Skip to main content

VERY slow progress towards open scholarship in the US

VERY slow progress towards open scholarship in the US

The 2009 version of Ithaca’s Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic Insights for Libraries, Publishers, and Societies was recently published and the results show little progress in attitude towards open scholarship by US academics. The study (fourth  in an tri-annual series) surveyed 3,025 faculty (8.6% of those invited) about their attitudes and behaviour related to a range of scholarly activity and especially scholarly publishing. The figure below demonstrates that attitudes are changing VERY slowly towards sharing and distributing academic results more openly.

Faculty Interest in Types of Publications Like

I had hoped to see growing interest in making our work accessible to developing countries and to the general public, but this seems not to be happening. Likely the constraints and attitudes from tenure and promotion committees, coupled with the growing access to “closed” publications through high priced (to the libraries, not the academics) journal databases,serve to decrease the value of participation (for these academics) in open publication.

One positive sign was the growing interest participation (or intent to participate) in accessible archives. See figure below:

Archiving or web publication

Archiving or web publication

Note the increase of 20% of faculty who intend to publish on their web site- maybe a reason why many institutional archives (including AUspace.athabascau.ca) have less than stellar contribution rates by our academics.

All in all the report is a bit discouraging, but reminds me of the old joke why geologists are so over represented in University governance- They are the only ones who really understand the speed of change in these institutions!!

(thanks to Mike Barbour for this link)

Terry

Academic Hat Trick

For those non Canadians reading this, a hat trick results in hockey (and I learn from Wikipedia, in other sports) when one scores three goals in one game. Well, the academic game lasts considerably longer than three periods, but I was both delighted and surprised to score a hat trick this week.

The week started with a call from Chere Gibson (emeritus professor from Univ. of Wisconsin) saying that I was to be awarded the “Wedemeyer Award for Excellence in Distance Education Practice. This award will be presented to the practitioner(s) who most exemplifies excellence in practice in distance education in North America”. The award will be presented at the 26th annual Distance Teaching and Learning conference in Madison, Wisconsin.

The next day, after insuring my head hadn’t swelled beyond the size of my bike helmet, I pedaled to work to receive an email from Canadian Network for Innovation in Education president Ray Whitley, that I was to be presented with the CNIE annual award for leadership at thr CNIE conference in St John this May. International awards are very nice, but recognized by one’s peers at home is especially gratifying.

The final goal was notification that myself and Bruno Poellhuber from the University of Montreal had won a Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities  Research Grant for $140,000 over 3 years to study social networking interventions in self-paced distance education programming. Now the amount of this grant may not seem much (especially when spread between 3 institutions over three years,) but those knowledgeable about Canadian funding for ed tech research programs know that we are in an extreme political drought and that any funds for research is rain from heaven!! Actually Bruno and I failed in our first two tries at this competition, the second time because reviewers found that we had not not provided justification for conducting this research in French and English – can you believe we live in Canada??

Anyways, weeks like this come very infrequently in academic, and I hope you will forgive the self promotional flavour of this post.

Terry

Next Phase for Tom Reeves

It was a very pleasant honor to be able to attend the retirement celebration and Design Based Research conference Georgia that honoured the  noted ed tech researcher, philosopher and activist – Tom Reeves.

The event was a very palatable love in for one of the most respect and loved academics in America. Tom has for 30 years been a professor of Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia. He has authored many articles, chapters and books, but is most known for his compelling presence as a speaker and advocate for meaningful research in education.

The conference featured a two day design based seminar  and conference for grad students and researchers focused on methods and results of design-based research. There were key note talks by Jan Harrington (Australia), Susan McKenny (Netherlands), Mike Spector, Michael Hannifin and Tom (University of Georgia).  There was also interesting mini sessions with scholars from Australia, Italy, South Africa  and from across the USA.

I was pleased to hear of many cases where design research is being used n local contexts from higher education, to classrooms, to professional education – with promising results. I also was busy scribbling references and resources (notably the 2007 Introduction to Design Based Research  booklet.) Tom’s own talk was both memories and inspiration as he demolished the focus on “rigour” that has marked the pendulum swing in the US as encapsulated in the No Child Left Behind and What Works thrusts of the Bush administration. Instead Tom championed, with many humorous and touching examples, the need for research that is relevant and makes a difference to real educators and most importantly real students.

There was a number of references for adding a fifth concurrent phase to design based research models based on a growing effort at understanding and promoting adoption of the design intervention in formal educational contexts.

I couldn’t help getting into a bit of a scrum with noted Ed tech author and publisher Michael Spector. Spector is the editor of the prestigious Journal Educational technology Research and Development, and the Handbook of Educational Technology, thus he is well positioned to present a “how to publish in Ed tech ” seminar. His talk ended with a listing of the 10″best” research journals in the ed tech field. However, only one of them was open access (Kinshuk’s Journal of Educational Technology & Society ). He dismissed all the other online journals as being of low quality. I had to jump up and dispute this claim and point out the growing list of Ed tech journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals. I further noted that as long as senior scholars like himself, keep reinforcing the value and sending papers to closed publications, the majority of people on the earth will continue to be  denied access to these works. It is especially relevant in that much of Tom’s talk focused on the lack of impact of ed tech research on real teachers and schools – perhaps because researchers who publish in closed journals effectively deny access to their work to the teachers who need and support their work.

The event ended in a tribute banquet, at which many of Tom’s current and former colleagues, friends and over 30 PhD students thanked Tom for the remarkable influence he has had on their lives.  The event featured Jazz,  blues and folk musicians and not just a few embarrassing stories dredged up from Tom’s past. Tom has traveled and spoken at all of the major educational conferences around the world, and there are few countries who cannot claim to have been influenced and blessed by Tom’s words and presence. Finally, I had my first tastes of southern grits and other southern delicacies as Tom and wife Trish opened their home for a farewell brunch.

Tom promises not to disappear in retirement and I doubt he will! I think he still has a few corny jokes and more than a few insights left for anyone looking for a keynote speaker at their next conference.

All the best Tom and thanks for a great career long, contribution to “research that matters”.

New issue of IRRODL

New issue of IRRODL

Dear Friends We are pleased to announce issue 11(1) of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. This is a general issue featuring 7 research articles, 2 articles from the field, 3 CIDER session recordings, and 1 book review.

In the issue editorial, I discuss changes to our Creative Commons license and to IRRODL’s policy on papers previously distributed via blogs or conference proceedings.

We are confident that you will both enjoy and learn from the knowledge freely shared by our authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher. Enjoy.

Terry Anderson, Editor

Table of Contents

Editorial

IRRODL policy changes HTML PDF EPUB
Terry Anderson i-iii

Research Articles

The role of volition in distance education: An exploration of its capacities HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Markus Deimann, Theo Bastiaens 1-16
Learning in an online distance education course: Experiences of three international students HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Zuochen Zhang, Richard Kenny 17-36
An investigation of distance education in North American research literature using co-word analysis HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Albert Dieter Ritzhaupt, Michelle Stewart, Patryce Smith, Ann E. Barron 37-60
Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Lucy Barnard-Brak, Valerie Osland Paton, William Yun Lan 61-80
Live, online short-courses: A case study of innovative teacher professional development HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Meghan E. Marrero, Jessica Fitzsimons Riccio, Karen A. Woodruff, Glen S. Schuster 81-95
The comparative instructional effectiveness of print-based and video-based instructional materials for teaching practical skills at a distance HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Francis Donkor 96-116
Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
John-Harmen Valk, Ahmed T. Rashid, Laurent Elder 117-140

Field Notes

Reaching REMOTE learners: Successes and challenges for students in an online graduate degree program in the Pacific Islands HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Kavita Rao, Charles Giuli 141-160
“Can you hear me, Hanoi?” Compensatory mechanisms employed in synchronous net-based English language learning HTML PDF MP3 EPUB
Una Mary Cunningham, Kristy Beers Fägersten, Elin Holmsten 161-177

Book Notes

Distance and blended learning in Asia HTML PDF EPUB
Tony Bates 178-181

CIDER Notes

Blended online learning design: Shaken not stirred Elluminate/Powerpoint/MP3
Norm Vaughn, Michael Power
Bi-national learning and the Internet: Grassroots experiments in global education Elluminate/Powerpoint/MP3
William Egnatoff
Moving online: Taking teaching and learning beyond four walls Elluminate/Powerpoint/MP3
Steven Rowe

Journals as Filters and Active Agents

George Siemens sent me a link  to a post by Cameron Neylon that attempts to pound yet another nail in the coffin of peer review. As an editor of a peer reviewed Journal (IRRODL) I was naturally both curious and a bit defensive about the charges.

Neylon argues that for peer review “ Whatever value it might have we largely throw away. Few journals make referee’s reports available, virtually none track the changes made in response to referee’s comments enabling a reader to make their own judgment as to whether a paper was improved or made worse. Referees get no public credit for good work, and no public opprobrium for poor or even malicious work. And in most cases a paper rejected from one journal starts completely afresh when submitted to a new journal, the work of the previous referees simply thrown out of the window.

Let me respond by describing some  IRRODL practices. We don’t make referee’s reports public, mostly because of the work that would be involved in cleaning them up, getting permissions and my questioning the value of these reports. Do the readers really care if reviewer A doesn’t like the wording of the abstract, or Reviewer B’s thinks the author has missed a major reference, or reviewer C says the statistical analysis of the data is weak? We return all these comments to the reviewer and ask them (using tracked changes and a point form response) how they responded (or why they choose not to respond) to the concerns and suggestions of the reviewers. Now of course this applies only if we want to see the article again for further review or publication. As Neylon suggests if we decline the offer to publish, the process may start anew with a second journal, but the work of the reviewers is not “simply thrown out the window”. In some cases the author gives up (often appropriately so, as the reviewers found fatal flaws or ones that demand more work than the author is willing to give to the paper). The author also gains the lesson learned and experience (hard though it may feel) of  how NOT to write a scholarly article. But in other cases, a smart author will take into account the comments of the reviewers and improve the paper- thus increasing its chances of successful publication elsewhere. This demonstrates the ongoing value of the reviewers’ work, even if the article is, or is not, published elsewhere.Read More

Two new Qualitative analysis books

I have often had problems helping students learn to analyze qualitative data such as interviews, meeting transcripts, field notes etc. It seems common understanding is to read and extract the themes- but what does that actually mean and how do you know if you are doing it correctly?

I thus was motivated to order two books from Amazon that arrived yesterday.

The first is the 3rd (2009) edition of well know qualitative author Harry Wolcott’s “Writing up Qualitative Research” (big chunks of the 2nd 2001 edition are available here from Google Books) The book is written for researchers facing a gigantic pile of transcripts and suffering from both writer’s block and anxiety. It has chapter themes like ready, set, go  then linking, tightening and getting published – thus it is a VERY practical book written for the student researcher. The main theme is to “get it down on paper” (ok make that on the screen), unless it is written it can’t possibly be edited into publishable text. I like the way Wolcott emphasizes ‘telling the story”-his way. He talks about taking the time to do a full draft of a qualitative writeup before asking the opinion of anxiety stricken dissertation writers like himself, or even his committee members. He also talks of techniques, sorting on paper and on machines files, creating the outlines and other practical content. His approach is not radical, critical or overly focussed on subject’s voice, but rather seems to be a gentle guide to writing the type of qualitative narrative that gets by supervisory committees and makes it into the academic press.

The second book The Coding manual for Qualitative Researchers by Johnny Saldana (2009) is alas not available for Google Book Preview. This book is a reference book that looks at 29 different (well marginally different) ways to code qualitative data. For each ‘method” he gives a source reference, a description, typical or suggested applications, a rather lengthy example (using data from hypothetical interview or observation transcripts) and an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of that method. The book begins however with two introductory chapters – the first defining just what a “code” is and why and how they are used in qualitative analysis. The second chapter details the function and value of writing analytic notes or memos to oneself (which can and should be coded as well), and may end up in the finished work, but help get the writer to that finish line!

I think these two books complement each other well. Wolcott’s is one of many general qualitative methods books, written with a fatherly voice to help get this hardest part of the research process completed. And Saldana’s reference is very useful for someone looking to find a way to examine data that clicks with their own view of the world and intent of their study.

Canadian Government Folds on Education (again)

I was shocked last week to read a story in Globe and Mail that they were allowing Inukshuk Wireless (a telephone company owned by Rogers and Bell) to discontinue its funding of educational multi-media projects.

By way of background in 2000 the federal government offered bandwidth that was being reserved for educational use, to the private sector. But one of the conditions was that the winner had to propose a funding arrangement to return value to the education system. This bandwidth had been allocated to education back in the days when everyone thought that educational TV would be a big deal. In Manitoba and Sask, they were using the bandwidth, so they were not made to give up the bandwidth, nor reap any compensatory services.

So Inukshuk won the bid, began issuing calls for proposals to develop educational media and developed a system to administer this funding. The 2009 call offered $2.4 million for projects, as per the terms of the agreement. Naturally, Inukshuk would rather not have to cover this expense, so I assume, went whining to the federal government. Our Conservative government, not wanting to get involved in business nor displease their corporate backers, allowed them to cease funding the programming. This was done without consultation nor notification, beyond that the fund was no longer operational.

I realize that Canada is plagued with a system that does not allow for national learning programs, but why on earth – except for ideological bias, would a government allow a company to renege on a contractual agreement, that has brought needed investment to Canadian education?

I hope other Canadians  will join me in writing to Industry Minster Tony Clement, asking him who he is governing on behalf of and to demand that this contract be fulfilled as negotiated.