Video, Drones, and Policing - The Path Forward

In the past few decades, better policing has been responsible for a steady decrease in almost every form of crime in the United States.  Broken Windows policing, largely instituted in the 1990s, works, and everyone in the country has benefited from safer communities.

That said, no system is perfect and police officers make mistakes.  Increasingly, those mistakes are documented for the country in the form of videos captured via the personal smartphones of those on the scene when an incident occurs. In some cases, police have tried, and continue to try, to assert their right to quell the use of cameras, but that's a mistake. Instead, the police should embrace this new era of video accountability and take it even further.

Part of the solution is for officers to each wear a personal camera, but there's even more they can do. Another solution is for police everywhere to use new drone technology and HD video devices to capture every aspect of every scene in which they're engaging a potentially troublesome situation. Cameras on each officer, cameras mounted on police dashboards, wide angle cameras mounted on the roofs of police cars, and advanced personal drones with cameras. The philosophy for police organizations everywhere should be, "you want video, we got your video!"

For example, imagine using the new Lily Camera at a scene similar to the one which took place in McKinney, TX.  The police arrive at the scene, see what is going on, and one officer reaches back and unhooks the drone from it's clip and throws it up into the air. The props engage on the drone and it ascends to a height of 15 or so feet and begins to follow the officer as he walks toward the scene, video camera actively recording everything as it goes.  At the same time, the other officer engages the camera on the roof of the police car and orients it toward the scene to capture a fixed, ground level view of the scene.  And both officers' personal cameras activate for the first-person view of the scene.

Clearly, no officer is perfect and they will know, and feel acutely, that they are under the microscope. The fact is, whether the police do this or not, they are under a microscope.  They are and will be increasingly as video technology improves. So let's just acknowledge reality and insure that video taken is full and complete and can be used to show the public exactly what has happened rather than relying on footage edited by an individual or a news agency, possibly to present the most negative, confrontational, and dramatic impression possible.

Not all news agency behave this way, but there are a growing number of smaller organizations which derive ratings from drama. For them, the more drama, the better, even if it's not a perfectly accurate depiction of what happened. News agencies like that will be far less likely to slant a story if a full and complete version of the video exists and is available right from the start. Witnesses at a scene may also be less likely to slant their stories if they know they too are on video at the scene.

Full and complete coverage protects the interests of the police and the public in that it helps everyone to know exactly what happened.  And rather than telling people not to record video, the police should welcome it.  This says two very important things to the public:

1. We, the police, hold ourselves to the highest standard of behavior
2. We welcome public scrutiny

I think, in general, the public knows police officers aren't perfect and make mistakes. Police are, rightfully, held in high regard by the public, and this will over time help maintain their reputation as honest, hard working women and men who protect citizens and communities where we live and work.

The path forward is simple:

1. Accept the reality of officers being constantly captured on video as they go about their jobs
2. Embrace the video revolution and leverage it to protect the interests of the public and the police themselves. 

Yes, video footage of incidents have been a challenge for police. At the same time, it represents an opportunity. The clock cannot be turned back, so it makes sense to embrace that opportunity and use it in such a way that it offers maximum benefit to the police and the public.

Khan Academy: The Future of eLearning?

One of the best designed new learning sites I've ever laid eyes on exists in the form of KhanAcademy.org.  This started as a learning site for kids but is quickly evolving into an open content site for all ages in every area of study.  The system used there to benchmark skills and set users at the right learning level on topics is amazing, and I would say to Learning Management Service companies out there; pay attention or you're going to get left behind!

Want to know more about the origin of the Khan Academy site?  Here's Sal Khan giving a TED Talk a few years ago:

Real-World Examples of Successful Classroom Technology Adoption

I promised in my post from a few days back that I would offer some real-world examples of successful classroom technology adoption reflecting the "three requirements I spelled out in that post. Just as a reminder, the three Classrom Technology Integration (CTI) requirements for insuring widespread adoption are:

1. Must be user-friendly, intuitive, and cost-effective
2. Must mimic some existing technology in the classroom
3. Must add some new value over previous technology

I know the first requirement is a bit of a "duh!", but I think we all see too many examples where technology gets way too complicated and thus is left around to collect dust. These are our early 21st century paperweights.

So, let me now offer two examples, and the possible next step from our current state.  

EXAMPLE 1:

Example 1 is the move from school slate and chalk, to pencil and paper, to a possible move one day to some form of tablet device:

Yes, this a very simplistic example; however, it also perfectly demonstrates the three requirements. The move away from the slate came because pencil and paper was a very easy transition to make and is cost effective. The pencil/paper option was a perfect mimic of the slate option, but added tremendous value in that you did not have to erase your work but could instead just turn the page. Thus students could retain all their lessons from the day for study later.

Will we see a move to tablets in the future? Some schools, colleges, and companies have already begun to experiment with this option. 

Advantages include the ability to take notes, load classwork and homework, and submit all of it for review, automatic scoring by the system, saving teachers a great deal of time, the ability to track subject-related strengths and weaknesses so as to better target solutions, and many other possibilities. Weaknesses include cost, higher level of complexity, and the need for regular onsite tech support.

EXAMPLE 2: 

Example 2 is somewhat similar to the previous example in that it's the move from classroom blackboards, which were the norm even when I was in college, to the whiteboard, to a possible future of some kind of Smartboard:

The move from blackboard to whiteboard is a no-brainer, even though that move is relatively recent from a long-term historical viewpoint.  Whiteboards are cheaper, cleaner, easier to maintain (unless you decide you want to use regular markers on the board rather than dry erase markers), and easier to view from any point in the classroom.  In addition, it's easier to use various marker colors in creating lists or illustrating concepts.  Yes, there was colored chalk, but how often did teachers / professors use colored chalk?  From my memory, almost never.

The move from blackboard to whitebard clearly follows all three CTI requirements, though the move to a classroom "Smarboard" system may not.  Having used Smartboards in the past, they do offer some distinct advantages, such as the ability to display the board to both in-room and remote participants, the ability to view and play many types of media, and the ability to create lists and diagrams just as one would with a whiteboard, only with the ability to save the work and send it out to participants.  In addition, teachers could load curricula to their boards, including interactive assignments and reuse content over and over again without having to take time to write anything themselves. if a curriculum program is updated, the content is automatically updated for the Smartboard as well, thus saving teachers a great deal of administration time.

Weaknesses include the cost (many thousands of dollars per unit) as well as the complexity of learning how to effectively utilize the system.  Time saved writing assignments on a board would be lost to pulling up files or other various tasks.  Also needed are improvements to the overall usability of the Smartboard systems.

That said, we're now seeing the appearance of Smart Television systems which will ultimately become much cheaper and may become the solution of choice for classrooms.  Private businesses are already starting to integrate Smart TV systems for their use.  Colleges and universities will follow (if they haven't already, and K-12 systems will then likely adopt the systems as well.  

In addition, the use of Smart TV systems give numerous companies the opportunity to develop "learning apps" to use with the boards, which will greatly lower the cost of each system while expanding usability and effectiveness.  

It goes without saying that eventually, if tablets and Smartboards do become the next generation of classroom technology, they'll need to be integrated in some manner.  This too becomes an opportunity for companies and one can already see some forethought on the part of Google with their recently launched Google Classroom system.  

So, what are your thoughts?  Are the CTI principles flawed in any way you can see?  Are there better examples?  I look forward to your comments.

Three Best Practices for Integrating Technology Into the Classroom, Pt 2

In my previous post, I reviewed my first theory regarding the "New Blended" model now emerging for Learning & Development:

THEORY 1 - Elearning has improved Instructor-Led Training (ILT)

For the details, just jump back to the post here.

Now it's time to outline and discuss my second theory, which has to do with the Instructor-led classroom itself.  During our presentation at Learning 2010, we began by showing two pictures, one was of a classroom 100 years ago, and one from a "modern" classroom:

When I asked my oldest daughter, who was 10 at the time, what differences she could see, she noted seating was clustered in the modern classroom and there was a computer in the far corner.  Also easy to note are the whiteboard and the LCD projector on the ceiling in the modern classroom.  Beyond that, it's very difficult to note too many other differences between a classroom circa the 1900's and today.  You could also jump back another hundred years to a classroom circa the 1800's and say the same thing.  All this to say that, while the world has experienced rapid technological progress, the classroom has remained relatively stable. Why is this?

Perhaps because the practice of instruction has been honed over, not hundreds, but thousands of years! Newer instructional technologies are all very recent.  In a sense, the classroom is already a blend of art and science, and has been a highly effective environment for the transmittal of essential skills. The other reason, of course, has to do with teachers / instructors who already have a great deal to manage without the addition of complex technology to their environment.  

So, what conditions must be met in order for new technology adoption to occur in the classroom? This is where my second "theory" becomes relevant.

THEORY 2 - There are three requirements which must be met before widespread adoption of technology will occur.  Those requirements are:

1. Must be user-friendly, intuitive, and cost-effective
2. Must mimic some existing technology in the classroom
3. Must add some new value over previous technology

Requirement 1: Must be user-friendly, intuitive, and cost-effective
Want a technology to see widespread adoption?  Then it must satisfy this requirement. Teachers / Instructors already have a daunting number of tasks to manage in a classroom.   Try to add something too complex and it simply will not be used. You could install the system only to see it sit and collect dust. And it goes without saying that if something is too expensive, it becomes impossible to adopt on a widespread basis (and, yes, I said it anyway).

Requirement 2: Must mimic some existing technology already present in the classroom
As someone who has worked as both an instructor and an adjunct professor, I can assure you, the last thing any of us wants is yet another new "thing" to manage. The goal of classroom instruction is to teach other human beings, not manage a bevy of new tech toys.  If you want to add something new in the way of technology, then it must be designed to mimic and, ultimately, replace something already present in the classroom.

Requirement 3: Must add some new value over the previous technology
The technology must, as already noted before, mimic something there before. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition. The technology must also add some new or significantly new value over what was used before.

So, if it's cost-effective, intuitive, mimics something in the classroom, and adds some new value, the technology is highly likely to see widespread adoption. It's a principal I've been calling "Classroom Technology Integration," (CTI).  There are discussions in education journals that talk of "seamless" integration of classroom technology, but the meaning behind "seamless" varies widely.

In my opinion, "seamless" integration of technology must incorporate the requirements spelled out above.  Why?

Above all, the goal of the technology must be to further the power and quality of the educational environment! In other words, it must serve the instructor and students.

If the technology can't do this; if it impedes rather than promotes quality education, then attempts to integrate the technology should never be made in the first place. If you're company hoping to invest millions or more into THE next classroom technology and don't take all this into consideration, then you're more likely to lose the value of your investment.

What are some real-world examples of this theory?  To see a couple, just take a look at my next blog post!

Three Best Practices for Integrating Technology Into the Classroom, Pt 1

Four years ago, a colleague of mine and I gave a presentation at the Learning 2010 conference. Our topic came from a couple theories I developed regarding how Elearning affects classroom learning and the ways each mode has begun to change and shape the other.  Over the next two or three posts, I'm going to outline my theories and discuss the coming of what I believe to be a "New Blended" learning model.  First, let me outline my first theory, which I think other learning professionals will largely agree with.

THEORY 1 - Elearning has improved Instructor-Led Training (ILT)
In the early 2000's, many thought Elearning would be the death of the classroom.  Instead, Elearning has actually strengthened it.  It has done this in a few different ways:

• Elearning as pre-work - One of the banes of instructors in the classroom is having to deal with students with widely varying levels of knowledge or skill.  Instructors have the difficult job of juggling those skill levels to prevent those with less knowledge from being left behind while not boring those with more knowledge.  Elearning pre-work and pretesting flattens the classroom landscape by pushing those with more knowledge forward to more advanced training and bringing those with less knowledge up-to-speed with the rest of the classroom. This is a huge advantage for instructors who can then more easily engage all students without leaving anyone behind while at the same time, meeting the stated goals and objectives of the training.
• Elearning as post-work - Online and/or Elearning post-work strengthens what was learned in the classroom; adding to overall retention and reducing the risk of new skills being lost.  Scheduling post-work at various intervals means the significant investment a company makes in instructor-led training will return value.
• The NEW "Blended" training model - Most of the time when we mention "blended learning" today, we mean a blending of Elearning, Virtual Instructor-Led, and Instructor Led Training.  We blend these distinct "modes" of learning into a whole program or curriculum. So we send out Elearning pre-work to participants, then move them through the classroom training, then reinforce everything with post-work of one type or another  Increasingly, however, "blended" will, I believe, refer to the process of adding Elearning components directly into an Instructor Led Training session.  So, for example, at some companies, longer and more intensive training programs have traditional instructor components blended with learning simulations accessed through computers or, increasingly, tablets.  These are not paper-based simulations or role plays, these are complex simulations which allow companies to take the content just learned and place it into context for the learner.  What this means is that, for the first two hours of a course, we might see participants learning how to interact with a client using a company system in the traditional way; a student guide, PowerPoint slides, and perhaps even a live demo. The next two hours would then be practicing those skills in a simulated environment where they can interview clients, enter data, process orders or deliveries, etc.  In that environment, not only is it safe to fail, instructors are able to track the progress of learners through the simulation and assist only when necessary. Tracking and reporting can also help designers track problem areas in the simulation.  There's much more which can be mentioned in relation to the "new blended" approach, but this is a start.

This is probably enough to think on for now.  When you're ready, Part 2 can be found here!