In his videos, he uses Gapminder to display data.  Gapminder software that Rosling wrote with two of his children.  Part of the software, TrendAnalyzer, was bought by Google in 2006.  You can make your own Gapminder display by using the Google Motion gadget.

I used the Google Motion gadget to create the chart below. Note: I had technical issues embedding the working chart, so I just inserted a screen shot instead. The chart actually moves, unfortunately my picture of it does not.

As a longtime fan of Tufte, the information presented using the software is presented in a way that, I imagine, Tufte would find awesome.  I encourage everyone to take a look and see if it can be used in the classroom to display large amounts of data that change over time (trends).  I can almost guarantee that students will be enthralled by the movement.  Seeing data in action is so much more powerful than just seeing a series of bar graphs.

The site is interesting in that you can search for a topic (such as Iran) and get a page of results. When you hover over an image, it is englarged in a popout. When you click on the image you are directed to a page with a larger version of the image and tweets related to the image.  Very cool stuff.

photo by dcJohn

1. Block Posters: This site allows the user to upload an image, designate a size (based on number of sheets of paper), and print it.  Basically, you can print really, really large images.  This is incredibly useful to professors who need to have a large visual image for students to examine, but are limited in printing resources.

2. The Rasterbater: Basically the same as above, but not as slick of a site.  However, this site has a gallery of images that you can browse though if you don’t have an image to upload.

3. Jing: Free screen capture software.  Made by TechSmith, who also make Camtasia.

4. Screendash: More free screen capture software.

Students lost in digital wasteland

and

If it’s not on the test, don’t expect me to know it

Both of these articles deal with the expectations of students vs. instructors vs.  system/standardized tests.

In the first editorial Eric Fox, an English professor, bemoans the shift to edutainment (not the word he uses) from education.  He blames the shift on “packaged minds fresh off the factory farm of iPod, “American Idol” and Facebook, a vast herd of electronic sheep stuffed with fast facts and establishment filler.”  It’s the establishment filler (I might have called it a filter) that Fox has the issue with.

The second editorial written by Laura Braziel a graduating senior at UGA, explains how students can “game” the system and become an honors graduate from a top five journalism school at a major university without actually learning much.  She blames standardized testing.

As someone who works in instructional technology, these editorials are disconcerting.  I have a passion for education and for learning.  I believe technology should not get in the way of learning, but should enhance and deepen the learning process.  I have mixed feelings about standarized tests and their impact on learning and curriculum.  What you think?

In this article, I want to discuss why faculty don’t like Wikipedia, if wikis have any value in higher education and if student created wikis have value.

A wiki is simply a piece of software that allows multiple users to edit content on a web page.  Wikipedia is disliked by many faculty because the people that edit are not always experts and the information can be wrong or biased in many entries. In fact, in a 2006 Wired Campus article the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, said that Wikipedia is not a definitive source and should be used to get a general overview of a topic before beginning in-depth research.  However, I know for a fact (from personal experience, I must admit) that many college students do research by Googling a topic and Wikipedia entries are often in the top five Google results, so they are going to get used as references.

College professors (in general) don’t like Wikipedia.  Does this mean wikis as a whole don’t have value in higher education?

There are at least two well-known wikis that are edited by experts, Citizendium and Knol (a Google product).  Both of these sites’ purpose is to provide high quality information provided by experts.  In fact, on Knol’s front page you can view the top authors – several Ph.D.s, an M.D. and a photographer.

I searched World War 2 on both sites and received vastly different results.

The result from Citizendium look a lot  like Wikipedia with an outline on the right hand side of screen and pictures throughout the article.

Search result for World War 2 on Citizedium

The results from Knol are very different from Wikipedia; they look similar to Google search results.  The Knol results are shorter, more specific mini-articles.

Search results for World War 2 on Knol

It would be interesting to see what faculty members think of these two wikis and if they are an improvement over Wikipedia as a resource used by students.

Beyond expert created wikis, there is software (free!) that instructors can use to manage student created wikis.  Many instructional technologists think wikis are a low hanging fruit, a relatively easy way to enhance student learning using web 2.0 technology.

Benefits from using wikis:

1. In higher education, generally, a student works hard on a paper and turns it in the professor for a grade.  After college, when an individual writes or produces a piece of work, it is seen by more than one person.  Writing content that is available to the world while in college may prepare the student for his/her career better.
2. Team members can collaboratively work on assignment and not have to meet in person.  Since wikis can have several editors, group members can work together while not being physically together.
3. Learn different writing styles/techniques when writing “encyclopedia” entry and not a regular term paper.

Challenges to using wikis:

1. Professor has to learn new technology and administer it during semester.
2. See 3 Challenges to using wikis by Ruth Reynard in Campus Technology

Thoughts??

A few points from the book that I’d like to reiterate before getting into the post:

• The book gave statistics on how broad the access is to game systems versus computers, even in lower income (rural or urban areas) households.  I cannot find my notes from the book, but I think the number was 92% have at least one gaming system versus 60-70% have computer in the home.  I do not remember how many people had Internet access at home, and there’s no telling how fast the connection is.  (If my memory of the stats is wrong, let me know and I will update.)

• The skills that gaming teaches are important to learning and differ from how many institutions, from elementary up to higher education, teach. For example, in games you learn by failing.   I remember the first time I played Super Mario World on the original Nintendo.  I just started making Mario run and he ran right into the Gumba. Lesson learned- Gumbas kill and you need to jump over or on them.

Evil Gumba

• The skills that gaming teaches are important in the careers and lives of adults – for example, performing under pressure, performing with limited resources (lives, weapons, etc), hand eye coordination, etc.

With that in mind, I was excited when I came across a Chronicle of Higher Education article by Steve Kolovich this week about a professor who has created a video game in the humanites that humanizes people affected by the current recession.  The article is about a professor at Dartmouth who along with the Values at Play research project created a game titled Layoff.

The game puts people who have been laid off from several industries in a pen and users can mouse over them to find out personal details.  The player has to group the laid off workers into groups of three of  a kind then move the workers to the unemployment line.  Fired workers are replaced with other workers who seem to get more and more white collar.

While this sounds neat, what does it accomplish??  Great- the laid off construction worker wanted to send his kid to college; that makes me sad.  So how do we help him?  Oh, group him two other construction workers and they will go get unemployment.  It doesn’t teach financial principles that contributed to the recession.  It doesn’t teach psychological issues that laid off workers are dealing with.  It seems to be nothing more than a novelty, but may be a good starting point for teaching those principles while vilifying bankers and executives.  It’s also as awkward as the worst Yahoo game I’ve ever played.  Fun times.

It’s an interesting site that allows content creators to publish content.

Just a tiny bit of the content on Issuu.

To look at a magazine, click on the cover (or you can do a search and find content that isn’t in the featured area).  The magazine will open in a type of reader that allows the viewer to flip through the pages, zoom, and email the content.  There are also thumbnail images of different parts of the magazine that the viewer and click on and go immediately to that area.

Very interestingly, there is also a Portfolios area on the featured content section.  It appears that graphic designers, photographers, etc. have the abilty to create and upload a portfolio that others can browse through.  A very neat self-marketing idea.

Any ideas how to incorporate this into higher education?  Would faculty self-publishing content be valued by administration?   Would students self-publishing be valued by faculty and future employers?

We were supposed to be thinking of ways that we could improve customer service of our department (in my case, the Center for Instructional Technology).   However, in my position I think one of my main functions can be defined as helping faculty improve processes and improve customer service (i.e. teaching).  I came to this conclusion by looking at the different types of waste (information, process, physical environment, and people (not that kind of waste hehe)) and realizing that many of the faculty I work with are trying to eliminate one or kinds of waste from their teaching.

Not too long ago I had a discussion with another instructional technologist who was very adamant that I should not use what she called ‘convenient factors’ when talking to faculty about emerging and useful technologies.  I disagree with her because I think that faculty can eliminate waste from their teaching and teaching preparation processes by using technology, hence giving them more time to focus on teaching and learning (and maybe some other technologies).

Waste that instructional technologists can help faculty eliminate:

• redundant input and output of data – create audio/video podcast to explain theories that cause students issues
• incompatible systems/converting formats – different systems in classrooms and office that cause headaches for faculty
• noise – maybe not physical noise, but interruptions and the like
• faulty office furniture/tripping hazards/use of chairs and tables as ladders/unbalanced or unsecured shelving and file cabinets – ok, maybe not a CIT issue here, but an issue nonetheless
• multitasking – help faculty speedup process, so they get finished quicker and there is less of a need for working on more than one task at once
• under utilization of talent – I think this applies to everyone
• lack of strategic focus – too much time spent on administrative tasks, and not on the broad/big picture

Dr. Grout referenced the book Flow in the Office by Carlos Venegas during this seminar.