e-Ako

2.3: Primary work into the role of the e-tutor

2010-08-02T14:50:00.000-07:00

Goold, A., Coldwell, J., and Annemieke, C. (2010). An examination of the role of the e-tutor. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(5), 704-716 (full-text).

Work on the e-tutor's role seems to have been silent over the last few years, so Goold et al's article is timely and will hopefully lead to further studies. The article focuses particularly on the online tutor's role where asynchronous discussion is required; it would be interesting to see work relating to the breadth of online tutoring roles as well.

Of particular note is the use of team-teaching, which doubtless made it possible to deal with 70+ students per module!

5.*: Blended learning at the University of Queensland

2010-06-18T01:22:00.000-07:00

I've just returned from the 2010 Blended Learning conference at the University of Queensland, Brisbane. My keynote was beamed through via Elluminate to a UK group at the University of Hertfordshire, and a Cloudworks area provided some further interaction (the Cloudworks page for my keynote here).

I spoke on whether blended learning is a valuable educational goal, suggesting instead that we ought to think in more transcendant terms along the lines of L. Dee Fink's Significant learning and Jack Mezirow's Transformative learning. I also made mention of Narayanan's slow pedagogy (PDF).

There were several particular standouts for me at the event.

Martin Oliver's excellent address (in the Elluminate recording) reminding us of the importance with starting with a consideration of the extreme diversity of our student body, and the use of a Frankenstein's monster image that quite nicely sums up a lot of blended learning.
The work of David Craven (UQ foundation year) and his work with Business Island, primarily because of its excellent simulation and use of real-life collaboration (it makes use of Second Life but will soon move to OpenSim).
A fantastic look at the results of the eCAPS project (see initial promises here). This, to me, was in itself a good reason for making the trip to Brisbane. The eCAPS work will soon be published (I am hoping in at least one journal that will catch e-practitioners' attention). It represents a wonderful synergy between learner-centredness, a clear outcomes focus, sound application of education theory and - as a result - an elegant use of digital technology. I hope to get members of the team to New Zealand at some stage.
A chat with Dr Lynda Shevellar (UQ), whose courageous and dedicated use of blogging and online discussion demonstrates both the necessity of a lecturer with a firm commitment to online discourse and the significant challenges to applying it to an on-campus group.

There was so much more... Dr John Harrison and colleagues' excellent use of podcasting and assessment in courses associated with journalism and broadcasting; sound wisdom from an opening panel; and the opportunity to talk with members of UQs ITS and the ways in which they actively support e-learning development. Each of these discussions were in a richer context than what I can hope to adequately write about here.

I would like to express my appreciation to Drs Helen Farley and Caroline Steele for the invitation, and the opportunity to be inspired again about the possibilities we have for enriching education!

5.*: OERs - a 'global south' perspective

2010-05-24T21:55:00.000-07:00

Kanwar, A., Kodhandaraman, B., and Umar, A. (2010). Toward sustainable Open Education Resources: A perspective from the global south. American Journal of Distance Education 24(2), 65-80.

There has been much interest in the promise of OERs in education. In this article, the authors (all associated with the Commonwealth of Learning) report on the inconclusive experience to date and the uncertain future for various OER initiatives (such as the MIT Open Courseware initiative and the Open University's OpenLearn courses). There are three core issues:

The benefits of OERs are not yet substantiated.
The flow of OERs goes from developed to developing countries (from North to South).
OER initiatives to date are reliant on donor support (yes, these things still cost money).

The authors report on a "we built it but they did not come" scenario whereby forty-six modules of OER material relating to school teacher education were made available in Zimbabwe. The problem: buy-in by education providers. Assocaited issues were to do with the generic nature of the materials themselves and the difficulties of finding suitable resources among the plethora available. Other implementations have been more successful, however the reasons for success have to do with clear provider partnerships... so, while the resources might have been used in these circumstances (where they might have been 'made to order'), it is uncertain as to whether the resources were re-used (the real benefit of OERs).

The authors report on another project linking international providers together to collaborate on developing an OER set of courseware... the project was not completed. The key lesson: governance and quality standards are required for such initiatives... the classic mix of project management and quality assurance, which costs money.

Design of OERs is expensive and takes time. We should certainly applaud those who participate in it, and who apply themselves to developing the OER economy. However we should also be realistic about the challenges and costs of OER development, and be realistic about the level of uptake. Sustainability is a real issue, and the significance of the change management required before OERs are seriously used in formal education should also be squarely faced. Ultimately it is educators themselves who need to be convinced of the vaue of OERs. Until OER use becomes truly convenient and flexible, and perhaps to some extent comprehensive in coverage, the barriers to use may well outstrip the benefits. It seems that there has been little real theoretical progress in OERs since Littlejohn's (2004) book Reusing online resources.

5.1.3: Where is the evidence for digital natives?

2010-05-24T21:43:00.000-07:00

Couldn't resist throwing this one in... Is there anyone no longer convinced? Helsper, E.J., &Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal 36 (3), 503 - 520.

e-Ako taking a deliberate break

2010-04-18T05:15:00.000-07:00

I'm hanging up my blogging spurs for a while to concentrate on my PhD. I am considering a new format when I return... which is likely to be as late as mid 2011. It's been difficult trying to keep up specialist knowledge across multiple areas. My reading on e-learning will continue, but blogging drops in priority for a season!

Mark.

5.3.2: Wikis in the latest JOLT

2010-03-24T21:40:00.001-07:00

The latest Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT, 6[1]) is now available online (not a dedicated link - to the latest issue only). Three articles on wikis further the conversation [1 PDF] [2 PDF] [3 PDF]... but not, admittedly, by much! A pity that none of them consider learning outcomes using an experimental approach, which, I am convinced, the literature regarding the use of wikis in higher education actually requires. We have far too many of the 'What did students think?' evaluation; what we really need is an answer to how well did students learn? The studies also have small response rates and discrete surveys... which is not atypical in much e-learning research. This has the unfortunate consequence of results being highly contextualised and very fragmented.

It is perhaps indicative that we tend to give e-learning tools a go from our enthusiasm, rather than from a consideration of the lessons already learned; the literature review is performed after the evaluation to provide a context for what we did rather than what we will do. This approach is perhaps understandable from the standpoint of encouraging innovation, but it is a poor basis for research. I have no doubt that the authors of these papers learned a lot. As a reader, I'm left a little disappointed!

5.3.3: The Electronic Portfolio Student Perspective Instrument

2010-03-17T13:38:00.000-07:00

Article: Ritzhaupt, A.D., Singh, O., & Seyferth, T. (2008). Development of the Electronic Portfolio Student Perspective Instrument: An ePortfolio integration initiative. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 19(2), 47-71.

Ritzhaupt et al (2008) describe the development of an instrument designed to measure student perceptions of ePortfolios. The Electronic Portfolio Student Perspective Instrument (EPSPI) was tested on a sample (n=204) college of education students. Based on the ESPSI, three subscales were found to determine student perspectives toward ePortfolios: learning, assessment, and visibility.

Some points of interest to me:

Ritzhaupt et al (2008) cite Meeus et al (2006) as suggesting two reasons for the popularity of ePortfolios in education: the contemporary bias toward constructivist pedagogy, and gains made in the accessibility and usability of ICT.
Respondents to the survey (and therefore the agents of its validation) were students using the ChalkandWire eportfolio system (at a cost of "less than" $US50, with renewal options at half the cost per annum...!)
The student perspective should be the basis of ePortfolio implementation (or at least an important consideration). Ritzhaupt et al (2008, p.52) remark that "no standardized instruments have been developed to capture this critical information".

The EPSPI was based on an extensive literature review, which identified four domains (learning, assessment, employment, visibility) and four primary stakeholders (students, administrators, faculty, employers). It's goal "was to capture critical information related to student perspectives and intended uses of ePortfolios to aid faculty and administrators in the decision-making process" (2008, p.54).

The inital instrument had 40 items, and underwent expert review and field testing (n=22). Each item also underwent testing through a 'cognitive interview' with three representatives of the population of interest, to ensure clarity. Eventually 34 items were decided on, and the resulting survey was made available as a Web form. Two hundred and four college of education students responded (no population number is provided).

While the survey certainly helped to validate the ESPSI, the actual impressions from students toward ePortfolios were less than impressive:

Results indicate "that respondents from the sample may not perceive their ePortfolios as a meaningful learning device" (2008, p.56)
"Only 19% of the respondents believed their ePortfolios would be beneficial to securing employment" (p.59)
"Fifty-three percent of the sample indicated they would not use an ePortfolio to aid the employment process if they were the employer" (p.59)
"More than half of the respondents suggested that they would not showcase their ePortfolios to friends (61%) or family (60%)" (p.59).
In open ended responses, "More than 25% of the respondents [n=92 who gave open-ended feedback] mentioned that faculty did not offer help with using ChalkandWire(c) and did not appear to understand the program themselves".
Other qualitative feedback included "negative comments about personal investment in time and money, comments indicating predominantly negative attitudes toward use of technology, and feelings of lack of choice and control" (p.64).

Phew. Not flattering - but, then again, not necessarily an inherent problem with ePortfolios as a concept. It may well be that the poor responses here were to do with implementation - and here is where the ESPSI may let itself down. It seems to measure student perceptions without a consideration of the implementation context. The authors identify this themselves (2008, p.66):

The purpose of the ePortfolio initiative appears to be a key issue for successful integration. For the administration,the system was implemented as an assessment management tool. This raises the question of student versus organizational control... the authors believe that that the low subscale means are representative of user resistance to system change and poor system integration.

The ESPSI instrument is available here. Personally, I see it as a positive step; I am in favour of standardised instruments as they enable comparative studies and can provide insight into good practice. What concerns me about the ESPSI is that it is a measure of student perspective rather than the effectiveness of implementation. It is here that the work of Joyce et al (see previous post) is particularly useful... there is scope, I believe, for an instrument based on their five roles.

5.3.3: Meta-cognitive development through ePortfolios: A school evaluation

2010-03-16T14:17:00.000-07:00

Article: Abrami, P.C, Wade, A., Pillay, V., Aslan, O., Bures, E.M., & Bentley, C. (2008). Encouraging self-regulated learning through electronic portfolios [Full text HTML]. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 34(3), np.

Abrami et al (2008) describe an evaluation of ePEARL (the Electronic Portfolio Encouraging Active Reflective Learning) application, developed for school use. ePEARL has been specifically designed to facilitate self-regulated learning and the development of meta-cognitive skills, based on a three-part model (quoted here):

The forethought phase includes task analysis (goal setting and strategic planning) and self-motivation beliefs (self-efficacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic interest/value and goal orientation). Tasks involved in the forethought phase are: set outcome goals, set process goals, document goal values, plan strategies, and set up learning log.
The next phase, the performance phase, includes self-control (self-instruction, imagery, attention focusing and task strategies) and self-observation (self-recording and self-experimentation). Tasks involved in the performance phase are: creation of work, and learning log entries.
Finally, the self-reflection phase includes self-judgment (self-evaluation and casual attribution) and self-reaction (self-satisfaction/affect and adaptive-defensive responses). Tasks involved in the self-reflection phase are: reflection on work, reflection on process, and awareness of new goal opportunities.

The evalaution of ePEARL use involved 62 teachers and approximately 1200 students. It was hoped that teachers would apply ePEARL using the self-regulation model of forethought, performance, and self-reflection. Unfortunately results were less than optimal:

The teacher survey (n=21 respondents) indicated that teachers were not using the application frequently enough (most using it 5 to 8 hours per month, well short of the requested 12 hours per month);
There were few positive differences between pretest and posttest scores (though the positive effects were in items of interest such as "students identifying strategies for achieving their goals; students documenting the processes they used when working on tasks; teaching students to identify strategies for achieving their goals; students using portfolios to demonstrate their strengths; students using portfolios to identify areas needing improvement");
Teacher focus groups indicated that teachers did not think their students capable enough to partiicpate in the self-regulation process (particularly the 'forethought' phase), not all teachers understood the term 'reflection' in the same way, and not all students were comfortable/able of providing efective feedback to one another;
A sample of student portfolios (n=66) "did not reveal widespread or extensive use of the tool. The majority of the portfolio pieces were reading responses, stories and poems, language arts presentations, social science or science projects, and music and art projects".

While the findings conclude with the paragraph...

However, on occasion, there were teachers who implemented EPs extensively; in these cases, teachers used ePEARL in both creative and practical ways. As a result, student portfolios in the classroom of these teachers were often richer, and demonstrated that students can learn self-regulation skills in order to improve their work and become better learners.

...specific results for these 'occassions' are not provided.

I can't help wondering if this project suffered from implementation flaws. Reading between the lines (and from the first paragraph of the conclusion) I suggest that:

Teachers were asked to use ePortfolios in a way that might have been foreign to them, asked to apply a prescribed learning approach that not all thought was appropriate.
Students were asked to apply themselves to a learning methodology that they were either not capable of participating in, or else were not supported in because of 1. above.
The application itself was designed to facilitate a specific learning process (the self-regulation model). As a combined result of 1. and 2. above, this made the application itself inseperable from the process.

It seems as though to some teachers the ePortoflio was a peripheral experiment, rather than an integrated and central element of teaching and learning. It will be interesting to, as the authors conclude, "Stay tuned" with what follows.

As an addiitonal comment, the survey used instruments called the 'TLSQ' (Teaching and Learning Strategies Questionnaire) and 'SLSQ' (Student Learning Strategies Questionnaire). Both look to be pre- and post-test instruments customised to the K12 sector.

1.1, 5.3.4: Linking two posts together

2010-03-14T13:04:00.000-07:00

Two great pieces in my Google reader account this morning, which I originally thought to comment on separately:

The latest VLENZ (no.166), outlining the promising development of linking an open source MUVE (OpenSim) with Second Life; and
a post from Tony Bates, "Will lecture capture replace asynchronous distance learning?" in which he (rightly!) criticises plans of one US provider's plan to facilitate distance education through recorded lecture.

At first I thought these were worthy of separate comment (indeed, they are!) But then I started to wonder whether it might be better to use one as the lens for commenting further on the other. The VLENZ piece is concerned with advances in technology and what it might enable technically, whereas Bates' post looks at what is possible technically and how it has been applied to learning.

In e-learning we need both advances in technology and a self-conscious approach to how that technology is applied for the purposes of teaching and learning. MUVEs emphasise interaction, 'presence', synchronicity, simulation, activity within a virtual environment where resources can also be freely shared. The 'video capture' initiative described by Bates emphasises access, the view and explanations of the expert, the ability to watch, listen, and revise.

However most academic learning takes place through the reflection and deliberation. It is only insofar as these activities are supported that either might be considered truly educative. As Bates indicates, there are volumes written on the effectiveness of asynchronous distance learning. We have substantial insight as to what rests within the 'black box' of distance education. The challenge is to draw on those lessons that they might inform how we apply new technologies; both the VLENZ and Riverside cases are both generally concerned with 'distance education', which has a considerable literature and a very mature practice. My concern is that fully immersive MUVEs might supercede the deliberate exchange that might take place through, say, online discussion boards - which are by nature more reflective: "Hey, let's all meet in the virtual forest. We don't need those old bulletin boards anymore!"

I remain convinced that MUVEs will find their place as an extremely important addition to the distance educator's toolset - but I have reservations about synchronous virtual exchange being somehow inherently better than asynchronous discourse. It is here that Bates' critique provides a good check-point for the technology; just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. Maybe MUVEs could make lecture rooms redundant and lead to more collaborative and situated learning. We just need to ensure that we don't overlook any advantages that are inherent to less 'wizzy' solutions in the process of transfer, or assume that we need to learn lessons about pedagogy from scratch.

I'm excited about the activities of the VLENZ group. The link between SL and OpenSim should be celebrated. But we should also be thinking ahead about the potential contribution such technologies might make. By considering - deeply - what we already know about effective education, we can save ourselves a whole lot of unneeded learning and mistakes later.

5.3.3: Good things take time

2010-03-11T13:16:00.000-08:00

Article: Wickersham, L.E., & Chambers, S.M. (2010). ePortfolios: Using technology to enhance and assess student learning [Full text PDF]. Education 126(4), 738-746.

Wickersham & Chambers (2006) report on a post first-semester evaluation of a programme ePortfolio implementation (n=26, masters level secondary teacher students). Using a 13 question Likert scale survey and two open-ended questions, they found the following:

Students had not made the connection between the use of an ePortfolio and the potential for enhanced self-knowledge, and knowledge and skills transfer. In fact, students were almost evenly divided in terms of a positive, neutral and negative response on the ePortfolio's usefulness.
Students did report an improvement in their technology skills however most commented in the open-ended questions that the technical interface was the greatest barrier for them.

This is a useful study in that it clearly demonstrates that ePortfolio use must be purposive, and that its benefits (realised through reflection and the gradual building of a collection of artefacts) take time to be appreciated by students. Wickersham & Chambers (2006, p.744) state that

What was learned from all results is the need to be more effective in helping students make that connection [between the ePortfolio exercise and their own development], and to integrate the ePortfolio concept firmly within the program.

Good things, says the cheese ad, take time.

5.3.3: ePortfolio implementation and the threshold concept

2010-03-10T12:58:00.000-08:00

Article: Joyes, G., Gray, L., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2010). Effective practice with e-portfolios: How can the UK experience inform implementation? [Full text PDF]. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(1), 15-27.

Joyes et al's (2010) paper won a best paper award - and it's not difficult to see why. It's authority and groundedness are very clear, as is its significance for ePortfolio practice.

After an overview of ePortfolio activities within the JISC (e-portfolios are one of five main areas of activity) and an overview of the importance of ePortfolios, the authors provide five key roles for the successful implementation of ePortfolios in whatever setting.

The role of purpose - "For successful implementation, the purpose/s behind the use of the e-portfolios must be aligned to the particular context" (p.22). The authors emphasise that ePortfolios cannot be understood outside of the context in which they are used.
The role of learning activity design - "There must be a conscious design and support of a learning activity/activities suited to the purpose and the context" (p.22).
The role of process - "The processes involved in the creation of the e-portfolio in the particular context must be understood and both technical and pedagogic support needs to be provided" (p.22).
The role of ownership - "The e-portfolio processes and outcomes need to be owned by the student. This view leads to considering portability, choice of tool (use of their own phone, camera, audiorecorder, Web 2.0 application, for example)" (p.23).
The disruptive nature of e-portfolios - "E-portfolios are potentially transformative and as a result are disruptive from a pedagogic, technological and an institutional perspective because they tend not to fit exactly within existing systems". Naturally, this means that ePortfolios are best implemented in a systematic way.

Joyes et al (2010) go on to note that, to many experienced ePortfolio users, the five findings above "may seem quite naive" (p.23). However they raise a very interesting point based on this observation - there is a threshold of knowing that the experienced have, but which the uninitiated lack:

The threshold concepts approach recognises that developing understanding is a developmental journey, both intellectually and experientially, but that once the threshold is achieved the perspective of an area is changed forever. Thus guidelines/ guidance will only make sense to a stakeholder if the threshold concept is understood and the preconceptions resolved. Is this why the wheel has been invented so many times in the e-portfolio area? (2010, pp.24-25).

Indeed, it may well be why the wheel is so constantly reinvented. We e-learning practitioners tend to avoid informed practice, letting our enthusiasm for the tool prompt us to action. As a result, we frequently miss the easy and important lessons lying on the sruface of literature. Articles such as this by Joyes et al (2010) demonstrate the very real importance of keeping up with developments in journals.

5.3.4: SLENZ project evaluation

2010-03-10T11:56:00.000-08:00

Over to the SLENZ blog for an overview of the evaluation report (full report available in PDF). It is a little disappointing that the recommendations apply to how to apply future virtual world projects, rather than an analysis of actual effectiveness - though many comments provided in the report give valuable insight.

Well worth a read - and the student and teacher accounts provide plenty of food for thought. In particular, I take this away (from p.47):

In both subprojects, participants commented both on learners’ identification with their avatars, and the fact that working through their avatars in role-play situations enabled them to practice skills with a lesser degree of emotional inhibition. Thus students at MIT reported overcoming pre-interview anxiety by carrying out practice interviews in the build, and Midwifery students felt freer to practice scenarios with a peer in world than they would do under the eyes of their colleagues and tutors in the classroom.

So, there is a promising niche for these tools... I remain convinced that Second Life has a good part to play in education, provided its strengths can be exploited. The SLENZ project has helped to identify - and exemplify - various of those strengths.

5.3.3: Teaching ePortfolios and emotion

2010-03-08T11:49:00.000-08:00

Article: FitzPatrick, M.A., & Spiller, D. (2010). The teaching portfolio: Institutional imperative or teacher's personal journey? Higher Education Research & Development 29(2), 167-178.

FitzPatrick & Spiller (2010) interviewed faculty who completed a teaching ePortfolio as part of a PG Cert in Tertiary Teaching at a New Zealand university (Waikato - my BMS alma mater!) What prompted their investigation was the discovery that preparing the ePortfolio was a highly charged emotional experience for some of their students.

The ePortfolio task required participants to prepare

a single document in which they were asked to present both summative information about their teaching achievements and reflections on their experiences and development as teachers. After they had finished their teaching portfolios, these participants wrote personal narratives about their experiences of compiling a teaching portfolio (2010, p.172).

The difficulties had by participants were twofold:

Reflecting on one's abilities and experiences as a teacher is inevitably an emotional process, and
The ePortfolio task was designed to result in both an outcome suitable as a professional folio and a space for personal reflection.

While most participants reported satisfaction at having completed the ePortfolio task (my favourite participant quote - "My portfolio somehow defused my worst mistakes - they lost their sting and instead became merely parts of a bigger picture", p.176) there was some confusion over who its audience was. Preparing a professional CV-type portfolio is a very different task to keeping a reflective journal. As a result of this feedback, the ePortfolio task has been adapted.

The two difficulties participants had are probably not surprising. I recently finished King's The handbook of the evolving research of transformative learning based on the Learning Activities Survey and was surprised to find in it a model relating to professional development for online learning. 'Fear and uncertainty' for staff is the first step in King's transformative model. If the professional development relates to one's identity as a teacher, an emotional response is to be expected (and FitzPatrick & Spiller draw on some very interesting literature in their discusion relating to this). The second difficulty, that of intended audience and scope of the ePortfolio, is worth storing away as an important lesson. While some ePortfolio applications permit multiple views that mean different views can be created for different audiences (yes, Mahara is one of them...), others permit only a single presentation of information. In the latter case, the end audience is a vital determinant of what is appropriate... your intimate reflections on the lessons you learned from your most recent teaching disaster may not impress a potential employer as much as the half-million dollar research grant you were awarded. Both are important to an educating professional of course, but one is more private. To close with the words of FitzPatrick & Spiller (2010, p.177):

While the emotions aroused in the compilation of the teaching portfolio were mixed, there were some recurrent themes. These related themes can be broadly categorised as uncertainty generated by the multiple purposes of the portfolio task and emotional destabilisation experienced in the process of taking stock of oneself as a teacher. Generally, the period of emotion accompanying 'strong commotion of mind' (Geisel & Meijers, 2005, p. 425) culminated in a sense of reaffirmation of the self as teacher. Some of the participants' ways of managing the stock-taking process, such as using metaphor, can be seen as strategies of self-protection in the light of the fact that the portfolio could also be a public record of achievement. As Kelchtermans (2005) argues, the presence of intense emotions signals that something of vital importance is at stake; in this instance it appears to be about traversing the jagged and uneven terrain of the path towards self-knowledge and growth as a teacher. We argue that this journey should be allowed to be a private one undertaken only with the support of invited companions and a trusted guide. It is not a story that should be recounted for official scrutiny.

Absolutely.

5.3.3: ePortfolios in a K12 setting

2010-03-07T14:50:00.000-08:00

Article: Blair, R., & Godsall, L. (2006). One school's experience in implementing e-portfolios: Lessons learned. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 7(2), pp.145-154.

Blair & Godsall (2006) report on the use of an ePortfolio tool embedded within a (US) school CMS (Course Management System = VLE or LMS). The article discusses ePortfolio implementation in the K12 context.
Among the lessons:

Train teachers first - and have them train students. Blair & Godsall (2006, p.148) note that "Because teachers had a good working knowledge of the technology and were enthusiastic, when they presented their e-portfolio projects to their students, the students were not only quick to undertand the technology, but also quickly shared in teachers' enthusiasm" (and 163 students were involved!)
Use the ePortfolio as a work space. Student ePortfolios became a focal point for work-in-progress, peer-review, and resource collecting.
Have teachers develop their own ePortfolios. Naturally this increases teachers' own competence with the software, and also gives them opportunity to consider the use of ePortfolios from a more informed perspective.

Blair & Godsall (2006) evaluated student use of an ePortfolio drawing on their group of 163 students:

64% find the process "easy".
Images were the most frequent document types added to ePortfolios (n=121), followed by Word documents (113) and PPT files (104). Of the other types, there were 39 audio files and 24 video clips.
54% preferred the thought of a final test over a semester-long ePortfolio project.
Students were "somewhat noncommittal" about using ePortfolios to apply for jobs (73%).

Blair & Godsall (2006, p.151) remark that "Students can easily produce e-portfolios, but cannot make the conection between production and application". This arguably has more to do with educating the students than it does with any inability of the ePortfolio itself. In this study we have a wonderfully transparent look at how year 11 students view ePortfolios: fun; good as instruments for personal expression; but if they mean more work for assessment, well, give me the test!

The actual evaluation instrument used by Blair & Godsall consisted of seven yes/no questions, three LIkert scale questions, and a list of file types. It is unfortunate for the purposes of ePortfolio research that there is no single instrument that is widely applied.

5.3.3: The AeP - significant work in the Australisian area

2010-03-03T10:27:00.000-08:00

Article: Hallam, G., and Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: a review of the Australian ePortfolio project. Higher Education Research & Development 29(2), 179-193.

Hallam & Creagh (2010) introduce the Australian ePortfolio Project (AeP), with a specific emphasis on the first part of the project (started in 2007). The project has already released its first report (2008, PDF or contents page), and Stage II is also now complete (report forthcoming).

The purpose of Stage I (in brief) was to "examine the diverse approaches to ePortfolio use by students in Australian universities in order to consider the scope, penetration and reasons for use of of ePortfolios as well as to examine the issues associatedwith their implementation in higher education" (p.181). Stage II worked toward building a community of practice and established a conference (the next conference is planned for early November, 2010).

The article provides a valuable introduction to the work done for the AeP, which is of foundational importance to ePortfolios in Australasia. The Toolkit is particularly impressive, leaving practitioners with no excuse for not embarking on informed practice. Links to further reports (such as the VET E-portfolio roadmap) within the AeP Web site reveal the considerable work being done in the Australian context.

The Stage I work summarised in the article consists of a selection of primary research informed by a thorough literature review. Findings indicate that ePortfolio activity in the Australian university sector is (or was?) patchy and somewhat fragmented - even within individual institutions. Teachers, managers and HR/professional development personnel have different expectations from ePortfolios. Student surveys compared expectations with experiences (for new students working with ePortfolios), and a separate survey and post-interview with students already working with ePortfolios.

Among the issues identified by Stage I include the need for cooperation across stakeholders to coordinate ePortoflio excpectations; the need for interoperability standards; and the requirement for faculty to link "learning activities, assessment and learning outcomes" (p.187).

The report/paper identify four future scenarios:

A national ePortfolio model (government-owned and driven).
A locally driven model (centred in the HE sector, but "aligned with cross-sectoral interests", p.189).
A Web 2.0 model (student-centred selections of social-networking tools).
A zero action model (the status quo).

My impression from the Ministry-sponsored document "Celebrating learning" is that the New Zealand scene is likely to follow future 2, with the Ministry providing a set of requirements (or, perhaps, 'guidelines') to coordinate interoperability.

The paper concludes with these words (2010, p.191):

There is immense scope for further research into and analysis of the impact and potential of ePortfolios in higher education, so that a better understanding can be developed about many aspects of ePortfolios, such as the diverse dimensions of knowledge construction, student attitudes, new teacher roles, employer expectations, eLearning-supported pedagogies, emerging technologies, interoperability and so on.

Absolutely.

2.1, 1.4.1: Not change resistant? Where's your Dvorak?

2010-03-02T09:59:00.000-08:00

Image from Wikipedia.

I'm finishing Diamond's Guns, germs and steel, and his mention of the Dvorak keyboard got me thinking about the diffusion of e-learning. Only yesterday I was talking with a colleague about e-learning and diffusion, and the usual talk about the change resistance of faculty ensued.

I think we need to adopt a more empathetic approach to faculty and the reluctance some have to e-learning. So, here's a question to all you e-learning enthusiasts: Are you using a Dvorak keyboard? The QWERTY's history is such that we have no real reason for it nowadays; it was originally designed to ensure that the letters of a manual typewriter did not hit one another (and, today, we tend to clean our keyboard trays rather than untangle our letter keys).

A Dvorak keyboard layout is actually superior to the more entrenched QWERTY we all know and love/hate so well. The Dvorak has many advantages over the QWERTY (including less likelihood of carpal tunnel syndrome). It is possible, eventually, to type faster using a Dvorak and free online tutorials are available. There are many valid arguments for Dvorak over QWERTY, so, as e-learning enthusiasts not afraid of progress in technology when advantages are so clear, why have you not made the switch? More to the point, why are you not considering it...?

Your answer to those last two questions may well provide you with the basis of an empathetic response to faculty who struggle with the 'need' to adopt e-learning. Then again, this post might cause some hardy e-learning innovators, not scared in the least of progressive technology, to pry out their keys and rearrange them Dvorak fashion. If that's you, please leave a comment!

Some of these reasons for resistance to Dvorak adoption may well apply to e-learning, too.

5.3.3: ePortfolios making guides, or directors?

2010-03-01T11:40:00.000-08:00

Article: Miller, R., and Morgaine, W. (2009). The benefits of e-portfolios for students and faculty in their own words. Peer Review 11(1), 8-12.

Miller and Morgaine (2009) describe how ePortfolios can be applied at all levels of higher education, "From matriculation [that is, enrolment] to graduation" (p.8). Their work collected statements from ePortfolio users, so that the "common benefits of well-run e-portfolio programs" could be explained in the words of users themselves.

The authors' perspective on the potential for ePortfolios is nicely captured in this quote (2009, p.12):

As students enter college, most do not imagine being responsible for their own learning. They believe that, somehow, teachers make them learn or, in some cases, prevent them from learning. Many even see assignments, required courses, and exams as obstacles to get around on the way to their ticket to the future—the degree. While there has been talk for many years about professors moving from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side,” e-portfolios are developing as a teaching/learning context where this is likely to happen. The practices associated with e-portfolio—e.g., designing “authentic” assignments, using engaging and active pedagogy, periodic self-, peer- and teacher-formative assessments, and requiring students to reflect on their learning—help to move both professors and students into a teacher/learner relationship where “guiding” really works.

ePortfolios, then, have the potential to edge formal education toward a less didactic form of education. The benefits they cite from respondents seem to confirm the role of ePortfolios in:

encouraging metacognition;
helping students to link their learning experiences to course outcomes;
assisting students to perceive the integrative nature of formal education outcomes;
providing a flexible platform for learning activities across a student's learning journey;
helping students come to "the very powerfuil realization that going to college is about more than the degree" (p.10).

I particularly like this quote: "Reflection is like panning for gold, finding the valuable nuggets from among the gravel of day-to-day campus experiences" (p.10).

The shift to 'guide on the side' is explicitly stated in the quotation taken above however the accounts from faculty themselves imply a more directive role (from 'guide on the side' to
'director setting the vector'...?) Student comments mentioned the value of structured expectations and one specifically credited her professor as making valuable and directive suggestions... on p.11 the article concedes that "Faculty, of course, are responsible for designing and assessing the assignments that may be included in students' e-portfolios". So, perhaps the term 'guide' in this sense needs to be understood in the context of students exploring a landscape whose landmarks are already established.

The article is recommended as a good introductory commentary on the potential for ePortfolios.

5.3.3: ePortfolios outside the wire

2010-02-28T12:55:00.000-08:00

Article: Wang, S. (2009). E-portfolios for integrated reflection [Full text PDF]. Issues in Informaing Science and Information Technology (6), 449-460.

Wang (2009, p.449) starts by saying that "Currently, e-portfolios are viewed mostly as a tool of assessment and showcase, but less as a tool of active learning"; this is not the New Zealand experience as far as I am aware. Anyway, Wang proposes an ontological reflection model for ePortfolio use.

While it is disappointing to not see reference to the considerable work being done in the UK (and no reference to open source tools beyond, err, 'OSP'), Wang does make the connection between artefacts and learning objects and suggests a model linking course objectives to rubrics, rubrics to assessments... and, ultimately, student work to assessment outcomes. So far, so good - but next Wang describes an ePortfolio tool designed to facilitate the process of the model.

I have noticed this sort of thing before (see earlier comments on Swan): the development of a model followed by a highly structured application/solution that enables that model to be followed. This seems to be a US approach, as no UK or Australiasian literature I have seen (in published form - I have seen some review articles) attempts this. In the UK and Australasian contexts the trend seems to be toward tools that are much more open-ended and flexible.

The fatal flaw in Wang's work is really this phrase on p.457: "This paper recognizes a lack of applications of e-portfolios for integrated reflection beyond course-based teaching and assessment...". It is a pity that Wang did not read further afield, nor consider how reflection might be structured outside of the ePortfolio application itself. Structuring reflective activity using offline guides and questions can enhance the application of reflection within the ePortoflio environment; the two do not need to be integrated into the ePortfolio tool itself. Indeed, separating the brief from the tool enables the tool to be far more flexible than the case presented by Wang.

Hmmm... perhaps the fact that the study was "supported by" Chalk & Wire Learning Assessment Inc., who (perhaps coincidentally?) market the ePortfolio system Wang recommends, has something to do with the thrust of the paper...? What came first, the system or the model? At least with open source and flexible solutions such as Mahara, you need not constrain your use of an ePortfolio into a conceptual model that may actually be limited in scope.

5.3.3: Trusted links for data - and the lifelong ePortfolio

2010-02-24T17:21:00.000-08:00

Article: Kirkham, T., Winfield, S., Smallwood, A., Coolin, K., Wood, S., & Searchwell, L. (2009). Introducing live ePortoflios to support self organised learning [Full text PDF]. Educational Technology & Society 12(3), 107-114.

Kirkham et al (2009) give background on how ePortfolio systems might link with third party data providers once trusted links are established. The benefits of this are many:

External data relevant to the user can be verified.
User ePortfolios are updated dynamically by the agency storing the data.
The ePortfolio becomes a real focal point for the user's abilities and certifications.

The case study provided reports on the TAS3 (Trusted Architecture for Securely Shared Services) project which, provided it is on track, will be complete by end 2011 (it is likely that it will be based on SAML 2.0). The project seeks to create a set of compliance standards that will permit agencies to share data in mutually trusted ways.

Why is this exciting?

Well, it is one thing to say that you have a Masters degree from the Open University on your ePortfolio and quite another to be able to portal your offical grades (as verified by the University's own student management system) into your ePortfolio view. Once a trusted architecture is available (and adopted), the vision of a verifiable ePortfolio for life is that much closer to fulfilment. Employers will be able to have the claims of an applicant's CV verified from the ePortfolio itself. Students will be able to see their latest grades and timetables from within their own ePortfolios. Employees can have their professional development activities automatically added to their ePortfolio from their institution's record-system.

Of course it is one thing to develop a trusted architecture, quite another for it to become a standard across the agencies whose data would add value to an ePortfolio. But the work of TAS3 is a vital opening step. Once we have an architecture, hopefully agency commitment will follow.

5.3.3: The netfolio and peer interaction

2010-02-22T13:37:00.000-08:00

Article: Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment: an approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology 40(2), 342-357.

Barbera (2009) provides an interesting study comparing the performance of two groups using ePortfolios: one in a classic, individualised sense (Group A n=15), the other using a 'netfolio' system that required peer review of ePortoflios (Group B n=16). The difference in performance between the two groups is considerable, with Group A students in the B to C grade range, Group B students in the A to B grade range.

The difference between Group A and B performance is ascribed to collaborative peer feedback that is formative in nature. However it is not a simple case of requiring peer feedback on ePortfolios to improve student performance. These results may or may not be transferable to other situations. Note the caveats that apply to this study:

All students were enrolled in PhD studies (and so were interdependent, highly motivated learners with high levels of expertise).
Group B required "more attention to the dynamic of the class and more complex grading on [the lecturer's] part" (2009, p.350).
There are hints in the article that Group B had to invest far more time in the course (even though students did not seem to mind this, based on the overall satisfaction they reported).
Peer review was a required aspect of assessment.

It would be interesting to see how transferable the principles of netfolio might be to other learning contexts, particularly given the nature of the learners themselves in this case. The obvious dedication and enthusiasm of the lecturer/researcher here is also relevant to the success of the exercise. The lecturer had to work harder, students had to work longer, the intervention was highly structured and the students were highly motivated. That said, the results from the peer netfolio exercise were clearly improved.

So, technology in this case leads to improved learning... but not on its own. The learning system here requires more energy however the learning outcomes more than justify it. The key for other practitioners is how to adapt the netfolio concept in ways that are realistic for students who are emerging as scholars - and ensuring that adequate learning time is allocated to the peer exchange.

5.3.4: Affordances of 3D learning environments

2010-02-22T12:24:00.000-08:00

Article: Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? [Full text PDF] British Journal of Educational Technology 41(1), 10-32.

As I read this article (which is the subject of a Webinar this afternoon NZT through ascilite), something occured to me: of course 3-D environments have a critical contribution to make to formal education. However, as with most techological interventions, it is not a comprehensive contribution. The five affordances proposed by Dalgarno & Lee make this point implicitly.

After a very useful discussion about immersion and presence, the authors present their affordances:

3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to the development of enhanced spatial knowledge representation of the explored domain.
3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate experiential learning tasks that would be impractical or impossible to undertake in the real world.
3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to increased intrinsic motivation and engagement.
3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to improved transfer of knowledge and skills to real situations through contextualisation of learning.
3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate tasks that lead to richer and/or more effective collaborative learning than is possible with 2-D alternatives.

These are all well and good (I particularly like the honest use of the word 'can') - however there is much left unsaid that helps to further legitimise (and contextualise) these affordances. Firstly, not all of these advantages apply to everything that is taught in higher education. Take philosophy, for example - 'spatial knowledge representation of the explored domain', facilitating 'experiential learning tasks' and applying 'transfer of knowledge and skills to real situations through contextualisation' are, well, not directly relevant. Even 'increased intrinsic motivation and engagement' and 'more effective collaborative learning' are questionable affordances for this type of subject. Here, then, is my point - the affordances are not comprehensive or universally applicable. They are inherent in the technology only insofar as the subject area itself stands to benefit from them.

The examples cited by Dalgarno & Lee illustrate my point above. In support of affordance 5, they cite a study by Jarmon, Traphagan and Mayrath (2008), who:

tell of how students in a graduate-level communication course work together and in collaboration with architecture students at the same university. The communication and architecture students are tasked with creating a virtual presence in SL of two green, sustainable, urban housing designs, that are later physically implemented in a low-income neighbourhood in Austin, Texas. Successful completion of the course assignments and projects is contingent on the students in both disciplines interacting extensively with educational and non-academic participants, both in real life and in the 3-D virtual world. Positive interdependence is also evident in that the communication students are reliant upon the domain knowledge and expertise of the architects, and vice versa (2010, pp.22-23).

Now, that just makes sense. I wonder the extent to which this example also applies to more abstract or theoretical collaboration, where there may be only a concpetual outcome. After all, this is what much of formal education is concerned with.

Lest my perspective here be misconstrued, I see an exciting future for 3D learning environments - and, as an aside, for m-learning - but it is vital that we place these technologies in the context of teaching and learning outcomes, and not try to hawk them as complete solutions that ought to be applied in all educational circumstances. Yes, there are real affordances. But there are also real contexts in which they apply.

5.3.3: Ministry document, "Celebrating Learning"

2010-02-17T19:41:00.000-08:00

I've been a bit remiss on this one... the Ministry of Education report, "ePortfolios - Celebrating learning" was released in August 2009. It is a report that reveals much about central support for ePortfolios in New Zealand, and is rather outstanding for its clarity and, well, good sense.

The report also reveals the challenges of implementing a single ePortfolio solution across an entire formal education sector, from Primary through tertiary. I think the report makes very sound recommendations, based on its analysis of needs and existing practice. Essentially, the recommendations are:

That LEAP2A be adopted as an interoperability standard (Mahara is LEAP2A compliant).
An open source, LEAP2A ePortfolio option be centrally provided (though not mandated).

One interesting finding of the report is that Primary users have specific needs, needs that powerful tools such as Mahara do not cater for... all a 5 year old should be required to do is upload a digital photo of his or her latest painting for the family, not manage views or take responsibility for an individual account! So, on a national basis, it makes great sense to adopt a standard rather than an application.

The report is also an excellent introduction to ePortfolio practice, making various suggestions for practitioners. Cosnider this list of what to consider when getting started with ePortfolios:

Purpose.
Ownership.
'Duty of care'.
Teacher capability.
Time.

The report also suggests that "Simplicity is a good thing to remember. Start 'small' but think 'big'" (p.17). Nice. Based on the reports own recommendations there is one additional factor to consider when getting started with ePortfolios:

Application features (particularly LEAP2A compliance).

This report is a strong indication that informed high-level discussions are taking place on how ePortfolios might be best considered in a lifelong context.

1.1.2: Compulsory 101 for e-learning thinkers

2010-02-17T18:37:00.000-08:00

Article: Njenga, J.K, & Fourie, L.C.H. (2010). The myths about e-learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 41(2), 199-212.

This sort of article always draws my eye - exposure of 'myths' involves the sort of self-criticism that I think e-learning thinking benefits from. The authors suggest that e-learning can only benefit from "a dose of techno-negativity or techno-scepticism... so that the gap between rhetoric in the literature (with all the promises) and actual implementation can be bridged for an informed stance towards e-learning adoption" (p.199). Here's their list:

e-Learning is a saviour; its redemptive power is overreaching and every educational institution should adopt it.
e-Learning can replace human interaction.
e-Learning cuts the costs of education, for instance, e-learning courses are cheaper to deliver than the traditional face-to-face or distance learning.
Providing numerous courses and an abundance of information is beneficial, and can enhance learning.
ICTs should become the primary medium of learning in higher education.
Leisure (including playing and entertainment) and learning are separate activities.
e-Learning will make HEIs more competitive and they must seize it or be declared institutionally redundant.
Establishing the infrastructure (hardware and software) in e-learning is the most difficult part .
e-Learning will see the demise of traditional campuses.
e-Learning can decrease absenteeism and lower dropout rates among students.

No real surprises here, I guess - and only 6 is really questionable (and not just because Prensky is the reference!) It is probably just overstated. Other than that, many of the items on the list remind me of bold claims being made in the early days of Web-base e-learning.

Of course we should not err on the side of dismissiveness. Online access enhances informal learning, providing access to a huge set of text, multimedia and collegial resources; done well, it can refocus instructional development, improve student access to education, provide flexible study pathways, and can even prove better than alternative educational experiences (depending on how its done). Our positive claims become questionable when we project value on to the technology itself, rather than the means by which it is applied.

5.3.3: ePortfolios coming of age - and a bit on Mahara...

2010-02-15T17:19:00.001-08:00

Article: Waters, J.K. (2009). E-portfolios come of age (full text). T H E Journal 36(10), 24-29.

Waters (2009) talks of how ePortfolio tools are coming of age as applications in their own right - no longer as appendages to learning management systems even though SSO (Single Sign On) with LMSs is now standard. The reason for ePortfolios coming into their own is largely because of the predominance of Web 2.0 flexibility, which ePortfolios must both imitate Web 2.0 flexibility and also integrate Web 2.0 presences.

Actually, there is one mistake in the article (printed twice); Moodle was not the inspiration for Mahara. We started with a clean slate, inspired by the potential for a flexible and open source ePortfolio system - and drawing on our dismal impression of the various proprietary tools we had experienced (some of which are listed in Waters' article). Only one member of our steering committee was deeply involved with Moodle, and I was the only other member on the steering committee with administrative Moodle experience. The Moodle connection comes in with Catalyst, the Moodle partners who developed Mahara to our specification - and its strong links with Moodle are further reinforced by the fact that Moodle is widely adopted in New Zealand, where Mahara was proudly forged! An early SSO integration with Moodle was therefore a priority for the developers.

In addition to mentioning Mahara as an application illustrating this coming of age, Waters lists Epsilen (see overview), Angel Learning, and eportfolio.org (intro video)... and Google (in the form of mash-ups). However, in my view, until Google 'mash-up' can provide a feature such as Mahara's views it will not be a viable alternative to a user-controlled ePortfolio (see workflow). The full openness of a Google solution would be its greatest weakness.

5.3.3: The prime directives for an ePortfolio

2010-02-15T12:28:00.000-08:00

Link: Tolley, R.J. (2008). The prime directives for an ePortfolio.

The past few posts on this blog have benefitted from the comments of Ray Tolley, whose work I link to here. Ray's ten 'prime directives' resonate strongly with me - and, oddly(?) enough, they are reflected in the design brief we gave for the development of Mahara. As we consider how ePortfolios might thrive outside of the classroom, criteria such as Ray's will no doubt be discussed more widely.

5.3.3: ePortfolios and what we need to know

2010-02-14T19:01:00.000-08:00

Article: Yancey, K.B. (2009). Electronic portfolios a decade into the twenty-first century: What we know, what we need to know. Peer Review 11(1), 28-32.

Yancey's (2009) brief article is, in some ways, disappointing - it does not draw deeply from the vast literature on ePortfolios, instead opting to treat the book Electronic Portfolios 2.0 as its major source. Now, I have only read the first book the author was involved with, called Electronic portfolios, so I cannot comment on the worth of the 2.0 version. But this article does not fully deliver what it's title promises, and it is disappointing not to see some of the very valuable UK-based research directly cited (this despite the author's own admission that "our knowledge-base is both wide and culturally complex", p.32). Anyway, there is still ample value in the article!

Among Yancey's (2009) what we know's:

Student engagement is a critical aspect of ePortoflio development
Student engagement is, in part, a result of students having control over their ePortfolios and not having to work too much in a prescripted environment
Students using ePortfolios tend to perform better than those who do not (though the possibility that this is because only more successful students would tend to use them is not acknowledged)
The choice of ePortfolio platform is important; "the ways the technology is programmatically formative" (p.29) should be considered.
Reflection across courses - 'meta-reflection' is a good (my) term for it - is proving highly valuable. Typically assignments require students to reflect on what they have learned within each course; ePortfolios broaden the scope of reflection, enabling "a shift from discrete courses to a larger frame of reference" (2009, p.30).
A Skills Matrix (like a table that students populate with artefacts to demonstrate their attainment of various skills) can help to guide meta-reflection.
Reflection is a valuable exercise encouraged by the effective use of ePortfolios; the process is more important than the outcome. Yancey (p.32) notes that "Many colleges and universities... found that helping students develop a 'capability to reflect' is a critical educational outcome, in and of itself".

What we need to know:

The influence on ePortfolio tools to student outcome.
The nature of reflection in the development of ePortfolios.

Not a bad list - but far from comprehensive. I do agree wholeheartedly though that the 'What we need to know' areas are very rich ones for further research, particularly the latter one on reflection. The first, relating to ePortolio tools, is also important - but I think the current case study research speaks for itself on the matter of tool choice (see previous comments relating to Swan's article).

5.3.3: Key findings from Swan (2009)

2010-02-11T12:41:00.000-08:00

Article: Swan, G. (2009). Examining barriers in faculty adoption of an e-portfolio system (full text). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25(5), 627-644.

Swan (2009) reports on an 'exploratory implementation' of ePortfolios in a teacher education programme. ePortfolios were used in particular for student placement reflections and evaluations.

Swan performed in-depth interviews with faculty and university supervisors for some insight into their experiences (n=15) as evaluators of ePortfolios. Interviews took between 45 and 75 minutes.

Key findings:

Faculty tended to rely on their existing means of evaluating students. Student ePortfolios provided additional insight into student experiences. Faculty were used to reviewing the reports of cooperating teachers and were content with the feedback on those reports, so seldom made use of the additional information available in student ePortfolios. They also felt tha they knew their students well enough to not need to consult the eportfolios. Those supervising larger numbers of students werre more likely to make use of the student reports in their ePortfolios.
Supervisors liked the data storage capability of the ePortfolio. The fact that all information was availle through the same paperless interface was perceived as a plus.
Providing feedback to students through the ePortfolio system was perceived as 'redundant'. Supervisors met with their students on a regular basis anyway, so they did not se the point of repeating themselves when giving written feedback on the ePortfolio.
Accreditation (final marking) can be messy. Respondents indicated that they found the final marking (or 'accreditation') of the ePortfolio difficult, because information was so spread and marking is often left to the last moment. I suspect that the problem in this case was to do with the ePortfolio platform itself (Open Portfolio) and the requirements of the accrediting body.

Swan (2009) concludes with the observation that, in his case, "the culture of assessment in this research setting is far from ideal for meeting the loftier goals of an e-portfolio system" - a vital lesson from the 'coal face'. Conversations, it seems, be centred on assessment systems, practice and aspirations rather than 'which tool should we use' or 'which course should we try it on'. Swan (2009) talks in terms of gaining faculty 'consensus' (a common theme in ePortfolio literature), and 'centrifugal force' surrounding implementation. As Swan hinted at earlier (see previous post), implementation involves challenge:

It may be that project leadership must not shy away from conflict and possibly be courageous enough to actually initiate and see it through to resolution.

This certainly resonates with experience! There are a number of implicit lessons from Swan's work:

Take systematic change seriously. It is not enough to add an ePortfolio into a workflow; it must be embedded within systems. This, of course, requires change management, intensive conversation and negotiation, listening, changing...
Choose the tool carefully. I have not examined the Open Portfolio tool, but from the article screenshots it looks highly customised. This can be problematic, as highly customised tools lack flexibility and can serve to reinforce older systems rather than provide opportunity for new ones.
Understanding faculty workflows is vital. After all, it is faculty who will ultimately determine the effectiveness of implementation. If all an ePortfolio does is add an optional extra to their responsibilities, it is no surprise that they may not use it at all. On the other hand, an effective and smooth-flowing system that saves time and improves their ability to interact with students' ideas is likely to achieve its own success.
Get students to create their own final submissions. Swan (2009) found that student information tended to be difficult to compile when needed for accreditation; why not get stduents to do this themselves, according to clear guidelines? The problem Swan encountered may be to do with the constraints of a highly customised system however transferring aggregating work to the stduent seems a very clear and valuable exercise - both for faculty, and for the students themselves. It seems Swan is working on further customising the ePortfolio platform to permit better summaries of data... (see second bullet above).

A very useful article, with some very important lessons for implementing ePortfolios at a programme level. In the days ahead I hope to draw additional ePortoflio-related lessons from literature together.

5.3.3: ePortfolios: More research needed at the coal face

2010-02-10T12:29:00.000-08:00

Article: Swan, G. (2009). Examining barriers in faculty adoption of an e-portfolio system (full text). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25(5), 627-644.

I'm beginning a focus on e-portfolios, because I have a keynote to present in late April and I need to get back in touch with the literature!

Swan (2009) reports on the implementation of an e-portfolio system in a teacher preparation programme in Kentucky. Swan (2009, p.629) begins with the need for more work in the area of "the schisms created by the intersection of faculty practice and system design"... in other words, more work is needed on how ePortfolios might be effectively integrated within the systems and structures of academic programmes, and the faculty responsible for them. Institutional studies, Swan suggests, are numerous... but there are not many "at the user-utility, program assessment level" (ibid.) How do we effectively operationalise ePortfolios within programmes of study?

Swan answers the question of effective operationalisation with reference to:

the emergent perspective, that is, from the understanding that the interface between people and technologies is symbiotic and unpredictable; and
interaction resistance theory, which holds that the differences between "designer intention and user perception cause implementation problems" (2009, p.629).

So, the greater the change, the more implicit resistance to that change and the more potential there is for problems. Swan (2009, p.670) rightly observes that "Adaptation is necessary by both the developer of the system and the members of the organisation to facilitate adoption... a high level of conflict management is crucial to achieve success" (ibid.)

Swan provides an excellent platform for further studies in ePortfolio implementation/operationalisation at the user-level. His introduction of the emergent perspective and interaction resistance theory ring true to my own work in institutional change and development in e-learning where leadership, conversation and improvement (I was going to write 'compromise' as the result of conversation, but in fact it is ultimately improvement) form a tri-unity of absolute importance.

More on the findings of Swan's study tomorrow...

5.1.1: The realities of Web 2.0

2010-02-08T23:50:00.000-08:00

Source: Boyd, D. (2009). "Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media" Web2.0 Expo. New York, NY: November 17.

A good, honest and interesting look at the phenomenon of Web 2.0. The "Four Core Issues" are very thought-provoking in terms of calls for Education 2.0!

This quote seems a useful (part) mission statement for higher education:

...the tools that consumers need are those that allow them to get into flow, that allow them to live inside information structures wherever they are, whatever they're doing. The tools that allow them to easily grab what they need and stay peripherally aware without feeling overwhelmed.

Now, I'm not sure of the 'grab what they need' part, but I like the 'getting them into flow' (citing Csikszentmihalyi) - and the 'staying peripherally aware without feeling overwhelmed' neatly describes my own appreciation of e-learning (even having completed the e-primers). Reading between the lines (and even on them), this article provokes serious challenge to those suggesting an egalitarian, open and networked Education 2.0.

5.3.2: Student behaviour in wikis

2010-02-08T15:24:00.001-08:00

Article: Meishar-Tal, H., and Gorsky, P. (2010). Wikis: what students do and do not do when writing collaboratively. Open Learning 25(1), 25-35.

The article describes the editing behaviour of n=60 graduate students required to contribute to a wiki containing course concepts. The article demonstrates good practice in wiki design:

A compulsory task
A clear objective (building a glossary of key terms)
Beginning with an existing set of definitions
Recognition of the complexity of the task
Specific instructions.

The article cites previous findings indicating that students have a reluctance to edit one another's work or even to criticise; one study reported that a completed collaborative wiki resembled a threaded discussion "that lacked integration and unity" more than a polished document.

The authors constructed a taxonomy of actions that would be useful for further studies into categorising wiki use by students. All 60 students edited the wiki, with 2986 editorial changes made. The most common activity was adding sentences: "Additions occurred three times more than deletions and 4.3 times more than moving entire sentences" (p.31). However, findings indicated an uneven level of activity:

About two-thirds of all sentence deletions were carried out by two students.
33% of all grammatical changes were made by one student.
One student carried out 478 of the total editorial actions (16% of the total).
About 10% of students were "extremely dominant" (p.32) in the activity.

These dominant students are further described:

The dominant students were ‘specialists’ who created near ‘monopolies’ on certain kinds of editorial actions: one ‘mover’, two ‘deleters’, one ‘stylist’ as well as one student who served as ‘formatter’ and ‘linker’. These roles and behaviours were assumed without any direct instruction, apparently quite spontaneously.

The authors suggest that editing behaviour might be correlated with student traits... far more interesting to me is how they graded the exercise, and whether the 'dominance' of some students served to alienate their peers and shape the overall outcome so that it was, perhaps, less representative of the class. It is interesting to note that these findings relate to graduate students... I wonder how editorial behaviour might change among undergraduate students?

A very interesting study... it's great to see some primary analysis. However the findings are, for me, a bit disturbing. Participation was far from equal... was the outcome, then, far from optimal? Might a better level of student activity resulted had the assignment required students to prepare (say) a set of short-answer definitions individually, marked by the lecturer and returned with individualised feedback?

5.1.3, 5.3.1: The non-bloggin' generation

2010-02-06T19:25:00.000-08:00

A recent Pew Internet Project report, "Social Media and Young Adults" (PDF), examines how those in the teens and early adulthood years (18 to 29) interact with technology. One of the interesting finds: blogs are not a high-use, highly interactive medium for young people. Bloggers in the age group went from 24% in 2007 to just 15% in 2009. Among adults, well, about 11% of users over 30 maintain a blog (the "Are blogs for old people?" news item cites the Pew report). The attention of young people is shifting to social networking. Twitter, the report found, has a 37% use among online users aged 18-24, 25% use among those 25-29, and 22% use among those aged 30-49; 19% of all online adults use Twitter. Virtual worlds (it is not clear if this statistic includes virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft) are used by about 4% of online users.

The report contains lots of useful information relating to internet uptake and connectivity, gadget ownership (cell phones, computers, mp3 players, gaming devices) and overall trends in internet use. I found this take on ReadWriteWeb thought-provoking:

But blogging? Passé, says the report. The medium once used for sharing either news and/or personal thoughts and feelings is no longer popular among teens. The why is simple: Facebook. With the ability to update your status on social networking sites, the need to communicate using long-form mechanisms like sentences and - ugh! - paragraphs is no longer necessary. Instead of summarizing a day's events via blog post for example, a teen may simply update Facebook multiple times throughout the day with the details as to what's happening in their life at the moment...

Longer forms of communication are being sacrificed for smaller, more convenient, bite-sized pieces. What will this mean for a generation already struggling with general literacy? I think the "young people are using it so we should" argument starts to rapidly fall down here... the genre of use for social networking is immediate, brief, and more descriptive than reflective.

1.1, 5.2: A history of CAL

2010-01-24T13:00:00.001-08:00

The latest issue of JCAL (the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26[1]) opens with an article reviewing the history of CAL (Hartley, "The evolution and redefining of 'CAL': a reflection on the interplay of theory and practice", pp.4-17). It is interesting to see the initial links CAL had with instructional design; the early experiences of success through a behaviourist approach, and its subsequent critique (based on a lack of student control and dialogue, even though effective feedback was a built-in element, leading to the early success); discussion of Pask's and Papert's work. It is remarkable how similar the issues faced today are with those faced 30 years ago - even in the days well before the internet.

Consider this from p.7:

By the 1980s, the educational potential of computer technology had been recognized through wellpublicized research projects that, as noted, drew on a range of theories and suggested innovative shifts in pedagogy.However, these developments also addressed the educational system itself, and it was recognized that their exploitation and further progress required substantial funding and an engagement with government and the research councils at the highest policy levels. The resulting decisions would affect the scale and direction of the CAL enterprise.

And so, largely, the situation remains! The article describes the shift from behaviourist to constructivist and collaborative development in CAL application, and highlights the importance of 'teachback' (student dialogue with a teacher on conceptual issues), conceptual maps as an aid to dialogue, and sound instructional design. These are timeless principles for e-pedagogy. The article also touches on the use of simulation and online communications. With regard to the latter, Hartley (2010, p.12) notes the importance of asynchronous, written dialogue over synchronous:

But there are well-known problems in maintaining coherence between interweaving threads of discourse, keeping the dialogue pacey and on-track, and maintaining the active interest and participation of group members. In conventional argument, spoken contributions typically add illustration or justification for statements, but in computerbased systems, managing synchronous discourse where participants are at a distance, contributions have to be short and succinct to maintain pace and point, and to invite a ready response. These considerations require an engaging and relevant topic, a view of the nature of argument and functional types of statements that carry the intentions of participants. Ideally, records should show the ongoing structure of the argument, and be available for reflection and for students’ further work.

Following a brief discussion of the potential of learning objects and the use of VLEs in education, Hartley (2010, p.13) ends with a cautious note on the contribution of Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and virtual worlds:

Further developments, e.g.Web 2.0 and 3.0, and the Semantic Web will open up the use of virtual worldsenvironments, with avatars and a mix of spoken and written language interactions. Underpinned by research, these facilities should stimulate the creation of innovative learning contexts enabling students and teachers to be more participative in the design, application and evaluation of these innovations.

Hartley (2010) also notes Laurillard's Conversational Framework (E-Primer 5.2) as an attempted framework for conceptualizing the learning process - though he criticizes it on the grounds that "technology has also enabled learners to be more influential participants in CAL and frameworks should take into account and support student autonomy and informal communication in learning" (2010, pp.13-14). An upcoming article by Luckin et al [cited as Luckin R., Clark W.,Garnett F.,Whitworth A.,Akass J., Cook J., Day P., Ecclesfield N., Hamilton T.M. & Robertson J. (forthcoming 2009) Learner generated contexts: a framework to support the effective use of technology to support learning. In Web 2.0-Based e-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching (eds M.J.W. Lee & C. McLoughlin). IGI Global, Hershey, PA. (in press)] contains an alternative model, which may prove very useful (see http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=12188). However Hartley (2010, p.14) notes that the model "contrasts with current educational models that are more instrumental and organizationally based", and so it may be a model that does not suit the formal education context at all. Hartley's work is an excellent overview of CALs history and some of its curent challenges; a reminder that not all of the issues we face are new, and that there is substantial value in looking back as we consider what may lie ahead - particularly for those of us whose exposure to e-learning does not predate the Internet.

5.3.5: Smartphones give you wings

2010-01-12T12:26:00.001-08:00

One of the award winning papers at December's Ascilite conference was Cochrane & Bateman's (2009) "Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0" (PDF). The paper draws on four years of research experience.

The paper notes that "the smartphone market is set to exceed computer users by 2014", a significant statement when one of the main barriers to m-learning is considered: The lack of a standard feature set on mobile devices. Smartphones now provide the ability to download, create, store and share multimedia (audio, video, photos, text) files over wireless internet as well as via WAP. The time of the WMD (Wireless Mobile Device, not that WMD) is upon us!

Cochrane & Bateman's paper is mainly concerned with Web 2.0 integration based on a community of practice model and "student-centred social constructivist pedagogies" (p.143). Table 1, on p.145, gives an excellent list of affordances, linked to particular pedagogies. Links are provided to YouTube clips, providing a 'grounded' perspective (sorry, lame joke - many of the perspectives come from a case study in a landscape design course, the perfect setting for m-learning. Others include music, performing arts and design). Cochrane & Bateman also provide guidelines ofr establishing m-learning in educational settings.

It is no wonder this paper won an award - it is well worth a read, as it clearly presents the potential for m-learning while also providing situated examples. That the case studies focus on those 'creative industries' where sharing multimedia files makes direct sense shows that m-learning is establishing a viable and valuable place in higher education.

5.1.1: Web 2.0 'suicide'

2010-01-03T18:07:00.001-08:00

Happy New Year! Actually, that's probably quite a weird salutation given the title of this blog post... An app has been developed to help you delete your Web 2.0 presences, as reported at DailyFinance.com. While the backlash against social media is probably not extreme, it is interesting to note that at least some users are wanting to backtrack from their online presences. Sad that Facebook has blocked site access to the Suicidemachine.org app (as checked 3pm NZT 4 January)... now, that's not very social of them.

In an earlier blog (now removed and archived), I noted that many young people actually 'outgrow' their use of social media. A NYT article linked to from the DailyFinance one confirms that this is still the case. Can we continue to use the trends toward Web 2.0 and social networking as indicators pointing us toward 'Education 2.0', particularly as those trends seem to be slacking and people may becoming less involved in online participation as they used to be? Could it be that the growth of Web 2.0 connectivity is waning, plateuing, or even declining in actual time spent online?

5.3.4: Now, that's a good use of technology!

2009-12-22T20:10:00.000-08:00

A virtual graduation ceremony hosted in Second Life by the University of Edinburgh reminds me of my own 'virtual graduation' through the Open University's KMI Stadium back in 2001 one cold morning at 3am in my pyjamas (fortunately no video feed!) In the case of the distance ceremony by the University of Edinburgh, Second Life makes good, novel sense... Trencher caps off to doing such a novel thing, and so well!

5.3.4: BJET on virtual worlds

2009-12-20T23:47:00.000-08:00

The latest issue of BJET 41(1), the first volume for 2010, is a special issue on virtual worlds... one that will be of interest to many engaged in Second Life and potential education futures. As my PhD gathers steam, my reading must become more selective - and so, with reluctance, I note this issue and turn my attention elsewhere!

General: OMG!

2009-12-11T15:36:00.000-08:00

OMG! When will it end. Save time, but shallow appreciation! Must read. Is 'classicness' in story, or in style?

1.4.1: Diploma mills alive and well online

2009-12-10T22:54:00.001-08:00

In the editorial of the latest American Journal of Distance Education, Michael Moore describes a student's encounter with a diploma mill - that is, an online (distance) education provider of little substance, unaccredited, whose qualification is of little (if any) ultimate worth. Moore refers in his editorial to the Diploma Mill News, a Website (blog) that gives some insight into the size of the problem.

It is unfortunate that in the online world it is all too possible to pass oneself off as a quality provider of education... I am reminded here of the pre Dot-com Bubble hype surrounding the hyper-investment in e-commerce. The perceived danger was that existing companies would be left behind as new 'e-enterprises' claimed the virtual storefronts. What the dot-com advocates forgot, which led to their rather expensive lesson, is that business dynamics relating to trust and branding run deep. It is all too easy to create a brand online. Developing the requisite substance and trust of that brand, however, cost - not just money, but also (especially) track-record. The conventional wisdom of the day was that everything would be done online, that real-life could not last now that the Internet was blowing everything to bits (to cite one popular book of the time).

As history has shown, it is not easy to extrapolate trends based on the demise of Britannica and the rise of Wikipedia (particularly as the latter faces its own difficulties). While publishing has been hard hit; open source software development proves itself a viable alternative to commercial solutions; and online collaboration reaches new heights, formal education is yet to be seriously challenged. Changed, yes, but not challenged - and not fundamentally changed.

The important difference is, formal education is not in the information business. Neither is it in the accreditation business. Rather, at its very best, it is in the cognitive transformation business. The qualification is evidence of this transformation, but it is not the substance of it. Diploma Mill qualifications are not worth anything because they are not evidence of cognitive transformation. Formal education providers - accredited ones - have transparent systems in place that provide evidence that they are configured for this transformation to take place... and this, I contend, is why formal education providers have the edge even in a connected world.

General: Thoughts on Ascilite and research in educational technologies

2009-12-09T13:54:00.001-08:00

Ascilite 09 finished yesterday. It was an excellent event, great to catch up with colleagues past and present. My own invited address, though purposefully provocative, seemed to be well-received; I spoke on the phenomenon of groupthink and its dangers in a connected world.

In the last day of the event, reflecting after my attendance of several presentations, it occured to me that some were emphasising reflection on practice over informed practice. In other words, some of the lessons presenters drew from their experiences were actually highly predictable and already known, based on literature already available.

In other words, instead of the expected

Informed practice to intervention to post-reflection

I was encountering

Intervention to post-reflection to (pre-existing) informed practice.

I wonder... do we in e-learning circles tend to do more than we actually read?

General: A view of the future?

2009-12-09T13:29:00.000-08:00

I have been asked to prepare a paragraph on how technology might look in the next ten years in New Zealand, and to comment on how an academic institution might need to be aware of to be prepared for the future.

Here's my thoughts:

By 2019, internet access will be ubiquitous in New Zealand. Broadband infrastructure and mobile devices will make connectivity universal. Information will be at one’s fingertips, literally. All books, theses, journals will be available instantly on request; payment will be through either micropayment or institutional license (for enrolled students). Society will learn fairly quickly that connectivity does not equate with learnativity.

Part-time enrolments will increase as more students balance the opportunity costs of tertiary education with their own desire for lifelong learning. Full-time students will also exist however they will be a minority of, typically, school-leavers. To overcome the barriers of ‘local’ distance, classes will be streamed live to all course enrollees who will in turn participate via their mobile devices. Students will interact through online spaces that are extremely fluid and convenient to use from mobile devices however such interaction will serve only a small part in academic learning. Assessment will increasingly become important; rather than being collaborative, assessment will become increasingly reflective and integrative in scope. The classic essay will remain.

To be prepared we need only anticipate with open minds. The switch to this sort of environment is neither complex nor expensive, and good quality education and course design will remain so in this emerging environment.

Some reports and further banter are available from http://e-ako.blogspot.com/search?q=future.

A more cynical view of the future would be as things are now, only more of our students drive to class in hybrid cars ;o)

4.3.2: Enhancing online social connectedness

2009-11-29T19:47:00.000-08:00

The latest issue of Distance Education (30, 3) once again contains some excellent articles. The first, "Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments" by Slagter von Tryon & Bishop, is a valuable (if not lengthy!) piece on improving social presence in online discourse.

The article underscores the importance of making a good first impression, as all exchanges with others communicate something about the author's nature and competance and help determine the social pecking order of the group. Using a Delphi methodology, the authors recommend the following to improve social presence:

Providing opportunity for students to develop a group structure, through high quantity and quality social interaction.
Providing comprehensive technical support.
Providing persistent follow-up, particularly so that students are paced in their discourse so that the exchange does not become isolating and is socially consistent.

The authors proceed to develop a 'social connectedness design framework' that considers the three elements required for social interaction (status assessments, norm development and role differentiation) across the three recommendations coming from their Delphi results (increased interactions, comprehensive technical support, and persistent follow-up). The bottom line is that students need opportunities to 'be' themselves in the context of technical support and online exercises that draw attention to the fact that they are individuals within a common community.

While 'social presence' is not new and is now understood reasonably well, the article does provide an important focus on what continues to be a central aspect of online discourse.

5.3.5: Special edition of ALT-J; Mobile finding its place

2009-11-29T16:11:00.000-08:00

The latest ALT-J (17, 3 November 2009) is a special issue on Mobile and contextual learning, edited by Agnes Kukulska-Hume and Mike Sharples. It is good to see the concepts of 'mobile-learning' and 'contextual-learning' side by side.

The articles have much in common; it seems now that m-learning has found its niche:

...the unique characteristics of mobile learning... include orchestrating shared learning with personal devices across formal and informal settings, providing immediately useful information, offering timely revision and reflection, connecting real and virtual locations, and enriching field trips and cultural visits (p.159, editorial).

None of the case studies in the issue are about courses making sole use of mobile technologies, and one even makes use of portable DVD players.

The first paper, "Towards an understanding of the virtual context in mobile learning" by Cornelius & Marston, introduces the concept of 'disruption' from the physical world by mobile devices, taking learners from a physical to a virtual context. The simulation described in the article is not immediately transferable to all sorts of courses, but the underlying concept raised (the potential for 'disruption') is a very interesting one.

The case study "Situated learning in the mobile age: mobile devices on a field trip to the sea" by Pfeiffer et al shows how mobile DVD players increased student performance on fish species knowledge, a novel (in my reading) approach to mobile technologies which again highlights the diversity beneath the 'm-learning' banner. In the case study, learning was found to be more 'efficient' and more effective through the use of DVD media on location. However the use of video over still graphics did not increase student outcomes to any significant degree.

One interesting finding in the paper, "How can mobile SMS communication support and enhance a first year undergraduate learning environment?" by Jones et al is that students tend to use their mobile phones for basic SMS and voice calls - even if their mobile has addiitonal features such as camera, Bluetooth, calendars etc built-in. the case study itself focues on the use of targeted SMS messages reminding students of upcoming deadlines and for course notices. Students valued these notices, whcih often served as gentle prods for them to continue with their course-related tasks. While the autors caution that they cannot prove any causality, student engagement with the course seemed to improve. The authors also caution that while some found the texts beneficial, others found them 'disruptive', with the interpretation of texts and the 160 character limitation proving additionally problematic. While the authors maintain their approach is a beneficial one, I can't help personally thinking that it may have been more trouble than it was worth based on the actual outcomes... still, the authors do suggest that the approach could be of real benefit to 'vulnerable' students getting to grips with the demands of tertiary study. Samples of actual texts confirm that the level of interaction was concerned with matter sof definition and recall.

The study by Sutton-Brady et al, "The value of using short-format podcasts to enhance learning and teaching", confirms that most students making use of podcasts listen to them through their home computers, rather than on mobile devices. The authors findings also suggest that short, assessment-relevant podcasts ("short-term, supplementary") are those that prove most useful. The real value of podcasts, then, may lie in their supplemental use with lectures, rather than being recordings of lectures.

Curiously, two of the studies note that their findings run counter to Prensky's notion of digital immigrants and digital natives - again underscoring the value of primary research findings over 'common sense' speculation!

The issue is a vaulable one for the ongoing research into m-learning, which seems to get ever broader but not much deeper in terms of its overall impact.

1.4.1: Growth of online learning

2009-11-11T18:38:00.001-08:00

A report linked to from the Becta web site suggests that the number of US post-secondary stduents studying online will double in the next five years. The report, released by Ambient Insight (overview here) considers the growth of blended and online learning (note the relatively insignificant 'all online' category in comparison).

When you consider the potential benefits of online access to resources and class discussions, the growth rate is relaly not surprising. What is hidden in the statistics (perhaps it might be available in the full $US4.9k report?) is any indication as to how blended the mix of the courses will be. Here at Laidlaw College, all of our courses (with the exception of one particular programme) might be considered 'blended' because all provide online course areas and expect students to interact with them (even if just to upload and receive back assignments). We are steadily improving resource availability and online discussion use, but already we can be considered 'blended' - and that on a shoestring budget!

Moodle (open source, no license cost), externally hosted (reduced infrastructure cost).
Google education services (free, no infrastructure cost - and we were the first in New Zealand to roll it out institutionally).
Turnitin integration (minimal annual license fee, fully integrated with Moodle, and no administrative overhead).
Mahara (open source, no license cost), externally hosted (reduced infrastructure cost).
Adobe Connect Pro (commercial, hosted internally).

Not a bad selection of applications... with smooth, highly integrated administrative systems we do pretty well!

5.3.3: ePortfolio case studies from JISC

2009-11-11T16:53:00.001-08:00

The JISC has released two final reports on ePortfolio use in the UK HE sector. the cases are diverse in many ways; scale of implementation, platform, course type. The reports (one looking at eassessment, the other at case studies) are a wealth of good practice, revealing the maturity of activity now underway.

5.1.2, 3.4.2: Open Education Resources

2009-11-07T15:09:00.001-08:00

I deliberately left Open Education Resources out of the E-Primer series, as there still seems substantial work to be done for them to go beyond being a 'good theory' and something 'inevitable' into something with a track record. OER has a host of dedicated adherents, and it seems they are close to achieving a form of critical mass and proof of concept. OERs have been of interest to me since Stephen Downes' classic paper on learning objects in 2001(Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide). It seemed a little like wishful thinking, but it had a definite attraction to it; at the time I was reading about (and practising) instructional design, and the barriers to a learning object economy at the practical level seemed more significant than some were letting on. Next in my journey was David Wiley's excellent differentiation (DOC) between 'Lego' and 'atoms'. Other pre-2003 works are linked to from here.

What put me off including them in the E-Primer series was the book by Littlejohn (2004): Reusing online resources, which, to my knowledge, remains an important read in the area. The book highlights the potential and (considerable) challenges the development, storage and re-use of learning objects face (and, again to my knowledge, continue to face). Issues of granularity, searchability, suitability, licensing and the establishment of a 'learning object 'economy' for reimbursing authors seem to remain as challenges (the issues have not seemed to have changed in the intervening years based on Conole & Oliver's (2007) Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research. My main personal objection beyond those listed is the potential loss of meta-narrative; what story ties the little bits together (related to granularity)? Further, thus far OER repositories have fallen well short of their ideals.

What prompts this post is the work being done by Wikieducator (see their OER Handbook for educators) and the recent (Vol.10, No.5) issue of IRRODL, a special feature on open access. I am yet to read it (my current research lies elsewhere), but it is encouraging to read in the editorial (PDF) these words from David Wiley and John Hilton III:

Overall, this special issue presents an excellent discussion of open education issues ranging from useful descriptions of successful projects to empirical data about user attitudes to thoughtful criticisms of present work. These criticisms are particularly valuable because so much of the extant literature about open education is almost uniformly positive in tone. We hope this special issue will help to begin a more balanced discourse about the benefits and very real challenges of open education.

It is encouraging to see some primary research being performed; the account of open textbook creation, an honest appraisal of sustainability, and the results of a survey looking at incentives and disincentives for use (showing that the classic benefits and caveats I mentioned above still exist). On the theoretical side is one by the editors (Openness, dynamic specialization, and the disaggregated future of higher education) suggesting that "every institution must begin addressing openness as a core organizational value if it desires to both remain relevant to its learners and to contribute to the positive advancement of the field of higher education"), and another proposing peer-recognition over formal accreditation.

One of the ironies in is the tension between OERs replacing current formal education and OERs promoting and serving formal education; for OERs to be sustainable, it seems they may need to be supported on the scale only made possible within formal settings (see the Friesen article). I still view OER as a work in progress, with significant barriers to overcome; there is much enthusiasm for it. However, I also know that enthusiasm will only get a great idea so far. For OER to truly come to fruition it requires a critical mass and an inevitability in terms of institutional shift. I'm not (yet) convinced that either of these are imminent. Using OERs doesn't take the 'work' out of education design!

5.1: The narrowing of horizons?

2009-11-05T12:10:00.000-08:00

A report released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project entitled "Social Isolation and New Technology" (PDF) challenges the suggestion that people are becoming more isolated because of the Internet and mobile technologies. Using 'discussion networks' as the measure, it seems that personal circles are actually widening and actually become "more diverse social networks". That said, the research does confirm that 'core discussion networks' (number of confidants, or poeple with whom important issues can be discussed) have declined.

A well-researched report, well worth an in-depth treatment which I cannot give it at the moment!

TLT presentation: Archive of "Reframing e-learning"

2009-10-29T20:25:00.001-07:00

The archive of the second ASCILITE/TLT webinar is now available online. The TLT team was excellent to work with, and their work is well worth subscribing to.

Now I'm working on my invited session for the upcoming ASCILITE conference... It should be a great conference!

5.*: Google Wave and education

2009-10-29T14:20:00.001-07:00

It is probably a little early to start speculating on the educational potential for Google Wave (after all, it's not actually released for general use yet!) But a blog post by Richard McManus called "Google Wave Uses: Education" provides an initial insight.

Like many Web 2.0 tools, it looks as though Google Wave might be best exploited by students rather than by the institutions they enrol in. I imagine some innovative educators joining in their students' backchannel discussions, and possibly even involving themselves in correcting class notes... but it seems that the potential strength of Wave for education lies not in a formal implementation, but rather through encouraging students to make use of it themselves should they want to. As such, Wave might become a valuable third place. If formal education attempts to harness it, to 'make it' into something educational, its value as a student-driven application may well drop. in E-Primer 5 I discuss this phenomenon as it relates to blogging and the use of wikis in formal education contexts.

1.1.1; 2.3: 'E-learning' and professional development

2009-10-22T20:13:00.001-07:00

In an early view BJET article called "Conceptions of e-learning and professional development for e-learning held by tertiary educators in New Zealand", Stein, Shephard & Harris (2009) report on a phenomenological investigation into e-learning professional development. Respondents included people from the university, polytechnic, PTE and wananga sectors. The authors identified five 'categories' of e-learning based on the responses:

A: E-learning as 'tools, equipment, hardware and software'
B: E-learning as 'a means through which learning interaction is facilitated'
C: E-learning 'is seen as learning'
D: E-learning reduces distance (enhancing flexibility)
E: E-learning as 'collaborative enterprise' (involving students, teachers, support staff)

These categories are all related:

tools (Category A) support and facilitate the interaction (Category B) and the 'meeting places' that bring students, teachers, courses, institutions together, no matter where they are (Category D). Collaboration (Category E) at all levels supports the functoning of the whole system. The ultimate purpose of e-learning is to enhance learning (Category C) (p.11).

Nicely put, a rich blend of perspectives into a useful and comprehensive statement! The research also sought perspectives on what e-leanring professional development is about.

A: 'Training to use technologies/tools/equipment'
B: 'Opening up possibilities for using technologies for teaching and learning'
C: 'A collaborative exercise that can take many forms' (including case studies, seminars, etc)
D: 'Relevance and purpose' (focussing on the value-add possible through e-learning)

The authors here suggest that C is the process of professional development, A and B the content, and D the purpose. The authors note that the findings do not provide a solution to the problems faced by professional developers, but the insight and richness of the categories is certainly appreciated.

5.1.3: More on the Net Gen

2009-10-22T12:56:00.001-07:00

Mark Bullen's blog Net Gen Skeptic links to a 2009 article by Neil Selwyn (Institute of Education, University of London) called The digital native - myth and reality. The terms 'exaggeration' and 'inconsistency' and criticism of methodology in Net Gen studies give some idea of where Selwyn's article goes. As a literature review Selwyn's paper gives an excellent summary of how the Net Gen's innate potential has been built up beyond reality. He writes that

much of the writing around the digital native theme is concerned less with documenting young people's use of specific digital technologies per se, than the general practices and dispositions that digital technologies support and facilitate within their lives (p.366).

Naturally, this approach leads to exaggeration and misleading conclusions. It's like suggesting we are all global travellers because there is a local airport. Selwyn is highly critical of the 'common sense' association often made with reference to Prensky's work. All of this is rather old hat now, but Selwyn's paper is a well-written piece that includes some useful argument related to the value of formal education. Pointers to studies based on more careful methodologies confirm the coverage in E-Primer 5:

If anything young people's use of the internet can be described most accurately as involving the passive consumption of knowledge rather than the active crewation of content - leading, at best, to what Crook (2008) terms a 'low bandwidth exchange' of information and knowledge, with any illusion of collaboration described more accurately in terms of co-operation or co-ordination between individuals... technology use at school or at home remains rather less expansive and empowering than the rhetoric of the digital native would lead us to believe (p.372).

In sum, the Net Gen needs guidance, even direction in their use of technologies for the purposes of education. Selwyn also addresses the 'guide on the side' vs 'sage on the stage' issue... all in all, a very worthwhile paper!

1.4: Is this the future?

2009-09-30T02:22:00.001-07:00

I received an odd RSS feed relaring to existing Beyond Current Horizons essays, once of whcih I hadn't blogged on before (see previous posts concerning these). "The digital landscape and new education providers" considers how digital technologies have lowered the barriers of entry to higher education and how many large corporates are making the most of the opportunity. The growth of home-schooling, blended learning and online question-and-answer sites is discussed, as are trends in ebooks, learning in virtual worlds and assessment. Inspiring stuff... if these trends continue, the future of education will be very different!

The article addresses the arguments of openness, quality, IP and the importance of revenue streams. Most interesting to me, though, was the very interesting section on "Lifelong learning and the learning society", which seems to emphasise training and workplace skills over classic liberal education. There are serious costs here; an industrially-based and pragmatic education is not the same thing as an emancipating, self-actualising one. "The Future" section (Part Three) ends with an excellent quote:

...we all value open-ness, participation, communication and collaboration, and that we value professional expertise and quality assurance. We value individuals and their free pursuit of ideas and interests; we value communities and the compromise that they necessarily entail. We value knowledge and innovation; we value health, the body and genuine sustainability. We value our economy and the role for education policy in ensuring a good fit between what is learnt at all stages of life, and what is needed to sustain a healthy economy run by competent, confident, adaptive people. We value the classics, the arts, and learning for the sake of personal development and wellbeing. We value diversity and flexibility; we value cohesion and manageability. We work together, with hope, towards a future of physical and social technologies that reflect these values.

Yep, I'm into that.

1.5: The Horizon Report 2009

2009-09-27T03:19:00.001-07:00

According to the latest Australia/New Zealand Horizon Report (International report available here), here are the things to watch along with their estimated time of impact:

Mobile Internet devices - one year or less. I think this is actually a wee bit optimistic; mobile Internet devices (with flexible features) are actually rather expensive to own and run, and I'm not sure that their uptake will become so ubiquitous as to make them a 'one year or less' call.
Private clouds - one year or less.
Open content - two to three years. Waaaaay too optimistic IMHO. Learning objects and open content have been available for many, many years... acceptance may well be growing, but whether the use of open content will be significant in two or three years remains to be seen. Hats off to those working on it and contributing to it, but I suspect that the level of systematic change and critical mass that might be required to make open content truly viable will take longer than two to three years.
Virtual, augmented and alternate realities - two to three years. Could be a bit soon... experiments are voluminous, outcomes from these are not yet, to my knowledge, convincing enough to establish whether virtual realities provide any substantial advantage over more traditional means of online learning and distance education. I'm afraid the word 'fun' is used too often in the studies I have seen. Another problem is that self-reporting surveys are often used, usually providing very predictable and not-too-useful results; another is that effective learning was limited to a few small outcomes rather than across an entire course. Perhaps the next two or three years may change this picture somewhat...?
Location-based learning - four to five years. Looks promising, but might become a supplement for more traditionally-oriented instruction.
Smart objects and devices - four to five years

The findings are based on a systematic review of literature (based somewhat on popular press releases) and expert opinion based on an Australasian Advisory Board that includes our very own Derek Wenmoth (one New Zealander...!) My interpretation remains as it was last year - some caution required, though it's always very useful to be informed about possibilities. The methodology seems a bit skewed toward the 'latest and greatest', and the cutting edge RSS sources are bound to overstate trends in a speculative way. Results might also be made more optimistic by the nature of the early adopters that the Advisory Board itself seems to represent. Still, this criticism (which may well be overstated and wrong!) does not detract from the balue of these sorts of activities... the next few years will reveal all!

Again I reveal my somewhat cautious approach to the future!

3.0: Instructional design for online courses

2009-09-27T02:45:00.001-07:00

A link on IT Forum pointed to "An Instructional Strategy Framework for Online Learning Environments [PDF]"available from the University of Southern Mississippi. The article is, apparently, from New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 100, 2003, pp.31-43 (incidentally, I have two booklets in the series assoicated with my PhD studies relating to spirituality in higher education).

The article points out, quite correctly, that instructional design - well-established in distance education circles - must underpin e-learning design. The authors (Johnson & Aragon) also point out that the 'no significant difference' phenomena established by Thomas Russell cuts both ways; while e-learning and distance education have similar outcomes to on-campus education, there is no significant advantage to them (but note recent evidence Becta). This quote from the article is key:

The obvious conclusion from many studies in this field is that the technology used to support instruction has little impact on students’ attainment of educational outcomes. The primary factor in any instructional initiative, regardless of format or venue, is the quality of the instructional design that is ultimately implemented (2003, p.32).

I remember well when an e-learning colleague from another instution first discovered instructional design; [s]he recognised its importance straight away, even though it was a singnificant length of time after they became involved in e-learning!

Johnson & Aragon argue that effective e-learning practice begins with identifying and adopting "a philosophy of teraching and learning that is appropriate for online instruction", consisting of matching "their desired learning goals and instructional methods to the appropriate learning theories" (p.33). They suggest NOT becoming an avowed social constructivist, but rather a flexibel practitioner who is able to exploit whatever approach will meet the learning objectives.

Nice one.

Johnson & Aragon proceed to offer seven principles for "powerful online learning environments", as follows:

Address individual differences.
Motivate the student.
Avoid information overload (follow 'The Rule of Seven').
Create a real-life context.
Eencourage social interaction.
Provide hands-on activities.
Encourage student reflection.

Grab the article and have a careful read. It's excellent.

3.0: A designer's log

2009-09-23T15:24:00.001-07:00

The latest eBook from AU (Athabasca University) Press is "A designer's log: Case studies in instructional design", by Michael Power. It's a very readable and insightful volume, and there is a free PDF download available... an excellent glimpse into an instructional designer's world!

E-Primer series now complete

2009-09-20T17:01:00.001-07:00

All five E-Primers are now available from the Ako Aotearoa E-Primer page. The series:

#1 - E-learning in context - An introduction to e-learning and the international experience; definitions of terms; a theory for e-learning; technologies; benefits

#2 - E-education and faculty - Education theory and e-learning; the changing role of faculty; workload issues; quality

#3 - Designing for e-learning - Instructional design; learning objects; constructing a hybrid course

#4 - Online discourse - Synchronous and asynchronous communications; designing online discourse; online facilitation.

#5 - E-xtending possibilities - Web 2.0; ePortfolios; virtual worlds; lifelong learning.

It's been quite a journey for me. I have learned a lot, and taking the time to review substantial literature in the field has greatly assisted me in digging deeper into my own pespective as an e-learning practitioner. This has provided an excellent platform for further research in adult education, which is where my reading will now tend to go as I work toward completing my PhD.

More attention will be given this blog once I finish the third Ako Aotearoa project I am leading, now close to its write-up stage. In the meantime, enjoy E-P 5!

3.4.6 & 5.1.2: Diana Laurillard at ALT-C

2009-09-12T05:00:00.001-07:00

A session at the 2009 ALT-C in Manchester by Dianna Laurillard discusses, in part, how wikis, blogs and forums; virtual adaptive immersive environments; and user-generated content sites sit within the Conversational Framework. The Elluminate session (available here) is concerned with learning design from a practical perspective, going beyond principles of good teaching. For me, the CF has always been a useful model for contextualising formal education; it is an excellent foundation for practice as well.

Some excellent discussion and illustrations relating to instructional design here, too... but there is still work to be done to assist with finer distinctions between different learning approaches.

5.3.3: Knowledge Tree on ePortfolios

2009-08-19T23:59:00.000-07:00

A link to some recent publications in The Knowledge Tree, courtesy of Ako Aotearoa. Great to see a focus on the RPL potential!

3.1.1: Getting to the HEART of things

2009-08-16T22:30:00.001-07:00

An article in the latest Distance Education 30(2), called "Approaches to learning design: past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter" by Donald et al (pp.179-199) makes an excellent contribution to instructional design theory and practice. Donald et al accentuate the differences between learning design considered as a product, and learning design as a process. Essentially:

learning design as product assumes the primary importance of distribution channels;
learning design as process reveals matters of the "ill-structured/belief-driven" (p.184) approach characteristic of "real, messy" (p.183) learning design activity.

Right away, this distinction makes it clear why efforts to re-use learning materials across institutions is problematic. The questions usually addressed assume that learning design is defined by its output, and not the processes that generated the output. The results of learning design are highly contextualised and "driven by individual pedagogical beliefs" (2009, p.179). Learning object and reusability enthusiasts tend to focus on learning design as product, leading them to focus on the representation, storage and accessibility of learning designs rather than pedagogical transferability across different contexts (something that hasn't really changed since Littlejohn's 2004 Reusing online resources).

However the real reason I am impressed with the work of Donald et al is because they approach learning design in a way that acknowledges the value of the teacher. Their work is empowering to the teacher, recognising an aspect of e-learning that needs to be restored (their citation of Palmer certainly helps with this!) The HEART (HEaring And Realising Teaching) model they describe place the focus on teachers' (and instructional designers') epistemological, pedagogical, curriculum and CAL ('computer assisted learning') beliefs as a diagnostic and reflective tool that no doubt assists with conversations and collaboration between member of faculty and instructional designer. This article will certainly influence the way we approach learning design projects at our College!

.: Open access journals in e-learning

2009-08-11T14:03:00.001-07:00

Some recent exchange in ITForum included this editable compilation of "Open Access Journals in Learning Technology", initiated by George Veletsianos of the University of Manchester - a very valuable resource.

There is a truly staggering availability of literature available in e-learning. Conversations are diverse, paradigms are many. The purpose of the E-Primer series is to help provide some sort of orientation to the major themes in literature, and to serve as a foundation for further investigation.

5.3.4: Virtual world accounts reach 579m

2009-08-02T15:04:00.001-07:00

The SLENZ blog is one worth subscribing to. Posts are always full, informative and well written! Number 121 includes reference to reports from kzero, a UK consultancy concerned with "the marketing dynamics relating to virtual worlds". The results are very interesting - and re nicely presented in a "Universe-graph" (here). The graphs show registration numbers for various worlds across different age groups (target audiences) over various years. Registrtaion growth is particularly high across the 9 to 12 and 13 to 18 age brackets.

The difficulties with the number '579 million' are primarily twofold:

Registration is not a good indicator of actual activity, and
Individuals can have multiple registrations across different virtual worlds.

The leap from marketing potential to higher education potential is also not very clear from the statistics... particularly when the various virtual worlds are broken down by 'sector'. The genre of higher education is not well represented, though gaming, social chat and TV/film/books are. It is important that the significance of growing registration is not blown out of proportion as an indicator that such contexts are ready for higher education to exploit, as the use of virtual worlds for the purposes of academic learning is not as simple as having technically savvy users! Rather, what we ought to be considering is whether the genre of academic learning can be facilitated through such environments.

5.3.5: Raising the standard of research in m-learning

2009-07-23T21:29:00.001-07:00

Image by MichaelMarlatt via Flickr

In E-Primer 5 (still in draft form) I note the difficulties present in literature relating to what exactly is meant by the term, and the limitations of studies to date. In "A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings" (AJET 25(2), 153-183) [PDF], Cheung & Hew (2009) provide an excellent precis of the problems and make insightful suggestions as to what ought to be done. In particular they point out the nature of the devices themselves. "Mobile" includes all handheld PDAs and all portable wireless devices and, of course, mobile phones. With this definition in mind, any specific mention of 'mobile' use in higher education needs some unpacking as it may imply anything from SMS to sharing multimedia to playing back MP3 files.

Cheung & Hew (2009) overview literature in m-learning with a particular focus on methodology. Their conclusion: the results of many studies need to be treated with some caution as most studies they exmained "used a weak experimental method that utilised a one group pretest design to examine student learning outcomes due to use of mobile handheld device use" (p.168). Tere is not enough comparable study being done witin the same context. Effect size estimates are also lacking, and there is a realiance on self-reported data. Cheung & Hew (2009) also list the short-term duration of most implementations as a barrier.

Clearly there is much more work to be done on the subject of m-learning; researchers would be best to consider the work of Cheung & Hew (2009) before getting started. An article in the same journal ("Advancing the m-learning research agenda for active, experiential learning: Four case studies" [PDF]) exemplifies the sort of research and transferability that is needed.

5.3.2: The wiki way of knowing

2009-07-23T20:49:00.001-07:00

In their article "The wiki way of learning" (AJET 25(2), 135-152 [PDF]), Ruth & Houghton (2009) make a clear and useful distinction between wikis as 'coming to know' and wikis as 'reproducing knowledge'.

In the case study, Ruth & Houghton demonstrate how a wiki can be used effectively in both undergraduate and postgraduate contexts by focussing on the process rather than the product (though, it seems, the proiduct was also quite good!) The article emphasises the need for careful structure as novice perspectives are blended in with those of experts.

Ruth & Houghton (2009) seem to have achieved the ultimate goal for progressive educators - a 'community of practice' within a tertiary course setting. Part of the reason why the case was successful rests on what drew them together - the creation of a course text. The nature of the subject ("Mobile Workforce Technologies") is such that any text prescribed would be quickly outdated: "In the course, the catalyst is, in part, the lack of a defined textbook and the desire to have the latest information" (p.146).

In some ways it is frustrating that Ruth & Houghton do not provide an actual evaluation of the course, but their case does illustrate the 'wiki epistemology' of collaboration, construction/co-construction, different ways of learning, egalitarian participation (a term I prefer to their "the authority of 'the expert' is undermind", p.148), and a constructionist orientation.

Critically, Ruth & Houghton point out that "Collaboration and construction/co-construction are useful where definitive knowlegde is not available, or where processes are in stages of development" (p.148). Such is the case with their course. It is also clear that the lecturers themselves were motivating and dedicated to the outcome, and gave careful consideration to the role the wiki would play. An excellent example of how extending tools can extend!

5.3.2: Wikis, engagement and learning

2009-07-23T19:08:00.001-07:00

By now, you may have noticed that the last few posts draw on the latest issue of AJET... Neumann & Hood (2009), in their article "The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of report writing skills in a university statistics course" AJET 25(3), 382-398 make a wonderful contribution to the literature surrounding the use of wikis in HE. Significantly, the study compares an indivdual version of an assignment with a group-based (of between 4 and 6 members), wiki-facilitated version.

Neumann & Hood do an excellent job of clearly contextualising their study, and are robust and honest in their analysis of findings.Overall, while the wiki-using students reported more engagement with other students and perceived higher levels of cognitive engagement to the individual students, there was no real difference in terms of learning outcomes. However it must be pointed out that the perceived "more engagement with other students" must be understood in the context of poor overall participation from the wiki groups. Neumann & Hood also found that wiki groups tended to not complete the tasks assigned to them (probably not surprising, in that their efforts were not directly assessed). Significantly, some respondents in the wiki groups "expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of effort and participation from other members of the group" (p.395); the authors conclude that "[t]he outcomes of the present study seem to fall in between prior reports of wholehearted success... and disappointing failure" (p.395). Neumann & Hood highlight the importance of incentive for use and the variability of the student experience when wikis are applied in higher education contexts. Wikis, it seems, have their place - but in that place a pancaea will not be found.

2.3: Good news! It gets better!

2009-07-23T18:19:00.001-07:00

In their article, "Staff and student perceptions of an online learning environment: Difference and development" (AJET 25, 3, 366-381: PDF) Palmer & Holt surveyed students and faculty regarding their importance-satisfaction ratings as it related to their institutional OLE(! - Online Learning Environment... otherwise known as an LMS or VLE). While students consistently value the, err, OLE more than faculty across the various measures surveyed, staff were better able to recognise the OLE's(...) contribution to teaching and learning once they had experienced it. This has implications for change management; early on, full support and nurturing is necessary; over time, these become less important. For folk in my position, it means that over time I can expect my role to decentralise over time as faculty become more aware of how the system works and gradually take more responsibility for it.

5.3.5: Podcasting - a great article

2009-07-23T18:07:00.001-07:00

Oliver McGarr gives a great overview of the potential for podcasting in his contribution to AJET 25(3), 309-321 article, "A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the traditional lecture" (PDF). Surprisingly, though (or perhaps not...) McGarr cites research indicating that most students who use podcasts tend to do so at their desk, during study time and not on-the-go. Most users, it seems, do not multitask when listening to podcasts. In other words, podcasting is not generally considered an m-learning solution. It seems that making lecture podcasts available does not adversely affect lecture attendance, and that students appreciate such podcasts being made available. Most usefully, McGarr sugegsts three broad categories of podcast use in higher edcuation:

Substitutional - the lectured podcast is a substitute to attending the class itself.
Supplemental - summaries of lectures and additional (but optional) materials.
Creative - students generating their own podcasts for sharing with others.

We have considered podcasting lectures here at Laidlaw College. Unless it can be easily facilitated and add clear value, it is probably more than we can handle for now. Still, with cheap portable digital recorders able to record one hour's audio in only 10MB or so of file (or even less), it is not difficult for faculty to do this themselves... the extent to which this might substitute for the actual lecture or provide primary materials to distance students is probably minimal (particularly the latter!)

4.3.1: More on methodologies

2009-07-23T17:39:00.001-07:00

When researching E-Primer 4 I was fascinated by the considerable debate about methodology for studying online discourse. In a contribution to ALT-J 17(2), 101-113, Judith Enriquez takes issue with content analysis ("Discontent with content analysis of online transcripts"). Basically, content analysis involves feeding message transcripts into a qualitative research application (Enriquez names NVivo) and assigning codes to different message parts.

Among Enriquez's concerns is that analysing message 'chunks' means that the wood can be missed for the trees. While the data itself might be readily available, it needs to be treated in its overall context and from a number of different levels... in fact, as Enriquez suggests, contextual factors may well be too much for content analysis to be of any use whatsoever. 'Genre' analysis is the approach promoted by Enriquez; I, too, am of the mind that genre is an avenue of extreme importance to online discourse (particularly as it relates to Web 2,0 tools).

4.3.2: Good, honest chocolate

2009-07-23T17:21:00.001-07:00

Not all chocolate is the same. Scratch beneath the surface (figuratively speaking only) and you may find that a slight change to the recipe can result in some nasty backlash and the need to explain yourself. Incidentally, it can also make the competition look good...

...which is a highly tangental way of introducing Skinner's (2009) article, "Using community development theory to improve student engagement in online discussion: A case study" ALT-J 17(2), 89-100. Skinner found that students who were late starters or who did not find relevance in online discussion opportunities were unmotivated to participate. Skinner's contribution underscores the importance of effective discussion topics and good technical orientation to forum tools... and proves, yet again, that using an effective framework (Salmon's) is only part of the story. Hanging the right stuff on it is what counts.

[Image "Moonstruck chocolates" uploaded November 28, 2005 by eszter]

5.3.3: Brochures for embedding ePortfolios

2009-07-22T18:46:00.001-07:00

A helpful collection of brochures released by the Australian Flexible Learning Framework, with thanks to Ako Aotearoa.

1.4.*: Evidence on the impact of technology on learning and educational outcomes

2009-07-16T00:59:00.001-07:00

The title says it all... another helpful report from Becta. The theme of 'e-maturity' links in with some earlier work I have done relating to e-learning diffusion. The report is an interim one (and Becta's activities are aimed at the school sector) however the findings and lessons are directly transferable to the tertiary environment.

5.3.4: Second Life proving its worth

2009-07-12T19:54:00.001-07:00

This from the SLENZ blog demonstrates how, with the right subject matter, Second Life can enhance learning.

Chocks away!

2009-07-06T01:59:00.000-07:00

The IT Forum discussion relating to the E-Primer 5 draft is now underway. It is summer holiday season in the northern hemisphere however I am still hoping for some thoughtful exchange from both the northern and southern hemispheres of the Wide, Wired World. This is the introduction:

There are many opportunities for formal education to use e-learning outside of the LMS or VLE. But what are the issues to be considered? In this, the last of a series of E-Primers introducing e-learning to higher education practitioners, Mark Nichols (E-Learning Specialist with Laidlaw College, New Zealand) considers peer-reviewed research for blogs, wikis, ePortfolios, MUVEs and m-learning. Considered in context of Web 2.0’s potential contribution to formal education, “eXtending possibilities” provides an orientation to five areas of e-learning and guidelines for their use.

Mark Nichols has a BMS (Management Studies, Hons) and an MA in Open and Distance Education (Distinction) from the Open University, UK. He has worked as an e-learning specialist in New Zealand’s polytechnic and university sectors, and is currently working on a doctorate establishing whether theological students at a distance are disadvantaged in terms of spiritual formation. He is published in the fields of distance education and e-learning, edits The Journal of Distance Learning, maintains a series of E-Primers about e-learning for Ako Aotearoa (the New Zealand Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence), and is on the Distance Education Association of New Zealand executive. In 2005 he was recognised as a flexible learning leader in New Zealand.

A reminder that the draft of E-Primer 5, "eXtending possibilities", is now available from the IT Forum Website here. The online event takes place for one week, commencing July 6. To join the discussion, simply subscribe to the forum. All it requires is a valid email address.

5.3.3: Becta "Impact of e-portfolios on learning"

2009-07-03T15:43:00.001-07:00

Becta reports on a study of "the impact that e-portofolios can have on learners in schools, further education, higher education and work-based learning".

The key findings are not really a surprise, but a useful confirmation of how e-portfolios should be grounded.

1.4.2: No significant difference!

2009-06-30T04:26:00.001-07:00

Many thanks to elearnspace for this link: A meta-analysis of comparative studies has concluded that, "on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction" (p.ix). Blended learning, with the additional work it tends to demand while combining face-to-face and online work, emerged as much better however here the influence may well be on the additional time students spend on learning tasks. Indeed, time on task and the use of different educational approaches emerged as two of the 'secrets' to the online experience.

The K-12 situation has not yet been adequately studied, so the meta-analysis draws on results from results noticed in medical training and higher education. The definition of 'online' applied is just that - Web-based instruction only.

Other findings:

Video and online quizzes in online courses do not seem to influence learning in online classes
Courses that emphasise reflection and student control of media enhance learning
Guidance for groups online is less successful than guiding individuals

The findings also emphasise that "the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages" (p.xvii).

There may well be concerns relating to completion; I am aware of some evidence (Dutton et al, 2002) that online learning students tend to get higher than average grades because only the best of them actually complete their courses (see also Angelino et al 2007). That retention rates are not typically reported on is a weakness of the various studies in this area (p.xvii). Further work on retention is neccessary before online advocates can break out the bubbly!

More from Beyond Current Horizons

2009-06-30T03:44:00.001-07:00

Some additional reports are now available from the Beyond Current Horizons Web site:

The schooled society and beyond: the modernizing role of formal education as an institution - considers the growth of formal education, and celebrates the success of formal education; theorizes that formal education largely determines society, rather than prepares students for society. Schooling doesn't prepare; it transforms. Rather than being oppressive, schooling is founded on principles of egalitarianism and actualisation; where schooling is genuinely oppressive, it is usually so because of suppressive political influence. Formal education focuses on "academic intelligence", defined as "those cognitive skills needed to do abstract reasoning, problem-solving, higher order thinking, multiple perspective taking, and effortful thinking"; this increasingly replaces the "more traditional academic skills such as recitation, disputation, memorization, formalistic debate, formulae application, accuracy, and authoritative text reading and exegesis". As a result, fluid IQ (thinking) scores are increasing significantly while crystalised IQ (recall) scores are increasing moderately.
Knowledge, creativity and communication in education: multimodal design - with a focus in particular on the evolution of textbooks, in terms of style, content and participation.
Summative report: Identity, communities and citizenship - a wide-reaching and well-grounded consideration of issues; the 'potential for schools' section has much in common with that of Gilbert (2005), who argues for a focus on training for thinking.

I particularly enjoyed the first of these three contributions, not least because it portrays formal education as being on the right trajectory for the future. Formal education is working, and that, well. Continuous improvement is a part of that success.

5.1.2: PLEeeze...

2009-06-30T02:09:00.001-07:00

George Siemens' post, "Beyond management: Personal Learning Environments" overviews Stephen Downes' latest presentation on PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) at ED-MEDIA 2009. As explained in the E-Primer (draft for discussion next week in IT Forum), there is a flaw here; higher education is not about fact-filling. It recognises that knowledge is adaptive and emerging, and complex. Is the system "out of touch" and risking "irrelevance"? Is "reform" necessary? Might PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) create more problem than they solve? Is the curriculum an enemy to learning? Is learning equated to 'memorisation' in higher education?

I find myself with more questions than assent. Is 'connecting across a network' the same as 'knowing'? I do struggle with the assumptions beneath Siemens' post, and just can't help thinking that I'm missing something...

5.*: More on the Net Gen

2009-06-26T19:33:00.001-07:00

This from Net Gen Skeptic.

The finding that "Although young students are technologically increasingly well-equipped, they do not exhaust the potential of their devices or the potential of common Web 2.0 applications" is fast becoming representational of the Net Gen in the research cited in E-Primer 5. As is pointed out by Mark, though, the paper still calls for a fundamental shift in HE structure. If a shift is necessary, it is becoming increasingly difficult to muster any evidence for it based on any particular strengths inherent to the Net Gen. Overall it seems the Net Gen may well have the tools, but they're using them like toys.

[Image "Toys Misbehaving" uploaded March 24, 2005 by Cade]

5.*: Will Facebook kill blogging?

2009-06-25T20:27:00.001-07:00

Interesting question... see this story in Stuff.co.nz before it is removed. I have noticed a significant drop in blogging traffic across the various ones I have subscribed to. A sign of the times? If so, no doubt more research attention and activity will go toward trying to exploit Facebook and MySpace for educational purposes (said with a hint of cynicism). However, as I mention in E-Primer 5, the issue of genre is an important one. It could be too late to redeem the likes of social networking for the purposes of educational discourse. Consider this quote from the Stuff article:

...the online network is like a virtual pub, where you and your chosen "circle" can share photos of your weekend shenanigans, look up old classmates or simply waste time on trivia quizzes that prove your pop culture mettle.

Sounds like promising stuff for academic learning! Now, where can I get me a research grant...

5.1: Becta links: "Digital lifestyles" and "EU kids"

2009-06-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

Becta links to two reports about online media use:

The Ofcom report, "Digital lifestyles - Parents of children under 16 " [PDF], and
An LSE report, "EU kids online" [PDF].

The EU report points out that Internet use seems to be spreading, in that most age groups are now using the Internet and gender imbalances are correcting. Socio-economic status is the real differentiator now between those with access, and those without (this is also mentioned in the Ofcom report). The EU report specifically notes that higher education is increasingly requiring online access, so there is a call for improving connectivity.

Neither report is specifically prepared for educational purposes however they do give some reliable insight into accessibility and online behaviour that is of relevance to e-learning.

E-Primer draft now available

2009-06-25T16:18:00.000-07:00

The draft of E-Primer 5, "eXtending possibilities", is now available from the IT Forum Website here.

The online event takes place week commencing July 6.

To join the discussion, simply subscribe to the forum. All it requires is a valid email address.

I'm looking forward to the discussion; the IT Forum is made up of very insightful practitioners, many with extensive publication histories (some may have been cited in the E-primer itself). The 'wisdom of this crowd' will be of great benefit to the final version of the E-Primer!

E-Primer 5 for IT Forum review and discussion

2009-06-24T15:18:00.000-07:00

E-Primer 5, "eXtending possibilities", will be peer-reviewed during a one-week online discussion through the IT Forum. The IT Forum is a listserv with members from across the globe.

The online event takes place week commencing July 6.

To join the discussion, simply subscribe to the forum. All it requires is a valid email address.

The paper will be uploaded by the end of the week, and will be avaialble from here.

5.*: Balancing the faces of ePortfolios

2009-06-18T15:32:00.001-07:00

Thanks to Hasmeeta for alerting me to this... Helen Barrett, an ePortfolio pioneer, has an online work in progress called "Balancing the two faces of ePortfolios". In this paper Helen models how apparently competing aims of ePortfolios for learning and reflection and ePortfolios for showcase or accountability can be complementary. Helen's three levels of ePortfolio use also helps put them into perspective.

As with most tools outside of traditional LMS or VLE systems, their use can take place at different levels ranging from the most basic (usually just using the most fundamental functions of the tool) right through to the deeply invovled (which requires a much more ambitious pedagogy). Helen's work continues to inform ePortfolio progress in education.

E-Primer 5: Draft ready

2009-06-18T00:45:00.000-07:00

At last. E-Primer 5, "eXtending possibilities", is drafted. It's taken a while, and it's already under some pressure to include the latest ideas (see previous posts on m-learning, the Net Generation and MUVE alternatives), but it's still a pretty solid piece of work.

Table of contents:

5.0 eXtending possibilities

5.1 Web 2.0 and the Net Generation
5.1.1 The phenomenon of Web 2.0
5.1.2 Web 2.0 and education
5.1.3 The Net Generation

5.2 The Conversational Framework

5.3 eXtending tools
5.3.1 Blogs
5.3.2 Wikis
5.3.3 ePortfolios
5.3.4 MUVEs and Second Life
5.3.5 M-learning

5.4 Designing for eXtended tools

5.5 Summary

I'm reluctant to give away too much for the moment, as I am seeking potential ways of peer-review. My hope is to make it the basis of discussion for an online community of peers; I received a positive response today to a request from one online community, so watch this space...

...in the meantime I'm going to be making progress on my PhD!

5.*: MUVE alternatives

2009-06-18T00:43:00.001-07:00

Are Second Life's days numbered as the experimental base for formal education? The most recent SLENZ update suggests that they may - and provides a great list of alternative MUVEs that might provide a less proprietary future. Cobalt, an open source application, could be the way of the future...?

5.*: Educating the Net Generation

2009-06-17T14:42:00.000-07:00

I'll leave it to Net Gen Skeptic to provide the overview... A previous (2008) publication from Kennedy et al, "First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives?" is included in the draft of E-Primer 5 (coming soon). The fuller 2009 handbook "Educating the Net Generation: A Handbook of Findings for Practice and Policy" is available online in PDF format.

1.4: It's all about flexibility and pedagogical progress

2009-06-14T14:32:00.000-07:00

The latest ALT Fortnightly News includes a link to a UK market research presentation entitled "Examining e-learning in higher education: Perceptions and reality". Apparently the results were used in a Times Higher Education story headlined "Questions of cost and usefulness dog e-learning".

The comments on the article make better reading than the column itself; it is clear that the author put a very unusual spin on the research findings. The survey is actually focused on the use of lecture-capture technologies, a rather small part of 'e-learning' as a whole. Additionally, one thing that does come out very clearly in the survey is that e-learning is perceived as primarily providing a more flexible education. This is to be applauded. That e-learning is not seeing many lectures placed online is also to be applauded!

E-learning, 'pedagogy empowered by digital technology', is concerned with far more than making lectures available outside of class time. Indeed, using e-learning for an online lecture-repository lacks a certain imagination and pedagogical progressivism and betrays a class- or teacher-centric orientation. The survey correctly identified that e-learning is concerned with flexibility; it is also concerned with new ways of teaching and learning. Derek Rowntree, many of whose books adorn my distance education shelf, comments thus on the article:

Putting lectures online is scarcely e-learning. It's just a new way of delivering the old forms of mass communication. For e-learning to be worth bothering with it needs to be interactive: it may enable students to interact with learning materials, e.g. medical students may be diagnosing a patient, deciding on what tests to make, responding to the results given them from those tests, and so on. But effective, interactive e-learning is not dependent on materials and certainly does not require them to be presented online. Instead it can work by enabling students to engage in discussion with tutors and one another about what they are learning (even from materials presented in print) and to collaborate in carrying out group learning activities. By such means e-learning students may learn more from one another than they can in much of today's over-crowded face-to-face teaching.

Well said.

1.3.; 5.: Solid stuff on the future

2009-06-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

The "Beyond Current Horizons" research programme was established to "examine how social and technological change overthe coming 20 or so years may present new challenges or opportunities for education". The Futurelab project has just released some interesting new insights into what the future may hold.

Usually I am skeptical of such reports, but there is a depth to the analysis in the "Beyond Current Horizons" work that stands it apart. The quality of the Expert Advisory Group demonstrates the level of expertise the project has drawn on, adding significant depth to the analysis and findings. The six proposed scenarios have not been merely brainstormed; rather, they have been carefully fashioned from the results of clearly documented evidence (over 60 papers written by experts, also available from the site).

The six potential futures (and their implications for education) are:

World 1: Trust yourself

Scenario 1: Informed choice - Learning is a bespoke, life-long journey that develops and builds upon your unique strengths. Educational providers work with you to tailor education to your needs.
Scenario 2: Independent consumers - Learning is an individual responsibility, educational providers are suppliers responsible for ensuring quality of delivery.

World 2: Loyalty points

Scenario 3: Discovery - Education helps you to understand and develop your capacity to make distinctive and useful contributions to a range of different communities, organisations and networks.
Scenario 4: Diagnosis - Education is about organisations diagnosing learners' pre-existing strengths and determining where they will fit in future.

World 3: Only connect

Scenario 5: Integrated experience - Learning is a process of participating in meaningful activities and developing competencies and knowledge to better contribute to the wider community.
Scenario 6: Service and citizenship - Education is a process of learning about the skills, competencies and roles that individuals play in the 'real world'.

The beauty of these scenarios is that they are realistic, discrete, and are not driven by any sense of technological determinism. There is plenty to muse on here, and plenty to study; the various papers I have scanned (such as "Learning to learn", "Digital natives and ostrich tactics?", "Reworking the web, reworking the world: How web 2.0 is changing our society", "Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world") that inform the scenarios are all worthy of deep study in themselves. This study provides a good, substantial reference point that acknowledges the complexity of the issues involved as well as the fact that the future can often be anticipated but not pre-determined.

A must for anyone considering the potential futures of education wanting to engage with a serious consideration of the issues!

5.*: Mobile learning in higher education

2009-06-08T22:16:00.001-07:00

An eBook, "New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education", is available online from the University of Wollongong. The introduction explains that

While mobile technologies such as mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and digital music players (mp3 players) have permeated popular culture, they have not found widespread acceptance as pedagogical tools in higher education.

The eBook contains various exemplars associated with the use of PDAs and MP3 players in higher education, based on a project at the University. The project case studies aim to demonstrate how 'ubiquitous' mobile devices can be "legitimately" used in higher education. The project provides the following recommendations for using mobile devices in higher education:

Real world relevance: Use mobile learning in authentic contexts
Mobile contexts: Use mobile learning in contexts where learners are mobile
Explore: Provide time for exploration of mobile technologies
Blended: Blend mobile and non mobile technologies
Whenever: Use mobile learning spontaneously
Wherever: Use mobile learning in non traditional learning spaces
Whomsoever: Use mobile learning both individually and collaboratively
Affordances: Exploit the affordances of mobile technologies
Personalise: Employ the learners’ own mobile devices
Mediation: Use mobile learning to mediate knowledge construction.
Produse: Use mobile learning to produce and consume knowledge.

I'm not certain of the absolute value of the principles however in my view the report is a good summary of where m-learning is 'at'. I have difficulty in leaping from 'mobile devices are ubiquitous' through to PDAs being used as the basis for experimentation and case study; this highlights one of the difficulties with m-learning, that of diversity of device. A standard mobile phone is a far cry from a fully featured PDA, and it is the latter that tends to be the backbone for most m-learning case studies. So the ubiquity argument does not, in my view, provide a sound reason for using m-devices in higher education. Many of the educational benefits are also somewhat marginal, which, for me, reveals a tension between wanting to use the devices and needing to use them for educational purposes.

So, the report is a good contribution to m-learning... but the concept is still, in my view, mired by a need to honestly answer the question, so what? Evaluations of (yet more) case studies are not what is needed; objective, control-comparison research is what is most needed in the field of m-learning. There is plenty of enthusiasm and creativity already at play. Where is the research focussing on comparative learning outcomes, rather than student experiences? Until m-learning advocates are able to take a more objective, more self-critical, less exploratory and longer-term approach to m-learning, I trust that little real progress will be made for others to sit up and take notice of. For a start I suggest a change in methodology, away from the case studies and action research projects that dominate this field, more toward large-scale and cognitively comparable results.

Most of the cases I have reviewed for the next E-Primer have student samples of about ten, with provided PDA devices... hardly a representative or transferable set of studies. This is a real problem, one that will hinder the serious uptake of mobile devices in further education.

4.3.2, 3.4.6: Social presence through MP3 recordings and online discourse

2009-05-28T23:20:00.000-07:00

Robinson (2009) overviews a startlingly simple yet effective means of increasing social presence in formal education at a distance: recording interviews in MP3 format with experts (a "practicing professional" in Robinson's case), uploading the audio file to a virtual learning environment (VLE), and having the guest facilitate a two-week online discussion relating to the topic discussed.

Simple. And, as the results of Robinson's article in Open Learning (24:2, 127-139), effective.

Robinson proposes the approach as a viable one for a 'virtual residential school', essentially a replacement for block courses. Itis hard to be enthusiastic about this based on the survey results provided in the paper. Although the exercise was optional, the student survey results only permit a "tentative" (p.136) equivalency to a residential experience, and there was a high instance of lurkers. This aside, the pedagogical approach is commendable.

This paper highlights again that distance education need not compromise its place flexibility to be an effective means of education. The approach isn't rocket science, but it works. It's beauty is its simplicity and accessibility.

So, why the link to 4.3.2 (Social presence: the basis of community) and 3.4.6 (Topic design)?

Social presence is linked to community; Robinson (2009, p.128) mentions Hillery's (1955) identification of "locality and a sharing of common interests" as core aspects of community. If the VLE serves as the 'location', and if students are engaging in a discussion of mutual interest, then community can be said to exist. However Robinson also differentiates between 'community' and 'belonging', the latter requiring a psychological connection with the membership of community. This is an excellent differentiation; it is one thing to be 'in' a community, quite another to sense one's belonging to it. With this distinction, it could be said that online tutors ought to consider how to develop a sense of student belonging in a course, rather than establish community (which is rather automatic in Hillery's view). Robinson's article also finishes with a reminder that not all students are 'into' online community; some just want to get their qualification, without any fuss.

Why topic design? Well, the beautiful simplicity of what Robinson has proposed lends itself nicely to a 'supplemental resources' or 'interpersonal communication' approach to instrcutional design.

A timely reminder that simple yet thoughtful use of technology can engage students.

[Image "Universe of the floating Rocks: Rocket Launch Rock" Uploaded on March 2, 2009
by T.Oechsner]

4.4: A review of social learning theory and Web-Based Learning Environments

2009-05-28T22:28:00.000-07:00

The latest American Journal of Distance Education features an article by Hill et al called "Social Learning Theory and Web-Based Learning Environments: A Review of Research and Discussion of Implications" (23:2, 88-103). The article concerns itself with formal, rather than informal settings (great to see the distinction being made in literature) and seems to assume engagement leading to community rather than the "must develop community first" emphasis that underlies other perspectives outlined in the E-Primer.

The paper follows a very useful structure relating to key variables, and their application:

Context
Interactions

Provide opportunities for creating and sharing in-depth messages
Enable support by more knowledgeable others
Encourage interaction by the instructor and peers

Group and class size

Monitor group size to enable support from more knowledgeable others (i.e., peers)
Monitor class size to enable consistent and engaged interaction

Resources

Encourage effective use of postings and other resources
Provide strategies to identify, interpret, and utilize resources

Culture and Community
Culture

Facilitate online interactions so they meet the needs of learners from a variety of cultures
Provide multiple formats for communication to meet differing cultural needs

Community

Facilitate connection-building in small and large groups
Support collaborative activities

Learner Characteristics
Epistemological beliefs

Take into consideration reflective thinking abilities
Gain an understanding of epistemological beliefs of students to guide design

Individual learning styles

Gain an understanding of learning styles to guide design
Enable different levels of interaction to accommodate individual learning styles

Self-efficacy

Enable choice in interactions to minimize social anxiety
Promote self-regulated learning

Motivation

Incorporate authentic activities
Send messages regularly to motivate learners

This is, in my view, an excellent overview of issues and a good structure for considering online discussion.

Mention is made of Angeli et al's (2000) 'starter' and 'wrapper' technique, one not mentioned in the E-Primer but one worthy of note here. The 'starter' is a nominated student who frames a discussion based on a particular reading, setting the scene for the online discussion to follow. The 'wrapper' is another student who provides an effective summary of the conversation once the exercise is completed. The 'starter' and 'wrapper' tend to respond deeply themselves, and as the technique is used across a course the overall level of interaction also increases. We use this technique successfully in one course at Laidlaw College, where a student will take on the role of both 'starter' and 'wrapper' for one particular topic of the overall course.

Another key lesson from the paper concerns the dangers of being too prescriptive when designing online discourse opportunities, which can stifle new ideas and rob motivation. There is a real tension here, one mentioned in section 4.1.1 of the E-Primer. The problem is that setting up an online topic that is too loose can result in a perception that the instructor is distant, and the conversation itself too unstructured. This tension also applies to the actual role of the online instructor, as stated in the E-Primer (p.43):

There is a tension, a balance, a restrained enthusiasm required for success in online instruction. Evidence suggests that instructors should err on the side of enthusiastic participation rather than absenteeism.

Modelling is also identified in the Hill et al article as a key success factor, and is mentioned in sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.4.

Overall the paper reinforces the accuracy of E-Primer 4, though the link to student's own epistemological beliefs and learning styles (see also previous entry) are both avenues worthy of further consideration.

3.2: Designing based on learning styles for the online environment

2009-05-26T03:17:00.000-07:00

Research by Battalio (2009) in AJDE suggests a strong link between learning styles (based on Index of Learning Styles or ILS) and success in various online education formats. The study particularly considers the different outcomes between collaborative and self-directed versions of the same communications course.

The ILS learning style model considers learner preferences across four scales, each with two extremes (active/reflective, sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, sequential/global). of these, four extremes would prima facie appear to offer the best mix for online learning:

Reflective - those who prefer to think more than interact.
Intuitive - prefer discovery rather than facts.
Verbal - those who get more from words than visual presentations.
Global - 'big picture' rather than linear learners.

The results of the study do, in fact, demonstrate that reflective types have the advantage - but this is the case for both collaborative and self-directed course designs. Active learners perform better in collaborative courses. Sequential learners are also advantaged, particularly in self-directed courses (though a different study has found that global learners are better off).

So, what do we make of this? Well, reflective learners are clearly more suited to forms of online learning - be it collaborative or self-directed. They are very adaptable! This, no doubt, must echo other studies performed on higher education in general. While the conclusions of this paper suggest that a collaborative version of a course is preferable to giving students a preference-based choice for self-directed or collaborative, there are factors beyond student learning-style preference that ought to drive pedagogical decisions. It would be very interesting to be able to probe the differences between the self-directed and collaborative versions of the communications course itself, to get a better feel for the differences. Still, this study does indicate that self-directed instruction in isolation does not maximise a distance education experience. Collaboration in online learning can be to the advantage of all.

4.2: Casual MSN: Surprising results

2009-05-23T22:03:00.000-07:00

A study by Rutter (2009) in the latest ALT-J considers the informal use of MSN in higher education, particularly in a very large computer commons. The result: students using MSN (or Messenger-style applications) not at all and extensively have the advantage over those students who use it sparingly. This is actually an unusual and counter-intuitive result. Rather than intermediate students being disadvantaged, it is easier to imagine students using it too much (being distracted) or not at all (missing out) as being at risk. Students in the survey were studying computing modules, and used MSN for both social and academic purposes. Many students reported disabling MSN when they want to concentrate on their study.

It is worth mentioning that students who did not use MSN at all had a slight edge over those who used it all of the time, however it is also essential to remember that there are many more factors involved in student success than whether or not they make use of MSN! One question that remains with me: Is MSN use a result of student success rather than a determinant of it? In other words, could it be that those students who tend to have successful study habits are extreme in their use of MSN - either using it all of the time or never at all? Could it be that heavy users are more aware of their need to use MSN strategically, and that non-users use their discretion to not use a medium they perceive as not offering them any value for the purposes of study?

Rutter proposes further investigation, noting that "it may turn out that highly socialised, networked students make better learners, whether they use the application or not" (p.43). By this, he presumably means that non-users are sufficiently socialised offline to not need to use MSN and high users best know how to exploit the tool to benefit them. Without further detail on how high-users are using MSN, it is difficult to be definite. Studies such as this demonstrate how little is really known about the use of MSN and other synchronous chat tools in formal education.

3.2: Research-based evidence for instructional design principles

2009-05-23T20:23:00.000-07:00

The latest ALT-J includes the results of a study by Cebei et al investigating e-learning instructional design. The study considers those design elements relating to online courses, that is, courses where instructional materials are optimised for access over the Internet.

Based on a set of interviews with experts, the following key predictors of student success were isolated from instructional design literature:

the length of text
use of examples and applications
exercises (quizzes and homework)
multimedia
visual integrity

When a variety of actual courses and their grade averages were evaluated acording to these variables, the study found that each of these five factors have a positive influence on students' final grades. The use of examples and applications was identified as the most effective variable.

It is important to get these variables in context. Firstly, they assume a particular approach to course design and communications between educator and student that are not adequately described. This means that, for example, tutorial support is not necessarily considered in the study as being of any relevance. So, it could be that the five variables above are optimal only for those courses that are deliberately designed to be based on individual study. Secondly, and as the authors freely admit, the study considers only instructional design variables. Other determinants of student success are ignored.

Essentially the guides here for online courses are keep text short, use plenty of examples, give plenty of opportunity for feedback, make extensive use of multimedia, and make it look great. These remind me of Horton's excellent book Designing Web-based training, one of the earliest e-learning specific 'how-to' guides. Which, in turn, reminds me of one of my concerns with these principles from Cebeci et al. The courses used for the statistical analysis are all numbered '101', and Horton's book emphasises the term training. I wonder how apt these principles might be for second- and third-year degree study, or for post-graduate instructional design. As with all such studies, the context and assumptions underpinning what is analysed becomes a critical consideration, and one which all e-learning researchers must be wary of.

1.1.2: Concerns with connectivism

2009-05-07T15:31:00.000-07:00

I had written this as a part of a journal submission that was declined by peer reviewers (one said, "Yes! We need this!" the other, it needed too much rework...) and my research time is now fully concerned with E-Primer 5. Someone requested a look at my thoughts on connectivism (also discussed in the eBCNZer blog) - so, here is an extract from a failed journal article which started as a book chapter (the book itself was never launched). In context, this extract is part of a challenge to Web 2.0 as a viable basis for formal education. Sorry to use the Brighouse quote yet again...

Epistemological problems I: In search of a theory

Epistemological questions relate to what it means to know, and how knowledge is acquired. Theories such as behaviourism, constructivism and social constructivism are attempts to describe how people assimilate information into knowledge and develop perspectives that make sense of reality. Someone with a behaviourist perspective (who sees a direct connection between stimuli and response) will see didactic teaching as highly effective, whereas social constructivists (who see value in sharing understanding interpersonally from different perspectives) would probably rather see learners debating and sharing experiences. Web 2.0-based advocates tend not to consider these epistemological platforms. Instead ‘connectivism’, a theory proposed by Siemens (2004, 2006), is popularly cited as a more appropriate way of describing what it means to know and learn in a connected world. It is important here to explore how connectivism departs from other epistemological theories.

In connectivism, learning is said to take place across a network rather than within an individual. The departure of connectivism from other epistemologies is not that it assumes learning to be complex or that knowledge is dynamic or that understanding is personalized (these are also characteristic of social constructivism). The key difference is that in connectivism knowing where and knowing who are more important than knowing what and knowing how, because our “information rich world requires the ability to first determine what is important, and then how to stay connected and informed as information changes” (Siemens 2006, p. 32).

Connectivism is readily descriptive of learning in professional contexts. Lawyers don’t memorise legislation, but they know where to find the answers they need and who to talk to if they can’t find answers or need another opinion. However lawyers are already educated people. In order to determine what is important, lawyers must first know what they are looking for and how it will benefit them. While it is true that they must keep in touch with the ever-dynamic use of particular forms of legislation and keep apace with legal precedent, they do so within a particular conceptual framework. Missing from the connectivism assertion is an adequate appreciation of the underlying knowledge-base and filtering processes lawyers must already possess within themselves in order to meaningfully take advantage of the knowledge networks they draw from. Lawyers know what the legal system is about, and how it works because they have been trained into the system. To benefit from knowing where and knowing who, you must first have developed a coherent framework of what and how. It is precisely this that formal education seeks to provide its apprentices with. In his commentary Brighouse (2006) puts it plainly:

the critical thinking skills involved in autonomy can neither be developed nor exercised without the ease of access to a considerable amount of information which is provided only by having learned and internalized it… the idea that [students] might develop the more complex skills of reasoning about information without having a good deal of it instantly available is silly (pp. 23-24).

Connectivism is a wonderful means of describing the ways in which professionals and organizations tend to learn. However it is concerning that the theory might be cited as evidence that the knowing what and knowing how emphases of formal education should be displaced. The development of critical thinking and autonomous learning skills drawing on where and who (including the ability to meaningfully contribute to a connected world) relies on a coherent platform of pre-requisite, internalized knowledge – the how and what.

E-Primer 4 - "Online discourse" released!

2009-05-07T03:11:00.000-07:00

E-Primer 4, "Online discourse", is available now from the Ako Aotearoa Web site. Many thanks to Cathy Gunn and Bill Rosenberg (reviewers), to Ako Aotearoa for their understanding about deadline slippage, and to Kate Hunt for her editing prowess! The E-Primer considers the theory and practice of synchronous and asynchronous communications for e-learning (it leaves social networking and associated dynamics for E-Primer 5). E-Primers 1, 2 and 3 are available to the right of this post.

This has been by far the most challenging E-Primer to compile - mainly because of the substantial literature that exists. It is a reasonably comprehensive literature review, but the point of it all has been to establish good practice guidelines and orientate the reader to the ongoing conversation about the use of communications tools in e-learning. As usual I have tried to avoid the speculative and focus instead on the actual results of objective studies.

This, from the Introduction:

Communication is at the very centre of education, so it’s not surprising that educators have rapidly adopted recent developments in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to improve the reach and effectiveness of their teaching. Successes with online bulletin boards first emerged from studies in the late 1980s (Mason & Kaye 1989), and innovation with desktop videoconferencing soon followed. Instructors who want to engage distance learners or interact with their on-campus learners in new ways can now choose from a variety of proven online applications.

In this e-primer, you will discover both the promise of formal online discourse (that is, conversation mediated through internet tools) for education, and good practice. Throughout, I encourage you to apply online discourse in ways that are conducive to teaching and learning. The focus in this e-primer is more on the discourse than the technology although, inevitably, we will consider technology. In E-Primer 5, E-xtending Possibilities, we will look at interactive journals (blogs), collaboration through wiki tools, working with ePortfolios, and the potential of social networking tools such as MySpace and Facebook for education. Here, in E-Primer 4, we will limit our attention to synchronous chat, desktop audio- and videoconferencing, and the online bulletin or discussion boards that are common in learning management systems (LMSs). Because LMSs are commonly used in distance education and blended learning courses (MacDonald 2006; Hopkins et al 2008), we’ll look closely at them and their features.

Updates will continue through this blog. E-Primer 5 is currently half-way through drafting. I welcome any feedback on the work, particularly if major works and ideas have been missed. There are some findings that are actually contradictory to much of the 'common wisdom' relating to online discourse, particularly with regards to social presence.

The E-Primer series is made available under a Creative Commons license.

5.*: Challenging the assumptions of 'm'

2009-05-05T21:10:00.000-07:00

I am embroiled in writing E-Primer 5, "eXtending possibilities"; at present I am focusing on particular on m-learning. A recently released eBook, "Mobile Learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training" is an ad-hoc and broad compilation of chapters from academics around the world (mostly UK). What prompts me to blog here is the paradigm the book adopts in its opening chapters.

Ally (2009, p.1) presents the utopian vision for m-learning:

Learners will not have to wait for a certain time to learn or go to a certain place to learn. With mobile learning, learners will be empowered since they can learn whenever and wherever they want. Also, learners do not need to learn what is prescribed for them.

Traxler, in the first chapter of the eBook (2009, p.10) continues in a similar vein:

Looking at mobile learning in a wider context, we have to recognize that mobile, personal, and wireless devices are now radically transforming societal notions of discourse and knowledge, and are responsible for new forms of art, employment, language, commerce, deprivation, and crime, as well as learning. With increased popular access to information and knowledge anywhere, anytime, the role of education, perhaps especially formal education, is challenged and the relationships between education, society, and technology are now more dynamic than ever.

Later (p.14) he adds:

Learning that used to be delivered “just-in-case,” can now be delivered “just-in-time, just enough, and just-for-me.” Finding information rather than possessing it or knowing it becomes the defining characteristic of learning generally and of mobile learning especially, and this may take learning back into the community.

(Emphasis added). I think I'm finally able to explain my concern with this sort of thinking. In response to Ally, formal education is not inherently disempowering and neither does it seek to treat a prescribed curriculum as all there is to know. Formal education is a means to a transformed mind; in the words of Montaigne, it seeks to 'make minds not fill them'. And, formal education is not about access to information and knowledge. So, in response to Traxler's first point above, m-learning represents an opportunity to formal education and not a challenge. Further, it is way too simplistic to differentiate learning based on it being 'just-in-case' or 'just-in-time'. This ignores completely the value and mechanisms of formal education. When has anyone ever 'needed' Plato? Seneca? Postman? Rorty? Or, perhaps better relating to e-learning folk, Shirky? Yet these thinkers and their perspectives continue to open minds, to broaden them, to challenge them. Using Laurillard's distinction of everyday and academic knowledge, everyday knowledge should be just-in-time; academic knowledge is just-to-challenge, just-to-open, just-to-blow us out of our own ways of thinking. To criticise formal education for adopting a 'just-in-case' approach to learning is simply nonsense. To further assert that finding information is "the defining characteristic of learning" is very alarming, because it is actually 'knowing it' that helps you to develop a mental filter and include the information in your personal mental framework. Brighouse (pp.23-24) puts it plainly:

the critical thinking skills involved in autonomy can neither be developed nor exercised without the ease of access to a considerable amount of information which is provided only by having learned and internalized it… the idea that [students] might develop the more complex skills of reasoning about information without having a good deal of it instantly available is silly.

So, a Google search is more powerful than an educated mind? What if (as Jeanneney suggests) the question were not, "What is the capital of Venezuela?" but rather "Does democratization favour equality?" Here, it is the ability to evaluate and not merely find knowledge that becomes 'definitional' of having truly learned.

My criticism of Ally's phrase is that it reveals a deficit perspective of formal education, and seems to confuse the advantages of informal learning with formal learning. For Traxler the issue is epistemological, and a likely confusion between what it means to train and what it means to educate (Rosenberg, to whom the contrast between 'just-in-case', 'just-in-time', 'just enough' and 'just for me' is attributed, is involved in e-learning for training purposes). Traxler does acknowledge that a good case can be made for the use of mobile devices in incumbent formal education however his use of the term 'impurist' to describe this is somewhat loaded.

Finally, Traxler (2009, p.10) describes m-learning as "essentially personal, contextual, and situated". The fundamental error here, I think, is that Traxler has mistaken potential attributes for m-learning as essential. There is an unfortunate idealism in place here, as if Traxler is correct any use of a mobile device in educational contexts that is directed, abstract and theoretical cannot be 'real' m-learning. Far from being a pedagogical option, then, m-learning rather becomes a revolutionary slogan.

To finish, I would like to offer a set of theses to to with higher education:

Formal education seeks to open minds, rather than fill them; however opening cannot be separated from filling, nor vice-versa.
Formal education does not stop or hinder informal learning.
Formal education aims to orientate academic apprentices into an ongoing academic conversation; it does not claim to be the conversation itself.
Formal education seeks to add value through: a) its structuring of knowledge, and b) its insistence that students participate in exercises that force reflection and integration of knowledge.
Formal education is a deliberately tiered process, gradually immersing academic apprentices in a critical, co-dependent and questioning epistemology. The further the apprentice travels, the clearer the value of the tier becomes to them.

I welcome critique on the bulleted suggestions above. When I think about e-learning, I consider how these aims of formal education can be furthered. It wearies (and worries) me to see formal education, whether directly or indirectly, criticised on the basis that:

it is focused on filling minds with irrelevant nonsense;
it is concerned with memorising facts;
it is locked into an outdated model of objectives and assessment;
it considers itself a monopoly on learning;
or that it is a waste of money and time and a barrier to more natural informal and networked learning.

By all means let's critique formal education, but let's do so fairly and from a perspective of appreciative inquiry.

3*: Reflective journals - helping students to 'dig deeply'

2009-04-27T01:33:00.000-07:00

An article by Hume in the latest Higher Education Research & Development 28(3),"Promoting higher levels of reflecting in student journals" caught my attention. The power of reflection is widely acknowledged in adult education literature and practice however it is also done so appallingly by many students, who tend to treat reflection assignments as a chance to say what they always knew. This, of course, makes it a pointless exercise for both them and their reader. Hume (2009, p.247) describes this sort of reflection as "shallow... [and] often trivial", with the student focus tending to be on "descriptive rather than evaluative thinking" (p.251). How, then, can we unleash the true potential of reflection in our students?

Hume has been action researching (and no doubt reflecting!) on her own teaching practice as it relates to introducing and evaluating a student reflective journal assignment for the last few years. She reports that we can make a great deal of difference to the depth of student reflection with some easy interventions.

Don't make guidelines too broad, or too open-ended. Hume uses a framework or model to help focus student reflection. Related to this is the point, don't assume that students 'know' how to reflect. Provide effective scaffolds.
Develop deliberate activities designed to encourage reflection - problem-solving, group discussion, ideas from professional readings, time put aside in class for reflective writing.
Make exemplars available, and 'pre-teach' the skills required for reflection.
Provide effective feedback (even based on peer-exchange).

Hume's approach includes "the use of timetabled slots solely for reflective writing early in the programme, exemplars of reflective writing, reflective frameworks and regular written feedback and feedforward comments from myself about their writing" (p.258). She notes that effective reflection activities in formal education can prompt ongoing practice for students.

As with most educational interventions (technology firmly included), the technique of reflection must be properly scaffolded and purposefully applied if it is to be successful. Also explicit in Hume's approach is the fact that her role as teacher is an important part of its success for students. Teaching the skill, focussing subsequent activity and providing feedback are, surely, timeless princples of effective education.

[Image "Reflection_3850"Uploaded on May 6, 2007 by mtbjohn]

5.*: Second Life in peer review

2009-04-16T15:43:00.000-07:00

The latest British Journal of Educational Technology (40, 3) is a special issue focussing on the use of MUVE's (specifically Second Life) in higher education. This complements a special issue of ALT-J (17, 3) last year. It is great to see Second Life receiving attention and evaluation through journals; it is somewhat tedious looking for useful material among blogs and news sites, which either tend to being too subjective or else not detailed enough. Even with this attention however it is difficult to determine where MUVE-assisted education may end up. This quote from Salmon & Hawkridge's (2009, p.403) editorial puts it well:

It may be too early to be sure that 3-D MUVEs are more than a flash in the pan for higher education: after all, plenty of other technologies have been used for education for a few years only to disappear. We recognise that this special issue of BJET may be at the very beginning of the 3-D MUVEs’ potential development ... or maybe the middle or even towards the end.

So, who knows? Will the educational use of Second Life mirror the tertiary uptake of LMS or VLEs? Or will it mirror the experiences of businesses - many of which are now pulling out of Second Life? Only time, innovation, trial and error and the sharing of experiences will tell... my perspective is clear.

5.*: IPTS Review of Learning 2.0 practices

2009-04-06T14:50:00.000-07:00

A series of reports from the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) examines learning 2.0 and its impact on education and training in Europe. This looks to be a thorough - and timely - study that summarises the learning 2.0 paradigm as follows:

Due to information overflow, there is a need to learn how to sift, select, organise and manage information according to its relevance.
Learning in the digital era is fundamentally collaborative in nature; social networks arise around common (learning) interests and aims and facilitate the learning process by providing social and cognitive guidance and support.
The learner plays a central role in the learning process – not as a passive recipient of information, but as an active author, co-creator, evaluator and critical commentator.
As a consequence, learning processes become increasingly personalised, tailored to the individual’s needs and interests.

This is not a critique of the value of the report, which I will get to... I just remain somewhat skeptical about this paradigm as a viable one for higher formal education. Information management is not the equivalent of conceptual learning; collaboration is not, in my view, as powerful as reflection as a means of learning; only a very poor traditional tertiary education experience can be described as encouraging 'passive' learning; and personalisation "tailored to the individual's needs and interests" is nice rhetoric, but lousy education. So: Should the tail of learning 2.0 wag the dog of formal education?

Perhaps a crude analogy. 'Car enthusiasts' like to drive fast, burn off rubber, and race on public streets. High performance cars enable them to do this. The appearance of the car is central to the experience. Rather than get from A to B, car enthusiasts enjoy the socialisation and thrills of a driving experience that suits their needs.

Hmmm.

Laurillard's difference between everyday and academic knowledge is a handy shorthand for my concern. I also have a few difficulties with the validity of the paradigm suggested for learning 2.0:

Who decides what information is 'relevant'? Google? Issues here are addressed well by Jeanneney. Could it be that an expert's perspective on what is 'relevant' might be more enlightening than that of the crowd, for the purposes of education?
Social networks and collaboration: Are these subject to homophily (as suggested by Shirky as being characteristic of Web 2.0?) Does this not make the potential horizon for collaboration smaller? Do social networks limit, rather than stimulate, the development of broader perspectives?
Learner centredness: Are students in tertiary (higher) education really 'passive recipients'? Is this how they emerge from the system, as dependent passivists? Is reading or listening passive receipt?
Is personalisation of learning a valid goal for education to aspire to? Do my 'needs and interests' limit me to what I already want? How, then, can I be exposed to the new?

So, again my question. Should 'learning 2.0' determine how formal education is offered? Is "learner-centred collaborative information management suited to my needs" the utopia of formal education? My own desire is for "subject-centred perspective shifting conceptual development that transforms my understanding of reality"... and this more often than not involves developing a respect for the subject, individualistic reflection, considering the work and feedback of experts (rather than peers), and being taken places I did not even know existed.

1.*: Boredom in the lecture theatre: What can be done?

2009-03-24T13:39:00.001-07:00

An article in the latest British Educational Research Journal investigates boredom from the perspective of 21st Century tertiary students (in the UK). Mann, S., & Robinson, A (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: an investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational Research Journal 35(2), 243-258.

Boredom "stems from a situation where none of the possible things that a person can realistically do appeal to the person in question" (p.243). I know how that feels, having attended (and, well, also missed) multiple lectures during my undergraduate years. I admit that I did not mourn the lack of lectures during my PG studies through distance education! Naturally, boredom leads to alternative behaviour rather than a vegetative state. Students playing cell-phone games, doodling and focussing on other thoughts (daydreaming!) are trying to escape boredom in ways not immediately useful to the subject at hand. Boredom has longer-lasting effects as well; after a boring day of lectures, many of Mann & Robinson's respondents would watch TV, eat chocolate, sleep... as in the photo, they were far from energised by the experience.

Mann & Robinson's study has three main findings I would like to emphasise.

Firstly, there are individuals pre-disposed to boredom; there are those who simply to not find thinking or "increasing their understanding of events around them" as stimulating (p.244). It is important to start with this finding, as it clearly suggests that 'let's not do lectures anymore' is a naive response. There are some who will not engage regardless of the educaitonal tool used. There is a need to separate the tool from the technique. Lecturing can be done exceptionally well (I'm sure you can think of examples), so it has potential as a tool.

Secondly: the problem of PowerPoint. Yes, the problem. Whether or not it was somehow responsible for the destruction of the Columbia in 2003, it is certainly responsible for enabling content overload, unimaginative displays of text, and gaudy and distracting transitional effects. Rather than being used to support an engaging narrative or presentation, PowerPoint frequently becomes the focus of lecture preparation. This naturally places the emphasis on information rather than thinking... and information is boring. Copying PowerPoint slides is boring - but providing print-outs of them helps to ease the pain!

Third, the red-herring of 'hands-on'. Students found labs and computer sessions to be the most boring. 'Controlled exercises' are not stimulating for students. Discovery is better.

There are several hints within the article as to what makes learning in general more engaging. A focus on deep learning strategies, for example - and this can be expressed through lectures. A focus on discovery - which, again, can be built into carefully constructed lectures. De-emphasising the content (online lecture notes are perceived as boring) - again, this can be done through the lecture format. The best lectures I have attended are those based on narrative, carefully constructed stories with a twist that make the ideas - not the content - come to life. Effective lectures seek to bring about an 'aha' in the student, moreso than an assurance that all relevant content has been covered. While technology can be used to leverage effective teaching, it can also amplify inneffective teaching. PowerPoint can't save lectures... only careful thought and the creative, passionate and dedicated application of energy can. Effective lecturing is a craft, a craft that needs to be rediscovered rather than dismissed.

Image: 2007_088_01 by chuckp: See more of chuckp's photos, or visit his profile.

5.*: Just in time and connected: Relevant to formal education?

2009-03-11T20:35:00.001-07:00

As a part of my E-Primer 5 research I am reviewing Laurillard's (2002) Rethinking university teaching. I read the first edition of the book, err, last Millenium as I was writing my e-Book Teaching for learning. From a learning theory perspective it has much in common with Ramsden's Learning to teach in higher education, a book that remains a milestone in my development as an education thinker and writer.

Anyways, I am drafting the first parts of a critique of formal vs informal, mediated vs unmediated education through social networking. No doubt this draft will change as the E-Primer takes final shape, but I thought to share it. I'd really appreciate any thoughts that occur to you as you read it, preferably in comments below.

During his junior year, my son started making videos with a digital video camera... he was not merely taking video with his camera and then editing sequence. He was mixing in audio from the Internet, CDs and DVDs, video clips collected from his friends, still images he had taken and downloaded from the net, and even staged video from online video games, where players followed direction and acted out scenes on a virtual stage from their homes across the globe. I did not teach him how to do this... his high school teachers... did not teach him how to do this. He taught himself, with the help of his social network of people, with whom he IMs, text messages, shares MySpace pages, plays in the metaverse of video games, and through venues I am sure I do not even understand yet. He knows how to use this new read/write web to learn what he needs to know, in order to do what he needs to do, now! It's how this generation learns. It's how they use information. (Warlick, 2007, pp. 12-13)

Warlick's account reveals that social networks can be exploited for the purposes of learning. However this does not discount the value of a formal education nor, necessarily, its mechanisms. The link between 'know and do', explicit in Warlick's example, is not always useful when discussing education; in fact, the link may even be irrelevant. The issue is not 'just in time' vs 'just in case' learning; rather the issue is between what is useful immediately and what is useful conceptually. Consider Plato's cave, Marx's critique of capitalism, studying the history of Western Europe, analysing the themes from One flew over the cuckoo's nest. Clearly not all worthwhile educational activities can fit into the model of 'what we need to do, now'. There are activities and ideas that do not directly influence our behaviour, but instead broaden our understanding of reality and which transform our thinking (Mezirow, 1990; 2000). Such transformation is exceptionally valuable. Implicit to an education is not just subject familiarity, but a new way of considering the world and one's place within it. One of the key rationales of formal higher education is exposing people to ideas and perspectives that result in them seeing the world differently, sharing ideas that they may never have opportunity to encounter through everyday experience. As a colleague at my own College recently remarked, you cannot think about (or be transformed by) ideas that have never occurred to you. Laurillard (2002) makes the following observations:

There are differences between everyday knowledge and academic knowledge.
Everyday knowledge is based on experience; academic knowledge is based on our experience of experience.
Everyday knowledge tends to be highly situational however academic knowledge is more objective, transferable and generalisable.
Everyday knowledge can be gained through everyday experience, whereas academic knowledge is necessarily mediated by experts with academic knowledge.

Further, higher education is concerned with far more than transferring information to students. Very seldom, if at all, will memorisation, regurgitation of facts and a search for 'the answer' earn an undergraduate degree. Instead, graduates have learned to appraise, compare, contrast, critique, evaluate, and come to their own informed conclusions with reference to others' ideas¹. In Laurillard's (2002, p.12) words, “learning is not just about acquiring high-level knowledge. The way students handle that knowledge is what really concerns academics”. The outcome of formal education is not necessarily in-head information, but rather new ways of being able to use information as a tool.

Instead of being enamored with the success of Warlick's son's success at movie-making, we should be careful to contextualise it such that we see the issue he raises as an epistemological one rather than a methodological one. In other words, Warlick's example is more relevant to a discussion on what we understand knowledge to be, than one to do with how we should educate in formal contexts. The purpose of education is not to inform, but rather to transform; not to fill minds, but rather to broaden them. Social networking can certainly be used in the pursuit of broadening minds however its usefulness in formal education contexts is determined by its potential contribution toward the pursuit of academic knowledge.

1In the same way, postgraduates are expected to become comfortable with reconciling complex and conflicting points of view, and to determine and defend their own position within these points of view.