I've been thinking about the action learning process yesterday.
I think my concern is about technologies and literacies in general where the tool is so complex that commitment to the tool becomes a major part of the learning. This is not bad in itself, but it does make situations where the people who advocate use of the tool have invested a lot of time in that space, and like having conversations about windows, mac, linux, or photoshop, gimp, fireworks the conversations around the technologies are very embedded in the amount of skill, time and money the person has invested in their tools.
The challenge in an educational context is that there is an ethos which underpins choices which is about 'the right tool for the job' fit for purpose, and learnings as a good which can function beyond the scope of the tool used to teach.
In game life when you start to play a game you are a n00b. There is no hedging about it. Most games are complex and you usually spend some time with a friend and/or tutorial learning the ways of the space youre buying into. All good. you are buying into the space because you like the community, the story, the feel of the place, or you feel you can do well in the competitive structures it has to offer.
In tools we use in education I feel the critical thinking around fit for purpose has become meshed with the tutorial, literacy conversations. People talk about literacy as a step through from n00b to competency. The trouble with this view of literacy is that it is scoped by the tool of choice and does not include ways of adapting the learning to different tools where the tool is not the best fit for purpose given a learner's personal skills, goals and resources.
ie if there is a problem it will be because the learner does not have what it takes(experiences, access, resources), not because the tool or the learning scoped by the tool is not a good fit for that learner. The learner is implied to be lacking in a literacy with the tool, to be a n00b. the learning is not seen as something which has a wider value or function or responsibility than what can be offered through the tool.
I am working as a usability person on a website at the moment. So I am looking at our site from the perspective of who would find this difficult and how can I deliver this information in a way which get to everyone. How can iI do that in an efficient way. What choices keep more people in the loop and what choices offer something special but need to be complemented with alternatives for people who cannot participate effectively in that way. This is probably what I take with me into the literacy and technology spaces. A concern about a responsibility to take the information to the person in the form which best suits them. To be up front about costs and requirements. To be explicit about downloads operating systems etc. I found the Action Learning in Second Life heavy going because I was bringing these thoughts with me.
I was thinking last night about the Ingots method for competencies in desktop applications. It strikes me that a similar model would be useful for Second Life and other 3d or 'world' based technologies.
A matrix of 'I can' would enable educators to scope their projects to a specific set of skills in a tool. Bronze Ingot or similar where the person can do specified things in the space which means they have the prerequisites for a specific course.
This means the skills that are required are overt and the educator can target core learnings within the scope of those skills. This makes the skill set aspect a defined target, something the student can win at, to a depth which is agreed before the course between teacher and student.
The level of commitment to the tool in approximate hours and skills is defined. The kind of learnings separate to the tool skills can be understood as a distinct idea.
This also makes it possible to pull those two factors aside and to also look at functional and resource aspects of the profile of the tool. Costs, 'materials' good for people with hearing challenges but for people with motorskills or limited vision it might be good to have an alternative where the world can be spoken.
An exciting example of this kind of parallel comparative development is a peer in the Action Learning program Peter R Whitehouse SL 'Wonko Whizenhunt' who is developing a space in Second Life and making parallel spaces as MOO and MUD. I think that this means a MOO could be used as a spoken alternative to an SL context for accessibility purposes. WW is doing the comparison to look at the levels of investment and time per learning in each of the contexts. Either way the idea that SL is a tool and being compared with others for aspects of learning is great.
http://www.terrace.qld.edu.au/
I feel that SL has much to offer but that the business model of investing into the tool, both as a skill and as a technology means that some social scaffolding is missing from the conversations about its use. I am hoping that some honest discussion about hours and skills and investment required to enable a cohort of students to participate in building could be developed, and that it could become a part of the conversation around time invested v kind of learning possible.
eg. Bronze 3d ingot means you can be an effective and chatty audience, you can move around and share an idea.
Silver 3d ingot means you can make things like clothes and buildings
Gold ingot means you can make interactive or challenging scripted items
Each of these kinds of skill levels needs to have a rating for how much of the activity can be done without 'inworld' costs. If there are costs the resources including paypal credit card and amount of ingame equity required should be explicit. 'outofworld' resources like hours, bandwidth, possible operating systems and alternative delivery mechanisms available should be explicit too.
It is not that other modes and tools do not have costs, it is that they are traditionally mapped in a course profile. Currently the conversations I have around these issues are hard work because people see the challenges that new users face in a very 'game n00b' kind of way.
A n00b cannot comment because they dont know enough about the environment. The n00b is at fault for their lack of comprehension and commitment to a context and this limits their ability to generate meaning from the experience. It is accurate, but it is a shift in the responsibilities, and it is a discussion new people can never win.
The student needs to be able to win. They need to know what they are getting themselves in for, what skills they need to commmit to to get the value from that course.
A commitment to a gold level of participation with ongoing subscription is a different level of commitment to joining a tour group or watching an immersive powerpoint session. Educators need to be able to be frank about the tool, the investment required in the tool, and the kind of learning which can be shared as a part of that scale of course.
Currently I feel that the conversations are disjointed because new users feel clumsy and have no sense that they can possibly comprehend the tool in a length of time proportional to the tour they have chosen to come on. Scoping the level of skill for that job gives them a sense of success regardless that they do not know how to do things which are not relevant to that course or learning experience.
This also makes it possible to be explicit about courses where building and scripting are a part of the whole, and using advanced skills are required for participating in the space in more sophisticated ways. People will be up for those kinds of skills where they can see that their long term commitment to the tool will be useful for their wider purposes. The cohorts for these courses are likely to have done prerequisite units. They will be able to see whether the assets they make ingame will be available to them after the course before they commit to it.
All of these kinds of social scaffolding are easy to lose in a context where educators and students are all learning about the new tools. It is a journey within the tool context, perhaps these kinds of distinctions are tricky to map early on. But for the tool to be useful long term we do need to be able to plan and scope in ways that empower students to make good choices. It does need to be clear from the beginning whether the tool and the student group and the learning goal and the time frame etc are all a good match.
There will be situations where the tool is the topic, at least in part, and students will be buying into that directly. It is agreed up front that the participants will have the vision motorskills computer software bandwidth and time to give to this focus. All good. This means you can explore functionality specific to the tool. It is also the kind of situation where the students will want to know about their rights to the assets they have made and the spaces they have contributed to. They are making a tool based investment.
The other situation is where a tool is recommended as a means of communication or learning for a general student populace. In these situations the tool needs to be effective for all students or alternatively the learning objective should be able to be delivered in a range of ways and not be scoped by the specific tool especially where one tool is likely to cut some students out of the running. Ongoing dialogue in this kind of mixed learning context would help to refine what kinds f situations or learning are a good retrun on investment for people who's value set is based outside of commitment to the tool as a skill set or a business model. These kinds of parallel or mashup learning situations do help to unpack where a tool is working well, or where students find other methods more effective. In general education I feel it is important to include this kind of choice because it is the kind of learning which informs us about the best tool for the job part of literacy.
