Muddy Concepts

This week I am writing on “muddy” concepts to which I have been exposed this week.  I had several candidates I was relatively enthusiastic about.  Then, along came Fair Use.

For those not in-the-know, Fair Use is a caveat to copyright law which allows for limited use of copyrighted works within an educational setting and for an educational purpose.   This week I watched a video in which a Liberty University staff member attempted to clarify the concept and remove some misconceptions.

The primary misconception listed regarding Fair Use was that copyrights could be virtually ignored when used within an educational setting.  According to the video, this is wrong, and I understand and concur.  Next, the video gave the explanation, which also provided clear indication as to why the assumption exists in the first place and failed to clear the muddy waters.

Four factors are listed clearly against which one can measure the probability that the use of copyrighted material is legal with Fair Use.  The problem is that no specific threshold for any of the factors or combinations of factors is provided against which a prospective user could definitively state the use is legal.  The measurement of each factor only makes the Fair Use more or less probable.  In fact, at the end of the video, I am not sure I could say for certain if anything but the most extreme cases was either one or the other.

Even my explanation of the explanation is confusing.  Undoubtedly, the inability of the video to clarify this muddy concept is that the legal issues are ambiguous to begin with.  In the end, I believe the misconception still persists despite the clarification.  Unless I am selling tickets or adversely effecting the profit generated by the copyrighted work, an argument could be made that any educational use is Fair Use.

David Bennett

Liberty University

Interactivity and Distance Education

This week I ran across an interesting article as I was researching for a later assignment this week.  The article had to do with the efficacy of interactivity utilized in distance education as it relates to the relative level of student motivation.

Initially, I assumed that the article would find that the level of motivation rose in direct relation to the level of interactivity.  From my constructivist standpoint, this would make sense.  It would certainly be easier to lead students toward discovery using greater levels of interactivity, something I also associate heavily with synchronous learning.  Building a similar level of ability to lead, without the interactive options, places that burden to deliver on the curriculum and lesson plan development.  Challenging, though not impossible.

With this assumption in mind, I immediately disliked the article.  As an individual, I so value the asynchronous nature of distance education that I do not want to see research indicating greater synchronicity is the better practice.

What the article found was surprising, however.  The higher levels of interactivity were only effective to a point, and then became counter-productive (Mahle, 2011) at least in reference to motivation.    The news was not all good, at least for me.  The study also assessed the level of student confidence with the material after the course was complete and the level of interactivity was found to correspond directly with the level of confidence (Mahle, 2011).  Student attention during the course was not found to be effected significantly by the level of interactivity while levels of retention and proficiency with the instructed concepts benefited from moderate levels of interactivity.

For those involved in the design of distance education courses, this tells us we need to build in some level of interactive tools for optimum efficacy.  We should not overdue it though.  At some point, it would appear that the overuse of interactive and synchronous tools becomes no more than a gimmick.

David Bennett

Mahle, M. (2011). EFFECTS OF INTERACTIVITY ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND MOTIVATION IN DISTANCE EDUCATION. Quarterly Review Of Distance Education, 12(3), 207-215.