Best Practices with Mobile Tech: #adjunctchat Tuesday, July 15

Mobile Technology is here to stay.  It is a fact of academic life.

Many of us may try to resist integrating mobile technology into our classrooms. However, the fact is that it is now a part of our students' lives and it is something as teachers we need to think about whether we work in a traditional classroom or online. What are some ways in which mobile technology has changed the classroom?

First, there is the positive ways. Students have access to information on their mobile devises which can broaden the curriculum. Instructors no longer have to rely on outdated information and can bring in topical issues. This is true of all majors. Another advantage is that higher education students can be sent out of the classroom to learn, observe, and experience what they are learning in context. I often use my class time to send students out and observe while keeping in touch via mobile technology. Using technology in the classroom also helps the instructor to give instant feedback as students work in class. I am able to point to different resources or help students learn how to navigate through information, developing their information literacy, communication, and critical thinking skills.

Outside of class, students can contact their instructor or TA outside of office hours. This is especially important for adjuncts and contingent faculty who may not have access to offices or private spaces for discussion. And new mobile technologies allow for more natural conversation through facetime, skype, or google hangouts. I also am able to update my students, giving them access, through mobile apps for programs such as Trello.com, edmodo, googledocs, youtube or blackboard, to updated resources, feedback, and assignments. Finally, for "temporary" faculty, students can maintain a relationship once a faculty member has left the university. Social networking sites such as facebook or linkedin allows faculty to maintain that relationship which can be a reciprocal relationship for graduate school and employment. I will check in with my former students when I'm revising my classes to get real world feedback so my course stays relevant.

However, more often than not, faculty know the downside of mobile technology. Students become distracted with their technology and social media, neither listening to the instructor or classmates (if they do happen to be focusing on class work) nor being engaged in the class (checking email, messages, or facebook or even studying for another class). For an instructor it is difficult to know when a student is taking notes on their mobile device or communicating with someone outside of class (although grins during a discussion of marketing law are a dead give away).

There are also technology difficulties, such as the digital divide (those who have more advanced technology compared to those that don't), power outages, access to wifi (or lack of access), lack of support for individual devices, and incompatibility with other digital devices. Many faculty members are not confident to use technology that they either are unfamiliar with or have no academic support for. In addition, designing activities for effective use of mobile technology in the classroom may be time consuming as there may be technology testing and training used. For example, there are different designs for smartphone use, tablets, and laptops. Smartphones require a different format than computer based content. In addition, each screen shot on a small mobile device can be linked but normally can't be seen as a whole product.

Finally, the ability for students to reach an instructor 24/7 can lead to an adjunct or part-time instructor interacting with students above and beyond the time for which they are paid. Students rarely distinguish between a tenured, full-time, or part-time instructor and may expect unlimited access.

In this week's #adjunctchat, we will trade some best practices for using mobile technology (m-learning) both in traditional classes and online classes. We will look at the use of mobile technology in academics as a whole and the challenges for adjuncts specifically.

1) Do you allow the use of mobile technology in your courses? Why or why not?
2) What are some challenges in using mobile technology (especially for adjuncts/contingent faculty)
3) How might you integrate mobile technology into your teaching?
4) What boundaries do/might you need to create for effective use of mobile technology with your students?
5) What resources would you like to have when developing activities, resources, instructional design, technology for mobile use in the classroom?

This discussion is open to anyone interested in mobile technology in the classroom. I'll try to put up some links of examples I've used in my classes.

Is it the train or the tracks that are important

Harold Jarche had an interesting post about a metaphor used in the book Revolutionary Wealth. In it the authors outline a metaphor using the speed of the train as an indication of readiness for technological change.

However, I did not like this metaphor. I feel it is the tracks (which includes the structure and the paths laid out for the trains to go on) which makes entities ready or not for change. Some organizations, such as the government, might have the newest technology available, but are restricted in how they can use it. I see the train as the technology itself. Some older trains can do very well if there is a well kept track, while even the most advanced engines must slow down for poorly maintained and planned tracks.

There is portion of the train ride from Albany, NY to NY City were trains have to come to the slowest crawl imaginable because the track cannot sustain the train. There is a delay in Washington DC as engines from the south (or north) must change to fit the difference in track size between the south and north. Trains from the mid-west to the east coast are always late due to the complex structure and poor condition of the rails around the Buffalo area. Trains must feed into this one high traffic area where there is always rail repair going on.

So with that in mind, I developed the follow metaphor using the tracks, rather than the train. I have copied it from the comment section on Harold's blog:

I can’t say I really like that metaphor. It assumes that Business is the only fast train with all other support services as behind the times.

I think a better metaphor would be the “tracks”. Big business has the fastest tracks maintained and built right to their door. As a result, they have the fastest track to progress.

Small business must try to deal with their track being just a bit out of reach, so they have a fast train to a certain point, but then must be creative in getting the goods (knowledge and technology) to their door.

The civil society makes sure that there are spurs off the main track. Even if these spurs are a bit slow and in need of some help, at least it gets to a larger number of people. They just need to be patient.

The government train has the nicest tracks around, although they don’t go to the places that they necessarily need to go. However, this is a very efficient train, so it doesn’t matter if it is going anywhere, as long as it can prove that it went SOMEWHERE. Meanwhile, the train employees would just like someone to plan out the track and END at some point.

Education keeps having the tracks ripped up and relaid. Sometimes this means that the train will get to where it needs to go, but for those on poorer or more isolated routes, it might just go around in circles. Of course, then the passengers blame it on the conductor and engineer, who are just trying to keep the train on the tracks.

The international track goes only so far, and then it stops. There is no coordination, and the track owners of one railroad won’t speak with the track owners of the others. When they do, it still takes time to move from one set of tracks to another.

The political system train can’t decide where to lay the track. It stops at their friends houses, but doesn’t connect to others. As a result there are hundreds of miles of tracks planned, but nothing is actually laid out because no one can agree on a system.

Finally, the legal train builds up, then takes down tracks. The piece meal track system means that there is no coordination with actual walls between some, but bridges that link others. As fast as the political system is laying out track, the legal system is rearranging it.

I can't help but think there are some stakeholders missing. Perhaps members of minority groups or "non-techies". Non-techies put up walls to prevent the track from coming to their community and hope to preserve their way of life.

Minority groups, tired of always being by-passed by the larger companies, lay their own tracks often in isolation. The larger more popular tracks then have others who come from outside who want to link them up to the main tracks.

Perhaps you can think of other groups.

A new way of typing?

I wrote the following comment on Karyn Romeis's blog post about new software to teach typing:

Interestingly enough, my daughter was taught touch type, but does not use the process. Since getting a facebook account and a cell phone, she uses a two finger (forefinger and thumb) process that I see many of her generation using at a much faster rate than she ever used using all of her fingers.

I wonder if touch type teaching will change because of these new technologies.

It made me think of how difficult it is to change our patterns (both individually and culturally--in any society) to reflect new ways of doing things. What often happens is that those with greater power might deem what is acceptable or not.

I have found this in my data analysis for my dissertation. Because it was taking so long to create new processes, and because some group members were in a more politically viable position (department) than others, new processes were ditched to revert to the old templates (with some adjustments) and ways of doing things. However, before the big boss stepped in and began to set procedures to expedite the work, there was a high level of learning within the group (between group members). Many expressed their hope that they were creating a new format to present training within their field.

But, alas, there was just too much difficulty in changing those work patterns.

One of the problems I think I have in using a cell phone is the unlearning of patterns and relearning of new patterns. It is much easier for me to use facebook as it does not require the "unlearning" of anything. I do believe my kids are finding new ways to type that are every bit as effective as the way I type. However, it is considered "wrong" because it is a change of patterns, by necessity in light of the technology they are using.

Transition to new Technologies

I recently watched as my children showed each other the ins and outs of what they had figured out about their iPod. What is interesting to me is that iPods don't come with instructions per se. As a result, many of the features are learned (just like using google) with tips that others have figured out. This is one aspect of the new generation that is different than the old. It was almost as if the older generation had to have the directions to know how to use a new technology, whereas the new generation makes the rules and thus uses technology more innovatively.

This has me wondering if there is a transitional time for any new technology in which the "directions" are developed and thus an understanding of how the tool can be used is expanded. I tried to think of this in terms of the new tool that was introduced when I was growing up: the calculator (yes, I know I am dating myself). When it was first introduced, many looked at it as a substitute for a slide rule. How it was integrated into society, its uses, and how instructors/teachers integrated it into the classroom changed. I look now at how complex mathematical concepts are introduced into the curriculum for my son and daughter BECAUSE of the calculator. They are learning these concepts differently than I did with much more depth as students do not have to be slowed down by looking up numbers on a chart or slide rule (I never used a slide rule since "we had calculators"). I was still learning the computation, with the calculator used as a checking mechanism. How did the use of the calculator change so drastically? It was not overnight.

Many of us do not see the change in use of a technology as it becomes "mature". Using marketing (technology adoption) concepts, the majority adopters don't tend to use a new product until it is in the mature stage. So from here I have three questions:

1. Do late adopters need to have "directions" or at least a protocol for use (e.g. through standardized training, later versions that have support in learning how to use the mechanism built in, tips or instructions available in various formats)?
2. Are new technologies hitting the mature stage earlier (changing the product maturity curve) or having a greater number of early and late adopters earlier (changing the adaptation curve) or do we just expect that because of the pace of our society?
3. What was the process in the past that helped to change curriculum, training, and user awareness as a result of the introduction of new technology? In other words, if we were to look at the integration of film into education, radio into education, or even mimiographs, what lead up to the point where it was acceptable to use these technologies in education? What ground work needed to be laid?
   

I am not sure if anyone has ever looked at this, but I would be interested to see this type of analysis. I think it would then make it easier for us to know how to integrate these new technologies into education and the workplace.

Generational differences in technology adaptation

I decided to see if there was any research in this area (especially the generational differences in technology adaptation). I found two very interesting articles. In the first article, by D. Compeau, C. Higgins, and S. Huff (1999) in MIS quarterly found that self-efficacy in using technology was a major factor in adopting new technology. Perceptions of benefits does not influence those with low levels of self-efficacy, but does influence those with high levels. In other words, if you think you can use new technology then getting something out of it will be an added incentive to use it. However, those who don't think they can use the technology will not be influenced by incentives (time saving, raises, etc...).

The second article in Personnel Psychology found that age does matter in terms of the initial reason workers adopt technology. Younger workers look to performance enhancement (will this help me with my work) whereas older workers are influenced by social norms (everyone else-boss, co-worker, supervisor-is using it so I should also). However, in the long-term, the reasons are the same regardless of age (task performance).

The impression I got from the two of these articles is that workers need to be shown (and empowered) to use the technology. As Dave points out, many in the work place still look at instruction as something someone else "gives" them rather than a form of empowerment, motivation, and interaction with instructors, other experts, other learners, and the content. So self regulation, making workers confident in learning and using technology is important. In an open book test, most test takers don't need to have the book, but just knowing it is there makes them more confident. I think the same can be said for training and new technologies. Mentors and access to experts are the "open books". Some people will use them, many won't, however, knowing they are available to answer questions makes the learner more confident (self-efficacy).