Monthly Archives: July 2008

How much is that Ph.D. in the window? The commodification of higher education.

Last week my wife and I had dinner with an old friend who’d come in from out of town for a rare visit. She’s a remarkable woman, with a long stint in broadcasting followed by the acquisition of an advanced degree at UC Berkeley, which led to her current vocation as hospice chaplain in a major west coast city. Warm, intelligent, inquisitive and urbane; she surprised me with her announcement that she was about to start her doctoral studies. Online. And not at a school I would’ve guessed.

Because she’s such a hands-on kind of person her decision to study online seemed unusual to me, but I was really interested why she didn’t choose to pursue her studies at one of the universities in her area. Surely they offered online courses. Why this school, with so many prestigious alternatives?

Ph.D. = Driver’s License?

She allowed that she knew the degree wouldn’t be held in the same regard as one from the brick and mortars in her region, but that cost and flexibility had been deciding factors. Further, she assured me, the Ph.D. she would earn would be sufficient for attaining the job she wanted. It was, she concluded, the same as a driver’s license. It didn’t matter where you studied for it as long as you got one.

Give them what they want

I’m fascinated by this commodification of higher education and its acceptance. At both the recent Sloan-C symposium in Carefree, Arizona and an enrollment management workshop a couple of weeks ago I heard a lot of discussion about how traditional student populations are declining, how the survival of educational institutions is dependent upon attracting and retaining non-traditional (usually adult) students, and how both Millennial and adult students demand educational opportunities and experiences that are decidedly consumer-based and market driven. Give them what they want or watch your college wither and die, keynote speakers declared.

It’s rough out there

I understand the pressures that inform a prospective student’s decisions on what, how and where to study: I’d love to be studying theology or literature for personal and spiritual growth, but I invest my school’s tuition waiver benefits in professional development courses. And I understand the need for institutions to adapt strategically. It’s rough out there in consumer society.

My friend’s decision was pragmatic; she’d pursued her ideals as a younger undergraduate and graduate student and was now positioning herself in a competitive marketplace. Higher education must also adapt and make practical, unsentimental strategic decisions to survive and prosper. I do not pretend to have any answers to how we do that without abusing our principles. But I like to think we stand for something greater than market share. That we take a position rather than seek one. And that we’re more than mere commodities.

LPs Versus CDs: An Unnecessary (and Often Annoyingly Ignorant) Debate

I am truly at a loss as to why we are still arguing about this, but we somehow still are! (See “Retailers Giving Vinyl Records Another Spin.”) Here is the quick answer: digital-audio techniques and media can capture and reproduce sonic events far more faithfully than any analogue technique and medium. Note that the focus of the above statement is fidelity not preference, a distinction that most “LPs versus CDs” debates wrongly blur.

Old news

More than twenty years have gone by since the first time CD sales surpassed those of LPs, and several highly qualified acousticians and engineers have since weighed in on the LPs-versus-CDs topic, outlining in numerous books, scholarly journal articles, and presentations the mathematical, acoustical, signal-processing, and perceptual issues involved. (See the relevant, well-written article on Wikipedia for a partial bibliography. See, also, an intelligent talk on the topic by Princeton University’s Paul Lansky.) Some of these experts have also sent relevant letters to the popular press or have published blogs and other online resources. (See this post by analog-integrated-circuit designer Mike Demler.)

Still, self-proclaimed “experts” and die-hard lovers of popular myths, who seem to approach knowledge almost exclusively through what C. S. Peirce, in the 19th century, called “the method of tenacity” (holding on to one’s already established beliefs at all cost), insist on keeping the analogue-versus-digital-sound debate alive. See, for example, this thread on Audiokarma.org’s discussion forum, which includes a typical example of the types of arguments used by LP advocates: “I know vinyl is better because… it just is” (emphasis in the original!).

I will not waste any time here repeating in detail the arguments for the superior audio fidelity of CDs versus LPs. Interested readers can find more information through a relevant Google search, assuming they know how to weed through the returned results and evaluate Internet resources. (e.g. Does the author identify him/herself? What are his/her credentials? Are the arguments supported by references to credible, peer-reviewed sources? Are the sources of information properly cited? etc.)

I will simply outline the inherent and unsurpassable limitations of analog media, such as vinyl LPs, and highlight an important distinction between fidelity and preference that seems to be overlooked in digital-versus-analog debates.

Limitations of LPs

The mechanical nature of sound-signal capture and reproduction in LPs and the associated issues of inertia, momentum, and interference impose frequency and dynamic response limits (i.e. limits in both the range and fineness by which a signal’s frequency and amplitude content can be captured and reproduced without interfering with adjacent signals) that constitute an unavoidable fidelity bottleneck within the medium. CDs completely bypass these issues thanks to optical methods of sound-signal capture and reproduction, assuming appropriate digitization (sampling-rate and bit-depth choice), storage (CD-surface and surface-coating choice), and handling (CD-surface protection during use to minimize the need for digital error correction).

Fidelity versus preference

Advocates of LPs and other analog sound media often cite the analog sound’s greater “warmth,” “smoothness,” and “fullness” as the main reasons for choosing analog over digital. Interestingly, these subjective sound-quality characteristics are related to acoustic side effects imposed on live, sonic events by the analog media themselves. Preference for such sonic qualities may be based on familiarity and habit (having grown up listening to music exclusively through analogue media, showing a conditioned preference towards the “familiar”) or may constitute a conscious aesthetic choice (intentionally altering a sonic event, through the sound-quality distortions introduced by analog media, to achieve a given aesthetic result). Regardless of the reasons behind some listeners’ preference for the sound-quality distortions introduced by analog media, the fact is that the sound quality carried by such media is exactly that: distorted. Preference for analog over digital and the other way around occupies an inherently subjective, gray area, and discussions on it can and will continue. However, when it comes to sound fidelity (how accurately an acoustic vibration is represented by a sound signal) it’s just black and white, with digital coming out the clear and undisputable winner.

Avatar photo

Libx

Libx is a Web 2.0 tool that connects you to the university library while exploring the web. Available for Firefox and Internet Explorer, this plug-in is customized especially for DePaul and pops a handy little search bar across the top of your browser window, so you can quickly and easily search the library catalog or check on whether the library has the journal you need online or in print.

libx1.jpg

Even better, when searching for titles from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or many other sites, you will see a little DePaul icon next to the book title allowing you to see if it is available in the DePaul Library.

libx2.jpg

In addition, you can highlight any word or phrase in a web page and right-click to search the library catalog for that item or drag-and-drop onto the ‘Scholar’ button in the toolbar to generate a search in Google Scholar.

libx3.jpg

Speaking of Google Scholar, if you set your scholar preferences to include library links from DePaul,

libx4.jpg

your scholar results will have ‘find full text’ buttons.

libx5.jpg

Now you are never more than a click or two away from finding out whether the library has what you’re looking for.

Give it a try!

For Firefox:
http://libx.org/editions/download.php?edition=CD98EF7E

For Internet Explorer:
http://libx.org/editions/CD/98/CD98EF7E/libx-CD98EF7E.exe

(More general information at: http://libx.org/)

Avatar photo

Viewing Faculty-Development Programs through the Lens of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Framework: Part II

In my last blog post, I promised to share more findings on viewing faculty-development programs through the lens of TPCK after trying to implement the TPCK framework into our faculty development program—DePaul Online Teaching Series, or DOTS. This program, offered in both a quarter-long and an intensive three-week format, is intended to prepare faculty to design online and hybrid courses. A total of twenty-one DePaul faculty members from psychology, public services, and education attended DOTS in spring and summer 2008.

My attempt to apply TPCK to DOTS yielded interesting results. While the overall high rating of the program showed how meaningful it is to blend technology (T), pedagogy (P), and content knowledge (CK) together through concrete examples, some feedback from faculty attested the old adage, “rules are made to be broken”—including the rules of TPCK. As I explained the rules of TPCK in my previous blog post, I ‘d like to share with you some lessons learned on how to strategically “break” the T, P, and CK bundle (as long as they can be molded back together at a certain point of the process).

Specially, here are three lessons learned from DOTS:

  • Clear the T (technology) barriers before plugging in T, P, and CK as a whole.
  • Maintain a good balance of Pedagogical preface and TPCK examples.
  • Breaking the discipline (CK) boundary with an elegant match of Technology and Pedagogy is possible.

Clear the T (technology) barriers before plugging in T, P, and CK as a whole.

If you have read Joann Golas’s post on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Faculty Support, you don’t need any more explanation about why we should clear the T barriers before doing anything else. As Joann cited in her post, Eric Larson illustrated in his presentation that faculty use of technology for teaching loosely follows Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; that is, until the basic needs—Biological and Physical, Safety, and Belongingness and Love—are taken care of, faculty will not be able to reach any higher stage on the hierarchy, including Esteem, Cognitive, Aesthetic, Self-actualization, and Transcendence.

In arranging the summer DOTS program, we made plans to take care of those “lower needs” at the very beginning:

  • The first stage, the Biological and Physical need, was addressed by providing each participant with a pre-imaged and fully tested laptop.
  • The second stage, Safety, was addressed by using technology brush-up and intro sessions to erase the fear of using technology. Two intensive tech training days were scheduled to refresh faculty’s Blackboard skills and to introduce a number of basic technology tools that faculty need to be acquainted with to become online instructors.
  • The third need, Belongingness and Love, was met by surrounding faculty with technical supporters in the training room. During the training sessions, a 1:2 staff to faculty ratio ensured that no one was left alone to struggle by him- or herself. Also, sitting with their peers in a group gave faculty the opportunity to share the same fears and desires.

This arrangement also reflects Punya Mishra’s premise of creativity, which states that the path of technology usage goes from mechanical to meaningful to generative. The mechanical stage is necessary to bring faculty on board on any type of new technology.

Faculty responses also reinforced the effectiveness of addressing their needs in a hierarchical way: the tech sessions of DOTS received almost all full scores from the participants in regard to their appropriateness on the evaluation sheets.

Maintain a good balance of pedagogical talk and examples of TPCK.

The TPCK framework carries a strong message of delivering both pedagogical and technical training through showcases—that is, to plant the T and P into the disciplinary (or the CK) context. Showcases are, therefore, a key method used by DOTS, for which many of the teaching strategies and technologies are presented in a show-and-tell mode. One thing I found by observing showcase presenters is that they usually put the “tell” (explaining the contextual/theoretical background, design philosophy and rationale, and even some lecture review) before the “show” (going through the course site). In the evaluation, faculty strongly recommended that we cut down the “front end” as to allow more time to explore the course. It is interesting to find that although almost all of the front-end talks have focused on pedagogical aspects of the design, audience still treat them as teasers before the “real thing,” and they want a teaser to be no longer than a commercial.

Will it work better to reverse the sequence from a tell-and-show mode to literally, a show-and-tell? Or what about inserting the pedagogical explanation into the “course tour” so that the “tell” is part of the “show”? The answers will be found through future DOTS sessions.

Breaking the discipline (CK) boundary with an elegant match of Technology and Pedagogy is possible!

In selecting guest speakers for the DOTS program, I wanted faculty presenters from the same discipline as the participants. I thought the ideal presenter would be someone who not only has outstanding online-teaching experiences but also speaks the same disciplinary language as our faculty participants. I believed that the relevance of content knowledge (CK) would make pedagogy (P) and technology (T) more approachable to faculty.

Yet, despite my suggestion, my staff picked, from a number of potential speakers, a person who was not in the field of psychology, education, or public services. Michelle Pacansky-Brock, an art-history professor from Sierra College was chosen to showcase her online courses. As it turned out, her session was scored the highest of all four guest speakers for DOTS. Michelle, a 2007 Sloan-C winner of the Excellent Online Teaching Award, conducted a breathtaking presentation, “Extreme Makeover: Online Course Edition,” and captured our hearts with not only her use of technology but also her passionate and devoted style of teaching. I am so glad that I wasn’t listened to, because otherwise, I would have missed Michelle, who taught me a great lesson—an elegant match of technology and pedagogy is like music that can strike beyond the linguistic boundary of any discipline.

You may click here to read Michelle blog about her experience with DOTS.

Avatar photo

When Details Matter

As a graduate student from the writing program working at IDD, I often wonder how much time it makes sense to devote to copy editing the online-course syllabi and modules that come across my desk. I sometimes think I’m being too stringent in my attempts to apply the rules of the Chicago Manual of Style. I have a tendency to get lost for upwards of half an hour at a time trying to resolve ambiguities of correct hyphen and comma use. (I’m still not sure if I should use a comma before a coordinating conjunction connecting two imperative clauses.)

Generally, the amount of attention that gets paid to a certain text’s punctuation, grammar, and accuracy is proportional to the number of people we expect to read it. An article in a national news magazine is rigorously scrutinized while an e-mail to officemates may not be reread once. Given that logic, it doesn’t seem to make sense to go over every course module with a fine-toothed comb.

However, I think everyone involved in producing a class should have a healthy amount of fear of students misunderstanding the course content. I bring this up because I think there’s a sense that proper grammar and punctuation, while important in order to appear professional, are purely cosmetic—at best only necessary to make a text easier to read. But something as simple as a hyphen or a capital letter can make a sentence mean something entirely different than what is intended.

In neither speech nor writing is meaning in the words alone. For example, in speech, we can distinguish the White House, the building where the president lives, from a generic house that happens to be white, by using stressed and unstressed syllables. “The white house” is not the same “the white house.” Say it out loud; you’ll hear the difference.

While we use and interpret stressed syllables naturally in speech, in writing, we have to rely on visual elements to make sure our audience reads the sentence the way it is intended. When these are absent or inconsistent, the writer loses control of what the reader interprets.

If, for example, someone referred to the syllabus for an online course as “the online course syllabus,” there’s a very real chance that the reader could interpret it instead as a course syllabus that is online, possibly assuming we are talking about a face-to-face course in which the professor posted the syllabus on Blackboard.

To prevent this kind of miscommunication, the phrase must be hyphenated as “online-course syllabus” because the words “online course” function as a compound adjective to modify “syllabus.”

Perhaps I am trying too hard to justify my existence as a writing student working at IDD. But since instructors are often trying to differentiate subtle shades of meaning and convey complicated ideas, I think every effort should be made to eliminate the potential for this kind of misinterpretation. Remember that in asynchronous learning it’s harder for students to ask and get answers to questions when they’re confused.

Of course, much of the time, students will be able to tell what you mean by context, but not always. And I think we should be on the lookout for the situations where a comma, a hyphen, or a capital letter can keep students from misunderstanding the class concepts.