Copyright and Fair Use
Questions about copyright and the fair use of copyrighted materials for education come up a lot during out work with educators on different campuses. I was planning on writing about this topic anyway, and then I came across a great resource that I knew I had to share. It’s an interactive guide to using multimedia in your courses (put together by Baruch College). It is not applicable in every situation, as it deals exclusively with using audio, visual, or audiovisual materials for use in traditional classroom or password protected online course environment (and does not consider use through course packs or personal email or websites). It focuses mostly on the TEACH Act (Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization), which “exempts from liability the transmission, including over a digital network, of a performance or display of a copyrighted work by an accredited non-profit educational institution to students officially enrolled in a course or a government body to officers or employees of government as a part of their official duties or employment. It does not cover making textual materials available to students” (See this site for more information).
The “Copyright Metro” gives step-by-step instructions for determining if an instructor can legally use particular material in their course. The way you answer the questions determines the “metro” tracks you take. The first consideration is whether or not the work was legally made or acquired (pick “no” and that’s the end of your train). If “yes,” you are then asked if you have copyright holder permission (pick “yes” and you’re good to go). If you pick “no,” you then answer whether you’ll use the media in-class or online. If online, there are different tracks for audio, visual, or audiovisual. And so on.
Beyond this interactive exercise, there are many great resources online (I particularly like this document listing different media types and the specific uses allowed), and I would also encourage you to talk with your school’s library or legal staff to find out specific policies for your institution.
– Gail E. Krovitz, Ph.D. –
Senior Academic Trainer & Consultant
Immediacy and inclusion: making students your academic peers
The Chronicle of Higher Education (http://www.chronicle.com) recently published a thought provoking but not entirely surprising article on student reading and writing habits as assessed by their instructors. In this article, (Studies Explore Whether the Internet Makes Students Better Writers, http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i39/39writing.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en), the pros and cons of whether social electronic media tools improve or diminish a student’s writing ability are examined. The distinction made is between academic (i.e., rules of the game are pre-digital native) and social (rules are post digital-native) writing, and the point (one we’ve all likely heard before) is made that non-academic student writing is largely social. Some professors feel that this outside social writing is promoting inferior student writing in the academic setting.
Over and over again the ideas of social writing, immediacy, and engagement are brought up. The percentage of student writing that is academic is quite low....Students write for an audience; generally this audience consists of their peers….The peer group determines the level of vocabulary, style and general level of authorship, etc., etc. While reading the article, I kept waiting for someone to strategize about how to improve academic writing by actually including the students in the academic peer group, mirroring the audience-based impetus for writing that the article recognizes drives student social writing. Many of the professor commentators in the article talk about how students write for their peers, and voluminously. So how do we shift some of that volume to the academic sphere?
I was particularly caught by the comments of a George Mason professor, Paul Rodgers. Mr. Rogers talks about the immediacy qualities of student social writing, and how this immediacy keeps students engaged because they are “conscious of the effect their writing is having on other people.” Absolutely! Isn’t that why we in academia write? Conversely, when we ask students to write an academic paper, we are basically limiting their audience to one. That takes away some of the immediacy we recognize as an engagement factor for our students. In our own academic communities, when we publish a paper, we do so in properly researched and written, formatted, and cited fashion, with the knowledge that our writing will have an effect on an audience of our peers, not just one person. We are therefore also attracted to social writing, and this social writing is similarly directed to a peer group that determines that our writing style will be properly academic. We're not so different from our students, so it should not be a big leap to see that including them in a social AND academic community is necessary to get them to produce.
In an online course, we have tools that promote this idea. Of course, we have the ability to be a member of the learning community. This learning community should optimally transform itself into an academic learning community under the direction of the instructor. At the same time, since this is a community, the instructor and students should also function as peers. This means that the writing that is done, though academic in form and function, should be seen and reacted to by the entire peer group. The tools in an online class facilitate this—using the discussion thread, the document storage and collaboration area, the grouping function, and the web links library will aid in the community accessing and reacting to member research and writing. The instructor guides and is the final authority when assessing each community member, of course, but if the student is drawn into an academic writing process in this more social manner, we will likely have more success with getting them to adopt the customs of academia when writing for their classes.
I'm going to put this article in front of my Reading Strategies students to see what they think. They will probably write voluminously. 
--Vicki Galloway Harsh
Sr. Academic Trainer and Consultant
Good Training = Good Teaching!
I was trying to guess for someone today how many trainings I've performed for eCollege. Wow...I've been at the company almost 7 years and my first job was as a trainer. Now, as the manager of that same group I don't "train" as much as I used to, but I still keep my toe in the pool. I would guess that I've given over 200 trainings in my tenure with eCollege. And that doesn't include conference speaking, sales demonstrations, etc.
But what have I learned in that time? 1 part training = 1 part success. Unfortunately training is the last thing people think about and the first thing to get axed from any budget. (Even if that budget is simply time!) But I've seen partners who "didn't need" training have a very bad time getting up and running. It's more than important - it's essential in 99% of cases.
Over the years, I've been asked a LOT how to pick a great trainer. In fact, I'll likely have to do it again very soon myself! Sure, there are the typical job posting qualities: must be a good communicator, must have good prioritization skills, etc. But the list is bigger - more contextual than that. While I’ve been praised over the years as a great trainer, I know that I’m not the total package. (You can fool some of the people some of the time…) I don’t possess some of the qualities that I look for in others. (Isn’t that what a good boss does - find people who do what you don't?) Not everyone is a great speaker while still being a great consultant. Some people can listen and be respectful but don’t have the “big picture” attribute. But, all things considered, this is a good list to start from if you’re looking for someone to be a “trainer” at your company. Let’s see if I can crystallize them here for you. A good trainer is:
1. A good teacher. The mission at eCollege for trainers is unique. We try to hire trainers who deliver teaching tips as well as functional, system training. We think this really differentiates us from our competitors. In my past life, when I was solely teaching using the Internet, I sat in on trainings from our competitors and it was always, “Click this button - here is what happens…” Ugh. Our trainers try VERY hard to use learning style research, education theory, and brain research to make our trainings actually helpful. Adults need context - they need to know how AND why. We try to provide that.
2. Someone who can handle a room. Good communication skills are essential. But presentation skills are not the only way to “handle a room!” This also includes listening, being respectful, good interpersonal skills, good nonverbals, etc. The best trainers aren’t on the stage the whole time and if they can’t relate 1X1, I’d rather find someone with who isn’t as strong with presentation, if they have great interpersonal skills. (I think we can always teach presentation skills to someone.)
3. Someone who can get to the “so what” of anything. When I took the main trainer role from a colleague who was moving on, there were several elements in our trainings that had no impact, because they didn’t really matter. People need things to be streamlined into what matters vs what doesn’t. Good trainers can do that after trying something just a few times. Brevity is important!
4. Someone who is flexible. I have worked with trainers before who found themselves in trouble if they got to a school and were told, “We already know the platform…can you teach us something about web 2.0?” They freaked out! But, we have some trainers who can absolutely handle that kind of curve ball without blinking. They think on their feet and it makes a major difference!
5. A creative. A person who thinks out of the box can provide that extra “umph” that people love. Little tips, tricks, and special “secrets” that accompany the training are essential. They make the training “pop” and the audience feels like they know “special” information.
6. A good storyteller. 75% of your audience relates to (any) story. So, I need someone who can tell a good, compelling, concise story to emphasize a point. (This can be taught to some people, but you need a good teacher who really understands the makings of a narrative.)
7. Someone who can follow up. The hardest thing for me (personally) is following up after the seminar. Good trainers are macro enough to get the big picture as well as micro enough to deal with the small details.
8. Someone who enjoys research. Good trainers have to know what trends are impacting whatever it is they train for. At eCollege it’s education, technology, learning, curriculum, outcomes, assessment, etc. So, we have to do our best to stay on top of what’s going on in the education world so we can provide really important, but correct insights for our participants.
9. Confident, but not cocky. Too confident feels “salesy” or “shmoozy” - I want genuine (as do trainees). This often comes from experience (on either side of the podium). Of course, the best way to acquire confidence is to do it, learning the mistakes not to repeat and the victories to include every time.
10. A strong leader. I work with people all the time who are scared to tell people what to do, how to think, etc. People can always disagree, but often, participants want someone to say, “This is the best way to do it” vs “There are lots of ways to do it, pick your favorite.” There is a time for each of those messages, but some people are scared to death of option 1. I need someone who’s not afraid to be assertive! Ultimately, most training participants want the same thing… as my old boss loves to say, "People want to be lead!"
Good trainers are hard to come by. A LOT of companies make the same mistake about this position that is made in several other positions. The assumption that somebody can train simply because they know the product, service, process, etc., is a bad line of reasoning. Many companies install executives who are great at what they do, assuming that this also means they know how to lead, communicate downward, manage, etc. It’s a bad assumption for anyone to make and it’s bad for trainers. Often the best trainers are simply the best communicators. And there is a LOT of communication needed…presentation, interpersonal, intercultural, small group, nonverbal, organizational, etc. But, once you find a good trainer, treat them well. Because as helpful as that trainer is for your school, they are a show-piece that others start to want as representatives for their own organizations.
