TLTR rises again!

Friday, September 21, OHSU re-instituted one of what I have always thought was one of the coolest groups on campus: the TLTR, or Teaching, Learning and Technology Roundtable. These roundtables are encouraged by EDUCAUSE and other like organizations focused on technology in learning environments, particularly in higher education.

The many questions and resources covered at this meeting include the following. I would like to the OHSU TLTR site, but it will likely be overwritten for future meetings.

Tom Boudrot, Instructional Technology Manager, led a discussion on web conferencing and touched on the following issues:

• What does web conferencing look like?
  
• What hardware and software is required to conduct a successful web lecture or meeting?
  
• What software can be used to enhance the design and production of online events and training?
  
• What are some best practices in designing, producing and facilitating online courses, meetings and events?
  
• What are the current web conferencing pilots at OHSU?
  
• How do I get involved with web conferencing?
  

Select resources mentioned in the session:

• eLearning Guild
  
• Adobe Presenter User's Guide
  
• Getting Started with Adobe Presenter (PowerPoint)
  
• Adobe Captivate (rapid e-learning authoring)
  
• TechSmith: Camtasia Studio
  
• insyncCenter: 101 Tips to Motivate the Online Learner
  

Of course, it was a bonus that I won as a door prize a copy of The Synchronous Trainer's Survival Guide by Jennifer Hofmann. I still haven't had time to look at it yet (between helping launch our library's first attempt at providing an online Library 2.0 class to library staff and various conferences), but I'm looking forward to reading it.

Confessions of a podcast junkie

Yesterday I attended an ALA/ACRL webinar called "Podcasting for the Classroom", led by David Free. One of the many resources he referenced was an Educause article
"Confessions of a Podcast Junkie", by Carie Windham.

While I am not (yet) a podcasting junkie, the possibilities for using it as a design tool for the learning process are tantalizing. Windham describes how in some classrooms they use podcasts as a way to bring in the voices of different speakers or theorists who students would not normally have the opportunity to hear. I am thinking this would be particularly useful for learners who tend towards an auditory style of learning.

The possibilities for having students really work with the ideas they are grappling with in class appear to be enhanced by the opportunity to create a podcast to put together a class presentation, thereby contributing to students' motivation in the learning process. Likewise, podcasting (with it's prevalence of interviewing as a format) would appear to contribute towards greater classroom collaboration.

Again, however, just using a new technology is not a panacea that will instantly enhance all learning situations. As one student said, "If you're going to use [podcasting], make sure it's practical. Don't just give us busy work."

So, one more tool to put in the toolbox for teaching and learning to keep in mind for the future.

Full notes from Free's session will be available on his blog (http://davidsrandomstuff.blogspot.com/).

I'm back!

Between a library systems conference and being sick, I have not posted in a while and stories have piled up. To start back up, a few recent news stories of interest:

Google has purchased FeedBurner, through which "bloggers and podcasters syndicate and make money from their online content". Will this make FeedBurner the tool of choice for this function? Will it propel bloggers and podcasters to choose other alternatives if Google's business model becomes problematic? Only time will tell, but it's interesting to see how Googlezon continues to consolidate tools and grow.

In health care information news, the Librarian Activist reports the launch of an online medical journal Open Medicine. The editor, James Maskalyk, in his opening issue article asks Why Open Medicine? What is the reason to provide a free, online, but peer-reviewed medical journal?

Maskalyk points to the existing disparity in information access to medical literature ("It seems an anathema to the spirit of medical research that, largely for economic reasons, the information it produces remains hidden from many potential users.") as well as the undue influence pharmaceutical companies ("too much of the revenue that sustains medical journals comes from pharmaceutical advertising that attempts to influence physicians into making decisions based on brand recognition rather than on discerning scholarship.") He also points to the fact that the cost of print and mailing, in addition to the slower turnaround time for traditional print-based peer review, takes unduly long and with current technology are no longer absolutely necessary.

Open Medicine will be supported by volunteers, donations and what they call "ethical advertising" and has a blog to encourage discussion amongst its members, all those who "read and contribute to it." Although medical literature is still a long way from being 100% online (and I doubt it will ever be 100% open access), Open Medicine has made an early contribution to a trend I think we will see continue in the near to mid term.

Are you a "technology omnivore"?

The Pew Research Center recently released results of study on people's attitudes towards technology (Internet, cell phones, Web 2.0, etc.).

In addition to finding that there is a range between people who embrace and use technology for communication ("elite users") and those who don't use and/or avoid it (and also "middle of the roaders" in between), the study found that even within the "elite users" group were subdivisions, including people who use the technology as a productivity device or because they otherwise have to, but not because they are just embracing technology for technology's sake.

To see the full breakdown of types, go to the Pew Research page on A Typology of Information and Communication Technology Users . There are links from here to the full report and to a "Technology Typology" quiz that allows you to see how you would place in this system.

The subtle breakdown of "technology types", particularly those who might use the Internet, Web 2.0 and cell phones a lot, but just not be enjoying it, should be another reminder that there can never be a "one size fits all" approach to use of technology in the classroom, or in general.

It is also a good reminder that when the "latest and greatest" technology comes out, it will not necessarily be the solve-all panacea for whatever particular processes it is designed to address. Per my earlier post on why technology is not always the key to learning, humans (or at least the ones in my culture with whom I am most familiar) love to have an "either-or" approach to new things. "New" for whatever reason tends to be equated with "better" ("new and improved way to do XYZ!"), but, to borrow an analogy one of my colleagues uses in teaching, saying that the only way to build a house is with the "new and improved" hammer would be leaving out a lot of vital tools in this process.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now, at least for the moment. Isn't that what blogs are for, to be soapboxes?

Teaching, communication and technology

Interesting notes from "Confessions of a Science Librarian" (John Dupuis) on the opening day of the TEL@York Conference, a conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. In his post , he discusses the keynote speaker's (John Mitterer of Brock University) presentation of Teaching, Communication, and the Effective Use of Technology to Enhance Student Engagement. I thought a variety of his points were of interest, particularly the "chalk as technology" idea and also keeping in mind that just because "technologies" are older does not mean they are not useful in certain instances. PowerPoint can still be useful as a teaching tool when properly applied, for example. Many thanks to Dupuis for his blogging of this event!

Technology is not always the key to learning

I am constantly gathering and filtering through books on issues of interest to me. One book I have just started perusing again (I ILL'd it before I remembered I had a copy at home already! Time to start using LibraryThing...) that appears to have some interesting things to say about the teaching and learning process, particularly as it applies to distance education is Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education, by Simonson, Smaldino, Albright and Zvacek.

In their first chapter they analyze Richard Clark's assessment on the limited role of technology, describing how his article claimed "...that instructional media were excellent for storing educational messages and for delivering them almost anywhere", but that media itself could not be responsible for any "learning effect", in other words, those aspects in the instructional process that together aid the process of learning. The authors go on to say, "Learning was not enhanced because instruction was media-based. Rather, the content of the instruction, the method used to promote learning, and the involvement of the learner in the instructional experience were what, in part, influenced learning."

I don't consider myself a Luddite, but I think that sometimes enthusiasm for the "latest and greatest" technology is incorrectly considered a panacea, all-in-one solution for all that ails the learning process (or anything else in the world for that matter). Why humans tend to do this (ascribe total solution to some new thing) is the topic for another post!

Another analogy that comes to my mind are the movies that Hollywood churns out that, while full of the latest special effects, are devoid of any real storyline or character development. The foundations and the structure have to exist first before the layers of "technological solutions" are introduced. Just introducing a distance component to an existing successful academic program will not necessarily enhance the students' experience of learning unless careful consideration is given to the learning process on its own (aka "instructional design"!).