Online learning, faculty development and academic freedom

 

The move to ‘professionalize’ teaching

One of the issues that came up at last week’s conference for university Boards of Governors was the growing need for faculty to be trained in teaching methods, if students are to be fully prepared for life after university. The argument goes something like this:

1. There is increasing pressure from employers, the business community and also from educators for faculty to set clear learning outcomes, and to develop in a deliberate and conscious manner high-level intellectual and personal skills in students, which requires moving away from a model of information transmission to greater student engagement, more learner-centered teaching, and new methods of assessment that measure competencies as well as mastery of content.

2. The move to online learning and a greater use of learning technologies offers more options and choice for faculty. In order to use these technologies well, faculty require not only to know the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of technology, but also need to have a good grasp of how students learn best. This requires a combination of knowing about the research into learning, different theories of learning related to different concepts of knowledge (epistemology), and instructional design skills. Without this basic foundation, it is difficult for faculty to move away from the only model that they are familiar with, namely the lecture and discussion model, which is limited in terms of developing what are often called 21st century skills.

3. Faculty are trained, through the doctoral route, to do research, but there is no requirement to be trained in teaching methods. At best faculty development is voluntary for faculty once appointed, and although post-doctoral students may be offered short courses or in some instances even a certificate in preparation for classroom teaching, this is again voluntary and minimal. Nevertheless teaching will take up a minimum of 40% of a faculty member’s time, and much more for many college instructors.

In effect, this is a productivity issue. The argument is that faculty will get better results, particularly in terms of learning outcomes, if they are professionally trained. Since professional training is exactly what faculty try to do for others, such as scientists, business students, pilots, doctors, health workers, teachers, and engineers, why is it not appropriate for faculty themselves?

The current professional development model is broken

I have argued many times that the current professional development model for faculty – and almost as much for instructors in colleges – is broken. The major problem is that for university faculty – at least in Canada – professional development is mainly voluntary. There is no requirement to take any faculty development courses for tenure or promotion, and faculty can choose to do whatever they think is most appropriate as professional development, such as attending conferences or taking sabbaticals that may have nothing to do with teaching the subject.

Professional development also is mainly focused on faculty once they are in service, rather than on training them before they have tenure or full-time contracts. But it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Many people working in faculty development offices will tell you that professional development is like parents’ evening in schools: you never see the people who really need to be there. And faculty development staff themselves often carry very little clout or status with other faculty, especially outside their own subject domain.  Faculty development staff are often selected for their classroom teaching expertise but may know nothing about teaching online.

However, we don’t allow pilots to fly commercial aircraft without training, we place very high standards on doctors before they are allowed to practice medicine, and we wouldn’t tolerate engineers building roads, tunnels or bridges without very high levels of training. Then why is it OK for faculty to spend 40% or more of their time doing something for which they have had no or minimal training, and which for most students is the most important thing they are paying tuition fees for?

Barriers  to training faculty to teach

It is hard to explain to people outside the higher education institutions why this situation exists. There are many possible reasons that could be put forward, such as

faculty are too busy or overworked with research and administration, and actually doing the job of teaching, to find time for training,the reward system grossly favours research over teaching, so it’s not worth the effort,teaching is an art, not a science, so can’t be taught (so much for art schools)senior research professors don’t want their grad students to waste their time being trained to teach instead of learning how to do researchbeing an expert in a subject area makes you an expert on how to teach it.

There may be an element of truth in each of these arguments, but I believe the main reason lies in faculty’s interpretation of academic freedom.

Academic freedom and teaching

Nothing is more sacrosanct in a university than academic freedom. The concept is critical, and no less important today than in earlier times, when it was a protection against the dogma of the church or the interests of the king. In today’s world, with incredibly powerful multinational companies, governments with narrow political agendas, and the pressure for social conformity, the ability of an academic to research and talk freely, rationally and with expertise about any topic is an essential pillar of democracy, freedom and the search for truth.  It’s one of the core values of a university.

Many academics believe though that academic freedom should apply not only to their choice of what they teach, but also to how they teach it. This stems partly from their expertise in the subject area itself: ‘Don’t tell me how to teach my own subject!.’ There is also some substance in that argument. Science should be taught differently from history: the subject demands it. The fear is that by being trained to teach professionally, outside standards or processes will be imposed on academics and thus force them into some kind of bureaucratic conformity that does not meet the needs of the subject or field of study.

However, I believe that this particular argument is false. The aim is not to restrict the faculty member’s academic freedom through training in teaching, but to widen it by providing more choice. The aim is to provide alternatives and to make what the faculty member wants to do more effective, by drawing on the best research in the teaching of that subject. If you want to develop in undergraduate students high level research skills, here’s what the research tells us and here’s how to do it effectively. Here’s how technology could help to deal with more students with just as good learning outcomes.

So what should be done?

I do believe that we know enough about effective teaching in post-secondary education (see for instance Christensen Hughes and Mighty, 2010) that we should require those who wish to teach in post-secondary education to be formally qualified and to keep current in new methods. This would mean providing post-graduate students with courses and modules on teaching as well as research, if they wish to get a job as a faculty member, and requiring college instructors to take a minimum number of courses on teaching before renewal of contracts.

However, if this is imposed from outside, by government or even senior administration, especially through the collective agreement process, faculty are likely to resist strongly such pressure. It would be far better if faculty push for this themselves. After all, who would not like to get better results for the same amount of work – or even less work? Many faculty currently live in fear of new technologies. We are like the generals at the beginning of the second world war, sending 18 year old pilots to fly fighters or bombers with almost no training – only we are taking mid-career professionals instead, and trying to make them fighter pilots. Proper training can help reduce that fear, and provide much needed confidence in knowing when and when not to use technology for teaching. But this needs to be done at the outset of their careers.

Government and senior administrators also need much more determination in insisting on proper training, while at the same time making it possible. This may mean finding extra money to support the training of post-graduate students in particular. However, this initial investment will pay for itself many times over in more successful students, better learning outcomes and less stress on faculty, freeing up more time eventually for research.

Getting your input

So here are some questions for your input:

1. Can or should we professionalize teaching in higher education? Or is it already happening?

2. Do you believe that the standard professional development model is broken?

3. Why do faculty resist attempts to provide training in teaching? (I’d love to hear from faculty on this).

4. Is this a threat to academic freedom – or is academic freedom being used as a smokescreen to avoid accountability?

5. If we need professional training to teach in universities, how can this best be implemented?

6. Where is faculty training being done comprehensively and well? Why?

Summing up

Of all the challenges facing online learning, I believe the need to train faculty properly to be the most difficult. Without adequate training in teaching methods, I don’t see how learning technologies can be used effectively. We cannot afford to go on creating a whole parallel industry of instructional designers to hold the hands of faculty who can’t teach effectively. Higher education is costing too much to have amateurs doing the teaching.

But I also believe that most faculty do want to teach well, and will respond to help in the right form. So I really look forward to your feedback on this.

Reference 

Christensen Hughes, J. and Mighty, J. (2010) Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Montreal and  Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press

View the original article here

Synergies between online learning, on-campus teaching and flexible learning

Why get the bus to campus when you can study online?

Kiczcales, G. (2014) Online to improve on-campus Digital Learning Blog, UBC, Vancouver BC, April 14.

UBC’s flexible learning strategy

Nearly two weeks ago, Eric Grimson, the Chancellor of MIT, and I spent a day at the University of British Columbia consulting on the university’s strategy for flexible learning. I’ve been somewhat constrained by a confidentiality agreement, as UBC’s flexible learning strategy is still at the development stage and has yet to be formally approved, but one of the Provost’s team responsible for developing its strategy, Gregor Kiczales, has an interesting blog that he describes as a conversation about digitization of the channel between educators and learners, and what that means for university education. 

The impact of online learning on the campus

In his most recent post, Gregor discusses ‘one of the most important themes they [Eric and I] both stressed: the main reason for a university like UBC to explore online learning is to improve the on-campus learning experience.’ Certainly it was one of the points I made, that a combination of online learning and campus teaching will offer benefits to many students, by increasing flexibility and also by enabling instructors to focus on what the campus experience does best. However, it is not in my view the main reason for online learning.

I was arguing for more analysis to be made of what the campus can offer that cannot be provided more conveniently or more effectively online, with the implication that much of what we currently do on campus would actually be better replaced by online learning. What I would challenge in particular is that discussion is best done face-to-face. My experience is that very high levels of academic discussion are equally possible online as in class.

This brings me back to my law of equal substitution, which basically states that almost all teaching and learning outcomes can be just as effectively accomplished on campus or online, given good course design, although there will always be exceptions. In general, though, what determines the appropriateness of either mode are non-pedagogical factors, such as comparative costs, the differing needs of different types of students, the training of instructors, and the resources available.

I certainly believe that for young students straight out of high school, the social, sporting and cultural aspects of a campus are very important. Again, though, I question whether there is sufficient focus on these aspects today, especially in commuter universities, where a majority of the students travel in for lectures then go home. If the campus experience is so important for learning, then universities such as UBC need to really change the first and second year experience, with a move away from very large, impersonal lectures to more small group learning and more direct contact with senior research faculty. In other words, the current model, which keeps classes small for post-graduate students and large for first and second year undergraduates, should be inverted.

UBC is attempting to break up the large lecture classes, but the the cost of doing this, and the willingness or otherwise of faculty to spend more time with undergraduate students, are real challenges. It may be more realistic to focus on related academic and cultural activities that lie outside of formal courses or programs, and on those things, such as hands-on access to equipment, that cannot be done online.

Horses for courses (or rather, different courses for different horses)

The other point that really needs to be made is that public institutions such as UBC now face a much more diverse student population, with very different needs. Thus UBC has both young residential and young commuting students, local, national and international students, pre-university, undergraduate, graduate and lifelong learners, students with different levels of English language ability, gregarious and shy learners, and on and on. Every one of these groups probably needs a different range of options regarding the campus experience and the delivery of learning.

Thus I would argue that UBC also needs to focus just as much on fully online learning, or distance education, as on blended learning, or on improving the campus, as important as that is. In particular the lifelong learning market is growing rapidly, and is increasingly important economically in a highly competitive knowledge-based economy. Furthermore, lifelong learners are able and willing to pay the direct costs of for instance professional masters programs or more specific short courses or modules leading to badges or certificates. Such lifelong learners have already been through the campus experience, already have the fundamental lab or studio skills from hands-on learning, and can therefore handle more indirect forms of teaching, such as simulations or remote labs. It is for such learners that online learning is particularly appropriate.

Yes, much more flexibility

Thus UBC is absolutely right to focus on providing learning flexibly, i.e. in a wide variety of ways, to meet the diverse needs of students. In the end, students should be able to choose from a variety of ways of studying, while meeting the same teaching and learning objectives. This will require various mixes of online and classroom teaching within the same course or program. The technology to some extent does allow this ‘personalized’ learning, but it also needs to be accompanied by a major re-thinking of course design and how students can access learning, within a realistic cost framework.

Doing it right

Lastly, I have to say that in my view, UBC is way ahead of most universities in considering the impact of technology, not just on the campus, but on the whole learning experience and in particular the likely impact of changing markets on the university. I admire the way it is addressing these challenges. Thus my one day at UBC after an eleven year absence was a particularly appropriate way to conclude my career as a consultant.

View the original article here

9 Ways to Build Your Next Online Software Training

The other day someone asked for different ways to present simple screencast videos. They didn’t want an elaborate production process. Instead just a few ideas to help them change up the way they’re currently doing their screencasts for their online software training.

I regularly put together simple screencast videos. Sometimes I’ll play with different ways to present the information. Below are a few examples from the blog over the past couple of years. I highlight some of the things I did to mix it up a bit.

In the example below, I demonstrated how sometimes it’s easier to use static images to teach about software than creating a video. Some of the benefits of this approach are smaller file size, easier updating, and less production time.

This example was built in PowerPoint. So if you don’t have a different application, you can still create some simple interactivity that mirrors the software training.

Click here to view the demo.

Form-based tools are nice because they make production super simple. All you do is add your content to the form. This can be text, narration, images, or video. And then you hit publish. The software does the rest because it’s already designed to do something very specific. That means fewer decisions for you and a faster production time.

Click here to view the simple software training demo.

In the demo above, I used an image of the software I was training (in this case Articulate Storyline). Then I inserted some labels on top of the image to highlight features of the software.

This demo has three labels to show what you can do:

Text only: the easiest to do Image & narration: added a more detailed image to dig deeper and recorded some narration to explain more Video screencast: which lets me chunk up the video part of the training into smaller and more targeted videos.

Below are a few tutorials that I’ve done in the past. They’re mostly video screencasts. But sometimes I like to mix up how I present them. This way I can play with ideas on the look and layouts. I also try to add some interactive elements if I can.

In this example, the main page mirrors the free PowerPoint template. I broke the tutorial into three chunks and used the circles as a menu.

Click here to view the software training example.

You’ll also notice that once complete, the circles indicate a visited state to show that the tutorial has been viewed.

Here is a somewhat different take on the tutorial page. I was playing around with some drag & drop ideas where the end user selects a video and drops it in a box which loads the video.

Click here to view the software training example.

The tutorial below looks different but is similar in design. And here’s a follow up post on how to make the interactive tutorials more practical in their usability since the drag & drop interaction is novel, but maybe not always practical.

Click here to view the software training example.

It’s easier to build a simple click interaction to play the video tutorials. But sometimes the contrast of doing something different (like a drag & drop) helps engage the person during the training.

Original posts:

In this example I start the tutorial with a simple page that explains the series of tutorials. The first tutorial just goes to just the video. For the second tutorial, I added a start image with the idea that you can quickly brand or describe the video prior to clicking.

Click here to view the software training example.

You’ll also notice that in this demo I chose not to use the player controls so the profile of the course is a bit different.

For this example I tried a different looking layout and some animations to make the menu screen less static. On each button there’s an animated icon and tutorial description.

Click here to view the software training example.

Each video starts with a washed out screen and title bar graphic. This fades away as the video plays. I also added an interactive menu for quick access to the other tutorials.

Click here to view the software training example.

This example is pretty generic because it just starts right with the screencast tutorial. I threw it in as a way to show some contrast compared to the examples above.

What I like about some of the other examples is that there’s more visual indication of what the tutorial covers. You don’t get that with just the video, unless you add some details to the screen like a starter image or title graphic.

In this last example, the software training has links to four tutorials with descriptive titles. And the tutorials have a visited state to indicate that they’ve been viewed.

Click here to view the software training example.

So there you have it, simple examples of different ways to build your screencast tutorials. The easiest thing is to just record the screencast video and upload it to a server. But sometimes it helps to change things up. That’s what I showed with these examples.

My favorite demo is the last one. I like it because it’s a combination of tutorials with visited states. I also like the simple title graphic and that it is consistent across the other tutorials.

Hopefully these examples inspire your own ideas for your next screencast or online software training. Which of the examples above do you like best and why? Or what would you recommend for those just getting started? I look forward to your comments.

March 11-12: Phoenix, AZ (ASTD). Become a Rapid E-Learning Pro & Getting Started with Articulate Storyline. Register here.

March 19: Sydney (iDESIGNX): I’m excited to attend my first conference in Australia. Looking forward to meeting many of the blog readers there. I’ll also be in town for two days of workshops. Sign up before it sells out.

April: Indianapolis (ASTD). Details coming.

May: Fargo, ND (ASTD). Details coming.

June 11 & 12: Lincoln (ASTD). Details coming.

October: Dallas (ASTD). Details coming.

More to follow.

Post written by Tom Kuhlmann

View the original article here

Top 10 Tips for Starting and Growing an Online Business

Before viewing this webcast, please fill in all required form fields (*) Please select one United States Canada Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Ascension Island Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, Democratic Republic Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia (Hrvatska) Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Czechoslovakia (former) Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France France, Metropolitan French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Ivory Coast Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles Neutral Zone New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda S. Georgia and S. Sandwich Isls. Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent & the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka St. Helena St. Pierre and Miquelon Sudan Suriname Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay US Minor Outlying Islands USSR (former) Uzbekistan Vanuatu Vatican City Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands (U.S.) Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Yugoslavia (former) Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe Please select one Less than 9 10 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 to 4,999 5,000 to 9,999 Larger than 10,000 Please select one Agriculture & Forestry Automotive Biotechnology & Pharmaceuticals Business Services Construction Consulting Consumer Products & Services Distribution Education Electronics Energy & Utilities Equipment Financial Services Food & Beverage Government Healthcare & Medical Information Technology Insurance Manufacturing Marketing, Media & Entertainment Non-Profit Printing & Publishing Real Estate Retail Software Telecommunications, Communications & Data Services Transportation & Distribution Travel, Hospitality & Recreation VAR/VAD Other Please select one CEO, COO, CFO, CMO, Pres, GM CIO, CTO, CKO, CSO, Technical VP IT/IS Director IT/IS Manager IT/IS Network Administrator IT/IS Database Administrator IT/IS Professional/Admin/Staff Programmer/Developer - Software Programmer/Developer - Web Sales VP/Director Sales Manager Sales Professional Marketing VP/Director Marketing Manager Marketing Professional Business Operations VP/Director/Manager Business Operations Administrator HR VP/Director/Manager HR Professional/Educator/Trainer Finance VP/Director/Manager Finance Analyst Finance Accounting/Controller Consultant Legal Student/Education Professional By submitting this form, you consent to our privacy policy and agree to receive relevant information from the owners of premium content you choose to view on the site. Speaker: Shannon Belew, Author, Starting an Online Business All-in-One for Dummies
Online businesses are on the rise and for good reason but far too many still lack a clear plan for long term growth and development. Fortunately, regardless of whether it’s a new or existing online business, there are several proven strategies that anyone can follow to start off on the right foot or improve what they have already created. Once a basic plan is in place then the rest is just a matter of execution!

Ziff Davis is proud to present the Top 10 Tips for Starting and Growing an Online Business with Shannon Belew, author of “Starting an Online Business All-in-One for Dummies.” Learn about the latest online marketing tools, techniques, and trendsDiscover the best ways of utilizing social tools for selling online Explore best practices for building loyalty with social customers

View the original article here

University of Florida Online launches first undergraduate programs this month

Moran, C. (2013) UF expands opportunities for four-year degrees UF News, September 27

State University System of Florida (2013) UF Online Comprehensive Business Plan, 2013-2019 Gainsville, FL: State University System of Florida Board of Governors

What is being offered?

The University of Florida at Gainsville, part of the Florida State University System, is offering the first courses this month in the state’s first fully online four-year bachelor’s degree programs. UF Online classes start in January for those completing a bachelor’s degree. The first freshmen courses start in August (enrolment is now open).

UF Online starts in January with five majors:

Business administrationCriminology and lawEnvironmental managementHealth education and behaviorSport management

Two more majors will be added in June: biology and psychology. UF Online plans to grow the program to 35 majors by 2019. Students enrolling as freshmen will be able to complete the whole degree program online.

In many cases online courses will be exactly the same in content as the on-campus versions, with a special online section designated for UF Online students. Online and on campus students will take the same exams.

UF Online courses will be exclusively online, so no “blended” program options will be offered except in those cases where a clinical or lab course is required. Thus students have to make a choice: online or on-campus.

What problem is this solving?

Until now, student access to UF has been limited by the difference between supply and demand. Because the UF campus is filled to capacity, the number of freshmen enrolling each year has remained steady at about 6,400. Since the turn of the millennium, though, the annual number of applicants has surged nearly 60 percent to more than 29,000. UF has had to turn away thousands of students who meet admissions criteria. There will no longer be a limit to the size of the freshman class at the University of Florida. The State University System’s first fully online bachelor’s degree programs will place a UF education within reach of any first-time-in-college student who qualifies for admission.

Course and faculty development

Online courses will be developed by a team of content experts and creative professionals that include faculty, instructional designers (IDs), librarians, videographers, graphic designers, and programmers, using the ADDIE model.

UF Online faculty will be required to participate in the University of Florida Faculty Institute. This online workshop takes approximately 7-10 hours and walks faculty through the course design process. Emphasis is placed upon pedagogy rather than technology. Additional development opportunities will be available to the UF Online faculty and teaching assistants.

More details, including quality assurance methods and choice of LMSs (Canvas or Sakai) are contained in the Comprehensive Business Plan

Learner support

The university is developing an orientation specifically for online students. UF is expanding its academic advising and career services, and is expanding its counseling resources to best serve distance students.

Costs for students

The state legislature caps online tuition for in-state students at 75 percent of the price of on-campus classes. Out-of-state students will pay market rates. In-state online students will not only save on tuition, but they also will be exempt from many on-campus fees. In addition, the university estimates that students will save an estimated $8,400 a year in room and board costs they would incur if they moved to Gainesville (presumably, parents will now be expected to pick up the room and board costs, as even online students have to eat and sleep somewhere.)

The cost for the state

The state legislature is providing UF Online with $15 million in start-up costs for one year year, then $5 million annually.

Comments

Good for Florida. Florida’s higher education system has long been a leader in educational technologies.  Robert Gagné and his colleagues at Florida State University were pioneers in educational research and design. The University of Central Florida has long been a leader in hybrid and blended learning. The University of Florida has one of the highest reputations for state universities in the USA and also has a long history of quality online programs mainly at graduate level. Now this new initiative opens up undergraduate university education to anyone that meets the qualifications for entry to the state higher education system.

Note though that at least initially UF Online is focusing on established best practices in online learning, based particularly on the ADDIE model and LMSs. It will be interesting to see if UF Online becomes more adventurous with social media and open educational resources as it becomes more established.

It will also be interesting to see what kind of students opt for the online programs, and how the university will decide on which students will get campus courses and which online. Will for instance the students with the highest qualifications opt for campus-based courses and what will that do for the reputation of the online programs?

In the meantime, I wish every success to this initiative. It is a good example of how online learning can increase productivity by opening up access without major capital costs, and by reducing costs to students. It also appears to be a model that is reproducible if successful for other states and post-secondary educational jurisdictions, so it is well worth watching how it develops. What a good way to start the new year.

View the original article here