I want to share some quick thoughts on the purpose of online learning in higher education.

When I first began working in the education industry in the late 90s, online learning or distance learning was touted as the next great revenue source for colleges and universities. Online learning promised to increase access, improve the quality of teaching and learning, as well as better prepare students “for a knowledge-based society” (Bartolic-Zlomislic and Bates, 1999). Online learning would also be the panacea that would cure an ever-increasing market demand for higher education coursework.

This line of reasoning left many critics to ask: “To what extent does reality match the rhetoric?”

Soon enough, the Chronicle of Higher Education was reporting that many distance-education administrators “are realizing that putting programs online doesn't necessarily bring riches.”

When this article came out in 2001 I had spent my first year as the director of distance learning at the University of Florida in the Office of Distance, Continuing & Executive Education, an office created by the then-provost to specifically meet this new market demand. The provost had returned from an academic conference where the “word” on the street was “there is gold in them-there online courses.”

My immediate boss, the former dean of continuing education and newly minted dean of DCE, had a different theory. He said to me that if you build online programs that serve a legitimate academic need and they make money, that’s wonderful. However, if you go into the business of building online programs specifically to make money, you will be sadly disappointed.

Five years later, I find myself reflecting on Jim’s theory. And I believe he was right.
Now, not to sound too naïve, I know universities are in the business to make money. That’s how they can afford to keep scholars, recruit students, and keep facilities up to date. Yet the Marxist in me has always liked to think of the university as a place where knowledge, understanding, teaching and learning come first.

Then reality hits home. If I am to assist a college or department create a successful elearning program, one of the first places we start is with a business plan: how are we going to make this thing work and be both academically rigorous and financially self-sustaining? Faculty and administrators who approach my office and think they are going to get rich always leave disappointed. Those who are more interested in developing elearning programs that have a strong educational/social need basis tend to be pleased whether they have ten enrollments or five hundred.

Can we separate doing the right thing from the monetary thing? Is this even the right question to ask? Doing the right thing can lead to monetary success, and for me, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s the educators who focus on the dollar signs first and foremost that worry me.

Again, there is nothing wrong in my mind with wanting to make a decent living. I guess my argument has to do with a more spiritual concept of “right living” that I would like to see more readily adopted in this world.

If you are involved in online learning, I am curious to know how you came to it and what motivated you.

There are no wrong answers here, only different points of view.


References:
Bartolic-Zlomislic, S. & Bates, A.W. (1999). Investing in Online Learning: Potential Benefits and Limitations. Submitted for publication in the Canadian Journal of Communication, 3 June, 1999.
Retrieved 04 January 2005 from http://tonybates.ca/pdf/investing.pdf.

A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education rekindles the debate between bloggers and traditional journalism.

The article links to a piece written by Shawn McIntosh from Columbia University's School of Continuing Education. Although McIntosh focuses on journalists, he duly notes:

"The blogosphere promises a rich landscape for research among media scholars, as theories such as agenda setting can be analysed in a new light or even take on greater relevance than in traditional unidirectional mass communication models. Likewise, changing conceptualizations of the audience, public discourse, and observing the conflicts that will take place in the realm of cultural and symbolic capital formation and media political economy should be fruitful areas for scholarship."

From a critical perspective, the blogosphere offers a much needed shift in power -- who determines what's news and who's perspective is more thoughtful or meaningful. Yet another call for media literacy courses at the K-12 level.

I just finished reading a recent post by Anne Davis that made me feel equally as good as she reports feeling.

Anne relates a recent experience working with a teacher and her elementary class on their weblogs. The teacher gave the students some basic rules for blogging:

1. Read
2. Think about what you are writing
3. Make connections about what you are reading and what someone else is writing
4. You may decide to write about what you are reading and even do some linking as you go!

And "a blogging" they went!

A simple set of rules? You bet. Should there be more rules? Perhaps but only if they are created by the students.

I like how the teacher frames the activity:

Step one: read. This is how we learn about things; this is how we begin to make sense of the world and people around us.

I love rule #2: Think about what you're writing. What a concept! This rule gets at the heart of metacognition -- modeling reflective thinking.

Rule #3 gets at the heart of connectivist thinking that I believe many of us are beginning to fully understand and articulate.

Rule #4 builds on the synaptic and physical connections being made and asks students to literally "link" to others.

Ultimately this list provided by the teacher attempts to keep things simple yet relevant as well as student-centered.
I'm hoping Anne will stick with this story and provide updates to how things are progressing in the class.

This story also illustrates a point I am coming to re-discover myself: Everything I need to know... I should have learned in primary school.

As I have noted in previous posts, a number of critics claim that the U.S. educational system is operating in a crisis mode.

I am sincerely interested in seeing this situation change for the better.

I would like to see reform in the educational system framed as a political movement, one that does not simply change the people at the top, but one that shatters the hierarchy and replaces it with a new principle of social coordination.

This political movement requires “emergence,” where change is initiated from below, not handed down from above.

For the act of teaching and learning to change at both an institutional level and an active, social level, teachers need to join together and form a unified vision of working conditions and compensation.

Many public schools in the U.S. are dumping grounds. Students are literally run through out-dated and unnecessarily fictive curricula.

Learning should be social. It should be interactive. It should be more than technical; it should focus on student identity-building, problem solving, truth seeking, and community building.

The call for autonomy of public education is a political act of secession from a government that has clearly failed in its task of defending the real interests of the community in terms of public education.

The principal victims of the present educational system are, by definition, outside the system because they have been eliminated from it.

Autonomy is not an end in itself. Autonomy allows schools to switch their class allegiance and reduce the social distance that separates it from society at large.

---------------

I have borrowed heavily from Feenberg’s Questioning Technology for these notes.

I am deeply interested in seeing public education reformed for the better. I am not interested with coming up with the answers. I am however keenly interested in setting the stage for those most directly impacted can.

Educational reform should begin at the community level, with teachers, parents, and students sorting through the variety of issues and concerns that impact them most. Once these are clearly articulated and agreed upon, then the sticky part of dealing with bureaucracies and governmental agencies must come into play. It is here that I am woefully ignorant. But that’s okay. I like to quote Feenberg at this point where he intones: “no revolutionary movement sets out from a coherent plan.” Or as my doctoral advisor would say, “it’s kind of like building an airplane while you’re in mid-flight.” I recognize I have a ways to go in forming my thinking here but I have time. I am finding Dave Pollard’s articles to be particularly helpful.


So what is government’s role in this process? Or can this revolution separate itself from the hand that currently feeds it?

Milton Friedman offers a classic economist perspective wherein

“In such a free private enterprise exchange economy, government's primary role is to preserve the rules of the game by enforcing contracts, preventing coercion, and keeping markets free. “

Friedman recognizes the role of the family and the economic productivity that education clearly supports and affords. I need to spend more time analyzing Friedman’s argument before I go any further on my own. Feenberg’s revolutionary perspectives stem from his analysis of the student uprisings in Paris in the late 1960s. Ultimately, the students were able to get a discussion started and foster the notion of rethinking the role of education in their society.

Could the same happen here in the U.S.? Is the U.S. too large and disparate to create a unified vision of how to improve public education? Wholesale national change is most likely unrealistic. However, a large pack of hungry dogs can bring down an elephant.

I ran across this story on Slashdot by Julie Henry and Beth Jones.

The article reports that interactive computers used in British schools to teach children to read are harming their learning. Research published in the journal Education 3 to 13 found that students who use interactive programs cannot remember stories they have just read because they are distracted by cartoons and sound effects.

In the study, 20 six-year-olds from two classes used a talking story called "Little Monsters at School" on CD-ROM. Half of the sample used a program where a human voice reads the story aloud as the text appears on the computer screen, highlighted line by line for pupils to follow. The other half used an interactive program which, in addition to telling the story, encourages students to click the computer mouse on page illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects.

A day after the exercise, children were asked to recall the story and the characters in it. The findings showed that 90 per cent of the group that used the program that read the story aloud to them had good or excellent recall of the story.

Only 30 per cent of the students who used the interactive version of the story were able to recall the story and characters. These same students reportedly struggled to remember the main points, and the storyline was often confused.

Results from a multiple-choice test given to the pupils also showed that the first group scored significantly better than the second.

Is this flawed research?

The research begs the question of how teachers use interactive stories in the classroom. (I am also curious what the intentions/objectives were for the interactive program designers.)

The article does not give us enough information regarding the intention of the research. We are told that “[t]he research follows a recent study by David Buckingham, a professor at the Institute of Education, London, which found that the vast spending on information and communication technology has had little or no impact on standards.”

This article reminds me of the Clark/Kozma debate: does media influence learning?

I think it’s important to remember that "[a]s computer technology makes accessible a new range of media, the skills that constitute literacy must likewise evolve" (Forte & Guzdial, 2004).

My main bone of contention regarding this study involves a level of pseudoscience that exists in the field of educational/instructional technology.

Thomas Reeves (1995) published a list of pseudoscientific characteristics that happen in ed. tech research. These characteristics include:

Specification error -- Vague definitions of the primary independent variables (e.g., learner control versus program control).

Lack of linkage to robust theory -- Little more than nominal attention to the underlying learning and instructional theories that are relevant to the investigation.

Inadequate literature review -- Cursory literature review focused on the results of closely related studies with little or no consideration of alternative findings.

Inadequate treatment implementation -- Infrequent (usually single) treatment implementation often averaging less than 30 minutes.

Measurement flaws -- Precise measurement of easy-to-measure variables (e.g., time); insufficient effort to establish the reliability and validity of measures of other variables.

Inconsequential outcome measures -- A lack of intentionality in the learning context, usually represented by outcome measures that have little or no relevance for the subjects in the study.

Inadequate sample sizes -- Small samples of convenience, e.g., the ubiquitous undergraduate teacher education or psychology majors.

Inappropriate statistical analysis -- Use of obscure statistical procedures in an effort to tease statistically significant findings out of the data.

Meaningless discussion of results -- Rambling, often incoherent, rationales for failing to find statistically significant findings.

The point of Reeves’ essay is to deal directly with “questions of whether instructional technology research is, can be, or should be socially responsible.”

The study addressed by the article could arguably be flawed in terms of inadequate sample size and inconsequential outcome measures. We also have no evidence of the researcher’s measurement variables (or their reliability and validity), nor do we know the relevant theories used to frame the study.


I believe that the public should be aware of the effects/affects interactive media have on learning. However, more importantly, I believe researchers should be conducting research in a manner that is mindful of the possible flaws in which academic research is susceptible.

Reeves (1995) concludes his essay as follows:

“If we continue as before, mindlessly conducting pseudoscience, the obsolescence of our field per se is a likely outcome. Already, the most exciting learning and performance environments are not coming out of Departments of Instructional Technology (cf., Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992; Gery, 1995). On the other hand, as Langer emphasizes, mindfulness opens up all kinds of possibilities. Let us seize this opportunity to stop being pawns in "someone else's costly construction of reality" (p. 28) and realize that we, and we alone, can assure the validity and social relevance of research in instructional technology.”

As somebody interested in furthering the field of instructional technology I find myself agreeing with Reeves. Now, how the media reports scientific research is a whole other issue.


References:

Forte, A. & Guzdial, M. (2004). Computers for Communication, Not Calculation: Media as a Motivation and Context for Learning. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2004. Retrieved 11 January 2006 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/grads/f/Andrea.Forte/CommNotCalc.pdf.

Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the Questions of Instructional Technology Research. Retrieved 11 January 2006 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/edit6900/deanlecture.pdf.

This essay is an assigned article review for the course EME 6405: Educational Technology & Teaching.

---

What types of impact do computers have in formal learning environments (i.e. the classroom)?

In an article featured in Jewish Educational Leadership (2003), Peerless et al. examine the implications of computers in schools as well as incorporate a brief discussion of factors that promote the effective use of computer technology.

After briefly outlining the history of technology in education, the authors begin by dividing computer-related instructional activities into five categories: drill, software application, accessing information, computer-aided instruction, and communication (with obvious overlap depending on specific assignments, applications, and objectives).

The authors note that, in terms of the uses of computers in instruction, a “computer education curriculum should be driven by school goals in the area of technology.” (The authors also note that how schools go about implementing such an objective remains open to debate.)

Nonetheless, what struck me as a critical point of contention is how computer use is framed in the context of teaching and learning. Specifically, as presented, computer use is considered separate from the academic curriculum itself.

Within the context of analysis, the authors are looking at computers in schools in terms of a “computer education curriculum” driven by “school goals in the area of technology.” If computers are going to be used effectively in the teaching and learning environment, they need to be employed directly within the context of the situated learning environment, not as a separate vocational curriculum.

Adding fuel to this proverbial fire, the authors note a study prepared by Andrew Trotter (1998) that “identifies four primary goals espoused by educators in recent years” regarding the instructional use of computers:

1. To prepare students for the workplace

2. To improve student achievement

3. To increase motivation and improve school climate

4. To promote school reform by fostering learner-centered instruction”

I believe framing the argument as such does more harm than good. In terms of both research and practice, separating computer use from instructional or pedagogic design is misguided at best. Research alluded to within the article clearly shows that the impact of computers in the classroom is all over the map. It is not the computer that improves a student’s achievement. At minimum, it is how the lesson is constructed and the specific lesson objectives that impact learner achievement. Computer usage in school may indeed impact a learner’s preparedness for the workplace, but shouldn’t that depend on how the technology is used?

Luckily, I believe the authors recognize this point of view. They cite a study by Baker, Hale and Gifford (1997) which suggests that “well-crafted computer-mediated instruction achieves increased learner effectiveness (increased test scores), increased learner efficiency (lessons learned in less time), greater learner engagement (greater student satisfaction with their classes), and greater learner interest (more positive student attitudes toward the discipline)” (Baker, Hale, & Gifford,1997). However, as critics might suggest, the same could be said of well-constructed assignments and courses that do not use computers at all. “Appropriate use of computers” seems to be the recipe for positive student achievement. Yet so is the appropriate use of textbooks on achievement. So, perhaps the question of whether or not computers have a positive impact on student achievement is the wrong question to study.

I find myself somewhat uncomfortable with pronouncements cited by Dusick (1998) wherein “the success of the use of technology in our schools can be measured by the degree to which our students are prepared in these applications” (Dusick, 1998). I am more concerned about how well instructors are prepared to use computer technology. If instructors are unable to construct challenging, thought-provoking, and meaningful assignments that involve computers, then instructional technology is easily rendered useless.

The authors cite Larry Cuban and his scrupulous analysis of computers in the classroom. In particular, the authors note:

“Cuban concludes that “the obligation is for educators, practitioners, and educational policymakers to think about what it is they are after. Only with clear goals can educators be intelligent about how much they want to spend for what purpose, and under what conditions” (quoted in Trotter, 1998, p.3).”

Finally, the authors include a statement that I believe speaks to the heart of how computers will impact student achievement the most in the years to come. It involves a nearly complete re-vision of learning environments in general. The authors note an assertion by Gavriel Salomon (1998) where he concludes that

“good learning is a process of socially based, active co-construction of contextualized knowledge and webs of relations among its nodes.” (Salomon 1998, p. 229) He suggests that the computer can play a significant role in creating learning environments that integrate these perspectives. This environment should reflect a shift from teacher led instruction to an interactive community of active learners, from a structured curriculum to a more fluid one, and from transmission of knowledge to seeking and processing information. On the contrary, it is hard to conceive of a classroom that could create such an environment without the use of technology. The computer can enable the gathering and processing of information, communication among learners, the simulation of contextual situations, and the construction of knowledge. Salomon presents this model as an example of an educational vision mandating the use of technology in instruction.”

This definition of learning is echoed in the relatively new theory of teaching and learning espoused by George Siemens (2004) in his treatise on the concept of "connectivism." As such Salomon and Siemens are not only encouraging factors for the effective use of computers in schools, they are calling for a complete re-write of how schools and schooling should be constructed in an age where computers and computing becomes more and more ubiquitous.

Schooling is necessarily an interactive system. And interaction is intimately connected with the settings in which it occurs. Thus instructors and administrators need to be cognizant of this fact and how computers and computation best plays into the learning environment.

The authors conclude with five issues that they believe will insure that continued investment in computer technology will be worthwhile:

• Clear curricular goals;
• Accessibility;
• Personnel/Professional development;
• Selection/Creation of educational materials; and
• Scheduling.

I find myself in agreement with all of these points, except for “scheduling” which troubles me most. While I recognize that computer distribution in a majority of K-12 institutions runs the range from non-existent to one-to-one, scheduling becomes an issue that is more context- or institutional-specific and not general enough to be included in this list.

Computer technology has permitted us the opportunity to begin thinking differently about how learners learn and how teachers teach. It also has given us the opportunity to reflect on how schools or learning ecologies are organized to support meaningful student achievement. While the authors offer several strong suggestions and thoughts on how to move the argument forward, I believe we need to be careful on how the use of technology and computing is framed. As long as instructional technology exists independently, framed in a separate curriculum, then any hope for documenting a positive impact of technology remains negligible at best.

---

References:

Baker, W., Hale, T., and Gifford, B. (1997). “From Theory to Implementation: The Mediated Learning Approach to Computer Mediated Instruction, Learning and Assessment”. Educom Review, 32:5.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in Classrooms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dusick, D. (1998). The Learning Effectiveness of Educational Technology: What Does That Really Mean. Educational Technology Review.

Peerless, S., Feldman, E., & German, C. (2003). Digest of Literature on the Impact of the Computer in Instruction. Jewish Educational Leadership. Retrieved 12 January 2006 from http://www.lookstein.org/online_journal.php?id=61.

Salomon, G. and Almog, T. (1998, Winter). “Educational Psychology and Technology: A Matter of Reciprocal Relations”. Teachers College Record. 100(1), 222-241.

Salomon, G. (2000). “It’s Not Just the Tool, But the Educational Rationale that Counts”, Paper delivered at the ED-Media Meeting, Montreal.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved 10 January 2005 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Trotter, A. (1998). “A Question of Effectiveness”. Education Week

This essay is an assigned article review for the course EME 6405: Educational Technology & Teaching.

---

The article, Educational Technology – An Unstoppable Force: a selective review of research into the effectiveness of educational media (1999), by Ken Spencer provides us with a brief assessment of technologies applied to educational settings as they have progressed over the past several decades.

The author observes that with technologies such as film, radio, and television, research suggests that there are no significant disadvantages in studying from filmed, broadcast or televised courses.

Spencer’s (1999) argument for no significant difference suggests that
“much of what is happening in mediated instruction hardly differs from what is happening in the classroom. And the classroom is a most inefficient device for education.”

The author suggests that technologies such as film, television or radio offer no real efficiencies to learning or comprehension due to the fact that “the human information processing system has processing limits and best deals with information that has been simplified. This actually matches better with the types of tests which are administered to measure learning” (Spencer, 1999).

Spencer (1999) notes that from a psychological perspective, “much of the information that is attended to by the sense organs is actually filtered out before it reaches the higher levels of cognitive processing. In many cases…simplification makes the world more comprehensible because it places less demands on the processing system: it is, by its very nature, partly processed, the extraneous information having been stripped out.”

In other words, there are no significant measurable differences because the information passed to the student by the instructor, the television or radio program, book, graphic, or photograph, “is not usually sufficiently well-adapted to the student’s needs. The information is often too much, in quantity or speed of delivery, and the student perceives only a fraction of it, and understands even less” (Spencer, 1999).

Spenser’s research suggests that the new media of the twentieth century, film, television and radio, did not provide the learner with any tangible form of control. Stephen Downes (2004) might classify this as the first stage of technological progress where technology introduces us to a new way of doing the same old thing.

Enter the computer and the second stage of technological innovation. Although early iterations of computers in classroom merely offered a replication of workbook-type activities (i.e., stage one skill and drill), we are beginning to use technology in new ways “to advance beyond what is possible in the classroom” (Downes, 2004).

Unfortunately, Spencer’s (1999) article reads a bit dated as it focuses on research and innovation introduced in the early 1990s. At that time, Spencer noted “the newer integrated [computer-based] learning systems, combining mastery strategies with the ability to provide rapid feedback and make decisions about suitable remedial materials, represent the true state of Educational Technology.” Spencer (1999) then talks about advances in artificial intelligence and reminds us that

“The expert has traditionally been the teacher, but there has been a search for mechanical means to do the same job, just as there were searches for mechanical devices to play chess.

Not one to lead us too far afield, the author then comes back to the notion that

“Teachers will always be needed, because of the human touch. Their role will undoubtedly change; it may even become more rewarding. And, of course, teachers do use educational technology. They always have done: the written word, on a blackboard or in a book, represents technology which is so embedded in teaching that we hardly acknowledge its presence. The new technologies, such as artificial intelligence tutors, are just emerging. Soon they, too, will become ubiquitous, and so totally embedded within the educational context that they will become transparent, in much the same way that written communication is hardly noticed as an embedded technology today.”

I find this argument particularly amusing in the author’s sense of trust, awe, and admiration for instructional technology. (I wish he might have included a comment about flying cars.)

But Spenser does make a good point here about the ubiquitous nature of computing. As noted more recently by Paul Dourish (2004), the notion of embodiment (or embodied interaction) and both tangible and social approaches to computing is quickly becoming the norm in society. However, since I believe we are as Downes (2004) suggests, in the middle of this transformation from replicating the old and inventing the new, the transparency of new technologies is not yet possible nor do I believe many researchers and advocates of instructional technology want it to be. With the migration and personalization of learning environments from many-to-one, there is an underlying need for control in a personal, social, and commercial sense. Downes (2004) writes

”other commentators have argued that as learning becomes more personalized, content delivered to learners will tend to emphasize what they want to see and hear, and not necessarily what they need to see and hear. This has already become a concern in non-learning communities, such as politics and media, as clustering around particular topics or particular political points of view is observed. Yet, in learning, there are some things that everybody must learn, such as mathematics and literacy, whether they opt for such content or not.”

Thus the notion of transparency needs to be examined more closely considering the opportunities afforded by embodied interaction. Downes (2004) also suggests that

”As online learning becomes less expensive and more streamlined (particularly if supported by commercial interests) there is a danger that learning, like most consumer goods, will be offered at varying levels of quality, with the best education being provided to those willing to pay, a more common and less palatable industrial grade learning being provided for most, and none at all for those without the means to access it. The dictates of the marketplace pay little attention to the public good, and while society may prefer that every student be provided a quality education, this may not be in the best interests of corporate providers.”

It is again worth noting that as new learning technologies and means of learning are put into practice, educators, researchers, critics and pundits need to be aware of the social and commercial impacts of learning and to be sure that standards of quality of both content and accessibility, are clear and obtainable.

Implications of Spencer’s argument for ubiquitous computing are well founded. Computational power and the world of learning are becoming more integrated with differing elements of our lives on a daily basis, more so than ever before. Direct access to learning is no longer limited to a formal classroom, and as such the impacts will be felt not only in the workplace, but also in governance and the corporate sphere. I believe keeping the nature of such emergent and embodied interaction transparent is critical in maintaining proper social checks-and-balances so that such technological innovation does not serve to oppress those unable to control it.

---

References:

Dourish, P. (2004) Where the action is: The foundation of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Downes, S. (2004). From Classrooms to Learning Environments: A Midrange Projection of E-Learning Technologies. Posted by Stephen Downes June 10, 2004. Retrieved 10 January 2006 from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33.

Spencer, K. (1999). Educational Technology – An Unstoppable Force: a selective review of research into the effectiveness of educational media. Educational Technology & Society: 2(4). Retrieved 08 January 2006 from http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_99/spencer.html.

"But how to persuade the other sharks in the tank that this blood feast was different from the previous boom-and-bust? Easy: Dismiss everything that came before as “Web 1.0.”"-- Jeffery Zeldman

An interesting post by Jeffery Zeldman over at A List Apart on the "unthinking euphoria that accompanies the new, smart applications created by lean workgroups that publishers and pundits have come to label Web 2.0.

It seems Jeffery is tired of the spin so many writers place on the idea of Web 2.0. Since there is gold to be found from many of the applications we have come to enjoy, e.g. Flickr, Basecamp, "Web 1.0" is no longer good enough.

As for myself, I better start working on Web 5 & 6 applications. Of course I'll need to learn how to write programs first, but time's a-wastin'!

Educational consultants are like bumble bees. They go around from flower to flower picking up tiny bits of pollen and deposit them in each flower they visit.

As I thought about this image in class tonight, I found myself considering the possible similarities between the role a consultant plays and a few of the principles found in connectivism:

* Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
* Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
* Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
* Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
* Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
* Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

It seems a learned consultant recognizes that there is more than one way to look at a problem or set of issues. A consultant (hopefully) brings to each client a specialized understanding or knowledge of where to find the information desirable to the client. A good consultant recognizes that she or he has a capacity to know more and is only as effective as the client is prepared to be(e).

I then began to wonder, as a consultant, when do you stop advising a client? For example, when you are officially through working with a client, what happens when you glean new or additional information that would be beneficial to the issues you were engaged in? Can you afford to maintain connections and offer continual learning once a project is complete?

Siemens suggests that seeing connections is a core skill. Every good consultant I have ever worked with had, in my perception, an uncanny ability to see things that I or my team could not see on our own. Where does this ability to make connections come from? Perhaps it is the very essense of what connectivist principles recognize. It is not only being current, but knowing the past as well.

I thought the bumble bee was a nice metaphor for thinking in terms of connections and learning ecologies. Bumble bees are often thought of as industrious, servants to a greater cause, members of a hive. They serve as a good socialistic metaphor as well. Bumble bees are not usually classified as pests either. They are partially responsible for flowers blossoming and the fruits and vegetables we enjoy.

Of course I could probably go on and untangle other perceptions of bees, both positive ("honey") and negative ("drone"). But for now, I think I'll simply enjoy the buzz.

This post in response to Brian Lamb's request for thoughts on social software.

Social software has been around as long as there has been email and MUDs. So what makes social software like blogs and wikis significant?

Blogs and wikis are social in nature. They both enable people to congregate, to connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication (CMC) and to form online communities.

In my mind, what makes social software like blogs and wikis significant is their "bottom-up" nature:

• they support the desire of individuals to affiliate with others;
• the notion of individual choice;
• people affiliate with others out of personal choice.
• Social software like blogs and wikis are dynamic: interaction takes place within the environment that supports it, rather than outside of it.
• Blogs and wikis often operate within a set of unexpressed, taken-for-granted rules. These rules work by promoting or supporting certain types of interaction while discouraging or prohibiting others.

Like email and MUDs, blogs and wikis are about social interaction between individuals and a larger group. According to Michele Tepper (2003), permalinks – a link attached to an online post that takes you to another post or site on the Web – served as a means to link discussions happening all across the Web. These links led to syndication and aggregation, allowing users a way to track a number of conversations and ideas without having to spend an inordinate amount of time clicking through bookmarked links.

Wikis serve as a living document, one that allows multiple authors the opportunity to provide content, commentary, and corrections. Stewart Butterfield (2003) suggests that social software incorporates several specific mechanisms:

• The user expresses or presents an Identity to others.
• Users are aware of the Presence of others (e.g., an audience) when they write and post.
• Relationships are possible through blogging and wiki pages given the collaborative nature of wikis and the audience reading and responding to blog posts.
• Conversations develop.
• Groups form.
• Reputations form, develop, and evolve.
• Ultimately links, ideas, and relationships are Shared;
• it all becomes as simple as rip, mix, learn.

I just put together a presentation on my wiki page that provides some basics on social software.

Take a look and let me know what you think. I live for feedback so any and all comments are welcome.

I just came from attending my college's 100th anniversary. Yes the University of Florida's College of Education turns 100 years old this month, and to kick off the festivities they brought in "every liberal's favorite conservative," New York Times columnist and News Hour regular David Brooks.

Since I am not a touch typist, I tried to keep up with the main ideas that David touched on and will attempt to render them here for your consideration.

David grew up in Greenwich Village in New York City during the late Fifties early Sixties. (I grew up in Greenwich Village myself -- born in 1966 and lived at 210 Thompson Street, about two blocks from Washington Square Park.)

He started out describing the "uber" moms he sees picking their kids from the upper west side private academies, kids so weighted down by their backpacks you could knock them over and they would squirm around like beetles on their backs unable to right themselves. The uber moms weigh less than their kids. They vacation in Minsk and Mayanmar and pick up their kids in Audis, Saabs, Volvos -- autos made in countries hostile to US foreign policy.

He describes these kids as raised on Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream wherein they are taught to be socially enlightened. They brush with pacifist toothpaste that doesn't kill germs, but  asks them to leave.... When these children were born their uber moms asked the nurse immediately what their babies APGAR scores were and if they were above average.... These children eat snacks like Veggie Booty with Kale because the kids are looking for a snack that will prevent colon rectal cancer....

These are the over-acheiving kids, the Uber Generation, the upper middle class kids who come from families with a median income in the six figures. They spend 30% less time hanging around then the previous generation of kids and 30% more time engaged in adult-sponsored events.

We live in a more competitive society than we previously had. There's more opportunity. In this information age, brain power is rewarded monetarily; human capital is more valuable.

A researcher from the University of Chicago, Hechtman (sp?), came to the conclusion that the first three years of human life is the most important. He said essentially, human capital makes a difference.

So what is human capital? It's social capital, it's trustworthiness, it's the ability to weild authority, it's the ability to accept authority, it's how to behave in a restaurant, it's being dependable, it's having ambition, it's the abi;lity to think and learn....

Brooks talked about the Millionaire Mind. Millionaires that were a part of this study were told that they were too stupid to succeed. Millionaires have an attitude that says "the future can be different from the past; I can shape the future. [What one of my most influental professors Sebastian Foti described to me as "fate control."]

You absorb this capital from your family, your culture, your friends. This why Americans obsess over their kids; it pays off in our new society to invest time and effort into them. The U.S. rate of productivity has grown by leaps and bounds, as has our work ethic. According to Brooks, Americans work an average of 350 more hours a year than Europeans. [Is this a good thing? According to Brooks, it is. Look at the rate of unemployment and joblessness in Europre compared to the U.S. But as I said, is this a good thing?]

With the U.S. focus on the family since the late Sixties through the mid Nineties, there has been a record drop in crime rates (70%), a drop in domestic violence, a drop in abortion rates, a drop in teen drug use and teen suicide rates. [Are U.S. kids headed for a BIG mid-lfe crisis?]

The paradox lies in this equation: Society is more fair but at the same time it is less fair. We are experiencing a period of great competition. Which family you are born in matters tremendously. [It seems this has historically been the case, no?] This should be called the Age of Stratification.

This new Age of Stratification is evident in the income gaps between the rich and the poor. This inequality in income leads to lifestyle differences, to education differences. Society in general is becoming more and more segmented, economically and geographically. The level of affluence in the U.S. is growing at a phenomenal rate. Suburbs are turning into Mayberry's with Blackberry's. And with this comes a Cultural Segmentation. Show a diverse community in the U.S. where an African American family lives net to a Chinese American family who live across the street from a Mexican family and a retired Anglo golfer....

Starbucks people congregate at Starbucks and Walmart people congregate at Walmart, and neither the twain shall meet.

There is Political Polarization in this country; the educated from the uneducated; the republicans and the democrats; the repubslicans move to republican areas and democrats move to democratic enclaves. We're polarized in terms of professionals and managers; the professionals go to med school and b-school, the managers get their degrees in English Literature or Psychology.

Brooks spent about ten minutes describing why he considers himself a "conservative." His hero: Alexander Hamilton -- the ambitious emblem of social mobility. For Brooks, Hamilton represents the credo that social mobility leads to national greatness; being an industrial capitalist allowed him to rise and succeed. This was the value of government -- it was pro-market; Hamilton believed, according to Brooks, that it is tantamount that government supports businesses, which supports social mobility.

Brooks then cited Abraham Lincoln, another kid born from nothing. Lincoln believed, according to Brooks, that the value of life, was the ability to improve one's condition. This gave the U.S. the Free Labor Party, and the Homestead Act, and a national currency.

Brooks believes in a government that defies polarizations; a government that supports competition and free-market trade; an aggressive government that is pro-market.

Ultimately, Brooks said the core problem in the U.S. today is the stratifications in education.

A panelist and law professor Barbara Woodhouse challenged Brooks by stating that, in terms of education, equality of opportunity is critical. We need to see all children as OUR children, as our responsibilty. She pointed the paradox inherent in private enterprise and investing in all children equally. [It's not impossible, just improbable.]

Dr. Fran Vandiver, director of the university's developmental research school, P.K. Yonge, (and my old boss when I taught there) pointed out that there is a lack of diversity in most schools around the U.S., and that a major problem is that the majority of white teachers are unconscious of class or racial issues. [Go Fran!]

 Fran went on to speak of Aspirational capital: how to we get people to belive in us?

She then asked: How do you help kids become prepared in all of these capitla areas (i.e., social capital, political captical, cultural capital, economic and political capital)?

The question the became: Do we really want to close these economic and educational gaps? Do we have the collective will to do it? What's preventing us?

Don Pemberton, the director of the college's Lastinger Center, noted the lack of basic health care in the U.S. He sited a number of disturbing statistics that showed the poor health care that is ravaging the poor in our own Gainesville community -- the point being, how to we expect to close an of the gaps in our society if we can't even provide for basic human needs?

Leanetta McNealy, principal of Duval Elementary, a school with 95% of it's kids living below the poverty line noted that her school has to take kids as they come. She stressed the need for academics in higher education to come out of their ivory towers and assist the schools that need them the most.

Brooks returned to the mic and took several questions from the audience. He commented after one question: How much should we expect from schools? What realistic progress is being made even after we infuse them with money? We're spending more money on schools and getting less results.

This caught Vandiver's attention and she let Brooks have it with both barrels. She stated schools are receiving more federal dollars with more strings attached. Schools have less local control and more legislative mandates thus causing schools to be pulled in multiple directions. When the decision making process is stripped form the schools, what kind of effect do policy makers expect? She noted, the U.S. is the only developed nation still operating schools on an agrarian calendar. Eurpoean schools are out-performing American schools because they spend more time with their kids both in hours per day and days per year. What should we expect?

More was shared but this is all I was able to note. I was given a copy of Brooks' book Bobo's in Paradise and waited twenty minutes after his talk to have him sign it. He was quite pleasant to speak with. Lynn and I thought afterwards we should have invite him out for a drink. I would think after an event like that he might need one!

 

I ran across a potentially interesting piece of software while on digg recently called grou.ps.

           Grou.ps site claims

Our mission is to provide a sharing platform for social groups. Our services include but not limited to:

    * Location Mapping
    * Photo Sharing
    * Collection of Personal Blogs
    * Link Sharing
    * Free Content Editing
    * Sharing of Personal Interests

Instead of centralizing these services, we abstract popular providers like Flickr, del.icio.us, in order to prevent duplicate efforts, and migration hassles.

So it sounds like grou.ps is essentially a mash-up.

I tried viewing groups that were functioning within the system but I could find none. Looks like an opportunity to play in the sandbox.

 

After a helpful email exchange with Ulises Mejias, I have been thinking quite a bit about power laws and their relation to computer mediated communication. As I wrestled with this concept, I ran across George Siemens blog entry regarding Power. George talks about different ideological-driven power constructs that shape our world, e.g., corporations, belief-based organizations, countries/government and "the people."

In considering his argument, I began to ponder the notion of digital agency, i.e., the notion that the power of people to connect, collaborate, organize, and socialize via computer mediated networks is often mediated through a handful of actors/sites, a fraction of the potential nodes actually available. Thus "the power of the people" online is often under the influence of a handful of people. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all; there are many people behind the scenes mediating/controlling what stays and what goes. Governments have the power or agency to determine the laws that govern our economy and public behavior. Corporations have the power to determine what products are available to us, and at what cost (this is why the open source movement is so subversive). In most cases, what we read, see and discuss online is filtered through a minority of people actually using the medium. This particular digital influence over content is what I want to call "digital agency."

In terms of elearning, the power instructors and institutions have over design and content is yet another form of digital agency. Thus when theorists like Siemens offer us the idea of controlling our own learning through informal networks, i.e., connectivism, we, the people have the opportunity to take control of our learning and wrest the agency away from oppressive structures (i.e., formal educational institutions) and give it back to the people. In this sense connectivism offers us a liberational form of pedagogy, the new pedagogy, that underlies E-Learning 2.0 and perhaps Identity 2.0.

These are only my initial thoughts. I am interested in hearing what others think of this idea and how I am probably completely off-base. Please let me know what you think.

 
If we believe as Ulises Mejias (2006) asserts that Social Software is “software that fulfills some sort of social function, allowing us to form social connections, and perform social activities that give shape to social groups,” then, to this end, the design and implications of such software is clearly important.

When educators explore the variety of social software that can be employed in classrooms or in professional development settings, what factors should be considered when adopting or selecting particular software? My critique here is not meant to be prescriptive, but rather seeks to offer some thoughts on the subject based on a variety of related texts and readings.

Design concerns

Donald Norman (2002) suggests that:

Design matters, but which design is preferable depends upon the occasion, the context, and above all, upon my mood.

The impact of software design cannot be understated. Design affects emotional and cognitive elements of our brains and being in such a way that guides our judgment, our perception, and ultimately the success or utility of a particular tool or environment.

Norman (2002) suggests that the affective elements of a particular design impact both how well we are able to solve problems and perform tasks. Negative affect makes easy tasks difficult; positive affect makes difficult tasks easier.

It is also important to consider the value of negative affect. Negative affect allows the user to become more focused, the mind more concentrated. Piaget sees this cognitive dissonance as a powerful learning device which he calls disequilibration. Thus a certain amount of anxiety may be welcomed and productive, too much anxiety becomes inhibitive and counter productive.

Norman (2002) suggests that positive affective system allows for the widening of cognitive parameters and as such permits the individual the ability to examine a variety of alternatives and other creative forms of problem solving.

Both positive and negative affective states have advantages and disadvantages. So how should this impact social software design?

Norman (2002) suggests that

good human-centered design practices are most essential for tasks or situations that are stressful: distractions, bottlenecks, and irritations need to be minimized. In pleasant, positive situations, people are much more likely to be tolerant of minor difficulties and irrelevancies. In other words, although poor design is never excusable, when people are in a relaxed situation, the pleasant, pleasurable aspects of the design will make them more tolerant of difficulties and problems in the interface.

Social software that is designed to support somber, focused effort, where tasks are well defined and the method is implicit are best served by designs that underscore utility and minimize distractions. In other words the software should be designed not to interfere with the task at hand.

Software that serves neutral or positive situations should be both pleasing and functional allowing for maximum creativity which in turn increases tolerance for minor inconveniences.

Norman (1992) makes a thoughtful point related to technology-mediated experiences. If there experience of using a certain technology prevents the user from being present in the moment during an event or interaction, then the technology is doing more harm then good:

Experience with technology teaches us that once a technology makes something possible, it gets applied, whether for good or bad. It makes sense to be able to show the 6th grade play to interested relatives - grandparents, perhaps - who could not attend. It makes no sense to destroy the experience through the act of recording it. It makes sense to have control over the viewing of records. It makes no sense to sacrifice human social relations in the process.

If social software shapes how we interact in computer-mediated environments, what should be its appeal, it’s objective? (Is this even the correct question to be asking?)

Affordances

Before addressing such a question, it might be helpful to examine the concept of social software in general. Social software in essence redefines how we associate and assemble, how we construct and present our identities and ourselves. Therefore it would seem important for both instructors and software designers to examine and understand how we, as individuals, define a common world. Social software provides us with a unique ability to “make visible what was before only present virtually” (Mejias quoting Latour, 2005, p. 207). How social software functions determines how we as individuals function in a shared environment. Although we do render a certain amount of agency over to code, it is a selected “delegation of agency” (Mejias’ emphasis) that requires a level of responsibility on the part of software designers and programmers.

In determining the nature and structure of communities and networks, Mejias (2005) provides us with three specific categories (with associated subdivisions) to consider:

   1.    Types of involvement – i.e., immediacy, intimacy, & intensity
   2.    Types of participants – i.e., consociates & contemporaries
   3.    Types of actions afforded – i.e., online- or offline-oriented action

Types of involvement are based on three factors, immediacy or distance between participants; intensity, how participants attention and energies are employed; and intimacy, how digital environments “enable of impede the sharing of personal information” (Mejias, 2005).

Types of participants refer to two specific categories: consociates are participants who can interact directly both in terms of face-to-face engagement or mediated through technology (e.g., telephony or email). Contemporaries are individuals one would interact with through indirect means (e.g., via a link in del.icio.us).

Types of actions afforded is broken down into online-oriented action, i.e., actions that are “intended to conclude ‘online,’ regardless of whether they begin or unfold online or offline” (Mejias, 2005), and offline-oriented action, i.e., actions that “conclude offline, regardless of whether they begin or unfold online or offline” (Mejias, 2005).

Pedagogically, the challenge is discovering ways to design learning opportunities that are relevant and meaningful. Mejias’ (2005) categories provide a useful framework for deciding how to employ software and for what purpose. In my thinking, the beauty of social software affordances resides in the eyes of the beholder. Given the relative emergent nature of computer-mediated communication in education, there are no fixed definitions of what works best under particular circumstances. And it is this precise line of thought that attracted me to the notion of teaching and learning with technology; it becomes the perfect opportunity to re-think how we teach and learn and the roles teachers and learners and the learning environment.

Ultimately, for instructional purposes, social software can serve a variety of purposes depending on contextual factors and the objectives to be met. Design plays a critical role in supporting an individual’s ability to interact with content and other individuals, and whether or not the experience is cognitively and emotionally rewarding. Mejias (2005) offers a useful structure by which instructors may determine how to chose which piece of software might work best for a particular set of instructional objectives.  Mejias (2005) spends more time examining issues of social agency associated with computer-mediated communities and networks that I encourage you to explore.


References:

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.

Mejias, U.A., (2005). Social agency and the intersection of communities and networks (draft). Retrieved 28 January 2006 from >http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2005/10/social_agency_a.html.

Mejias, U.A. (2006). What is social about social software? Retrieved 28 January 2006 from >http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2006/01/what_is_social_.html#mor

Norman, D.A. (1992).  Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles.  Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Retrieved 27 January 2006 from >http://www.jnd.org/TurnSignals/TS-6thGradePlay.html

Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion and design: Attractive things work better. Interactions Magazine, ix (4), 36-42. Retrieved 28 January 2006 from >http://jnd.org/dn.mss/emotion_design.html