Thoughts on Opening the Learning Environment

In my work with online instructors, I keep hearing a lot of talk about using wikis and blogs "as they are intended to be used" or "they way they should be used." By that, the individuals are referring to the way we generally think about wikis and blogs: a wiki is a collaborative web space with potentially multiple contributors, and a blog is an individual journal-type site generally maintained by a single entity and facilitated as an ongoing conversation with readers.

These concepts have merit, but I've begun to wonder if we are restricting instructors, learners, and the knowledge-building process by trying to define these spaces. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if we should allow learners to make their own choices about which spaces to use rather than prescribing which space learners should use for an activity. Even if learners make the "wrong" choice (i.e., using a blog when the instructor believes a wiki would have been more appropriate), it would still present a learning opportunity (Parry, 2012). Perhaps it would even allow for the emergence of innovative uses for these spaces.

Of course, in a "traditional" online classroom, allowing such choice presents challenges for evaluation and grading. What is more important: demonstrating mastery of concepts or choosing the appropriate media for presentation? How do you evaluate mastery of concepts when various media are used for the same activity? Maybe allowing a more open forum for learners to demonstrate mastery will, by necessity, require a more open evaluation process. Now, I know that sounds blasphemous in light of all the work that has been done over the past century (nearly) to develop reliable methods of assessment. But an open evaluation process does not have to mean subjective, invalid, or unreliable. It means we have to rethink the evaluation criteria we establish and how we measure it.

I don't consider myself a particularly creative person. But I do know that when I've been challenged with having to make something work with limited or restricted resources, I've been able to find ways to exploit whatever technology I had available. Maybe that is the challenge we need to present to our learners. Instead of prescribing what tool to use, give them a task and allow them to leverage the tools available. Make the environment more open. While some learners might prefer more structure, others will run with the autonomy. In doing so, they may be able to aid or inspire the more reluctant learner. This shifts the paradigm of the learning environment from one of knowledge transmission to knowledge production, possibly improving the "stickiness" of the learning.

Thoughts? Is it our responsibility to direct learners to use technology "appropriately" or are we better off designing an open and autonomous environment that encourages exploration, collaboration, and knowledge construction? If so, how do we adapt assessment methods for the open environment?

Reference

Parry, M. (2012, March 7). Could many universities follow Borders Bookstores into oblivion? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/could-many-universities-follow-borders-bookstores-into-oblivion/35711 

Is it fair to lurk?

I'm doing research on MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) right now. I've only participated in a few, but the concept intrigues me. My focus areas are instructional design and instructor activity. The literature on MOOCs is expanding, but much of it centers on individual experience in the MOOC. As researchers consider individual goals and motivations for participating in MOOCs, participant profiles begin to emerge. One participant type that was inevitable – at least in my opinion – is the lurker.

The lurker is present not only in MOOCs, but in any networked situation both face-to-face and online. You know the lurker. You've probably been the lurker; I have. In fact, I lurk a lot. I lurked in face-to-face situations. One time, my sister and I went to the dog track and decided to lurk to see if we could pick a few winners before actually placing a bet. We never did get comfortable enough to wager, so we just watched about 17 races. We felt kind of conspicuous after a while. Lurking online is much easier. Your name shows up on the participant list, but you just never contribute. Or you have a Twitter account and follow people, but never tweet. That kind of thing.

So what's the big deal with the lurker? Well, some authors see lurkers as "free-riders" (Tschofen & Mackness, 2012). In other words, lurkers take and don't give. Connected learning environments offer the ability for participants to interact and share knowledge (Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010). Such environments, in fact, rely on individual contributions and sharing for knowledge creation. According to Siemens (2010), lurking is never a good thing nor is it ever acceptable. Siemens believes that even newcomers to a situation should be sharing and helping to create understanding. He asserts that newcomers may be better positioned than experts to help other newcomers.

I don’t know about you, but that makes me uncomfortable. The last thing I want to do is reveal my ignorance in a public forum (although I wind up doing exactly that all too frequently). I like to look around, get comfortable, and see what's going on: how smart is everyone else? If they are too smart – meaning smarter than I am – I may decide just to hang out and absorb or perhaps leave the forum all together. It's unlikely my exposed ignorance will add much, and will likely only annoy the smart people. And online, people are none too shy about informing you of your ignorance, sometimes rather unpleasantly.

How do you feel? Is it fair to lurk in an open forum? Does everybody have an obligation to participate? Have you ever been a lurker yourself?

References

Mackness, J., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. University of Lancaster, Lancaster (pp. 266-275). ISBN 9781862202252

Siemens, G. (2010, December 1). My personal learning network is the most awesome thing ever [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/12/01/my-personal-learning-network-is-the-most-awesomest-thing-ever/

Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience.  The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 124-143.

Testing an Open Course

My home institution, like many, has immersed itself into the world of open courses. I'm participating in a beta test of the first open course. Rather than start yet another blog (since I already have 4 or 5), I thought TechMate would be ideal to serve as my test stomping grounds. We were instructed to create sections for the blog, but I'd rather not disrupt my existing setup. Therefore, I will add appropriate labels as needed.

If your tumble down the rabbit hole has landed you here, ignore this post. Read some of my other posts; they are fairly interesting (I hope). Leave a comment; nobody ever seems to comment. I'm guilty of that myself. That's one of the failures of most blogging attempts -- nobody comments. I wonder if it's because we are ashamed or embarrassed to proffer our opinions; if we think others won't value our thoughts or ideas; or if we are just not interested. Any thoughts on that? I think for many people, myself included, it's that we think others won't appreciate our insights. Am I wrong?

EME5404: Stupid is as stupid does, sir.

In my wanderings this week to find resources for my journal, I stumbled down the path we explored in Instructional Computing I: Is the internet making us stupid? I don't want to completely veer off onto that path, but considering that question does help to further understanding of how digital technologies have changed the way we access, consume, and process information. In the previous course, I stated that my reading patterns have changed. I now tend to skim material rather than read it closely. My attention span is maybe a few pages at a time. In an online article, if the author doesn't grab my attention and keep it within the first few paragraphs, I'm gone. So, as Carr (2008) believes, we humans are sacrificing our capacity for deep thought and linear processing. Rather than taking in high quality information in a logical way and processing it in a linear fashion, we now grab bits and pieces from various sources, clicking from link to link to link – and we LIKE getting this constant flow of new information. To put it in more common terms, we've been formally dining at the Waldorf Astoria for millennia; now we are grazing at the Golden Corral.

Alang (2010) believes this shift in human thought and processing is not necessarily a bad thing. He argues that this change in thought patterns may be necessary – and even beneficial – for the complex, multi-layered world in which we live. He further suggests that our world is so interconnected that we need to be able to navigate through the web of information, and linear thinking just won't serve that purpose.

Okay, so where does that take us in terms of accessing and evaluating quality information? Obviously, the web puts a plethora of information at our fingertips. Some of it is excellent, but quite a bit is garbage. I think I can address the issue of quality and put it in the context of changing thought patterns, and tie it all back to this week's reading. Hear me out, because I'm going to jump around a bit.

Let me first start with the issue of eBooks and changing thought patterns. Electronic publishing is on the rise, and much of the impetus is provided by textbook publishers (Miller, 2010b; Young, 2009). It only makes sense; publishers can cut costs and increase revenues by selling more eBooks. That's not the only incentive, however. As Miller notes, some education entities – California, for example – are establishing mandates to move to eBooks, citing in part reduced costs for students. From a student perspective, I can see additional advantages beyond cost savings. Modern eBooks aren't just electronic copies of the paper text; many are interactive, media infused learning experiences that function in the non-linear fashion that more of us tend to think. Students can bookmark, highlight, notate, and even share comments. They may be able to access a linked podcast or simulation, or possibly even an interactive assessment. So publishers are responding to the "new way of thinking" by creating non-linear, cross-connected electronic texts (Young, 2009).

That brings us to finding and consuming valid, reliable, high quality information. Another movement that has been afoot for a while and continues to grow is open source, or open access, digital publishing. This refers to collections of texts, journals, multimedia, and learning objects that have been developed by knowledgeable professionals and, in most cases, vetted by a panel of experts via peer review. The technology infusion of these resources may vary, but they offer a valid and reliable alternative to both expensive commercial products and non-peer reviewed resources. Many good examples are available from the Open Educational Resources Center for California, which was set up to support legislation in California that requires textbooks to be available in electronic form by 2020 (Miller, 2010a; Miller, 2010b).

As always, I want to leave you with a couple of videos to consider. This week, I have two. The first, from Money Talks News (1:24 mins), addresses the high cost of college textbooks by suggesting a few ways students can locate cheap or free resources. The other is from Texas Curriculum (1:36 mins) and addresses legislation that establishes a foundation for adopting open source textbooks in primary and secondary education. I think this second one is particularly important, because we often think of open source publishing in terms of higher education (I do, anyway). With the budgetary challenges faced by the nation's primary and secondary schools – both public and private – open source materials may provide one way to stretch finances further without compromising instructional integrity.

What are your thoughts or experiences with open source materials? What about your thought processes? Has the internet changed the way you find and use information?

 

Money Talks News (Producer). (2010, January 4). 3 Places to get free textbooks [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/HxryAJ6N67o

 

Texas Curriculum (Producer). (2011, February 3). Open source textbooks [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/YRLvCoq_BjI

References

Miller, M.H. (2010a, February 9). New web site lists free online textbooks. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/New-Web-Site-Lists-Free-Online/21165/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Alang, N. (2010, June 15). For better and worse, the web is changing how we think. Techi. Retrieved from http://www.techi.com/2010/06/for-better-and-worse-the-web-is-changing-how-we-think/

Carr, N. (2008, July/August) Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/

Miller, M. H. (2010b, January 14). California law encourages digital textbooks by 2020. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogPost/California-Law-Requires/20526/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

 

EME5404: On the move

When I was a kid, mobile devices consisted of a slingshot, pocket knife, magnifying glass, and pocket-sized book of flower and insect classifications. The guide-on-the-side was my grandmother, who knew everything about every tiny plant or living creature. Together with some of my many cousins, we roamed through fields and trails picking up rocks, bark, grasses, flowers, and bugs, carefully examining them, discussing their features, and skimming through the book trying to classify what we had. Grandmother coached us, giving hints to help us find the right match. Sometimes we broke up into groups and would meet up to share our finds, collaborating to determine just what we had found.

I often wonder how things would have been different if I had mobile technology as a kid. In a way, the natural curiosity that was fed by my primitive "mobile apps" is what has fueled my adoption of technology as an adult. As new technologies have emerged, I've immersed myself in learning about them and trying the ones that appealed the most to me. Sometimes I find things I love, like my laptop, and other times I adopt things that I consider necessary evils, like my smartphone. For years, I put off buying a smartphone because I like being untethered at times and didn't want to spend the money for the data service. Now, however, I find that my smartphone has become as important as my laptop. The smartphone provides me with access to all my email accounts, texting, GPS, the web, a camera, my reading apps (Nook and Kindle), voice recorder, and even radio and TV. As much as I loathe the device, I now cannot live without it.

Thinking back to my days as a kid, a smartphone would have really supported my investigative hikes. I could see myself using the web to replace my pocket classification book. I could have photographed my finds and posted them to a site like Facebook. It would have made sharing finds with my cousins on another trail almost instantaneous. Grandmother could have managed us all via Twitter. Given that opportunities for in-depth learning about plant and animal life were not part of the formal curriculum at school, having my own device to support informal investigation of the world around me would have helped broaden and enrich my formal learning in class.

Making connections between people and leveraging technology to share content and solve problems are advantages of using mobile devices (Wagner, 2007). In a world where the learning environment is constantly challenged by lack of funds, high-stakes testing, overcrowded classrooms, and overworked teachers, mobile technology offers an informal intervention that individual students can use to augment and expand on what they learn in class.

This week, I leave you with a short (6:36 mins) video of teachers discussing the hows and whys of integrating mobile technology into the learning environment. From my perspective, I think one of the things we have to consider – especially with children – is the role that natural curiosity plays in the learning process. If we could use mobile technologies to harness that curiosity, we may have a powerful intervention on our hands. What do you think? Is it possible to leverage natural curiosity? What would the benefits or drawbacks be?



References

ACU (Producer). (2011, March 1). Thoughts on the state of mobile learning [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/AQgCXEoTap4

Wagner, E. (2007, February 20). Mobile matters: Why learning professionals need to care [Archived web conference presentation]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/mobile-matters-why-learning-professionals-need-care

EME5404: Virtually Yours

Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs)

The challenge in delivering effective distance education remains the same: establishing and supporting presence.  We have come a long way in figuring out infrastructure, pedagogy, accessibility, collaboration, communication … but we still have work to do in terms of helping online participants establish and maintain presence in the online environment. Presence refers to the perception that others are present and engaged in an online exchange. But just how do we facilitate that element of presence online?

Varying opinions exist, of course. We can look toward theoretical approaches, pedagogy, instructional design, and so forth for the answers. Technology is another source to consider. Some experts believe that the use of multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) can help to support the development of social presence, and, by extension, the learning experience. The videos and readings this week all gave various examples of MUVE implementations for different age groups that served, at least in part, to facilitate online presence. Presence is just advantage of using a MUVE, however. The readings cited numerous other contributions MUVEs can offer when used to facilitate learning delivery.

MUVEs improve opportunities for and support activities such as team building, collaboration, and community building (Gee, 2008; Ussery, 2010; Wallace, 2010). Furthermore, the virtual environment opens up opportunities for students to act in novel and creative ways (Bers, 2008; Ussery, 2010). Ussery (2010), in particular, provided numerous examples of things that could be done in the MUVE that would otherwise be difficult or impossible:

• In-world presentations: Overcomes some of the logistical issues with trying to facilitate presentation skills in online classes. 
• Student-led field trips or field trips to 3D simulations or models of concepts. 
• Access to resources or experts that would require significant travel or money to access otherwise.

Ussery (2010) and Gee (2008) both noted that the MUVE environment allowed students a safe place to practice skills that could not be pursued in real life. Examples included simulations of emergency situations, dangerous experiments, or any scenario where the cost of failure in the real world is high. I once reviewed a simulation created for military applications where a "terrorist attack" had taken place. Simulated bodies were all over the place, buildings had been "blown up," and so forth. The players had to evaluate and care for the injured and work on locating the perpetrators. It was very easy to become engrossed in the simulation.

In reviewing the literature this week, it seems that MUVEs could offer benefits to various individuals and groups. Wallace (2010) noted that high context (relies on communication factors other than speech) and highly sociable individuals seem to be more willing to participate and interact with the broader range of participants in MUVE. So it is reasonable to believe those individuals my benefit from the MUVEs. Individuals who are more hands-on in their learning styles could also benefit, because MUVEs offer the opportunity to apply new knowledge immediately. Bers (2008) cited some advantages to having children engage in a MUVE to develop civic engagement. Children were able to engage with other participants and the environment on their terms, to listen in on conversations where they were less prepared to participate actively, and to take action privately. They were also able to apply new knowledge and concepts immediately within the environment. This is not to say that MUVEs are a solution for any of these demographics, but rather that they may offer certain benefits.

I want to close this week with a look at virtual worlds in education. It seems like their use is slowing down, but there are still some interesting initiatives taking place. One is the MERLOT 3D Campus. Some may know MERLOT as a repository for learning objects and other learning materials. So it makes sense that MERLOT would voyage into the land of MUVEs. You can watch a brief over of MERLOT's Second Life based virtual environment, and then visit the Center for Learning in Virtual Environments (CLIVE) website.

Sify Innovative Solutions (Producer). (2011, November 28). Virtual worlds in higher education [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/PDgmR4sbUaM (2:17 mins)

California State University. (2012). The Center for Learning In Virtual Environments (CLIVE). Retrieved from http://clive.merlot.org/index.html

If you are feeling adventuresome, visit CLIVE in Second Life. The link is on the CLIVE website. I have to admit, I visited and did not find much – perhaps because this is the weekend and very few people were visiting. But I have heard from other educators that Second Life is losing some of its popularity. Indeed, I found several "islands" I used to visit that either appear to be abandoned (outdated or broken information) or are gone all together. What do you think? Has the day of the MUVE come and gone, or is it still a viable option for online learning delivery?

References

Bers, M. U. (2008). Civic identities, online technologies: From designing civic curriculum to supporting civic experiences. In W. O. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 139-160). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.139

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 21-40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.021

Ussery, J. (2010). Expanding educational realities – Exploring interactive and immersive learning experiences. Session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative 2010 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/eli-session-expanding-educational-realities-%E2%80%93-exploring-interactive-and-immersive-learning-experiences

Wallace, P. (2010). Some of my students are not human! Avatar interaction and collaboration in virtual worlds. Session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative 2010 Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blogs/gbayne/eli-session-expanding-educational-realities-%E2%80%93-exploring-interactive-and-immersive-learning-experiences

EME5404: Credibility and Your Online Self

Last week, I ended with the thought that verifying authenticity of web content is the reader's or consumer's responsibility. It's kind of the "caveat emptor" of the web. This week's topic considers that responsibility, and addresses how information consumers can improve their ability to evaluate web resources. Related to that is how we represent ourselves online, because an individual's online presence goes hand-in-hand with his or her credibility. So in addition to evaluating the credibility of resources we consume, we need to build in credibility to the resources we produce by creating and maintaining a reliable and professional online presence.

Although source credibility has traditionally included factors like the speaker's physical appearance and composure, online source credibility boils down to credentials, web presence, and the integrity of the associated web site (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008). In terms of web site integrity, consumers can consider several factors including the sponsoring organization, the currency of the information, and the presence of contact, copyright, and privacy information. For example, when the sponsoring organization is a university or other academic institution, the government, or the military, the information can usually be considered credible.  Likewise, if a website appears to be updated and maintained regularly and lists contacts and policy information, the sites credibility is probably fairly strong (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008; Lankes, 2008; Nortel, 2011). This short (6:05 minutes) video from Nortel describes ways information consumers can evaluate the integrity of online information.

 

 Obviously, the Internet has certainly had a hand in vastly expanding the resources educators and learners have available to them. In my own situation, being able to direct students to resources like an online video or a blog allows me to bring in expert testimony or opposing viewpoints that might otherwise be hard to access. It also gives students the flexibility to locate resources to support their own work and to publish what they then create. In fact, some learners might find they no longer need to be part of an institutionalized learning environment. Certainly, the "open education" movement has brought actual course material from well respected universities, such as Stanford and MIT, right to Joe and Jane Internet's computer screens. Not all open sources are as clearly reliable, however, which makes learning to discern credibility even more important (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008).

Because source credibility is a key factor in identifying authentic and reliable web resources, content creators need to be concerned with how they present themselves online. Therefore, managing your web presence is important to establishing yourself as a reliable source (Lankes, 2008; Nortel, 2011). Lowenthal and Dunlap (2012) recently published an excellent piece on establishing and managing web presence for academic professionals. It is an excellent and quick read, and provides images and short video tutorials to demonstrate some of the principles discussed. You can access the article here: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know

Academics may wish to follow some of the suggestions in the Lowenthal and Dunlap (2012) article and consider publishing draft materials to a web site, blogging, Tweeting, and engaging in other forms of collaborative web publishing and interactions. As the authors point out, it is essential to leverage all your connections in the best way permissible to help build your own credibility. In addition to building and maintaining a current profile, academics should also consider contributing to peer reviews, critiques, and recommendations of the work of their colleagues. All these activities can affect an individual's online credibility. The more complete an individual's profile and the easier his or her work is to find, the better he or she will look when others find an academic's work (Nortel, 2011).

So while consumers are ultimately responsible for validating the credibility of the sources they visit online, they are also responsible for helping form the credibility of different resources. Consumers can offer their own critiques, reviews, and recommendations of various online resources and contributors. When consumers transition into the producer role, they can make their own case for credibility by providing an accurate representation of their identity, qualifications, and connections in the online world. It's a balancing act where we all have a role to play.

Resources

Flanagin,A., & Metzger, M. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 5-28). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005

Lankes, R. D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New Approaches to Credibility Tools. In M. Metzger & A. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 101-122). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.101

Lowenthal, P., & Dunlap, J. (2012, June 6). Intentional web presence: 10 SEO strategies every academic needs to know. EDUCAUSEreview Online. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/intentional-web-presence-10-seo-strategies-every-academic-needs-know

Nortel (Producer). (2011, April 23). Discovering the internet: Credibility [Web video]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/WQXPtveRevc