https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jharrow 2026-05-27T22:12:25Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.6 https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3266 2009-05-15T17:35:54Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]). As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Tools_Team#The_Not-So-Secret_Teacher.27s_Manual Teacher's Manual] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical in an Internet law seminar to say that using laptops in the classroom is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but to really think hard about the best way to incorporate them. As the Internet develops, we should keep in mind that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if there is one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that a subsequent group ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at least two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Seesmic&diff=3265 2009-05-15T17:33:26Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Seesmic?<br /> &quot;Seesmic is a video blogging web application.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> Seesmic provides an innovative way to communicate and connect online through video conversation. Users can do this by recording a video directly on Seesmic's website or a mobile phone, by uploading an existing video straight from your computer or by linking to a video posted on a social network.<br /> [http://blog.seesmic.com/company.html]<br /> <br /> Seesmic made its debut at the Demo tech conference where it was called the &quot;Twitter of video&quot;. As of February 2008, the service had 20,000 users and 70,000 viewers per month.<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> <br /> The Seesmic platform also enables video conversations on more than a thousand sites, blogs and broadcasts them to other social software such as Twitter and Friendfeed thanks to its robust API. Seesmic also operates twhirl, a social desktop client, that now enables Seesmic video comments. twhirl represents 12% of Twitter messages being sent and has over 400,000 downloads.<br /> [http://blog.seesmic.com/company.html]<br /> <br /> French entrepreneur Loic Le Meur founded Seesmic to make video uploading easier for those using webcams. Seesmic is backed by a number of investors, the primary one being Atomico, a venture group that includes Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, who sold Skype to eBay in 2005 for $2.6 billion. On April 3, 2008, Seesmic announced that it had purchased Twhirl, an Adobe AIR based Twitter client.<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> <br /> == Important Considerations When Using Seesmic ==<br /> One criticism of Seesmic is that it may be too niche, as only so many people want to broadcast themselves on video. (Though for everyone else there's Twhirl.)<br /> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/seesmic_growth.php<br /> If our purpose for using Seesmic is to get participation from more of the class than we do during class time or from a wider audience, this is something we should consider and a traditional internet forum could be preferable.<br /> On the other hand, other factors may make the video format advantageous. <br /> <br /> The site has far fewer users than some of the other tools we might consider using. Twitter had 5.57 million users in the year ending in September. <br /> [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> Youtube had 22 million users by July 2006. <br /> [http://mashable.com/2006/07/17/youtube-hits-1-million-videos-per-day/]<br /> <br /> == Seesmic for Education ==<br /> In an educational setting, some have proposed that Seesmic has some real advantages. Seesmic may be a useful tool when trying to learn a new language, which also includes nonverbal communication. In all contexts, video also allows for communication that is closer to an in-person experience than other formats.<br /> [http://research-update.mobi/?p=69]<br /> [http://instructify.com/2008/07/11/seesmic-video-micro-blogging/]<br /> <br /> We may want to consider whether these advantages outweigh the costs, those previously mentioned and others not anticipated here, of using Seesmic instead of another tool.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Seesmic ==<br /> The last two groups to present have posted questions for the class and others to consider and reply to before class. One group posted their question in video format, the other in text. Class members and others responded with differently formatted video responses. Some responses consisted of the poster(s) appearing on camera and discussing the issue. Others involved slides, mash-ups of other videos, user created or modified images and others. Some videos were more serious while others included humor.<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings ==<br /> Video: Using Seesmic for Education [http://research-update.mobi/?p=69]<br /> <br /> Instructify.com, “Start a Video Conversation with Seesmic”<br /> http://instructify.com/2008/07/11/seesmic-video-micro-blogging/<br /> <br /> == The Final Word ==<br /> We discussed briefly the use of Seemic during the optional class meeting on March 30 - but didn't get very far.<br /> <br /> We consider the way two groups chose to use the tool. For example, our Seesmic discussions have occurred before the related class discussion. Should we consider having Seesmic conversations after? One team posted the question in the form of a video and the other posted it in text. Was one format preferable to the other? <br /> <br /> How does the use of Seesmic compare to our use of other tools? What have we observed about the use of all of these tools that can help other classes going forward, regardless of what tools they choose to use at that time?<br /> <br /> This type of tool seemed to be espacially useful for:<br /> 1. prompting students to think intelligently about the issues before class,<br /> 2. starting the discussion of the isses early,<br /> 3. allowing students to use some creativity in expressing their thought, and<br /> 4. engaging in discussion with the outside world. <br /> <br /> We have a couple of suggestions when using tools like these:<br /> <br /> When using tools like these, make sure the prompt is as clear as possible. Because the question is not presented in real time, there seems to be a bigger barrier to getting clarification and confusing prompts can result in confused answers. Using a video to pose the question seemed more effective for communicating the answer as it seemed to allow for more clarification.<br /> <br /> Make sure to give plenty of notice to students. The more notice you give, hopefully the more thoughtful responses you will get from busy students.<br /> <br /> <br /> == '''Seesmic Prompt and First Responses for the Future of News Class Session''' ==<br /> To view the discussion, visit: <br /> http://seesmic.com/threads/bInSML7Ie3<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:Seesmic.jpg]]</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Twitter_in_the_Classroom&diff=3264 2009-05-15T17:31:39Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Twitter?<br /> &quot;Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users' updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter]<br /> <br /> In the year ending in September, visitors to Twitter rose fivefold to 5.57 million. Users include Britney Spears, Starbucks Corp. and Barack Obama. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:twitter.png]]<br /> <br /> == The Purpose of Twitter as Defined by Twitter, Inc. ==<br /> Twitter.com seems to reflect a vision of simplicity in the use of the tool as a means for people with previously established social ties to stay connected through the exchange of the &quot;. . . quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?&quot; with the purpose of providing a timely way to send updates to those people who might find them meaningful: &quot;family members, friends, and colleagues.&quot; The tool allows users to stay &quot;hyerconnected&quot; to friends or to stop following them at any time. It also allows users to set quiet times and boasts that it &quot;. . . puts [users] in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.&quot;<br /> <br /> Jack Dorsey conceptualized the tool around a simple status idea that would, for example, enable users to know what their friends were doing. He and his coworkers decided to build a prototype. &quot;Obvious&quot; [http://obvious.com/], a creative environment in San Francisco CA, initially founded Twitter, with the first prototype being built in two weeks in March 2006 and being launched publicly in August 2006. Following its very quick growth in popularity, Twitter Inc. was founded in 2007.<br /> <br /> == How People Use Twitter ==<br /> &quot;Twitter. . . is precisely what you want it to be. It can be a business tool, a teenage time-killer, a research assistant, a news source whatever.&quot;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=personaltech]<br /> <br /> Politicians have been using Twitter, along with other social networking tools, to campaign and to provide updates to their constituents.<br /> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878773-2,00.html]<br /> <br /> Twitter is also changing the way companies do business. For example, some businesses use the tool to pitch services, provide important updates and respond quickly to the individual needs of customers. <br /> [http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-02-02-hotel-airlines-travel-twitter_N.htm?csp=34&amp;POE=click-refer]<br /> <br /> Twitter is being used to communicate news, often much faster than the news media. &quot;When the last earthquake happened in California it was reported almost immediately on Twitter. It took about 10 minutes before mainstream media had the facts. Twitter broke the news about the New York plane crash and beat out the media by 15 minutes.&quot; As a result, some are crediting Twitter as being the first real threat to Google for getting information.<br /> [http://www.infocomgroup.net/falkow/?p=479]<br /> <br /> Teachers are using Twitter to enhance the classroom as an educational tool. Uses by teachers include sending updates to students and encouraging (or requiring) posts by students when outside of class. Some who have used it for this purpose praise it for the ability to keep the conversation going when students are outside of class, allowing them to note their recognition of important concepts from their curriculum when they see them in context, and for building a stronger class community which results in more open and, therefore, better class discussions.<br /> [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> People are using Twitter in ways that are probably beyond the scope envisioned by the company and its founders' simple concept of communicating status updates between acquaintances. It is being used to broadcast news faster than the mainstream news media, to connect politicians with their constituents, to connect businesses with customers and potential customers, and as a public relations tool. <br /> <br /> Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, people are using Twitter to enhance the classroom experience. While others who about this use on the web seem to typically use the tool for communication while outside of the classroom, our class thus far has used it within the classroom for conducting an online discussion simultaneously with class lectures. We hope that our study of the experiences of others using Twitter as an educational tool, in addition to our reflection on its use in our class, will help us to provide useful information for educators and students looking to use Twitter to enhance the academic experience.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Twitter ==<br /> The class has used twitter – and specifically its hashtag capability, using the #iif hashtag – so far to form an impromptu chat room during class to facilitate discussion both among ourselves and, to some extent, others outside of this class ([http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif see here]). Though there’s no reason the discussion cannot continue beyond class hours, in fact, essentially all of the tweets have come during the few hours of class time.<br /> <br /> What have people tweeted about? With no attempt at ranking them in order of occurrence, here’s an informal and imperfect categorization. Are all of these valuable? Some? A few? None?<br /> <br /> A. Further information or reading on a topic discussed in class. <br /> : ''E.g.'', When Professor Nesson was talking about the Eldred case, someone tweeted: “Lessig has a great article on losing the big one: http://tinyurl.com/yhp4s5”<br /> <br /> B. “Play-by-play” twittering. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;Davealevine: Fisher: ratio of statutory damages to actual damages is over 100,000 to 1. But @zittrain points out that $2.5k settlements are reality #iif&quot;<br /> <br /> C. “Meta-twittering.” <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;This is a great experiment: establishing a series of &quot;back channel&quot; conversations as law professors debate in front of us. HLS 2.0.&quot; ''Then'': Is the point of the twitter convo to report the class to the world? or is to be a backchannel for raising questions?<br /> <br /> D. Direct class-related questions. <br /> : ''E.g.'', “is it important that the statute was passed without any discussion? That Congress didn't think it warranted discussion?”<br /> <br /> E. Individual back-and-forth. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;debbierosenbaum: #iif How should we value, and by what standard should we judge, the privacy rights of the various parties involved in a litigation?&quot; ''Then'': &quot;Conor_Kennedy: #IIF: @debbierosenbaum: privacy rights ala fourth amendment? or privacy rights a la closed courtroom?&quot;<br /> <br /> F. “Non sequiturs.&quot;<br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;gwbstr: @Dharmishta when I was in college we did that on a conference call... Far less open. Now my editor at the time is a twitfreak @ehelm #iif.&quot; ''Then'': &quot;cass_sunstein: @gwbstr #iif my old editor at the Harvard Law Record is now a speed freak. True story.&quot;<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings ==<br /> Video: Jay Rosen on The Value of Twitter [http://bigthink.com/topics/the-internet/ideas/the-value-of-twitter]<br /> <br /> Video: Jeff Jarvis on the Next Technological Milestone [http://bigthink.com/topics/science-and-technology/ideas/jeff-jarvis-on-the-next-technological-milestone]<br /> <br /> Janet Meiners, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> <br /> Tame the Web: Libraries, Technology and People, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> <br /> AcademHack: Tech Tools for Academics, “Twitter for Academia” [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> == Class Participation ==<br /> We know we’re a bit late to the party, so all we ask for class is that you think about whether twitter in general and twittering in class in particular has been a net positive, neutral, or negative so far in the class. Would it be beneficial in more traditional-type classes? Do you think it generalizes to other settings – can you see lawyers, business people, or entrepreneurs twittering during meetings, presentations, or conferences? We’ll write-up what you have to say and post it here for posterity, and then others can edit or add to it as they see fit.<br /> <br /> Feel free to also spend some time this week reflecting on both the substantive issues discussed and the tools used in our class sessions thus far; the hope is that you'll tweet some of your thoughts, insights, questions, or anything else that you think might be relevant to this question using the #iif hashtag. We'll see how an asynchronous &quot;meta-discussion&quot; about over Twitter participation compares to the Twitter discussions we have been conducting during class.<br /> <br /> == Class Feedback ==<br /> Jason and Michelle presented four main reasons why twitter may not be the perfect classroom based on the use so far in the class. The jury is very much still out: some thought twitter was über-distracting, while others extolled its revolutionary virtues. We'll keep track of the use of twitter for the rest of the class. Here are the initial claims and some potential responses:<br /> <br /> 1. When was this from?<br /> * The claim: twitter doesn't allow us to easily filter out only posts during a particular class discussion. The &quot;record,&quot; then, is more disorganized and less easily accessible than it would be if we could look at discrete &quot;events.&quot;<br /> * The response: the iif hashtag designates posts as part of an ongoing and much broader discussion. This isn't supposed to be a sort of &quot;record,&quot; but rather a wide-ranging conversation with no &quot;start&quot; or &quot;end.&quot;<br /> <br /> 2. Who are you talking to?<br /> * The claim: there is a broad range of types of tweets that appear during class - some are be directed to an external audience, others seem just for the class, still others are part of a more private back-and-forth. Some may find such a mix distracting and counter-productive.<br /> * The response: that's the point! The beauty of twitter is in its collapsing of the public/private distinction. Instead, everything exists in a semi-connected web of comments, references, and replies. If you can't weed out the sort of tweets you're looking for, that's your problem, not twitter's.<br /> <br /> 3. Who the heck is everyone? <br /> * The claim: it can be distracting to view tweets without putting a face to the alias.<br /> * The response: that's twitter! Part of the beauty of twitter are persistent aliases. Does it really matter where good ideas are coming from, anyway?<br /> <br /> 4. Why do we need to constantly refresh? <br /> * The claim: it can be distracting to be constantly refreshing the search page; insofar as we are using the #iif tag to form an impromptu chat room, we might try out other software that has been designed with that specific purpose in mind.<br /> * The response: is this really that big a deal? Sure it would be nice if results could constantly update, but this is a relatively new technology, and we shouldn't be concerned with such trifles at this point.<br /> <br /> '''<br /> == Example, Taken From a Portion of the Feed From the Free and Open Source Software Class Session ==<br /> '''<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:twitter.jpg]]</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3161 2009-05-15T14:50:12Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Summary */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Tools_Team#The_Not-So-Secret_Teacher.27s_Manual Teacher's Manual] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical in an Internet law seminar to say that using laptops in the classroom is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but to really think hard about the best way to incorporate them. As the Internet develops, we should keep in mind that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if there is one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that a subsequent group ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at least two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3159 2009-05-15T14:48:11Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Tools_Team#The_Not-So-Secret_Teacher.27s_Manual Teacher's Manual] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical in an Internet law seminar to say that using laptops in the classroom is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if there is one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that a subsequent group ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at least two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Twitter_in_the_Classroom&diff=3155 2009-05-15T14:41:18Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Twitter?<br /> &quot;Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users' updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter]<br /> <br /> In the year ending in September, visitors to Twitter rose fivefold to 5.57 million. Users include Britney Spears, Starbucks Corp. and Barack Obama. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> <br /> == The Purpose of Twitter as Defined by Twitter, Inc. ==<br /> Twitter.com seems to reflect a vision of simplicity in the use of the tool as a means for people with previously established social ties to stay connected through the exchange of the &quot;. . . quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?&quot; with the purpose of providing a timely way to send updates to those people who might find them meaningful: &quot;family members, friends, and colleagues.&quot; The tool allows users to stay &quot;hyerconnected&quot; to friends or to stop following them at any time. It also allows users to set quiet times and boasts that it &quot;. . . puts [users] in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.&quot;<br /> <br /> Jack Dorsey conceptualized the tool around a simple status idea that would, for example, enable users to know what their friends were doing. He and his coworkers decided to build a prototype. &quot;Obvious&quot; [http://obvious.com/], a creative environment in San Francisco CA, initially founded Twitter, with the first prototype being built in two weeks in March 2006 and being launched publicly in August 2006. Following its very quick growth in popularity, Twitter Inc. was founded in 2007.<br /> <br /> == How People Use Twitter ==<br /> &quot;Twitter. . . is precisely what you want it to be. It can be a business tool, a teenage time-killer, a research assistant, a news source whatever.&quot;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=personaltech]<br /> <br /> Politicians have been using Twitter, along with other social networking tools, to campaign and to provide updates to their constituents.<br /> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878773-2,00.html]<br /> <br /> Twitter is also changing the way companies do business. For example, some businesses use the tool to pitch services, provide important updates and respond quickly to the individual needs of customers. <br /> [http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-02-02-hotel-airlines-travel-twitter_N.htm?csp=34&amp;POE=click-refer]<br /> <br /> Twitter is being used to communicate news, often much faster than the news media. &quot;When the last earthquake happened in California it was reported almost immediately on Twitter. It took about 10 minutes before mainstream media had the facts. Twitter broke the news about the New York plane crash and beat out the media by 15 minutes.&quot; As a result, some are crediting Twitter as being the first real threat to Google for getting information.<br /> [http://www.infocomgroup.net/falkow/?p=479]<br /> <br /> Teachers are using Twitter to enhance the classroom as an educational tool. Uses by teachers include sending updates to students and encouraging (or requiring) posts by students when outside of class. Some who have used it for this purpose praise it for the ability to keep the conversation going when students are outside of class, allowing them to note their recognition of important concepts from their curriculum when they see them in context, and for building a stronger class community which results in more open and, therefore, better class discussions.<br /> [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> People are using Twitter in ways that are probably beyond the scope envisioned by the company and its founders' simple concept of communicating status updates between acquaintances. It is being used to broadcast news faster than the mainstream news media, to connect politicians with their constituents, to connect businesses with customers and potential customers, and as a public relations tool. <br /> <br /> Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, people are using Twitter to enhance the classroom experience. While others who about this use on the web seem to typically use the tool for communication while outside of the classroom, our class thus far has used it within the classroom for conducting an online discussion simultaneously with class lectures. We hope that our study of the experiences of others using Twitter as an educational tool, in addition to our reflection on its use in our class, will help us to provide useful information for educators and students looking to use Twitter to enhance the academic experience.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Twitter ==<br /> The class has used twitter – and specifically its hashtag capability, using the #iif hashtag – so far to form an impromptu chat room during class to facilitate discussion both among ourselves and, to some extent, others outside of this class ([http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif see here]). Though there’s no reason the discussion cannot continue beyond class hours, in fact, essentially all of the tweets have come during the few hours of class time.<br /> <br /> What have people tweeted about? With no attempt at ranking them in order of occurrence, here’s an informal and imperfect categorization. Are all of these valuable? Some? A few? None?<br /> <br /> A. Further information or reading on a topic discussed in class. <br /> : ''E.g.'', When Professor Nesson was talking about the Eldred case, someone tweeted: “Lessig has a great article on losing the big one: http://tinyurl.com/yhp4s5”<br /> <br /> B. “Play-by-play” twittering. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;Davealevine: Fisher: ratio of statutory damages to actual damages is over 100,000 to 1. But @zittrain points out that $2.5k settlements are reality #iif&quot;<br /> <br /> C. “Meta-twittering.” <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;This is a great experiment: establishing a series of &quot;back channel&quot; conversations as law professors debate in front of us. HLS 2.0.&quot; ''Then'': Is the point of the twitter convo to report the class to the world? or is to be a backchannel for raising questions?<br /> <br /> D. Direct class-related questions. <br /> : ''E.g.'', “is it important that the statute was passed without any discussion? That Congress didn't think it warranted discussion?”<br /> <br /> E. Individual back-and-forth. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;debbierosenbaum: #iif How should we value, and by what standard should we judge, the privacy rights of the various parties involved in a litigation?&quot; ''Then'': &quot;Conor_Kennedy: #IIF: @debbierosenbaum: privacy rights ala fourth amendment? or privacy rights a la closed courtroom?&quot;<br /> <br /> F. “Non sequiturs.&quot;<br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;gwbstr: @Dharmishta when I was in college we did that on a conference call... Far less open. Now my editor at the time is a twitfreak @ehelm #iif.&quot; ''Then'': &quot;cass_sunstein: @gwbstr #iif my old editor at the Harvard Law Record is now a speed freak. True story.&quot;<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings ==<br /> Video: Jay Rosen on The Value of Twitter [http://bigthink.com/topics/the-internet/ideas/the-value-of-twitter]<br /> <br /> Video: Jeff Jarvis on the Next Technological Milestone [http://bigthink.com/topics/science-and-technology/ideas/jeff-jarvis-on-the-next-technological-milestone]<br /> <br /> Janet Meiners, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> <br /> Tame the Web: Libraries, Technology and People, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> <br /> AcademHack: Tech Tools for Academics, “Twitter for Academia” [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> == Class Participation ==<br /> We know we’re a bit late to the party, so all we ask for class is that you think about whether twitter in general and twittering in class in particular has been a net positive, neutral, or negative so far in the class. Would it be beneficial in more traditional-type classes? Do you think it generalizes to other settings – can you see lawyers, business people, or entrepreneurs twittering during meetings, presentations, or conferences? We’ll write-up what you have to say and post it here for posterity, and then others can edit or add to it as they see fit.<br /> <br /> Feel free to also spend some time this week reflecting on both the substantive issues discussed and the tools used in our class sessions thus far; the hope is that you'll tweet some of your thoughts, insights, questions, or anything else that you think might be relevant to this question using the #iif hashtag. We'll see how an asynchronous &quot;meta-discussion&quot; about over Twitter participation compares to the Twitter discussions we have been conducting during class.<br /> <br /> == Class Feedback ==<br /> Jason and Michelle presented four main reasons why twitter may not be the perfect classroom based on the use so far in the class. The jury is very much still out: some thought twitter was über-distracting, while others extolled its revolutionary virtues. We'll keep track of the use of twitter for the rest of the class. Here are the initial claims and some potential responses:<br /> <br /> 1. When was this from?<br /> * The claim: twitter doesn't allow us to easily filter out only posts during a particular class discussion. The &quot;record,&quot; then, is more disorganized and less easily accessible than it would be if we could look at discrete &quot;events.&quot;<br /> * The response: the iif hashtag designates posts as part of an ongoing and much broader discussion. This isn't supposed to be a sort of &quot;record,&quot; but rather a wide-ranging conversation with no &quot;start&quot; or &quot;end.&quot;<br /> <br /> 2. Who are you talking to?<br /> * The claim: there is a broad range of types of tweets that appear during class - some are be directed to an external audience, others seem just for the class, still others are part of a more private back-and-forth. Some may find such a mix distracting and counter-productive.<br /> * The response: that's the point! The beauty of twitter is in its collapsing of the public/private distinction. Instead, everything exists in a semi-connected web of comments, references, and replies. If you can't weed out the sort of tweets you're looking for, that's your problem, not twitter's.<br /> <br /> 3. Who the heck is everyone? <br /> * The claim: it can be distracting to view tweets without putting a face to the alias.<br /> * The response: that's twitter! Part of the beauty of twitter are persistent aliases. Does it really matter where good ideas are coming from, anyway?<br /> <br /> 4. Why do we need to constantly refresh? <br /> * The claim: it can be distracting to be constantly refreshing the search page; insofar as we are using the #iif tag to form an impromptu chat room, we might try out other software that has been designed with that specific purpose in mind.<br /> * The response: is this really that big a deal? Sure it would be nice if results could constantly update, but this is a relatively new technology, and we shouldn't be concerned with such trifles at this point.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3151 2009-05-15T14:38:39Z

<p>Jharrow: /* What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Tools_Team#The_Not-So-Secret_Teacher.27s_Manual Teacher's Manual] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if there is one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that a subsequent group ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at least two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3150 2009-05-15T14:37:48Z

<p>Jharrow: /* The Not-So-Secret Teacher&#039;s Manual */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Tools_Team#The_Not-So-Secret_Teacher.27s_Manual Teacher's Manual] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if there is one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that a subsequent group ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=User:Jharrow&diff=3148 2009-05-15T14:36:09Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>I was on the [[The Tools Team|Tools Team]]. If you are reading this because you doing something similar to what we did, in a future version of this course or anywhere else, feel free to email me at jharrow [at] jd11.law.harvard.edu for further thoughts.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=User:Jharrow&diff=3147 2009-05-15T14:35:43Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>I was on the [The Tools Team|Tools Team]. If you are reading this because you doing something similar to what we did, in a future version of this course or anywhere else, feel free to email me at jharrow [at] jd11.law.harvard.edu for further thoughts.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=User:Jharrow&diff=3146 2009-05-15T14:35:15Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>I was on the [[The Tools Team|Tools Team]. If you are reading this because you doing something similar to what we did, in a future version of this course or anywhere else, feel free to email me at jharrow [at] jd11.law.harvard.edu for further thoughts.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=User:Jharrow&diff=3144 2009-05-15T14:34:08Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>I was on the Tools Team. If you are reading this because you doing something similar to what we did, in a future version of this course or anywhere else, feel free to email me at jharrow [at] jd11.law.harvard.edu for further thoughts.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3138 2009-05-15T14:27:26Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Our Goal */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/iif/The_Tools_Team#The_Not-So-Secret_Teacher.27s_Manual Teacher's Manual] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3072 2009-05-15T00:41:02Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and General Feedback&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Seesmic&diff=3071 2009-05-15T00:33:59Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Seesmic?<br /> &quot;Seesmic is a video blogging web application.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> Seesmic provides an innovative way to communicate and connect online through video conversation. Users can do this by recording a video directly on Seesmic's website or a mobile phone, by uploading an existing video straight from your computer or by linking to a video posted on a social network.<br /> [http://blog.seesmic.com/company.html]<br /> <br /> Seesmic made its debut at the Demo tech conference where it was called the &quot;Twitter of video&quot;. As of February 2008, the service had 20,000 users and 70,000 viewers per month.<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> <br /> The Seesmic platform also enables video conversations on more than a thousand sites, blogs and broadcasts them to other social software such as Twitter and Friendfeed thanks to its robust API. Seesmic also operates twhirl, a social desktop client, that now enables Seesmic video comments. twhirl represents 12% of Twitter messages being sent and has over 400,000 downloads.<br /> [http://blog.seesmic.com/company.html]<br /> <br /> French entrepreneur Loic Le Meur founded Seesmic to make video uploading easier for those using webcams. Seesmic is backed by a number of investors, the primary one being Atomico, a venture group that includes Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, who sold Skype to eBay in 2005 for $2.6 billion. On April 3, 2008, Seesmic announced that it had purchased Twhirl, an Adobe AIR based Twitter client.<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> <br /> == Important Considerations When Using Seesmic ==<br /> One criticism of Seesmic is that it may be too niche, as only so many people want to broadcast themselves on video. (Though for everyone else there's Twhirl.)<br /> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/seesmic_growth.php<br /> If our purpose for using Seesmic is to get participation from more of the class than we do during class time or from a wider audience, this is something we should consider and a traditional internet forum could be preferable.<br /> On the other hand, other factors may make the video format advantageous. <br /> <br /> The site has far fewer users than some of the other tools we might consider using. Twitter had 5.57 million users in the year ending in September. <br /> [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> Youtube had 22 million users by July 2006. <br /> [http://mashable.com/2006/07/17/youtube-hits-1-million-videos-per-day/]<br /> <br /> == Seesmic for Education ==<br /> In an educational setting, some have proposed that Seesmic has some real advantages. Seesmic may be a useful tool when trying to learn a new language, which also includes nonverbal communication. In all contexts, video also allows for communication that is closer to an in-person experience than other formats.<br /> [http://research-update.mobi/?p=69]<br /> [http://instructify.com/2008/07/11/seesmic-video-micro-blogging/]<br /> <br /> We may want to consider whether these advantages outweigh the costs, those previously mentioned and others not anticipated here, of using Seesmic instead of another tool.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Seesmic ==<br /> The last two groups to present have posted questions for the class and others to consider and reply to before class. One group posted their question in video format, the other in text. Class members and others responded with differently formatted video responses. Some responses consisted of the poster(s) appearing on camera and discussing the issue. Others involved slides, mash-ups of other videos, user created or modified images and others. Some videos were more serious while others included humor.<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings ==<br /> Video: Using Seesmic for Education [http://research-update.mobi/?p=69]<br /> <br /> Instructify.com, “Start a Video Conversation with Seesmic”<br /> http://instructify.com/2008/07/11/seesmic-video-micro-blogging/<br /> <br /> == The Final Word ==<br /> We discussed briefly the use of Seemic during the optional class meeting on March 30 - but didn't get very far.<br /> <br /> We consider the way two groups chose to use the tool. For example, our Seesmic discussions have occurred before the related class discussion. Should we consider having Seesmic conversations after? One team posted the question in the form of a video and the other posted it in text. Was one format preferable to the other? <br /> <br /> How does the use of Seesmic compare to our use of other tools? What have we observed about the use of all of these tools that can help other classes going forward, regardless of what tools they choose to use at that time?</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3070 2009-05-15T00:30:16Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and Closing Thoughts&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3069 2009-05-15T00:29:36Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Note: We have created three subsidiary pages geared around the three in-person sessions we conducted. They are:<br /> <br /> * [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]]<br /> * [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED, and Closing Thoughts&quot;]]<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3068 2009-05-15T00:27:14Z

<p>Jharrow: /* What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # '''More podcasting.''' This is a recommendation not just for a future Tools Team per se, but also something that we think future Tools Teams should recommend as they think about what tools should be used during the course. We did [http://iif.podbean.com/ one podcast] for our session at the very end of the seminar, and no other groups chose to create any podcasts, either before or after their sessions. But looking back, we think it's a great way to incorporate a guest without cutting into any discussion time, and it could be a great way to share certain components of the seminar with the world at large. It's been quite successful for other educational enterprises (see iTunes U [http://deimos3.apple.com/indigo/main/main.xml here] - note that link goes to the iTunes Store), and we think this type of course could also benefit from podcasts for both internal and external communication.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3066 2009-05-15T00:09:37Z

<p>Jharrow: /* What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # '''More &quot;quickie&quot; feedback sessions.''' Among the three different ways we contributed to the course in person - grabbing ten minutes to talk about Twitter, trying to re-focus a brief discussion during a larger session initiated by the Professors, and finally having our own &quot;breakfast session&quot; toward the end of the course - we think the short burst of feedback worked best. Just from a practical point of view, scheduling an optional session outside of class is quite difficult; it took us several weeks to schedule our final session, and even then only about half the class was able to attend. Even more the point, though, we think that waiting for a while after using the tools and then condensing all that talk into one (or a few) discrete sessions is both less interesting and less helpful than checking in more often with shorter sessions. After all, for these feedback sessions, the Tools Team doesn't really need much time to lay out a major theoretical framework. Instead, given that (hopefully) the next Tools Team will be working more closely with each team in advance, the feedback sessions can just be short sessions to see how effective the class as a whole views certain tools. <br /> # More Podcasting.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=3063 2009-05-14T23:58:12Z

<p>Jharrow: /* What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do at two things a little bit differently, and may want to do more of a third:<br /> <br /> # '''More individualized planning.''' Rather than just providing retroactive feedback, the next version of the Tools Team should try to think through how best to use certain tools with the other members of the seminar as they plan their substantive sessions. We're not sure what form this would take; perhaps it would involve individual meetings with each seminar, meetings in groups, email exchanges, or anything else. But the key is that we think Tools Team 2.0 should, from the very beginning of the seminar, start thinking about how technology should be employed for the course of the seminar in order to help groups further their goals without undermining what they're trying to do. We attempted something like this with future groups starting mid-way through the course, but by that time most people's lesson plans were already set; in addition, we hadn't established any track record of being able to do this well. For those reasons, it didn't work for us - no one took us up on our offer. But if the Tools Team in the next iteration of this course gets in early and establishes that they can really provide some value, it could really be productive to have another view from outside helping groups think about the way they want to use technology.<br /> # Twitter-like sessions.<br /> # More Podcasting.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2945 2009-05-14T04:25:08Z

<p>Jharrow: /* What We Did */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us to...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do three things a little bit differently:<br /> <br /> # Individualized feedback.<br /> # Twitter-like sessions.<br /> # More Podcasting.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2944 2009-05-14T04:24:49Z

<p>Jharrow: /* What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us too...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, we think the next group should do three things a little bit differently:<br /> <br /> # Individualized feedback.<br /> # Twitter-like sessions.<br /> # More Podcasting.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2941 2009-05-14T03:42:27Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.<br /> <br /> == The Not-So-Secret Teacher's Manual ==<br /> <br /> The final section is a reflection on how we did our jobs, and, more importantly, how the next people can do it better - because if one thing that we can say for certain on this page, it's that the next people ''can'' do our jobs better than we did.<br /> <br /> === What We Did ===<br /> <br /> To begin, a quick overview of how we did our jobs. The caveat here is that, because we were both somewhat late additions to the seminar, we sort of worked this out as we went along.<br /> <br /> # Our first session was 10-minute feedback &quot;lightning&quot; round about Twitter; see our report [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]].<br /> # Our second session was as a small part of a general feedback lunch (otherwise initiated by the Professors), where we attempted to discuss Seesmic for a bit as well as the technology of a few upcoming groups - but we didn't get very far (more on that later). See [[Tools: Seesmic|here]] for our Seesmic materials, though.<br /> # Our final session was a breakfast attended by about half the participants which turned into a wide-ranging discussion, but which was originally focused around improving the &quot;Tuesday-Sunday&quot; interactions among the group. It included an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast]. Our notes on that session are [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]].<br /> # Finally, after synthesizing those sessions and discussing the issues more on our own, we produced this page.<br /> <br /> As is evident, we had several different methods of communicating with the class, not only via this wiki but also in person via one short session during a regular session, one short session in an optional lunch that was not &quot;owned&quot; by us, and one breakfast that was totally ours. We're not sure this strategy was totally successful, though, which brings us too...<br /> <br /> === What We Did Wrong; or, What You Should Do ===<br /> <br /> Looking back, I think we could have done our jobs better by taking two concrete steps.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2939 2009-05-14T03:27:17Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Our Goal */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual below). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2844 2009-05-12T23:04:32Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (go [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/wolframalpha here] and then click &quot;archived questions,&quot; for instance), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2842 2009-05-12T23:02:03Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table */</p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (how in the world does [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/report.php this page] allow users to find archived questions?), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2841 2009-05-12T22:59:41Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>{{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Lessons from Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (how in the world does [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/report.php this page] allow users to find archived questions?), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2840 2009-05-12T22:59:03Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> {{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Lessons from Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (how in the world does [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/report.php this page] allow users to find archived questions?), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2839 2009-05-12T22:56:21Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Lessons from Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (how in the world does [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/report.php this page] allow users to find archived questions?), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access. Sadly, we don’t yet live in &quot;The Matrix&quot;; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2838 2009-05-12T22:55:29Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> == Our Goal ==<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since the statement above, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> === A Brief Digression As To Why We Care About Implementing New Technologies ===<br /> This is not a course in philosophy, but since one of us was a philosophy major as an undergrad, permit us a brief moment to consider the big question of why it is that we care about using new technologies in the first place – why, after all, were the presenting groups asked to spend time thinking about incorporating technology tools into their two-hour seminar, rather than just asked to spend their time thinking about prediction markets or Internet regulation or the pros and cons of the Google Books settlement?<br /> It seems like there’s a surface answer and a deep answer to this question. The surface answer is that this was a seminar dealing with Internet-related issues, so we couldn’t just be expected to bring a pad and a pen to a seminar room and simply “talk” about the topics and then go home; that method might be all well and good for seminars on Medieval Legal Thinkers or The Warren Court or Human Rights Law, but it surely wouldn’t be good enough for a seminar called “The Internet: Issues at the Frontier.” We needed not only to talk the talk of technological change but also to walk the walk, so to speak.<br /> <br /> But that answer is somewhat unsatisfying: what sort of walk will we be walking when we use these new technologies, after all? Might the walk merely be sideways? Backwards? In a circle? Or might technology allow us to walk forward in some way, to some new, better place? That’s the rub, and that potential that technology has to walk us forward is what made it worth experimenting each week.<br /> <br /> Though &quot;technology&quot; has the feel of some vaguely indefinable concept, consider one definition of it that we found: technology is the “the relatively neutral means for employing scientific knowledge to bring about the ideal relations in the natural and social world that ethical decisions prescribe.” (From [http://books.google.com/books?id=HTBMPKH9_2UC Scharff and Val Dusek, eds., Philosophy of Technology], at 3.) Notice how much is packed in to that definition. It turns a deceptively simple request from the Professors – try to incorporate new technology into each week’s session – into an assignment that is about nothing less than making difficult “ethical decisions” and then employing new scientifically-driven means to further those goals that might make our entire “social world” more ideal. To quote the great sometimes-philosopher Keanu Reeves: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT4B-NJUcZE “whoa”].<br /> <br /> So, looking back at the course, that’s the lens through which we want to view the directive to use technology in the seminar. These tools weren’t included merely for fun or so that we could familiarize ourselves with Twitter or Etherpads or so that we could go back and see our faces on camera during a webcast. Instead, these tools were included so that we could try to make our seminar and maybe even the world a little bit better: the goal was, at least in part, to figure out if certain tools that take advantage of this big, new piece of technology we call “The Internet” can have a positive value in bringing our world closer to the ideal. Of course, what an ideal world would look like is not exactly an easy question, but among the ways we think tech tools could realistically have added to the IIF experience was by increasing knowledge, fairness, democracy, focus, participation, access, camaraderie, and/or speed. Did any tools we used that pass that test?<br /> <br /> == Introducing The Table Test ==<br /> <br /> To borrow a methodology from the sportswriter [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/glossary Bill Simmons], we think a reasonably good (if admittedly rough) way to think about some of the tools people used is by placing the tool into one of three categories:<br /> <br /> # '''Category 1:''' The way we used a tech tool brought something to the table. In other words, it was a net positive experience, and any future class should seriously think about incorporating it.<br /> # '''Category 2:''' The way we used a tech tool brought nothing to the table. This category can be achieved in at least two ways: first, because the tool just didn’t help that much to get us to a more ideal world, but it also didn’t set us back at all, or second, because there’s reasonable, mild disagreement about whether the tool helped or hurt.<br /> # '''Category 3:''' The way we used a tech tool took things off the table. In other words, a valiant effort, but something about the experience actually detracted from the goals of the presenters. That’s not to say it wasn’t worth trying – it just didn’t necessarily work. We do not recommend that future groups use Category 3 tools unless this future group really thinks hard about using the tool in a different way.<br /> <br /> == Our List of Tools This Semester ==<br /> <br /> This is by no means a complete listing of the tools that were used, and for further thoughts, the Teacher’s Manuals of each session should have that group’s thoughts on technologies they used. But here are a few thoughts on some of the more interesting tools we used:<br /> <br /> === Category 1 – Tech Tools That Brought Something to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Videoconferencing.''' It’s not a new technology, but when used well (and we think of all our groups used it well, incidentally) bringing in a guest via video adds a lot to the table without many meaningful distractions. In addition to the obvious benefit – the ability to meaningfully interact with someone unable to come to Cambridge, MA – in some cases, videoconferencing might even be an upgrade over having the real deal. After all, having someone join us via videoconference forced the group to maximize the “use” of that guest for a limited amount of time, but then allowed for a seamless disappearance when we wanted to talk among ourselves. That’s much easier to do with virtual guests than real ones. We’ll note that we used two different videoconferencing technologies. Most guests used “real-deal” videoconference set-ups, with connections using “videophones” that tapped into the audio inputs and outputs and video systems of big lecture rooms. One group conducted its somewhat-shorter videoconference via Skype, using a camera built-in to a laptop. We didn’t notice a difference, either in quality or in the way in which the class could meaningfully interact with the guest.<br /> <br /> * '''Webcasting.''' We’re not quite sure if we maximized our use of this technology (see more [[Tools: Lessons From TED|here]]), but at the very least, we think that the chance to broadcast certain sessions adds both to the in-class experience, in terms of our being able to interact with the outside world, and adds to the general “idealness” of what IIF is trying to do, because we are able to enter into a more meaningful, participatory, possibly more productive dialogue.<br /> <br /> * '''The class wiki.''' Again, overall we might have been able to do more with this tool, but it was certainly a more than adequate homebase for the course. <br /> <br /> * '''Seesmic.''' More detailed thoughts on Seesmic are [[Tools: Lessons from Seesmic|here]]. In the end, two groups asked the members of the class to make videos on Seesmic, and we think overall the experience brought at least a little something to the table. It got us thinking about the topic ahead of time, let us interact individually with members of a burgeoning online community, was a lot of fun to use and explore, and didn’t detract from anything the presenters were doing. That is not to say that using Seesmic or any other videoblogging tool can’t be used to even more effect in the future; we think it can, as we discuss in more detail here. In the end, we think this nascent technology has a lot of promise, and future groups should consider using it in new and interesting ways.<br /> <br /> === Category 2 – Tech Tools That Didn’t Bring Anything to the Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''The Berkman Question Tool.''' We’re not quite sure that the BQT, at least as it was used in this course by a few groups, really added much to the seminar, but it also didn’t undermine the groups in any way either. For those unfamiliar, the BQT allows people to ask questions and then vote or comment on them in real-time. The BQT has the potential to be a real boon to the class: it can shape discussion, by allowing the presenters to monitor what people might be interested in, either before or during the session; it can allow those who don’t normally participate or who cannot (because they are watching the webcast) to voice their concerns; and it can allow people to have side discussions on interesting topics, even if there’s no time to discuss during the main class session. These are laudable goals. But these goals can be undermined somewhat by the Question Tool’s potential to be a distraction during class; what may be a negative impact on in-person give-and-take, and its ability to divert the focus of the discussion. For an example of the latter, here’s an actual BQT exchange from the session on Old Laws, New Media: <br /> <br /> :: Q: [I]f votes are for threads instead of arguments, won't the Will of the Class remain opaque?<br /> :: Lee: Yes, when these become threads instead of mere questions, it's hard to gauge interest. Especially when the discussion deviates from the original question.<br /> <br /> *It’s also something a rough tool with a work-in progress feel (how in the world does [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/report.php this page] allow users to find archived questions?), which may turn off certain users. Overall, in a smallish seminar, it’s unclear what the driving force of the BQT was and how the class was supposed to use it. Given more focus, it could turn into a more useful tool.<br /> <br /> === Category 3 – Tech Tools That Took Things Off The Table ===<br /> <br /> * '''Twitter.''' We have a detailed discussion of the use of Twitter in this class [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|here]], but, looking back, we think the overall verdict – as evidenced by the virtual ban on laptops that began during the last half of the semester – was that Twitter was too big of a distraction to meaningfully add to the goals of the class. Perhaps focused twittering could be a workable solution, but unfiltered twittering from the entire class greatly undermined the ability of the speakers to lead a top-flight discussion.<br /> <br /> * '''Unfocussed Laptop Use.''' Maybe it’s heretical to say that using laptops in class is a net-negative in this seminar, but if so, we’re willing to accept the resultant shunning. Laptop use for certain specific activities can absolutely be a plus, but in a seminar like this – where verbatim notetaking shouldn’t really be an issue – the distraction factor (Gmail, Gchat, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times, etc.) greatly outweighed any positive effects of the whole class having Internet access.<br /> <br /> Sadly, we don’t yet live in the Matrix; we can’t yet download electronic information directly into our brains. If we want the whole class to be engaged and invested in the discussion, they can’t be constantly distracting themselves with the Internet. We strongly recommend that class discussions be conducted without the class having laptops open, and, if people are allowed to use laptops, it should be limited to specific, discrete purposes.<br /> <br /> === Summary ===<br /> <br /> In the end, we think incorporating such a variety of tech tools was a journey well worth taking. Some tools were used to great effect and showed us first-hand how Internet technology can really improve our educational experience and, indeed, our society more broadly; others showed great potential and need to be developed; still others ultimately fizzled out. Our recommendation going forward, then, is to keep trying new things but really thinking hard about the best way to incorporate such. As the Internet develops, we realize that technology isn’t just good for technology’s sake, but because, when used properly and with the proper thought and care, it has the potential to make our world a better place and to make us better citizens of it.<br /> <br /> == General Recommendations for Using Technology in the Future ==<br /> <br /> Many other technologies, in addition to the ones used by our class, may be worth using in the classroom, and new technologies will inevitably emerge in the future. While we have focused our discussion thus far on the specific technologies used in our class this semester, the experience has also helped us to form some general recommendations for using technology going forward.<br /> <br /> Future topic owners should consider the following when putting together a plan for running a session:<br /> <br /> # Carefully consider the goal you are trying to achieve. Do you want to communicate with others outside the classroom? Facilitate discussion in the classroom? Form a consensus on the issues of most interest? While many that choose to take this course may appreciate the introduction of a cool new tool, remember that the goal is not using technology for technology’s sake, but for the sake of making the we interact a little more seamless or democratic or satisfying. <br /> # Determine how the tool should be used in order to achieve your goal. Many of the technologies used in our class were not necessarily designed for use in a classroom. While this doesn’t mean that they do not have potential to be useful in this context, it does mean that the class may need to use the technology in a different way.<br /> # Give clear instructions to participants regarding the use of the technology. In order to minimize distraction and maximize the usefulness of the technology, the people using the tool should receive clear instructions on how it should be used. Is the goal to communicate with the outside world? To answer specific questions? To open back-channel discussions with one another? To provide a lasting record of what we occurred in class?<br /> # Consider the negative effects of using the technology. At least one student mentioned that taking video of the class deterred him from participation in the class discussion. Even the best tools have some sort of downside associated with their use; think of ways to minimize them.<br /> # Consider limiting the use of the technology to a specific timeframe within the class period. For example, it may make sense to allow laptop use or webcasting during limited periods, but not for the whole time. When candid discussion among participants giving their full attention is the goal, we've yet to find a better technology than sitting in the same room and hashing things out in person.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2657 2009-05-10T01:51:48Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since that statement, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2656 2009-05-09T21:20:12Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since that statement, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]. As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. <br /> <br /> This page is an attempt to synthesize and reflect on some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In sum, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools other groups actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?<br /> <br /> ==A Word About What Tools Are Good For==</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2655 2009-05-09T21:16:51Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> Fourteen years have passed since that statement, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Indeed, incorporating new technology tools and assessing their value was one of the goals of this course (for a list of tools that members of the course discussed during a pre-meeting for the course, see [[Template:Tools|here]]&lt;ref&gt;It's worth noting that neither Michelle or Jason were at that session to contribute to the list, as we weren't yet in the class.&lt;/ref&gt;). As such, our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we were to incorporate new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? Future students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> Once we got our operation up-and-running, we had two mini-discussions about the use of [http://www.twitter.com Twitter] and then about [http://www.seesmic.com Seesmic] (in fact, the discussions were far too mini, in our opinion - but for more on how we think we did our jobs and how we think others can do our jobs better than we did, see our not-so-secret Teacher's Manual [[Tools Teacher's Manual|here]]). We then led a final, hour-long breakfast recap session that was more wide-ranging and included a few points of comparison to other organization's practices, like those of [http://www.ted.com TED], which we based an [http://iif.podbean.com/ introductory podcast] around. This page is an attempt to synthesize some of the ideas that emerged out of those sessions as well as from reflecting in general about the course, but we've also created pages with a lot more specific information on [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|&quot;Twitter in the Classroom&quot;]], [[Tools: Seesmic|&quot;Seesmic&quot;]], and [[Tools: Lessons From TED|&quot;Lessons From TED&quot;]]. In other words, in our ongoing quest for meta-ness, those three pages represent our specific reflections on certain tools actually used during the course, this page reflects on those reflections, and the [[Tools Teacher's Manual|Teacher's Manual]] reflects on reflecting about those reflections. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM1VXhZT37E Got it]?</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2654 2009-05-09T20:43:18Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> It's 14 years later, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we still bothered to get together in person for two hours a week, and we expended effort and money bringing terrific outside guests into our classroom. So, while we met once a week in the real world, we used a lot of different tools to augment these interactions.<br /> <br /> Our job was to occasionally step back and examine the tools we were using to see if they added to the in-person experience, detracted from it, or went beyond it. We also tried to get people to think about the audience for their sessions and for this seminar in general: if we're going to be incorprating new technology into each week's session, who were the intended beneficiaries? The students in the seminar? Other law students? The general net-connected public at large? [http://seesmic.com/freidawolden Freida], the hat lady on Seesmic?<br /> <br /> <br /> # [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|Twitter]]<br /> # [[Tools: Seesmic|Seesmic]]<br /> # [[Tools: Lessons From TED|Lessons From TED]]</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Lessons_From_TED&diff=2292 2009-04-17T04:33:24Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Class session: Wednesday, 4/22, 8:30 am, place TBA.'''<br /> <br /> On Wednesday, we'll discuss a few simple questions:<br /> <br /> * What sort of experiences did you expect from this course Tuesday-Sunday?<br /> * What can those experiences be next time?<br /> * What should those experiences be next time?<br /> <br /> In order to prepare for the discussion, we're asking you to do two simple things - and, as a bonus, you can do both of them when walking around Cambridge:<br /> <br /> 1) Listen to our 27-minute podcast with June Cohen of [http://www.ted.com/ TED Media]. The podcast can be downloaded, streamed, or accessed via RSS [http://iif.podbean.com/ here].<br /> <br /> 2) Give a few minutes' thought to the above questions again and come ready to talk frankly about it on Wednesday morning.<br /> <br /> We'll update this page with thoughts that emerge from our discussion.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Lessons_From_TED&diff=2291 2009-04-17T04:29:03Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Class session: Wednesday, 4/22, 8:30 am, place TBA.'''<br /> <br /> On Wednesday, we'll discuss a few simple questions:<br /> <br /> * What sort of experiences did you expect from this course Tuesday-Sunday?<br /> * What can those experiences be next time?<br /> * What should those experiences next time?<br /> <br /> In order to prepare for the discussion, we're asking you to do two simple things - and, as a bonus, you can do both of them when walking around Cambridge:<br /> <br /> 1) Listen to our 27-minute podcast with June Cohen of [http://www.ted.com/ TED Media]. The podcast can be downloaded, streamed, or accessed via RSS [http://iif.podbean.com/ here].<br /> <br /> 2) Give a few minutes' thought to the above questions again and come ready to talk frankly about it on Wednesday morning.<br /> <br /> We'll update this page with thoughts that emerge from our discussion.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=2290 2009-04-17T04:22:55Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + [[User:Mahmadian.jd11|Michelle]] <br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> It's 14 years later, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we all still bother to get together in person for two hours a week, and we still expend effort and money to bring outside guests to our classroom. So, while we continue to meet in the real world, we do use a lot of online tools to augment these interactions, so our job is to occassionally step back and examine the critical questions of how the tools we are using add to the in-person experience, detract from it, or go beyond it. Furthermore, we'd like to know if our group is on the frontier of these technologies: are others using similar tools in similar ways in classrooms or around conference tables, or are we blazing new trails?<br /> <br /> Every so often, we'll be stealing 10-15 minutes from one of the groups to take a look at a specific tool we've been using - or, perhaps, one we've overlooked. These are:<br /> <br /> # [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|Twitter]]<br /> # [[Tools: Seesmic|Seesmic]]<br /> # [[Tools: Lessons From TED|Lessons From TED]]</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Scheduling&diff=2289 2009-04-17T04:22:21Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Here's where the scheduling happens. No need to claim a day landrush-style; just add in what day your guests have said they're available.<br /> <br /> {| {{table}}<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Monday (5-7pm)'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Presenters' names'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Topic name'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Guests (confirmed)'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Guests (not yet confirmed)'''<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|This||is||a||sample||line.<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|2-Feb||||||||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|9-Feb||Ayelet, Aaron||[[Encouraging the Intellectual Commons|Free and Open Source Software]]||||Benjami Mako Hill<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|16-Feb||Graham, Mark||[[The Internet and Societal Inequity|Internet and Social Inequity]]||Eszter Hargittai||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|23-Feb||Debbie, Shubham, and Matt||[[Old Laws/New Media]]||[[Prof. Charles Nesson]]||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|2-Mar||Mel, Elana, Rainer||[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]||Ethan Zuckerman, Nicco Mele||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|2-Mar||Jason &amp; Michelle||[[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom]]||||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|9-Mar||Dharmishta Rood &amp; Jon Fildes||[[The Future of News]]||Russ Stanton, Jeff Jarvis|||| <br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|16-Mar||Joe &amp; Miriam||[[The Future of %C2%A9 and entertainment|The Future of (c) &amp; Entertainment]]||Stacey Lynn Schulman|| Various artists<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|30-Mar||Jason &amp; Michelle||[[Tools: Seesmic]]||||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|30-Mar||Gwen, Jon, Lee||[[The Google Book Search Settlement]]||Prof. John Palfrey, Jeffrey Cunard (remote), Allan A. Ryan||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|6-Apr||Dan Ray, Joshua Gruenspecht, &amp; Conor Kennedy||[[Anonymity and privacy|The Increasingly Inaccurately Named Class on Anonymity &amp; Privacy]]||Colin Maclay, Andrew McLaughlin<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|13-Apr||Andrew Klaber &amp; David Levine||[[Internet, Industry, and Investing|The Internet, Industry and Investing]]||Peter Thiel||Peter Thiel (PayPal founder, Facebook early investor, Clarium Capital hedge fund founder, The Founders Fund venture capital founder) <br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|20-Apr||Vera Ranieri &amp; Arjun Mehra||[[Internet Governance and Regulation|Internet Governance &amp; Regulation]]||Milton Mueller of the Internet Governance Project||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|22-Apr||Jason &amp; Michelle||[[Tools: Lessons From TED|Lessons From TED]]||June Cohen of TED Media (via [http://iif.podbean.com/ podcast])||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|27-Apr|||Elisabeth Theodore &amp; Matthew Wansley||[[Prediction Markets]]||Justin Wolfers||Hal Varian</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Lessons_From_TED&diff=2288 2009-04-17T04:17:44Z

<p>Jharrow: New page: &#039;&#039;&#039;Class session: Wednesday, 4/22, 8:30 am, place TBA.&#039;&#039;&#039; On Wednesday, we&#039;ll discuss a few simple questions: * What sort of experiences did you expect from this course Tuesday-Sunday? *...</p> <hr /> <div>'''Class session: Wednesday, 4/22, 8:30 am, place TBA.'''<br /> <br /> On Wednesday, we'll discuss a few simple questions:<br /> <br /> * What sort of experiences did you expect from this course Tuesday-Sunday?<br /> * What can those experiences be?<br /> * What should those experiences?<br /> <br /> In order to prepare for the discussion, we're asking you to do two simple things - and, as a bonus, you can do both of them when walking around Cambridge:<br /> <br /> 1) Listen to our 27-minute podcast with June Cohen of [http://www.ted.com/ TED Media]. The podcast can be downloaded, streamed, or accessed via RSS [http://iif.podbean.com/ here].<br /> <br /> 2) Give a few minutes' thought to the above questions again and come ready to talk frankly about it on Wednesday morning.<br /> <br /> We'll update this page with thoughts that emerge from our discussion.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Scheduling&diff=2197 2009-03-30T14:41:31Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Here's where the scheduling happens. No need to claim a day landrush-style; just add in what day your guests have said they're available.<br /> <br /> {| {{table}}<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Monday (5-7pm)'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Presenters' names'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Topic name'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Guests (confirmed)'''<br /> | align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;background:#dddddd;&quot;|'''Guests (not yet confirmed)'''<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|This||is||a||sample||line.<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|2-Feb||||||||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|9-Feb||Ayelet, Aaron||[[Encouraging the Intellectual Commons|Free and Open Source Software]]||||Benjami Mako Hill<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|16-Feb||Graham, Mark||[[The Internet and Societal Inequity|Internet and Social Inequity]]||Eszter Hargittai||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|23-Feb||Debbie, Shubham, and Matt||[[Old Laws/New Media]]||[[Prof. Charles Nesson]]||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|2-Mar||Mel, Elana, Rainer||[[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]||Ethan Zuckerman, Nicco Mele||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|2-Mar||Jason &amp; Michelle||[[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom]]||||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|9-Mar||Dharmishta Rood &amp; Jon Fildes||[[The Future of News]]||Russ Stanton, Jeff Jarvis|||| <br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|16-Mar||Joe &amp; Miriam||[[The Future of %C2%A9 and entertainment|The Future of (c) &amp; Entertainment]]||Stacey Lynn Schulman|| Various artists<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|30-Mar||Jason &amp; Michelle||[[Tools: Seesmic]]||||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|30-Mar||Gwen, Jon, Lee||[[The Google Book Search Settlement]]||Prof. John Palfrey, Jeffrey Cunard (remote), Allan A. Ryan||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|6-Apr||Dan Ray, Joshua Gruenspecht, &amp; Conor Kennedy||[[Anonymity and privacy|The Increasingly Inaccurately Named Class on Anonymity &amp; Privacy]]||'''Guest 1:''' Colin Maclay||'''Guest 2:''' Andrew McLaughlin, a rep from Yahoo's Bus. &amp; Hum. Rights Program, or another rep of an international online communications tools provider; '''Guest 3:''' a representative of or expert on the Simulation Country OR a representative of a human rights group OR a Congressional representative (e.g., Rick Boucher, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Boucher House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet]; Chris Smith, [http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=27237 House Representative from New Jersey])<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|13-Apr||Andrew Klaber &amp; David Levine||[[Internet, Industry, and Investing|The Internet, Industry and Investing]]||Peter Thiel||Peter Thiel (PayPal founder, Facebook early investor, Clarium Capital hedge fund founder, The Founders Fund venture capital founder) <br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|20-Apr||Vera Ranieri &amp; Arjun Mehra||[[Internet Governance and Regulation|Internet Governance &amp; Regulation]]||Milton Mueller of the Internet Governance Project||<br /> |-<br /> |style=&quot;background: #dddddd;&quot;|27-Apr|||Elisabeth Theodore &amp; Matthew Wansley||[[Prediction Markets]]||Justin Wolfers||Hal Varian</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Seesmic&diff=2196 2009-03-30T02:13:02Z

<p>Jharrow: /* How we are Using Seesmic: */</p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Seesmic?<br /> &quot;Seesmic is a video blogging web application.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> Seesmic provides an innovative way to communicate and connect online through video conversation. Users can do this by recording a video directly on Seesmic's website or a mobile phone, by uploading an existing video straight from your computer or by linking to a video posted on a social network.<br /> [http://blog.seesmic.com/company.html]<br /> <br /> Seesmic made its debut at the Demo tech conference where it was called the &quot;Twitter of video&quot;. As of February 2008, the service had 20,000 users and 70,000 viewers per month.<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> <br /> The Seesmic platform also enables video conversations on more than a thousand sites, blogs and broadcasts them to other social software such as Twitter and Friendfeed thanks to its robust API. Seesmic also operates twhirl, a social desktop client, that now enables Seesmic video comments. twhirl represents 12% of Twitter messages being sent and has over 400,000 downloads.<br /> [http://blog.seesmic.com/company.html]<br /> <br /> French entrepreneur Loic Le Meur founded Seesmic to make video uploading easier for those using webcams. Seesmic is backed by a number of investors, the primary one being Atomico, a venture group that includes Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, who sold Skype to eBay in 2005 for $2.6 billion. On April 3, 2008, Seesmic announced that it had purchased Twhirl, an Adobe AIR based Twitter client.<br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesmic]<br /> <br /> == Important Considerations When Using Seesmic: ==<br /> One criticism of Seesmic is that it may be too niche, as only so many people want to broadcast themselves on video. (Though for everyone else there's Twhirl.)<br /> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/seesmic_growth.php<br /> If our purpose for using Seesmic is to get participation from more of the class than we do during class time or from a wider audience, this is something we should consider and a traditional internet forum could be preferable.<br /> On the other hand, other factors may make the video format advantageous. <br /> <br /> The site has far fewer users than some of the other tools we might consider using. Twitter had 5.57 million users in the year ending in September. <br /> [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> Youtube had 22 million users by July 2006. <br /> [http://mashable.com/2006/07/17/youtube-hits-1-million-videos-per-day/]<br /> <br /> == Seesmic for Education: ==<br /> In an educational setting, some have proposed that Seesmic has some real advantages. Seesmic may be a useful tool when trying to learn a new language, which also includes nonverbal communication. In all contexts, video also allows for communication that is closer to an in-person experience than other formats.<br /> [http://research-update.mobi/?p=69]<br /> [http://instructify.com/2008/07/11/seesmic-video-micro-blogging/]<br /> <br /> We may want to consider whether these advantages outweigh the costs, those previously mentioned and others not anticipated here, of using Seesmic instead of another tool.<br /> <br /> <br /> == How we are Using Seesmic: ==<br /> The last two groups to present have posted questions for the class and others to consider and reply to before class. One group posted their question in video format, the other in text. Class members and others responded with differently formatted video responses. Some responses consisted of the poster(s) appearing on camera and discussing the issue. Others involved slides, mash-ups of other videos, user created or modified images and others. Some videos were more serious while others included humor.<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings: ==<br /> Video: Using Seesmic for Education [http://research-update.mobi/?p=69]<br /> <br /> Instructify.com, “Start a Video Conversation with Seesmic”<br /> http://instructify.com/2008/07/11/seesmic-video-micro-blogging/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> == Class Participation: ==<br /> We will be discussing the use of Seemic during the optional class meeting on March 30. We may want to think about the pros and cons of using Seesmic and how those relate to our goals for the class. <br /> <br /> We may also want to consider the way we have chosen to use the tool. For example, our Seesmic discussions have occurred before the related class discussion. Should we consider having Seesmic conversations after? One team posted the question in the form of a video and the other posted it in text. Was one format preferable to the other? <br /> <br /> How does the use of Seesmic compare to our use of other tools? What have we observed about the use of all of these tools that can help other classes going forward, regardless of what tools they choose to use at that time?<br /> <br /> == Class Feedback: ==</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Twitter_in_the_Classroom&diff=1977 2009-03-09T01:32:52Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Twitter?<br /> &quot;Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users' updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter]<br /> <br /> In the year ending in September, visitors to Twitter rose fivefold to 5.57 million. Users include Britney Spears, Starbucks Corp. and Barack Obama. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> <br /> == The Purpose of Twitter as Defined by Twitter, Inc.: ==<br /> Twitter.com seems to reflect a vision of simplicity in the use of the tool as a means for people with previously established social ties to stay connected through the exchange of the &quot;. . . quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?&quot; with the purpose of providing a timely way to send updates to those people who might find them meaningful: &quot;family members, friends, and colleagues.&quot; The tool allows users to stay &quot;hyerconnected&quot; to friends or to stop following them at any time. It also allows users to set quiet times and boasts that it &quot;. . . puts [users] in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.&quot;<br /> <br /> Jack Dorsey conceptualized the tool around a simple status idea that would, for example, enable users to know what their friends were doing. He and his coworkers decided to build a prototype. &quot;Obvious&quot; [http://obvious.com/], a creative environment in San Francisco CA, initially founded Twitter, with the first prototype being built in two weeks in March 2006 and being launched publicly in August 2006. Following its very quick growth in popularity, Twitter Inc. was founded in 2007.<br /> <br /> == How People Use Twitter: ==<br /> &quot;Twitter. . . is precisely what you want it to be. It can be a business tool, a teenage time-killer, a research assistant, a news source whatever.&quot;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=personaltech]<br /> <br /> Politicians have been using Twitter, along with other social networking tools, to campaign and to provide updates to their constituents.<br /> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878773-2,00.html]<br /> <br /> Twitter is also changing the way companies do business. For example, some businesses use the tool to pitch services, provide important updates and respond quickly to the individual needs of customers. <br /> [http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-02-02-hotel-airlines-travel-twitter_N.htm?csp=34&amp;POE=click-refer]<br /> <br /> Twitter is being used to communicate news, often much faster than the news media. &quot;When the last earthquake happened in California it was reported almost immediately on Twitter. It took about 10 minutes before mainstream media had the facts. Twitter broke the news about the New York plane crash and beat out the media by 15 minutes.&quot; As a result, some are crediting Twitter as being the first real threat to Google for getting information.<br /> [http://www.infocomgroup.net/falkow/?p=479]<br /> <br /> Teachers are using Twitter to enhance the classroom as an educational tool. Uses by teachers include sending updates to students and encouraging (or requiring) posts by students when outside of class. Some who have used it for this purpose praise it for the ability to keep the conversation going when students are outside of class, allowing them to note their recognition of important concepts from their curriculum when they see them in context, and for building a stronger class community which results in more open and, therefore, better class discussions.<br /> [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> People are using Twitter in ways that are probably beyond the scope envisioned by the company and its founders' simple concept of communicating status updates between acquaintances. It is being used to broadcast news faster than the mainstream news media, to connect politicians with their constituents, to connect businesses with customers and potential customers, and as a public relations tool. <br /> <br /> Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, people are using Twitter to enhance the classroom experience. While others who about this use on the web seem to typically use the tool for communication while outside of the classroom, our class thus far has used it within the classroom for conducting an online discussion simultaneously with class lectures. We hope that our study of the experiences of others using Twitter as an educational tool, in addition to our reflection on its use in our class, will help us to provide useful information for educators and students looking to use Twitter to enhance the academic experience.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Twitter: ==<br /> The class has used twitter – and specifically its hashtag capability, using the #iif hashtag – so far to form an impromptu chat room during class to facilitate discussion both among ourselves and, to some extent, others outside of this class ([http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif see here]). Though there’s no reason the discussion cannot continue beyond class hours, in fact, essentially all of the tweets have come during the few hours of class time.<br /> <br /> What have people tweeted about? With no attempt at ranking them in order of occurrence, here’s an informal and imperfect categorization. Are all of these valuable? Some? A few? None?<br /> <br /> A. Further information or reading on a topic discussed in class. <br /> : ''E.g.'', When Professor Nesson was talking about the Eldred case, someone tweeted: “Lessig has a great article on losing the big one: http://tinyurl.com/yhp4s5”<br /> <br /> B. “Play-by-play” twittering. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;Davealevine: Fisher: ratio of statutory damages to actual damages is over 100,000 to 1. But @zittrain points out that $2.5k settlements are reality #iif&quot;<br /> <br /> C. “Meta-twittering.” <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;This is a great experiment: establishing a series of &quot;back channel&quot; conversations as law professors debate in front of us. HLS 2.0.&quot; ''Then'': Is the point of the twitter convo to report the class to the world? or is to be a backchannel for raising questions?<br /> <br /> D. Direct class-related questions. <br /> : ''E.g.'', “is it important that the statute was passed without any discussion? That Congress didn't think it warranted discussion?”<br /> <br /> E. Individual back-and-forth. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;debbierosenbaum: #iif How should we value, and by what standard should we judge, the privacy rights of the various parties involved in a litigation?&quot; ''Then'': &quot;Conor_Kennedy: #IIF: @debbierosenbaum: privacy rights ala fourth amendment? or privacy rights a la closed courtroom?&quot;<br /> <br /> F. “Non sequiturs.&quot;<br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;gwbstr: @Dharmishta when I was in college we did that on a conference call... Far less open. Now my editor at the time is a twitfreak @ehelm #iif.&quot; ''Then'': &quot;cass_sunstein: @gwbstr #iif my old editor at the Harvard Law Record is now a speed freak. True story.&quot;<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings: ==<br /> Video: Jay Rosen on The Value of Twitter [http://bigthink.com/topics/the-internet/ideas/the-value-of-twitter]<br /> <br /> Video: Jeff Jarvis on the Next Technological Milestone [http://bigthink.com/topics/science-and-technology/ideas/jeff-jarvis-on-the-next-technological-milestone]<br /> <br /> Janet Meiners, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> <br /> Tame the Web: Libraries, Technology and People, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> <br /> AcademHack: Tech Tools for Academics, “Twitter for Academia” [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> == Class Participation: ==<br /> We know we’re a bit late to the party, so all we ask for class is that you think about whether twitter in general and twittering in class in particular has been a net positive, neutral, or negative so far in the class. Would it be beneficial in more traditional-type classes? Do you think it generalizes to other settings – can you see lawyers, business people, or entrepreneurs twittering during meetings, presentations, or conferences? We’ll write-up what you have to say and post it here for posterity, and then others can edit or add to it as they see fit.<br /> <br /> Feel free to also spend some time this week reflecting on both the substantive issues discussed and the tools used in our class sessions thus far; the hope is that you'll tweet some of your thoughts, insights, questions, or anything else that you think might be relevant to this question using the #iif hashtag. We'll see how an asynchronous &quot;meta-discussion&quot; about over Twitter participation compares to the Twitter discussions we have been conducting during class.<br /> <br /> == Class Feedback: ==<br /> Jason and Michelle presented four main reasons why twitter may not be the perfect classroom based on the use so far in the class. The jury is very much still out: some thought twitter was über-distracting, while others extolled its revolutionary virtues. We'll keep track of the use of twitter for the rest of the class. Here are the initial claims and some potential responses:<br /> <br /> 1. When was this from?<br /> * The claim: twitter doesn't allow us to easily filter out only posts during a particular class discussion. The &quot;record,&quot; then, is more disorganized and less easily accessible than it would be if we could look at discrete &quot;events.&quot;<br /> * The response: the iif hashtag designates posts as part of an ongoing and much broader discussion. This isn't supposed to be a sort of &quot;record,&quot; but rather a wide-ranging conversation with no &quot;start&quot; or &quot;end.&quot;<br /> <br /> 2. Who are you talking to?<br /> * The claim: there is a broad range of types of tweets that appear during class - some are be directed to an external audience, others seem just for the class, still others are part of a more private back-and-forth. Some may find such a mix distracting and counter-productive.<br /> * The response: that's the point! The beauty of twitter is in its collapsing of the public/private distinction. Instead, everything exists in a semi-connected web of comments, references, and replies. If you can't weed out the sort of tweets you're looking for, that's your problem, not twitter's.<br /> <br /> 3. Who the heck is everyone? <br /> * The claim: it can be distracting to view tweets without putting a face to the alias.<br /> * The response: that's twitter! Part of the beauty of twitter are persistent aliases. Does it really matter where good ideas are coming from, anyway?<br /> <br /> 4. Why do we need to constantly refresh? <br /> * The claim: it can be distracting to be constantly refreshing the search page; insofar as we are using the #iif tag to form an impromptu chat room, we might try out other software that has been designed with that specific purpose in mind.<br /> * The response: is this really that big a deal? Sure it would be nice if results could constantly update, but this is a relatively new technology, and we shouldn't be concerned with such trifles at this point.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=All_Together_Now_For_Great_Justice_Dot_Org&diff=1901 2009-03-01T22:33:58Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Tools and Examples */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mel]]''' - it's worth noting that we have a KSG student, an MBA student, and an engineer in our group, and no lawyers or law students, so expect this session to come from a slightly different perspective.<br /> <br /> back to [[syllabus]]<br /> <br /> {{TOCright}}<br /> <br /> == Before class ==<br /> <br /> To prepare before class, please do the following.<br /> <br /> # Read the [[#Precis]], which will introduce you to the main topics of the session.<br /> # Read and consider the [[#Core questions]] we will be discussing during the session.<br /> # Read and complete the [[#Workshop prep]] exercise. This should take you no more than 20 minutes.<br /> # Read the [[#Mandatory]] readings; there are 4 total; 2 are short, and 1 can be skimmed.<br /> <br /> == Precis ==<br /> <br /> Activism is &quot;intentional action to bring about social or political change&quot; ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism]). In this sense, activist have used the web for mobilizing people for all kinds of social causes, ranging from the tremendous success of the Obama campaign's online efforts to post-election citizen journalism and [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi crisis mapping mash-ups] in Kenya to your basic online petition or full-scale and often illegal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism hacktivist] activities. New tools are emerging for coordinating concrete action and volunteering ([http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.thepoint.org The Point], [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]) as well as fundraising and matching donors and social entrepreneurs ([http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes], [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose], [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]), and other tools not explicitly designed for social action in particular ([http://www.twitter.com Twitter], collaborative document editing, IMs and text messages) are being pressed into service by tech-savvy grassroots organizers, sometimes to great effect.<br /> <br /> While online tools are being used by activists whose causes and organizations may have had long histories pre-internet, we also must consider internet activism in terms of new fields of action taken around issues of new issues of concern that the internet has given rise to -- see, for instance, Grey Tuesday, a day of coordinated electronic civil disobedience to distribute DJ Dangermouse's mashup, &quot;Grey Album,&quot; or Berkman's own OpenNet Initiative which monitors and reports on internet filtering and surveillance practices by governments around the world. <br /> <br /> Sandor Vegh, in his chapter of ''Cyberactivism'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayershas [http://books.google.com/books?id=KHCjMkNRAkYC&amp;pg=PA71&amp;lpg=PA71&amp;dq=Classifying+Forms+of+Online+Activism:+The+Case+of+Cyberprotests+Against+the+World+Bank&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=NtXY2ND1Ma&amp;sig=XnCYz7850aSl2nJZNmQ4NTIeRak&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=1C-eSdmNLZaitgff2bWGDQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ct=result suggests three categories] of &quot;Cyberacticism&quot;:<br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot;<br /> |-valign=&quot;top&quot;<br /> ! Category || Uses || Examples || Tools<br /> |- <br /> | awareness/advocacy || Blogging, petitions || [http://www.peta.org PETA], [http://w2.eff.org/br/ Blue Ribbon Campaign] || Websites, mass mailings, podcasts, RSS<br /> |-<br /> | organization/mobilization || Campaigning, fundraising, volunteering, community building || [http://www.moveon.org Moveon], [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/05/CU2005080501141.html?whichDay=1 Al Qaeda], Myanmar uprising || Websites, mass mailings, mobile applications, online/offline hybrids<br /> |-<br /> | direct online action/reaction || Electronic civil disobedience, hacktivism || [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberattacks_during_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war Cyberattacks during the 2008 South Ossetia war] || DDoS, website vandalizing, trojans, mass mailings<br /> |}<br /> <br /> While these categories may offer a useful initial framework, many activists leverage all of these categories of activism in their work.<br /> <br /> == Core questions ==<br /> <br /> Needless to say, there are any of a number of ways to tackle a topic of this breadth but here are just a few structural and tactical questions to consider while doing the readings for class: <br /> <br /> 1. An issue of tactics: What are the success factors of online activism tools? (And how much of the success of any given campaign can be attributed to the internet tools used as opposed to a superior ground operation or a more compelling issue/candidate?) Is there a generalizable model here? What are the parallels and differences with the way for-profit firms have tried to harness these tools? Further, as Ethan Zuckerman notes, &quot;any sufficiently advanced read/write technology will get used for two purposes: pornography and activism. Porn is a weak test for the success of participatory media - it’s like tapping a mike and asking, “Is it on?” If you’re not getting porn in your system, it doesn’t work. Activism is a stronger test - if activists are using your tools, it’s a pretty good indication that your tools are useful and usable.&quot; What online technologies have yet to be fully exploited by activists and why? <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. How do we define and measure success of online activism? Do online tools for activists allow for one to feel simply satisfied with a lazier, shallow degree of involvement (the median earned by many Facebook causes prominently displayed on so many users' pages is under $50) or does it create new ladders of engagement? What is the meaning of your number of viewers, of addresses on your mailing list, or of Facebook friends for your cause? What is the fundamental difference between a computer mediated act of civil disobedience versus one offline? <br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Compared to traditional modes of activist engagement, digital tools change both the meaning and tactics of democratic participation. Still, we have to examine, who is in now and who is out now? Who has access and who still may not have it? How do old digital divides play out or new ones emerge? To what extent do these tools allow us to subvert hierarchies of power or to what extent do they create new hierarchies and gatekeepers? (i.e. Who participated by submitting questions to the YouTube Presidential debates in 2008? Given certain barriers to access, what voices or issues might not have been heard?) <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Online activism often creates decentralized organizations, which act and react very differently than the centralized organizations most of us are used to, so both leveraging and counteracting distributed activist communities can be counterintuitive. What things can decentralized online movements do more easily than centralized (online or offline) ones, and what strategies might activists and/or their opponents do to take advantage of these tendencies to either promote or counteract a cause?<br /> <br /> == Contributors ==<br /> <br /> * [http://ethanzuckerman.com/ Ethan Zuckerman], Berkman Center Fellow, Co-Founder of [http://www.globalvoicesonline.org GlobalVoicesOnline.org], providing both practical and theoretical expertise with focus on applications in the developing world.<br /> * [http://www.nicco.org Nicco Mele], IOP Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, founder of [http://www.echoditto.com/ EchoDitto], former Internet Operations Director of Gov. Dean's presidential primary campaign in 2003<br /> <br /> == Session design ==<br /> <br /> === Workshop prep ===<br /> <br /> ''To be done before class.''<br /> <br /> During class, we will be splitting into 6 randomly assigned teams for a rocket pitch workshop session. Teams will be competing to create and pitch ideas for internet-based projects for various hypothetical clients, played (and judged) by the session team (Mel, Rainer, and Elana), the course professors, and our guests.<br /> <br /> '''Assignment:''' Examine online tools (software programs and platforms) that have been or could be used for online activism. Come to class with a list of 5 tools or interesting causes/campaigns that you examined - at least one of them should be something new you've added to the list at [[#Tools]]. Each entry on the list should contain the following parts:<br /> <br /> * Name of tool - http://link-to-the-tool-if-possible.com - 1-2 sentence description of what types of projects/demographics/causes this tool would be particularly suited to AND/OR a link to an example of this tool being used for a specific activism project.<br /> <br /> '''Requirements:''' The [[#Tools]] section below has some ideas for starters, but you must add at least one new item to the list as part of your 5 items. Tools must be internet-based in some way, but do not necessarily need to be limited to personal computers; cellphone/SMS apps, location-based tags and artifacts that somehow link or point to online spaces, etc. are also valid. Custom-developed applications that were developed and deployed for a specific project are ok, even if they cannot be reused for future projects - they're great examples.<br /> <br /> Non-mandatory but probably helpful: you can read about the [[#Workshop]] format for the exact times and materials you'll have available, as well as the [[#Judging]] criteria.<br /> <br /> === Activity intro (10 minutes) ===<br /> <br /> We will first explain the ground rules of the rocket pitch workshop which will be held later in the session and introduce the 3 scenarios involved.<br /> <br /> === Guests present case studies (30 minutes) ===<br /> <br /> Next, our guests will give short case study examples of projects they've worked on and tactics they've used. During this part of the session, students are encouraged to write down (on pieces of paper) questions they'd like to bring up, and to save those papers for the discussion after the workshop.<br /> <br /> === Workshop ===<br /> <br /> ''(50 minutes)''<br /> <br /> You will be divided into 6 teams. Teams will roleplay the parts of teams assigned to create internet-based projects for various activism scenarios. Teams will compete to create the best 1-minute rocket pitch of their project idea. The 1-minute timing will be strict; we'll cut you off at 60 seconds.<br /> <br /> * You get 30 seconds to set up and 1 minute to present.<br /> * Each group gets 3 big sheets of paper (&quot;slides&quot;) and a marker for each round. You do not have to use the paper. However, projector setup will count against your time...<br /> * Groups can use any resources (including computers) and work anywhere they want.<br /> * Your presentation can be and use any things or people you want.<br /> <br /> * 20 minutes: First scenario prep<br /> * 10 minutes: First scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]<br /> * 10 minutes: Second scenario prep<br /> * 10 minutes: Second scenario presentations and [[#Judging]]<br /> <br /> === Judging ===<br /> <br /> ''Judging is interspersed with the [[#Workshop]].''<br /> <br /> Presentations will be judged on the following criteria, evenly weighted.<br /> <br /> ''Criteria are still subject to change, and final judging criteria will be announced at the beginning of the session, but this is the current draft.''<br /> <br /> * '''Tactics:''' Is your strategy well-articulated? Can we envison how you will carry out your game plan, and do we believe it's probable that you will reach your goals with the resources and timeframe you've been allotted?<br /> * '''Measurement:''' What is your goal? Have you defined what it would mean for your project to be successful, and how you will measure and determine your success?<br /> * '''Analysis of competition:''' Did you articulate why your approach is better than others that might exist?<br /> * '''Utilization of the Internet:''' Are you taking full advantage of the online medium? (Why would your project be more difficult/impossible offline?)<br /> * '''Leveraging your audience:''' Did you articulate who you are trying to engage, and in what manner? Will your community be (or be working against one that is) centralized, decentralized, or hybrid - and why? If you are trying to build a community, how will you most effectively leverage the type of community you have chosen to build? If you are not trying to build a community, why not?<br /> * '''Creativity:''' Are you using tools or processes in an unique way that nobody has tried before? Are you advocating a cause or reaching an audience not commonly addressed through this medium? Are you in some way doing something crazy and new?<br /> <br /> Note that we are ''not'' judging you on how well you pitch the ''cause,'' only the project. The judges are assuming the roles of supporters of the cause who want to fund your project, so you can safely assume that the judges (1) know all about your cause and (2) are already completely convinced that it is the best thing in the world.<br /> <br /> === Discussion (30 minutes)===<br /> <br /> Students are now encouraged to bring out the questions they had earlier; we'll use these as the basis for a followup discussion.<br /> <br /> == Readings ==<br /> <br /> === Mandatory ===<br /> <br /> * [http://www.articlearchives.com/law-legal-system/constitutional-law-freedom-press/1832458-1.html''Technologies of Protest: Insurgent Social Movements and the First Amendment in the Era of the Internet,''] by the law professor Seth Kreimer.<br /> * [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/03/08/the-cute-cat-theory-talk-at-etech/ Ethan Zuckerman's Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism] (This is available in .mp3 format for free in podcast section of the iTunes store --CKennedy)<br /> * [http://publius.cc/2008/12/09/from-the-bottom-up-using-the-internet-to-mobilize-campaign-participation From the Bottom-Up: Using the Internet to Mobilize Campaign Participation] by Dana Fisher, a short article that compares the strategies of Obama and McCain's online campaigns. (skim)<br /> * Summaries and selections from ''The Starfish and the Spider'' by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, focused on pages 133-158 on &quot;taking on decentralization,&quot; which argues that conventional attack tactics fail against decentralized activism, and presents several strategies that can be used instead. Read the [http://magazine.redhat.com/2007/02/05/book-review-the-starfish-and-the-spider/ Red Hat Magazine review] by Jeff Mackanic and Greg DeKoenigsberg, which summarizes the main points, then see the [[Crib notes]] from p. 133-158 on attacking decentralization. (The entire book is worth reading as a framework for understanding decentralized movements.)<br /> * [http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html &quot;Power Laws, Web Logs and Inequality&quot;] by Clay Shirky<br /> <br /> === Optional ===<br /> <br /> * ''A Review of Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,'' edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers. (This book is difficult to get hold of, but good supplementary reading if you're interested and can procure a copy.)<br /> * [http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/ Rebooting America: Ideas for Redesigning American Democracy for the Internet Age]<br /> * http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2008/12/10/open-for-questions-participation-from-campaigning-to-governing/<br /> * [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/the-new-organizers-part-1_b_132782.html The New Organizers: What's Really Behind Obama's Ground Game] from HuffPo.com<br /> * [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25bloggers-t.html?fta=y &quot;Revolution Facebook Style: Can social networking turn young Egyptians into a force for Democratic Change?&quot;] from the New York Times<br /> *[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12815678 &quot;Rioters of the World Unite: They have nothing to lose but their web cameras&quot;] from the Economist. See Patrick Meier's critique of the piece [http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/snap-mobs-of-the-world-unite-a-better-taxonomy/ here.]<br /> * [http://mobileactive.org/wireless-technology-social-change-11-case-studies &quot;Wireless Technology for Social Change: Trends in NGO Mobile Use&quot;]<br /> <br /> == Tools and Examples ==<br /> <br /> * [http://www.digiactive.org/wp-content/uploads/digiactive_facebook_activism.pdf DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism]<br /> * [http://apps.facebook.com/causes/about Facebook Causes]<br /> * [http://www.netsquared.org/2008/conference/projects/ushahidi Crisis mapping mash-ups in Kenya]<br /> * [http://www.pledgebank.org Pledgebank]<br /> * [http://www.zoosa.org Zoosa]<br /> * [http://globalvoicesonline.org/ Global Voices]<br /> * [http://www.donorschoose.org DonorsChoose]<br /> * [http://www.socialvibe.com Socialvibe]<br /> * [http://citizenbase.org/approach Citizenbase]<br /> * [http://www.frontlinesms.com/ Frontline SMS]<br /> * [http://discoverscholars.org/ DiscoverScholars]<br /> * [http://www.socialvibe.com/ SocialVibe]<br /> * [http://www.techsoup.org/index.cfm TechSoup]<br /> * [http://mobileactive.org/ MobileActive]<br /> * [http://theuptake.org/ TheUpTake], a citizen journalism site whose efforts are summarized [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UpTake here]. An example of their success in promoting political awareness is the coleman / franken recount and trials. [http://uptake-editorial.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1694/ link]. (This is where we are supposed to put our one new entry before class right?)<br /> * [http://freeconnie.com/ Free Connie]. A friend of mine from college, now at USC law, is defending a woman who suffered from BWS and has served her time in jail. With the help of another one of our friends, he put together this site for public activism on her case.<br /> * [http://ipetitions.com/ iPetitions]<br /> * [http://www2.democracyinaction.org/ DemocracyInAction] is a non-profit that provides a suite of tools for progressive organizations, including fundraising, communications, and contact management.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Twitter_in_the_Classroom&diff=1900 2009-03-01T21:53:39Z

<p>Jharrow: /* Viewings/Readings: */</p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Twitter?<br /> &quot;Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users' updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter]<br /> <br /> In the year ending in September, visitors to Twitter rose fivefold to 5.57 million. Users include Britney Spears, Starbucks Corp. and Barack Obama. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> <br /> == The Purpose of Twitter as Defined by Twitter, Inc.: ==<br /> Twitter.com seems to reflect a vision of simplicity in the use of the tool as a means for people with previously established social ties to stay connected through the exchange of the &quot;. . . quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?&quot; with the purpose of providing a timely way to send updates to those people who might find them meaningful: &quot;family members, friends, and colleagues.&quot; The tool allows users to stay &quot;hyerconnected&quot; to friends or to stop following them at any time. It also allows users to set quiet times and boasts that it &quot;. . . puts [users] in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.&quot;<br /> <br /> Jack Dorsey conceptualized the tool around a simple status idea that would, for example, enable users to know what their friends were doing. He and his coworkers decided to build a prototype. &quot;Obvious&quot; [http://obvious.com/], a creative environment in San Francisco CA, initially founded Twitter, with the first prototype being built in two weeks in March 2006 and being launched publicly in August 2006. Following its very quick growth in popularity, Twitter Inc. was founded in 2007.<br /> <br /> == How People Use Twitter: ==<br /> &quot;Twitter. . . is precisely what you want it to be. It can be a business tool, a teenage time-killer, a research assistant, a news source whatever.&quot;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=personaltech]<br /> <br /> Politicians have been using Twitter, along with other social networking tools, to campaign and to provide updates to their constituents.<br /> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878773-2,00.html]<br /> <br /> Twitter is also changing the way companies do business. For example, some businesses use the tool to pitch services, provide important updates and respond quickly to the individual needs of customers. <br /> [http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-02-02-hotel-airlines-travel-twitter_N.htm?csp=34&amp;POE=click-refer]<br /> <br /> Twitter is being used to communicate news, often much faster than the news media. &quot;When the last earthquake happened in California it was reported almost immediately on Twitter. It took about 10 minutes before mainstream media had the facts. Twitter broke the news about the New York plane crash and beat out the media by 15 minutes.&quot; As a result, some are crediting Twitter as being the first real threat to Google for getting information.<br /> [http://www.infocomgroup.net/falkow/?p=479]<br /> <br /> Teachers are using Twitter to enhance the classroom as an educational tool. Uses by teachers include sending updates to students and encouraging (or requiring) posts by students when outside of class. Some who have used it for this purpose praise it for the ability to keep the conversation going when students are outside of class, allowing them to note their recognition of important concepts from their curriculum when they see them in context, and for building a stronger class community which results in more open and, therefore, better class discussions.<br /> [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> People are using Twitter in ways that are probably beyond the scope envisioned by the company and its founders' simple concept of communicating status updates between acquaintances. It is being used to broadcast news faster than the mainstream news media, to connect politicians with their constituents, to connect businesses with customers and potential customers, and as a public relations tool. <br /> <br /> Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, people are using Twitter to enhance the classroom experience. While others who about this use on the web seem to typically use the tool for communication while outside of the classroom, our class thus far has used it within the classroom for conducting an online discussion simultaneously with class lectures. We hope that our study of the experiences of others using Twitter as an educational tool, in addition to our reflection on its use in our class, will help us to provide useful information for educators and students looking to use Twitter to enhance the academic experience.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Twitter: ==<br /> The class has used twitter – and specifically its hashtag capability, using the #iif hashtag – so far to form an impromptu chat room during class to facilitate discussion both among ourselves and, to some extent, others outside of this class ([http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif see here]). Though there’s no reason the discussion cannot continue beyond class hours, in fact, essentially all of the tweets have come during the few hours of class time.<br /> <br /> What have people tweeted about? With no attempt at ranking them in order of occurrence, here’s an informal and imperfect categorization. Are all of these valuable? Some? A few? None?<br /> <br /> A. Further information or reading on a topic discussed in class. <br /> : ''E.g.'', When Professor Nesson was talking about the Eldred case, someone tweeted: “Lessig has a great article on losing the big one: http://tinyurl.com/yhp4s5”<br /> <br /> B. “Play-by-play” twittering. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;Davealevine: Fisher: ratio of statutory damages to actual damages is over 100,000 to 1. But @zittrain points out that $2.5k settlements are reality #iif&quot;<br /> <br /> C. “Meta-twittering.” <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;This is a great experiment: establishing a series of &quot;back channel&quot; conversations as law professors debate in front of us. HLS 2.0.&quot; ''Then'': Is the point of the twitter convo to report the class to the world? or is to be a backchannel for raising questions?<br /> <br /> D. Direct class-related questions. <br /> : ''E.g.'', “is it important that the statute was passed without any discussion? That Congress didn't think it warranted discussion?”<br /> <br /> E. Individual back-and-forth. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;debbierosenbaum: #iif How should we value, and by what standard should we judge, the privacy rights of the various parties involved in a litigation?&quot; ''Then'': &quot;Conor_Kennedy: #IIF: @debbierosenbaum: privacy rights ala fourth amendment? or privacy rights a la closed courtroom?&quot;<br /> <br /> F. “Non sequiturs.&quot;<br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;gwbstr: @Dharmishta when I was in college we did that on a conference call... Far less open. Now my editor at the time is a twitfreak @ehelm #iif.&quot; ''Then'': &quot;cass_sunstein: @gwbstr #iif my old editor at the Harvard Law Record is now a speed freak. True story.&quot;<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings: ==<br /> Video: Jay Rosen on The Value of Twitter [http://bigthink.com/topics/the-internet/ideas/the-value-of-twitter]<br /> <br /> Video: Jeff Jarvis on the Next Technological Milestone [http://bigthink.com/topics/science-and-technology/ideas/jeff-jarvis-on-the-next-technological-milestone]<br /> <br /> Janet Meiners, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> <br /> Tame the Web: Libraries, Technology and People, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> <br /> AcademHack: Tech Tools for Academics, “Twitter for Academia” [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> == Class Participation: ==<br /> We know we’re a bit late to the party, so all we ask for class is that you think about whether twitter in general and twittering in class in particular has been a net positive, neutral, or negative so far in the class. Would it be beneficial in more traditional-type classes? Do you think it generalizes to other settings – can you see lawyers, business people, or entrepreneurs twittering during meetings, presentations, or conferences? We’ll write-up what you have to say and post it here for posterity, and then others can edit or add to it as they see fit.<br /> <br /> Feel free to also spend some time this week reflecting on both the substantive issues discussed and the tools used in our class sessions thus far; the hope is that you'll tweet some of your thoughts, insights, questions, or anything else that you think might be relevant to this question using the #iif hashtag. We'll see how an asynchronous &quot;meta-discussion&quot; about over Twitter participation compares to the Twitter discussions we have been conducting during class.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Syllabus&diff=1899 2009-03-01T21:52:50Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>In the order per the schedule on the first day of seminar (the schedule lives [[Scheduling|here]]):<br /> <br /> == Free and Open Source Software ==<br /> [[Free and Open Source Software]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners: [[User:dulles|dulles]]''','''[[User:Ayelet|Ayelet]]'''<br /> <br /> == The Internet and Societal Inequity ==<br /> [[The Internet and Societal Inequity]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Megerman|Mark]]''', '''[[User:G|Graham]]'''<br /> <br /> == Old Laws/New Media ==<br /> <br /> [[Old Laws/New Media]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners: [[User:smukherjee|Shubham Mukherjee]], [[User:DebbieRosenbaum|Debbie Rosenbaum]], [[User:MSanchez|Matt Sanchez]]'''<br /> <br /> == All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org ==<br /> [[All Together Now For Great Justice Dot Org]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Hoellra|Rainer]]''' + [[User:Elanaberkowitz|'''Elana''']] + '''[[User:Mchua|Mchua]]'''<br /> <br /> == The Future of News ==<br /> [[The Future of News]]<br /> <br /> Topic owners: [[User:Drood]], [[User:jf]]<br /> <br /> == The Future of Copyright and Entertainment ==<br /> [[The Future of Copyright and Entertainment]]<br /> <br /> ''Topic owners:'' ''[[User:Jfishman|Joe]], [[User:Miriam|Miriam]]''<br /> <br /> == The Google Book Search Settlement ==<br /> [[The Google Book Search Settlement]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners: [[User:Gwen|Gwen]], [[User:Lbaker|Lee]], [[User:Cooper|Jon]]'''<br /> <br /> == Anonymity and privacy ==<br /> [[Anonymity and privacy]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners: [[User:Danray|Dan Ray]]''', '''[[User:CKennedy|Conor]]''', '''[[User:Jgruensp|Joshua]]'''<br /> <br /> == Internet + Industry + Investing ==<br /> <br /> Topic owners: Andrew Klaber and DAL<br /> [[Internet, Industry, and Investing]]<br /> <br /> == Internet Governance and Regulation ==<br /> [[Internet Governance and Regulation]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic owners: [[User:Bepa|Vera]]''', '''[[User: AMehra|Arjun]]'''<br /> <br /> == Prediction Markets ==<br /> [[Prediction Markets]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners:''' '''[[User:Mwansley|Matthew]]''', '''[[User:EST|Elisabeth]]'''<br /> <br /> == The Tools Team ==<br /> [[The Tools Team]]<br /> <br /> '''Topic Owners:''' [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + Michelle</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Twitter_in_the_Classroom&diff=1898 2009-03-01T21:48:59Z

<p>Jharrow: /* How we are Using Twitter: */</p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Twitter?<br /> &quot;Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users' updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter]<br /> <br /> In the year ending in September, visitors to Twitter rose fivefold to 5.57 million. Users include Britney Spears, Starbucks Corp. and Barack Obama. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> <br /> == The Purpose of Twitter as Defined by Twitter, Inc.: ==<br /> Twitter.com seems to reflect a vision of simplicity in the use of the tool as a means for people with previously established social ties to stay connected through the exchange of the &quot;. . . quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?&quot; with the purpose of providing a timely way to send updates to those people who might find them meaningful: &quot;family members, friends, and colleagues.&quot; The tool allows users to stay &quot;hyerconnected&quot; to friends or to stop following them at any time. It also allows users to set quiet times and boasts that it &quot;. . . puts [users] in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.&quot;<br /> <br /> Jack Dorsey conceptualized the tool around a simple status idea that would, for example, enable users to know what their friends were doing. He and his coworkers decided to build a prototype. &quot;Obvious&quot; [http://obvious.com/], a creative environment in San Francisco CA, initially founded Twitter, with the first prototype being built in two weeks in March 2006 and being launched publicly in August 2006. Following its very quick growth in popularity, Twitter Inc. was founded in 2007.<br /> <br /> == How People Use Twitter: ==<br /> &quot;Twitter. . . is precisely what you want it to be. It can be a business tool, a teenage time-killer, a research assistant, a news source whatever.&quot;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=personaltech]<br /> <br /> Politicians have been using Twitter, along with other social networking tools, to campaign and to provide updates to their constituents.<br /> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878773-2,00.html]<br /> <br /> Twitter is also changing the way companies do business. For example, some businesses use the tool to pitch services, provide important updates and respond quickly to the individual needs of customers. <br /> [http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-02-02-hotel-airlines-travel-twitter_N.htm?csp=34&amp;POE=click-refer]<br /> <br /> Twitter is being used to communicate news, often much faster than the news media. &quot;When the last earthquake happened in California it was reported almost immediately on Twitter. It took about 10 minutes before mainstream media had the facts. Twitter broke the news about the New York plane crash and beat out the media by 15 minutes.&quot; As a result, some are crediting Twitter as being the first real threat to Google for getting information.<br /> [http://www.infocomgroup.net/falkow/?p=479]<br /> <br /> Teachers are using Twitter to enhance the classroom as an educational tool. Uses by teachers include sending updates to students and encouraging (or requiring) posts by students when outside of class. Some who have used it for this purpose praise it for the ability to keep the conversation going when students are outside of class, allowing them to note their recognition of important concepts from their curriculum when they see them in context, and for building a stronger class community which results in more open and, therefore, better class discussions.<br /> [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> People are using Twitter in ways that are probably beyond the scope envisioned by the company and its founders' simple concept of communicating status updates between acquaintances. It is being used to broadcast news faster than the mainstream news media, to connect politicians with their constituents, to connect businesses with customers and potential customers, and as a public relations tool. <br /> <br /> Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, people are using Twitter to enhance the classroom experience. While others who about this use on the web seem to typically use the tool for communication while outside of the classroom, our class thus far has used it within the classroom for conducting an online discussion simultaneously with class lectures. We hope that our study of the experiences of others using Twitter as an educational tool, in addition to our reflection on its use in our class, will help us to provide useful information for educators and students looking to use Twitter to enhance the academic experience.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Twitter: ==<br /> The class has used twitter – and specifically its hashtag capability, using the #iif hashtag – so far to form an impromptu chat room during class to facilitate discussion both among ourselves and, to some extent, others outside of this class ([http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif see here]). Though there’s no reason the discussion cannot continue beyond class hours, in fact, essentially all of the tweets have come during the few hours of class time.<br /> <br /> What have people tweeted about? With no attempt at ranking them in order of occurrence, here’s an informal and imperfect categorization. Are all of these valuable? Some? A few? None?<br /> <br /> A. Further information or reading on a topic discussed in class. <br /> : ''E.g.'', When Professor Nesson was talking about the Eldred case, someone tweeted: “Lessig has a great article on losing the big one: http://tinyurl.com/yhp4s5”<br /> <br /> B. “Play-by-play” twittering. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;Davealevine: Fisher: ratio of statutory damages to actual damages is over 100,000 to 1. But @zittrain points out that $2.5k settlements are reality #iif&quot;<br /> <br /> C. “Meta-twittering.” <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;This is a great experiment: establishing a series of &quot;back channel&quot; conversations as law professors debate in front of us. HLS 2.0.&quot; ''Then'': Is the point of the twitter convo to report the class to the world? or is to be a backchannel for raising questions?<br /> <br /> D. Direct class-related questions. <br /> : ''E.g.'', “is it important that the statute was passed without any discussion? That Congress didn't think it warranted discussion?”<br /> <br /> E. Individual back-and-forth. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;debbierosenbaum: #iif How should we value, and by what standard should we judge, the privacy rights of the various parties involved in a litigation?&quot; ''Then'': &quot;Conor_Kennedy: #IIF: @debbierosenbaum: privacy rights ala fourth amendment? or privacy rights a la closed courtroom?&quot;<br /> <br /> F. “Non sequiturs.&quot;<br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;gwbstr: @Dharmishta when I was in college we did that on a conference call... Far less open. Now my editor at the time is a twitfreak @ehelm #iif.&quot; ''Then'': &quot;cass_sunstein: @gwbstr #iif my old editor at the Harvard Law Record is now a speed freak. True story.&quot;<br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings: ==<br /> Video: Jay Rosen on The Value of Twitter [http://bigthink.com/topics/the-internet/ideas/the-value-of-twitter]<br /> <br /> Video: Jeff Jarvis on the Next Technological Milestone [http://bigthink.com/topics/science-and-technology/ideas/jeff-jarvis-on-the-next-technological-milestone]<br /> <br /> Janet Meiners, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> <br /> Tame the Web: Libraries, Technology and People, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> <br /> AcademHack: Tech Tools for Academics, “Twitter for Academia” [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> <br /> == Class Participation: ==<br /> We know we’re a bit late to the party, so all we ask for class is that you think about whether twitter in general and twittering in class in particular has been a net positive, neutral, or negative so far in the class. Would it be beneficial in more traditional-type classes? Do you think it generalizes to other settings – can you see lawyers, business people, or entrepreneurs twittering during meetings, presentations, or conferences? We’ll write-up what you have to say and post it here for posterity, and then others can edit or add to it as they see fit.<br /> <br /> Feel free to also spend some time this week reflecting on both the substantive issues discussed and the tools used in our class sessions thus far; the hope is that you'll tweet some of your thoughts, insights, questions, or anything else that you think might be relevant to this question using the #iif hashtag. We'll see how an asynchronous &quot;meta-discussion&quot; about over Twitter participation compares to the Twitter discussions we have been conducting during class.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=Tools:_Twitter_in_the_Classroom&diff=1897 2009-03-01T21:48:24Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>== Introduction ==<br /> What is Twitter?<br /> &quot;Twitter is a social networking and micro-blogging service that allows its users to send and read other users' updates (known as tweets), which are text-based posts of up to 140 characters in length.&quot; <br /> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter]<br /> <br /> In the year ending in September, visitors to Twitter rose fivefold to 5.57 million. Users include Britney Spears, Starbucks Corp. and Barack Obama. [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=afu06n0L7LZ4&amp;refer=home]<br /> <br /> == The Purpose of Twitter as Defined by Twitter, Inc.: ==<br /> Twitter.com seems to reflect a vision of simplicity in the use of the tool as a means for people with previously established social ties to stay connected through the exchange of the &quot;. . . quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?&quot; with the purpose of providing a timely way to send updates to those people who might find them meaningful: &quot;family members, friends, and colleagues.&quot; The tool allows users to stay &quot;hyerconnected&quot; to friends or to stop following them at any time. It also allows users to set quiet times and boasts that it &quot;. . . puts [users] in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.&quot;<br /> <br /> Jack Dorsey conceptualized the tool around a simple status idea that would, for example, enable users to know what their friends were doing. He and his coworkers decided to build a prototype. &quot;Obvious&quot; [http://obvious.com/], a creative environment in San Francisco CA, initially founded Twitter, with the first prototype being built in two weeks in March 2006 and being launched publicly in August 2006. Following its very quick growth in popularity, Twitter Inc. was founded in 2007.<br /> <br /> == How People Use Twitter: ==<br /> &quot;Twitter. . . is precisely what you want it to be. It can be a business tool, a teenage time-killer, a research assistant, a news source whatever.&quot;<br /> [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?pagewanted=1&amp;_r=1&amp;ref=personaltech]<br /> <br /> Politicians have been using Twitter, along with other social networking tools, to campaign and to provide updates to their constituents.<br /> [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878773-2,00.html]<br /> <br /> Twitter is also changing the way companies do business. For example, some businesses use the tool to pitch services, provide important updates and respond quickly to the individual needs of customers. <br /> [http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2009-02-02-hotel-airlines-travel-twitter_N.htm?csp=34&amp;POE=click-refer]<br /> <br /> Twitter is being used to communicate news, often much faster than the news media. &quot;When the last earthquake happened in California it was reported almost immediately on Twitter. It took about 10 minutes before mainstream media had the facts. Twitter broke the news about the New York plane crash and beat out the media by 15 minutes.&quot; As a result, some are crediting Twitter as being the first real threat to Google for getting information.<br /> [http://www.infocomgroup.net/falkow/?p=479]<br /> <br /> Teachers are using Twitter to enhance the classroom as an educational tool. Uses by teachers include sending updates to students and encouraging (or requiring) posts by students when outside of class. Some who have used it for this purpose praise it for the ability to keep the conversation going when students are outside of class, allowing them to note their recognition of important concepts from their curriculum when they see them in context, and for building a stronger class community which results in more open and, therefore, better class discussions.<br /> [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> People are using Twitter in ways that are probably beyond the scope envisioned by the company and its founders' simple concept of communicating status updates between acquaintances. It is being used to broadcast news faster than the mainstream news media, to connect politicians with their constituents, to connect businesses with customers and potential customers, and as a public relations tool. <br /> <br /> Finally, and most importantly for our purposes, people are using Twitter to enhance the classroom experience. While others who about this use on the web seem to typically use the tool for communication while outside of the classroom, our class thus far has used it within the classroom for conducting an online discussion simultaneously with class lectures. We hope that our study of the experiences of others using Twitter as an educational tool, in addition to our reflection on its use in our class, will help us to provide useful information for educators and students looking to use Twitter to enhance the academic experience.<br /> <br /> == How we are Using Twitter: ==<br /> The class has used twitter – and specifically its hashtag capability, using the #iif hashtag – so far to form an impromptu chat room during class to facilitate discussion both among ourselves and, to some extent, others outside of this class [http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23iif see here]. Though there’s no reason the discussion cannot continue beyond class hours, in fact, essentially all of the tweets have come during the few hours of class time.<br /> <br /> What have people tweeted about? With no attempt at ranking them in order of occurrence, here’s an informal and imperfect categorization. Are all of these valuable? Some? A few? None?<br /> <br /> A. Further information or reading on a topic discussed in class. <br /> : ''E.g.'', When Professor Nesson was talking about the Eldred case, someone tweeted: “Lessig has a great article on losing the big one: http://tinyurl.com/yhp4s5”<br /> <br /> B. “Play-by-play” twittering. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;Davealevine: Fisher: ratio of statutory damages to actual damages is over 100,000 to 1. But @zittrain points out that $2.5k settlements are reality #iif&quot;<br /> <br /> C. “Meta-twittering.” <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;This is a great experiment: establishing a series of &quot;back channel&quot; conversations as law professors debate in front of us. HLS 2.0.&quot; ''Then'': Is the point of the twitter convo to report the class to the world? or is to be a backchannel for raising questions?<br /> <br /> D. Direct class-related questions. <br /> : ''E.g.'', “is it important that the statute was passed without any discussion? That Congress didn't think it warranted discussion?”<br /> <br /> E. Individual back-and-forth. <br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;debbierosenbaum: #iif How should we value, and by what standard should we judge, the privacy rights of the various parties involved in a litigation?&quot; ''Then'': &quot;Conor_Kennedy: #IIF: @debbierosenbaum: privacy rights ala fourth amendment? or privacy rights a la closed courtroom?&quot;<br /> <br /> F. “Non sequiturs.&quot;<br /> : ''E.g.'', &quot;gwbstr: @Dharmishta when I was in college we did that on a conference call... Far less open. Now my editor at the time is a twitfreak @ehelm #iif.&quot; ''Then'': &quot;cass_sunstein: @gwbstr #iif my old editor at the Harvard Law Record is now a speed freak. True story.&quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> == Viewings/Readings: ==<br /> Video: Jay Rosen on The Value of Twitter [http://bigthink.com/topics/the-internet/ideas/the-value-of-twitter]<br /> <br /> Video: Jeff Jarvis on the Next Technological Milestone [http://bigthink.com/topics/science-and-technology/ideas/jeff-jarvis-on-the-next-technological-milestone]<br /> <br /> Janet Meiners, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2008/01/twitter-in-the-classroom.html]<br /> <br /> Tame the Web: Libraries, Technology and People, “Twitter in the Classroom” [http://tametheweb.com/2008/08/25/twitter-in-the-classroom/]<br /> <br /> AcademHack: Tech Tools for Academics, “Twitter for Academia” [http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/]<br /> <br /> <br /> == Class Participation: ==<br /> We know we’re a bit late to the party, so all we ask for class is that you think about whether twitter in general and twittering in class in particular has been a net positive, neutral, or negative so far in the class. Would it be beneficial in more traditional-type classes? Do you think it generalizes to other settings – can you see lawyers, business people, or entrepreneurs twittering during meetings, presentations, or conferences? We’ll write-up what you have to say and post it here for posterity, and then others can edit or add to it as they see fit.<br /> <br /> Feel free to also spend some time this week reflecting on both the substantive issues discussed and the tools used in our class sessions thus far; the hope is that you'll tweet some of your thoughts, insights, questions, or anything else that you think might be relevant to this question using the #iif hashtag. We'll see how an asynchronous &quot;meta-discussion&quot; about over Twitter participation compares to the Twitter discussions we have been conducting during class.</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=1896 2009-03-01T21:32:23Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + Michelle<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> It's 14 years later, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we all still bother to get together in person for two hours a week, and we still expend effort and money to bring outside guests to our classroom. So, while we continue to meet in the real world, we do use a lot of online tools to augment these interactions, so our job is to occassionally step back and examine the critical questions of how the tools we are using add to the in-person experience, detract from it, or go beyond it. Furthermore, we'd like to know if our group is on the frontier of these technologies: are others using similar tools in similar ways in classrooms or around conference tables, or are we blazing new trails?<br /> <br /> Every so often, we'll be stealing 10-15 minutes from one of the groups to take a look at a specific tool we've been using - or, perhaps, one we've overlooked. These are:<br /> <br /> # [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|Twitter]] - 3-2-09<br /> # [[Tools: Seesmic|Seesmic]]<br /> # [[Tools: The Road Not Taken|The Road Not Taken]]<br /> # TBA</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=1895 2009-03-01T21:32:07Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + Michelle<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> It's 14 years later, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we all still bother to get together in person for two hours a week, and we still expend effort and money to bring outside guests to our classroom. But, while we continue to meet in the real world, we do use a lot of online tools to augment these interactions, so our job is to occassionally step back and examine the critical questions of how the tools we are using add to the in-person experience, detract from it, or go beyond it. Furthermore, we'd like to know if our group is on the frontier of these technologies: are others using similar tools in similar ways in classrooms or around conference tables, or are we blazing new trails?<br /> <br /> Every so often, we'll be stealing 10-15 minutes from one of the groups to take a look at a specific tool we've been using - or, perhaps, one we've overlooked. These are:<br /> <br /> # [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|Twitter]] - 3-2-09<br /> # [[Tools: Seesmic|Seesmic]]<br /> # [[Tools: The Road Not Taken|The Road Not Taken]]<br /> # TBA</div>

Jharrow https://cyber.harvard.edu/iif/?title=The_Tools_Team&diff=1894 2009-03-01T21:31:37Z

<p>Jharrow: </p> <hr /> <div>Topic Owners: [[User:Jharrow|Jason]] + Michelle<br /> <br /> ''&quot;&lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;Videoconferencing&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt; is not just the next thing. It's better than being there.&quot; - Rick Shriner of Apple, talking about &quot;Quicktime Conferencing&quot; in 1995.''<br /> <br /> It's 14 years later, and - while we've augmented IIF with a course wiki and additional high-tech tools each week - we all still bother to get together in person for two hours a week, and we still expend effort and money to bring outside guests to our classroom each week. But, while we continue to meet in the real world, we do use a lot of online tools to augment these interactions, so our job is to occassionally step back and examine the critical questions of how the tools we are using add to the in-person experience, detract from it, or go beyond it. Furthermore, we'd like to know if our group is on the frontier of these technologies: are others using similar tools in similar ways in classrooms or around conference tables, or are we blazing new trails?<br /> <br /> Every so often, we'll be stealing 10-15 minutes from one of the groups to take a look at a specific tool we've been using - or, perhaps, one we've overlooked. These are:<br /> <br /> # [[Tools: Twitter in the Classroom|Twitter]] - 3-2-09<br /> # [[Tools: Seesmic|Seesmic]]<br /> # [[Tools: The Road Not Taken|The Road Not Taken]]<br /> # TBA</div>

Jharrow