Why do we ask questions?

The Power of Effective Questioning:

We form questions for several reasons:
1) to elicit responses
2) control conversations
3) show interest
4) explore personalities
5) encourage further thought
6) ice-breakers

Questions can be in the form of open or closed ended questions. Open questions allow for elaboration and allow one to express their knowledge, opinions, and feelings. Closed ended questions are limited and narrow one’s responses.

There are different types of questions utilized depending on the response desired:

Leading Questions – lead respondent to particular answers

Probing Questions – force respondent to think more deeply and be more specific

Funneling Questions – begin with open ended questions that gradually become more closed (answers become more restrictive)

Rhetorical Questions – characterized as questions that do not require a response

In education, and virtually any other industry, questioning can be crucial.  In health care the importance of asking the right questions can be demonstrated quite easily.  The following video clip stresses the importance of questioning in a health care scenario.

After introducing ourselves to the patient, we should utilize open ended questions to identify the patient correctly.  For example, we can ask “What is your date of birth?” instead of “Is your birthdate May 30, 2001?”  The importance of listening is vital to soliciting information from a patient.  Probing questions can be used to encourage more information sharing of specific details.  Repetition and summary are particularly important to ensure accurate information has been obtained.

 

Moving on from the Dinosaur Era…

In the text “Teaching Naked” the author stresses just how vital it is that we adapt new technologies in education.  According to Bowen (2012) we are slow to embrace change and value stability in education however we can no longer afford the luxury of being stuck in the past.  Colleges and universities are experiencing major challenges keeping the current status quo.  Several factors are sparking a revolution in education; the rise of high tuition, new global competition, a demographic shift that will decrease the amount of students applying for higher education, declining graduation rates from public high schools, and rapid technological growth (Bowen, 2012).  It is important that we stay ahead of the curve or institutions may be in a great deal of trouble in the future.  Moreover, several studies argue the use of technology in classrooms is essential to creating opportunities for students to learn and operate in an information age (Abdullah-Bingimlas, 2009).  Yet, Yelland (2001) argued it is evident that traditional educational environments do not seem suitable for preparing learners to function adequately in the workplaces of today’s society (as cited in Abdullah-Bingimlas, 2009).

I experienced several immediate reactions when reading the chapter on “The Educational Product in the Internet Age” of Bowen’s text.  Those reactions ranged from a complete understanding of the necessity to resuscitate the way we deliver education to frustration of faculty not willing to participate in the integration of new technologies.  An awareness of a number of barriers to integrating technologies fills me with a bit of apprehension with respect to our ability to deliver relevant educational opportunities for our students.  For example, researchers continue to investigate why educators at all levels; school teachers, university professors and administrators exhibit unwillingness and lack of enthusiasm for technology and find there are both personal and environmental factors.  Personal factors include aspects such as teacher anxiety about technology, faculty personalities, and attitudes toward technology integration.  Between 40-50 percent of teachers avoid using new technologies because they lack confidence, feel uncomfortable, and are intimidated or threatened by technology (Varank-Dogan, 2012).  Environmental factors include aspects such as lack of appropriate software or hardware for training, inadequate faculty technological support, insufficient pedagogical support for technology integration, and a discouraging management climate (Varank-Dogan, 2012).

Given the awareness of factors contributing to the lack of technology integration, institutions can start to address some of the trepidations.  Instead of focusing on teacher resistance, administrators can work to change the climate and encourage resilience.  Research findings suggest resistant teachers can be made resilient (Bohn, 2014).  Resistant teachers tend to remain static in the face of change and view change as a process that happens to them, rather than with them (Bohn, 2014).  A realization of this factor is crucial to initiating change as administrators can model successful adaptation of new technologies, encouraging a shift in attitudes.  They can help develop faculty and utilize them as powerful partners by creating new school initiatives that reward departments for adopting technologies, either via monetary or award recognition.  Moreover, since research suggests decisions to integrate technology in teaching are influenced by negative affective responses to technology, general risk-aversion in teaching, and perceived value of teaching in technology, the real aim should be reducing risk perception and uncertainty (Howard, 2013).

Interestingly, findings suggest most decisions not to incorporate new technology are not based in rational evaluations, but rooted in fear, anxiety, and dread of using new technology (Howard, 2013).  Knowing this is the case should be our first step to rectifying the problem.  I would say my most significant learning has occurred in the online course delivery systems.  Many of my colleagues still believe the classroom setting is better and discount online learning.  I would like to see educational refreshers mandated as high number of faculty completed courses 15-20 years ago, which would be considered dinosaur era in technology terms.

Who are these Millennials???

Today, the demand for online learning seems ever-increasing.  More and more industries are utilizing e-learning; from NASA to corporations and health care to governments.  Many institutions are requiring their staff to complete e-learning modules to stay current and relevant in their field.  In fact, maintaining licensure in numerous medical fields now comes with the necessity of completing a certain amount of educational credits per year.  For most professions, keeping up to date with the latest developments and retraining yourself to the newest technologies is a matter of staying relevant.  The rapid pace of modern innovations demands keeping up with changes and quick delivery systems to do so.  A 2011 Sloan Survey of Online Learning in higher educational institutions in the United States indicated a growth in online education (10.1% in 2010), far succeeding growth in overall higher education (0.6% in 2010) (Bowen, 2012).  The trend is indicative of future direction as students mandate a more flexible schedule and one that allows them increased convenience.  It’s well known that millennials, who were born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s, are “digital natives” (Pappas, 2016).  They are truly the first generation to grow up with technology and are highly collaborative ambitious individuals.  They want learning to be available anytime, anywhere, as well as educational experiences that are rewarding and personally fulfilling.  Thus when considering trends in education, it is important to understand who our consumers are.

Up until recently, I had always thought of myself as a more traditional learner; one that prefers the traditional classroom-type setting.  While not a millennial, I am certainly exposed to technology every day.  Teaching in a college setting has completely influenced my thoughts on technology and the necessity of learning new modalities of teaching.  I have also worked in health care for numerous years and have been exposed to online e-learning modules increasingly over time.  I personally find them easy to use and the added benefit is being able to replay a video if you did not quite understand the material the first time.  I am currently completing 3250 Instructional Strategies and if there was a course that changed my mind with respect to digital technology, it would be 3250.  The course offers numerous opportunities for engagement with other students on discussion forums and I believe, in order for an online course to be successful, it has to have a high level of engagement from fellow students and instructors.  One cannot simply deliver a course online and expect students to achieve maximum benefit.  There has to be a balance of instructor guidance and consistent feedback.  While some generations may shy away from feedback, millennials, generally speaking, actually expect it (Pappas, 2016).

The implications for practice are enormous as higher educational institutions must get on board with online learning.  Educational institutions across the board are starting to realize the necessity of incorporating new technologies into student learning initiatives.  For example, UBC has started a major development known as “its flexible learning initiative” which aims to radically overhaul first and second year undergraduate teaching by reaching out to new markets.  Hybrid learning is a cornerstone of its strategy.  (Bates, 2013).  Consequently, there are significant paradigm shifts in different dimensions of eLearning and the environment around it.  The teacher’s role has shifted from being a ‘sage on the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’ (as cited in Khan and Nawaz, 2012).  The teacher is taking on more of a mentor or facilitator role in e-learning platforms, as well as in classroom settings.  The millennial generation in particular has a specific mindset that is deep-rooted in technology and the questions arising from this group pertain to alternate ways of learning.  They are always looking for a better way to obtain information.  Understanding the needs of the millennial generation is key to providing superior platforms for learning.  This is a generation that believes technology should adapt to humans and not the other way around (Bates, 2013).  The needs of the millennial generation are far different than generations before.  They are more self-directed and apt at locating information quickly and efficiently and learning must reflect that.

Appreciative Inquiry

“Appreciative Inquiry is an approach…based on strengths rather than weaknesses, on a vision of what is possible rather than an analysis of what is not.” — David Cooperrider

The foundation of Appreciative Inquiry is based on what is already working than what is broken.  We can all remember a situation where someone really believed in us or saw our strengths.  Focusing on the positive in a situation assists us and propels us toward continued growth.  When we recognize our successes and strengths, we can envision a new future and move toward it consciously and unconsciously.

Robyn Stratton-Berkessel is a Positivity Strategist, Author, TEDx Speaker, Story-teller and Appreciative Inquiry Practitioner.  She is also adjunct professor at the David L. Cooperrider Center for Appreciative Inquiry.

In her TEDx video, Stratton-Berkessel opens with the question “What is the best thing that’s happened to you today?”  She emphasizes that what we focus on grows.  When we focus on positivity, we achieve greater understanding, increased tolerance, and most importantly heartfelt connections.  We feel heard when asked a question designed to elicit a positive response.  To quote Stratton-Berkessel “Words create Worlds.”  We feel interconnected to others as our self/other begins to overlap.  By focusing on what works as opposed to what does not work, we tap into our positivity.  “What we focus on grows.”  Thus a simple intentional appreciative inquiry can foster creativity, openness and togetherness.

“Professors are from Mars, Students are from Snickers”

Often, professors and students seem to come from completely different planets, with distinct ways of thinking. Several barriers may exist that impede the learning progress; differences in communication styles, generational gaps, perceptual differences to name a few. Humor can serve to break down these barriers and make learning more effective. It can be used as a teaching tool to facilitate increased learning and student participation. Ronald A. Berk, in his book “Professors are from Mars, Students are from Snickers” highlights a variety of techniques that can be utilized in the classroom setting.

In an article published by the American Psychological Association, “How laughing leads to learning,” a self-described “math phobic” highlights her experience with humor while enrolled in a Biostatistics and Measurement class with Ron Berk at John Hopkins University. She recalls having a complete metamorphosis, a transformation of thought all accredited to her professor Ron Berk who interjected humor into the class and made number crunching fun.

According to Berk, his key teaching style is using humor to enhance otherwise dull material by engaging students and tapping in to their multiple intelligences and learning styles in a way that forces them to think in real-life ways. However Berk cautions that in order for humor to be effective, it must complement and not distract from course material. In fact, research suggests inappropriate use of humor can actually impede learning. On the flip side, when used effectively, classroom comedy can improve student performance by reducing anxiety, boosting participation, and increasing student motivation to learn new material.

Thus, although professors’ jobs are to educate and not to entertain, using humor can assist the process of education and serve to make learning more enjoyable. Along with the added benefit of a more enjoyable class experience, is the added physiological effects of decreased stress hormones such as serum cortisol, dopamine, and epinephrine. However it is important to remember that “Students don’t necessarily want Jerry Seinfeld as their instructor.” They want appropriate humor that is relevant.

References: http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/learning.aspx

Meet Viv – the future of Chatbots and Artificial Intelligence

Welcome to the age of chatbot. Soon you’ll be lonelier than ever.  

Very soon, you won’t need to be on facebook to respond to your friends…your facebook avatar will take over the task of congratulating your friends, wishing them a happy birthday, accepting invitations, and sending them texts all while using your favourite emojis 🙂

Last week, an event called the TechCrunch Disrupt Hackathon was held in New York City and software developer Irene Chang unveiled a prototype Artificial Intelligence (AI) program called The Chat Bot Club.  By utilizing IBM’s powerful Watson, The Chat Bot Club learns how to imitate its user.  The bot learns which emojis are preferred, favourite phrases, texting styles, and then responds in kind, all on its own while you are sleeping, shopping, or undergoing major surgery!

The Chat Bot is likely to be available for use commercially within months.  It raises concerns about the inevitable prospect of social media communities engaging away in an avatar-like manner; making plans, chatting away, without any human involvement whatsoever.

However, as Marcus Endicott, a Melbourne robotics expert, puts it “There’s a bell curve involved in the process, and there’s a point of diminishing returns.” Chatbots learn to perfom by wading through immense information however they are not as clever as they seem.  For example, if initial input is poor or repeats questionable statements, the chatbot’s behaviour will emulate the errors and evolve accordingly.  This is what happened to Microsoft’s launch of an online chatbot named Tay; major mishaps occurred, triggering Microsoft to pull the plug on Tay.

Endicott points out that successful launches of online chatbots have a human firewall reviewing message traffic.  He stresses the chatbot will always need to be mediated by people – either before launch or during its operation.  In 2015, an Indian start-up company called Skedool.it launched an office assistant chatbot named Alex.  Alex intercepted incoming emails, read them, and initiated written conversations with the senders.  The current Bangalore trend in India is to convert call centres into AI.  As Endicott points out, the Indian model relied on utilizing human gatekeepers at different stages in the mix — at least temporarily as AI will always encounter scenarios it is not prepared for.

Reference: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/hate-siri-meet-viv-and-why-shes-the-future-of-chatbots-and-artificial-intelligence-20160511-gosmja.html

Who is Jill Watson???

Imagine taking a class and participating in an online forum, all the while believing you were communicating with a real individual.  

An article in the Washington Post dated May 13, 2016, highlights the applicability of Artificial Intelligence in education.  Meet Jill Watson, a teaching assistant unlike any other in the world; an artificial intelligence bot.

A Georgia Tech and computer science professor, Ashok Goel, hired Jill Watson to assist with his online course forum.  Like most teaching staff, Goel’s staff were completely overworked, often receiving more than 10,000 questions a semester from students on the course’s online forum.  Goel started looking for ways to streamline the repetitive questions and cut down workload.  The solution?  IBM Watson; an artificial intelligence system designed to answer questions.  Goel trained the system to answer questions correctly by first feeding the system with the previous class’s forum post answers and questions.  This gave Jill some background knowledge and served as a foundation.  Goel tested the system for many months and asked his teaching assistants to review Jill’s answers for accuracy.  The system required some changes however after tweaking by Goel, Jill reached the point where the answers were good enough.  This threshold was set at 97 percent accuracy; the point at which Goel could guarantee the system was correct.  For those questions Jill could not handle, human teaching assistants stepped in.

Then the time to implement Watson came; students had no idea who Watson really was until they had turned in their final exams.  Students were in awe; with one exclaiming “Just when I wanted to nominate Jill Watson as an outstanding TA!”  Students felt they were a part of history and pleased to partake.

Goel is now forming a business to expand the chatbot to the wider realm of education.  While he supports the invaluable chatbot, he does not forsee the bot replacing teaching assistants or professors.  Rather, he anticipates the chatbot’s question-answering abilities to be an invaluable asset for numerous online open course formats.  The idea is for online learning to become more appealing and engaging, leading to better student educational outcomes.

Reference: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/innovation/professor-reveals-to-students-that-his-assistant-was-an-ai-all-along-20160513-gou6us.html

Imagine what life would look like???

What an interesting topic…

To me, my first thought would be the concern of massive information overload.  I was just reviewing some of the literature on Google Glass.  I can see the potential advantages and disadvantages to this type of product.  According to the literature review, Google Glass has come under massive criticism and legislative action due to privacy and safety concerns.  Many doctors have utilized these glasses in health care fields, with patient permission of course.  Most doctors reference the health care applicability of these glasses however it seems a very controversial issue.  In the health care domain, the glasses can be considered a “wearable health record,” saving physicians an incredible amount of time.  It would eliminate the necessity of an additional electronic health record; saving time and improving chart quality.  Interventional Radiologists have indicated its use in assisting during procedures such as a liver biopsies.  They advocate increased patient safety with the use of Google Glass.  On the flip side, the glasses have been banned in many areas such as Las Vegas Casinos to comply with Nevada state law and gaming regulations.  Some have cited safety concerns, with the glasses being worn while operating vehicles.  Original Source

As of January 2015, Google announced it is ending sales of Google Glass however remained steadfast to the project in other forms.  Some see the project as a failure whereas others see it as a sort of test-trial for something better.  According to an article by Larry Dignan, several lessons were learned from the Google Glass Project:

1) Fashion matters: Google Glass seemed cool among the tech-ville but didn’t really popularize to other areas, at least not in a meaningful way.

2) Tech needs to blend in the background: Google Glass could be like to wearing a helmet around.

3) The need to move beyond smartphone features: Google Glass offers what a smartphone or smart watch could offer with nothing too unique.

4) Google may not know hardware: since Google is a cloud, search, and advertising company, it’s possible Google does not have hardware in its DNA.

What do you think?  Would you wear a pair of these glasses???

Copyright Infringement

We’ve all heard of copyright infringement cases in the media; particularly song sampling.  The famous case that comes to mind for me in recent times is the lawsuit against Jay Z filed by Osama Fahmy, nephew of an Egyptian composer whose 1957 song Khosara Khosara featured in one of Jay Z’s 1999 hit songs.  This was the longest drawn-out copyright case in the US, and recently dismissed by the US district judge in October 2015. See article for interest.

Another famous copyright case involving violation in an online environment: The Associated Press vs. Fairey

Photograph: Mannie Garcia – 2006 (via The New York Times); Poster: Shephard Fairey – 2008 (via Wikipedia)

This case involved a famous street artist known as Shephard Fairey.  During President Obama’s first run for presidential election, Fairey created the Hope poster.  The poster quickly became popularized as a symbol for Obama’s campaign.  In January 2009, Mannie Garcia, a freelance writer for the Associated Press claimed he took the original photograph from which Fairey based his subsequent design.  The Associated Press demanded compensation for the use of its photograph in Fairey’s poster.  Ultimately, the artist and the Associated Press settled privately in January 2011, splitting the profits for the work.  The case did not result in an actual verdict however it was precedent-setting and fostered great debate around the value of work in these types of copyright battles.

Reference: https://99designs.ca/blog/tips/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/

Virtual Learning Environments (VLE)

Advancements in online technologies continue to push the limits on what can be achieved.  Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) can simulate real life situations for specific workplace environments.  This methodology serves to advance the learner experience by increasing learner engagement, motivation and focus while providing a more immersive experience.  Some scenarios cannot be practised without the use of VLE’s.  For example, one cannot practice resuscitating a patient in the lab without a VLE.  Thus, these environments can serve to mimic very useful and relevant scenarios in healthcare.

A relatively new term, Gamification is a tested and true approach that leverages new technologies.  Using a VLE it provides the opportunity of increased visual storytelling and impactful feedback by using other visual cues.  For example, in a typical healthcare scenario, gamification may be to provide characters that can select uniforms for their role; such as doctor, nurse, specialist, etc.

VLE’s also offer a cost-effective alternative to an expensive classroom where sophisticated equipment may be required.  Another benefit is learners can work through typical VLE scenarios at their own pace, reviewing when deemed necessary.  Source article