Free, Interactive Timelines with Chronozoom

I would like to introduce you to a free, online educational tool called Chronozoom. A product of the Microsoft Research team and the department of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley, Chronozoom is designed to create dynamic, interactive timelines complete with images, videos, and other forms of media. Once you register with a free account, you can choose to view a large variety of featured pre-built timelines, or you can start your own. After choosing a start and end date, you can populate the timeline with any number of events (called Exhibits) and link to various existing media from around the web. When finished, you can even create a guided tour through your timeline. If you have a Microsoft OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive) account, you can include documents or images saved in the cloud.

Create your own interactive timeline at http://www.chronozoom.com. Check out the videos below to learn more about the creation of Chronozoom.

MOOCs and Online Distance Education

There have been a lot of attention with regards to Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs this past year. Many have wondered if they are worthwhile, believing that the MOOC pedagogy just isn't viable for a robust education. While there are good arguments for and against that belief, we should recall that Distance Education is not new. Distance Education can be traced back as far as Aristotle and Lyceums, some of which are still around. Indeed, Lyceums provided information and guidance for many who wanted to simply learn more or who were not permitted access to education because of gender or social status.

Alas, even today, many are still in that same situation, unable to learn more and thus earn more. Part of the problem for some is the huge gap of knowledge between what they currently know and what a professor teaches. How are we to bridge the gap? This is why the article "Gates, MOOCs and Remediation" by Paul Fain in Inside Higher Ed caught my attention.

Got MOOC?

What is the nature of a MOOC? Why should anyone care and how does it affect the general public and educators alike? For those who don’t know, MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Course. These are courses open to anyone with access to a computer who wishes to enroll. On top of the open enrollment, MOOCs are taught by industry experts from the likes of Stanford, Harvard & MIT among others.

Many in Higher Education have been carefully watching MOOCs as they have caused some controversy. A lot of money has been put into Distance Education and the World Wide Web by just about every institution of higher learning; and now some of the best schools in the nation are offering courses online for free. This has many in Higher Ed wondering what the future may hold for them, as they try to sort out how MOOCs will affect online distance education. While some distrust the whole MOOC genre, others want to embrace it. There is a lot of disparity between the two opinions. In fact, some have insinuated that MOOCs were part “philosophical differences” that led to Virginia University President Teresa Sullivan resigning (she was reinstated later).

A New Twist...

Before we go any further, we need to address the controversy of MOOC pedagogy.  According to Paul Fain, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “seeks applications for MOOCs with content that focuses on a “high-enrollment, low-success introductory level course that is a barrier to success for many students, particularly low-income, first-generation students.”¹

Many have doubts that MOOCs can really deliver quality education due to the 'massive' amount of students in the course.  In his article, Fain quotes Amy Slaton of Drexel University saying: "MOOCs are about economies of scale"..."which are not compatible with the personalized support remedial students typically require to succeed".

Others disagree stating that the amount of student to student engagement compensates for lack of instructor engagement.  Furthermore, former Udacity students claim that the course structure promotes: "collaboration and workplace skills that aren't taught that well in the traditional education system". ²   

Fain’s article in Inside Higher Ed, does a fantastic job of posing both sides of the argument regarding quality online education. And we have to admit that the “fruit” of MOOCs still has yet to be harvested; and the harvest is debatable - I admit. Regardless, I believe that the harvest will be big. In fact, I believe that every institution should look at what the Gates Foundation is doing and repeat it. That is to say, online distance education should invest in free online remedial education (say that three times).

Intellectual and Social Capital

In his book Trust, Francis Fukuyama talks about the concept of social virtues and especially Social Capital. Indeed, Fukuyama defines Social Capital as society’s ability to work together in groups and organizations for a common purpose. ³ In his presentation at Brigham Young University, Fukuyama reiterates that many innovations in technology came out of social capital that arose in cafe’s, bars and restaurants in Silicon Valley.  These were places that programmers and otherwise from various tech companies shared information with each other and casually collaborated to solve problems.⁴ Fukuyama’s point was that collaboration and “trust” sowed the seeds of technological innovation that we all enjoy today.
 
Can MOOCs leverage similar social capital for distance education in universities and higher education? Certainly if there is any truth for MOOCs being efficacious in remedial education, any institution of higher learning would want to leverage it.   However, there are many who acknowledge that MOOCs do not produce a degree of any sort and therefore are not worth much.  However, one of the benefits Sebastian Thrun (Udacity) touts is his ability to match learners with possible employers.  That alone could be worth completion.  Keep in mind that most who do take Dr. Thrun's courses already have their terminal degree - already fulfilling one of the default "door opener" criteria for employment.  But social capital runs both ways.  Getting a recommend from Sebastian Thrun could be valuable to the potential employer as well as the learner.  Could MOOCs be self serving to the instructors?  Maybe....but anyone who has read Fukuyama's book would say that is the benefit of  social capital.

So far so good for "Ivy League" MOOCs...what about MOOCs for remedial studies?  Is Sebastian Thrun going to recommend the learners participating in remedial MOOCs to his high tech firm buddies?  Hardly.  But, remedial courses aren't worth much in higher education anyways except to prepare students for college level courses, and that to me, is where their value is.

Furthermore, remedial MOOCs could act as a great funnel for community colleges and universities to gain enrollment. But beyond gaining enrollment in larger numbers, educating people is good for any society, whether it be in Morgantown West Virginia or Cape Town South Africa. Indeed, general education, “social capital”, and innovation go hand in hand. The real issue with MOOCs is the ability for any institution to leverage technology, educational and business heuristics in a way, not only to really educate, but to manage the whole back end of the education process. This is no easy task! Some, say it can’t be done. I disagree. And those who figure out how, are going to be the real winners.

Filling an Educational Need

In the United States, there are 3.8 million jobs being unfilled along side an 8.5 +% unemployment rate. Why wouldn’t any nation want to educate or re-educate its population in order to improve employment and gain a global competitive edge?

Remedial style MOOCs, can help improve and help educate many who otherwise cannot be reached due to lack of education and lack of funding. There are many who feel that they lack the skills for higher education. And there are those who feel that they will never be able to afford to attend. The online nature of MOOCs can help facilitate those who fall in either or both of these categories. Granted, there is a lot of failing grades with online learning. In fact, many believe that this is why online distance education doesn't work. But the blame really is on both students and instructors. Students have to be disciplined and dedicated in their approach to learning. Instructors, need to be innovative and leverage technology in a way that enhances their course. As an instructional designer, I have realized that if a professor has a inadequate face to face course, putting it online merely magnifies the problems. Likewise, if a student has discipline issues with completing assignments and staying on task - an online course will only magnify the disorganization of that student.

Regardless, neither of the previous downfalls for online distance education are proof that online distance education is a failure. They are merely short downtrends and hiccups in an overall uptrend that will overrun those who are not on-board. As with any investment, the smart ones will jump on board early and ride the up-trend.  Good investors realize that the profits don’t always come right away - but they will come.




Works Cited

1. "Gates foundation solicits remedial MOOCs | Inside Higher Ed." 17 Sep. 2012 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/14/gates-foundation-solicits-remedial-moocs>

2. "How will MOOCs affect higher education?" 5 July 2012
<http://blog.udacity.com/2012/07/how-will-moocs-affect-higher-education.html>

3. Fukuyama, Francis. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Pr, 1996.

4."Fukuyama, Francis - BYU Speeches." 2012. 17 Sep. 2012 <http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=authorsearch&authorChosen=Fukuyama%2C+Francis>

Concerns with Web 2.0

There's a quote making probably its nth round in the online social spheres I enjoy. In this iteration it's attributed to Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard law professor, from a conference in summer of 2011:

"If what you are getting online is for free, you are not the customer, you are the product."

It isn't the first time this sentiment has been expressed. Lifehacker quotes a Metafilter user from a couple years ago (blue_beetle) saying "if you're not paying for something, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold."

There are other iterations of this same thought with various sources - but the salient point for us would be that it never loses accuracy: Each of these speakers was referring to one or some of the abundance of free online tools now available - likely the very same tools you're thinking of using in your class.

Even by requiring a student to sign up for a service, or requiring that a student connect to certain other people using that service, a little bit more of that student's information is connected for data-mining. If you're thinking of using a web-based log-in required tool, such as Facebook or Twitter, in your class, here are just a few of the questions you should ask yourself:

• What learning objective am I meeting by using Web 2.0 / social networking tools?
• Is my subject one where students will want to be connected to each other outside the duration of the course?
• Am I comfortable using the technologies I'm suggesting?

The third one may be the most critical for student privacy - if as the instructor you are uncertain as to how to keep posts private, how your technology choice may be influenced by FERPA regulations, or about who owns the words and pictures shared on the technology after they're posted, then perhaps there is another, better, way to achieve your course goals.

#onlinevoice

Want to see some of the tools other educators are using for their online courses? Then check out the hashtag keyword "#onlinevoice" on Twitter!

https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23onlinevoice

The Southern Regional Electronic Board (SREB) asked the SREB/iNACOL National Online Teacher of the Year Finalists to tweet tools and resources "that bring excellence to online learning." And others have been invited to join in as well.

So if you have found a great tool, feel free to share it with others - or just check out the twitter stream to find some new ideas for your own online classes.

A Look at Google+

Google+ has received a lot of buzz lately, but people might still be wondering what's different about it from other social networks, such as its most commonly compared "rival" Facebook. Here, I will highlight a few of the Google+ features and what makes them different (or not) from what's already available.

Thinking about Google+ and Facebook as competing services loses sight of the benefits each service separately has to offer, however comparisons with Facebook can be useful as a familiar territory with which to distinguish the attributes of Google+.

Understanding Circles

The highlighted feature of Google+ is its circles. From the first login, a Google+ user is encouraged to create groups (circles) and put people into them. These groups serve two purposes: They will be the people whose posts you get to easily see, and the groups to whom you will be able to share (limit) posts. You can create lots of circles, and you can assign individuals to more than one circle (ie, "Friends" and "Code Monkeys").



When you post on Google+ your update is only visible to the audience you select for it. You can post to the public (anyone who has you in a circle will see this post, whether you have that person in a circle or not), to all your circles (only people you have added to a circle will see your post), to your extended circles (your circles and all the people in their circles, if those people check their "incoming" stream or have you circled), or to a specific circle (such as "Family" or "Coworkers"). You can also have a private conversation by limiting your post to an individual.





The confusing part for many new users is that there is no reciprocity requirement to the circles paradigm. I can "circle" you, and that means I will see all your public posts, much like following someone on Twitter. I will see these public posts whether you circle me back or not. However you must place me in a circle for me to see the posts you limit to those in your circles - me circling you is not enough.

Note that audience and announcement controls are not a new concept: Facebook has this with their "lists" feature, but Google+ highlights this control instead of burying it. Facebook too allows for the idea of "followers" without reciprocal "friending" on its fan pages, but this requires a separate type of profile from one containing reciprocal friends, and focuses on a more public interaction. The Google+ sharing and following options seem more finely tuned.

Hangouts

The Hangouts feature is Google+ specific, and took a bit of the thunder out of Facebook's big Skype integration news. After each user downloads and installs the browser plugin, you and 9 of your best buds (or 9 of your classmates, or 9 of your coworkers) can all see one another on video chat. You get to invite the individual users, or you can invite a whole circle (first come first served). You can mute your own video or audio with a mouse click, or even click over to use a typed chat.





Aside from being able to video chat, you can also watch YouTube videos in a Hangout. Anyone in the group has the ability to pause, play, or pick a different video. While at first glance just a fun feature, with the option of making private, unlisted YouTube videos*, this could easily be a way to share a presentation (record it to YouTube ahead of time, with or without audio, and let YouTube take the place of PowerPoint or another presentation program). While you can't currently share a document in Hangouts, it wouldn't surprise me if that option were available in the future (demand will tell).

Some have argued that this is Google+'s driving goal: Simplified sharing. Integration with Google docs and the ability to finely control who sees a post (containing words, links, photos, or documents) and controlling whether that post can be reshared further are critical and defining characteristics of the platform.

Images

On a personal note, my favorite feature of Google+ so far is the integration of a true photo service (Picasa). I hadn't been a Picasa user previously, but Facebook's low-resolution photo albums are too limited for my taste. While I want my friends to easily see and tag from within the social network, I also want to have my full size beautiful photos available. Also I'm uncomfortable with some of the past confusion over copyright ownership on Facebook. What to do? Google+ and its easy integration with Picasa offer a solution.

Evolution

Google+ has its developers participate very actively in its community, so several features of Google+ have already changed from its first unveiling. This makes the service seem more responsive and engaged with its users. However, this is arguably easier with fewer users, it will be interesting to see if the trend continues as Google+ grows.

Invites

Curious? Want to try Google+ for yourself? The first 25+ interested commenters on this post over the next month will be sent a Google+ invite. Comment below, and if you don't want your email address available to the public, feel free to email it to me privately at my WVU email address, Erin.Kelley@mail.wvu.edu, with "Google+ request" in the subject. I will update this post and remove my email address here when I am no longer giving out invites.

Also, on Google+ you can have animated gifs (but not on Facebook). You're welcome.


(Surprised kitty animated gif posted to Google+ by Jon Janego, shared here via Picasa's "Blog This!" Blogger feature.)

*For how to create private YouTube videos visit the ITRC helpsheet page: http://oit.wvu.edu/itrc/faculty/handouts/ and scroll to the bottom.