Blogging on the Brain

Day 2 of ELI started with a replacement keynote speaker, Gary Marrer, from Glendale Community College. His talk was entitled “Strategic Analysis: A Typical Community College Wondering How to Take Advantage of mLearning.” (For those of you who, like me, aren’t familiar with “mLearning,” it means “mobile learning,” which is different from “e-learning.”) My primary take-away from the presentation was that we need to be sensitive to the demographics and financial restraints of our particular academic setting. For instance, Gary mentioned that very, very few of the students at GCC have smartphones, and if they do, they generally don’t use the internet access because of the cost. On the other hand, here at Baylor, I think I’m about the only person left on campus that doesn’t have an iPhone. Interesting to think about, but I didn’t really get any more than that out of his presentation.

The last presentation I attended was entitled “Mobile Collaboration: Redefining the Classroom,” from William Rankin and Kyle Dickson of Abilene Christian University. They were essentially asking how teaching/learning/formal education would change once every student has a computer in his or her pocket. They went on to talk about some interesting projects they’re starting at ACU, but at this point I started on a mental tangent that unfortunately kept me from paying full attention to their presentation. So I’ll tell you about my little train of thought instead.

So, I get the revolutionary effect of e-learning, that we now have access to way more information than we can ever take in, and communication from wherever, whenever, but I’m really not getting the difference between that and m-learning. Does the learning qualitatively change because I get the info in my pocket instead of at my desk? In a park instead of my home? I guess I don’t understand why the mobile part is so important/revolutionary. In addition, I’m definitely one of those people that likes to check things off my list; when I’m done I’m done. I work at school and relax at home. So what is mobile learning going to do to that type of lifestyle? What if I want to be away from my class/work/etc. (or at least have the right to be)? I’m not saying I think mLearning is a terrible idea, I’m just saying I don’t want my professors texting me. Maybe I’m in the minority, or maybe I just don’t understand why the m- is so different from the e-learning (just to clarify, I’m totally on board with the e-learning), but there it is.

I arrived late for the first session of the ELI Online Spring Focus session, but the portion of the first presentation I caught was very interesting. Judy Brown was addressing the differences between e-learning and mobile learning. Obviously there are a lot of similarities, but from what I caught, the main differences are, obvious, the mobility of the technology available now, and along with that, the sort of all-access all the time approach to learning. She also talked about using a shortened format that would most likely be more useful as a mobile application (she gave the example of hairdressers, who most likely would have access to smart phones, but not computers, and information would be more useful in short, concise bursts).

I missed whatever application this may have in more formal teaching/learning/classroom situations, but the kinds of learning she talked about were really exciting – she mentioned a service called “text4baby.org” which is a free mobile info service. You register by texting in “baby,” then you’ll get free text messages timed to your own pregnancy/birth about nutrition, what’s happening developmentally at that point, etc., which I thought was remarkably cool!

Towards the end of her talk (which accelerated quite a bit as she began to run out of time!), she got to a slide that she referred to as her “take home” message. She said that this mobile revolution is not about the devices, it’s about their (and our) capacity; it’s not about the technology, but the experience. I always feel myself relax a little in these settings when people acknowledge that technology is not inherently good, it’s about how we use it.

The second session was given by a Aaron Wasserman, a senior at Stanford University, who was one of the leaders in the “iStanford” project. The project entailed the production of an app for the iphone that does, well, everything a student would need, really. It integrates an interactive campus map (with real-time bus route updates), course information/registration, directories, and even information about sports and other on-campus activities. It looked really, really useful – and it made me wish that either I went to Stanford, or that Aaron Wasserman went to Baylor.

After showing us the app, several questions came up in reference to the use of this app in the classroom. He said that they wanted to start with more basic stuff (which is where they are now) and get that working, but that he saw real potential for this to expand as a teaching/learning tool in the future. At this point, he apparently kept getting questions about it, effectively giving the impression that if it doesn’t directly impact the classroom, why should we care? I got a little irritated at this point for a couple of reasons (not the least of which is that this guy is maybe 22, has come up with a pretty revolutionary program, and you want to judge? Really?). I feel like maybe some of the faculty are missing the bigger picture with something like this. As a student, even the idea that my University was actively trying to integrate those technologies/trying to make my life easier, encourages a feeling of community (generally it feels here like the administration, etc. is trying to get us to do the most work for the fewest benefits/least pay they can) or at the very least, a feeling that the admins might care even a little bit about my time/resources. Too often (especially at large schools) students feel literally and figuratively lost when they arrive, this is a way for them to integrate much more easily into campus life. In addition, it should lead to a huge time-save for both students and administrators, leading to more time for the “important stuff.” So anyway, there’s my gripe for the day. I thought the presentation was great.

I’ll be attending a couple of sessions tomorrow too; stay tuned for more updates!

The day start off with what turned out to be one of my favorite presentations of the conference – a talk by Steven Greenlaw of University of Mary Washington. He walked us through a course he taught last year on the 2008 financial crisis. The crux of the presentation was challenging us to think about (1) what learning environments should look/be like today, and (2) the possibility that we should be teaching the way we practice our disciplines. He spent this course (a seminar in international finance) teaching only a little bit, and mostly having students read on their own, then come into class to teach, interact, and discuss. Grades were based on engagement and insight, and some of the students agreed to continue the class project through the summer – after they had graduated! – so that they could produce the final outcome of the project (availiable at www.financialcrisis2008.umwblogs.org). Awesome stuff.

So my initial response (other than very much enjoying the presentation) was, as usual, something to the effect of “that’s great, but would it work in the sciences?” I think that it could, if not in the exact same format it was carried out in the economics class. There were several features of this class that I think we’d do well to apply to more of our courses regardless of the content:

1. Working on a current issue in the field (for economics, the recession was great; for neuroscience, maybe we could spend time working on a class project looking into the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of using fMRI “lie detection” as evidence in court cases)

2. Running class more like training for practitioners.

3. Creating a genuine product as the driving force for the class

There are some potential issues as well, including:

1. Assessment

2. Covering course content

3. Varying student motivation (especially in a community college setting)

But overall, this presentation actually gave me something I could consider implementing in my own courses! Yay!

Next up was the session I thought I’d like the best, entitled Computational Thinking, by Jeannette Wing, the asst. director of CISE and NSF, as well as faculty at Carnegie Mellon University. First of all, for a person as smart as she is, she was remarkably personable and clear, and, even better, she spoke with a lot of enthusiasm about a topic that could certainly have turned out to be dull as toast. Anyway, her “grand vision” is that by the end of the 21st century, essentially everyone will be engaged in what she refers to as “computational thinking.” She went on to (thankfully) give us some definitions; she defined “computing” as the automation of abstractions, and “computational thinking” as “the process of abstraction.” This all sounded, well, very abstract to me, but after lots of examples about computational thinking in other disciplines, I felt like I was getting it. Unfortunately, when I was asked about it later that evening, I found I had sort of lost it. Oh well.

So overall – favorite session of Wednesday: the Card Sort task (which I’ll most likely try to use/write about again in more detail at some point); favorite session of Thursday: Steven Greenlaw’s presentation I talked about above. I really enjoyed the time I was able to spend down there and all the lovely people I met!

My first day at EDUCAUSE 2010 was informative and illuminating, if a bit overwhelming. There was a LOT happening, and a lot of new information for someone like me – a relative newbie in the world of technology and education.

The day began with a session entitled “Born Digital” from John Palfrey of Stanford Law. The basic concept behind the presentation was what is happening with the up-and-coming cohort of kids that have literally been exposed to digital media/tools from birth. I thought John did a great job of noting the benefits as well as the potential problems for this generation – things like privacy concerns, intellectual property, and credibility. He also had some surprising stats to share – did you know the incidence of sexual predation has not increased with the widespread advent of social networking sites? Apparently rates have actually gone down a little (he made the point that online “public” places have replaces actual public parks, etc. as the main forum for predators). One negative area that has seen an increase – bullying. This, however, could just be because of the visibility/permanence of online bullying versus your typical playground scenario. Anyway, he did a great job talking about things like what kids don’t know about how they’re allowed to use downloaded material legally and our responsibility to teach them (although it seems from the litigation surrounding the HOPE Obama poster, we’re not so sure yet ourselves). The good news: these “born digital” students won’t have to deal with the (sometimes prohibitive) learning curve us old folks have to deal with. They’re already equipped to jump right in!

Next I went to a presentation on Stanford’s Wallenberg Hall (http://wallenberg.stanford.edu/about.html) – a completely gutted/renovated building now equipped with all the makings of an ideal learning space. My favorite part about their plan (the project began in 1999 and was completed in 2002) was that they weren’t trying to get the most advanced technology of the day and cement it into the walls, they actually tried to install technology (and tables, chairs, etc.) that would provide the most flexibility for the classes – whether that meant using the dual plasma screen displays and laptops for each student, or markers, whiteboards, and glass walls (sweet). I appreciated that they tried to build the infrastructure, not just that top-of-the-line 2002 technology.

The third presentation for the morning was on students’ mental models of information and using Card Sort to determine whether or not they’re learning information in the way you’re trying to teach it. It was pretty cool, as I was completely unfamiliar with the technique (students take cards with terms on them, sort them into piles that make sense to them, and label the piles). Not sure yet how I might be able to utilize it, but for more info I’ll direct you to the website the presenters provided. http://mentalmodelassessment.org/

After lunch I attended a relatively lackluster presentation on, well, using technology in education, I guess. It wasn’t really anything new. The day of presentations wrapped up with a new system Seattle Pacific University is using to help maximize class time. They’re doing what they call “flipping” lectures – they pre-record lectures and put them online for students to watch before class. The lectures are chopped up into topical chunks (about 15-20 min), so they students can watch all of them first, or just review particular topics they need help with. This obviously leaves much more class time for discussion, group work, or more advanced ideas. Unfortunately, the rest of the session was a sales pitch for the specific software they use, but I did think this was a good idea, especially depending on the class it’s being used in. My first thought was perhaps doing something like this for the BIC Natural World course that I’m going to be working with this semester. One of the major problems they face is when students come in with wildly variable backgrounds in science, so they end up teaching to the lowest common denominator. So what if they could post background lectures online so the students could all come in on even footing and they’d actually be able to get to more interesting topics? It’s something to think about anyway.

Well, that’s it for today (man, am I tired!). Had a lovely dinner complete with good food and good conversation, and just got back here to Waco to sleep for a few hours, then I” be heading back down in the morning! More tomorrow…