Category: scholarship Page 1 of 27

Open Access fees are exorbitant

After signed another publishing agreement, and I was, once again, taken aback by the exorbitant OA fees that publishers charge.

Publishing open access with us (gold OA) lets you share and re-use your article immediately after publication.

The article processing charge (APC) to publish an article open access in Educational technology research and development is:

Article processing charge (excluding local taxes)
£2,290.00 / $3,290.00 / €2,590.00

Some organisations will pay some or all of your APC.

If you want to publish subscription, instead of open access, there will be an option to do that in the following steps.

I know, I know, we probably shouldn’t have submitted to journal that isn’t gold and free OA by default, *but* the system is structured in such ways that my junior co-authors would benefit from being published in this journal.

While not a solution to this problem, it’s worth noting the terms in the publishing agreement around sharing the article. This is in the terms:

The Assignee grants to the Author (i) the right to make the Accepted Manuscript available on their own personal, self-maintained website immediately on acceptance.

This is the approach that I use for nearly all my papers, but it’s worth remembering that what this really does is suggest an individual solution to a systemic problem, which will do little to solve the broader problem of lack of access to research.

There are other statements in the terms around placing one’s article in an institutional repository, but author self-archiving is generally the first and immediate option available to individuals. And perhaps google scholar will index the author’s personal website, making the article available, as shown below. Google scholar’s approach of identifying articles and placing publicly-available versions in search results is a systemic solution to the problem. Unpaywall is similar in that respect.

 

[To be clear: this post isn’t about ETR&D. It’s about the publishers & the publishing system]

Invitation for a TechTrends Editor

We all owe gratitude to Dr. Chuck Hodges for the impressive job he has done over the last ten years (!) in nurturing and elevating the status of TechTrends, which I consider to be one of two flagship AECT journals. Dr. Hodges  has recently decided to resign his position as editor-in-chief, and AECT is inviting applicants to fill in those big boots. The application for that role appears below.

Thank you for considering being a candidate for the position of TechTrends Editor-in-Chief. This position is a three (3) year term that is renewable upon recommendation by the AECT CEO and ratification by the AECT Board of Directors. AECT is seeking candidates with good reputations and networks at the international level for this flagship journal. A full description of TechTrends and the role of the Editor-in-Chief can be seen on the last page of this application.

Role and Responsibility of the TechTrends Editor-in-Chief

Housed under the Center of Excellence for Publishing, and reporting to the AECT CEO or (at CEO discretion) his/her designee, The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the overall content of the journal, including soliciting and selecting manuscripts; editing or supervising the editing of manuscripts; developing, adding, or removing standard features, including columns and departments; securing, appointing, supervising, and terminating staff and contract workers; directing and approving the layout and design of the journal; managing the peer-review process; completion of the annual end-of-year report; addressing the fiscal health of the journal; and other responsibilities consistent with the position or assigned by the AECT Board (See full description on last page of this application).

The responses to the application items below need to be returned to the AECT CEO, Nolan Gruver by December 6, 2023. Please submit your application as an attached MS-Word Document to the AECT CEO at ceo@aect.org.  The Search Committee will review all applications and recommend a candidate for TechTrends Editor-in-Chief to begin January 22, 2024. The recommended candidate will be ratified by the AECT CEO and the AECT Board of Directors.

Please respond to these application items:

  1. Brief description of your education and professional background.
  2. Your experience with TechTrends and other editing experiences which highlight your international presence or network.
  3. Your vision for TechTrends as a growing international journal based with a U.S. Organization.
  4. A plan for recruiting papers
  5. Statement of support from your department chair or next level administrator 

TECHTRENDS

TechTrends is a peer-reviewed publication, and submitted manuscripts are reviewed without bias by a panel of consulting editors and other professionals with expertise in the topics presented in the manuscripts. Any manuscript considered appropriate is reviewed anonymously. Reviewers are asked to provide detailed comments for the author(s), and these comments are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief before the final review is sent to the author(s).

You will find this information online here under “Instructions for Authors”:

https://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/journal/11528

Editorial Policies

Purposes: As AECT’s flagship practitioner journal, the bimonthly TechTrends embodies its

tagline philosophy: “Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning.” The journal addresses the informational needs of multiple, often interconnected audiences of members, prospective members, and interested readers in the United States and elsewhere–particularly where AECT has international affiliates, K-12 and university educators, readers interested in personal knowledge acquisition and professional development, teachers of teachers and trainers of trainers, and education and training supervisors. Thus the purposes of this professional journal are:

  1. To publish research- and experience-based information that has been peer reviewed and adds to the knowledge base within the broad field of communications and technology for teaching and learning;
  2. To provide a forum for the exchange of peer reviewed views and expert opinion regarding principles and practices related to communications and technology for teaching and learning; and
  3. To ensure that AECT members and other interested readers have access to up-to-date information about emerging ideas and new technology in the field of communications and technology for teaching and learning.

Content: To achieve its stated purposes, TechTrends will include the following types of content:

  1. Reports of innovative or exemplary practices related to instructional design for technology- mediated teaching and learning;
  2. Discussions of prominent or important topics and issues of concern to practitioners;
  3. Reviews of new literature, such as studies, reports, and books germane to the field;
  4. Summaries of research applications to practice;
  5. Reviews of new or emerging technology;
  6. Discussions of policy related to educational communications and technology;
  7. Reports of national or international trends in the field;
  8. Discussions and reports of topics related to management and supervision in the field; and
  9. Items for marketing and communications for the

 

Annually, at the conclusion of each volume year, the Editor-in-Chief will compile a reflective review of the content in the issues that year, using the above lists to evaluate the extent to which the journal has achieved its purposes. This review shall be provided to the AECT Board and the Executive Director prior to the end of the first month of the following volume year.

Organization and Administration: Management of TechTrends is structured as follows:

 

  1. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the overall content of the journal, including soliciting and selecting manuscripts; editing or supervising the editing of manuscripts; developing, adding, or removing standard features, including columns and departments; securing, appointing, supervising, and terminating staff and contract workers; directing and approving the layout and design of the journal; managing the peer-review process; completion of the annual end-of-year report; addressing the fiscal health of the journal; and other responsibilities consistent with the position or assigned by the AECT Board.
    1. One or more Associate Editors may be approved by the AECT Board for the purpose of assisting the Editor-in-Chief in carrying out the responsibilities of the position. Associate Editors may be secured and appointed by the AECT Board, or the responsibility may be shared with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief shall supervise the work of the Associate Editor(s).
    2. One or more Assistant Editors may be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief to write or otherwise provide, and edit, designated material on a regular basis, for example, for columns or other recurring features. Assistant Editors may report to the Editor-in- Chief or to an Associate Editor as designated by the Editor-in-Chief.
  2. The Design Director may be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief to be responsible for the format and appearance of the journal; creating or soliciting, with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, graphic or photographic materials to be published in the journal; preparing each issue of the journal for publication and distribution. Any additional personal request will need to first be approved by the Board of Directors and Executive Director based on the budget impact. Effective January of 2016, design responsibilities have been transferred to Springer Publishing.
  3. The Editorial Board is composed of one representative of each AECT Division and other individuals as deemed necessary by the Editor-in-Chief. The AECT Board shall appoint one individual as its representative on the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief chairs the Editorial Board, which advises the Editor-in-Chief on editorial policy and journal content, assists in the solicitation of manuscripts, and evaluates the effectiveness of the journal.
    1. Meetings of the Editorial Board may be scheduled at the discretion of the Editor-in- Chief, and at minimum the Board shall meet annually at the AECT International
    2. In policy disputes between the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board, the decision of the Editorial Board shall prevail. In policy disputes between the Editorial Board and the AECT Board, the decision of the AECT Board shall prevail.
    3. Every third year, the Editorial Board will review these editorial policies and provide a summary report, in particular bringing any resulting issues and concerns to the attention of the Executive Director [now CEO] and the AECT Board. The CEO or the AECT Board may request such a review more often, as necessitated by the ever- changing field of education technology or for other reasons.
  4. The AECT CEO serves as Executive Publisher and, through appropriate staff, administers the business and financial aspects of the journal.
  5. The Consulting Reviewers group is composed of a minimum of twelve individuals appointed by the Editor-in-Chief for staggered three-year terms. As criteria for appointment, the candidate should:
    1. be a practicing educational technology professional;
    2. be familiar with issues germane to his or her Division, area of professional expertise, or geographic region and be broadly interested in educational communications and technology;
    3. have a wide range of professional contacts among programs and personnel both within and outside the Association;
    4. be reliable, have sufficient time to devote to journal review activities, and be able to complete assignments on time; and
    5. be willing to serve voluntarily (no remuneration is provided).

Approved by the AECT Board of Directors on July 16, 2012

  1. …design responsibilities to Springer… p.5

Approved by the AECT Board of Directors on November 7, 2015

Change of AECT Executive Director language to AECT CEO ratified in March 2023 Bylaws

(Subject to Review & Updated by the Center of Excellence for Publishing Advisory Board Nov. 2023)

Google scholar alerts on citations

Email is a productivity killer. But, one kind of email I like to receive is from Google Scholar, alerting me of newly published research that is in conversation with my research, aka papers that cite my work.

a screenshot of emails from google scholar showing new citations to the author's research

I love this feature because it quickly allows me to

  • get a sense of how others are reacting to my work
  • track some of the literature surrounding my research interests (emphasis on some)
  • discover new authors
  • keep my never-ending “to read” list full

I’d love it even more if Google Scholar also

  • delivered all available papers in that same email (e.g., if there was a way that it would connect to my institutional library and retrieve them or just give me the open access ones)
  • kept an up-to-date spreadsheet of all citations that I could use for different purposes

It ought not need clarification, but to be clear: 1) citations don’t necessarily mean that one’s work is impactful or significant. What if they are all critical of the work?. 2) lack of citations doesn’t necessarily mean that a paper isn’t worthwhile or significant, as areas unrelated to the quality of the work often influence citations (e.g., timing)

3 ways higher education can become more hopeful in the post-pandemic, post-AI era

Below is a republished version of an article that Shandell Houlden and I published in The Conversation last week, summarizing some of the themes that arose in our Speculative Learning Futures podcast.

3 ways higher education can become more hopeful in the post-pandemic, post-AI era

The future of education is about more than technology.
(Pexels/Emily Ranquist)

Shandell Houlden, Royal Roads University and George Veletsianos, Royal Roads University

We live at a time when universities and colleges are facing multiplying crises, pressures and changes.

From the COVID-19 pandemic and budgetary pressures to generative artificial intelligence (AI) and climate catastrophe, the future of higher education seems murky and fragmented — even gloomy.

Student mental health is in crisis. University faculty in our own research from the early days of the pandemic told us that they were “juggling with a blindfold on.” Since that time, we’ve also heard many echo the sentiment of feeling they’re “constantly drowning,” something recounted by researchers writing about a sense of precarity in universities in New Zealand, Australia and the western world.

In this context, one outcome of the pandemic has been a rise in discourses about specific, quite narrowly imagined futures of higher education. Technology companies, consultants and investors, for example, push visions of the future of education as being saved by new technologies. They suggest more technology is always a good thing and that technology will necessarily make teaching and learning faster, cheaper and better. That’s their utopian vision.

Some education scholars have been less optimistic, often highlighting the failures of utopian thinking. In many cases, their speculation about the future of education, especially where education technology is concerned, often looks bleak. In these examples, technology often reinforces prejudices and is used to control educators and learners alike.

A picture of a collage showing a Facebook-jammed image that says 'You've been Zucked'
Amid accelerating technology, what kind of future do we imagine for higher education?
Annie Spratt/Unsplash

In contrast to both utopian and grim futures, for a recent study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, we sought to imagine more hopeful and desirable higher education futures. These are futures emerging out of justice, equity and even joy. In this spirit, we interviewed higher education experts for a podcast entitled Speculative Learning Futures.

When asked to imagine more hopeful futures, what do experts propose as alternatives? What themes emerge in their work? Here are three key ideas.

It’s about more than technology

First, these experts reiterated that the future of education is about more than technology. When we think about the future of education we can sometimes imagine it as being tied entirely to the internet, computers and other digital tools. Or we believe AI in education is inevitable — or that all learning will be done through screens, maybe with robot teachers!

But as Jen Ross, senior lecturer in digital education observes, technology doesn’t solve all our problems. When we think about education futures, technology alone does not automatically help us create better education or healthier societies. Social or community concerns like social inequities will continue to affect who can access education, our education systems’ values and how we are shaped by technologies.

As many researchers have argued, including us, the pandemic highlighted how differences in access to the internet and computers can reinforce inequities for students.

AI can also reinforce inequities. Depending on the nature of data AI is trained with, the use of AI can perpetuate harmful biases in classrooms.

Ross notes in her recent book that social or community concerns shape how our societies could imagine education.
Researchers involved with Indigenous-led AI are tackling questions around how Indigenous knowledge systems could push AI to be more inclusive.

Policymakers and educators should consider technology as one part of a toolkit of responses for making informed decisions about what technologies align with more equitable and just education futures.

Emphasizing connection and diversity

In line with thinking about more than technology, the second theme is a reminder that the future of education is about healthy social connection and social justice. Researchers emphasize fostering diversity and celebrating diverse expressions of strengths and needs.

Experts envision and call for education that is more sustainable for everyone, not just a privileged few. Kathrin Otrel-Cass, professor at University of Graz, and Mark Brown, Ireland’s first chair in digital learning and director of the National Institute for Digital Learning at Dublin City University, suggest this means teaching and learning should be at a slower pace for students and faculty alike.

In this vision, policymakers must support education systems that regard the whole learner as an individual with specific physical, mental, emotional and intellectual needs, and as a member of multiple communities.

Acknowledge the goodness of the present

There’s lots to be gained by noting and supporting all the great things related to education that are happening in the present, since possible futures emerge from what now exists.

As two podcast guests, Eamon Costello, professor at Dublin City University and collaborator Lily (Prajakta) Girme, noted, we need to acknowledge the good work of educators and learners in the small wins that happen every day.

In 2019, researchers Justin Reich and José Ruipérez-Valiente wrote: “new education technologies are rarely disruptive but instead are domesticated by existing cultures and systems. Dramatic expansion of educational opportunities to under-served populations will require political movements that change the focus, funding and purpose of higher education; they will not be achieved through new technologies alone.”

These are words worth repeating.

 

 

Shandell Houlden, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Education and Technology, Royal Roads University and George Veletsianos, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Innovative Learning and Technology, Royal Roads University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Traxler’s review of our book: Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education

Johh Traxler wrote a very kind review of Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education, the open access book that Suzan, Chris, and I co-edited. In it, he begins by noting that he is concerned of a growing chasm in digital education, as

there seem to be two parallel universes of learning, of two different sets of ideas about how we learn, what we learn, who we learned it from, and we show we have learnt it: one inside higher education, the other in the world outside. On one side are the closed systems around the dedicated EdTech systems in higher education, and around the different cadres and professions that develop, sell, procure, install, and deploy them to deliver the formal curriculum. On the other side are the ever fluid and informal groups and relationships that exploit social media and Web 2.0 to produce ideas, images, information, identities, and opinions, and to share, store, transform, merge, and discard them.

After reviewing individual chapters, he concludes that each chapter populates the spaces in the chasm and “makes an extraordinary contribution, tackling the chasm from a surprising variety of angles and should be valued and explored accordingly.”

I’m filing this into the “positive words” folder, which is a folder that I refer to when I need reminders that gloomy days are temporary.

So very tired of predictions about AI in education…

By people who aren’t AIEd experts, education technology experts, education experts, and the like.

Case in point: “AI likely to spell end of traditional school classroom, leading [computer science] expert says.”

I appreciate cross disciplinary engagement as much as I love guacamole (which is to say, a lot), but I’d also appreciate that we stop wasting our time on these same unfulfilled prophecies year after year, decade after decade.

Will AI impact education? In some ways it will, and in others it won’t. Will education shape the ways AI comes to be used in classrooms? In some ways it will, and in others it won’t.

Truth be told, this negotiated relationship isn’t as appealing as DISRUPTION, AVALANCHE, MIND-READING ROBO-TUTOR IN THE SKY, etc, which are words that readers of the history of edtech will recognize.

Public version: Making ChatGPT detectors part of our education system prioritizes surveillance over trust

The Globe and Mail published an op-ed I wrote. As a condition of being featured in the publication, the paper has first publication rights for the first 48 hours. Since it’s been more than 48 hours, and for posterity, I’m making a copy available below.

Making ChatGPT detectors part of our education system prioritizes surveillance over trust

George Veletsianos is a professor of education and Canada Research Chair in Innovative Learning and Technology at Royal Roads University.

Imagine a world where surveillance technologies monitor and scrutinize your behaviour. Imagine a report that you write at work being compared with myriads of others and flagged for additional inspection when an algorithm deems it to be “very similar” to others.

Students don’t have to imagine this world. They are already living in it, in the form of plagiarism detection software, remote proctoring technologies, and now, tools aimed at detecting whether the students used ChatGPT – including new software that promises to catch students who use ChatGPT to cheat.

While taking online exams, students’ webcams scan their surroundings; their microphones monitor sounds and background noise, and their body and eye movements are tracked. Unexpected movements may indicate something as innocuous as stretching a tight neck or as problematic as catching a glimpse of Post-it notes on the wall, while unexpected sounds may indicate a child playing in the background or a roommate whispering answers. The essay assignments students submit are compared to a vast amount of writing by others. And a battery of scores might indicate plagiarizing from Wikipedia, passing off text created by ChatGPT as one’s own, or simply using common expressions. Any of this will get students flagged as potential cheaters.

That there are technologies to identify text written by artificial intelligence shouldn’t come as a surprise. What is surprising is that educators, administrators, students, and parents put up with surveillance technologies like these.

These technologies are harmful to education for two main reasons. First, they formalize mistrust. As a professor and researcher who has been studying the use of emerging technologies in education for nearly two decades, I am well aware that educational technology produces unintended consequences. In this case, these technologies take on a policing role and cultivate a culture of suspicion. The ever-present microscope of surveillance technology casts a suspicious eye on all learners, subjecting them all to an unwarranted level of scrutiny.

Second, these technologies introduce a host of other problems. Researchers note that these tools often flag innocent students and exacerbate student anxiety. This is something I’ve personally experienced as well when I took my Canadian citizenship exam online. Even though I knew the material and was confident in my abilities, my webcam’s bright green light was a constant reminder that I was being watched and that I should be wary of my every move.

To be certain, such tools may deter some students from intentionally plagiarizing. They may also improve efficiency, since they algorithmically check student work on behalf of educators.

But these reasons don’t justify surveillance.

A different world is possible when schools and universities dare to imagine richer and more hospitable learning environments that aren’t grounded in suspicion and policing. Schools and universities can begin to achieve this by developing more trusting relationships with their students and emphasizing the importance of honesty, original work, and creativity. They need to think of education in terms of relationships, and not in terms of control, monitoring, and policing. Students should be viewed as colleagues and partners.

Educators also need to come to terms with the fact that our assessments generally suffer from a poverty of imagination. Essays, tests, and quizzes have an important role to play in the learning process, but there are other ways to check for student achievement. We can design assessments that ask students to collect original data and draw inferences, or write and publish op-eds like this one; we can invite them to develop business and marketing plans for real-world businesses in their cities; we can ask them to reflect on their own unique experiences; we can require them to provide constructive peer-review and feedback to fellow students, or have them engage in live debates. In this light, ChatGPT is not a threat, but an opportunity for the education system to renew itself, to imagine a better world for its students.

Educators and administrators should stop using surveillance technologies like ChatGPT detectors, and parents and students should demand that schools and universities abolish them – not because cheating should be tolerated, but because rejecting the culture of suspicion that surveillance technologies foster and capitalize upon is a necessary step toward an education system that cares for its learners.

Page 1 of 27

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén