Community

Community. This is an important aspect of human life as humans are social beings. In the classroom this is a word that captures an idea and helps to determine both the depth of interaction and levels of learning that a student can achieve. In an online classroom it can be the difference between an enriched learning experience and one that is tedious or complicated. 

So, why is it that community can play such a huge role in the online environment? Boettcher and Conrad (2010) discuss the differences between the community that forms in a face to face classroom where students have more casual contact and the requirements for more structured and intentional community building because of the fact that students can be separated by space and time. Community in an online environment is important because it sets the stage for information sharing and creating an environment of support (Boettcher & Conrad 2010). According to Boettcher and Conrad (2009) this kind of environment can be created and maintained by active planning on the part of the course designer, maintenance of presence by the instructor, and the creation of spaces for student sharing. Students maintain that this kind of community is important (Ouzts 2006; Xiaojing, Magjua, Bonk & Seung-hee 2007) though the manner of the community and the role of faculty is still something to be researched. 


Some essential elements are dialog, grouping strategies, and presence of both the instructor and the other learners (Boettcher & Conrad 2010). In addition to these essential elements, some researchers argue that utilizing specific learning theories as a backbone of design and implementation can increase a sense of connectedness, specifically constructivist learning theories (Ouzts 2006). Additionally, different activities can lead to a better sense of community as Perry, Dalton, and Edwards (2008) discuss; in fact they explain in their conclusion that now that community has been shown to be important to learning experiences, it is the duty of instructors to look for additional ways to increase student engagement. 


Over time a community can be sustained online through design and facilitation. The specific learning goals and the instructor's presence can help to inspire the community to support each other and the learning activities and groupings can bring students closer together. Students value a sense of community and a variety of technologies can help to provide students with multiple ways to connect. In the end, the success of the online community will fall back on the intentional design of the course and the meaningful facilitation of the instructor. 

References: 

Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ouzts, K. (2006). Sense of community in online courses. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 7(3), 285-296.

Perry, B., Dalton, J., & Edwards, M. (2008). Photographic Images as an Interactive Online Teaching Technology: Creating Online Communities. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 20(2), 106-115.

Xiaojing, L., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Seung-hee, L. (2007). Does sense of community matter?. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education,8(1), 9-24.

Sample-istic Society

Photo courtesy of Joe Pemberton 

         They look at me blankly as if what I said was in a foreign language. Perhaps it is not that it was foreign in terms of the words, but the concept seems to be at odds with their everyday experience of the world. Then there is a tentative stutter as one of them reaches through the veil to clarify the concept, “Wait…so…um…so, even though I bought the CD and paid to be able to play it whenever I want to I can’t actually use even a piece of it – what I paid for – in the background of my YouTube video?”

         “Well, in short, no. You can’t. You could, if you were going to be reviewing the song or album, but only a certain amount of time from the CD, like less than thirty seconds…and that might be pushing it. But other than that, not really…well, unless you were talking about the author’s life and it was important to the story you were telling. Well, except that there is a difference when you are a student and you are going to be using it as part of a project, but only if you are going to turn it in for the teacher or play it to the class and a wider audience is not going to be able to see/hear it. You see it comes back to the issue of copyright infringement which is really unclear right now in the courts with the–“

         “Wait, Mr. W! The courts don’t know what is copy whatever but we might get in trouble? What about the other music I downloaded? the movies I torrented? the files I copied? the Wikipedia article I used in my paper? (I mean, we don’t even know who the heck wrote that so I can use that right?)”…

        

And so began my discussion of academic (and real world) honesty in the seventh grade classroom. Since then, I have had the same conversation with every age group from middle school to graduate school. At each step along the way I have had numerous questions from the students but also from my own experiences culminating in a final varied view of what it means to be academically honest and where the concept of academic honesty falls in the realm of the classroom (and the instructor’s responsibilities). This leads us to today’s topic: Plagiarism and more specifically plagiarism checkers.

          There is no doubt that plagiarism is a potential problem in the information age (of course I would check the stats twice myself so I knew where they came from – oh wait, they aren’t cited appropriately...oops). The fact that students are growing up in a world where information is literally available on just about every technological device and many times reposted without attribution begs students to consume and resample information. What then is to be done, especially in distance learning classes where the instructor is removed in time and space from his or her students? In fact, this smorgasbord of content without clear guidelines about usage can be difficult for students to understand.

         To make sure that we are clear, perhaps what we need to do first is agree on what academic honesty is. This may be a little difficult as even schools who are members of the Center for Academic Integrity differ on the language used to define academic honesty. While the main points are the same, the details can differ. So perhaps we need a better explanation for exactly what constitutes fair use and copyright infringement. A quick search for fair use landed over 4,600,000 results among which were many sites like this one from Columbia University that attempted to give an idea of various fair use examples for students to look at.  So perhaps fair use is a more confusing concept in practice than on paper. In any event, we should be able to agree on the fact that taking someone’s work without attribution and trying to pass it off as one’s own is against the standards of the academic community. (Unless we consider different culture’s approaches to the idea of learning, look at different disciplines, or at different purposes for the publishing, all valid points raised by Bob Jensen or people on his discussion). 

         Okay, so now that the water is significantly muddy, let me try to form a clear picture of the idea of plagiarism and checking for plagiarism in the 21^st century. I believe that to take another’s work without citation, reference, or credit is inappropriate and undermines the quality of discussion in an academic setting. I also believe that student’s should be taught to be responsible with work done by others. Students should be taught the value of thought and to this end it makes sense to check their work for signs of plagiarism.

         At the same time I say those things, I also believe that using one of the myriad of online plagiarism checkers out there (this resource gives a great description of their capabilities, therefore I won’t copy it here!) in some ways undermines the very quality in students that we are looking for, especially when it is found that those plagiarism checkers have flaws (Heather 2010). It is interesting (and ironic) that plagiarism checkers like TurnItIn routinely take students’ work regardless of whether or not the choice to submit the work was the student’s in the first place. Of course, the courts have agreed that this is okay for these for profit institutions to do – as Turn It In tells us proudly in detail. So then, how do we rationalize for students the allowances made for those checking for plagiarism while telling them to avoid the same behaviors themselves?

         Perhaps the issue is not with the plagiarists so much as with the assessments those students are asked to complete. I would argue that as instructors it is our job to understand and support our students, to tap their creative potential and produce innovative creations. If instructors create assessments that require creative and critical thinking perhaps the students will be unable to simply copy and paste their way to a better project. Perhaps the construction of assessments should be tailored to individual students à la personalized learning. One of the components of that particular resource is the fact that the learner must be engaged and that the instructor must be involved. If all learners were engaged (participating) and instructors were involved (monitoring) the instructor would get to know the student and be able to comment and guide the student without the need for plagiarism.

         With this kind of system the learning might be more relevant, tailored to the student’s Zone of Proximal Development (Boettcher & Conrad 2010), and plagiarism would be more difficult for the student to attempt (or at least less inviting as an option). While the capabilities of plagiarism checkers (comparative databases, phrase and keyword searches, and archival structures) are a quick fix for the instructor worried about plagiarism, perhaps more care should be put into the teaching of academic honesty than the punishment of academic dishonesty. Perhaps instead of making every student turn in every paper they write to a plagiarism checker, a common practice in many institutions, campuses should follow the example of Princeton and focus on their honor code.

         I might be an idealist, but at the core of academics and (life) is the tenet that students will take the right action more often than not if they find that action to be clearly defined. As an instructor I would hope that I could explain to my students the reasons that their own work is important, the reasons that work by others should be cited, and what a quality product would look like. In addition, I would also hope that students would feel they had support throughout the learning process and that they could ask for help or clarification on their own ideas instead of sampling the works of others. Part of being a great instructor is being able to inspire students to take risks and to be proud of their own accomplishments. Should we check for plagiarism when we are convinced there is a reason – absolutely, but maybe we ought to know and support our students so well that they have no need to plagiarize in the first place.

References:

Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Heather, J. (2010). Turnitoff: identifying and fixing a hole in current plagiarism detection software. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 647-660. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.486471

A Pastel Approach to Tech Integration

Picture courtesy of px1666

In the north eastern corner of the art store there is a section of colored miniature bricks that my wife understands holds the potential to create images from the well of creativity. Landscapes, characters, and still-life's could be brought into being with a series of purposeful strokes, subtle blends, and dustings of shallow breath. Every one of the colors, shades, and textures has a role as she would craft those images I can only grasp at. She swears that with practice I could breathe life onto the canvas, but I am not sure that I believe her. Every image I have ever tried to create with those pastels is an abstract and nightmarish version of the scenes in my mind's eye. The pastels are not any different in my hand than in hers, the colors are no different, the pressure is the same, the canvas the same, and yet at the end of the session she has a product of beauty and I have a product of twisted, asymmetrical abstruseness. Both images leave me with the same feeling, sublime awe; hers through the unseen vision and beauty, mine through the absolute and utter lack of talent.


The same is true in many other aspects of life. A master can make a product or idea come to life where a layman may make such a misstep as to cause an observer question the validity of the medium as well as the one wielding it. technology integration is a prime example in education. In the hands of a master instructor technology tools and multimedia can make a learner's experience sublime in a good way and add layers of complexity, depth, understanding, and purpose to a lesson. In the hands of an incompetent the technology and multimedia can add layers of discord, frustration, anger, and complexity. Notice that complexity is used in both a positive sense and a negative sense in the example above because for a learner who needs extension complexity is a great concept, but to someone who is overwhelmed and purposeless, complexity can create additional obstructions to the learning experience. So, what then is the role of technology and multimedia in an online course? A simple and yet complex question...

Picture courtesy of px1666

In fact, it is not only a question for instructional designers, but I would argue that it is the question for instructional designers and instructors. As a writing teacher I have instructed my students to figure out their purpose for the piece they are going to embark on before ever putting the pen to the page or the key to the...um...switch? See, setting a purpose and understanding that purpose is the key to having effective and intriguing writing (something I am not entirely sure I have achieved in this piece up to this point). Understanding a technological tool and understanding your purpose for weaving it into a curriculum is also important and will determine the effectiveness and impact of the tool in the course. This is partly because many tools offer a variety of functions and different layers of application. It is much the way that a pastel can have different tones, moods, shades, and hardness of pressure line depending on the hand wielding it. Prezi can be used as a way to make people motion sick, as a substitute for PowerPoint, as a way to collaboratively work with others to create a variety of products, or as a way to metaphorically layer information for impressive and symbolic representations of information. The purpose and depth of the experience will be determined in large part by the instructor's purpose and skill at integrating the tool into the classroom.


This means that the designer/instructor needs to understand the capabilities of the tool within the learning context and in terms of the audience of the class. A tool will only be as effective as the user of the tool whether the tool is being used by the instructor to produce content for the learner or the learner is producing content for the instructor. In fact, Boettcher and Conrad (2010) encourage instructors to chose (wisely) a handful of tools that support their learning goals and focus on those tools until they are well known. This speaks, in some ways, to the idea that instructors need to understand the purpose and functionality of a tool before beginning to use it in a class. While they begin with an overview and analysis of different approaches to technology integration in learning environments McCabe and Meuter (2011) conclude the results section of their paper with a discussion of the waves of technology integration in instructor approaches. They argue that these waves go from the first where the instructor uses the technology to process parts of the class to wave two where the instructor replicates a traditional environment to wave three where the technology adds functionality, depth, and creativity to the learning environment. This must be intentional on the side of the instructor though or it can lead learners to be distracted or overwhelmed (McCabe & Meuter, 2011).

With this in mind, the most important elements that an instructional designer/instructor must keep in mind are the purpose of the tool, the pedagogical use, the expectations, and whether or not the tool adds an essential function to the learning environment (Boettcher & Conrad, 2010). In addition to those items, the instructor's familiarity with the tools and the cognitive load of the tools on the student are important factors according to Boettcher & Conrad (2010). When implemented well, these tools can be used to increase student learning or their perception of their learning (Davis, 2011); as Pang (2009) showed, multimedia can be as effective if not more effective than a face to face environment. This is true when the use of the multimedia is intentional, well done, and provided with clear expectations. Without these qualities the tool becomes the same to a student as the pastel when held in my hand. It becomes a tool with great potential but that is unclear and mysterious. As we look towards the eventual goal of making content and learning experiences accessible to an ever increasing audience, the role of technology will continue to increase especially as it relates to mobile technologies (Johnson, Smith, Levine, & Haywood, 2011). New technologies make content available to a much broader audience than in the past and have increased the functional use of tools in the classroom.

Picture courtesy of verzerk

Of course, this does not mean that all instructors or all students will share the same preferences for the tools available. Just like my wife (as an artist) has a range of tools that she prefers from the art store and is therefore masterful and selective in her approach to the artistic process and the types of pastels that will produce a specific effect, I am selective in my use of tools as a designer and instructor. It is safe to say that if I were given a soft pastel versus a hard pastel versus a pencil pastel versus an oil pastel I would simply use them the same for the job without knowing the specific functions, benefits, drawbacks, and techniques (much to the chagrin of my wife); my wife, if the situation were reversed would do the best that she could in terms of picking the best technology tool for a classroom situation with probably the same approach and probably the same result. We would end up with an abstract version of something that could have been very powerful if we had had a better idea of what we were doing.


That having been said, I would include a variety of technologies in an online classroom. I would use a content management system like Blackboard, Angel, or SharePoint in order to organize course information in a central location and run class discussions. I would also use video hosting from a site like YouTube, TeacherTube, or Screencast.com in order to provide students with videos/multimedia associated with class. Because of the way that blogging and microblogging have changed the face of online publication I would post to a blog on a site like Blogger or Wordpress and utilize Twitter. I would also use demonstration programs like Prezi, Capzles, Brainshark, or SlideRocket to provide students with information in a visual and text based form. Audio recordings hosted on a site like Podbean or Libsyn could be powerful as well. I might even use concept mapping programs like Mindomo to provide students with a single resource on a topic or a site like Delicious or Diigo (I love the annotation features of Diigo) to house collaborative resource libraries that could grow and adapt throughout the course and be available beyond the course's conclusion. I love to include widgets for fun on my sites as a way to engage the learners and would use social networking on a site like Facebook to interact with students on their mediums. This does not include email, the programs I would use to create the images and multimedia (Photoshop, Illustrator, Garageband/Audition, Camtasia, etc.), or the collaborative technologies (like wikis, Cover It Live, Elluminate, etc.). All of this is, of course, dependent on the learning goals, the student proficiency, and access of the students in the course. I am pretty tech savvy though and am probably not the best person to explain the use of technology without a clearly defined audience and course purpose. In any event, the tool is not as important as the intentional use of the tool for the specific purpose required in each specific element of the course. I strongly believe that each technology component in a course should be used intentionally and as part of an overall vision where each piece of technology used strengthens and deepens the learning experience and understanding of the rest of the tools so that each component is not a tool scattered around the garage but is part of a cohesive toolbox.

When I look at my wife's art supplies I am overwhelmed, but when I look at her pictures/paintings I am awed. I can see the strokes, the gentle movements, and the blending. I can appreciate the craftsmanship, the attention to detail, and the artistic vision. When I know the tools that she used and the time that she invested in each piece I can appreciate it more, but knowing the capabilities of the tools that she used is not necessary for me to see past the two dimensions of the original canvas and be caught up in rapture at her creation. That she is an expert and knows the right tools to use and how to use those tools allows me to see a glimpse into the content she works with, the soul of the artist, and her mind. In the same way, technology integration in a class should allow the learner to be caught up in the content, to learn the beauty of knowledge, and to see into the instructor's mind. The tools should be captivating and transparent at the same time unless the tool is the focus of the learning objective. Each tool has layers of application and each tool has functions that make it a good choice or a poor choice for any given educational situation. Each can be used to create a variety of products and a variety of learning experiences; the power of the tool though comes from the intentional use of it by the instructor/designer. If you give me pastels I will make a fool of myself and leave you thinking I am disturbed in significant ways, but I just might be able to leave you reflecting if given a choice of technologies and freedom to create; as always, the biggest impact on a classroom a does not come from the curriculum, the technology or the content management system, it comes from the instructor who is the master artist in the room.











References:

Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (2010). The online teaching survival guide: Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Davis, R. (2011). Socreates can't teach here! Faculty and student attitudes towards technology and effective instruction in higher education. Review of Higher Education & Self-Learning, 3(10), 1-13. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report.
 Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

McCabe, D. B. and Meuter, M. L. (2011). A student view of technology in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2):149-159.

Pang, K. (2009). Video-Driven Multimedia, Web-Based Training in the Corporate Sector: Pedagogical Equivalence and Component Effectiveness. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), Retrieved from EBSCOhost.