Three Touchstones of Academic Thinking and Writing

Image Credit: Togetherediting.com

Academic writing is not an objective in and of itself, it is product of careful thinking. Academic writing should show your reader how you came to your conclusions. When you examine how you came to your conclusions this helps you to become intellectually honest and self-reflective. Thinking about how you arrived at a conclusion is the very essence of "critical thinking". There are three touchstones that will help you to do this work: (1) Think about what brings you to the topic you are exploring; (2) think about different theoretical perspectives for exploring this topic; and (3) think about the source material you are working with.

1. Think About What Brings You To This Topic: 

Learning about a topic is a journey. Before you embark on this journey ask yourself this:

What makes you curious about this topic?

What problem(s) are you trying to solve?

What puzzles are you wrestling with?

How might your inquiry into this topic be useful to others?

Any journey of inquiry is motivated by a desire to know or understand something in your life and your surroundings. What is it that you desire to know or to understand? What originated this yearning? Take time to think and write about this. Once you have completed your journey, go back and think about why others might be interested in what you have learned. How might your journey be useful to others?

2. Think About How You Are Engaging Methods of Analysis and Interpretation (Theory):

Theoretical and methodological perspectives call our attention to things that we probably would overlook otherwise. There are many theoretical and methodological perspectives out there. You should be familiar with at least of few of them, and you should be able to distinguish between them.

How would different theoretical lenses (different ways of thinking) approach this phenomenon differently? Contrast and compare them. It is useful to take the examples, given by a source with one theoretical perspective, and examine that same case using a different theoretical perspective. How do your conclusions, using one approach, differ from those that you would arrive at using a different approach? What rival hypotheses can you come up with to interpret what the author observed and recorded? What interpretation of behavior, other than those used by the author, seem plausible to you? In order to do these exercises you first have to understand the theoretical perspective, interpretation and analysis that the author used.

What does this method of thought and observation prime you to look for and pay attention to? If you take one method of analysis or interpretation, how might this approach change what you pay attention to and observe when you go out into the field or you observe raw data?

What are the truth-claims of this particular method of analysis or interpretation? How do these truth-claims differ from those of another method of analysis or interpretation? Some research is intended to discover things that hold true for most cases, most of the time. This kind of research is intended to explain social or personal phenomena. Other research is intended to describe or explore an experience or meaning that a person or group of people construct. It may also be used to explore a theoretical perspective and to examine how this perspective plays out through particular examples. A case study is an example of this. The difference between the two approaches is that one claims to give you information so that you will know about a topic, and you may be able to use that knowledge for operational purposes (you can manipulate and change things in your environment); the other claims to explore ideas and meanings constructed in the minds of subjects under investigation. This approach claims to help you to understand the dynamics of the group or individual and their environment. The first approach claims to enable you to know; the second approach claims to enable you to understand.

3. Think About the Sources You Are Working With:

What is the difference between different types of sources? Is this an academic source, a journalistic source, or a public relations piece from an organization, institution or agency? Is it a blog or opinion piece; and, if so, what is this person's particular experience or expertise that makes us interested in what this person has to say? Why should we care about what this person says? Do they have the power to change things? Do they have the power to influence other people's opinions? Have they done careful and systematic research on this topic? Can they provide us with a first-had account of how people are affected by what we are studying?

Is this a primary source or is it a secondary source? Is it raw, first hand, material from which we can form our opinion or is a secondary source that has processed the raw material and is presenting us with the author's summary or perspective on it? A transcript, unedited footage, or an actual research report are all primary sources. A newspaper clipping or blog post is usually a secondary source. A lot of what is "primary" or "secondary" depends on what you are using it for. For example, if you are writing about the kinds of letters that migrant workers sent to their loved ones back home then the actual letters of migrant workers would become primary source material. If you are trying to understand how bloggers or news reporters are writing about a particular event then these resources, which are otherwise secondary sources, become primary sources because they are raw data, not about the actual event but about what people are saying about it. In this sense they would be raw data for what you are trying to understand.

What is the difference between sources in terms of the style of its presentation? Is it formal or informal? Is it dry and academic or is it conversational? Was this source subjected to professional peer review? What experts or professionals reviewed this source and checked it for accuracy?

What is the difference between sources in terms of the degree of their partisanship? What is the degree of the source's objectivity or subjectivity? An academic study is usually more objective than a newspaper article. A newspaper article is usually more objective than literature published by an organization about itself. Is the producer of the source an advocate for a particular cause, interest or point-of-view? Is the source an artifact from a particular interest group? If the source is from an interest group it can help us to understand how that group is trying to frame the discussion, but we should also ask what kind of information opposing groups are circulating.

How does this source attempt to appeal to your emotions as opposed to your reasoning? What emotive language do the producers of this source use? What logic or reasoning do they use? What kinds of evidence do they provide and work with?

What kinds of metaphors are the authors using? What is implied by these metaphors? What alternative metaphors can you come up with that might have different implications for how we think about the topic? People think metaphorically but usually we don't take time to examine the metaphors we are using. If we examine our metaphors we can more easily trace and understand our patterns of thought. This is useful because it helps us to identify unexamined assumptions and to think of alternative ways of approaching and thinking about the situation. When we examine our metaphors we become more self-reflective about our thought patterns and this helps us deepen our skills of observation and our thinking.

What is the difference between sources in terms of letting you know how the authors know what they know? To what degree do they discuss how they arrived at their conclusions? To what degree do they discuss the sources they draw on? To what degree do they discuss the limitations of their knowledge? To what degree does the source entertain other points-of-view and attempt to provide balance, context, and nuance?

These three touchstones (what brings you to the topic, what theoretical perspectives you are working with, and what sources you are working with) will help you to think and write more deeply about any topic that you want to explore.

What is the "Double-Bind" that Makes Schooling an Obstacle to Learning?

Image Credit: Gardner Campbell

In his keynote address at the Open Ed conference in Vancouver, in 2012, Gardner Campbell discussed the need to create "Ecologies of Yearning", a vague concept which we recognize only when we experience it.

Digital technology and social networking tools create the potential for wide-ranging student interaction across vast distances. They also give students access to information and other learning resources that would have been unimaginable 25 years ago, and yet, even as universities adapt digital learning platforms as part of their instruction, students seem to feel more boxed-in than ever rather than feeling as though they are part of an ever-expending, alive and vibrant massive network of learning. Why is that happening?

Digital technology and social networking tools also create the potential for students to participate in project-based learning and to create digital artifacts that should unleash the process of discovery and and stimulate their creative juices, yet students feel constricted by the process, as if they were in a strait-jacket. How are we to understand what blocks this process of creativity and discovery?

Gardner Campbell draws from Gregory Bateson's Steps to an Ecology of Mind to explore the nature of the "double-bind". An application of the double-bind is when it occurs as the requirement to implement conventional modes of course organization and assessment of student learning meet the emerging creative and discovery potential of digital technology. It is akin to saying, "Be spontaneous, but within this rubric."

In order to identify this double-bind we must develop skills recognizing meta-messaging, the meta-context in which we are thinking, meta-contextual perspective, and transcontextual syndromes. To get a handle on these $50 words, watch the lecture. It is essential in order for us to even begin to work our way through this puzzle.

How do we break out of this double-bind so that the minds of students will be freed and authentic learning will take place? Campbell argues that learning begins with yearning; the challenge is how we create educational environments that place yearning at the center of the process of education.

What is the Future of Online Learning Platforms for Education?

Image credit: Caribwebdev.com

The New York Times highlights the problems and limitations of online learning

On February 18th, The New York Times published an editorial titled "The Trouble with Online College". In it, the Times editorial board said that Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which are non-credit classes with hundreds of thousands of students per class, are not very good models for online classes that are offered for standard college instruction.

The Times warns that "College administrators who dream of emulating this strategy for classes ... would be irresponsible not to consider two serious issues." The two issues they cite are: high student attrition rates among online learners, and lack of assistance for students who are not highly motivated and who lack strong learning skills.

The editorial notes that there is very little interaction between instructors and students in online courses, and that students who are already low-performers fall even further behind. This is based on a study done by Columbia University's Community College Research Center.

Additionally, a five-year study of Washington state students at community or technical colleges, the editorial said, indicated that many students who enroll in these schools lack basic academic and time-management skills. Online courses, the editorial argues, makes them sitting ducks for failure.

The Times editorial sensibly recommends that students first demonstrate competency in traditional classes before being allowed to enroll in online courses. The Times also sensibly recommended that hybrid courses, mixing online learning platforms with in-class instruction, produces outcomes that are comparable to traditional classroom instruction.

What are the problems, and the potential, of digital learning?

Letters to the editor, in response to the editorial, helped to present the other side of the picture.  

Duke University sophomore Aaron B. Krolick says that one of the benefits of online learning platforms is that they enable teachers to get immediate feedback on their teaching so that they can make adaptations as they go along.

I particularly like the way Krolick describes teaching -- including teaching that uses digital technology -- as being an "art" that is in the process of becoming. We have to give this art of teaching time to develop, and to learn from initial errors.

Steven Mintz, founding director of the University of Texas' Systems Institute for Transformational Learning notes that "A 2010 Department of Education review found that 'students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction," and asks how this could be. 

His answer is that lecture classes are less engaging for students than instructional methods that can be used with online learning platforms. Most face-to-face classes for undergraduates, he argues, are lecture-based; online courses, on the other hand, can engage more of the tactile and kinetic modes of learning.

Mintz lays out some of the strengths in digital instruction in order to engage students: "Online courses can enhance learning opportunities for nontraditional students and those not well served by lecture classes. High-quality, next-generation online courses incorporate personalized adaptive learning, problem-solving activities, interactive laboratories, animations, simulations, educational gaming, virtual reality environments, social networking and data analytics," he says.

Mitchell Stevens, associate professor of education at Stanford notes that face-to-face instruction is not always everything that it is cracked up to be in the first place. It is, he notes, "always of uneven quality". There is no guarantee that a student will receive good instruction just because that instruction is formatted face-to-face.

Similarly to Aaron Krolick, Stevens calls for giving the art of digital education more time to develop before we judge it.

As Stevens points out the fallacy of assuming that face-to-face instruction necessarily means higher quality instruction, Lawrence Lipsitz, editor of Educational Technology Magazine, notes that incidents of poorly designed digital instruction does not mean that digital instruction must, of necessity, be poorly designed. Moreover, any course that fails to engage its students may be poorly designed, whether the class is digital or it is face-to-face.

Lipsitz also notes that many faculty members are poorly trained and are not prepared for online instruction. 

From my own experiences, I found out how difficult it is for faculty members to get depth of assistance in finding creative and engaging ways to use online learning platforms. I have used these platforms at three universities and found it very difficult to get anything beyond the most superficial training to adapt the technology to the demands of the various disciplines I was teaching. This was so, despite the fact that two of these universities had fairly large and well-funded digital instruction centers. 

The digital instruction centers had been taught a narrow range of canned methods of instruction. They understood their job to be to pass on these "fool-proof" canned methods of instruction on to professors. Any attempt to think outside of the box was usually met with comments such as, "Nobody ever uses that function," or "nobody has ever asked that before." There was little experience I could draw on for guidance. I had to find my own way through many trials and many errors.

Lipsitz says that MOOCs are certainly not his idea of of well-designed courses, but my experiences have led me to the opposite conclusion -- it is through MOOCs that I am picking up the most useful and meaningful ways to engage students through digital instruction. In MOOCS, I am seeing the potential of digital instruction being modeled every day. 

I am learning a lot, not only by taking MOOCs, as a student, but also by reverse-engineering them, in order to find out how they work so that I can use this information effectively in my role as a faculty member.

But Harry Wyatt, emeritus teaching professor at SUNY, has another opinion on all of this. Wyatt calls distance learning and online education a "pipe dream" and says they are "O.K. for learning more about something we already know, but they are not much use in the beginning stages [of learning]." He goes on to say that "humans are not designed to get their basics from computers..."

Really? I would think that human beings can get their basics from a rock, if they curious and attentive enough -- that is, if they are patient, motivated and open to learning.

So, what are sensible uses for digital technology in the classroom?

Kathy Cassidy, writing in Primary Preoccupation, outlines the uses the abuses of technology in the classroom, has shared her principles for the sensible use of technology in the classroom. Although she writes from the standpoint of elementary education, the principles she outlines are just as relevant for higher education.

Cassidy makes the point that the idea of using online learning platforms in (and outside of) the classroom should not simply be to use technology for technology's sake (it should not be the sense that "now that we have all this neat stuff we have to use it"), rather it should be to bring content to the classroom that was previously inaccessible; to provide students with choices in their style of learning and their method of sharing what they have learned; it should be a means of connecting classrooms, and disciplines, so that we don't treat them as separate silos of learning; and it should enable students to showcase what they have learned with an audience that extends well beyond the classroom, through blogs, digital portfolios, videos, and other digital artifacts.

The New York Times editorial was focused on standard academic courses and traditional methods of instruction; for me, the point of using digital technology and online learning platforms is to push beyond traditional methods of instruction; it is to find new ways of teaching, and maybe even new ways of thinking about education.

Kathy Cassidy's main point comes down to this, "Technology should not just allow us to do traditional [instruction and learning] in a different way; it should allow us to do things that we thought were not possible [in the classroom]." In other words, technology should not just create digitized versions of older styles of instruction;  it should open up opportunities for whole new styles of instruction and learning.

#EDCMOOC

What is Creativity and Self-Expression in the Digital Age? #EDCMOOC

Image credit: Brain Pickings

Maria Popova reviews Kenneth Goldsmith's "Uncreative Writing" in her literary website Brain Pickings. I know, from my own teaching experiences, that the digital revolution has made plagiarism easier for students, and -- having grown up in the age of cutting and pasting, sampling and re-purposing -- many of my students don't seem to have ethical qualms about doing this.

The surprising thing is that there is even a debate about whether or not the standards and the ethics around plagiarism should change. At first glance, the idea of the legitimacy of plagiarism seems to be a huge concession to dishonesty and intellectual laziness. The argument that students don't know the difference between plagiarism and their own creative work seems almost condescending. The notion that the technology has changed our ethical and intellectual standards seems to yield too much to technological determinism.

But Goldsmith seems to be making the argument that one cannot avoid self-expression, even when appropriating someone else's words -- or images or sounds. He argues that one expresses oneself, even in how one selects and reassembles content that others have created. One cannot avoid self-expression when one is working with, and processing, text.

Digital postings are rife with mash-ups and sampling in newer and more creative ways, unintended and unanticipated by the original creators of content. Goldsmith argues that this has always been the case, even with the analogue technology the predated the digital age. But digitized content pushes this trend into hyper-drive.

Goldsmith's book suggests that the change we are seeing, facilitated by digital technology, is not a change in ethical standards so much as it is a change in how we understand the notion of "creativity" and whether or not "originality" is as rare, and as difficult to achieve, as we once thought it was. It raises the question as to whether or not, in the past, we have over-emphasized the notion of creating text from scratch as the only form of creativity and originality in the process of self-expression. It suggests that appropriation of content, re-purposed, is a legitimate form of self-expression, and that the very act of selecting content and re-working it, is unavoidably self-expressive.

Has our understanding of plagiarism changed in the digital culture? If it has, did digital technology make this change inevitable, or would this change have occurred even without digital technology? Here are several different views on audio sampling, which is a forerunner of current arguments about "plagiarism."

Digital Technology and Our Utopian / Dystopian Future: Democracy or Mob Mentality?

Image Credit:  STCroiss. Creative Commons 

I am currently taking a Coursera course on "E-learning and Digital Cultures". This course is taught by a team of teachers from the University of Edinburgh, in Scotland. One of the initial questions in the course is whether or not our outlook on information and communication technology is essentially Utopian or Dystopian.

The Utopian claims, according to M. Hand and B. Sandywell, in their book "E-topia as Cosmopolis or Citedal" (2002), are that digital and internet information technology inherently have a democratizing effect. The technology itself is neutral but its application is such that it democratizes the power of speech and access to information. Cyber-politics, under the Utopian vision, focuses on maximizing public access to digital technology hardware and software so that more people will be empowered.

Dystopian claims, according to Hand and Sandywell, are that the technology is inherently de-democratizing. Again, dystopians acknowledge that the technology, itself, is neutral but ownership of digital hardware and software, which determines access to dissemination of content, allows the technology to be controlled by anti-democratic forces. Cyber-politics, under this dystopian vision, focuses on resisting anti-democratic attempts to control and limit who gets heard and who has access to information.

Both Utopian and Dystopian views tend to be technologically deterministic to the extent that they argue that technology is destiny -- for better or for worse. The deterministic perspective minimizes the significance of human agency. They minimize the degree to which the online experience is created through the interaction between human beings and technology use. They under-emphasize the degree to which human beings create meaning and shape their own experiences through the use of this technology.

I don't subscribe to technological determinism, in any form, because I have seen people use technology in ways that were not anticipated by its creators, just as they have with other artifacts in the social environment. The entire premise of Hip Hop culture, for example, arose from sampling from all forms of popular culture and transforming the meaning of these signs in ways the signifiers had not originally intended. This is something that human beings tend to do with all forms of popular culture; they take what is given and they adapt it in ways that transform the original context and make it their own.

Anti-democratic forces are, no doubt, trying to use digital technology in ways that are dis-empowering, but the nature of the technology is such that it gives more people opportunities to document and share their thoughts, creations, and experiences, and to network with others they would never have had the opportunity to interact with in "real" space.

That is my Utopian side talking.

My Dystopian side is impressed (and not in a positive way) with how people are using this technology to lower the bar of social and political discourse. My Dystopian side points to the way people create their own "facts" to re-enforce what they already want to believe, and it points to how people post content on the internet that is incendiary, just because they can get away with posting it, without being held accountable for what they post.

Quotes, of questionable authenticity, are widely circulated on the internet and people use social networks to re-enforce each other's biases and to insult those who do not agree with them, rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to consider new perspectives on things. The illusion of anonymity on the internet often brings out the worst in people, "freeing" them to engage in hate speech on a level they would never even consider in a face-to-face encounter.

My Utopian side is glad that unpopular ideas have the chance to be expressed, weighed, and considered by a larger audience. This side of me is excited by the possibilities of having speech without self-censorship, or censorship that is externally imposed. My Utopian side is also thrilled with the idea that corporate media are less able to shape the consciousness of individuals who can now more easily curate the content they consume and decide for themselves what is important and what is not. Information is no longer so easily prioritized by a few publishers and media networks.

My Dystopian side is concerned about the potential for this technology to strengthen ignorance and the mob mentality of mindless movements, which are antithetical to the deliberative process. My Dystopian side is concerned that the internet is being used to feed the passions of people who are not interested in hearing all sides of an issue, but are only interested in looking for someone to fear or something to torch.

Digital technology can create the conditions for greater and more meaningful social interaction and engagement, but it can also encourage the tendency of people to isolate themselves and wallow unchallenged narratives that circulate among those who share their narrow exposure and biases.

I see both tendencies occurring. Part of this excites me, while the other part frightens me. It is not technology that will determine our destiny -- our destiny will be determined through our interaction with technology as it shapes us, even as we are finding new ways to apply it and give it meaning.

What's Missing From Discussions On The Economy and Social Policy?

In the same spirit as the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, a group of young Americans (both documented and undocumented) are determined to "change the debate" on national public policy. They are calling themselves the “Dream Defenders”.

 The Dream Defenders point out that the topics that have been debated, thus far, have been too narrow and have been tailored in a way that excludes too many Americans.

 As we have discussed in class, there was plenty of talk about restoring lost American dreams of the middle-class, but what about Americans who never had access to that dream in the first place? What about people who could not lose what they never had? Why aren't we talking about the elusiveness of the American dream as well as the loss of it?

 We hear some, but not enough, about middle-class homeowners who are struggling to hold onto their homes; but we hear even less about the increasingly unbearable burden of student loans, especially in an economy of low wages and few jobs.

 Candidates, of course, give young people their good wishes and say they want them to have jobs, few address the problem of a minimum wage that has failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation over the past 40 years, and is now sharply below the level that would constitute a livable wage for a full-time worker.

One of the things I am most impressed with, about these young activists, is that they are distinguishing between merely touching on an issue, as part of a talking point, as opposed to actually discussing the issue at-length. These days, too many of us settle for touching on topics, but lack the attention-span to examine these topics at length.

 You can read more about the Dream Defenders on Truthout

 Or on Twitter and other social media: #ChangeTheDebate

Focus on the Public Discourse

Image credit: Center for Human Studies at George Mason University

One of the biggest challenges facing people who teach history, public policy, and social science is that many of our students aren't really following the news in any systematic way.

When I ask students how they keep up with current events, most give me blank stares. Those who do follow current events usually admit that most of what they know comes from the introductory monologues of  late night television, or from comedic entertainment, such as Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report.

Many schools require that their social policy courses include detailed analysis of a political issue or a particular piece of legislation. I think this is a bit too ambitious and prevents us from seizing an opportunity to give students an academic experience that will really be meaningful to them, and is more likely to stay with them for the rest of their lives.

It seems to me that our objective in these courses should be introduce students to the world of current events, and sources one uses to weigh and consider historical developments. I think it is a waste of time to have students write complicated policy papers if they haven't first had the opportunity to discover and appreciate the public discourse surrounding those policies and how they are affected by all of this.

I believe we are doing well if, during the course of a semester, we teach students how to find, interpret, and evaluate information content in newspapers and over the internet. An informed and intelligent citizenry begins with being aware of the public discourse, and being in a position where they can contrast and compare opinions, and evaluate how policy makers and "talking heads" arrived at their particular point-of-view.

Immersing students in news sources and news content, before moving on to more complicated policy papers, is a demanding task and should not be lightly dismissed. If students become thoroughly familiar with public policy discourse in non-academic and non-specialist publications they will develop a sense of what it will take for them to meaningfully contribute to, and influence, public opinion when they become professionals.

One step at a time. Save the policy analysis papers for more advanced courses. Our first task is to expose students to the world of current events and the discourse of public opinion. In fact, our first task is to fire their imaginations about these things. Our first task is to create assignments that immerse students in the world of blogs, newspapers, magazines, and other popular media so that they begin to evaluate the content of these sources in creative and critical ways.  This will help them to develop skills that will more likely be meaningful to them for the rest of their lives.

C. Matthew Hawkins