their office and which they dig out when working on their classes. Often they add to the collection as they’re working, making it even larger. On the one hand, I totally understand why they have these. They’ve been built over years of teaching. On the other hand, these collections tend to be disorganized, poorly labeled and available only to the one faculty member. There’s likely duplicated effort across the discipline with several faculty at several institutions holding similar (or the same) materials. There’s possibly even such duplicated effort within an institution. It’s not a sustainable model for the faculty member to simply continue developing their own collection, often using resources (such as several staff members) that could be used to develop an institutional collection. There’s no easy solution for this, but this is something I’m really interested in working on and am still looking for possibilities.
The reasons for faculty non-use of digital resources is also interesting. Most cite some form of lack of time and a feeling that using these resources does not fit with their methods of teaching. The time factor I’ve heard over and over again, but no one has fully articulated the idea that digital resources don’t fit with their teaching style though I certainly sense that much of the time. The quotes in this section are interesting, with faculty saying that the Internet is dumbing down our culture, that students need to learn to read books, etc. There is a sense that many feel these resources would substitute rather than supplement or complement text resources. There’s some work to do here, I think, to educate faculty on how such resources can be used to teach the very things they’re afraid they inhibit: critical thinking, argumentation, and reading and writing skills.
Some of the barriers, too, are familiar: lack of access, equipment or software not robust enough to use certain resources, fear of breaking something or something not working in the classroom. I certainly think there’s a role for us to play in helping to provide appropriate resources or find funding to do so. I also think we need to do a better job of providing training and support. Problem is, we have to do so in a way that meets faculty needs and schedules.
In general, I found this report enlightening and hope to use it to help me think about ways to provide resources and support for faculty. One section of the conclusion, however, rubbed me the wrong way, perhaps because it painted us techies with the same broad brush the authors had accused us of painting faculty with:
One finding that bears out my personal experience is the presence of personal collections. Many faculty have a huge collection of slides, digital images, maps, etc. that sit in file cabinets and boxes in their office and which they dig out when working on their classes. Often they add to the collection as they’re working, making it even larger. On the one hand, I totally understand why they have these. They’ve been built over years of teaching. On the other hand, these collections tend to be disorganized, poorly labeled and available only to the one faculty member. There’s likely duplicated effort across the discipline with several faculty at several institutions holding similar (or the same) materials. There’s possibly even such duplicated effort within an institution. It’s not a sustainable model for the faculty member to simply continue developing their own collection, often using resources (such as several staff members) that could be used to develop an institutional collection. There’s no easy solution for this, but this is something I’m really interested in working on and am still looking for possibilities.
The reasons for faculty non-use of digital resources is also interesting. Most cite some form of lack of time and a feeling that using these resources does not fit with their methods of teaching. The time factor I’ve heard over and over again, but no one has fully articulated the idea that digital resources don’t fit with their teaching style though I certainly sense that much of the time. The quotes in this section are interesting, with faculty saying that the Internet is dumbing down our culture, that students need to learn to read books, etc. There is a sense that many feel these resources would substitute rather than supplement or complement text resources. There’s some work to do here, I think, to educate faculty on how such resources can be used to teach the very things they’re afraid they inhibit: critical thinking, argumentation, and reading and writing skills.
Some of the barriers, too, are familiar: lack of access, equipment or software not robust enough to use certain resources, fear of breaking something or something not working in the classroom. I certainly think there’s a role for us to play in helping to provide appropriate resources or find funding to do so. I also think we need to do a better job of providing training and support. Problem is, we have to do so in a way that meets faculty needs and schedules.
In general, I found this report enlightening and hope to use it to help me think about ways to provide resources and support for faculty. One section of the conclusion, however, rubbed me the wrong way, perhaps because it painted us techies with the same broad brush the authors had accused us of painting faculty with:
The fact that the most-cited reason for not using digital resources was that they simply do not mesh with faculty members’ pedagogies is an important finding that has implications for those who want to increase technology adoption in the academy. Should faculty—who we can assume know more about teaching their subject than nonspecialists—shoehorn their approaches into a technical developer’s ideas of what is valuable or what is the correct pedagogical approach?
That last question is a doozy. On the one hand, yes, faculty know more about their subject area than we techies. On the other hand, they may not know much about pedagogy. Sure, they may have developed through trial and error, workshops and their own reading, good pedagogical skills. But most faculty are not trained in pedagogy. They’ve picked it up along the way. Many technologists are trained in pedagogy, and keep up with current research. I don’t like the idea of shoehorning either. It’s why I don’t like course management systems, which tend to shoehorn. Most good technologists don’t apply a one-size-fits-all approach. I’m a little taken aback that the researchers would make the assumption that they do. And I think that most try to help faculty in whatever way they can, but often faculty don’t take advantage of the support and resources that are available to them. As I said above, perhaps we need to rethink how we provide that support, but faculty need to meet us halfway. It’s a challenging problem and one I’m happy to be wrestling with.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Boy, it was hard to go back to work today. My eyes are bloodshot. My head is heavy. And it’s only 8 o’clock. I kept myself alive by drinking lots of caffeine and busying myself with tasks that didn’t require a huge amount of thought. I stayed offline the entire break and so I came back this morning and marked all of my feeds as read–mostly.
Two things started to get to me over the break: the amazing amount of clutter in my house and my lack of exercise. We had my family over for Thanksgiving and of course, did a major cleaning of the house. As we did so, I realized how much stuff we’ve accumulated. We have a small house, so it’s very noticeable. We now have furniture and all kinds of stuff to get rid of and it’s not easy. Purple Heart comes for clothes about once a month. Given how much the kids are growing, we almost always have something for them. But the bigger stuff is more complicated. We could pay a service, but that’s kind of pricey. I’ve called Salvation Army, but it takes weeks, so we’re not on the schedule yet. Today, I cleaned out some of the kids’ toys and old videos. Much of that can go to Purple Heart too. I threw away a lot. I’ve vowed to spend 30 minutes a day clearing stuff out.
Another problem with the clutter is what comes into the house and what we generate. There’s mail and school papers. I’ve tried different systems and I just haven’t found one that works. I think I just need to suck it up and deal with it at least once a week. And then there’s recycling and trash. I can totally sympathize with Anjali’s post from last week. We do have recycling pickup, but it’s a crazy schedule. They do one thing a day, twice a week. So, one Monday is paper, then plastic on Thursday. The following Monday is glass, then cans on Thursday. They used to print a schedule, but they quit doing that, so I’m totally confused. I seem to always miss plastic so it’s piling up, and they don’t do colored glass. You have to take that in. It’s crazy.
The exercising problem is somewhat related to the clutter problem. I am not a hearty person. I don’t hold up well in cold weather. I used to, but I’ve become wimpy in my old age. So, I want to exercise inside. I could join a gym, but I’d rather be in the comfort of my own home. Problem is, I have no place to work out. There’s not enough room in any room in our house. We’ve shifted furniture around to the point where nearly every square inch is covered in furniture. I may have to cave and go to the gym. Sigh.
It doesn’t help that I was completely slothful over the break. I ate. I drank. I watched football. I did not run around, exercise or tackle the now four-foot high pile of laundry. One of these days, my house *will* be clean.
I’m too tired to write an actual post, so here’s some links, with a tiny bit of commentary:
- NY Times Article on Decline in Tenure-Track jobs–via 11D, good discussion there.
- A semi-scientific listing of the most influential blogs.
- A powerpoint on technology trends among students. My thought, yes, technology makes things convenient, but we need to push beyond the convenience factor. More on the study here.
- Via SmartMobs, news about a Smart Closet that helps you decide what to wear. That is so cool.
There may be blogging later. I’ve got some posts percolating, so if you’re bored over the holiday, feel free to stop by.
Over the weekend I got sucked into Desperate Crossing, a History Channel special on the Mayflower. How factual the whole thing was, I don’t know, but they did have quite a few historians who didn’t just speculate about how the whole Plymouth colony and the first Thanksgiving went down. They drew on primary texts and knowledge about both the Puritans who came to America and the Wampanaog people who lived in the area where they settled. In many ways, the docudrama undermined the myths I’d been taught as a child (and which are still being taught to my children) and I appreciated that. The whole Thanksgiving story had always felt like a story to me, akin to the Greek and Roman myths.
This morning, Slate magazine has an article about people getting all up in arms about the de-Christianization of Thanksgiving. It’s clear from the docudrama and from the Slate article, however, that religion was not the central focus of the first Thanksgiving celebration. It was a harvest celebration and also a celebration of two very different groups of people putting their differences aside to be thankful for the fruits of their hard labor. As I was watching, I thought that this was a rare moment where our ancestors decided not to conquer and pillage but to try to work toward reconciliation and understanding. And so, I want this Thanksgiving to be about that impetus that we seem to have lost somewhere along the way. It should remind us that we are capable of reconciliation and diplomacy, of respecting differences, and of appreciating what we have and sharing it with others. Unlike Christmas, at Thanksgiving, we give no gifts except the gift of company and conversation. Just before the bitter cold of winter strikes, we sit down to a meal, warm and filling, with people we love around us. What could be more perfect than that and what could be more hopeful.
Ugh, the bill with the horrid p2p provisions passed the house without a word about those provisions.
For further reading:
I’m disgusted.
Update: Didn’t pass the house–just the committee. But the vote was unanimous. Sigh.
Obama unveiled a technology plan yesterday. Does anyone else have a technology plan, other than to protect the RIAA, the MPAA and the phone companies? Hmmm, don’t think so. Here’s one of my favorite ideas in his plan:
Obama wants the public to be able to comment on the White House Web site for five days before legislation is signed.
That would be cool. What I like about the plan in general is that it’s about embracing what’s already going on in technology and making plans for innovating, so that we don’t fall behind as a country. It’s both technically and economically savvy.
I’m still undecided about who I like among the Democrats. It’s likely the primary will be so late here that it won’t matter who I like, but I’d like to be prepared anyway. I figure over Christmas break, I’ll start thinking about it more deeply. But I’m liking what Obama’s doing so far.
I am feeling a bit like New Kid today–pretty cranky–and I was going to write something random, but I wanted to comment a bit more on the proposed House legislation that would require colleges and universities to provide legal options for downloading music and require them to have a plan to prevent illegal downloading. Dean Dad already expresses some good reasons why the bill is a bad idea. His commenters, however, don’t seem to completely understand the law nor how networks work enough to know how crazy this really is.
One commenter notes that higher ed moves too slowly for this to get implemented. By the time it gets out of committee, they suggest, the provision will be dead. Unfortunately, at many institutions, technology decisions such as these don’t go through faculty committee. Software and hardware purchases (big ones) are made all the time without any faculty input. Sometimes the IT department may try to get input and the faculty say, whatever, we don’t understand what you’re saying so just do what you need to do. This varies by school, obviously, but I’m in touch with enough schools to know it’s not unusual.
Another commenter suggests that students should get the music from the library. If they rip that music and make a copy for themselves, that’s illegal. At least as I interpret the law. I also feel that copying a whole book for yourself would be illegal.
Another commenter says “If somebody is breaking the law, call the police. Throw the book at them. If they’re not, get the hell out and leave them alone.” This is more complicated than it might seem. When someone’s “caught” “downloading,” they’re actually not caught downloading at all. They’re caught sharing their music. Most p2p programs having a shared folder which is “on” by default. Some programs ask where your music is stored and share that instead or in addition to the folder where the downloads go. It’s possible to have not downloaded anything, in fact, and be sharing your whole music collection for others to download. And that is illegal. Secondly, when someone is caught sharing, all the RIAA or other agent has is an ip address and a time-date stamp for when the activity allegedly took place. They need the colleges to provide them with identifying information in order to “call the police.” Right now, the DMCA protects all isps from being liable for illegal activity on their network as long as they forward any notices about the activity to the user associated with the ip address. This is why as the commenter says, “it seems to be the college’s responsibility to do something about it.” The way the law is written and interpreted now, if we don’t, they will come sue us. This has not been really tested yet, so no one knows for sure if that’s what would happen, but that’s the assumption. One way this could work is for the RIAA to be required to submit subpoenas for every violation. That’s a much more time-consuming and costly process for them, so they’re not inclined to do that. From our perspective the work load is the same whether we get a subpoena or not.
Who knows what they mean by providing legal alternatives for downloading. It could very well mean providing access to iTunes by just installing it on the public machines. Or it could mean requiring a subscription service. Preventing illegal downloading would be difficult and costly. Dean Dad’s right, both of these would be onerous in some places. Maybe some of the richer schools would be able to do this but many schools couldn’t afford it. I concur with Dean Dad: “I’d rather spend public aid to higher education on scientific research and faculty and libraries and tutoring and daycare and textbooks than on Napster.”
Via Musey, this tickled me.
A geekymom! A geekymom! My kingdom for a geekymom!
Recent Comments