Virtual Education

On November 5, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, PedagogyLeave a comment

“There are as many applications for VR as you can think of, it’s restricted by your imagination.”
John Goddard

Virtual reality is an exciting technology. For the last several years, there have been numerous articles talking about Virtual Reality (VR) the emerging technology. As a small example:

What makes virtual reality interesting is that for an emerging technology VR is quite old. While the term virtual reality was coined in 1987 by John Lanier devices and the idea at the core of the technology can be traced back to 1935 (The Very Real History of Virtual Reality (+A Look Ahead).) Therefore, VR is more than 80 years old, though the first working example didn’t appear until 1957.

One of the first custom-built educational VR programs I encountered was the Boise State Universities Virtual Reality Nursing Simulation with Custom Haptic System for Patient Safety at the 2015 WCET (WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies) conference. This system was designed as a supplement or replacement to nurse training with expensive medical manikins. Additional studies showed that students that used the VR system had comparable pass rates on practical skills tests compared to students that used the Manikins.

While we have seen a few of these educational VR programs developed over the last couple of years, A recent Chronical of Higher Education article, Virtual Reality Comes to the Classroom, presents a different approach (the article is also available here.) Nhora Lucía Serrano added VR to her literature course at Hamilton College. Professor Serrano’s students designed a virtual environment based on the novels they read. The students used Unity and Tinkercad to build their virtual worlds.

Unity is a game engine which as Unity says, “A game engine is a software that provides game creators with the necessary set of features to build games quickly and efficiently.” Unity also has a personal version that is free if you make less then 100K a year on your Unity projects. Tinkercad is a free 3D modeling program. These two tools give students or faculty the ability to create and modify 3D objects and then build a VR environment.

Professor Serrano’s use of VR in the classroom reminds me of video essays. While most people are probably familiar with the video essay, the idea behind a video essay is to take the analytical structure of an essay and build a video instead of a written essay. It is probably only a matter of time before we see someone try and create a VR essay. However, we do need to be careful that we don’t run to VR simply because we are attracted to the shiny new thing.

As the Chronical article says, “But what is the pedagogical value of a virtual or enhanced experience? Just because students may like it, does that mean they will learn more than they would through a simple computer program or a textbook and lecture?” Pedagogy is essential we need to use technology to solve problems. However, the question “does that mean they will learn more than they would through a simple computer program or a textbook and lecture?” is not really the correct question.

There is nothing wrong with using technology, even if the outcomes are the same as a “simple computer program or a textbook and lecture.” If that new technology is more accessible more engaging easier to use or more cost-effective, then there is nothing wrong with using it. Additionally, even if the outcomes are the same, there is value in using a tool that engages the students differently. There is always something to be said about using different approaches to relieve the monotony and potentially engage a broader audience.

While professor Serrano’s VR project appears to have been engaging and quite successful, it is posable even likely that the learning gains were not from VR as much as they had another way to access and think about the material. It is quite posable that the pedagogical advantage of VR won’t be strictly speaking derived from the virtual world. It is more likely that the benefits of VR will be the ability to do things that would otherwise be imposable or prohibitively costly.

As an example, it would be impossible to visit all the locations discussed in a course on the history of western civilization. Even if it were posable to travel to all the places in the time frame of a single semester, the cost would be prohibitive. High fidelity VR recreations would give students the ability to see and explore these sites. Additionally, it would be impossible for every student in an architectural class to build a multimillion-dollar building in real life. However, in VR, not only could they build the building, other students and faculty could walk around explore their structure. Another example in an astronomy class VR would make it possible for students to stand on the surface of the Sun or Mars.

While it is possible, we will develop a VR pedagogy. It is also important to remember that sometimes, a tool is just a tool. We don’t talk about the pedagogy of the hammer, yet it is an essential tool in building a set for a theater production or collecting a rock sample in geology. Whether or not we develop “Pedagogy of VR” and whether it’s better than existing technologies, there is always a place for tools that let us do the otherwise imposable.

Thanks for Listing To my Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

Technology and Cheating Two: The Rules

On October 27, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Cheating, Ed TechLeave a comment

“The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.”
B. F. Skinner

In my last blog post, Does Technology Change What It Means to Cheat?, I discussed the question of whether modern technology fundamentally changed what it meant to cheat. The article was about an online anthropology course and the instant messaging app GroupMe. I concluded that the problem was not with technology changing what it meant to cheat but misuse and incomplete rules concerning the technology. The situation discussed in the GroupMe “scandal” is also representative of the reason why a lot of schools only want their faculty and students to use approved applications.

So, if technology has not changed cheating, then what went wrong in this case? How did 70+ students end up in trouble when only two students directly cheated? The Chronical article says:

“More broadly, the scandal highlights the difficult issue of expanding technology in the classroom, students in the Google generation who view the free exchange of information without citation as not problematic, and faculty members who are wary of the use — and perceived abuse — of new digital tools.”

Now let’s be clear. I think this statement confuses issues in the article. Nowhere in this GroupMe scandal would the addition of a citation fix the problem. According to the professor, a student posted information about a test that is not allowed. It would not have mattered if the student added a citation. Also, we are talking about an online class, so it is doubtful that the professor is wary of technology. Additionally, research is the core of the academy. These researchers want their discoveries disseminated.

The research community has been at the forefront of the movement to make research articles free to the public. Also, the Google generation uses citations; writers of Wikipedia articles use citations. The problem is whether students are using valid sources. Modern technology gives everyone the ability to create content. Some of that web 2.0 content is incomplete or invalid. Contrary to how it is often presented, it has always been necessary to teach students that they need to cite their references. Modern technology means we need to teach students not only to cite but validate their references.

So, if it is not a change in what it means to cheat, and it is not a conflict of generational beliefs then what was the problem? It could be that the students did not think the question was cheating. However, I think the problem is more fundamental than that. The course rule the professor accused the students of violating is, “Students are not permitted to ask about, discuss, or share information related to exams and labs.” The question that caused the violation is “a student had posted in the GroupMe asking what might be on the test.”

“Another student responded with a list of all the textbook concepts the class had reviewed up to the exam, she said.” Now let’s be clear faculty have the right to establish and enforce rules based on their judgment. However, in this case, I think the instructor might be better suited to a rule that is not quite so broad. Suppose the student had asked a different question “What topics have we covered in the course so far?” The answer would be the same list. I would not find anything wrong with that question, and I suspect that question would not have led to charges of cheating.

If we accept that there is nothing wrong with the second question, even though it produces the same response, then the only reason for a cheating charge is because the question contained the word “test.” In this case, I think the professor needs a rule or set of rules that are not quite as broad.

While the rule might be too broad, did all the students violate the rule? In the previous article, I discussed how it was not clear that all 70+ students saw the post. However, the students are not able to prove they did not see the information. Additionally, did the professor tell the students what to do if they encountered a violation? Did the students ask what to do if they encountered a violation? Technology makes it faster and easier to disseminate information; both faculty and students need to think about protecting themselves.

Why should students protect themselves and why should faculty provide instructions on what to do if their students encounter a violation. Let’s look at a potential scenario, I’m a student taking the same anthropology class, and I have signed up to the course GroupMe. I have a terrible time in the course and become disgruntled. I create an alternative account on GroupMe and ask the questions, “Does anyone know what is going to be covered on the next exam?” Then using my primary GroupMe account, I post, “Here are the answers for the next exam.” along with a list of the answers. Now I have not explicitly said it in the post, but the reason for these posts is to sabotage the course.

Would it be fair to fail all the students in the GroupMe? Of course, not, but how do we determine if something like that is what happened? It could be hard to prove. So instead of trying to figure out what is going on after the fact, we need rules and instruction ahead of the time. As a faculty member, you need to not only have rules concerning what students can’t do but what the students should do if they encounter a problem.

As for technology, schools need tools that work for their needs. Apps like GroupMe get used because they meet the requirement of students. However, GroupMe has no way for a moderator to delete a post from all the accounts. There is also no way to flag posts as inappropriate.

Technology has changed our life in a lot of fundamental ways. However, the fact that faculty member’s rules don’t fully account for a situation doesn’t mean we need to change what it means to cheat. As I have said before, schools need to be proactive in the review and development of technologies for use in education. Beyond that, it is more important than ever for schools to provide resources and training for faculty and students.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

Does Technology Change What It Means to Cheat?

On October 20, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Cheating, Ed TechLeave a comment

“The first and worst of all frauds is to cheat oneself.”
Gamaliel Bailey

I came across an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education A Professor Wants to Fail Students for Sharing Information in an Online Chat. But Has Tech Changed What Qualifies as Cheating? The article’s title proposes a question about what effect technology has on the meaning of cheating in education. I’ve previously written about how technology makes it easier for students to commit plagiarism and gives faculty better tools to catch plagiarism (Technology and Plagiarism.) I didn’t address the issue of whether technology changes plagiarism or cheating.

When we talk about technology and cheating, we generally talk about how technology makes it easier for students to cheat. We talk about training faculty to use technology and tools to catch students that are cheating. We rarely talk about whether technology changes cheating. So, what does it mean to cheat? Some things are apparent or should be, plagiarism, copying another student’s answers off a test, and submitting somebody else’s work as your own is cheating.

However, at a fundamental level, what does it mean to cheat? Like many of the words in the English language, according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the word cheat has lots of definitions, specifically 12. The definition that works best for education is “: to violate rules dishonestly.”

Using the definition from Webster cheating, therefore, is anything that the rules of the course say. With these definitions in mind, we can ask the question, does the technology in the chronical article change what it means to cheat?

The technology in question is the messaging app GroupMe. The app allows students to send messages to small or large groups of individuals. GroupMe appeals to students because it is free, and it enables students to communicate without sharing personal information. The students in question were in an online anthropology course at the University of Texas at Austin. The professor, John Kappelman, Ph.D., has a course rule “Students are not permitted to ask about, discuss, or share information related to exams and labs.”

One of the students in the anthropology course shared exam information in the GroupMe. In response, the professor recommended that the dean fail the 70+ students using the GroupMe app for his class. At the time of this writing, the 70+ cases are still under review, and because of ethical rules, we may never learn the outcome of most of the cases. However, most schools would agree that a faculty member has the authority to set rules, expectations, and consequences in their course.

If we accept the fact that faculty have the right to set their own rules and expectations, then the student posting exam information has violated the rules and therefore cheated. What about the other 70+ students using the GroupMe app do they also deserve to be failed? Did all 70+ students in the GroupMe app cheat? Let’s leave aside the question of whether a failing grade is a correct punishment, something I suspect would generate debate and ask did the other students cheat?

The chronical article is a little short on the facts. However, a report from the Huston Chronical, 70 University of Texas students face discipline for group message about exam offers a little more information.

“Around the time of the Anthropology course’s second exam earlier this month, she said a student had posted in the GroupMe asking what might be on the test. Another student responded with a list of all the textbook concepts the class had reviewed up to the exam, she said. A few hours later, she received Kappelman’s email [this was the email were Kappelman said he was recommending that the dean fail all the students].”

With the information from the Huston Chronical, we can now put the students into three groups. Group One is the student that requested proscribed information. Group Two is the student that provided the proscribed information. Group Three is all the other the students in the GroupMe. Again, leaving aside any debate as to whether this question should be considered cheating, following professor Kappelman’s rules, the students in Group One and Two have cheated.

What about Group Three? The other 70+ users from the class that saw the list of topics. Let’s propose a theoretical alternative. Suppose the professor did not have access to GroupMe, and instead of posting a list of topics covered, the student posted the answer key to the exam. If other students read this information and then took the exam, a reasonable person would say they cheated.

However, let’s suppose that instead of being a real-time app, the student had to log-in each time to see their messages. Suppose the student posted the exam answer key. What if a student never logged-on to the app in between the time the student posted the answers and the time of the test? Again, I think it is clear they didn’t cheat; they never saw the answers.

Let’s also think about a third situation. Again, using the situation in which a student posted the exam key. Suppose a student logged into the app and saw the exam key. Instead of taking the exam, the student immediately contacts the professor and explains to them what happened. One could technically say by reading the message, the student participated in a rule-breaking conversation. However, they were not dishonest about it, and they did not seek to gain from the illicit knowledge they gained, so no, they didn’t cheat.

So, the real problem here is that most of the students, Dr. Kappelman, is punishing nether requested or posted rule braking material. Additionally, we don’t know what the students would have done or even how many saw the message. It is also not clear if there is even a way to determine who saw and who did not see the information.

However, does the fact that it is not clear whether 70+ students cheated mean that technology has changed what cheating is? I don’t think so; this entire situation could have happened without the GroupMe app. Suppose instead of the instant message app, students used an old-fashioned telephone and answering machine or even paper letters mailed to each other. One could also imagine a situation in which students posed notes on a contact board at a local coffee shop.

Suppose there is a coffee shop that all the anthropology students use. A student posts a note on the contact board at that coffee shop saying, “Does anyone know anything about the exam coming up?” Another student posts the answer key on the contact board. If a student comes in and reads the answer key and then goes and takes the exam, they would be cheating. If a student comes in the coffee shop and never looks at the contact board and, therefore, never sees the answer key when they take the test, they would not be cheating. Additionally, if a student reads, the contact board sees the answer key and then goes and tells the professor they are also not cheating. Just like in the GroupMe case, the hard part would be finding a way for the students to prove whether they had seen the information on the contact board.

If you spend some time and think about it, you will see that modern technology rarely creates new situations. Modern technology makes things easier and faster than previously posable. Therefore we are not facing a situation in which students are cheating in fundamentally new ways. It is simpler, faster, and easier for them to cheat. The problem at the core of the GroupMe scandal is the misuse of technology and incomplete rules, not changes to cheating.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

But I Can’t Use Images in PowerPoint!

On July 14, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, Pedagogy, PowerPointLeave a comment

“If you can’t write your message in a sentence, you can’t say it in an hour.”
Dianna Booher

A few weeks ago I wrote about PowerPoint (Blame the Tools, It’s Easier). In addition to the idea that PowerPoint “forces” the use of bulleted lists the most common complaint I hear is about images. The use of images in PowerPoint is such a common problem that I have hosted and given workshops on the topic.

When it comes to the use of images in PowerPoint, the critical thing to remember is to maximize the use of space. Unfortunately, this is not always as easy as it might seem. If we assume you are making slides for a presentation, then the available space is determined by the projector, not your computer. Two factors determine the available space of your projector the resolution and aspect ratio.

Resolution is the number of pixels on the screen, while the aspect ratio is the shape of the screen. Fortunately, if your computer has enough processing power to handle your slides (most modern computers do) you only really need to worry about aspect ratio. Your computer will still run your presentation even if your image is too big. If you use the zoom function, magnifying glass on the presenter’s screen or the plus and minus keys, there is even an advantage to using oversize pictures.

With regards to the aspect ratio, most projectors and computer screens have a 16:9 aspect ratio. The 4:3 aspect ratio went out of production for computers sometime around 2012. However, you still might encounter some 4:3 projectors. As a reference today (2019) most Windows-based laptops use the 16:9 aspect ratio while MacBook’s use 16:10.

The first thing to do when designing a presentation is to find out the aspect ratio of the projector you will be using. When researching projectors, you will most likely find the resolution/aspect ratio listed like VGA, XGA, and Full HD. These letters are the abbreviation of a monitor standard. Each standard represents a resolution and aspect ratio. VGA stands for Video Graphics Array and has a resolution of 640 x 480 pixels and an aspect ratio of 4:3. Some common monitor standards you could encounter are

XGA 1024 x 768 4:3
720p 1280 x 720 16:9
WXGA 1280 x 720 16:9
WXGA 1280 x 800 16:10
1080p 1920 x 1080 16:9

If you encounter other resolution, you can look them up on Wikipedia’s Display resolution page. Alternatively, if all you have is the resolution say 1600 x 1200, you can use an online aspect ratio calculator, 1600 x 1200 (UXGA) has a 4:3 aspect ratio. When you know the aspect ratio of the projector, you can design the slides to fill the screen. Below are four images that show a 16:9 slide on a 4:3 screen and a 4:3 slide on a 4:3 screen than a 4:3 slide on a 16:9 screen and 16:9 slide on a 16:9 screen.

4 slides that show 4:3 content on 4:3 and 16:9 slides and 16:9 content on 4:3 and 16:9 slides

The first thing is to create a presentation that matches your projector. The current default aspect ratio for a PowerPoint presentation is 16:9. PowerPoint users can change the ratio to 4:3; click on Design in the top menu then on the right side of the design bar click slide size and choose 4:3. If you happen to have the 16:10 resolution you will need to click Custom instead of 4:3 then from the Slide Sized dropdown menu choose On Screen Show (16:10). Now that we have our slides setup, we can add images. Under the new slides button, there are six options, several of them will accept images. However, as I said when I talked about the font, making a good presentation is all about defeating the presets and built-in options.

Below are Six options (A-F) that PowerPoint “suggested.” Unless you are teaching a class on design, I am going to assume that the critical content is the image. In this case, the best “default” option is F However; the title box covers up a portion of the image, our primary content.

a slide showing 6 default option for image layout in PowerPoint. On Slide F the image completely fills the screen and a white text box displays the title at the bottom.

Instead of a default option, I start with a blank slide and insert an image. If you select the image and then click and hold shift + ctrl (shift + ⌘ mac) and the image will resize from the center evenly along all edges. That will give you the slide below a single picture filling the slide.

A slide filed with an image of the Carlsbad Cavern Big room and no text.

Now we need to add a title the option that leaves the image completely clear is to have the title on the previous slide like the following images.

A title slide saying Carlsbad Cavers The Big Room.

If you need the title on the image, there are two ways to do it. The first is to insert a text box and find a color that the audience can read on top of the image. Finding a readable text color can be difficult if the image has a lot of different colors and a broad contrast range. When you have found a color that works enter your title. The following image uses white text.

A slide filed with an image of the Carlsbad Cavern Big room and white title text.

The second and my preferred method of adding text to an image is to insert a text box fill it with a 60 -70% transparent white and then use black text. An example of the translucent text box with black text is below.

A slide filed with an image of the Carlsbad Cavern Big room. With a text box filled with translucent white and black text.

The reason I prefer the translucent white text box, it always works, and you can still see the picture. The translucent white generates contrast for the black text on any combination of colors. Because it always works, I can do it in the same way on every slide. When designing slides for a teaching presentation, consistency is essential; your audience will note and be distracted by changes. The only reason you should break consistency is to make a point. However, remember if you break consistency to make a point only do it once or at most twice if your presentation has discrete sections.

Again, this post only covers a single piece of one topic. The selection of color and color palette that works with an image could be another topic all by itself. The idea of consistency could and probably should be expanded to cover all the slides used in a year-long course, not just one presentation. Hopefully, this discussion on images in PowerPoints is helpful. I’m not sure I have gotten PowerPoint out of my system; I may come back to this topic again.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg

Technology and Plagiarism

On July 7, 2019 By teachingcyborgIn Ed Tech, Pedagogy, Uncategorized1 Comment

“All my best thoughts were stolen by the ancients.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Technology and computers have become central components of modern life. Using word processors has become such a common practice that if asked, most people know what Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V mean. On the positive side, technology has made writing and research faster. Modern word processors make writing and editing more quickly than typewriters or handwriting. Modern computers make changing words, correcting spelling, and moving large blocks of text easy and fast.

The internet makes information available in ways that historically would have been unbelievable. Libraries, museums, and research journals are accessible all over the world through the internet. The internet allows access to news in real time from all around the world. The internet has become such an essential source of information that there are individuals that say it is necessary for education.

Like most things with benefits come drawbacks. One of the most significant disadvantages of technology on writing is how easy it is to plagiarize. It is just as easy to grab text from someone else’s document as it is to move text around your document. Fortunately, like many things’ technology evolves along two fronts. People start reading your documents we developed encryption. Hackers create viruses, spyware, and trojans companies develop anti-virus software.

To counteract the increasing ease of plagiarism tools have been developed to identify it. Many schools are integrating Plagiarism checkers directly into their Learning Management Systems (LMS). Additionally, using the schools LMS to accept assignment digitally allows for automatic plagiarism detection. In addition to commercial tools today, there are also free tools. The availability of free tools means even if your school does not have a plagiarism checker, you can still make use of one to test your students’ assignments. However, what does it mean to “check” the material?

Several years ago, the school I was working at had a contract with Turnitin.com. When faculty sent an assignment to Turnitin.com, the program generated a similarity report. Turnitin.com uses a 0-100% scale where the percentage is the amount of the paper that is similar to other sources. Faculty would always ask what number means plagiarism. The faculty wanted an exact number, at X% the student committed plagiarism.

Unfortunately, it is not always that clear. Technically a single sentence can be plagiarism. The previous sentence is seven words long 0.6% of this document, and if I had stolen that sentence, it would be plagiarism. The definition of Plagiarizing “: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another’s production) without crediting the source” (Merriam-Webster) does not include a word length. If a writer takes another person’s text and attempts to pass it off as their own, no matter how short or long, it is plagiarism.

However, using the rule that any similarity score is plagiarism can also cause problems. Most plagiarism checkers will recognize quotes and references. Beyond that, maybe the writer forgot to add a reference or quotation marks. Alternatively, there is a limit to how many ways a writer can write something. Suppose a student is writing a review of a Sherlock Holmes book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. How many ways are there to write a sentence stating where Sherlock lives?

Sherlock Holmes lives at 221b Baker Street.
Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street, London, England.
Sherlock Holmes lived in apartment b at 221 Baker street.
Sherlock Holmes lived in apartment b at 221 Baker Street, London, England.
Sherlock Holmes made his residence at 221b Baker Street.
Sherlock Holmes made his residence at 221b Baker Street, London, England.
The story began at the residence of Sherlock Holmes at 221b Baker Street.
The story began at the residence of Sherlock Holmes at 221b Baker Street, London, England.
Sherlock Holmes shared an apartment with Dr. Watson at 221b Baker Street.
Sherlock Holmes shared an apartment with Dr. Watson at 221b Baker Street, London, England.

I can quickly come up with ten sentences; I am sure I could come up with more without a lot of work. I would also be utterly shocked if someone has not written these sentences before. A Google search using the sentence “Sherlock Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street, London England.” produced 324,000 hits. The sentence “Sherlock Holmes made his residence at 221b Baker Street.” Produced 443,000 hits. Does this mean I plagiarized them? Well, I didn’t look them up, I didn’t copy and paste them, I created them from my memory of Sherlock Holmes address. I would say no, this is not plagiarism others might say yes, it is plagiarism.

Perhaps this is a situation in which a direct quote would be better. With very little research I found that 221b Baker Street first appears in the book A Study in Scarlet,

“We met next day as he had arranged, and inspected the rooms at No. 221B, Baker Street, of which he had spoken at our meeting. They consisted of a couple of comfortable bed-rooms and a single large airy sitting-room, cheerfully furnished, and illuminated by two broad windows. So desirable in every way were the apartments, and so moderate did the terms seem when divided between us, that the bargain was concluded upon the spot, and we at once entered into possession.”

The truth of the matter is that just about any plagiarism score below 100% (maybe 90%) you are probably going to have to review yourself. However, I have found that the schools and faculty that use plagiarism checks the best don’t only use the tools to watch for plagiarism but also as a means of teaching.

Make the plagiarism tools available to your students let them self-check. The plagiarism tools will help students identify simple mistakes like a forgotten reference or quote. Additionally, if they find that sections of their text are showing a lot of similarities, perhaps it is time to find an actual quote or reference. Plagiarism checkers can also enhance research skills, for instance, is that paper, book, or website the primary source for a quote. If your source is not the primary source, what is the primary source? The student might even find that the secondary source misused or quoted the primary source. Additionally, if the checker marks something on a student’s paper and they are confused by it, they can talk to their instructor generating a teachable moment.

It is easier than ever for students (or really anyone) to plagiarize someone else’s work. Fortunately, tools that help us uncover plagiarism are also getting better and better. However, we should remember that the best way to use these tools is not exclusively as punishment but also as teaching tools. We can use these plagiarism checkers to reinforce research and using references, quotes, and citations. Remember any tool that can be used to check, and grade can also be used to teach.

Thanks for Listing to My Musings
The Teaching Cyborg