5.*: Some pet hates

I am reading around web 2.0 and its potential for formal tertiary education, for the next E-Primer... and I have to get these false dichotomies off my chest. These often come up in Web 2.0 literature as providing legitimacy for its use.

• Just-in-time (good) vs just-in-case (bad) learning. This dichotomy is infuriating. So-called 'just-in-case' learning can, in fact, be providing a valuable and necessary context for further cognitive development, further context for enabling students to later participate in the broader conversation about the subjects they are studying. This dichotomy suggests a surface, utilitarian concept of knowledge that assumes education exists for immediate ends, not extended means. Education is the means to an end, and not the end in itself. It has more to do with enabling conversation than solving immediate problems. Once this important epistemological difference is understood, any distinction between 'just-in-time' and 'just-in-case' in the context of formal education becomes meaningless.
• Teacher-centred vs student-centred learning. Bah, humbug. I have blogged elsewhere on the importance of subject-centred learning a la Palmer, where the teacher embodies the subject and gives it its voice rather than becoming the central focus of authority. This removes us from the blinkered 'teacher-centred' approach and the equally idiotic notion of a 'student-centred' one in formal education.
• Teachers as sages on the stage vs guides on the side. I have blogged on this elsewhere. What sparked this fresh tirade is a quote from Mason & Rennie (2008, p.30):
  

"In effect, 'teachers' and 'tutors' will need to change their roles from being the sole repository of knowledge, to roles in which their experience is utilised to help facilitate and focus learners to contextualise knowledge within the wider framework of their experience".

This is a rather one-eyed perspective of what teachers and tutors attempt to achieve in formal education, and an unfair basis for advocating the application of web 2.0 applications in education - a classic 'straw-' err, 'person' argument. Any tertiary education course with a recommended bibliography and readings other than those authored by the teacher or tutor will bear this out. In the institution I work for, each course is worth 15 credits (150 learning hours) toward a qualification. Of those 15 credits, pre-determined readings and classes usually account for one-third of the allocated time (and these invariably consist of more than the teacher's or tutor's own writings or presentations), another third to self-directed learning, the final third to assessment tasks designed to encourage reflection and integration, drawing on wider sources. How, then, is the teacher or tutor "the sole repository of knowledge"? The teacher provides the frame for learning, yes - but surely this represents the value-add of formal education? Further, no teacher or tutor is naive enough (or brazen enough) to suggest that students would be dependent on him or her once the course has finished. Where, then, is the grounds for such a criticism?

There is plenty of value in Mason & Rennie's (2008) E-learning and social networking handbook. The authors are sympathetic to the use of web 2.0 in formal education, and provide some very useful guidelines for its use. I am just wary, sensitive, dubious about claims that educators must fundamentally change from being the narrow-minded knowledge tyrants they never, in fact, were. Yes, there are exceptions... but let's remember that they are, in fact, exceptional.

1.1.1: Distributed learning relationships

In reading through Mason & Rennie (2008) for the next E-Primer, I found this representation of how f2f, blended learning, distance education and elearning inter-relate.

All of these are situated in the context of distributed learning, used as an over-arching term to describe all learning that seeks to "customize learning environments to better-fit different learning styles, whether students are on or off campus" (Mason & Rennie, 2008, p.25).

This diagram is interesting to contrast that from Bullen & Janes (2006; see earlier post), in that it illustrates again the confusion that can result from inconsistent terminology (the curse of the e-learning field!)

What confuses me most about Mason & Rennie's diagram is the lack of connection between f2f and e-learning - as if 'using online resources' suddenly infers distance education. So, making a series of URLs available to students in a f2f classroom on a Web page becomes evidence of distance education? My hesitation with Mason & Rennie's diagram is that it appears to be techno-centric, rather than the more pedagogical or methodological model proposed by Bullen & Janes.

Of course, I could just be confused. The discussion on pp.25-28 of their book seems to imply that distributed learning is characterised by the whole diagram above; it could also be read that it exists in the overlap of blended learning, distance education and e-learning (but this would disqualify f2f as a valid component). The statement on p.26, "technologies of varying sorts are a central component in the practice of distributed learning" gives strength to the latter.

I am glad that Mason & Rennie give space to defining their terms, but am unconvinced by their reason that "distance education and campus-based teaching are converging due to the growth of ICT and the Web". I don't doubt that convergence is taking place; I just think it's too early to pretend that the two are no longer distinct, or that all e-learning use is indicative of distance education practice. Guri-Rosenblit, in Higher Education (2005) 49:467-493 states definitively that "'distance' is not a defining characteristic of e-learning" (p.470). Personally, I would link e-learning and f2f so that their overlap is possible as blended learning...

...the terminological nightmare continues!

5.*: It's an anthropological thing

Michael Welsch (University of Kansas) created the "The Machine is Us/ing Us", at one stage the number one video on YouTube. In this presentation to the US Library of Congress ("An anthropological introduction to YouTube") introduces the clip and its success - and discusses various anthropological aspects of Web 2.0. Most clips in YouTube are viewed less than 100 times; every now and again, though, as Welsch explains, a phenomenon occurs!

It is wonderful seeing the creativity and connectedness that Web 2.0 facilitates. But the link between education and entertainment is a tenuous one. Of course, Welsch himself provides a classic example of how the two can be linked in "The Machine is Us/ing Us". Educationally there are some great possibilities in the format Welsch used... imagine bring Plato's metaphor of the cave to life, drawing from The Matrix, intermixed with moments in history where the metaphor is illustrated and how it might challenge us today (looking at third world hunger; the plight of the poor in our own back yards; perhaps weaving together various political examples of groupthink to show just how contemporary Plato's illustration is). The challenge to educators is, how can we bring foundational concepts and metaphors to life?

Let me try to tease out my own impression of how Web 2.0 can benefit education. Firstly, Web 2.0 is primarily a wonderful anthropological phenomenon. It connects people. Education however is more purposeful; it aims to connect people with those ideas, concepts, transformational points of view, and perspectives that have changed the course of history and which undergird society (and critique it). Connecting people with people, as Web 2.0 does, naturally leads to the connection of ideas. But the flow of ideas through well-prepared tertiary education aims to draw people out of the cave. It aims to provide a meta-view of ideas. Connection with others is only as educational as it facilitates this. Education is about more than providing information; it is about stimulating reflection, which in turn leads to personal transformation. Good education leads you out of the cave. Anthropologically Web 2.0 is fascinating; educationally, it has potential. Secondly, Michael Welsch's clips in YouTube are excellent and useful educationally because he is an expert. He has worked hard to develop an out-of-cave perspective. The opportunity of Web 2.0 for education rests less on the general availability of participative user-generated content and connectedness, and more with its potential for course design within formal frameworks. Web 2.0 does not signal the end of formal education; rather, it provides the latter with further potential.

I am assuming a liberal arts perspective of tertiary education in this point of view. I wonder if a vocational perspective of education would come to different conclusions?

In any consideration of Web 2.0 in education we need to consider both the connectivity and the content it results in. Social connection in Web 2.0 is a truly fantastic anthropological phenomenon. It's educational benefit relies on the sort of thing Michael Welsch has illustrated; deep, informed, creative and thought-provoking presentations that help lead people out of the cave.

5.*: The NetGen: Cause for CONSIDERABLE concern

I have blogged before here and especially in my previous (eBCNZer) blog (see especially "More on Net Gen nonsense") about the dangers of over-estimating the Net Generation when it comes to learning.

In my research for E-Primer 5, I found a recent (2009!) article by Malcolm Brown in EDUCAUSEreview, "The NetGens 2.0: Clouds on the Horizon". Of most concern to me are these findings from a Nielsen Norman Group study of teenagers using the Web for research:

“We measured a success rate of only 55 percent for the teenage users in this study, which is substantially lower than the 66 percent success rate we found for adult users.” The report added: “Teens’ poor performance is caused by three factors: insufficient reading skills, less sophisticated research strategies, and a dramatically lower patience level.”

Sounds like educational disaster to me. That adults achieved a higher success rate must surely indicate to even hard-nosed critics of the incumbent system that the Net Gen is in the sort of trouble that the Internet cannot fix (and has probably helped cause). Finally, at last, studies confirming that Prensky's claims about 'Digital Natives' as utopian learners are starting to be exposed as naked and horribly misleading. I have gone on before about the dangers of "Learning 2.0", have addressed the question "Are we getting dumber?" and the value of books as tools for engagement.

Interestingly Robert M. Hutchins, in his article "The Tradition of the West" (in an introductory volume to the Britannica Great Books series compiled in 1952), wrote as follows:

To put an end to the spirit of inquiry that has characterised the West it is not necessary to burn the [classic] books. All we have to do is to leave them unread for a few generations.

That process, it seems, has started. Yeats said that "Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire". In our urgency to avoid the bucket, have we under-sold the fire? It seems, from various studies, that the flames of knowledge Yeats intended are being confused by some Net Genners for sparks of information. My personal fear: A generation of learners who rely on access to information that is miles wide, but whose appreciation of understanding is one-inch deep; who are able to name all Pokemon, but unable to appreciate the insight of Socrates; who are able to chat confidently about the latest movie, but unable to participate in the Great Conversation... a generation of pragmatic learners, ever ignorant of their own dependence on Google and the limits of what it can provide. This, from "Are we getting dumber?":

A search [online] for a ‘fact’ will reveal the answer quickly; a search for a complex question or issue such as ‘whether democratization favours equality or not’ renders a search engine largely useless (citing Jeanneney 2007).

Is the Net Gen aware of these issues? Studies suggest that they are not... what concerns me in particular is that edubloggers do not seem to be upset by them, either.

5.*: The wisdom of the crowd: Too risky as the basis for truth?

Wikipedia has announced its intention to tighten its editing policy, after two major inaccuracies were released on its site relating to two US Senators, neither of whom actually died on the day of Obama's inauguration (contra early Wikipedia reports). A system of flagged revision is proposed - a system that will increase accuracy, but decrease timeliness. The issue: "critics say that the process is labour intensive and some changes can take days, if not weeks, to appear."

Here we get to the nub of the epistemological issue. Do we value accuracy more than immediacy? Does 'free' outweigh 'reliable'? It seems problematic, if not impossible, to achieve both. It must also be remembered that Wikipedia does, in fact, have a volunteer army of editors... one major difference between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica is that the latter pays its contributors (and so, naturally, must have a revenue stream with which to do so).

I am impressed with the statement by Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica, who just a few days ago wrote:

"We believe that the creation and documentation of knowledge is a collaborative process but not a democratic one."

This is a subtle but valuable contrast. EB seeks to identify experts to be contributors, rather than an interested public. I continue to be amazed at how the "wisdom of the crowd" paradigm tries to cheapen the concept of expertise, as if those who have devoted years of study, reflection and practice to do with particular subjects are considered just another voice in the crowd. I'm not naive enough to suggest that experts have all of the answers, or that experts are infallible; self-criticism and an acknowledgement of one's own imperfect view are hallmarks of true expertise (at least in the humanities). Nor is it to suggest that people should not have opportunity to voice their own perspectives or understandings. Rather, a site claiming to be a storehouse of knowledge, and one whose readers are seeking objective, neutral and accurate information, must take care to ensure that objectivity, neutrality and accuracy are valued more than participation, openness, and immediacy - particularly when the latter threatens the former. Wikipedia has shown that the two sets of values can, in fact, be at odds.

Why is this post included in this blog? It raises questions of what it means to know, and what it means to prepare information (itself the fuel for knowledge). The Wikipedia model is one worth continual monitoring, as in some ways it measures the pulse of Web 2.0 and its promise for education.

Here is one way in which Wikipedia can be used effectively in education!

4.*: JALN 12:3-4

The Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks is a long-standing and authoritative online journal dedicated to exploring the use of asynchronous technologies in higher education. I have drawn on it extensively for the fourth E-Primer, Online discourse (currently with reviewers!) What follows adds to the fourth E-Primer, due for release in March 2009 (following final editing).

So the latest edition of the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN 12:3-4) has been released. There are some truly significant articles; here are my highlights:

• Akyol & Garrison's "The Development Of A Community Of Inquiry Over Time In An Online Course: Understanding The Progression And Integration Of Social, Cognitive and Teaching Presence" adds to the validity of the Community of Inquiry framework (which is the framework providing the basis for E-Primer 4). Most significant in the finding that "social presence and teaching presence... changed over time while the proportions of cognitive presence... remained steady". Cognitive and teaching presence were also important for influencing student learning and satisfaction; social presence was not found to be as significant. This has important implications for efforts to establish 'online community' in formal education, which is also questioned in the E-Primer based on other evidence.
  
• Moore, in her work "A Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices, December 2008", gives a wonderful overview of how practitioners are providing answers to questions relating to student satisfaction, learning effectiveness, scale (relating to efficiencies), access, and faculty satisfaction (all elements of quality in online education). Moore provides substantial tips for good practice in this one, drawing from actual practice.
  
• Wang & Chen, in "Essential Elements in Designing Online Discussions to Promote Cognitive Presence — A Practical Experience", outline the importance of effective 'rules' for online discourse in order to maximise cognitive presence. Their article includes a useful re-configuration of Activity Theory as it relates to online discourse, and a sound set of rules that might be provided to students at the start of the course (and even form elements of a marking rubric). The results were a "strong cognitive presence in the online discussion", the very thing online educators strive for. The 'rules' given on p.171 of the article are an essential reference. Wang & Chen are careful to note that rules must be both specific and flexible.
  
• A literature review by Woo & Reeves, "Interaction in Asynchronous Web-Based Learning Environments", concludes that "pragmatic strategies for improving meaningful interaction in WBLEs" include "modeling and scaffolding, dividing the class into small groups, giving appropriate feedback, encouraging intrapersonal interaction, and using authentic activities".
  

It is encouraging to see this evidence-based scholarship continuing to explore online discourse. If elements of this coverage don't make much sense to you, it would be worthwhile learning more about the Community of Inquiry framework. It is proving a robust model for analysis and practice. For my own thoughts on it, wait for E-Primer 4!

5.*: Second Life: "The potential to make an impact"

A YouTube video by Stacy Williams, research professor at Case Western Reserve University, outlines how Second Life is being used for educative purposes. Listen for this quote: "..trends indicate that this type of learning simulation has the potential to make an impact on transforming the future of education".

Nicely put. Just how realistic that potential is, and what its eventual scope might be, are yet to be determined. The video does show some ways in which Second Life has been used by the University (field trips, client assessment), which are reasonably predictable. Whether the potential to make an impact makes a truly meaningful contribution to teaching and learning is a very open question. A New Zealand project is exploring things in detail; I am interested to see whether the results reveal anything further about the potential for education.

I remain skeptical. I suspect that the impact Second Life will make will be to find its place amongst the various pedagogical options already available to educators. Anyone still believe in pure m-learning?

Ah well. At least there's money to be made!