To Be Digital or Not to Be Digital

On May 10, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, Education Reform, Pedagogy, Research, Textbook2 Comments

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”
Confucius

The debate about textbooks and the cost of textbooks has become so large that governments are getting involved. In 2009 California passed SB 48 An act to add Section 66410 to the Education Code, relating to college textbooks. This bill requires publishers of College textbooks to make the books sold to the State schools (Diversities of California, the California State universities, and the California Community College system) available in digital format by 2020.

In 2011 Florida passed SB 2120 which added similar legislation for Florida schools. Several other states have passed bills relaxing regulations on the money assigned to textbooks to allow digital content to be purchased instead of traditional printed material.

Of course, even with these rules, there are still questions concerning digital books. One question is what do the students think about Digital textbooks? Several surveys have shown that e-textbooks (e-texts) have had slow sales, in 2010 e-texts accounted for only 2-3% of textbook sales, in 2012 e-text sales had grown to only 11%. The slow growth in e-texts sales is different than other types of e-books, as Amazon announced in 2010 that it was selling more digital than print books.

With the growth in sales of fiction and nonfiction e-books coupled with advantages like lower cost, more comfortable transport (weight), and the addition of multimedia and connected content it seems like e-texts should be growing exponentially. So why aren’t they? One reason might be the availability of the reader. While I read all my entertainment books in a digital format, I rarely read them on my laptop or desktop computer. I read them on my tablet or dedicated e-ink reader. According to the 2017 Educause study ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2017 While smartphones have reached near-saturation only about 50% of the students surveyed own a tablet. The presence of pictures, multimedia and formatting make e-texts challenging to use on smartphones; therefore another reading device is needed which 50% of the students don’t have.

If the availability of “reading” devices is the primary reason for the slow adoption of e-texts by students, there is an easy solution for governments and schools wishing to encourage the transition. The schools need to provide “readers” like they provide other educational tools. However, before we run out and change regulations we should ask is the lack of “readers” is the primary reason students are not adopting e-texts?

There is plenty of evidence that suggests there are other reasons students are not adopting e-texts. The current generation of undergraduate students is digital natives. Which means they are familiar and comfortable around technology. We might expect them to flock to e-texts. However, we need to remember that schools are historically slow to change how they do things in the classroom, even if they have the money to make changes. Authors Win Shih and Martha Allen in their article Working with Generation‐D: adopting and adapting to cultural learning and change point out that while the current students are digital natives. The students have not grown up with digital technology in their educational environment. Therefore the slow adoption of e-texts could be the students wish to stick with what they know.

Another interesting thing is that students confidence in their ability to use e-texts effectively has decreased over time. In 2012 60% of surveyed students felt they could effectively use e-texts while in 2016 only 44% said they could effectively use e-texts. (deNoyelles, A. and Raible, J. Exploring the Use of E-Textbooks in Higher Education: A Multiyear Study, EDUCAUSE Review, Monday, October 9, 2017) This decrease in comfort is unusual since students comfort with technology should be increasing as students grow up surrounded by more and more technology.

Where this decrease in comfort is coming from is an interesting question. A possible explanation could be the increased interactive and multimedia content in e-texts. In addition to searching, highlighting, and bookmarking features, e-texts have started to include features to ask questions, annotations, and chat with fellow students and faculty. All of these connected functions are in addition to the multimedia and linked content.

As I have written about previously (Shh I’m hunting (for) Digital Natives) Digital Natives while comfortable with technology do not have a deep understanding of how it works. Many faculty don’t understand this and fearful of looking foolish in front of their students don’t use, demonstrate, and model the educational technology used in their class. Because of this lack of training student might feel like they don’t understand how they should be using the e-texts.

Alternatively, since the use of e-texts has increased 24% over the same period as the students’ comfort has decreased
(deNoyelles, A. and Raible, J.Exploring the Use of E-Textbooks in Higher Education: A Multiyear Study, EDUCAUSE Review, Monday, October 9, 2017) , we might be seeing the Dunning-Kruger Effect . Early on in the adoption of e-texts, the students had so little self-knowledge about the use of e-texts they had no ability to judge their lack of skill and knowledge accurately. As time passed and the students gained experience with the e-texts they began to understand how much they didn’t know about the use of the e-text. More research is needed here.

While schools and governments have been quick to support e-texts for all there advantages, lowers cost, ease of portability, interactive and multimedia tools, and several (often incompletely implemented) accessibility features. Most of these groups have failed to look at the user population, the students. Recent studies from groups like Educause has shown that the ownership of dedicated reader devices like tablets has plateaued and may even be decreasing among college students. Additionally, while students are comfortable with technology the limited use of e-texts in K-12 means that students are more comfortable with regular print texts.

If we wish to continue with the increased adoption of e-texts we need to focus on working collaboratively across the whole of K-16. Students need to be comfortable and familiar with e-texts before they start college if we want e-texts to be used generally throughout college. To increase the successes of e-texts in education faculty also need to use and model e-texts in their classrooms so that students understand how to use them. Lastly, schools need to develop strategies to help students select and acquirer devices that will let the students get the most out of the e-text. Most importantly we need to remember e-texts will only work if the end user, the student, finds them helpful, compelling, and affordable.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

Why Do You Teach?

On May 2, 2019May 2, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Education Reform, Pedagogy, ResearchLeave a comment

“I never teach my pupils, I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.”
Albert Einstein

I have been interested in the improvement of education throughout my life. During my late Graduate student and early professional years, I attended many workshops on Discipline-Based Educational Research (DBER). In these early days, the workshops and associated discussions were not well organized and would often range far and wide. The birth of organizations like the Khan Academy, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), and other internet-based educational tools around the same time lead to a plethora of articles announcing that the Face-to-Face university was on its last leg and would soon die.

One of our discussions revolved around why the loss of face-to-face classes would be a tragedy. All the professors started by saying face-to-face classes were always superior to online (something I am not sure I agree with, but that is a different discussion) because of all the advantages the students got. Then for the next hour, the faculty discussed how they always get great ideas from their students, how the students think of things the professors did not, and how they taught so much better when interacting with the students. I remember asking “everything you just talked about are benefits to you what about the students? Shouldn’t we be talking about what they get?” I never got an answer.

Just recently I read an article The Subtle Erosion of Academic Freedom from Inside Higher Ed. The paper starts by saying that President Trump’s executive order about free speech while problematic is also distracting from the real loss of academic freedom. The author Professor Johann N. Neem argues that three things are undermining academic freedom. The first is the decline of tenure and shared governance; the next two surprised me. The second point undermining academic freedom is schools that offer degrees but don’t require “professors” to teach the courses specifically schools like Western Governors University or Southern New Hampshire University’s College for America. The third issue undermining academic freedom is the growing number of students that earn college credit through things like Advanced Placement.

Why does Professor Neem feel AP credit is undermining Academic freedom? Neem states “Yet a moment’s thought makes it clear that AP courses are nothing like college classes. They may be rigorous, but that does not make a course worthy of college credit. A college course is defined by the presence of a professor who is an expert in their subject and the freedom of that professor to pursue truth in the classroom and scholarship. … however, what defines a college course is freedom to seek truth far more than how hard a class is”

This argument that the essential thing in a college course is that the Professors can seek the “truth” drives the remainder of the paper. According to Webster’s dictionary, Truth means

(a)
(b): a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
(c): the body of true statements and propositions

So how does truth affect AP courses “ … AP courses, even if more rigorous, are less like college courses than even traditional high school courses because AP teachers must teach to a predesigned test …” lets think about this idea a little if a course can’t be “college worthy” because the teachers don’t have the ability to seek real things, events, and facts what about American Chemical Society (ACS) certified programs. Since ACS certified programs have curricular requirements, does that mean an ACS certified Bachelors degree is not a college education?

One of the arguments as to why schools like Western Governors is not worth a “college” degree as Neem states is “Students themselves do not interact directly with professors but with standardized online modules and learning “coaches” and “mentors” hired to implement a pre-existing curriculum.” While I do not personally know every coach and mentor at Western Governors University the ones, I do know care a lot about education. Many “professors” don’t really care about education. I have lost count of the number of professors at high-end universities that have told me “I do as little teaching as possible,” “teaching is the lest import thing I do,” and “I put as little effort into teaching as I can.” Additionally, graduate students taught 25% -33% of my classes which is not uncommon.

So if High School teachers teaching AP classes are not worthy of college credit because as Professor Neem said “ … high school teachers, who lack the expertise and autonomy to offer college-level instruction, teach such courses.” Then do we need to invalidate all the bachelor’s degrees where graduate students have taught courses?

Just like the discussion I had years ago everything in Professor Neem’s article is about what the professors get not what the students get. Everything presented is opinion with little or no fact backing it up. Where is the evidence that shows students that graduate from schools like Western Governors or students that have AP credit do not do as well or have a “weaker” education than other students? I suspect there is no evidence presented because there is none. After all, when it comes to online education it has already been shown there is No Significant Difference.

If you want to argue that Universities and academic freedom are central to the quality of a students education, explain why with examples and evidence. After all, everything changes over time, just because something is new does not mean its wrong. If seeking the truth is the most important thing in education then instead of just complaining about differences put some real thought into the issue and conduct research to prove it (if you can).

Thanks for Listing to My Mussing
The Teaching Cyborg

Should You be Replaced By A Computer?

On March 29, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, Education Reform, ResearchLeave a comment

“Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer, deserves to be.”
David Thornburg

Whether as part of a talk, training session, or some other event everyone that has worked in educational technology has probably been asked the question “Are you trying to replace teachers with a computer?” Or heard the statement “You are trying to replace teachers with computers!”

Educational technologists are not trying to replace teachers. Educational technology is meant to enhance the teaching and learning experience. The goal of ed tech is to help the teacher and student so they can focus on learning efficiently. Ed tech is meant to solve problems in the learning environment so that teachers can get back to the job of guiding and interacting with the student. One of the uses of educational technology is to help with basic tasks so the teacher can focus on the things only they can do.

The core idea behind David Thornburg statement “Any teacher that can be replaced by a computer, deserves to be.” Is there are things that only a live teacher can do. Therefore, if a computer can do the things a teacher is doing, there is no point in having the teacher. Teachers should focus on the tasks that only they can do. However, like all types of technology in the classroom, we should discuss the idea of computer run education before it happens.

As a starting point for a discussion of computer run education, we should start with the questions; “what can technology do right now?” The reason for this discussion is that at some point technology is going to reach a point that from at least a financial standpoint people will consider replacing teachers with computers.

There are two places where computers can replace teachers in the face-to-face classroom and the online classroom. Let’s start with the online class. Most online classrooms are asynchronous. That means the students do not have a lot of real-time interactions with their teachers. Most of the communication is through email, text messages, and hopefully phone calls or audio conferences. While it is possible it is difficult to make connections and have real personal interactions with students in this environment.

Starting with communication can computers answer email, text, and voice chats/calls? Historically, automated computer response systems suffer from the inability to understand common spoken or written language what is called natural language. However, in 2011 IBM’s unveiled an Artificial Intelligence (AI) questions answering system (Q&A) named Watson. The systems competed on the game show Jeopardy and won, you can read about it here. Watson showed that natural language understanding in a computer had arrived. Since then Watson has only improved and is now used in many industries including finance, healthcare, and education.

Two of Watson’s tools are especially useful to education. A one-to-one tutoring tool that gives real-time tutoring to students when its covenant for them. The other is a natural language chatbot. These AI tools allows the students to ask questions and get feedback in real-time. Additionally, both tools can respond to typed and spoken language.

So a natural language Q&A system like Watson can cover the basic communication needs, usually done through email, text messaging, and voice. What about assignments and tests? All current generation learning management systems can already handle multiple choice, true/false, matching, and single word answer questions.

That leaves the short answer, discussion boards, essays, and reports. There is a software tool called General Architecture for Text Engineering (GATE) a natural language text analysis tool that uses both rule-based analysis and neural net learning. Using this tool students would be able to get feedback on written assignments as well as automated grading on final drafts.

The tools discussed here are only some of the options developed in the last 10 to 15 years. However, looking at just the tools discussed in this blog and based on the modern structure of most online classes we already have the means to replace teachers. Again our research and discussions are lagging what we can do.

Concerning face-to-face classes, the national language AI’s are not quite at the point where they can run multiple participant discussions and give lectures — assuming we except lectures out of thin air. However, natural language AI systems will probably have the ability to run multi-person discussions or give lectures within the next 5-10 years. Augmented reality, virtual reality, and projection systems will also provide natural language AI systems the ability to have a physical presence in the next 10 to 20 years.

Contrary to previous times AI systems with natural language understanding are reaching a point where at least in theory they could replace teachers. We are desperately in need of research that shows what impact AI “teachers” have on learning and the classroom. Additionally, now is the time to have real thoughtful discussions about AI tools in education not in a couple of years when government/administration starts adding them to classrooms. We need to decide not merely what we are willing to let the AI system do in education but why we are making these decisions.

Thanks for Listening To My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

The Three Rules of Programming, Sort of

On March 21, 2019March 21, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, PedagogyLeave a comment

“Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.”
Martin Fowler

The advance of technology has been staggering. In 1947 the transistor was invented. The transistor allowed the inventions of the Integrated Circuit (IC), which is what modern computer chips are. In 1971 the first IC was built, all modern computer technology has been developed in the 48 years since. Today everywhere you look there is a computer.

This explosion of computer technology has created whole classes of devices that did not exist 50 years ago, cell phones, tablet computers, digital cameras, the internet, the internet of things, augmented reality, virtual reality, and the global position system to name a few.

This explosion of technology is affecting education either through changes in society or because the technology is useful for learning. The question of how we deal with the ever growing and changing technological landscape in education is an important one. Most importantly how do we make sure pedagogy drives the technology and not the “cool” factor?

To make sure the tools have a pedagogical value we will probably have to understand the technology and build it our-self. What exactly does it take to create these tools? What does it take to understand the technology that surrounds us? First, we need to understand what is at the core of modern technology. That core is software, computer programs, without software all that fancy technology is just a paperweight. So do we all need degrees in computer science and programming?

No, we don’t need all need degrees in computer science and programming. I might argue that a few classes in computer literacy and programming would be beneficial to understanding and living in the modern world, but that for another day. So if you don’t need a degree in computer science, how are you are supposed to develop and build educational technology? You do what we always do in education you collaborate. You either team up with or hire programmers. You bring the pedagogy and content knowledge they bring the programming skills.

OK, so we collaborate how do you do this? For a start, you need to have a clear idea of what your end product is going to be. You need to develop a detailed list of what your technology will do. However, when you are developing software, there are three rules you need to understand.

You can have it good.
You can have it fast.
You can have it cheap.

The important thing about these three rules is you only get to pick 2. Realistically, everyone is going to choose good (at least I hope so). So, in reality, you get to pick one.

What do these three rules mean and why can’t you have them all. Let’s come back to good in a minute and deal with fast and cheap first. These two rules are inversely related to each other. In a project, I was involved with we had hired a group of programmers to develop software. I was talking to the software architect concerning deadlines. One of our partners made changes to their needs which lead to changes in the software.

I asked the software architect what this was going to do to our timeline. He said that if the deadline started to slip, we could always add more programmers to the project. Modern software is often composed of multiple subprograms that each do a specific thing. Think about the calculator on your computer. One subprogram would deal with addition another subtraction and so on. Because of this modeler nature, it can be easy for multiple programmers to work together they can each work on a separate subprogram.

However, as anyone that has ever managed a budget will tell you personnel is usually one of if not the most substantial cost. That, of course, means more programmers can get the job done faster, but it costs more. Specifically, each new programmer will increase your cost by 100%. Two programmers cost 200% what one does, and three programmers cost 300% what one does as you can see costs multiply. So you can have your software program fast or cheap.

Now let’s get back to good. When it comes to a software program good is a lot more than how it looks and how fast it runs. Good computer software will have a detailed and exhaustive testing phase. Specifically, the programming team will develop a plan and possibly testing software to try and break the software and identify bugs. A properly built program will behave in predictable ways even when it fails.

So as you can see good software is a lot more than looking pretty and working. Getting to the working stage takes a lot of specific skills. So now that you know, the three rules start thinking up new educational technology and get out there and collaborate.

Thanks For Listing To My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

There is a Lot of Pressure, Partially, Involved

On March 14, 2019March 14, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, Pedagogy, Research, STEM EducationLeave a comment

“Gases are distinguished from other forms of matter, not only by their power of indefinite expansion so as to fill any vessel, however large, and by the great effect heat has in dilating them, but by the uniformity and simplicity of the laws which regulate these changes.”
James Clerk Maxwell

When learning chemistry gasses get a lot of attention. There are a lot of laws and formulas that relate to gasses. Here is a list of gas laws:

1) Avogadro’s Law
2) Boyle’s Law
3) Charles’s Law
4) Gay-Lussac’s Law
5) The Ideal Gas Law
6) Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures
7) van der Waals Equation (Non-Ideal gases)

I want to talk about Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. If you look up Dalton’s law like most students would Wikipedia via Google we see that the definition of Dalton’s law is: “Dalton’s law (also called Dalton’s law of partial pressures) states that in a mixture of non-reacting gases, the total pressure exerted is equal to the sum of the partial pressures of the individual gases.” Which comes from Silberberg, Martin S. (2009). Chemistry: the molecular nature of matter and change (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. p. 206. ISBN 9780073048598.

I have not thought about Dalton’s law in years. The last time was when I was helping develop some chemistry labs. Then two weeks ago I ran across a YouTube video from Cody’sLab called Demonstrating The Law of Partial Pressures.

What I found interesting about this video is that Cody built a physical device to demonstrate the law. The device is two pressure chambers made out of copper plumbing parts and glass tubs attached with a simple valve. A quick search online suggests that one of these devices could cost less than $100.00. He uses the device to demonstrate several principles of Dalton’s Law. What I find fascinating about the device is that in many ways this device did a better job demonstrating Dalton’s law then any device I encounter in my high school or early chemistry classes.

With a small amount of work, it should be possible to build a device that was composed entirely of parts that could be screwed together allowing assembly into multiple configurations. A device students use in multiple configurations would expand the options for open-ended inquiry. Multiple configurations would let chemistry students conduct inquiry-based labs. Students could assemble the appropriates so that they could combine 2, 3, 4 or even more samples.

We know that hands-on experiences improve student learning. In the article Physical Experiences Enhance Science Learning, the authors show that physical experiments lead to increased test scores. Additionally, they showed that later recall of the information activated the brains sensorimotor region. Which suggest a mechanism by which hands-on teaching can improve learning. Since hands-on learning enhances science education, we could argue that the current model where we have a 3-4 credit lecturer class and a one-credit laboratory class is backward and we should be running 3-4 credit labs with one credit lectures or recitations. That, however, is an argument for another day.

Since we know the value of hands-on learning lets takes this idea to the next step. Suppose the students not only ran an experiment to confirm and explore Dalton’s Law but they also built and designed the equipment to do the experiment. Would this enhance learning even more? I could see a couple of ways building your equipment could enhance learning. One, this would be a way to expand the amount of hands-on time. Two, building the test apparatus could give the students a better understanding of how the device works. Three, the designing and building process could potentially lead to enhanced ownership in the experiment. The impact of building your research equipment is an area where more research is needed.

However, even with the evidence that shows hands-on learning enhances science education laboratory classes are under increasing attack. One of the most common arguments I hear against hands-on science education is the cost. The device Cody built for his video is relatively cheap if you were to build it for less then $100 this is less then some microscope slides or chemical reagents. There are of course questions about the equipment used in labs. There are many arguments that the lab is the place for students to learn about research equipment. I have had many discussions concerning the design of laboratory activities that started with “my students need to know how to use X piece of equipment.”

While there are some types of equipment that students should have a familiarity with the idea that students need to learn a specific piece of equipment is ridiculous. First, what is the likely hood that a specific piece of equipment is still going to be in use when they end up working in a research laboratory? Second, what are you trying to teach the students? As an example suppose I design a lab to demonstrate the Mendelian laws of inheritance. The students will need to use a dissecting scope to determine the sex of their fruit flies. Should I devote half the laboratory activities and time to the use of the dissecting microscope? Of course not, the microscope is not part of the principle of inheritance.

Beyond the fixation on specific pieces of equipment, there is also a belief that low-cost equipment is unusable. Whether the cost of equipment affects its educational value is an interesting question. Generally, the cost of equipment is directly related to precision, how much precision do we need. If the purpose of a laboratory activity is to show that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass, do the student need precision out to 10 decimal places? As long as the equipment meets the need for the activity, we do not need to go with the most expensive thing. When we design STEM activities, we need to focus on the learning goals what has the best chance of enhancing the students learning. In regards to student learning, learning is not proportional to the cost of the equipment, and it is not dependent on a specific piece of equipment. Our instructional design needs to be informed and based on what the research says not ideas about the “best” piece of equipment.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg