Breakthrough?

It's funny how just a few words, in the right place and at the right time, can bring things into stark relief. I'd abandoned my first chapter a few weeks ago to work again on my literature review. This morning the abstract to an article from 1996, that I'd ordered on ILL in June and just got around to reading, helped me think in a clarified form about the main thrust of my argument for why this paper, and the concepts I'm exploring, can be useful to practitioners. The great thing is that this "new" insight doesn't change my direction at all. I just feel like I have a much better framework for my argument.

Blogger from iPhone test

I am trying out the email to Blogger function.

Diigo iPhone app

First, I have to say that the Diigo folks are very responsive. I had a couple messages from them very shortly after I tweeted about some frustration with the much-anticipated (at least by me!) iPhone application. So I feel I owe them, and others, a more complete review. First, I said the bookmarklet wasn't working. It is working for me now, but the functionality is disappointing. I try to use Diigo as my one social bookmarking tool. But the delicious bookmarklet is sooo much better that I may have to figure out a strategy to keep my bookmarks in sync. With the Diigo bookmarklet, you can only add the URL to your account, in private mode, without tags or description. The delicious bookmarklet allows you to choose whether or not to share, to add a description, and to tag the link (and suggests tags from others).

As for the Diigo application itself, I don't know why the focus seems to be reading documents offline, rather than on the social aspects that make regular Diigo superior to delicious - commenting on documents, and reading others comments. The other big issue I've had with the Diigo app so far is that the built-in browser is slow and inconsistent. My experience thus far is that links rarely work, and when they do the pages are very slow to download.

Oh, for the comfort of a discipline, or, "There's no place like home"

In my reading on disciplinary differences, the setting for teaching and learning, etc., I ran across a great quote. Poole (2009) pushes back against another essay, in which Donald (2009) uses the metaphor of "home" for academic disciplines. Poole asserts that

complexity taxes us cognitively; whereas, uncertainty taxes us emotionally. Perhaps this is why Donald asserts that uncertainty is a greater threat to academics than is complexity. We are trained to deal with complexity. Indeed, most disciplines thrive on the application of intellect to reduce or at least explain complexity. Uncertainty is another matter. Our students expect complexity in their university course work. Generally, however, they abhor uncertainty. It is one thing to tell a class that a concept is difficult. It is something else again to tell them that there are a number of concepts that could be employed in a given context and we are unsure as to which is the best one. Our disciplines reduce the number of competing concepts and bring some degree of comfort to us and to our students (p. 51).

This rings particularly true for me, as I bounce from anthropology, to sociology, to philosophy, and back again, while reading for a research project in a profession (education). I'd love to find a "home," to be able to reduce the uncertainty as I also try to bring some sense to the complexity of my topic. But alas, my source of frustration is confirmed later in the article, as Poole states that "professions are not the same as disciplines. Professions contain disciplines" (p. 54, emphasis added). So it looks like I've picked a boundary-spanning homelessness for myself. When I'm done with my treatise, that will probably seem like a good thing. [wry smile here]
Poole, like Trowler (2009), rejects the reification of the discipline, or a particular epistemology for a discipline. Both share a view that disciplines are socially constructed lenses for organizing knowledge. To take the "home" metaphor a bit farther, the boundaries that establish disciplines as intellectual homes are not so much permanent, solid walls, but more like lines in the sand. A good wind may erase the separation, a renegade academic may redraw the line, or a strong storm may wash away the sand. Perhaps an even better metaphor would be the paths that define plots in a community garden.On the one hand, the practices of one gardner growing tomatoes may offer some benefits to another gardner, across the path, raising potatoes. On the other hand, come spring some kid with a rototiller may completely tear up the path, and create fertile new strip, between the plots.
Now, to stray a bit farther, this consideration of boundaries brings to mind a topic of discussion at work during the past week. In looking for a creative solution to locating our "learning information studio," we've had some interesting conversations about boundaries to the space. How much of a boundary do instructors need to feel "at home" teaching in the space? How "at home" should instructors feel, and how much do we want the space to challenge the safety of a traditional classroom? A fundamental design principle for us is that the space, or more precisely the learning taking place in the space, should be highly visible. Some ideas that surfaced this week:

• what if, in addition to one clear glass wall, we use a translucent glass wall as a whiteboard/projection surface that is partially visible to passersby in a darkened hallway outside the studio?
• what if we build a front end with more solid borders for whiteboards and projection, and the back end with a variable/less permeable interface to the outside?
• what if, beyond the semi-permeable divider we have a more open area that can serve as expansion/overflow/breakout/interaction with non-members space?
  
• and, here's a new one that just occurred to me: what if the space features a monitor that is capable of providing simultaneous, real-time definitions from dictionaries/other reference works from multiple disciplines, of terms that are used in the class wiki/blog/real-time interactive interface?
  

I guess what I'm getting at here is deconstructing classroom and discipline together by creating a space for developing interdisciplinary thinking by participating in "boundary practices" (Wenger, 1998). But alas, now I need to get out of the boundary between work and treatise research, and continue to till the treatise soil. I do need to get to harvest in that plot!

Donald, J. G. (2009). The commons: disciplinary and interdisciplinary encounters. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The University and its disciplines: Teacing and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 35-49). New York: Routledge.

Poole, G. (2009). Academic disciplines: Homes or barricades. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The University and its disciplines: Teacing and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 50-57). New York: Routledge.

Trowler, P. (2009). Beyond epistemological essentialism: Academic tribes in the Twenty-first Century. In C. Kreber (Ed.), The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 181-195). New York: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. 

Why Reinvent the Wheel (or Learning Space)?

Earlier this week I went with a couple colleagues to an event on technology in higher education sponsored by BKM Total Office of Texas. Some of the key ideas presented during the one of the sessions on generational differences within the workforce are available as an article on the Steelcase website. Another interesting session focused on Steelcase's research on academic libraries. There was also a session with representatives from a local community college talking about their Steelcase "LearnLab" prototype classrooms.

In the Baylor Libraries we are currently working, in partnership with Baylor's Academy for Teaching and Learning, on the design for what we are calling a "learning innovation studio" for Moody Library. On the way home from the workshop, one member of our team asked the question, "Why reinvent the wheel?" His point was that the vendor had put considerable research into the design of this new "off the shelf" classroom, the LearningLab. Why would we continue to put time and energy into a completely new design, having heard some testimony from students and a faculty about how the LL creates an entirely different learning experience?

These are good questions -- but I think we came up with some good answers. I read an article earlier this week on course management systems. In that piece, Lane (2009) makes the point that "course management systems ...are not pedagogically neutral shells for course content. They influence pedagogy by presenting default formats designed to guide the instructor toward creating a course in a certain way." She goes on to compare "opt-out" systems, like Blackboard, with "opt-in" systems, like Moodle. According to Lane, most users of these CMSs are relative web novices, so tend to take the path of least resistance. This means translating into the web-based world old pedagogical practices, especially when the structure of the CMS reinforces this trend. So a CMS that emphasizes space for storage and submission of documents, rather than a course timeline, or learning objectives, tends to become something akin to a photocopier, email client, and grade book, rather than a stimulus for pedagogical reflection.

The LearnLab, it seems to me, is much like Blackboard. Blackboard provides a useful, structured way to get some elements of a course online. The truly creative faculty member can go far beyond the basics. But most will take the path of least resistance and take the default settings. The LearnLab is similar. There is merit to the space, and it does make worthwhile improvements by, for example, creating a greater sense of community within the classroom. Students face each other, the instructor can move about the classroom, and there is no back row where students can hide (and get lost). Yet the LL  has a certain rigidity to its setup. The tables are large, so while the chairs are mobile (chairs with casters, now that's innovative), the tables really are not mobile. So the LL may not look like a lecture hall, but it will almost always look the same from class to class, in the default "X" arrangement. In addition, the complexity of this opt-out system will tend to push the novice toward using the "defaults."

Our learning innovation studio, I would argue, should be much more flexible. One goal for the space is that it serve as a sandbox for the study of pedagogy. It should be an opt-in space where faculty members decide what to include, based on their pedagogical goals and a commitment to trying new things, rather than an opt-out room crowded with tools and a default way to use them.

Lane, L. M. (2009). Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems impact teaching. First Monday, 14(10). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2530/2303

Iteratively working toward a methodology and theoretical framework

I've spent this afternoon ping-ponging: from a UT faculty member's dissertation, to a book on social research methodology (Gomm, 2008), to Trowler (2009), to a textbook from my first semester in the Higher Ed program (Crotty 1998), to items in Trowler's bibliography, to a dissertation textbook (Roberts, 2004). In between I've run over to BearCat, WorldCat, Amazon, and Google Scholar, tracking down sources and adding them to Zotero. I emailed myself notes to retrieve a couple items from the library shelf tomorrow. It seems that the good stuff on qualitative research is checked out, so I put holds on a couple and ordered a couple other items (cheap classic texts).

I think I've arrived at a decision to take a case study approach. I like the ability to utilize a variety of sources (interviews, "artifacts" such as syllabi, observation) and get into the rich messiness of teaching and learning. I like the ability to craft a narrative from the data as well. And this from the math guy who was sure he was going to do a quantitative project.

As I bounce between methodology and theoretical framework in my reading and thinking, the framework is giving me the most grief. I'm triangulating between the theory implicit in the model that I'm planning to test, my personal inclinations, and the methodology I've chosen. There aren't any real conflicts there. It's more a matter of being overwhelmed by the literature. One of the challenges of being a librarian is the knowledge that there is always more out there, and that there could be relevant tangents, when what I really need to do is narrow my focus and write. I'll have lots of time for tangents and additional research when this thing is done!

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gomm, R. (2008). Social research methodology: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Layers of Learning

Wednesday and Thursday the Baylor Libraries and the Academy for Teaching and Learning co-sponsored a local site for the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) Fall Focus Session, entitled Flattening the Classroom: Building Collaborative Learning Environments. The format was eclectic, with an Adobe Connect session as the primary vehicle for delivery, but with an additional chat channel in the Ning community set up for the event, a lively Twitter conversation (#ELIFS09), and great local conversations, with as many as 30 teaching faculty, staff, librarians, and students present at any one time. The days were loosely structured, with ample time between session to engage with presenters in a virtual "parking lot," talk with each other locally, take a break, etc.

What strikes me as I look back on the two day event are the many layers of learning that were taking place.

• The event was about facilitating learning as teachers, instructional designers, librarians, through the collaborative learning environments, in both online and built spaces.
• Those of us participating were learning about the topic.
• Our sessions were taking place in a new learning space, the Garden Level Study Commons, which is still (and hopefully always will be) a work in progress.
• Those of us who had a hand in designing the space were learning about how the space, which is normally designed for small group study, worked for this kind of event. We intentionally chose to think about this space as a rough prototype, for these two days, of the type of space we hope to build as a "learning innovation studio" in the next phase of our renovation.
  
• Students in proximity to the session may have learned that this space is intended to be active, group space. I've got to work on signage to that effect, and send folks up to our new 24-hour quiet study space if that's what they are looking for. At one point in the second afternoon a student, from all the way across the room, made a very loud "Shhh," undoubtedly aimed at us. Now that's something...the students shushing the librarians!
  
• We learned about colleagues, some who we already thought we knew, and some whom we met for the first time: their skills, their interests, their style of work in groups.
  
• We learned with colleagues, in an unusual, mixed setting.
• We learned about some new tools for collaboration, and even learned (hands on!) some of them in the process of doing collaborative work (Etherpad, a foretaste, I think, of Google Wave)
• I learned by trial-and-error to "tweet" a workshop (sitting at the feet of the master, I might add).
• I learned that tweeting a workshop may be the best way to get followers for a fledgling Twitter account.
  
• I learned to have a little more respect for the for-profit higher ed. sector. Janet Salmons of Capella University offered one of the most thoughtful approaches to assessment that I've ever heard.

I have also been trying to apply this experience to my doctoral thesis topic. In particular, I've found myself thinking about the nice cross section of faculty who attended (theology; heath, physical education and recreation; social work; environmental studies; business; honors college; and more). What role do these individuals play within their departments? What are the characteristics of the "teaching and learning regimes"(Trowler, 2008) of their normal workgroups? In what ways did the event, with its levels of learning, expose or challenge the "moments" of these TLRs? Could the group assembled be considered a fledgling or potential TLR?

Trowler's Cultures and Change in Higher Education

I feel like I've stumbled across a gem in this book (thanks, U. of Houston - Downtown, for the loan on ILL). Trowler, making a great case for why the unit of analysis matters when talking about culture in higher education, comments on the related issue of how one talks about culture. He suggests that a more complex, nuanced "multiple culture configuration" (MCC) approach may be worth the trouble, compared to a nomothetic understanding (a broad, more simplistic understanding ). The choice of MCC implies that one shifts down to smaller units of analysis - "organizational workgroups," rather than entire disciplines, or whole institutions. The MCC perspective also (I love this quote) "indicates that a 'market gardening' rather than an agribusiness approach to innovation might be the better one" (p. 14).

I've read ahead in the chapters on "teaching and learning regimes." I'll have more to share on that later.

Trowler, P. (2008). Cultures and change in higher education: Theories and practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Evolving topic

I've completed a draft literature review for my doctoral treatise, but now am drifting toward related but more interesting/relevant themes. My initial topic (initial as in third or fourth, but first that I actually worked on formally) was looking at the "perfect storm" of challenges to successfully meeting SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1 on general educational outcomes. There is lack of ownership and ambivalence by faculty toward liberal education/general education. There are varied perspectives toward accreditation, assessment, and the squishy, social science methodologies typically applied toward measuring "competencies." And then there is the ambiguity in the language, with a history of "general education" referring to specific, general education or "core" classes and/or distribution requirements, but a contemporary expectation for general outcomes from the whole academic experience. Throw into the mix the widely varied roles of different four year institutions, and you have a mess.

My more recent explorations have taken off on one of these themes, so perhaps I'm not changing my topic so much as I'm refining it. At least that's what I tell myself. I was, and am, particularly interested in disciplinary differences (see Biglan, 1973). Rather than focusing on attitudes toward general education, accreditation, or assessment, however, I've been reading in a more focused way on attitudes toward pedagogy. Right now I'm in the middle of re-reading a report from the late 1980's that looked at this issue (Stark et at., 1988). I've also done a leap-frog scan in Google Scholar of one of the more promient publication threads evolving from the 1988 piece, passing through Becher (1989), Lattuca and Stark (1994), Hofer (2001), Shaw and Sinatra (2004), Phan (2008, 2009), in which the focus shifts from general exploration of faculty tendencies toward an exploration of the impact of personal epistemologies on pedagogical approach. More later as I work my way down the path...

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Bristol, PA: Society for Research into Higher Education.

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383. doi: 10.1023/A:1011965830686

Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43-55.

Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? The Journal of Higher Education, 65(4), 401-426. doi: 10.2307/2943853

Phan, H. P. (2008a). Multiple regression analysis of epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(1), 157-184.

Phan, H. P. (2008b). Exploring epistemological beliefs and learning approaches in context: A sociocultural perspective. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(3), 793-822.

Schraw, G., & Sinatra, G. M. (2004). Epistemological development and its impact on cognition in academic domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 95-102. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.005

Stark, J. S., & And Others. (1988). Reflections on Course Planning. Faculty and Students Consider Influences and Goals. From the Program on Curricular Intergration and Student Goals. National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning: Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED316067

Podcast review - ELI in Conversation: Introducing New Technology to Faculty

This panel discussion, "Introducing New Technology to Faculty" offers some meaningful ways to think about the relationship between technology and the teaching and learning enterprise. Concepts that stood out for me included:

• @ 3:00 - Lead with learning goals, not with technology.

This fits well with some recent discussions I've had with colleagues about planning for a new learning space. Phil Long visited Baylor this week. At lunch on Monday, he reminded us to think about "verbs" as the starting point for design - that is, what do we want students to do/learn/accomplish in the space? By starting with the verbs we will find that sometimes technology is not the answer (@ 24:30). The alternative, in my mind, is that the technology tail wags the classroom design dog.

• @ 24:55 - "Instruction is such a loaded term," perhaps we should talk about "learning design" rather than "instructional design" (there was not a consensus on this idea on the panel).
  

The change in language makes sense to me, at least if we are talking about a learner-centered, rather than an instructor-centered, mode.

• @ 35:00 - Access to information is cheap or free (the speaker obviously has not seen the bill from [insert name of any major STM publisher here]!), and the technology is not so complicated. The real challenge is making the information useful.

This again returns to the point about starting with the learning process, and addressing the affordances needed once you know what you want students to accomplish. There is, of course, some iterative aspect to this process. Someone in the instructional planning process needs to know what technology is available, or at least have some grammar for imagining the tools that might be useful.

It's a small world afterall

One of the great pleasures of doing research is connecting the dots in our very small world. Last night I was doing some reading on academic freedom. I was reading a chapter on "Political Mobilization and Resistance to Censorship" (Downs, 2006) when I stumbled across a reference to to a book by political scientist Charles Epp (1998) "Wait, that's Chuck!" I thought. Sure enough, I hunted down the book on WorldCat, found a link to a Google Book preview, and confirmed that the author is someone I know from college, and the spouse of one of my wife's good friends. Wow, small world. But then the world got a little smaller, as I perused the acknowledgements of Dr. Epp's book and saw that he mentioned a political science faculty member that I've served on a committee with here at Baylor. I had this happy little moment, seeing diverse and distant threads from my life come together in this moment of research.

Downs, D. A. (2006). Political Mobilization and Resistance to Censorship. In Academic freedom at the dawn of a new century: How terrorism, governments, and culture wars impact free speech (pp. 61-78). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Epp, C. (1998). The rights revolution: Lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Future of the Academic Library

I've been thinking a lot lately about the future of the academic library. I attended the University of Oklahoma Library's annual conference last week, which focused how research libraries might maintain relevance moving forward. Also swirling around in my head is a story on MSNBC about Google's unbelievably massive campaign to acquire permissions for it's book scanning project.

The academic library has centered around its role as a storehouse and preserver of the written word. Yes, yes, I know we do so much more. But at the core, literally and figuratively, of most academic libraries is the collection. The library's claim to its status as the "heart" of the university rests on a model in which information is limited, relatively expensive, and somewhat troublesome to acquire. In fact, the political infrastructure of higher education also rests on these assumptions. What, however, happens in a world where massive indexes and increasingly sophisticated software tools allow us to bypass expensive, proprietary databases for many needs? What happens to the role of the library, and the academic tenure system, when the best stuff out there is NOT in print, short-run, university press monographs and Elsevier journals, but in pre-prints, open access journals, blogs, online gray literature, etc.? What happens when reading on the screen, with accompanying tools like Zotero, becomes easier than reading on the printed page (a post about reading on my iPhone should be coming soon)?

We need to step back and ask what we are here for. We need to imagine what academe might look like in the future, either without us, or with an academic library that looks nothing like it does today...because one of those two futures is what awaits us.