March 2010 Archives

I was in a meeting discussing our documentation process for the anticipated ANGEL upgrade to ANGEL 7.4 when a colleague referenced an article in our knowledge base detailing all the known issues with the Assessment tool and asked, "Is this good marketing?"

She was referring to the fact that we're admitting there are all these things wrong with a tool (22 things that we know of so far) we want folks to switch to when we move from version 7.3 to 7.4 at the end of the spring semester. So, is that the best way to promote your product? Well, I guess it depends on the product you're trying to promote.


Is this good marketing?

You see, we're really offering two things. There is the actual product, in this case a course management system, but, there are also our services that go along with the product including the supporting documentation, training, and help desk assistance. In reality these can be rolled up into one item I refer to as our veracity (Our demonstrated desire to be honest and accurate to the best of our ability.)

So, I guess the answer to the question, "Is this good marketing?" is both no and yes. No, in the sense that it obviously does not speak well of the tool. However, yes, in the sense that we are being open and honest about what we know. In an ideal world both the product and the services offered to support it would always be seen in the affirmative. But that's not how life works. And if I had to choose between the two I'd rather error on the side of our veracity. It's a lot easier to build relationships when the common focus is the product and not your reputation.

Chris Long, Dean of Undergraduate Studies in the College of Liberal Arts here at Penn State posted a question to the community asking how can we use emerging technologies to enhance and enrich a liberal arts education. Here was my reply:

 

You can see Chris' orginal question and all the replies here:

I got in another six runs this week. I couldn't run Wednesday because of my schedule but, yesterday was so nice I ran even though it's my scheduled off day. It did impact my long run today, which was okay because this was only to be a ten miler anyway.

We are at a pivotal point in the history of higher education. I really did not want to begin this post in such melodramatic fashion but I could not come up with any better way of describing what I'm seeing. You see, Academics, those entrusted to nurture and grow one of the very things we hold precious--knowledge, seem to have fallen from the truer faith.

Maybe I'm to sensitive and maybe I'm to close to the topic but it seems to me there is a kind of anti-progress sentiment out there growing stronger by the day. In my romanticized view of things I always pictured higher education as being about the pursuit of better things, both idealistic and practical, with the goal of advancing the collective body of knowledge in order to make the world better for everyone. Toward that end we were supposed to be the ones who viewed change as an opportunity for discovery and the open debate of ideas was our currency for progress.

But something seems to have happened to us. A lot us no longer see knowledge as a means to a better end. Instead we've come to view it as a commodity in a market that must be cornered so we can set the price. Or even worse, we've come to see ourselves as some divine keepers of knowledge and if you want it you must go through us. And it's that type of hubris that could sow the seeds of our own demise.

There seems to be, for lack of a better phrase, an internet backlash taking place in colleges across the country (most recent examples here and here). Professors are banning any device that connect to the Web citing the limitless number of distractions it offers students when they should be paying attention to the lecture. On the surface this seems to be a valid reason but what's really going on here?

Lecturing is as much an economic mode of delivery as it is a teaching methodology. It was the most efficient way for the learned, the professor, to deliver content, to a large mass of the unlearned, the students, at a given point in time. Universities, through their libraries and the collective knowledge of their faculty were the De facto keepers of knowledge and would dispense it to the chosen ones in the manner it deemed most fit and efficient.

Lecturing made sense in an age where information really only resided in the hands of the few and the means of communicating that knowledge were limited but, is lecturing relevant anymore? Lecturing is about knowledge consumption and aren't there more efficient and effective ways to do this? For example, why would I pay hundreds of dollars per credit hour to effectively sit and listen to someone tell me what I could read, watch, and interact with elsewhere, e.g. the Web?

The counter argument is that a lecture is more than this. The professor is there to not only dispense knowledge but also to share their wisdom and experience, to answer questions, to help the students grow. To which I would argue that if that truly were the case most professors would be welcoming the distractions of the Web into their classroom. In fact, they would use the Web to their advantage by making it the primary means for students to consume knowledge and using the classroom to foster further development and growth.

Instead, we view these devices as competition for attention and, because we're losing, we ban these devices from our sight. The situation has become less about doing what's best for our students, who mind you are the paying customers in this transaction, and more about protecting our turf. 

But, I ask, is it our job to help students obtain degrees or are we selling indulgences? Are we not committing the same sin of vanity of the Catholic church? How did that work out? Quite frankly, I see a parallel in our current situation in Academy and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Rome is no longer the only road that can take you to heaven and soon it may be so for the path of knowledge. The University may no longer be required. 

So I ask you, what would you nail to the doors of the academy, e.g. Luther's 95 thesis? What would you tell the Academy it needs to do if it wants to remain a vital element in the 21st century?

So what does running have in common with Balinese cockfighting? Quite a lot really.

For my dissertation I've been re-reading Clifford Geertz's seminal book on ethnography, The Interpretation of Cultures. The end of the book contains Geertz's notes on the Balinese cockfights he witnessed back in the 1970s and the deeper meaning these events had for the people involved. It got me to thinking about the deeper meaning behind why people like myself feel compelled to run like, and as much as we do.

Like myself, and those I count to be part of my personal running community, the rosters are common. We are not elite athletes born with a certain genetic gift that makes us fortunate enough to make a living doing an activity we love. The Balinese select their roosters from common markets and do not breed for pedigree. We, like the roosters, are what we are. Simple working class stock. We work with what we have in order to maximize performance.

For the Balinese men their rooster is an idealized extension of the self. An opportunity to boil down the complexities of life into a moment that can be understood. They imbue into their cock (metaphoric pun intended) what they see as the best of themselves but, as in any great mythological tragedy, what also gets transferred is their darkest fears and fatal flaws, which make the stakes of the fight all the more meaningful. For runners our running serves that purpose. For all its complex machinations life is at its most basic is a struggle for survival overlaid with a drive to make some kind of meaning out of it. Running, for me anyway, is a way to strip away the veneer and see things, if only for a brief moment, from a more primal perspective. By simplifying things into a single moment I can actually gain perspective on the larger picture. Sometimes I win and I'm rewarded with the feeling of transcendence and sometimes I loose and feel feelings of pathos and despair.

For a runner, running is a means to actualize our mortality, as is cockfighting for Balinese men. It's a way for us to "play with fire without getting burned," to quote one of the men. Because for the most part we're able to push ourselves to our physical and mental limits and live to tell about it. Rarely are the results a physical death but that is a small possibility and, I think, part of the allure. What is very real though is the metaphorical death. A perceived failure at an event we deem to be important, generally a race of some kind, kills our perception of ourselves in a way that makes us re-think our purpose. For the most part we regroup, lick our wounds, learn from our mistakes and are reborn to run another day. The Balinese man buys another rooster.

Race events are like the cockfight. What Erving Goffman referred to as "focused gatherings." A basic definition of a focused gathering is 'a collection of people engrossed in the flow of some common event relating to each other in terms of that flow.' Runners are a dispersed community, because of technological advances never more so, and race days serve as a means for a mix of some of us to get together and become one by partaking in the event itself. In many ways it is the the cycle of training for, participating in, and recovering from these events that make us a community by providing a sort of tangible reality that enables a culture to rise from it.

Participation in this type of flow requires a state of "deep play" (Bentham, Theory of Legislation taken from Geertz). That is, participating in something where the stakes are so high that from a practical perspective seems ludicrous to do. Many of us are marathoners. Some are triathletes. And some are Ultra- or even Super Ultra-marathoners running crazy distances in the most extreme conditions. There is wagering for both high and low stakes. The Balinese wager their cocks against one another while we wager our runs against ourselves. It may be a low stakes goal such as completing a given race or something high stakes where our sense of identity as a runner depends on completing a goal such as setting a PR. We go through long rituals for relatively short events. We obsess over something that ostensibly has no impact on what we need to do to survive and get on in the world and yet the act of doing it is necessary for us to function in the world where what we do has no value from a utilitarian perspective.

I guess I have more in common with a Balinese cockfighter than I thought. 

I've changed the start of my running week to be Sunday instead of Monday even though Sunday is the day of my long run and it seems natural to end the week on that. I did this, though, to reflect the natural flow of my running. You see, Saturday is usually my complete rest day, I neither run nor workout, so it makes more send to for me to end the week there.

This was a good weeks running for me. I got six runs in totaling over 37 miles. I was also able to get most of those miles down running outdoors, which I prefer to the track in Rec Hall.

(An old mate of mine contacted me asking how to get started running. What follows is my reply to her.)

Yes, I remember you. It' great to hear from you. Do you ever go to any of the get togethers? I want to make one. Hopefully over the summer.

As for running, it's never to late to start. The most important thing is for you to enjoy it. After that it's gravy. Seriously, the key is to find what it is you enjoy and do that. It could be running, walking, swimming, biking, rollerblading. The key to success is having a love affair with whatever you choice ends up being.

Having said that, as someone whose a lifetime member of Weight Watchers, if you want to loose weight it does need to be a cardiovascular activity you fall in love with. Something that gets the metabolism up and burns calories.

The most important piece of equipment for running is the shoes. I would go to a store that specializes in this area rather than a Dick's or Model's. I used to go to The Run Around in Abington. You want a place that will really look over the shape of your foot. Offer a few models and may even ask to watch you jog a little to check out your gait. The good news is you can get a good pair of runners for anywhere between 80 and 120 bucks. After that, I wear comfortable clothes. I really don't bother with the technical gear.

I run on all sorts of terrain. If you have a good pair of runners it won't matter much. I used to run Pennypack Park but now I run my neighborhood and the campus. You may experience shin splints at the start but we all do and they go away.

As far as pace and distance...Start by running at a pace that feels natural. One where your breathing is elevated but your not laboring. Most beginners start out running to fast and run themselves out of breath. Distance is kind of relative. I'd look for something that's a closed loop, like a park trail or a set route through your neighborhood and do that. Probably one - two miles to start. You may find yourself having to mix in running and walking to complete the loop and that's fine. The big thing is finishing it. You're getting the miles in and building up your strength. Soon you'll find your running more than walking.

I have an iPod nano with the Nike+ attachment that tracks distance, calories, pace and time. But really a pedometer is fine. I use the iPod because I like to listen to music. Heck if you know the distance of your route you don't need anything. Just look at the clock when you begin and end and you can calculate things out.

There are other things but that's the most important stuff for getting started. Get a pair of runners that fit, find a route to run, and build up your pace.

If any of that sounds overwhelming let me know. I can be a little long-winded on the subject. Please keep me posted on how things are going and feel free to ask me questions any time.

Jeff

So last week I posted a video question, "Why Do You Tweet?" to which I received varied and interesting responses. Responses that I'm still sorting through because beneath the veneer of the question lies some deeper insight into, what I'll refer to for lack of a better way at the moment, my Twitter community and what makes us click.

Even calling it that is a bit misleading. It implies Twitter is a destination. And end point. When in reality it's a launching pad. One of the most extreme changes brought on by the social web is it's lack of boundaries. In regards to both how we communicate with each other (we use multiple tools and multiple modes spread out all over the Web), as well as how we personally differentiate between our 'real' self and our 'web' self (more and more we don't, or can't tell the difference).

In my video I mentioned that I thought the impact of Twitter on my sense of self was profound. Here's why. We are nothing if not adaptable creatures. It may be our greatest strength. The social web, and for the purposes of this discussion, Twitter, has forced us to adapt to new ways of communicating and collaborating with each other. This, in turn, has forced us to examine how we are perceived in these spaces, resulting in us modifying both our sense of self as well as our presentation of self.

You see, not to long ago it was easier to separate your virtual selves from each other. I was professional Jeff working within the company intranet during the day and at night I'd become runningman2053 in a chat room discussing marathons. But that's no longer the case. Now my virtual identity is virtually singular. Pretty much anywhere I go, I go as some representation of my name. And I'm not the only one. It may have started with Facebook forcing you to use your real name, I don't know, but I do know it's a pretty standard practice in all social spaces.

And because these spaces are by nature social and therefore by design open (you need to change your settings to reduce access as opposed to opening it up) it's pretty much a given that whatever information you put out there will be accessible to a group vastly larger than your intended audience. Resulting in an overlap of worlds and a conflicted self. Conflicted until you work through the process of reconciling how you present yourself in an open environment. There was an extended period where I had to get comfortable knowing that what I tweeted to my running friends would also be consumed and commented on by the people I work with and vice-verse.

But I do not meant to sound deterministic. We also push back and shape the social web to meet our needs. As our list of friends grew it became increasingly difficult to partition off conversational threads with Twitter so we created companion application like TweetDeck to help us tease things out. And we use hash tags to help us aggregate topics of interest. But these are personal filtering systems used to make sense out of the conversations going on around us. There is no easy way to direct messages to a specified audience.

We also develop codes and symbols to work around the 140 character limitation and we insert links that take people to other places containing deeper content. Again, those behind the scenes adapted to us by shortening URLs with aliases and hash tag aggregating software.

There is continuous feedback loop between us social web. We each exist in our current state because of the harmonious tension these two forces bear upon the other. To quote Marshall McLuhan, "We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us."

View All the Responses here






Click here to leave a video reply: Why Do You Tweet?