So, initially, I shared the quirky reason my student gave for her scheduled advising appointment to spread the light-hearted wealth offered to me by my advisees. Then my Colleague Megan chimed in and shared how it inspired her to create a really cool option for her own students.
So, I not only love my students, and my colleagues, I just love my job…it’s the coolest. job. ever!
Read this, please.
http://thesabloggers.org/2009/07/is-whuffie-a-good-thing/
I wonder where we are with this now? I know I’ve been asking “why not” since I started using facebook in my daily advising praxis back in 2005. But I suspect more of the SA collaborative and academic techies out there have been actively pursuing the “why not” approach easily since this blog post first went up over a year ago–I wonder what the answers are that they have come up with to the “why not” question.
That’s all, really.
News: Searching For Better Research Habits – Inside Higher Ed.
So, I encourage you to read the above-linked IHE article, but I’ll give you a brief idea of its point. Students tend to misuse search engines (Google and JSTOR alike) due not only to a lack of understanding of how the algorithms produce results, but also a lack of understanding of how to create a critical thinking-based search process in the first place. Many more topics are hit in the article (again, you should read the whole thing), but that simple observation made me wonder.
How many educators would respond with the “Google is making us stupid” observation and disallow its use in their courses. Then I got really depressed, feeling certain that would be the reaction of the majority (pessimistic of me, I know). In short (right. You Esposito, short winded?), I think it foolhardy to imagine, in a post-Google world, that the 21st century, networked learner can be prohibited from using “simple search” strategies.
Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, why wouldn’t we accept that they’ll go anywhere they need to in order to find information? And for the archetypal student referenced in the article, with the six classes and the part-time job and the life they also want to lead, “fast enough is true enough.” All we can do is teach them the difference and let them decide, for well or ill, how they’ll conduct themselves and their continuing education in a scholarly or non-scholarly way.
I almost can’t bring myself to write a rant about how I, and all my Social Media-Friendly Colleagues, have been saying this all along.
…I said almost.
Of course it’s more important that first years engage rather than how they engage. And of course, a more engaged student is going to have more friends than a disengaged student. The engagement argument has been supported by scholarly research since 1985. Meeting students in their environment and encouraging them to engage with academia in which ever ways they feel most comfortable is as self-evident as breathing. “Allowing” the student to choose their own preferred means of engagement is an expression learner-centered education.
And no, I don’t have a great lot of data to support my observations that this balance of power shift away from teacher-centered environments can only be good for higher education, and that it will lead to more transformative experiences for traditional-aged college students. I don’t have the data because that’s someone else’s agenda. The mentor in me shuns the agenda’s of others and only allows me to care about those of my students.
Battles Around Nation Over Proposed Mosques – NYTimes.com.
To sort of “spit ball” a bit on the topic I posted yesterday about Bill Gates’ call for the world to self-educate via the internet, what sort of deep research do you think the sign-holder in this article did before rushing out to protest a Mosque in Temecula? Their “reasoning” probably flowed a little like this: “Islamist terrorist blow things and people up; Islamist Terrorist frequently go to mosques; therefore Islam must preach Terrorism. ‘Boo’ to mosques.”
Now, even a lengthy perusal of internet stories about terrorism would likely support two of the points in their theory and the lazy self-educator would be able to come to the faulty conclusion which lead to the creation of the “Monuments to Terrorism” placard being brandished. Only through a critical thought-based research process would one be encouraged to research a bit about Islam in order to come to a truly accurate conclusion about Mosques and the position the religion takes on terrorism. Does this mean that all self educators would be lazy and jump to conclusions before fully researching a topic? No, of course not. However, how many examples do we need to be shown that many do?
So, Mr. Gates, please rethink your position and use the bully pulpit your celebrity and success afford you to encourage University Education rather than decry it as a waste of time and money.
Bill Gates: In Five Years The Best Education Will Come From The Web.
I usually like the things Bill Gates has to say on the topic of education, but I think he’s way off base here. I agree that text books seem to be awfully thick, and I’ve spent my fair share of time reading those written by scholars who seem to be simply grinding an ax. And educational technology and Web applications in academia know no greater champion than me. But to suggest that as thorough and meaningful an education as can be earned in academia can be acquired simply be reading and listening to lectures online seems ridiculous to me.
There is an old axiom that states “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” It’s a quick quip one can utter when confronted with arguments in debate that are not fully researched and go hardly beyond surface structure of the issue. However, never has this been more important a reality to bear in mind–especially as we launch head-long into what will certainly be one of the most contentious election seasons in history and while we’ll need to suffer through countless tirades from under-educated and under-informed candidates and supporters. Or let’s consider the one that states “you don’t know what you don’t know”? And I don’t know about you, Bill, but I sure as hell don’t want a doctor working on me who learned everything he knows from Web MD.
So Bill, please, let’s not generalize–not every text book is written by committee. And let’s not over-play our hand–unless you’re suggesting that people can find the equivalent to 120 lecture hours of content on a range of liberal studies topics that they themselves can organize into a cohesive program of study, then no, educating oneself on-line will never take the place of a college education (and that’s just a bachelors degree, don’t even get me started on the idea of advanced study at the master’s and doctoral levels!).
No, let’s not burn down the bastions of higher education, Bill, let’s work to ensure they are embracing technology and the World Wide Web to enrich educational experiences. Let’s encourage them to leverage in the educational experiences of those they teach, the unprecedented access to information the Web provides.
In this article, and those linked from it in support, FERPA is cited as a concern for moving Faculty and Staff to cloud-based email accounts (i.e. g-mail’s “mymail” accounts).
Here’s what I don’t get. Since most potentially FERPA-violating communications happen between professors and students, haven’t they already let that horse leave the stable by moving students to g-mail? Most FERPA compliance policies allow the free sharing of FERPA-protected information to students’ official email addresses, so why not move Faculty and Staff there too?
Just wondering, since my university’s email client is a bloated pig of a program and our students get to use the sleek, g-mail account…color me jealous.
I wonder what a similar survey of academic advisors would show:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/04/socialmedia
And I wonder what the hell everyone else in academia is waiting for.
This is another great entry from the Six Pixels blog:
I’m particularly drawn to the the quote included from the article he linked–this bit:
“he has grown uncomfortable with the constant exposure. ‘You get the sense that you’re someone else’s entertainment. Your life is a product and that to me is a frightening idea.’”
This was the rationale of a once-avid Social Media devotee who has recently decided to “hang it up;” to “commit it to the river or the flame;” to “pack up his marbles and go home.”
My question is, how did he not appreciate this reality from the start? He entered Social Media spaces in order to draw attention to his work–what else could his impetus have been than to be “someone else’s entertainment?” I’m not convinced that his new-found realization is all that new; that he didn’t know the job was dangerous when he took it.
I can imagine other reasons for being in the space than self-promotion and marketing, but that’s because my impetus for being here is to situation educational practices in environments that my students inhabit. It’s the same thing really–I want to draw attention to the things I’m trying to teach my students–but at least I’m being honest about my quest to shine a spotlight on things I find important and worthy of sharing.
OK, so I initially just did a quick toss to my facebook status of the following article:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/03/02/facebook
And it spurred the following response from a good friend and colleague:
I agree with you that she should have reviewed her privacy settings. However, I also think everyone was over-reacting to her posts (although I give her institution credit for keeping her on paid leave and even admitting they can’t find any official policy she violated). We all vent and let off steam, and for someone to turn her in for threats without taking context into account is reactionary at best. We’re getting to the point where we can’t say or do anything for fear that someone will take offense and report us to someone. I also don’t agree with the idea that academics represent their institutional brand 24/7.”
Now, my colleague has made excellent points—I agree with all of them and don’t mean what I’m about to say as an attack on her opinion. However, this educator’s situation highlights the sort of care that needs to be taken when being in these spaces.
Most of our laws, governing principles and policies were established way before the advent of social media. Have institutions adapted? We’ve seen pretty soundly that they have not and are moving forward slowly and from a fearful place. And what are they fearful of? Recklessness like the behavior of this educator, who seriously(?) thought it a good idea to be “edgy” and “cheeky” in a public space with little regard for audience. And in the current atmosphere of violence and hostility (hello, “Tea Party Movement” and oh by the way didn’t a professor who was refused tenure just show up on campus and murder three people who denied her?), how can we possibly fault an institution for getting nervous. And don’t even get me started on how difficult it makes the work of convincing administrators that we can be using social media to benefit our students—that we can use these powers for good and not evil.
Now, the title of my blog. Yes, I realize I’ve quoted “the great excuse” of the gun lobby in America. No, I do not believe the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people do” is justification to cave to the gun lobby in America. I do believe they have a point and that only careful education and regulation can improve the effects of guns on American society (just like we license people to drive, we should be licensing people to bear arms—only after they prove they won’t kill innocents should they be allowed to carry them). Am I advocating licensing people to use social media? No. But I do think professionals should educate themselves before they venture into these spaces.
Theme: WordPress Classic. Blog at WordPress.com.
