eLearning Roadtrip

When I Think of Student Success

The tendency to link software with student success has accelerated since 2012, as the educational technology sub-sector known as "integrated planning and advising for student success" has gained prominence through a series of grants funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to colleges and the tech partners they have selected to help the colleges improve student performance. These days, more than 100 companies offer integrated planning and advising technology platforms and tools for student success includes that serve a wide variety of functions, from deciding where to go to college, to facilities and course scheduling, from helping students select select majors to staying on track with program completion. Student success is a huge part of the current ed tech market scene. (Disclosure: In my current day job, I work for a company with a large part of its business dedicated to Student Success.)

EDUCAUSE has led efforts to help institutions explore both the promise and the risks of Integrated Planning and Advising for Student Success (iPASS). Per their website:  "iPASS is an integrative approach to student success that promotes shared ownership for educational progress among students, faculty, and staff. It encompasses services that help students formulate and advance toward educational goals, including advising, counseling, progress tracking, and academic early alerts. iPASS technologies can contribute by documenting and tracking students’ educational plans, improving data analysis, offering self-service resources that reduce advisor workloads, and triggering interventions based on student behavior or faculty input."

There have been two Gates Foundation-funded rounds of grant-making by EDUCAUSE in support of student success. The first was the Integrated Planning and Advising System project, designed to get schools and their tech partners to collaborate on getting platforms and practices to work together better. I was involved in the first IPAS round when the Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework was contracted by the Gates Foundation to evaluate the 19 "student success + software initiatives" that were funded in that first go-round. We visited the 19 IPAS campuses that were working with specific tech company partners to further the implementation of a tech platform that could help campuses with student planing and advising platforms. PAR had used the PAR Student Success Matrix we had developed to help our own PAR members make the connection between predictions of  student risk with selection of interventions. We were able to determine and demonstrate measured effectiveness with particular groups of students under particular circumstances - sort of like getting the most effective prescription for dealing with a particular medical condition. We had been excited about our own results; the fact that we were going to be able to evaluate student success impact with our matrix of time-in-program and actionable predictors with a broader set of institutions was thrilling.

By the time the second round of grants were funded, the name of the initiative had become "integrated Planning and Advising for Student Success: iPASS". The connection between tech and advising (e.g. watchlists, early alerts), tech and planning (e.g. curriculum pathway planners, strategic scheduling), program fit and course navigation (e.g. obstacle course GPS), integrating predictive analytics with real-time student activity stream data.) As it happens, the iPASS initiative helped spark PAR Framework's acquisition by Hobsons in January, 2016, when two state systems of education proposed integrating PAR's predictives and intervention measurement with Starfish's real time student activity data stream used to build student watchlist/advisement capabilities as part of their iPASS grant proposal.

5 years, two major initiatives and several rounds of small planning and implementation grants later, EDUCAUSE has produced a library of student success resources for educational practitioners, on everything from "Things you should know about IPAS" (yes, that acronym is different than in the previous paragraph; more on that in a bit) to implementation handbooks, data tables and evaluation reports. and  from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2013/8/integrated-planning-and-advising-services-ipas-research.

It has been great to be a participant in this wave of innovation in education, where data is being used as currency for more effective decision-making in schools and colleges. No doubt, when we look back on how decisions were made in 10 years from now, we are going to wonder how we managed to live without platforms that help visualize patterns, red-flag student risks before they become problems, provide a 3D map of an academic transcript that can cross-walk among formal and informal learning experiences. 

Even so, I need to say something.

When I think of student success I never, ever think of software first. 

Software can make things easier to do, of course. It offers far better ways to keep track of searchable information requiring any manipulation. I'd rather build formulae in a spreadsheet, and have huge collections of data fueling explorations that report results in approachable visual reports and dashboards. Learning management and content management and curricular tracking, assessments and performance support are all more available, more accessible and more targeted at specific points in the educational experience than ever before.

Just as data associated with online and digital transactions help inform marketeers of our retail intentions even before we know for certain, ourselves, patterns of students behaviors can raise red flags before students are even aware that they may be drifting into dangerous territory for "students like them".

Technological inventions, applied to performance and learning problems, can help solve those problems. In doing so, the inventions become innovations, human ingenuity applied to solve performance problems in novel and compelling ways.

Innovative educational entrepreneurs  - "edu-preneurs', if you will - see an opportunity for tech in schools and are compelled to create products that promise to disrupt education as we know it. They point to deep data science and predictive analytics as if these analysis techniques are beyond the norm.

It's seems important to remind ourselves that in education, the most most important innovator in this value chain are not necessarily the ed tech entrepreneurs. Rather, the ones on the front lines of teaching and learning, supporting student achievement putting new tech tools to the test in the service of student success are todays true innovators. 

It's important to have shared articulated expectations of "the norm", so that one can identify those not yet achieving at that level, and how one inspire those working "above average" to continue to improve. Common expectations of meaning and outcomes are essential elements of student success that gives all students a shot at achieving their dreams. We need to include ALL students in our considerations of success, not just those attending college for the first time, going to school full time, or living on campus. We need to keep the student at the center.

With thanks to Kalah Burks and Rebecca Wheeler, University of South Alabama, for the great conversation that shook this post out of my head.

(tap, tap) Hey, is this thing still on?

During the past 6 years I have had the remarkable experience of taking an idea about predictive analytics all the way from brain-storming with smart, crazy people who wanted to try something new and different with big data techniques, to getting multiple grants from the Gates Foundation to see if our idea worked. It involved founding a not-for-profit organization to validate our ideas in the commercial ed tech marketplace, to being acquired by Hobsons, an international commercial software provider.  

Not bad for someone who had really just wanted a voice in the learning analytics conversation that was more focused on students than VC.

Now that I've had a chance to get settled in a new research job at Hobsons,  I've been reflecting on whether or not this work I've been doing in analytics still counts as elearning.  I'm thinking that it does.  I'm thinking that now, more than ever, using digital tools to extend out expectations of learning is exactly the next phase in learning innovation we elearning advocates have been waiting for.

There are some who continue to describe elearning as the activities utilizing electronic technologies to access educational curriculum outside of a traditional classroom. In these cases, people are typically referring to an online course, program or degree. I get that. It helps define elearning as something distinct from other cognitive or pedagogical pursuits. Some people think of elearning as authoring, or collections of webcasts.  I've seen some people say that elearning is dying because mobile learning is about to replace it. 

For me, elearning is about leveraging technologies in support of designing, creating, producing, evaluating, distributing and managing learning experiences that engage and inspire, regardless of physical location or time. It's a much bigger tent than content or courseware.

My new job at Hobsons is a research job. I'm exploring learning impact and efficacy in the P-20 learning systems we depend on in the US to prepare our citizenry for college and and career success. I've been working on reports describing the impact of dual credit for accelerating college completion, on the impact of upward transfers from community colleges to completion institutions, on online learning efficacy, on the value of exploration and engagement in early childhood, the things we can do to support learning success among non-traditional students. 

I'm amazed to see, in all these discussions, the degree to which elearning has evolved beyond content and courseware. Today elearning is more about personalized, interactive, responsive experience.  If ed tech is where we concentrate on better tech tools, these days elearning encapsulates all we have learned to do to extend digitalization into our teaching and learning, education and training practices, constructs and values.

All this reflection made me realize I need a place to reflect on the transformative evolution of our practice as tech changes our expectations of our learning lives.

Looks like it's time to get back on the eLearning Roadtrip.

 

 

 

The #OEB14 Debate: Is Data Corrupting Education?

Online Educa Berlin is a major international gathering of online/elearning/distance learning/mobilized/datified learning innovators. This year I was a participant in the Online Educa Debate, an annual featured event of the conference. The house motion for 2014 was "Data is Corrupting Education". Inge deWaard and I were asked to speak in favor of the house motion; Dr. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Dr. George Siemens spoke in opposition. I have provided the full motion below, in italics, for your reading pleasure.

MOTION: The House believes that data is corrupting education.

• Is the invasive extensive profiling and rigorous achievement test, backed by for-profit organizations, skewing the means of gathering information and determining relevance?

• Will a focus on data corrupt the processes of learning, training and development or will it reveal new unimagined insights that will make way for streamlines, personalized and effective learning

• Is big data destined to be in the hand of a few, or will openness prevail for the benefit of all?

At first, I was completely nonplussed by this challenge. But the more I got my head wrapped around ways to support it, the more I stretched my thinking, which of course is the whole reason one does these things. Collaborating with Inge was delightful; having the opportunity to present with Viktor and George was a real pleasure. I am very pleased to have participated.

The video of the Debate will be available soon, and I will share it when available. It was lively discussion, among we debaters and with participants from the audience. For a while I even thought the crowd was with Inge and me,  but I have to admit, even I would have had a tough time voting in favor of the motion as written.

While we lost the vote, I think we helped remind people that we all need to be mindful about the implications for unexpected consequences that innovative work may bring to practice. In the sprit of sharing have posted my notes of my opening argument, below:

Higher education has typically been organized around authority-driven models of decision-making; that is, the more senior among us are generally afforded positions of authority based on experience and expertise. The emergence of analytics tools and platforms are making it very clear that data can provide an even more complete, and certainly a more nuanced picture than expertise alone. 

Educators are just beginning to understand the IMPLICATIONS of data analytics, where mining data for insight to support decision-making is the focus of exploration. While it is clear that there are great opportunities for gleaning heretofore unimagined insights, the fascination with data makes many uncomfortable. We have come to realize that the patterns of our data generation, our online engagements, transactions and interactions, tell people things about us or things we are doing that that we never could have anticipated or expected.  It means that intelligence about us can be gleaned by those who have access to our various data streams. Are you aware of all the stories that your data are telling other people about you?

Our current fascination seems to be about data as a meme – an idea that spreads from person to person within a culture. Data-as-meme, especially BIG data, has come to stand for something bigger that the data themselves. It stands all of our excitement about the possibilities that they offer for risk mitigation and personalization. However it also stands for the doubts and fears about how all these data are going to affect how we do our work, how we go to school, how we live our lives, how we engage as citizens. 

Data without context has marginal value. However, data WITH context is information. Information is power.  And as the British historian Lord Acton reminded us, Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-2-number-6/power-corrupts

Simply stated, corruption is the self-serving deviation from an ideal. If one accepts this simple description, then one CAN make a case that data may very well be used to less-than-ideal ends. It might mean that we actively exclude some learners at the expense of others. We may push people of varying predicted skill levels into programs of study based upon test results, rather than on personal passions and interest. Will data have an effect the way that we approach our pedagogies? Absolutely. It this going to change how educational professional approach our work? Absolutely. How do YOU feel about instructional design as a data driven algorithm? How about licensing digital content where the price point is determined in part to how well students do in the class where the content is used? How do faculty feel about the prospect of expectations that we will be lurking in the lives of our students to see what and how they are doing at every single moment? How do YOU feel knowing that students aren’t going to be the only ones who are going to be tracked and measured in these ways? 

I don’t think that data, by themselves, have corrupted, are corrupting or will corrupt education.  I do worry about uninformed, naïve or even nefarious uses of data. I worry about data being used to punish, to limit access, constrain or restrict participation.

While I am excited about the possibilities for personalized, customized learning experiences, I am also fairly certain that educational practitioners who use data badly, non-transparently, or naively are very likely going to give data a very bad name.

Who Owns Your Data?

Who actually owns your data?  At first the answer to this question may seem obvious - of COURSE we own our personal health records, education records, financial records... 

But do we, really? Data ownership presumes use rights, who can share what, with whom. What about those education records that reside in someone else's learning management system? Judging from the recent news story about student records being sold as part of ConnectED's bankrupcy settlement, it is clear that some companies believed these records were theirs to sell.

Stories like this, and of InBloom's implosion over the prospect of sharing student data with commercial service providers, have even resulted in bans on data sharing that have emerged in some states. But data sharing according to what?

What about the data captured on our mobile devices? Does it belong to the individual, the carrier or the device manufacturer? What about our social media engagements and interactions? Despite the number of well-intentioned postings of declarations of data ownership I've seen on Facebook, it seems clear that if one posts items on a free internet services site page to share, that we may not be the only one sharing them.What about all those data left behind when we complete a transaction on Amazon? Don't you ever wonder about how those companies from whom you buy your various consumer products know enough about you to send you a birthday card???

Have you every seen how many companies are sucking up the digital crumbs of your online interactions?  (Hint: Download the Ghostery, Inc. client to your browser. You might be very surprised to see just how many analytics, advertising and beacons links are paying very close attention to what you are doing.)

This brings me to two big observations:

(1) Privacy, as many of us have known it, is a thing of the past. It is extinct. When one considers the number of sensors, transponders, transmitters and cameras we encounter on a daily basis, it is very clear how easy it can be to reconstruct what one is up to, should one be a "person of interest". On the positive side, it will hopefully keep people honest in their dealings and transactions, since we can all check up on each other. On the continued positive side, it represents opportunities for convenience and customization, with services tailored to our uses and preferences.

(2) Nobody owns all our data. Not even us. It is data anarchy out there. While we can hope, we can't expect that some intra-global agency will make overarching rules that everyone will follow and all will live happily ever after. We are all going to need to know enough about the benefits and possible risks that sharing data brings to make smart decisions about the data we are willing to share, and what we expect to get in return. Most of us accept some exposure in exchange for the convenience that data sharing affords us; but most of us also get very uncomfortable at the prospect of a bunch of code jockeys deciding to hack a cloud service hosting our digital stuff and sharing our private information with the world.

Data-readiness means knowing enough to pay attention  - to security settings, to filters, to groups, to passwords and shared information - so that we know what is really going on with our digital data, knowing what and how we are sharing, and with whom. THEN we can make decisions based on evidence, because THAT is the whole point.

 

NEW NSF REPORT: New Technology-based Models for Postsecondary Learning

In January 2013 I  participated in a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation to help establish a 10 year vision to reconceptualize postsecondary learning. This past week our co-convenors, Chris Dede, Harvard University and Eric Grimson, MIT, released the 47 page report that captured the results of that meeting. Entitled New Technology-based Models for Postsecondary Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Research Agendas, this is a comprehensive overview of promises, opportunities and challenges that will keep all of we post-secondary learning stakeholders on our toes for the next decade.

You can download the working draft of this paper here.

The basic premises addressed include the following:

• Advances in technology and in knowledge about expertise, learning, and assessment have the potential to reshape the many forms of education and training past matriculation from high school.
• In the next decade, higher education, military and workplace training, and professional development must all transform to exploit the opportunities of a new era, leveraging emerging technology-based models that can make learning more efficient and possibly improve student support, all at lower cost for a broader range of learners. 
• Potential risks must be managed, including those arising from the disruption of established delivery economics in our current learning institutions, the variable quality of learning outcomes these new models offer today, and the technical and conceptual challenges of better understanding how to design, develop, and implement innovative capabilities in ways that reliably deliver on their promise.

Workshop participants developed a framework for understanding this sea change and sketched steps towards a research agenda for realizing its benefits while avoiding pitfalls.

Contributors to this report include Daniel E. Atkins, W.K. Kellogg Professor of Community Information, and Professor of Information and Computer Science, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor. Lori Breslow, Director, Teaching and Learning Laboratory, MIT. John Cherniavsky, Senior Advisor, Division of Research on Learning, NSF. J.D. Fletcher, Senior Research Staff Member, Institute for Defense Analyses. Diana Oblinger, President and CEO, EDUCAUSE. Roy Pea, David Jacks Professor of Education and Learning Sciences, Stanford University. James W. Pellegrino, Distinguished Professor and Co-Director, Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago. Bror Saxberg, Chief Learning Officer, Kaplan, Inc. James H. Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education. Russell Shilling, CAPT, MSC, USN, Program Manager, DARPA. Greg Tobin, President, English, Math, and Student Success, Pearson Higher Education and yours truly, Ellen Wagner, Executive Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Cooperative for Educational Technologies. Arthur Josephson, Harvard Graduate School of Education, was our researcher.

There's a New Sheriff in (US Higher Education and Labor) Town

Dr. Darcy Hardy has been appointed to the Office of Assistant Secretary Jane Oats, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), United States Department of Labor. She will be supporting the recently announced Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (CCCT) Grant Program http://www.grants.gov ) that plans to award approximately $2 billion over the next four years.

She has taken a leave from her current position as Assistant Vice Provost for Technology Education Initiatives, University of Texas at San Antonio, Office of Information Technology, and has moved to Washington DC for her one year appointment.

I am very pleased (and relieved) that she will be able to continue on my WCET Executive Council during her time with the US Labor Department.

You many remember that, a few months back, Darcy and I had a bet over the World Series baseball championship. The loser of the bet was to present a webcast on a topic of the winner's choice. (There were a few other details of the bet, but we'll come back to those in a future post). Lucky me, I won the bet. I have asked Darcy to please plan for a WCET webcast in late February to tell us about the new CCCT Grant program she is heading up. 

Her first day on the new job is Monday January 24th. Let's give her a few weeks to get settled, then we'll get something scheduled. We'll be sure to announce the dates on the WCET website. And I'll post something here. 

January 24th is also Darcy's birthday. Isn't it great how the stars aligned for that to happen. Happy Birthday my friend!

Your online learning minions are here to serve. Sign us up.

 

 

What Big Brands - Including The Apollo Group - Are Spending on Google

Over the weekend, an article published in Advertising Age discussed the significance of search optimization, the importance of Google, and just how much certain big brand companies are spending on Google advertising. 

The focus of the article dealt specifically how BP rose in the ranks of Google advertisers as a way to manage information about the Gulf oil spill. It was also a way to manage their reputation. Interesting piece. BP spent $3.9 million USD on Google advertising in June, 2010.

But the most interesting part of the the story was the "just how much certain big brand companies are spending on Google" part, because it also named the other Google advertising mega-spenders. 

Take a look. The Apollo Group, parent organization for the University of Phoenix, is second on the list. That would be Apollo Group. EDU, thank you very much. One of those for profit education companies we have been reading about lately.

 $6.67 million USD in June of 2010. In one month. The former public educator in me is blown away. 

I have a lot of admiration for what the Apollo Group and the University of Phoenix have done for adult learners and for the world of higher education. Not saying it's perfect, not saying that there aren't a bunch of ways for improving the experience, or for actively dealing with the problems of student recruitment and financial aid defaults. But I really can't think of any other institution that has put traditional higher education on notice as has the Univ of Phoenix. 500,000 students, growing at the size of a good sized land-grant institution per month.

Now, just think about how good they will be when they spent some percentage of that amount of money toward student success programs, once they get those students in the house. As in focusing on retention, progress, completion. 

It will be an interesting tide, floating all online boats. Might be time to get out the life-jackets, chart a course, find ourselves a fleet of like-minded sailors, and get ready for the journey. 

New from NCES: Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in US

The National Center for Education Statistics has just released a publication entitled ‘Postsecondary Institutions and Price of Attendance in the United States: Fall 2009 and Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 2008-09, and 12-Month Enrollment 2008-09'. Great stuff if you are a statistics junkie. And even if you are not.

I learn about these reports from my clients and colleagues at WICHE, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. WICHE publishes alerts of interest to education policy and research communities. You can SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to the WICHE Policy Alerts and/or Stat Alerts distribution lists. WICHE also maintains a Policy Publication Clearinghouse, which includes past Policy Alerts and Stat Alerts, as well as other studies, reports, surveys, and policy briefs.

But back to the new NCES Report -  in 2009-10, there were 6,896 Title IV institutions in the United States (this is a classification that relates to one eligibility for federal financial aid) and other jurisdictions:

• 2,853 were classified as 4-year institutions
• 2,259 were 2-year institutions
• the remaining 1,784 were less-than-2-year institutions.

During 2009-10, 4-year public institutions reported average tuition and required fees of $6,400 for in-state students and $15,100 for out-of-state students.

4-year private not-for-profit institutions are charging an average of $21,100, while Private for-profit institutions reported charging an average of about $15,700

Between 2000-01 and 2009-10, 4-year public institutions reported a 46% increase in average inflation-adjusted in-state tuition and required fees and a 34% increase in average inflation-adjusted out-of-state tuition and required fees.

Over the same 10-year period, 4-year private not-for-profit institutions reported a 31% increase and private for-profit institutions reported a 20% increase in average inflation-adjusted tuition and required fees.

For more information on this topic please refer to the NCES and WICHE site links, above.

In Memory of Dr. Kim Foreman

Dr. Kim Hyun Deok Foreman, Professor at San Francisco State University, pastor’s wife and missionary to Rwanda, passed away after an auto accident near the town of Gitarama, Rwanda.

I still have a hard time looking at those last words and believing that my friend Kim will not be back at SF State this month, inspiring her students and colleagues to think about how each of us can make a difference in the lives of students, everywhere.

Kim used to tell me how she thought I was brave, how much she learned from me about facing fear. And every time she said that - and I would think about her leaving her home in Korea, and earning a PH.D. in her second, adopted language, running the SFSU ITEC program and slogging through years of academic administrivia without losing hope or faith, her amazing Christian mission service, in Rwanda, a country putting itself back together after having been ripped apart by genocide - I would just smile. My version of bravery seems kind of silly and small when I  think of Kim's accomplishments and commitment to service.

On July 19th she began her 10th mission to Rwanda, where she and her husband had founded a Christian mission school.  On July 31st on her way to Kigali from Butare, she was involved in an auto accident.  She passed away peacefully on August 3rd, never having regained consciousness. A memorial service was held for her in Kigali on August 7th with hundreds in attendance, among them the American Ambassador to Rwanda. Another was held in Hayward, CA, this past weekend, for her US based family and friends.

Kim's example was a daily reminder for me to always try and be a better person. This is my very small way of thanking Kim for that gift. Rest in Peace, Kim. Thanks for being my friend.

Beyond "Rolling Our Own" Technology Solutions for Learning

The debates and discussions following the announcement of Blackboard's intention to purchase two of the the education-targeted web conferencing companies have been fascinating. I was particularly interested in a recent exchange between Dr. Phil Ice (who also goes by the Twitter name @technostats) and Dr. Gardner Campbell (who goes by the Twitter name @GardnerCampbell).

Here is the link to the post that Phil wrote on how Blackboard's acquisition targets and the recently announced partnership with Barnes and Noble may be good for higher education, and Gardner's thoughtful questions on said same post.

What caught my eye is the notion that the education community needs to develop the technical acumen to create to our own non-commercial, open source, community developed platforms and solutions that provide an alternative to evil corporate platforms and solutions (my words, not Gardner's or Phil's. They are both way too polite to say that.)

Not surprisingly, i DO have an opinion on the subject.

I'm all for innovation in education. It's hard to expect that we creative types wouldn't want to tinker with customizing apps to make learning better. But innovation for the sake of innovation and exploration is different from leveraging innovation to create true solutions in education that come from the application of technologies in practice. This is more than creating pilot projects and experimental programs. This is about encourage adoption of innovation in the service of teaching and learning where the impact - and value - is demonstrable, measurable and sustainable.

NO way that even the most technically proficient faculty will create commercially viable software that is able to compete on features, benefits and user support and sales/licensing/upgrade programs...because UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STAFF ARE NOT IN THE SOFTWARE BUSINESS! Educators are in the education "business" - teaching, service, research. It's what educators do. It's really, really important. But it's just part of the bigger picture.

This is not to say that you can't start a software company...or that you can't do a nice job creating a nice little product for a niche market. It's just that it can be very very hard to serve two masters - in this case, a business agenda AND a research agenda.

Reliable, industrial-strength sustainable software solutions need more than a good idea and great intentions (and associations whose membership dues go toward funding) to succeed. Yes, I know about Sakai and other very good platforms that are being created by and for educators. Yes, I know a lot about the value of UGC, personalized learning environments, apps, etc. Great ideas. Interesting pilot programs. Great ways to test hypotheses.

But academics' day jobs are not aimed at managing platforms, architecture, code strings, patches, and APIs. (Technical documentation? We don't need no stinkin' documentation...something I did hear from one of the big-dog Sakai participant institutions not too long ago.)

At the risk of making my academic buddies cranky with me, this needs to be said out loud - Education change agents need to be okay with the fact that reliable, well-supported and maintained commercial platforms and apps are not inherently evil. They are flippin' commodities! You should expect them to work. If they don't, you stop buying them and look for other alternatives. You need to expect that your vendors will work with you to make sure you are making good decisions. If you don't feel the love from your vendor, you need to find other alternatives where you do.

 I believe this so much that I'm dedicating much personal energy to developing capacity at WCET to cut through the hyperbole surrounding emerging tech developments so that educators can quit feeling yanked by every acquisition announcement and new product release. I would so much rather see educators' energy spent on figuring out how to use what we know about motivation, pedagogy, design, assessment and so on to provide learning solutions that engage and inspire.

Educators are certainly going to find themselves/ourselves cobbling together assets and apps. But that's more like packing the car for a trip down the info-highway, not like building the roadbeds and bridges and on/off ramps that you need to actually move your well-stocked vehicle from point A to point B. We've gotta quit knee-jerk reacting about the perceived cost of licensing and start thinking about TRUE costs of ownership, and then focus on leveraging our knowledge and skills to making education work better for our various stakeholders.

Sigh. I wish there was a way to take education research peeps on field trips to the many tech companies that will be surrounding us while in San Jose for the Sloan-C conference...I expect it would be eye-opening.