What are the implications of Voicethread’s decision to do away with simultaneous logins? Simply that a teacher with 2-3 computers in her room won’t be able to have several kids–using different identities–logged in to work on the same VoiceThread.
Beginning January 1, 2009 VoiceThread will no longer allow multiple simultaneous logins to the same account. The good folks at the VoiceThread blog explain the rationale and acknowledge simultaneous log ins are convenient but they also pose security risks and could be in violation of COPPA.
Source: Colette Cassinelli
How will this impact users who DO NOT want to switch to the Ed version of VoiceThread? Is this an attempt to coerce those teachers into the the Ed version and therefore force them to pay? Simply, is it a reneging of the promise of Voicethread to remain free for individual educators as it restricts multiple logins?
Should we be concerned that there is a push to move people to commercial accounts?
A subscription to the secure K-12 ed.voicethread network gives every student their very own account (student email addresses not required) and students can then choose which classmates to collaborate with – but the projects are still viewable by the teacher.
Though Wes Fryer is quoted, does this quote endorse VoiceThread in limited function for educators still hoping to use the multiple identities in VT?
As great as VT is, do these points hold up to scrutiny…and do educators have any choice but to accept this decision? And, does one of those choices include PAYING for service? Here are some of those points from the VoiceThread blog:
- Why: Allowing students to log in under a teachers login and then participate unsupervised is a violation of the terms of service and for good reason. It is effectively giving accounts without those students having to agree to the terms of service, and many of these students are under age 13 and wouldn’t qualify any way because we adhere to COPPA.
-
How: despite the security change you can still use the service, for free, and with your students, only it may not be as convenient. Here’s the basic workflow/choice for using voicethread in the classroom:
If your students are under 13, or your district rules prevent them from having or using their own email accounts, you will either have to join Ed.VoiceThread and get a school or class subscription, or create ‘Identities’ which allow your students to work under your account.
Thoughts? Is this way off?
Update 12/21/2008: Removed full disclosure question for Colette, since she addressed it in blog comments. Thanks, Colette!
Update 12/21/2008: Please complete the survey that appears online here.
Subscribe to Around the Corner-MGuhlin.net
Be sure to visit the ShareMore! Wiki.
Discover more from Another Think Coming
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Another Think Coming 
Miguel,No, you’re not off on this at all. I’m totally in agreement. This will preclude us from using it with our students who are under 13 as we will not be heading in the direction of ed.VT. Here is my hang-up with ed.VT (it isn’t the money)…it doesn’t allow for spontaneous, authentic commenting to take place. We used ed.VT last year at my school and we had an exchange student create a VT project in math class. A woman from englahd wanted to comment but was unable to do so because she wasn’t part of the ed.VT network. I know they have some sort of way to invite folks in from the outside to comment, but by the time this happens the authenticity is gone.We’ll continue to use VT with our older students by having the teachers with their pro accounts initiate the thread. We’ll then have students who have created their own accounts at VT come in and comment. I’m with you all the way on this one…Matt MontagnePalo Alto, CA
Miguel,No, you’re not off on this at all. I’m totally in agreement. This will preclude us from using it with our students who are under 13 as we will not be heading in the direction of ed.VT. Here is my hang-up with ed.VT (it isn’t the money)…it doesn’t allow for spontaneous, authentic commenting to take place. We used ed.VT last year at my school and we had an exchange student create a VT project in math class. A woman from englahd wanted to comment but was unable to do so because she wasn’t part of the ed.VT network. I know they have some sort of way to invite folks in from the outside to comment, but by the time this happens the authenticity is gone.We’ll continue to use VT with our older students by having the teachers with their pro accounts initiate the thread. We’ll then have students who have created their own accounts at VT come in and comment. I’m with you all the way on this one…Matt MontagnePalo Alto, CA
I saw this as well. Personally, I never did log in simultaneously with my students, but I can see the benefit. But using VT Ed, we didn’t see a lot of traffic on our VTs, and I had to really look for commentators and sell it to them. This will, no doubt, be the first of many more sites starting to push $$ on Ed accounts, and I’m sure that some of these organizations will not survive the year. It will be interesting to see who survives. I have my suspicions about a few who won’t make it, but we’ll just watch and see.DR
I saw this as well. Personally, I never did log in simultaneously with my students, but I can see the benefit. But using VT Ed, we didn’t see a lot of traffic on our VTs, and I had to really look for commentators and sell it to them. This will, no doubt, be the first of many more sites starting to push $$ on Ed accounts, and I’m sure that some of these organizations will not survive the year. It will be interesting to see who survives. I have my suspicions about a few who won’t make it, but we’ll just watch and see.DR
Don’t shoot the messenger, Miguel. The post you mention only serves as an explanation to readers of my blog and those who attend my workshops about changes to VoiceThread so they can make curriculum changes accordingly (Full disclosure: I have never been paid by VoiceThread).
Don’t shoot the messenger, Miguel. The post you mention only serves as an explanation to readers of my blog and those who attend my workshops about changes to VoiceThread so they can make curriculum changes accordingly (Full disclosure: I have never been paid by VoiceThread).
Hi Miguel,This an issue our team has thought about a great deal and we’ve developed a philosophy that I’ll explain in a moment. First I have to ask, what’s with the title? “VoiceThread Reneges?” I’m afraid that by creating a title that first asks a question, but does not attempting to answer the question, needs some explanation on your part, i.e. reneges on what promise exactly, and how? The closest you seem to come is to rephrase the title’s question, “Simply, is it a reneging of the promise of Voicethread to remain free for individual educators as it restricts multiple logins?”Here’s the direct answer to that question. No. We offer the same FREE Educator account that we have since we launched. In fact, it’s even better. Our free K-12 Educator account has more features and is more reliable then when we first offered it. Simultaneous logins cannot be considered a feature any more than a single digit password would be a feature, it’s a proven security risk that we are proactively fixing, to do anything less would be irresponsible.I won’t restate our thinking completely, that can be found here. I would like to know what your thoughts are on allowing students to participate in an environment where Comment Moderation does not work, where students can delete their educator’s content, and, because the student can ‘be’ anyone in the class with one click, there is no accountability. Is that an acceptable standard? Would you professionally recommend that practice and workflow for classroom use? Educators will continue to enjoy many of the premium features of VoiceThread for themselves at no cost but, I’m afraid when it comes to use in the classroom, security must come first. To answer an insinuation about our commercial intent as directly as possible, without any vagary, we do in fact want as many people as possible to use the commercial version of our product. Is that wrong? I’m at a loss to see how this is diabolical, instead of simply a sustainable business model that all of our users should support. I’d love it if you could clarify your position on the security update. If you think that multiple simultaneous logins is an acceptable best practice in the classroom then I think you have an obligation to your readers to clearly spell out how and why. If there’s some option we’ve missed we’d love to hear it. We have so many new features on the horizon, many of them the result of educators taking the time to share their experiences and feedback with us. We think the partnership is working quite well for all involved and are welcoming of any and all criticism.Anyway, thanks in advance for posting our response and have a happy and peaceful holiday,
Hi Miguel,This an issue our team has thought about a great deal and we’ve developed a philosophy that I’ll explain in a moment. First I have to ask, what’s with the title? “VoiceThread Reneges?” I’m afraid that by creating a title that first asks a question, but does not attempting to answer the question, needs some explanation on your part, i.e. reneges on what promise exactly, and how? The closest you seem to come is to rephrase the title’s question, “Simply, is it a reneging of the promise of Voicethread to remain free for individual educators as it restricts multiple logins?”Here’s the direct answer to that question. No. We offer the same FREE Educator account that we have since we launched. In fact, it’s even better. Our free K-12 Educator account has more features and is more reliable then when we first offered it. Simultaneous logins cannot be considered a feature any more than a single digit password would be a feature, it’s a proven security risk that we are proactively fixing, to do anything less would be irresponsible.I won’t restate our thinking completely, that can be found here. I would like to know what your thoughts are on allowing students to participate in an environment where Comment Moderation does not work, where students can delete their educator’s content, and, because the student can ‘be’ anyone in the class with one click, there is no accountability. Is that an acceptable standard? Would you professionally recommend that practice and workflow for classroom use? Educators will continue to enjoy many of the premium features of VoiceThread for themselves at no cost but, I’m afraid when it comes to use in the classroom, security must come first. To answer an insinuation about our commercial intent as directly as possible, without any vagary, we do in fact want as many people as possible to use the commercial version of our product. Is that wrong? I’m at a loss to see how this is diabolical, instead of simply a sustainable business model that all of our users should support. I’d love it if you could clarify your position on the security update. If you think that multiple simultaneous logins is an acceptable best practice in the classroom then I think you have an obligation to your readers to clearly spell out how and why. If there’s some option we’ve missed we’d love to hear it. We have so many new features on the horizon, many of them the result of educators taking the time to share their experiences and feedback with us. We think the partnership is working quite well for all involved and are welcoming of any and all criticism.Anyway, thanks in advance for posting our response and have a happy and peaceful holiday,
Steve, thanks for your detailed response. I know that some teachers take advantage of the multiple identities feature, and the change you’re making will stop their use.Whether it’s better or not, that’s up to the teachers that use it. I personally don’t use the multiple identities feature yet, it seemed some folks were concerned about the change. I hope that my blog entry has shone a little more light and enabled more probing conversation than the VT announcement in your blog.I have a natural caution against commercial companies–Voicethread is but one example–sharing what a great job they’re doing to protect education stakeholders. Since commercial ventures are primarily around to make money, couching WHY they add or remove features has to be fully disclosed.If you disable the identities feature, will it move people to your Ed.Voicethread account? If that move results in revenue, does your original blog entry reflect that your purpose is as much to increase revenue as it is to comply with COPPA (or is it supposed to be CIPA? I’m glad you’re keeping up on this!)?Asking the critical questions is what educators must do whenever they partner with a commercial venture, no matter how beneficent.Miguel
Steve, thanks for your detailed response. I know that some teachers take advantage of the multiple identities feature, and the change you’re making will stop their use.Whether it’s better or not, that’s up to the teachers that use it. I personally don’t use the multiple identities feature yet, it seemed some folks were concerned about the change. I hope that my blog entry has shone a little more light and enabled more probing conversation than the VT announcement in your blog.I have a natural caution against commercial companies–Voicethread is but one example–sharing what a great job they’re doing to protect education stakeholders. Since commercial ventures are primarily around to make money, couching WHY they add or remove features has to be fully disclosed.If you disable the identities feature, will it move people to your Ed.Voicethread account? If that move results in revenue, does your original blog entry reflect that your purpose is as much to increase revenue as it is to comply with COPPA (or is it supposed to be CIPA? I’m glad you’re keeping up on this!)?Asking the critical questions is what educators must do whenever they partner with a commercial venture, no matter how beneficent.Miguel
Miguel,I’m from the same school of critical thought as you and think it’s always good to question why a company that you care about is doing something that affects users. Tools, and the companies that make them, are important because we invest so much in them and we don’t want that investment wasted. There is no argument there and I welcome any detailed and probing questions that you might have to offer, but I would ask that these questions not be vague and characterized by innuendo. My questions about the title of your post, and exactly which promise we have ‘reneged’ on, and whether you would professionally endorse multiple login use of our identities feature, all remain completely unanswered. I’ll make the magnanimous choice and answer all your questions even though you still haven’t answered mine;)Your questions were:If you disable the identities feature, will it move people to your Ed.Voicethread account? If that move results in revenue, does your original blog entry reflect that your purpose is as much to increase revenue as it is to comply with COPPA (or is it supposed to be CIPA? I’m glad you’re keeping up on this!)?Disabling the ability for an entire class to simultaneously login under an educators account will force people to make a choice. If your students are 13 or over and can have their own email accounts, then they can work for free with an unlimited capacity to participate and comment within an unlimited number of VoiceThreads. If they don’t meet that requirement, then you have two choices, directly supervise your students as they participate and make comments when they are logged in as you, or pay $1 a student and let them work freely on ed.VoiceThread. Will this change make more people use the premium version of the product? I sure hope so, because frankly it’s better. Students can work independantly in an accountable environment with their teaches able to see everything they create. I wish that every class could afford it. The bottom line is that to make the tool accessible to as many classrooms as possible, from Mumbai to Melbourne to Milwaukee, regardless of an ability to pay anything at all, we must offer a premium services at a cost. If you have a better model to improve accessibilty to all educational users worldwide, I am all ears, just please include some details in your plan.
Miguel,I’m from the same school of critical thought as you and think it’s always good to question why a company that you care about is doing something that affects users. Tools, and the companies that make them, are important because we invest so much in them and we don’t want that investment wasted. There is no argument there and I welcome any detailed and probing questions that you might have to offer, but I would ask that these questions not be vague and characterized by innuendo. My questions about the title of your post, and exactly which promise we have ‘reneged’ on, and whether you would professionally endorse multiple login use of our identities feature, all remain completely unanswered. I’ll make the magnanimous choice and answer all your questions even though you still haven’t answered mine;)Your questions were:If you disable the identities feature, will it move people to your Ed.Voicethread account? If that move results in revenue, does your original blog entry reflect that your purpose is as much to increase revenue as it is to comply with COPPA (or is it supposed to be CIPA? I’m glad you’re keeping up on this!)?Disabling the ability for an entire class to simultaneously login under an educators account will force people to make a choice. If your students are 13 or over and can have their own email accounts, then they can work for free with an unlimited capacity to participate and comment within an unlimited number of VoiceThreads. If they don’t meet that requirement, then you have two choices, directly supervise your students as they participate and make comments when they are logged in as you, or pay $1 a student and let them work freely on ed.VoiceThread. Will this change make more people use the premium version of the product? I sure hope so, because frankly it’s better. Students can work independantly in an accountable environment with their teaches able to see everything they create. I wish that every class could afford it. The bottom line is that to make the tool accessible to as many classrooms as possible, from Mumbai to Melbourne to Milwaukee, regardless of an ability to pay anything at all, we must offer a premium services at a cost. If you have a better model to improve accessibilty to all educational users worldwide, I am all ears, just please include some details in your plan.
Steve, innuendo? Let’s ask the majority of users…”Educators, do you think VoiceThread reneged on its services by dropping the multiple identities feature, and encouraging you to switch over to Ed.VT?”And, if the overwhelming response is–as you may anticipate–NO, isn’t this just a question in a blog entry that will be ignored? After all, for my blog title question to be innuendo, it would have to have a period or an exclamation mark after it…not an interrogatory mark.Voicethread offered free services to educators…by adjusting the multiple identities option as you did, did you change the fundamental uses of the product for educators who wanted to use the product as it was?Was there an implied promise that VT would continue for free, and that it would remain free for educators as the product was when it was introduced?Your response to both those questions is important. Saying that you made the change because it was to be more in compliance with federal law, to safeguard teachers’ work–a risk teachers (and their organizations) took upon themselves as professionals when choosing to use VT–but NOT disclosing it was to move people to an option that would generate money for your company, well, that is less than forthcoming. Yes, it’s a justifiable business model, it’s not diabolical, but saying this alone is why you’re making the change and not saying it’s to make money, well, that’s less than transparent. Why not just say, “Hey, we can’t afford to do this anymore, we’re going to make some adjustments. If it makes you feel better, here are some reasons for making the change that have nothing to do with money.”If you had said,”Folks, we’ll be phasing out some of the free education components because too many educators are using the multiple identities aspect and no one is buying the Ed.VT, and, by the way, here are some of the benefits of doing this unrelated to revenue-generation for the company,” I doubt anyone would have said anything. But, something about your blog entry registered as…well…incomplete, wrong. I’m calling you on it. Is that innuendo? Not from my perspective. We’re discussing this in the open, so that if my post is misguided, silly, it will be seen you are helping me understand that. If you did say that, I missed that. If you didn’t think to say that, you have that opportunity now. If you think you don’t need to say that because you’ve done a great service to educators over the time you’ve been open, then you might expect push-back.Finally, it’s clear that you think that the idea that VoiceThread reneged IS, in fact, way off. Thank you, ultimately, that is your final answer to the closing question of the blog entry.Warm regards…and I appreciate the conversation through which misconceptions may be corrected,Miguel
Steve, innuendo? Let’s ask the majority of users…”Educators, do you think VoiceThread reneged on its services by dropping the multiple identities feature, and encouraging you to switch over to Ed.VT?”And, if the overwhelming response is–as you may anticipate–NO, isn’t this just a question in a blog entry that will be ignored? After all, for my blog title question to be innuendo, it would have to have a period or an exclamation mark after it…not an interrogatory mark.Voicethread offered free services to educators…by adjusting the multiple identities option as you did, did you change the fundamental uses of the product for educators who wanted to use the product as it was?Was there an implied promise that VT would continue for free, and that it would remain free for educators as the product was when it was introduced?Your response to both those questions is important. Saying that you made the change because it was to be more in compliance with federal law, to safeguard teachers’ work–a risk teachers (and their organizations) took upon themselves as professionals when choosing to use VT–but NOT disclosing it was to move people to an option that would generate money for your company, well, that is less than forthcoming. Yes, it’s a justifiable business model, it’s not diabolical, but saying this alone is why you’re making the change and not saying it’s to make money, well, that’s less than transparent. Why not just say, “Hey, we can’t afford to do this anymore, we’re going to make some adjustments. If it makes you feel better, here are some reasons for making the change that have nothing to do with money.”If you had said,”Folks, we’ll be phasing out some of the free education components because too many educators are using the multiple identities aspect and no one is buying the Ed.VT, and, by the way, here are some of the benefits of doing this unrelated to revenue-generation for the company,” I doubt anyone would have said anything. But, something about your blog entry registered as…well…incomplete, wrong. I’m calling you on it. Is that innuendo? Not from my perspective. We’re discussing this in the open, so that if my post is misguided, silly, it will be seen you are helping me understand that. If you did say that, I missed that. If you didn’t think to say that, you have that opportunity now. If you think you don’t need to say that because you’ve done a great service to educators over the time you’ve been open, then you might expect push-back.Finally, it’s clear that you think that the idea that VoiceThread reneged IS, in fact, way off. Thank you, ultimately, that is your final answer to the closing question of the blog entry.Warm regards…and I appreciate the conversation through which misconceptions may be corrected,Miguel
Miguel,In my very first response I stated as plainly as I could that the reasons for the security update are not financially driven. Although personally I believe you have an obligation to make a case for your assertions that is somewhat deeper than there was ‘something about’ our blog posting, there is clearly no law demanding it.I do think you finally hit the nail on the head when you clarified what I think is good and legitimate point,’by adjusting the multiple identities option as you did, did you change the fundamental uses of the product for educators who wanted to use the product as it was?’This a great question. My personal feeling after talking to many educators is that the change means less convenience for those who were using the tool in that way but clearly is not a ‘fundamental’ change in the service. Most educators, including you, are completely unaffected. But much more important than the question of what represents ‘fundamental’ change is the simple fact that security trumps convenience, period. I have yet to hear any answer to the question, would you professionally recommend the practice of using multiple identities with simultaneous logins by an entire class? Does this method represent an acceptable best practice?I think it’s really important that you take a stand on what you believe is an acceptable workflow. If you have figured out a way to address the security issues that this practice of a class simultaneously logging in under the educators account, I would really really love to hear them.And finally, why do you keep using the past tense when referring to the Free educator account? This Free account has two and half times the capacity it did when it was first offered, it has over a dozen features that it didn’t when we first launched it. While I’m glad that you were able to clarify your feeling that perhaps a promise has been broken but I have yet to hear a cogent critique of our security change, does it exist?sincerely, p.s. if you or anyone else would like to arrange for a phone conference to discuss the issues I would love schedule it. Just send a note to info @ voicethread.com and I’ll see if I can set something up.
Miguel,In my very first response I stated as plainly as I could that the reasons for the security update are not financially driven. Although personally I believe you have an obligation to make a case for your assertions that is somewhat deeper than there was ‘something about’ our blog posting, there is clearly no law demanding it.I do think you finally hit the nail on the head when you clarified what I think is good and legitimate point,’by adjusting the multiple identities option as you did, did you change the fundamental uses of the product for educators who wanted to use the product as it was?’This a great question. My personal feeling after talking to many educators is that the change means less convenience for those who were using the tool in that way but clearly is not a ‘fundamental’ change in the service. Most educators, including you, are completely unaffected. But much more important than the question of what represents ‘fundamental’ change is the simple fact that security trumps convenience, period. I have yet to hear any answer to the question, would you professionally recommend the practice of using multiple identities with simultaneous logins by an entire class? Does this method represent an acceptable best practice?I think it’s really important that you take a stand on what you believe is an acceptable workflow. If you have figured out a way to address the security issues that this practice of a class simultaneously logging in under the educators account, I would really really love to hear them.And finally, why do you keep using the past tense when referring to the Free educator account? This Free account has two and half times the capacity it did when it was first offered, it has over a dozen features that it didn’t when we first launched it. While I’m glad that you were able to clarify your feeling that perhaps a promise has been broken but I have yet to hear a cogent critique of our security change, does it exist?sincerely, p.s. if you or anyone else would like to arrange for a phone conference to discuss the issues I would love schedule it. Just send a note to info @ voicethread.com and I’ll see if I can set something up.
Hi Miguel,Great conversation here (as usual on your blog). I’d like to hear your response to Steve’s questions as well; “…would you professionally recommend the practice of using multiple identities with simultaneous logins by an entire class? Does this method represent an acceptable best practice?”Reason being, many teachers look to you for guidance. If what Steve says is true, and I agree that it is, then I think you would want to let your readers know that they may be putting their kids at risk by using VT in the manner in which Steve is referring, or not. As of right now, the implication from you is that it’s perfectly safe.Thanks,Lee
Hi Miguel,Great conversation here (as usual on your blog). I’d like to hear your response to Steve’s questions as well; “…would you professionally recommend the practice of using multiple identities with simultaneous logins by an entire class? Does this method represent an acceptable best practice?”Reason being, many teachers look to you for guidance. If what Steve says is true, and I agree that it is, then I think you would want to let your readers know that they may be putting their kids at risk by using VT in the manner in which Steve is referring, or not. As of right now, the implication from you is that it’s perfectly safe.Thanks,Lee
First of all, I make no cogent arguments on this blog. . .as I’ve shared before, it’s a “junk food” blog, a playground for ideas and a place to ask questions.Second, the central question of my blog post is to ask educators whether Voicethread has gone back on its initial promise of free services–including multiple identities, whether it’s best practices or not–by switching that feature off. Third, Voicethread does continue to offer a service that is worthwhile. What were its motivations in adjusting what it offered? Has Steve addressed those sufficiently?As to unanswered questions on my part, I realize it would be easy for me to offer my opinion on this topic. “Voicethread implemented a practice of multiple identities in its service and left it in place for quite awhile. Teachers who use multiple identities learned to cope with that–and wouldn’t it be great if they shared their approaches–and may miss the use of multiple identities. For them, the functionality of VoiceThread has been diminished…and in mid-stream for American public schools! When non-blogging educators return in January, 2009, they will notice that Voicethread no longer enables them, but rather, disables their projects. Was a note posted about this on the VT web front page? (I don’t know, I don’t visit THAT often except when catching an occasional help call).For those that never used multiple identities (I fall into that camp and did not document multiple identities in my VoiceThread print handout), loss of the feature means nothing.”Now, what ARE the best practices for using multiple identities? I haven’t a clue…I’m not a classroom teacher but rather, an administrator.From an administrator point of view, I am going to err on the side of trusting teachers to oversee their classrooms rather than over-regulate for CIPA purposes. I’ve handled a few (handful) phone calls on multiple identities in VoiceThread within the last 2 weeks. That means, teachers ARE using multiple identities. That’s why I’m curious as to the rationale for VT’s change and why it’s worth blogging about.While VoiceThread has heard some complaints about the loss of work, rather than eliminating the feature altogether, it should consider allowing this to be an option that can be turned ON or OFF depending on the expertise of the teacher. I write “should” because educators are COMPLETELY at the mercy of VoiceThread.com, a commercial venture, in regards to its use in K-12 schools. Maybe teachers shouldn’t look a gift-horse in the mouth to count its teeth, but, it doesn’t prevent me from asking these questions.It may be that VoiceThread–and this is speculation, of course, that Steve Muth has already clarified in these comments–sought to force its free VT education users to embrace it’s non-free version for student use (ED.VT) rather than continue to provide functionality teachers without funding or support could continue with. Whether VT sought to do so deliberately to gain revenue stream or to protect its users, the EFFECT is the same, isn’t it? If a teacher wants the benefit of multiple identities, they’ll have to pay for the feature (correct me if I’m wrong, VT experts).How many VT education (free) users are there? How does that compare with Ed.VT users? What revenue might be generated if a significant portion of free users switched to the commercial version?Simply, what are VT education user stats?Hoping that helps clarify my position as an administrator,Miguel GuhlinP.S. A quick aside. I appreciate everyone–especially Steve–who has taken the time to type in these small comment boxes!!
First of all, I make no cogent arguments on this blog. . .as I’ve shared before, it’s a “junk food” blog, a playground for ideas and a place to ask questions.Second, the central question of my blog post is to ask educators whether Voicethread has gone back on its initial promise of free services–including multiple identities, whether it’s best practices or not–by switching that feature off. Third, Voicethread does continue to offer a service that is worthwhile. What were its motivations in adjusting what it offered? Has Steve addressed those sufficiently?As to unanswered questions on my part, I realize it would be easy for me to offer my opinion on this topic. “Voicethread implemented a practice of multiple identities in its service and left it in place for quite awhile. Teachers who use multiple identities learned to cope with that–and wouldn’t it be great if they shared their approaches–and may miss the use of multiple identities. For them, the functionality of VoiceThread has been diminished…and in mid-stream for American public schools! When non-blogging educators return in January, 2009, they will notice that Voicethread no longer enables them, but rather, disables their projects. Was a note posted about this on the VT web front page? (I don’t know, I don’t visit THAT often except when catching an occasional help call).For those that never used multiple identities (I fall into that camp and did not document multiple identities in my VoiceThread print handout), loss of the feature means nothing.”Now, what ARE the best practices for using multiple identities? I haven’t a clue…I’m not a classroom teacher but rather, an administrator.From an administrator point of view, I am going to err on the side of trusting teachers to oversee their classrooms rather than over-regulate for CIPA purposes. I’ve handled a few (handful) phone calls on multiple identities in VoiceThread within the last 2 weeks. That means, teachers ARE using multiple identities. That’s why I’m curious as to the rationale for VT’s change and why it’s worth blogging about.While VoiceThread has heard some complaints about the loss of work, rather than eliminating the feature altogether, it should consider allowing this to be an option that can be turned ON or OFF depending on the expertise of the teacher. I write “should” because educators are COMPLETELY at the mercy of VoiceThread.com, a commercial venture, in regards to its use in K-12 schools. Maybe teachers shouldn’t look a gift-horse in the mouth to count its teeth, but, it doesn’t prevent me from asking these questions.It may be that VoiceThread–and this is speculation, of course, that Steve Muth has already clarified in these comments–sought to force its free VT education users to embrace it’s non-free version for student use (ED.VT) rather than continue to provide functionality teachers without funding or support could continue with. Whether VT sought to do so deliberately to gain revenue stream or to protect its users, the EFFECT is the same, isn’t it? If a teacher wants the benefit of multiple identities, they’ll have to pay for the feature (correct me if I’m wrong, VT experts).How many VT education (free) users are there? How does that compare with Ed.VT users? What revenue might be generated if a significant portion of free users switched to the commercial version?Simply, what are VT education user stats?Hoping that helps clarify my position as an administrator,Miguel GuhlinP.S. A quick aside. I appreciate everyone–especially Steve–who has taken the time to type in these small comment boxes!!
Please complete this short survey on your VoiceThread use:http://tinyurl.com/8edncq
Please complete this short survey on your VoiceThread use:http://tinyurl.com/8edncq
I would like it if VT would let us sign kids up using the gmail hack or mrsmuench+student1@gmail.com. Then each student could have their own account but still not have an email address.
I would like it if VT would let us sign kids up using the gmail hack or mrsmuench+student1@gmail.com. Then each student could have their own account but still not have an email address.
Hi Miguel,Just wanted to make a language correction or I’m afraid that no one will not know what we’re even talking about anymore;) The Multiple Identities feature is absolutely, utterly, and completely unchanged for any and all of our users. A change in the Multiple Identities feature has never been proposed. Not sure if I can make that any plainer.Multiple simultaneous student logins into an educator account is the issue. You can have a hundred student identities if you want, no problem. What you won’t be able to do is have them log in simultaneously. So I think your question to educators is does this change render you Free account, unusable or not free anymore? And although I love a poll, I really love constructive criticism. Some of our best ideas have come from educators, if someone can figure out another way we’ll happily consider it and if we cannot do it, we’ll explain precisely why.
Hi Miguel,Just wanted to make a language correction or I’m afraid that no one will not know what we’re even talking about anymore;) The Multiple Identities feature is absolutely, utterly, and completely unchanged for any and all of our users. A change in the Multiple Identities feature has never been proposed. Not sure if I can make that any plainer.Multiple simultaneous student logins into an educator account is the issue. You can have a hundred student identities if you want, no problem. What you won’t be able to do is have them log in simultaneously. So I think your question to educators is does this change render you Free account, unusable or not free anymore? And although I love a poll, I really love constructive criticism. Some of our best ideas have come from educators, if someone can figure out another way we’ll happily consider it and if we cannot do it, we’ll explain precisely why.
Miguel and Steve, I can see the points being made from both sides. I find myself reflecting upon this conversation and applying it to the “Passport to Digital Citizenship” in the recent ISTE magazine. I feel that Miguel is just trying to take on the role of “hey, wait a minute, something is not right here.” from the educator’s perspective and that Steve is being seen as the “restrictive czar” from the IT perspective. In all honesty, both of you are trying to look out for educators and students when it comes to proper usage and Internet safety. I do want to see VT to continue and grow for the benefit of all educators and students. However, I do want all companies to be sure to be open and honest with all users when it comes to changes. Could there have been away for VT to survey all users and ask them why they wanted to keep the login ability in question? During the survey process VT could have explained their views and supported there reasons for the change. In all, I am one who believes strongly in communication and collaboration with all parties in resolving issues.
Miguel and Steve, I can see the points being made from both sides. I find myself reflecting upon this conversation and applying it to the “Passport to Digital Citizenship” in the recent ISTE magazine. I feel that Miguel is just trying to take on the role of “hey, wait a minute, something is not right here.” from the educator’s perspective and that Steve is being seen as the “restrictive czar” from the IT perspective. In all honesty, both of you are trying to look out for educators and students when it comes to proper usage and Internet safety. I do want to see VT to continue and grow for the benefit of all educators and students. However, I do want all companies to be sure to be open and honest with all users when it comes to changes. Could there have been away for VT to survey all users and ask them why they wanted to keep the login ability in question? During the survey process VT could have explained their views and supported there reasons for the change. In all, I am one who believes strongly in communication and collaboration with all parties in resolving issues.
Hi Brenda and Dean,Brenda’s idea is a really, really interesting one. We’ve in fact looked at it and at first glance we thought it might be the answer, and who knows it still might. The problems with it seem to be legal at this point but we need to do more research. Have you noticed that although Gmail enables this ‘trick’ none of the Google apps will accept this kind of email as a form of registering. Our first thoughts are that it creates a similar situation to the one we’re facing, which is they can’t let young students get defacto accounts. If anyone has any other theories I’d love to hear them. We’ll keep researching that option and maybe we can pull it off.To Dean’s point on consultation with the community, the point is well taken, and I don’t think you can ever err on the side of too much communication with your community. But because this situation involved a security issue that put us, educators, and students at risk, I have to be honest and say an opinion poll really wouldn’t have changed our decision, no matter what the results. I would strongly disagree with Miguel’s notion that we should leave basic security as an educator ‘option.’ I have yet to hear from any member of our community an argument that in fact allowing many students to log into a teachers account is anything other than unwise, or worse. I keep looking for an argument that it can in fact be a safe practice but am still waiting. We speak with an avg of 20 educators a day from all over the world and have an awfully good feel for both how people are using us, and, what they thought of the upcoming change. Of the 25 thousand educators whom we emailed the notice too, we received 6 ‘complaints’, all of whom were contacted and 4 of the 6 came to fully understand our reasoning.What really got me hot under the collar was the insinuation that we were nefariously cloaking our commercial intentions as a security update. I’ve absolutely no idea what we’ve ever done to deserve that. Our last set of feature updates was made available to everyone equally, whether they paid or not, but just so that we’re not accused of a lack of transparency let me disclose that future features will not be given to every account type equally. We’ve got some neat stuff planned and some of it will require that people pay something. No sticks or subterfuge will be involved, we plan on the succeeding based on making some very sweet honey:)Thanks for the critique and please keep giving us advice,
Hi Brenda and Dean,Brenda’s idea is a really, really interesting one. We’ve in fact looked at it and at first glance we thought it might be the answer, and who knows it still might. The problems with it seem to be legal at this point but we need to do more research. Have you noticed that although Gmail enables this ‘trick’ none of the Google apps will accept this kind of email as a form of registering. Our first thoughts are that it creates a similar situation to the one we’re facing, which is they can’t let young students get defacto accounts. If anyone has any other theories I’d love to hear them. We’ll keep researching that option and maybe we can pull it off.To Dean’s point on consultation with the community, the point is well taken, and I don’t think you can ever err on the side of too much communication with your community. But because this situation involved a security issue that put us, educators, and students at risk, I have to be honest and say an opinion poll really wouldn’t have changed our decision, no matter what the results. I would strongly disagree with Miguel’s notion that we should leave basic security as an educator ‘option.’ I have yet to hear from any member of our community an argument that in fact allowing many students to log into a teachers account is anything other than unwise, or worse. I keep looking for an argument that it can in fact be a safe practice but am still waiting. We speak with an avg of 20 educators a day from all over the world and have an awfully good feel for both how people are using us, and, what they thought of the upcoming change. Of the 25 thousand educators whom we emailed the notice too, we received 6 ‘complaints’, all of whom were contacted and 4 of the 6 came to fully understand our reasoning.What really got me hot under the collar was the insinuation that we were nefariously cloaking our commercial intentions as a security update. I’ve absolutely no idea what we’ve ever done to deserve that. Our last set of feature updates was made available to everyone equally, whether they paid or not, but just so that we’re not accused of a lack of transparency let me disclose that future features will not be given to every account type equally. We’ve got some neat stuff planned and some of it will require that people pay something. No sticks or subterfuge will be involved, we plan on the succeeding based on making some very sweet honey:)Thanks for the critique and please keep giving us advice,
@Dean:Thanks for the summation. I don’t have any problem with challenging the lack of transparency and pushing for a business to be more open about why they make decisions. I leave it to my readers to decide whether it was an accurate criticism or not.In this case, VT could have 1) Spent more time letting end-users know of the change and helping them understand what that change was; and 2) Been more transparent of how this feature would change how users interact with VoiceThread.That aside, there is no doubt that a free VT account for educators without simultaneous logins is still a great service. And, providing a great service does not silence the end-users’ responsibility and right to offer feedback that is critical. I appreciate Steve’s passion for his product!Thanks to all for the conversation!@Steve, I did not seek to insinuate nefariousness, only to challenge your lack of transparency in an open blog entry. In regards to administrator point of view, again, you have made the choice for all. I’m offering my opinion, not making a policy decision at this point…which means I reserve the right to change my mind. To make a binding decision in my work place, I’d want to involve stakeholders…something VT neglected to do–right or wrong?–when it changed its feature set.Warm regards,MiguelP.S. I hope this conversation hasn’t raised anyone’s blood pressure that they’re thinking uncharitable thoughts or thinking about mailing/emailing a fruitcake my way (smile).
@Dean:Thanks for the summation. I don’t have any problem with challenging the lack of transparency and pushing for a business to be more open about why they make decisions. I leave it to my readers to decide whether it was an accurate criticism or not.In this case, VT could have 1) Spent more time letting end-users know of the change and helping them understand what that change was; and 2) Been more transparent of how this feature would change how users interact with VoiceThread.That aside, there is no doubt that a free VT account for educators without simultaneous logins is still a great service. And, providing a great service does not silence the end-users’ responsibility and right to offer feedback that is critical. I appreciate Steve’s passion for his product!Thanks to all for the conversation!@Steve, I did not seek to insinuate nefariousness, only to challenge your lack of transparency in an open blog entry. In regards to administrator point of view, again, you have made the choice for all. I’m offering my opinion, not making a policy decision at this point…which means I reserve the right to change my mind. To make a binding decision in my work place, I’d want to involve stakeholders…something VT neglected to do–right or wrong?–when it changed its feature set.Warm regards,MiguelP.S. I hope this conversation hasn’t raised anyone’s blood pressure that they’re thinking uncharitable thoughts or thinking about mailing/emailing a fruitcake my way (smile).
Miguel,I received an email from VoiceThread this past month explaining the changes to my VoiceThread account and was also able to ask question on Twitter about the changes. At no time did I feel like the changes were about money.This past year I did have issues with students making inappropriate comments and deleting one another’s comments when using simultaneous log ins. Too often kids would forget to change their identity and then think their comment was lost (it was 2nd in line) then they rerecorded it. Several class VoiceThreads were accidentally deleted. I always felt a bit uncomfortable about giving the password to the entire class – hopefully they never left an inappropriate message on a public VoiceThread. There is no accountability for students.I decided to switch and go to ed.VoiceThread because not only do I think VoiceThread is great tool for communication and collaboration – I don’t mind paying for a site that I use and receive excellent customer service from. I already pay for other services like 21Classes, United Streaming, Flickr, – I put my money towards the tools I use. Believe me, there are plenty of Web 2.0 tools that I would NOT pay for if there was a fee.On October 31st you wrote in a post:One of the key components of VoiceThread is the possibility of inviting moderated audio, or written, commentary on the work created. Imagine that. Other children can leave audio or text comments on a piece of digital work, and you, as their teacher, can choose to allow it or not. What you wrote is true – but not in the environment of simultaneous log ins. As stated in the Help section: Comment moderation does not work because the Identities are simply a different ‘face’ for the educator account. VoiceThread will instantly show any and all new comments to any of your Identities.You have been a great supporter of VoiceThread in the past. I would hate for your post today to “turn off” potential teachers from using VoiceThread. I thank you and Steve for this insightful conversation.
Miguel,I received an email from VoiceThread this past month explaining the changes to my VoiceThread account and was also able to ask question on Twitter about the changes. At no time did I feel like the changes were about money.This past year I did have issues with students making inappropriate comments and deleting one another’s comments when using simultaneous log ins. Too often kids would forget to change their identity and then think their comment was lost (it was 2nd in line) then they rerecorded it. Several class VoiceThreads were accidentally deleted. I always felt a bit uncomfortable about giving the password to the entire class – hopefully they never left an inappropriate message on a public VoiceThread. There is no accountability for students.I decided to switch and go to ed.VoiceThread because not only do I think VoiceThread is great tool for communication and collaboration – I don’t mind paying for a site that I use and receive excellent customer service from. I already pay for other services like 21Classes, United Streaming, Flickr, – I put my money towards the tools I use. Believe me, there are plenty of Web 2.0 tools that I would NOT pay for if there was a fee.On October 31st you wrote in a post:One of the key components of VoiceThread is the possibility of inviting moderated audio, or written, commentary on the work created. Imagine that. Other children can leave audio or text comments on a piece of digital work, and you, as their teacher, can choose to allow it or not. What you wrote is true – but not in the environment of simultaneous log ins. As stated in the Help section: Comment moderation does not work because the Identities are simply a different ‘face’ for the educator account. VoiceThread will instantly show any and all new comments to any of your Identities.You have been a great supporter of VoiceThread in the past. I would hate for your post today to “turn off” potential teachers from using VoiceThread. I thank you and Steve for this insightful conversation.
Colette, thanks for sharing.Steve must be happy to know he has such support in the education community. As for my support for Voicethread, why is that relevant to this conversation? Take care,Miguel
Colette, thanks for sharing.Steve must be happy to know he has such support in the education community. As for my support for Voicethread, why is that relevant to this conversation? Take care,Miguel