Book Review: The Mormon Way of Doing Business

I have been wanting to read The Mormon Way of Doing Business for a long time. I had heard a talk on CD by Jeff Benedict (the author) and really enjoyed it (my brief review of it is posted on the previous link).

This book chronicles how eight LDS businessmen live their lives and juggle the responsibilities they have with their families, church callings and their intense work assignments. I felt inspired by their examples and wanted to be better. Although they each had a different style of doing things, there are lessons to be learned from each.

One anecdote that impressed me was how Clayton Christensen defined when he would and would not work (you must read his talk here). Truly profound! Anyways, he was a new hire, working for a high-profile company. He was asked to come to a work meeting on Sunday. He said, "I've got a problem--I've committed not to work on Sundays." The manager was mad, but switched the meeting to a Saturday. When he informed Christensen, Christensen said, "I'm sorry but I have a problem. You see, I've committed to my wife that I will keep Saturday a day for the family." When the manager expressed displeasure, Christensen said, "If it won't work for you to have me spend time in this way than perhaps it would be better if I found other employment." In other words, he wasn't backing down.

Turns out the manager rescheduled the meeting for Friday and it became known that Christensen didn't work Saturdays and Sundays. He did however arrive at the office at 6 AM Monday-Friday, and didn't take lunch breaks.

Kim Clark worked a similar ethic; his rule was to always be home by 6:30 PM. In each case the men balanced their priorities differently, but it was neat to see how they had been successful by carefully putting first things first.

There is much more I could write by way of insights I gained from this book--I highly recommend you read it.

Friday Review

It's been another great week. Some of the highlights are as follows...

Distance Education: I woke up at 3:00 AM Wednesday morning thinking about my research project in this class. I'm really interested in learning about simple technologies for publishing one's research/classroom materials at a distance for others to take advantage of. What drives some faculty members to do so? What are prevents others from doing it? What are technologies that most easily facilitate the distribution of such materials? These are questions I am interested in exploring further.

Open Education: A question was asked about the usefulness of OERS: "If a tree falls in the forest does anybody hear it?" --If I openly publish something, will anyone notice? David's response was, "If Google hears the tree fall, then yes, others will hear it." Profound. Also it was interesting to hear Dr. Osguthorpe's observation on how licensing ChemLab to Pearson had led to much wider distribution than it would have received had it just been "open." If one is interested in disseminating ideas it needs to remember that openness is one tool, but not necessarily the best tool for every situation. I believe it is often a good tool, just not one that is considered as often as it should be.

Assessment: We got the results of our test back, and I proved once again that I need to worry less about the grade and more about the learning. As I have said, "I don't care what grade I get, as long as it is an A." I have resolved to just focus on what I am learning and not stress about grades. I believe my learning goals are sufficiently high that they should meet the required bar.

Research: Spent some valuable time in the library learning about research tools. I look forward to meeting with Rachel, the education research librarian on Monday to learn more. I'm in the process of refinining my questionairre on scripture study.

Distance: Research Question

I've been thinking about the research question to study for this class. I have a few different ideas, but the one that I woke up thinking about at 3 AM a couple of days ago concerned surveying faculty to members to determine their attitudes towards and uses of tools that would help them distribute some of their ideas at a distance. I found this literature review regarding faculty perceptions of distance education and read through it to see what I could find. One thing I noted was that the focus was on creating complete distance education courses. I am more interested in studying how faculty perceive and use Web 2.0 tools to share part of their teachings at a distance. For example how do faculty members view podcasting their lectures? What prevents them from doing so?

My initial thought is to interview 5-7 faculty members asking questions such as...

1. What tools (if any) do you use to share your course content with those at a distance?

2. If they do use tools, ask about the ways in which they use them and why the use them. Also, why do they not use other tools.

3. If they do not use tools, why not? Is there a technical barrier, a low perceived value?

4. I will also ask them if they know of faculty members that they feel are successful in using tools to promote distance learning. This will help me find a wider variety of users.

I would hope that I could turn this study into a paper by the end of the semester. Actually doing the research would be very helpful for me.

Comments/suggestions?

Using ISI to measure journal impact

Suppose that you are trying to see the level of impact a specific journal has. Using the ISI web of science you can figure this out--

1. Go to http://lib.byu.edu/

2. Click Journal Citation Reports (ISI)

3. Click "social science" (in my case) and subject of interest.

4. Sort journals by impact.

--note--obviously this isn't the only important factor to consider in selecting a journal, I just thought it was cool. I still need to learn more about how to use this tool. If you have ideas, please let me know.

Distance: Transactional Theory

The transactional distance theory states that a "psychological and communications space" (transactional distance) exists between the instructor and student (22). Depending on the level of dialog and structure in a distance education class the transactional distance will vary. Increased structure The greater the level of transactional distance the more autonomy the students will need to have.

In one of the articles we read Moore focuses on three types of interaction (where these uses are strong "dialog" would be increased and transactional distance would be decreased). These three are "learner-content" "learner-instructor" and "learner-learner." Moore states that "the main weakness of distance education programs is their commitment to only one type of medium" (5). Those preparing distance (and other kinds of) education courses need to pay attention to the levels of these interactions.

I was particularly interested in the "learner-content" interaction as it reminded me of one of my favorite essays by David Hawkins (who served on David Williams' doctoral committee). Moore suggests that this may be one area in which Holmberg's conversational theory may be particularly applicable.

Thus far in this class we have focused on three theories--"industrialized education," "conversation" and now the "theory of transactional distance." Moore (the author of transactional distance theory) discusses the relationship between these theories as saying that Peters' (industrialized) model is the highest-level, with transactional theory nested underneath. Holmberg's (conversational) theory is a "lower-level system nested within the transactional distance system" (101). Thus we see that these theories do not need to conflict with each other but can come together in a whole.

One insight I gained while reading this article stemmed from Moore's argument that transactional distance is a matter of degrees and that (commenting on Holmberg's theory) "Rather than declare that all teaching should be conversational, it would be more helpful to describe what kinds of students benefit and do not benefit from such an approach, and what aleternatives are available to each" (101). Typically, I have tried to find "the one best way." This quote illustrates that there may not be a "best way" for every situation. In some cases high transactional distance is okay. At times, a conversational approach may be the best way to go. And perhaps even an industrialized mass-produced product also has its place. The key is to guage the needs of the learner and match them with the appropriate pedagogical tools.

Friday Review

This Friday review will be brief--but I can't stop a habit when I've just started it! Insights from this week:

Distance Ed: The conversational theory has lots of good insights both for distance education and instructional design in general. Try to think of teaching as having a conversation--what things are interesting in conversation? How does one have an interesting conversation (hint--it's not just from one person talking!)

Open Ed: I enjoyed the card game that we played and the Creative Commons quest really helped solidify my understanding of these different licenses. I am working to apply what I have learned by securing a CC license for a book I have published.

Stats/Research: I worked on an IRB proposal and am encouraged about the idea of measuring how students perceive their scripture study and how much they read and seeing if there is any correlation between this and grading structures in their religion classes. We also had some great readings and discussion about writing and publishing papers.

Assessment: Having a test in this class did lots of things for me. First, it helped me really focus my learning and stuff some fact into my brain. Second, it gave me a lot more sympathy for my students who have to take tests. Third, it made me question the validity of testing in general and think more deeply about the outcomes I am trying to help my students achieve and what sorts of assessment measures could promote that learning.

Other: I worked on a book review of Disrupting Class. As I thought about disruptive innovations I feel that within the intersection of my studies and publishing that is room to target nonconsumers in important ways.

There's more to say...but not now!

Open: Sustainability

This week I focused on Yochai Benkler's Common Wisdom: Peer Production of Educational Materials (http://www.benkler.org/Common_Wisdom.pdf)

One thing that impresses me about Benkler is his commitment to open publishing because it is the right thing to do. The fact that he personally releases books free and openly say a lot about his commitment to open education.

With regards to sustainability it is interesting to note how he describes the power of free time. He says, "A billion people in advanced economies have between two and six billion spare hours among them, every day. In order to harness two to six billion hours, the entire workforce of almost 340,000 workers employed by the entire motion picture and recording industries in the United States put together, assuming each worker worked forty hour weeks without taking a single vacation, for between three and eight and a half years!"

With that kind of free time every day it seems like there are few problems that could not be solved! Indeed this surplus time is one of the reasons that Wikipedia has been able to be so successful. So some might wonder, why haven't Wikipedia style textbooks taken off?

Benkler states, "The main problem with even a successful project seems to be that textbooks that look and feel like textbooks, and, more importantly, that comply with education department requirements, are not quite as susceptible to modularization as an encyclopedia or a newsletter like Slashdot. The most successful book on Wikibooks, for example, is the cookbook. But the cookbook had 1301 “chapters” as of July of 2005. In other words, each module was effectively a single recipe."

So are there sustainable solutions for textbooks? Particularly in fields that are not changing rapidly? I am involved in a project right now concerning Flatworld Knowledge, a company that is creating and distributing open textbooks. There business model is such that profit can be gained even by books that they are allowing free (and open) access to (more on this later).

As I was researching open textbooks and looking at sustainability issues I stumbled across an article that talks about motives people have for creating free textbooks. I believe that sustainbility is important, but not necessarily financial sustainability. I am persuaded by the volunteer hour count that Benkler cites and believe that incentives can be set forth to harness the power of this leisure time.

Below are other excerpts from Benkler's work that I found to be particularly important:

[all of the below are quotations--I'm not trying to integrate them, just quoting them because I want to save these excerpts.]

The problem of quality is best exemplified by the K-12 textbook market.i Significant consolidation in the past decade has left four major textbook publishers in the United States. At the same time, statewide adoption practices have meant that decisions by government officials in California, Texas, and Florida control the demand in roughly a quarter of the K-12 textbook markets. The combination has led to the content of most textbooks being determined through intense lobbying in the three state capitals. Because of the benefits of economies of scale in not producing different texts for these states, and then for others, textbooks have become relatively homogenized and aimed at some lowest common denominator—which may be challenging for states with cultures as different as those of Texas and California.

Beyond the sheer potential quantitative capacity, however one wishes to discount it to account for different levels of talent, knowledge, and motivation, a billion volunteers have qualities that make them more, rather than less, likely to produce what others want to read, see, listen to, or experience.

This leads to the more general statement of the problem of motivation. Our standard economic models for productive human action tend to assume that motivation is more or less homogenous, capable of aggregation, and reflects a utility value capable of summing within a single individual, even if not for purposes of interpersonal utility comparisons. This simple model was useful for economic modeling, but is wrong. There is now significant literature on the diversity of human motivation, on the availability of different forms of social, psychological, and material gain, and on the fact that there can be “motivation crowding out:” that is, that adding money to an activity will not necessarily increase the activity.iv Intuitively, this is hardly news to anyone who has not been indoctrinated in economics. That is, sometimes we do things for money.
Sometimes, however, we do not. Ranging from trivial acts like responding truthfully and with diligence to a stranger’s request for directions on the street, to quite substantial efforts we go to in order to help friends and family, or pursue a fun hobby, or do what we believe we ought to do as well adjusted members of society.

In the mid-1990s firm-centric views competed as strategies for searching and indexing the newly growing Web. The first were search engines like Altavista or Lycos. The second was Yahoo. The theory behind the search engines was that smart software developers would write the best possible algorithm to extract human meaning and relevance from a mechanical analysis of text and metatags in webpages. Yahoo’s innovation was to add human beings—its employees would look at websites, decide on their meaning and quality, and include and index them in a directory of the Web. In both cases the idea was that firms would pay smart employees to map the web, each in its own way. Both were largely wrong, and each in its own way lost to a competitor that used peer production instead. Google’s search algorithm, we have already seen, is aimed at the best possible capture of the opinions of website authors about which sites are good and relevant, rather than aiming at having the software itself be good enough to make that judgment mechanically. As for Yahoo, its peer produced alternative was the Open Directory Project. While Yahoo continues to be a successful company, it has done so by moving in very different directions. Its staff of paid employees could not effectively compete with sixty thousand volunteers, each monitoring one or two areas of particular interest to them, including and excluding sites as they spent small increments of time reading and surfing things they might well have spent time on anyway, but adding their knowledge in small increments to a volunteer run and peopled directory.

...Horner, for example, is considering a new system based on xWiki that would allow the implementation of a system with much smaller chunks, that would not be posted into a text, but into a database for peer review moderation. These, in turn, would be moderated, accepted, edited and or included. Such a system would also require integration of a reputation system, through which authors who contribute regularly and at high quality can be recognized by the system and given a greater role in moderating and editing the text so as to smooth it out. The trouble with such controls, however, is that they make it harder to capture the power of very large numbers of contributors. Indeed, the question of the extent to which Wikipedia would be and remain free for anyone to edit, with or without logging in, and without hierarchical preference for “authorized” and authoritative users was a critical, self-conscious, and contentious decision at the early stages of Wikipedia. It led Larry Page, who had been originally employed by Jimmy Wales to edit and set up the encyclopedia, to leave and vociferously criticize Wikipedia from the outside. But it turned out to have been a critically successful organizational choice. Whether greater modularization does indeed require tighter technical controls on contribution to maintain consistency, or whether in fact, the greater the modularization the lower the barriers necessary because no single contributor is likely to make a very large mistake, and because the contributions of many are required to move the project forward in these newly-smaller chunks, is a critical design question for the next phase of open textbook development.

This brings us to the second question, of whether or not, given such an open engine, educational materials, learning objects and contexts will in fact be authored, by whom, and with what degree of openness to further extension.

Distance: Article Report #3

As I re-examined the articles I have been studying, specifically looking at data collection and analysis methods, I noticed some interesting themes. Five of the eleven articles I have been reading had no data collection. These articles focused on historical or theoretical issues dealing with distance education. Three of the articles used questionnaires to survey student opinions or outcomes and then used various statistical techniques to analyze the data looking for correlations. I noticed that two of these studies had a 33% response rate and the other had a 50% response rate. Three of the articles used a more qualitative approach. One article discussed an analysis of eight blogs and interviews the authors of the blogs; another reported on interviews with twenty women regarding distance education. The third described a professional development program in detail (case study).

I thought it was particularly interesting that of these eleven articles only one compared students who were in a F2F setting with students learning at a distance to compare their learning outcomes.

Below is a table that outlines specific methods used in each of the articles. Blogger would not let me copy/past from Word so I had to upload it as an image file. I spent some time researching a better way, but could not find one. Should you have insights as to how to do this, they are welcome.

Distance Ed: Articles Report #2

As part of an ongoing report in Distance Education, I have selected twelve articles from the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning to study. I will be looking for trends within these articles and reporting on various aspects of them each week. Today I examine the context of each of these articles.

1. Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing Universities for the Information Age. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1-9.

Research Question(s):

Will universities need to make significant changes because of external forces in the world today? Digitization of information and the Internet make different forms of education (such as distance education) increasingly feasible. If universities need to change, what sorts of changes might those be? [theory based.]

Context:

This paper focuses on the university as a whole. There is no physical setting nor experimental unit of analysis per se; instead, the authors give a brief history of the university, focusing on the industrialization of education and its implications for learning. They also suggest that distance education is a disruptive innovation that has the potential to help educate the large numbers of individuals in areas without access to face to face education.

2. Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online Self-Regulatory Learning Behaviors as a Mediator in the Relationship between Online Course Perceptions with Achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).

Research Question(s):

Do self-regulatory learning behaviors mediate the relationship between student perceptions of online course communication and their academic achievement?

Context:

The context of this study was a public university in the Southwestern United States. An email survey sent to 628 students enrolled in online (these students are the unit of analysis) . The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of self-regulation that the students had (using a pre-made/validated questionnaire), and how this related to their GPA and feelings about distance learning. The students are the unit of analysis.

3. Bray, E., Aoki, K., & Dlugosh, L. (2008). Predictors of Learning Satisfaction in Japanese Online Distance Learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Research Question(s):

Are Japanese students in a specific online distance university satisfied with their experiences in distance education? What factors (if any) affect their satisfaction with distance education?

Context:

This study focuses on student enrolled in one of Japan’s online distance universities. Students at this schools are the unit of analysis.

4. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).

Research Question(s):

In what ways do open educational resources have the potential to transform distance education? [theory based.]

Context:

This article does not have a clear physical context. It is more of an historical overview of open educational resources and a discussion of their benefits and challenges.

5. Deka, T. S., & McMurry, P. (2006). Student Success in Face-To-Face and Distance Teleclass Environments: A matter of contact? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Research Question(s):

Can students succeed in a low-contact distance (versus face to face) environment? What factors might predict a student’s success in distance education?

Context:

The physical location of this study is a mid-sized Midwestern university. Research was conducted with both face to face and distance students. One interesting facet of this study was the face to face students saw the lecture live, while the distance students saw the exact same lecture, but either saw it via distance live, or watched it later. Students were the unit of analysis and were given surveys to measure them in a variety of ways.

6. Eib, B. J., & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty Development as Community Building. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2).

Research Question(s):

How can faculty development increase community building, regardless of the physical distances separating faculty members? [theory based.]

Context:

The setting for this article is a higher educational organization in Western Canada. This article is a case study of sorts as the authors describe how faculty members in this organization developed a strong community of practice, and how this helped their faculty development.


7. Grandzol, C. J., & PhD, J. R. G. (2006). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Research Question(s):

What does the literature say are the best practices for online business education?

Context:

This article synthesizes several articles on distance-based education in the field of business. The units of analysis are articles on various aspects of distance education.

8. Leslie, P. H., & Murphy, E. (2008). Post-Secondary Students' Purposes For Blogging. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Research Question(s):

What purposes do post-secondary students have for blogging?

Context:

The setting for this study was in the Foundations Department of the Dubai Women’s College. Eight women, along with the blogs they studied, were the units of analysis.

9. Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of Women in Online Degree-Completion Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).

Research Question(s):

Why do women persist, or fail to persist in distance education, and what are the factors that support or hinder women in completing distance education courses?

Context:

The context of this qualitative study was a college in northeastern United States. This is an “open-admissions” college and offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Twenty women were interviewed about their abilities to persist in their education; these women are the units of analysis.

10. Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).

Research Question(s):

What are the educational implications of open-source software? [theory based.]

Context:

This article does not have a clear physical context nor unit of analysis. It is an historical overview of open software and its educational implications.

11. Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-Analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of distance learning quality factors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Research Question(s):

What are the advantages of meta-analysis in distance education? [theory based.]

Context:

This article also lacks a clear physical context or unit of analysis. It is rather a treatise on the importance of meta-analysis, and suggestions for how to do meta-analysis.

Open: CC Licenses

I started out my research on Creative Commons with this question in mind: Suppose I have a book that is published in print. The publisher has exclusive print rights to the book, but I have exclusive digital distribution rights. Can I/should I put a creative commons license on my digital version. What effect (if any) would it have on the publisher’s copy?

As I explored the CC site, I found some very helpful information. From the video on their front page, I learned that whenever you create anything you are automatically given 100% copyright over whatever you created. If you want your work to be freely shared it technically is illegal without your permission.

A basic question that many have is: [quoting from creative commons:] “What are the terms of a Creative Commons license?

The key terms of the core suite of Creative Commons licenses are: Attribution, NonCommercial, NoDerivatives and ShareAlike. These license elements are succinctly described as follows:

Attribution. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your copyrighted work, as long as they give you credit the way you request. All CC licenses contain this property.

NonCommercial. You let people copy, distribute, display, perform, and remix your work for non-commercial purposes only. If they want to use your work for commercial purposes, they must contact you for permission.

ShareAlike. You let people create remixes and derivative works based on your creative work, as long as they only distribute them under the same Creative Commons license that your original work was published under.

NoDerivatives. You let people copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work — not make derivative works based on it. If they want to alter, transform, build upon, or remix your work, they must contact you for permission.”

These elements can be “remixed” into six difference licenses. The key acronyms are:

BY—meaning attribution is required.
SA—meaning that users are required to put the same CC license that you used on any remix or redistribution of your work.
NC—meaning that there can be no commercial uses of your work.
ND—No derivatives allowed. The whole work can be copied, but no remixes.

The associated symbols are:

Attribution

Share Alike

Noncommercial

No Derivative Works


Their definitions of licenses are here:

My short version follows:

BY—least restrictive. Only attribution is required.

BY-SA—people can remix as long as they attribute you and use your same CC license.

BY-ND—people can share your work in its entirety, (commercially or not) as long as you are given full credit.

BY-NC—people can remix your work, but can’t make commercial uses of it, though they can relicense it however they want. I have a hard time seeing why people would choose this license.

BY-NC-SA—like BY-NC, except people have to use the same license you did.

BY-NC-ND—Like BY-ND, except no commercial uses. Most restrictive license.

Another question that comes up is, “If I use a photo that has been CC licensed, am I guaranteed that I won’t have any legal issues with it?” Sadly, the answer is NO!

From the CC website:
“You should learn about what rights need to be cleared and when a fair use or fair dealing defense may be available. It could be that the licensor is relying on the fair use or fair dealing doctrine, but depending on the circumstances, that legal defense may or may not actually protect her (or you). You should educate yourself about the various rights that may be implicated in a copyrighted work, because creative works often incorporate multiple elements such as, for example, underlying stories and characters, recorded sound and song lyrics. If the work contains recognizable third-party content, it may be advisable to independently verify that it has been authorized for reuse under a Creative Commons license. If the work contains images, voices, or likenesses of people, educate yourself about publicity rights. The result of this is that you should always use your informed good judgment, and you may want to obtain legal advice.”

To me this is very disappointing—it somewhat negates the positives of using CC images on Flickr. The story of Virgin Mobile getting sued for using a CC licensed photo gives one pause.

So back to my original question--can I relicense my digital version without affecting the rights of the print version? I believe the answer is yes, if I put a BY-NC-ND license on it. With such a restrictive license, one asks, "What is the point of even using it?" From what I understand the purpose would be so that people could email the e-book to each other freely which they technically could not do if the regular copyright restrictions were in effect.

Distance: Conversational Theory

In Holmberg's article, "Course development—fundamental considerations" I was surprised by the strong constructivist bent. I have always thought of distance education as simply dispensing information. But Holmberg believes that distance education cannot be simply content delivery. Helping students connect with prior knowledge and create their own knowledge is of paramount importance. One thing I did not understand was on page 48 Holmberg states that students who do “too much elaboration seem to risk having difficulties in retracing the text information in the multitude of connections they have established.” I can understand the danger in too little elaboration, but I am not certain of the dangers of “too much elaboration.”

One of his key points was that students will be more likely to engage if there is a conversational feeling to what they read. He gives specific ideas about how to write texts—not too dense, a personal tone, attempts to engage the student in conversation so to speak, and engage the student emotionally. Using personal pronouns.

Another suggested idea was to imagine that you are tutoring and individual and then write down that conversation as though you were having it with an individual

One specific suggestion I found interesting was regarding the insertion of questions into the text to increase the conversation-like quality. Holmberg states, “To the extent they make students aware of how they learn and direct their attention to reflection, inserted questions are likely to support learning” (66).

I particularly found the following valuable from a practioner’s standpoint. :

1. 7 points of guided didactic conversation (p.47).
2. 6 points of creating a conversation text (p. 48).
3. 9 suggestions of making a tutorial in print (p. 52).
4. Gagne’s 9 events of instruction (p.66).

In the article “A theory of distance education based on Empathy,” Holmberg presents information that is largely similar to the previous article. He states that the first part of his theory of distance education is that it serves people who cannot or do not want to have face to face instruction, assuming it seems that f2f is the de-facto method of teaching.

Holmberg also states that having students feel an empathy and belonging will help students want to learn—thus the reason for “conversation-like presentations of the subject matter” (82).

In each of these readings Holmberg talks about how “three empirical studies” tested his conversation theory “to rigorous falsification attempts” but admits that although his theory has not been proved false, neither is their evidence that assures us it is true. I would like to learn more about the research that was done and if other research has validated his theory.

Holmberg cites Baath as doing research that shows that the frequency with which assignments were turned in did not seem to affect the course completion or test results of students. Did it affect their empathic feelings towards the course or subject matter?

To me, the tenets of the conversational approach are somewhat at odds with the industrialization approach. The "empathy" idea does not seem to be in harmony with the "get as many students in and out" approach. I do believe that as long as one is going to write text that is intended to be used as a way to dessminate information using the principles espoused by Holmberg could help make the material more palatable.

Friday Review

One of the goals I set for myself this semester was to reflect on my learning each Friday. I have four core courses that I am taking and each week I plan to review my class and reading notes and write a paragraph about what has impressed me in each class.

1. Distance Education.

One thing that has stayed with me is an insight from a Robyn Williams article in which once she learned about a "Joshua Tree" she saw it everywhere she looked, though previously she thought she had never seen it before. Williams states, "Once you can name something you have power over it." This quote was used (I believe) to illustrate the power of theories. Once we see and understand certain theories we can then use them in various frameworks. The main framework we discussed this past week was the industrialization (mass production and delivery) of education. I appreciated Dr. Graham's comment pointing out that with the technological tools that we have, mass production/delivery do not necessarily need to be in conflict with personalization. I'm interested in learning more about these tools.

2. Open Education

The SLAM analysis of openness had an impact on me. In my efforts to be "open" thus far I have been sort of a "closed open person." Meaning that I am not doing everything I can do to make things easy to revise and remix. My openness has been to post .pdf files which may not be as easily editable as other formats. As I hope to take part in encouraging others to be more open with the materials they have authored I need to help them see that there are levels to openness. I also want to record that I was touched by a prayer offered in this class and believe that because of my publishing with Deseret Book I may be able to help influence openness in certain LDS markets that may be beneficial for others.

3. Assessment

This class really intrigues me because I believe the topic is so important. This week we discussed Bloom's Taxonomy, which I have studied before, but not analyzed in terms of measurement. I am chagrined to see that a lot of what I test for is fact-recall and look forward to the assignments that will help me to tweak this. Also in this class I have used I-Clickers for the first time and I really see the power of these as teaching tools. Perhaps BYU should raise tuition $8.00 for student and provide all freshmen with one.

4. Research and Statistics

I really like the textbook for this class. The writers give clear examples that are both interesting and easy to follow. The assignment for this class to conduct research is exciting and I have already started working on my IRB proposal. This class in fact starts in a few minutes and so I must pass on the opportunity of writing more about it at the moment.

Open: Comparing MIT and OLI open courses

Comparing MIT and OLI open courses


For those not interested in reading the specifics (likely everybody who reads this post) here is my short version of a comparison between the MIT and OLI courses.

1. In general the OLI courses pass the "SLAM" test better, meaning they would be easier to revise and repurpose.

2. In general the OLI courses seemed more like courses that I could "take" on my own and really get a lot from the course.

3. I really liked the quiz features on OLI and felt that they were very helpful for learning.

4. The breadth of courses offered by MIT is amazing.

In general, forced to choose between the two, I would rather take all OLI courses.


OLI course #1: Economics

—I could tell that there was some good things happening in this course; however, the layout was a little confusing. I went through three modules and it frequently referred to an experiment with X numbers of traders and I was not sure how that related to the course. I’m sure that there is a strong logic behind it, and perhaps I entered the course at the wrong place; however, trying to act as an interested but not totally committed user, I think I would back out of the course since the structure wasn’t making perfect sense to me. It also appeared from the course description that parts of the course were in fact closed.


OLI course #2: Causal Reasoning and Statistics



One thing that is cool about this course is that at the end of each module there is a quiz that one can take to check your understanding. Another interesting feature was that they invited you to offer contributions to the course by emailing them if you found an online causality example that could add to the course. There were cool simulations and then quizzes to see if you understood them (I got 100% on the one I took J). I thought that all quizzes were open, but the one at the end of the module said: Quiz > Causation: Preliminaries Quiz (Not available in Open and Free courses.) Some other quizzes were available. It wasn’t readily apparent to me why some were included and others were not. On one of the quizzes I took it gave you feedback to let you know whether your answer was wrong or right and why. Cool and helpful!



OLI Course #3: Logic and Proofs

Another good course. One thing I noticed this time when I took the quiz was that if you get the answer wrong it does not explain why you were right, it just says, “correct!” Some times I guessed correctly but would have appreciated a short explanation saying, this is why you are right.


In class today we talked about SLAM analysis, meaning that to tell how open a course is check the following measures are helpful.


* Self-sourced?
* Level of expertise?
* Access to editing tools
* Meaningfully editable?


With this in mind, on this course I noticed there was a video that one could watch; in addition, you could read a text that went along with the video. However, the video was in a format such that with my (decent) skills I could not edit as easily as I could an .mpg file. Similarly the quiz questions came up one at a time, and the process of copying and pasting them was much more laborious than it otherwise could have been.


OLI Course #4: Empirical Research Methods. I’m starting to feel like I have a feel for what an OLI course looks like. I appreciate the standardization and think that is helpful. I don’t think I have any new critiques to make of this course that are greatly different from my thoughts on courses #1-3.


OLI Course #5: Introduction to Statistics (Excel version).


This was another great course! It had more text (which I like) and in this course the quizzes gave you feedback whether you got an answer right or wrong (see course #3).


MIT Course #1: Chinese


Had lots of .pdf files, a “flashcube” (similar to electronic flashcards). In addition there were audio and video resources so that I could hear the Chinese tones. It seems like I could gain a lot from taking this course. As far as SLAM, it did seem that the .mp3 files could be easily repurposed and the text didn’t seem too bad either on the SLAM test, if one can manipulate .pdfs (which I cannot).


MIT Course #2: History of Philosophy This course was listed at the top of most-visited courses and it was a bit of a disappointment to me. It seemed to be full of .pdf lecture notes of the professor but I had a hard time following them (probably because I had not read the texts). It would be harder for me to use the materials from this course than one of the OLI courses for remixing. They had an “assignments” section which explained papers that a person is supposed to write, but no quizzes like OLI.



MIT Course #3: How to Develop "Breakthrough" Products and Services.

I found this course by navigating through the OCW site. There site is very well organized and the depth of content is amazing. I selected this site based by browsing through their courses specific looking at ones tagged as audio/video. I like how they have a variety of formats so that if my goal is to learn on the go, that is an option that is presented to me. Unfortunately with this course less than half of the lectures had video, and those that did used REAL media, which I don’t have. L



MIT Course #4: Comedy



I got to this course by browsing their new courses (thinking that the newer courses might have new approaches). I’ve been do a better job of creating humor so I was excited to check this course out. Sadly, I discovered that the syllabus said, “This class will not help you recognize, understand, or produce comedy more adeptly than you do now.” Oh well. I still perused the course. One of the things I don’t like about this (and other MIT courses) is that the readings are not available. The syllabus gives a list of dates and reading, but those readings aren’t easily accessible so I would have to go out and buy all the books if I really wanted to participate. A few of the readings were linked to Project Gutenberg sites, but some that I am pretty are in the public domain (e.g. Jane Austen) were still linked to Amazon to buy a copy. Furthermore there was this warning: “Note: All downloadable texts linked here are not the versions used in the course. Be aware that they may contain errors.” Kind of like the threatening notice David Wiley said they had in relation to the discussion board.


MIT Course #5: Economy and Business in Modern China and India

Same story as course #4. Texts all needed to be purchased separately and “lecture notes” were included for only one lecture. Looked like a fun course, but it was pretty sparse and there seemed to me almost no way that students could get value from this course (not to be overly critical) aside from benefiting from the organization of readings that the professor had put together.

Great resource for those in the BYU community

Peter Rich pointed out a great tool that is free for those in the BYU community. It's called Cabells and shows a wide variety of academic journals. It gives information such as the acceptance rate for articles in that journal and other information. Happy publishing!

Distance: The industrialization of education

In the second week of my distance education class we focused on the "industrialization theory" propounded by Peters. The essence of this theory is that many elements of industrialization were implemented in education, without regard to their pedagogical effects. In Learning and teaching in distance education, Peters emphasizes, that to industrialize something means “careful planning, division of labor, costly development, and objectivization” (112). For example, industrialization brought to a division of labor. Some people designing curriculum, others printing it, other presenting it. The focus was now on mass production and mass enrollment, and distance education became "the most industrialized form of education" in that it is specifically designed (in many cases) to educate as many students as possible using the least amount of resources.

In our class discussion the general view of industrialization was negative, in that students may be viewed more as objects, and there was a general negative sentiment (at least that is what I perceived). Peters himself did not say that the industrialization of education was a good thing.

Charles Graham pointed out though that as we look at these various theories it is easy to tear them apart, and that a more useful idea may be to see how parts of these theories can be used for good. As I have been thinking about the readings and class discussions, I have asked myself, "What important advantages do "industrialized resources" bring to education? For example, the distribution of General Conference .mp3s via the Church's website was done through the process of division of labor, there is no customization, and the goal is to maximize distribution. Is this bad?

As I think about various distance education opportunities that I am familiar with, the "industrialization" parts of them do not concern me. For example, I have recently downloaded lectures on "the psychology of happiness," "use of open objects" "copyright" and "statistics." All of these are topics I'm interested in and it does not concern me that I do not know the professor and cannot make personal contact. If it were not for the industrialization I would not be able to access this information.

On the other hand, I very much appreciate the opportunity I have to work with some of my current professors in a "community of practice" of sorts, that would not be an option with these other distance approaches. My point is that the industrialization of education is not "bad" nor "good." What I gained from the readings and class discussion is that those designing distance education need to carefully consider industrialization issues and design their materials appropriately.

Distance Ed: Articles report #1

As part of an ongoing report in Distance Education, I have selected twelve articles from the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning to study. I will be looking for trends within these articles and reporting on various aspects of them each week. Today I examine the research question of each of these articles.

1. Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing Universities for the Information Age. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1-9.

Research Question(s):

Will universities need to make significant changes because of external forces in the world today? Digitization of information and the Internet make different forms of education (such as distance education) increasingly feasible. If universities need to change, what sorts of changes might those be? [theory based.]

2. Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online Self-Regulatory Learning Behaviors as a Mediator in the Relationship between Online Course Perceptions with Achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).

Research Question(s):

Do self-regulatory learning behaviors mediate the relationship between student perceptions of online course communication and their academic achievement?

3. Bray, E., Aoki, K., & Dlugosh, L. (2008). Predictors of Learning Satisfaction in Japanese Online Distance Learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Research Question(s):

Are Japanese students in a specific online distance university satisfied with their experiences in distance education? What factors (if any) affect their satisfaction with distance education?

4. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).

Research Question(s):

In what ways do open educational resources have the potential to transform distance education? [theory based.]

5. Deka, T. S., & McMurry, P. (2006). Student Success in Face-To-Face and Distance Teleclass Environments: A matter of contact? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Research Question(s):

Can students succeed in a low-contact distance (versus face to face) environment? What factors might predict a student’s success in distance education?

6. Eib, B. J., & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty Development as Community Building. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2).

Research Question(s):

How can faculty development increase community building, regardless of the physical distances separating faculty members? [theory based.]

7. Grandzol, C. J., & PhD, J. R. G. (2006). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Research Question(s):

What does the literature say are the best practices for online business education?

8. Leslie, P. H., & Murphy, E. (2008). Post-Secondary Students' Purposes For Blogging. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Research Question(s):

What purposes do post-secondary students have for blogging?

9. Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of Women in Online Degree-Completion Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).

Research Question(s):

Why do women persist, or fail to persist in distance education, and what are the factors that support or hinder women in completing distance education courses?

10. Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).

Research Question(s):

What are the educational implications of open-source software? [theory based.]

11. Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-Analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of distance learning quality factors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).

Research Question(s):

What are the advantages of meta-analysis in distance education? [theory based.]

12. Tremblay, R. (2006). "Best Practices" and Collaborative Software In Online Teaching. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).

Research Question(s):

What principles are important for teachers with virtual classrooms to practice? What types of technical functionality are important to ensure high-quality virtual classrooms? [theory based.]

Open Ed: Motivations

David Wiley in a report to Secretary of Education indicates that one motivation for open education is to improve educational quality by creating educational opportunities that are

Digital, Open, Mobile, Connected, Personal and Participatory (in other words to help education catch up with the rest of the world. Doing this allows students to get involved with courses before they enroll (or after they have long left the course.) His report can be read at: http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/3rd-meeting/wiley.pdf


I have hear sections of this testimony on many occasions. In many ways I am persuaded by his arguments. I do wonder however if the extra effort to make the course open (however marginal that may be) is worth the effort. For example, do we really need an “open algebra class” from BYU, MIT, Notre Dame, Harvard, UVU, Utah State, etc.? Wouldn’t one be enough?


I think David would say that the more material that is out there, the more likely a person would be to be able to customize what was out there to meet their needs. This presupposes that there is a large body of individuals who are out there just waiting to access the content. Again, I’m not sure how true this is.


For example, BYU Independent Study offers a free (though not open) Book of Mormon class. Approximately 1,000 people enroll in the course each year. On its face, that seems pretty good. But if on further examination it turns out that those 1,000 individuals spend an average of 5 minutes in the course then I would question whether it was worth the effort to make it happen.


On the other side of that argument there is Elder M. Russell Ballard who has said that even if you are only reaching a small group; how important is the one! I’m not discounting the value or motivations of Open Ed, just pointing out that I don’t think that the need for it is always clearly defined.


The need definitely exists. Gordon B. Hinckley’s discussion of the Perpetual Education Fund makes it clear that there are people with low incomes who will greatly benefit from education; it’s just hard to tell how open education fits into the puzzle. Would open education resources make it so a person in Peru could get free education to give him or her a better job?

For me personally my motivation in providing open educational content is to extend the sphere of my classroom. If I've already made a set of PowerPoints for the Book of Mormon class I teach, why not post them for others to view, even if only a few people see them? If I can email electronic copies of books I've published to others, why not do that and let people who would never buy a copy benefit from reading it online? So I am persuaded that the motivation to share is obviously good, and that paritcularly when the cost to share is low, and the benefits are high open education clearly makes sense.

Open Ed: Intro

One of the classes I'm taking this semester is Introduction to Open Education. You may be feeling left out that you cannot take the course. Fear not! You can. Register for the course here. It's free. C'mon mom and dad, maybe you should try it!

This week I read about the beginning movements of Open Education (OE). Here are some of the highlights:

I began my study of the history of Open Education by reading A review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement. It’s available here.


Ten years ago there were not many open education resources; certainly not in the organized way that we have now. Hewlett provided funding to get OE going and the authors of this report believe that Hewlett has done an effective job of getting a movement started.

The flagship OER provider is MIT. They were the first to bring substantial resources to the community. Other significant providers are Rice Connexions, Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative, Utah State’s COSL.

One of the additional links described as an "open education" resource was to Chengo—a “free” resource to learning Chinese. Sadly it no longer is free, which makes one wonder about the “sustainability” issue. They discuss several sustainability challenges the first on their list was funding. They said:

“A challenge of any fixed-term, externally funded initiative is long-term sustainability by an entity other than the original investor, in this case the Hewlett Foundation. In the MIT project, bringing a course to the OCW costs approximately $25,000 per course plus maintenance and enhancement. The MIT OCW model involves professional staff taking course material in almost any form from faculty and bringing it into a uniform, professional format. This was appropriate for the rapid startup of a large-scale, pioneering project but it will not work for many other places. It does appear, however, that MIT will be able to sustain the maintenance through internal funding and external contributions. Additional approaches to sustainability need to be explored, including the following:

1. Encourage institutions, rather than just individual pioneer-faculty, to buy into the OER movement so that institutional resources will be committed to sustain it.

2. Situate OER collections not as distinct from the courseware environment for the formally enrolled students but as a low marginal cost derivative of the routinely used course preparation and management systems. Increase the amount of course preparation and management systems that service closed and open institutional courseware...

4. Explore roles for students in creating, enhancing, and adopting OER. Consider an “OER Corps” in which students receive training, small stipends, and prestige to assist in material preparation, enhancement, and use (especially in historically disadvantaged domestic communities and developing countries).[I thought this idea was especially cool.]...

...Sustainability of OER is becoming a subject of academic study. Dholakia, King, and Baraniuk,81 for example, argue that current thinking on the topic is often solely tactical with too much attention on the “product” and not enough attention on understanding what its user community wants or on improving the OER’s value for various user communities. Their proposal is that “prior to considering different revenue models for a particular OER and choosing one or a combination of them, the OER providers should focus on the issue of increasing the aggregate value of the site to its constituents to the greatest extent possible. In other words, unless the OER site is able to first gain and maintain a critical mass of active, engaged users, and provide substantial and differentiated value to them in its start-up and growth phases, then none of the available and/or chosen revenue models will be likely to work for the OER in the long run.”

In other words, one of the challenges with OER is that we may be planning a big party (creating lots of OERs) but nobody wants to come (or wants the resources). Other sustainability challenges include the following:

* Preservation of Access
* Object Granularity and Format Diversity—they started out using .pdf as the key format but now that there many other file formats that can be easily converted they believe that xml is the method of choice.
* Intellectual Property Issues—some of the licenses are in conflict; there is also a “learning commons” movement.
* Content Quality Assessment and Enhancement—assessing which resources are good, and helping point people towards the best ones.
* Computing and Communication Infrastructure—especially in third world countries.
* Scale-up and Deepening Impact in Developing Countries

One very interesting statement occurred at the end of the sustainability section. The authors quote Sir John Daniels, saying

“Half of the world’s population is under twenty years old. Today, there are over thirty million people who are fully qualified to enter a university, but there is no place available. This number will grow to over 100 million during the next decade. “To meet the staggering global demand for advanced education, a major university needs to be created every week” (page 33).

This statement indicates that although there are several challenges to sustainability, the problem is real, and solutions must be found to meet the needs of these 100 million individuals.

The book Giving Knowledge for Free (available here) also had some great insights.

It described in greater detail MIT's reasons and history for beginning OE.Contrary to what was said in a previous article about the sustainability challenge of formatting, these authors state“While the OCW model is sometimes criticised for offering only static lecture notes in PDF format without interactivity, user evaluations from MIT OCW show that 97% of users find PDF a suitable format for their purposes (d’Oliveira, 2006).”

The authors also referred to MERLOT, which I think is interesting in its “peer reviewed” way of judging the educational artifacts submitted. I believe that something like “MERLOT for Seminary Teachers” could greatly improve the teaching quality of seminary.

The authors also observe that the majority of users of MIT OCW come from outside the US, a finding that is not true for all OER providers.

I thought the chapter on motivations and barriers for sharing was the most intriguing. Motivations for sharing include:


* It's good to share
* Educational institutions should leverage tax payer dollars by creating resources that others can freely use
* Others may improve what I've done (bread cast upon the water...)
* Good PR/free advertising
* May get people to purchase another form of the product eventually
* Increased reputation
* Ego of seeing yourself online and other people using your resources
* Prevention of monopolies

Drivers to share include


Increased access to broadband, and decreased cost for the creation of digital content is a driver in increasing OERs.

A prime barrier could be lack of funding as well as lack of reward systems for people who create OERs. Lack of licensing compatibility can increase the difficult of remixing, which decreases the motivation to provide content.

It is interesting how law could effect OERs. What would happen if government only funded open-education projects—the amount of resources would quickly multiply. Some European countries are investing in this way (such as the Dutch OpenER).

Another interesting thought, one similar to that which was shared by David Wiley in his lecture: “To establish a credible academic reward system that includes the production and use of OER might, therefore, be the single most important policy issue for a large-scale deployment of OER in teaching and learning.”


One last little nugget that I cannot help but repost. I think this is a very interseting question regarding what sort of expectations one should have when trying to create an open community of learning and how to increase participation:

Box 4.2. OLCOS Roadmap to open learning communities:

How much contribution can be expected, and how can the level of

participation be raised?

“One observer suggests: “It’s an emerging rule of thumb that suggests that if you get a group of 100 people online then one will create content, 10 will “interact” with it (commenting or offering improvements) and the other 89 will just view it.” (Arthur, 2006) For this pattern he cites available data for community content generation projects such as Wikipedia and discussion lists on Yahoo!. For example, on the Yahoo! Groups, 1% of the user population might start a group and 10% participate actively by starting a thread or responding to a thread in progress. The initial idea of a “1% Rule”, i.e. that about 1% of the total number of visitors to an “online democratized forum” (such as a wiki, bulletin board or community that invites visitors to create content), was promoted by the marketing consultants Ben McConnell and Jackie Huba (2006).

The ratio of creators to consumers is also important with respect to learning communities

which, among other activities, create content. But what really is important is not the “1%

Rule”, but the question of how to achieve at least 10% of people who add something to the initial activity and content. In an OLCOS expert workshop, Graham Attwell from Pontydysgu (Bridge to Learning) proposed what may be called the “searching–lurking–contributing” theory of learning processes: i) first, persons interested in a topic will “Google” some links; ii) then they will find denser places of content, such as a website of a community of interest, a thematic wiki, weblogs of experts on the topic, etc.; iii) then they will become “lurkers”, i.e. come back to find new information, discussions, commentaries, links, etc. If the community has a newsletter or an RSS feed they may also subscribe to such services. Finally, iv) if they feel “familiar” with the community they may also become contributors. So, a strategy for educational communities that want to raise the number of active participants and content contributors is first of all not to shut out learners who just want to observe what is going on. Furthermore, it is important to actively “grow” the community through direct information channels (e.g. a regular e-mail newsletter or RSS feed) and opportunities to participate (for other options that help to “familiarise” interested people, see the practical suggestions by Ross, 2002, and SitePoint Community, 2003).

Distance Ed: Getting started

One of the classes I'm taking this semester is Distance Education. One of the reasons I'm taking this class is because I believe that there are incredible opportunities for educating people at a distance, and providing self-help tools. This past semester I worked on a website for an "independent research" class. The site is http://studyyourscriptures.com and I was thinking about this website as a form of "distance education." No, it's not a course that one could take (though the idea occurred to me to create a free online "how to improve your scripture study" web class occurred to me during class), but it's more of a piecemeal approach to educational resources at a distance. While I was creating the site I found several websites that had tips or ideas or provided free resources--my point is that all of this was (to me) "distance education" albeit not of a formal sort. My belief at the start of this course is that this kind of education (on-demand, not part of a formal course) is very important and I hope to learn more about how to create it, and make it more effective.

I briefly reviewed two articles giving a flavor for the research being done in distance ed research. I was intrigued by one journal called Open Learning. I googled and was led here. I was disappointed to see how closed this "open learning" journal was. In fairness, I'm not sure this is the same open learning journal.

In this blog, titles that begin with "Distance Ed" will relate to this class. If you're not interested in Distance Ed, feel free to skip them (not that you need my permission!).

Book Review: The Long Tail

I very much enjoyed The Long Tail by Chris Anderson. The basic premise of the book is that the Internet has enabled more and more niche products to come into the public view and demand. For example, in the 70's, if you wanted to watch something, you had the ten choices of your local television channel. In the 80s and 90s cable and video rentals gave you more choices. Today you have a nearly limitless choice in what you watch thanks to Netflix and http://youtube.com (on which I have a few videos).

Increasing markets may be available in "niche" areas. Anderson uses the example of "who cares what the top ten hits are?" if I am interested in Latin dance music, I'll want to see the top ten in that market. People who can create and aggregate in demand niches may find new and/or expanding markets.

This is particularly helpful when store space is not a consideration. For example a typical Blockbuster rental store can only hold a few thousand DVDs, but Netflix's warehouses can hold 100,000. So Blockbuster can only afford to put the "blockbusters" in its stores because shelf space is at a premium. But Netflix's storage is considerably cheaper and so it can offer many, many more DVDs (even though they are not blockbusters). These are "the long tail." Increasing evidence shows that there is surprising demand in this long tail area. Back in 2006 when Netflix only had 25,000 DVDs they said that 95% rented at least quarterly. Apple said that every one of its then 1,000,000 tracks had sold at least once, and ecast said that 98% of their tracks sold at least once per quarter. Perhaps Blockbuster cannot afford to stock all the titles, but there is demand for less-poplular titles and people who can figure out a way to distribute them will be able to sell products. The "sweet spot" in this area is when you are selling digital products--storage and delivery are virtually free making it so you can have however large an inventory you want.

The graph of "the long tail" looks like this:



image from this site

Choice, and particularly informed choice often has the effect of increasing demand. Once again the message was given to distribute your content in as many ways as possible because certain people will only want it in certain ways.

The version of the book I read came with a new chapter called "The long tail of marketing." I thought this chapter was intriguing , particularly as far as how someone could apply it in order to increase visibility for their niche products. Ideas included figuring out "who's influential in our space...what/who influences them, how to get Digged, effective blogging, using beta-test invite lists as marketing, the art of begging for links, stunts, contests, and other link bait..." (242).

Anderson also states that "The best way to market to Long Tail consumers is to find out who is influencing them and focus your energies there. That starts with doing less messaging and more listening. Fortunately, the tools for listening have never been better. ALong wiht being the best word-of-mouth medium ever, the Web is also the most measurable one. There are dozens of free tools online that can tell you what people are saying about your brand and which of those people have the most influence" (230). He mentions Technorait filters, Google Alerts, and Google Trends as being ways to get a pulse on who is talking about your "long tail." I searched google trends for the term "scripture study" and was surprised to see that that phrase is most often googled from Salt Lake City, UT. Who knew?

I was intrigued by the use of google alerts, particularly in reference to a comment made by Stephanie on my post about the mind and the brain. Given the incredibly small readership of this humble blog, it seems most likely to me that Stephanie was using google alerts (or something like it) to find references to The Mind and the Brain on the Internet and then direct people reading and writing on this topic to this website. Super clever! (It got me to go there).

If you find people writing about you or your products Anderson suggests that the effective strategy "starts with listening (designate someone to monitor the feeds) and then figuring out when and how to respond. If a blogger praises a company or product, and email of thanks is often very appreciated ("They read my blog!") and can create a lasting evangelist. Criticism is tricker. Again, some sort of response is better than none, in part because it shows the blogger respect, which can go a long way toward defusing a situation. Blog convention is to do things in [232] public, so a response in the commens, where everyone can read it, often pays greated dividends than a private email" (231-232).

In a world where obscurity, not piracy is the biggest problem most products face, these ideas have important implications. Anderson also states, "At best, a Long Tail marketing strategy focused on stimulating word of mouth among influential consumers can just create awareness. If the product is no good, no amount of emailing is going to keep it from being savaged or ignored" (232).

For more information on this book, you could visit http://thelongtail.com/

Excerpts from "Opening Up Education"

MIT Opening Education



But if we can entertain the semantic web, perhaps we could entertain a vast

and recursively interconnected web of simulations. No one group can

build it all, but many could contribute, including students themselves. (xiii).



A common observation made by those skeptical of the open educational

technology movement is, “you get what you pay for.” The implication

is that products developed without the benefi t of sustained commercial

investment, and lacking the control structures and accountability

identified with centralized, for-profi t incentives, will be certain to

disappoint… Rather than “you get what you pay for,” the sentiment “you get what you design

for” may be a better characterization of open educational technology’s

potential to positively affect teaching and learning. Simply put, design

matters. Designers have a greater infl uence on outcomes to a much

greater extent than is often recognized. (27).



I propose fi ve principles of design that I believe to be critical to the

success of open educational technology. While not exclusive to open

technology design, these qualities refl ect some of open education’s highest

values:

1. Design for access.

2. Design for agency.

3. Design for ownership.

4. Design for participation.

5. Design for experience.



Open educational resources and technology have long been high on

substance and low on appeal. However, it is this affective dimension of

a tool, its attraction, that when combined with thoughtful instructional

content and design motivates learners, capturing their attention and

engaging the mind. One need only observe the considerable draw of

video games and online social networking and role-playing environments

to understand the potential of technology to engage an audience. Designing

for experience recognizes the instructional benefi t of creating open

technology and resources that are at once substantive and attractive,

compelling and a pleasure to use. (43)



chapter on “The gates are shut” could relate to disaggregation article—LMS



The Internet and the Web along with a host of

available educational resources are making “open” the necessary default.

Overnight, “open” is on steroids and has taken on new meanings:

• Teachers are becoming facilitators in a charged, multivocal, online, and

onsite learning discussion that is multicentered and which they no longer

control.

• Publishing is freed of many traditional gate-keepers and therefore disciplinary

content is revised constantly.

• All educational design principles are giving way to the mandate: “be

open to multiple possible users and uses.” (89)



Vision of disagg learning:



Community for Student: P2PU

Let us imagine a vibrant Web community of learners at something called

Peer-To-Peer University, or “P2PU.” P2PU would not be a “real” university,

but rather, a group of self-learners and tutors who work together

to emulate some of the functions an academic institution would carry

out, in a peer-to-peer fashion. Providing degree tracks would help selflearners

navigate the vast terrain of OER resources in a goal-oriented

way. P2PU would defi ne “degrees” by assembling OER materials from

different repositories that, together, would suffi ce as a “degree” in that

subject. For example, P2PU might specify 15 physics courses, available

across the various OER project sites, which one would have to complete

in order to get a P2PU physics degree. Since many OER resources contain

components that are not free and open, such as textbooks and academic

papers, P2PU would only use courses that either have all the components

available, or will fi nd alternatives. Thus students might take Physics 101

from MIT OCW, and Physics 202 from Tufts OCW.

Beyond specifying degree tracks, P2PU would organize scheduled

“courses” where groups of learners would come together and learn the

material for a course. Participants could also have profi le pages that

detail their interests, occupations, and show which courses they have

completed. Posting the names of students and the OER courses somewhere

on the site could provide an additional incentive for having students

complete classes at P2PU. It may be that one day an employer

would recognize a “Net Degree” from P2PU to be as valuable, or even

more valuable, than a traditional university degree. Inherent in the

system, P2PU students—who are comfortable with their “network

selves”—would be recognized as resourceful self-starters and group

learners. A “Net Degree” from P2PU would be valuable in its own right,

and soon begin to take on its own meaning of accreditation. (100)



“So, whether in a library or on the Internet, it can be hard going for

the learner, particularly if he or she is studying in isolation. For educational

opportunities are more than just learning opportunities: There is

some implication of responsibility by a teacher or educational institution

for enabling effective, responsive, appropriate learning opportunities that

are personalized to the learner. There is a sense of agency on the part of

the educator. And, as I discuss later, some educational opportunities, of

course, offer additional expectations, such as certifi cation of learning.

Textbooks or videos of lectures represent a sort of halfway point:

There is clearly an intention on the part of the author or lecturer to

provide an educational opportunity but without the interaction, adaptation,

evaluation, and personalization that characterizes full-fl edged

delivery of quality education. So, one way to frame the open education

challenge is to ask how far beyond textbooks and instructional videos

we can affordably go by intelligent use of technology and appropriate

educational content; when these techniques are likely to be fruitful (for

what educational needs and in what disciplines); and how closely their

outcomes compare to those of traditional human teacher-intensive educational

approaches. It is also worth asking the question in reverse: How

much better does a traditional higher education institution do when it

offers a lecture course to 500 undergraduates?” (107).



Open University has no entry qualifi cations

to its modules or programs, is only limited in the number of students on

a module by the availability of suffi cient tutors (to date, the greatest

number on any single presentation of a module has been 14,000), and

allows students to register for one module at a time rather than requiring

commitment to a complete degree program. (151)



“The OU has an open access policy: No prior qualifi cations are needed

to register for the courses, and there is no age restriction (generally

students must be at least 18, but the OU does have special schemes

allowing those under 18 to study modules alongside their school

level qualifi cations). Over one third of those who enroll in the OU annually

do not have the educational qualifi cations that would normally

ensure their entry to other UK universities. Many of these “underqualifi

ed” people successfully complete all or part of a program; their success

demonstrates the effi cacy of the levels of support provided and suggests

that good exit achievement is readily attainable without any entry

selection.

Lastly, the OU recognizes and gives credit for certifi ed study at other

institutions. The OU also assesses prior experiential and work-based

learning, enabling learners to access more learning opportunities. These

services acknowledge and support the mobility of the learners: They can

learn where they want, when they want, unrestricted by rigid schedules

and specifi c locations.”



As the design of OU’s OpenLearn suggests, open educational resources

are but a small part of open education. They truly are just resources for

teachers and learners to use as suits their needs. Their fi tness for that

purpose will vary, dependent on the pedagogic nature of the resources

and the learning styles of the users. Just producing or using OERs does

not greatly open up a university. To do that requires attention to the

teaching, learning, and support methods and systems that draw upon

those resources. I have indicated above many of the factors that need to

be addressed by universities, but a major signifi cance of OERs is what

it does for the role of learners within education—changing relationships

between teachers and learners. (158)



Learners generally like being part of a peer group

that they can interact with, whether as an active participant or as a

passive onlooker. That is why in OpenLearn the OU has added tools

and technologies that encourage and enable sharing, collaboration, and

knowledge generation between educators and educators, educators

and learners, and learners and learners—as much as its own content

and to have much of that interaction recorded for others to look at and

review. (160)



the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education have

initiated a project to help state residents complete a bachelor’s degree

through an innovative statewide approach involving public universities.

Tens of thousands of Oklahomans have completed more than two years

of college but have not fi nished a degree (P. Moss, personal communication,

May 19, 2006). Collaborative curriculum development, learning

materials, faculty development, and technology will be important components

in this effort to help working adults complete a degree. The

system offi ce will be institutionalizing use of MERLOT as a key tool in

advancing this project.(191)



Finally, the development of user communities around open digital

resources, along the Wikipedia model, is much discussed, with many

suggesting that sustainability and high quality can be approached when

communities contribute to and organize content, primarily through new

social software tools and associated practices. In the current “Web 2.0”

climate, it might be a little too easy to dismiss valid questions about

whether a “wisdom of crowds” vision can be realized while still ensuring

high quality (see, for example, Duguid, 2006, among others). The costs

to creating and sustaining high quality curricular resources are high.

When coupled with the potential for rampant propagation of misinformation

and poor quality educational materials on the Internet, tensions

can be created for some developers of OER. (208)



Currently, about 150 colleges and universities

are operating or planning OCW Websites. (213)



“We are seeing about 2 million visits per month to MIT content (total for

MIT OCW and translation affi liate sites). Since inception, over 25 million

unique visitors have accessed MIT OCW, representing more than 1.5

billion hits on the Web site. In addition, there are over 100 mirror sites

in Africa and Asia that deliver MIT content to users who have limited [216]

Internet access. And users have downloaded complete course packages

for off-line use over several million times.

From OCW’s extensive, ongoing evaluation process, we have learned

that about 16 percent of OCW visitors are educators, 32 percent students,

and 49 percent self learners.2 Some 96 percent of educators say

OCW has helped them (or will) improve their teaching or their courses.

Among all visitors, 98 percent say OCW has a positive impact. Thousands

of users have expressed their appreciation for OCW and told us

anecdotal stories about the impact it has had on their lives.” (215-216).



“About 60 percent of MIT faculty use OCW materials in their teaching

or advising at MIT. A third say publishing on OCW improves their

materials. And OCW enables faculty to gain more detailed insight

into what is taught in other courses.” (221).



Over 70 percent of current graduate and undergraduate students

use OCW, and this percentage shows steady increase from year to year.

As a student in electrical engineering/computer science explained, “OCW

has given me countless materials that have inspired me for projects,

helped me complete related projects, and helped me understand course

material. My 6.111 report was posted on the OCW site. Since then, a [223]

student in Chile contacted me about it and we’ve been able to communicate

across countries.” (222-223).



The important fi rst step has been to gain a deep understanding of who

Connexions’ users are (and should be) and what constitutes value for

them. Utpal Dholakia of the Rice University Jesse H. Jones Graduate

School of Management has been studying the diverse Connexions users

through formal marketing research, by attending to user feedback, and

via informal observation and interactions. He has found, for example,

that the primary motive for a majority of academic textbook authors

who contribute their original content to Connexions is not to earn royalties;

rather, it is to have the greatest possible impact on scholars, practitioners,

and students within their disciplines through the widespread

dissemination and use of their educational and scholarly materials. As a

result, while authors may agree to forgo revenues from their contributions,

it is important that they receive full credit for them; not surprisingly,

this is often a prerequisite for them to participate. This points to

the criticality of the “attribution” clause in the Creative Commons

license and the noncriticality of the “noncommercial” clause.(238).



Today, there are over 30 million people qualifi ed

to enter university but denied access due to the restricted seat numbers

and restricted fi nances. In the next 10 years, the number of potential

students who will be denied access will grow to 100 million (Daniels,

2007). A major university would have to be created each week, starting

now, to meet this overwhelming demand.

We need to rethink the traditional notions of where, when, and how

people learn. Learning will continue within traditional structures, but it

could also be more widely available through new emerging models. (261).



the Monterey Institute for Technology and Education

(MITE; See http://www.montereyinstitute.org/nroc/nrocdemos

.html). The MITE courses cover much of the subject matter of the early

years of college (and for secondary school Advanced Placement courses)

and use rich, engaging, media-based content. All three open learning

initiatives allow students to pace their learning as appropriate and review

conceptually diffi cult material as needed.



In California, the textbooks for a community

college student ordinarily cost more than the student’s tuition and fees.

Imagine instead that there were a set of high quality text books open

and reusable on the Web. Each open textbook has the conventional pages

and fi gures as other textbooks but also has embedded laboratories,

interactive simulations, video, and other supporting material. One powerful

component of making this textbook freely available on the Web is

that it could be continuously updated for new knowledge. A version of

the textbook could also be available on a hand-held device. A low-cost,

printable, on demand version of the textbook would be available. Though

in the print form the book would lose its interactive characteristics, it

would still be as useful as current textbooks. (269).



In the long run, the possibilities for self-directed learning of this sort

are wide open. There is, however, an important implication. If someone

learns the material independently, why not get some credit or certifi cation

for the effort? Figuring this out might require that rigorous course

fi nal examinations be developed to determine if the person has actually

achieved an adequate level of understanding of the material. Then an

organization or organizations would have to be established to administer

such an exam, and certify that the person has learned the material. The

Western Governor’s University, located in Utah, provides a service something

like this.

Finally, the existence of a body of complete, free online courses suggests

that it might be possible to populate courses that satisfy a full

college major. (272).



(AAC&U, 2002).

Worldwide, the demand for postsecondary education will be nothing

short of staggering. At the beginning of the new millennium, over 90

million students were already enrolled in some form of higher education

worldwide. By 2025, estimates are that the number of enrolled students

is likely to reach 160 million (Perkinson, 2005). At this point, the lessdeveloped

countries manage to provide postsecondary education for only

4 percent of their young people, yet they hold the vast majority of the

world’s prospective students. Nearly half the world’s population (almost

3 billion people) is under the age of 25, and 85 percent of the world’s

youth live in developing countries (World Population Foundation, n.d.).

The possibility of fi nancing enough buildings, books, technologies,

and educators to serve millions of additional learners is close to

unthinkable in less-developed countries where qualifi ed instructors and

critical resources are often lacking altogether (Larson, 2001, viii). (395).



But how does the community judge the

quality of its collective output? Here, too, the burden can be distributed

across the community by providing support for user reviews and recommendations.

To confront the implications of such a strategy, the open

education movement will have to come to grips with the nature of valuation

itself. Is the quality of a course something inherent within the

learning resource itself or is it something that emerges only in use, judged

by how it affects its users in a specifi c learning context (Hylén, 2006,

p. 8)? If so, will we blend peer review with rating systems like Digg to

determine the quality of a resource? (397).