constructivist or contrived?

I keep thinking about the wikibooks and other 2.0 things we're reading about as they are used in the classroom. Here's my question, when instructors use these tools, is their teaching inherently constructivist, due to the participatory/interactive nature of these tools? Or is it true that requiring students to participate in this way for a grade is contrived and doesn't at all employ 2.0 technologies in the way that they were intended for?

youtube

Having been involved with the creation of only one youtube video, I am eager to create more, now that I know the instructional strategies that can be enhanced with the use of video. The video I helped to create was intended more as a promotional endeavor for my library; however, many instructors have told me that they use it as a slideshow for the open time after students enter the classroom and before class actually begins. Even without being intentional about its creation for instructional purposes, they have proved that the video is helpful for use before formal teaching begins. Although I'm glad that it's being used as such, I think my next creation will be even more meaningful for instruction, as I will have in mind some of its potential purposes (bookending, attention-grabber, explanation enhancer, etc.) while planning/creating it.

open is the answer

Having the opportunity to read part of the draft of the new Indiana University IT Strategic Plan, I was pleased to recognize so many instances of the word "open" throughout the document. Without knowing every aspect of the plan, I think I can safely say that IU is going to begin to move some of its efforts in knowledge creation (e.g. teaching, research, publication) toward a more open model similiar to that of MIT's. The most thrilling part of this? The libraries are identified as a true partner for this endeavor as the institution's knowledge repository. I would love to see this open model of education permeate more aspects of higher education, including the ways in which scholars communicate with one another. I think our current mechanisms for facilitating and publishing these conversations will eventually deteriorate, if they do not evolve into more open formats. 

ideas are not property?

It seems that any time I ask someone in my field about copyright, the answer is: "Carrie, it depends." In terms of legality, copyright is the grayist of gray areas and the law is being changed and determined as we look on. In the digital age, there is no simple answer to ownership. Comparing the sharing of intellectual property to stealing of real property oversimplifies the issues at hand and provides no real answers. As James Hilton reminds us in his insightful article "In Praise of Sharing", someone whose car is stolen no longer has use of that property. Whereas when creative content is shared or reused or repurposed, the owners are not deprived in the same way. They still retain the use of their "property". The free exchange of ideas is necessary to our progress and success as a democratic society. Locking down the access to and use of creative property will not only hinder our innovation, but it will also bring about a culture of individual ownership in which sharing and collaboration is considered detrimental and undesirable. This would ultimately limit our potential as educators to continue our legacy of scholarship and creation that, when shared, is central to learning.

Generations of Learners

I have always been just a little bit bothered by the notion that we must greet each new generation of learners by thrusting all these generalizations upon so that we, their educators, can feel confident about knowing what they need to learn and how they are capable of learning it. When these sorts of preconceived notions are primarily what shapes our needs analyses for learners, we are setting up our learners for a serious failure later -- that is, the fact that they can safely assume that people will try to categorize them and then pander to them so as to ensure their highest achieving potential. I feel the same way about learning styles. It is not possible to label all learners as visual, kinesthetic, etc. any more than we can label our learners as smart or troublemakers or hardworking. Each learner must find his/her own meaning and experience in the flexible and malleable learning environments that we build. And it is our responsibility to encourage them to become self-motivated and independent thinkers they are meant to be in such a way that they celebrate their differences as hallmarks of their individuality and signals of their great potential.