It is according to the New World Notes blog. Blogger, W. James Au, believes that until now, SL as a 3D wiki has merely been an analogy. He states,
"Virtual/real world architects Keystone Bouchard (Ryan Schultz) and Theory Shaw (Jon Brouchoud) of Wikitecture Studio have just filled this gap. Their "Wikitecture Tree" saves the data of a building project into a leaf on the tree. Collaborators can then review and critique each, and if they like, create a new version of it-- which then literally becomes, in turn, another leaf sprouting from the original design. To see any of these iterations, you just click on the leaf, and the design rezzes before your eyes."
A demo of Bouchard and Shaw's Wikitecture Tree is available on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z3eWKIJxzyc .
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Wikipedians and a Representative Sample
Bryant, S. L., Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005). Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In M. Pendergast, K. Schmidt, G. Mark, and M. Acherman (Eds.); Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, GROUP 2005, Sanibel Island, FL, November 6-9, pp. 1-10. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/BryantForteBruckBecomingWikipedian.pdf
Curt mentioned that this article is heavily cited in journal articles and conference presentations related to the topic of wikis. I thought the authors provided a thought-provoking analysis of the ways in which novices become enculturated into the Wikipedia community. As individuals become move from novices to "experts" in this community, the roles shift from user to contributor to guardian. While articles tend to note the limitations of the study, the authors' disclosure in this particular piece made me question how generalizable their findings are to the average Wikipedia user.
In the Conclusions, the authors state, "Participants in this study were strategically recruited in ways that ensured awareness of community norms and active participation in community spaces. These were active, committed members." The Ns were also really small in this study - only 9 participants - and these individuals were not necessarily your typical Wikipedia user. Based on this data, it is unclear how the authors can claim that their findings may suggest an "emerging genre." For this group, it is, but expanding the claim beyond that is questionable. This is a rather brief article that is likely an abbreviated version of a much larger document. Thus, it is possible that in the editing process, details that would support the authors' claims were deleted for the sake of space. If not, the authors' conclusion is a stretch.
Curt mentioned that this article is heavily cited in journal articles and conference presentations related to the topic of wikis. I thought the authors provided a thought-provoking analysis of the ways in which novices become enculturated into the Wikipedia community. As individuals become move from novices to "experts" in this community, the roles shift from user to contributor to guardian. While articles tend to note the limitations of the study, the authors' disclosure in this particular piece made me question how generalizable their findings are to the average Wikipedia user.
In the Conclusions, the authors state, "Participants in this study were strategically recruited in ways that ensured awareness of community norms and active participation in community spaces. These were active, committed members." The Ns were also really small in this study - only 9 participants - and these individuals were not necessarily your typical Wikipedia user. Based on this data, it is unclear how the authors can claim that their findings may suggest an "emerging genre." For this group, it is, but expanding the claim beyond that is questionable. This is a rather brief article that is likely an abbreviated version of a much larger document. Thus, it is possible that in the editing process, details that would support the authors' claims were deleted for the sake of space. If not, the authors' conclusion is a stretch.
Wikis and Academia
Rosenzweig, R. (2006, June). Can history be open source: Wikipedia and the future of the past. The Journal of American History, 93(1), 117-146. Retrieved February 4, 2007, from http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42
Like many articles that examine the wiki phenomenon, and the proliferation of Wikipedia, specifically, this piece by Rosenzweig begins by outlining what it is and how it works. Because the author's message is targeted at historians, he explores how wikis can be part of the historian's toolkit. He does this by comparing historical entries in Wikipedia to comparable ones found in more "traditional" encyclopedias - American National Biography Online and Encarta to name a couple. Based on his comparison, Rosenzweig concludes that Wikipedia is roughly equivalent to Encarta, but lacks in comparison to the American National Biography Online. However he does note that the authors who have contributed entries to Wikipedia are not representative of the general population. Instead, the contributors tend to be English-speaking males; hence the criticism that Wikipedia has been shaped by "geek priorities."
Rosenzweig goes on to make a case for why historians should care about Wikipedia. For one, he points out that you don't have to look to the Internet to find bad history; it's also found in the library stacks. [I can attest to this. When I was working in an academic library, we found a book in the stack stating that there is not evidence to suggest that smoking is bad for your health. Our records indicated that the book had been recently checked out so you know that a student included that little factoid in her paper.] Next, instructors generally do not want their students to rely on any encyclopedia entry for their term papers. The impact of Wikipedia alone is yet another reason why historians should care. Also, the peer review process for the featured article section is another Wikipedia characteristic that Rosenzweig highlights.
Despite the fact that there are difficulties implementing a Wikipedia-style model in academia, Rosenzweig nonetheless suggests that a publication that relies on volunteer labor would not be foreign to scholars. In fact, scholars are already spending numerous volunteer hours on journals and conferences. The discussion about the possibilities for history scholars to become actively involved in a tool, like Wikipedia, reminded me of the Pronetos project: "a global think-tank of the leaders in your field". Pronetos was launched at the end of October 2007, and members can post work for peer feedback, remix content posted by others, and produce new custom publications based on the resources found on the site. Will this catch on? Maybe with a group of pioneers (and those who have tenure) who are willing to try a model that runs counter to the traditional system. Until the tenure and review process changes, though, it will likely be difficult for Pronetos to obtain a critical mass.
Like many articles that examine the wiki phenomenon, and the proliferation of Wikipedia, specifically, this piece by Rosenzweig begins by outlining what it is and how it works. Because the author's message is targeted at historians, he explores how wikis can be part of the historian's toolkit. He does this by comparing historical entries in Wikipedia to comparable ones found in more "traditional" encyclopedias - American National Biography Online and Encarta to name a couple. Based on his comparison, Rosenzweig concludes that Wikipedia is roughly equivalent to Encarta, but lacks in comparison to the American National Biography Online. However he does note that the authors who have contributed entries to Wikipedia are not representative of the general population. Instead, the contributors tend to be English-speaking males; hence the criticism that Wikipedia has been shaped by "geek priorities."
Rosenzweig goes on to make a case for why historians should care about Wikipedia. For one, he points out that you don't have to look to the Internet to find bad history; it's also found in the library stacks. [I can attest to this. When I was working in an academic library, we found a book in the stack stating that there is not evidence to suggest that smoking is bad for your health. Our records indicated that the book had been recently checked out so you know that a student included that little factoid in her paper.] Next, instructors generally do not want their students to rely on any encyclopedia entry for their term papers. The impact of Wikipedia alone is yet another reason why historians should care. Also, the peer review process for the featured article section is another Wikipedia characteristic that Rosenzweig highlights.
Despite the fact that there are difficulties implementing a Wikipedia-style model in academia, Rosenzweig nonetheless suggests that a publication that relies on volunteer labor would not be foreign to scholars. In fact, scholars are already spending numerous volunteer hours on journals and conferences. The discussion about the possibilities for history scholars to become actively involved in a tool, like Wikipedia, reminded me of the Pronetos project: "a global think-tank of the leaders in your field". Pronetos was launched at the end of October 2007, and members can post work for peer feedback, remix content posted by others, and produce new custom publications based on the resources found on the site. Will this catch on? Maybe with a group of pioneers (and those who have tenure) who are willing to try a model that runs counter to the traditional system. Until the tenure and review process changes, though, it will likely be difficult for Pronetos to obtain a critical mass.
Wikis and Friendship
Ferris, S. P., & Wilder, H. (2006, June/July). Uses and potentials of wikis in the classroom. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 2(5), Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=258
This article provides a general overview of wikis in education. The authors begin by discussing learning paradigms, such as secondary orality, which values "community, group-sense, and participation." They then move on to outline the various definitions associated with wikis, crediblity debates, and the ways in which wikis foster collaboration among teachers and students. While these issues and concerns are noted in numerous articles on wikis, the one statement made by the authors that attracted my attention was the following: "While a weblogs is most often based on a diary metaphor in which the weblog author is the primary author who posts on a regular (often daily) basis, a wiki is more like a friendship based on a specific interest."
Even though I think this is an interesting and unique metaphor, the term "friendship" is perhaps too strong of a word. The authors refer to stamp collectors who have no connection to each other with the exception of stamps. However, if the stamp collectors meet to discuss/trade etc. stamps, then there may be more to the relationship than people independently contributing to an entry on the cyberpunk movement. To me, friendship is more than just people who share an interest in a particular topic - there has to be some type of communication or interaction. In this section of the article, the authors don't mention the interactions contributors may have on the discussion pages. If they had, it might be easier for me to buy into the friendship metaphor; but, based solely on the arguement made by the authors, they have not convinced me.
This article provides a general overview of wikis in education. The authors begin by discussing learning paradigms, such as secondary orality, which values "community, group-sense, and participation." They then move on to outline the various definitions associated with wikis, crediblity debates, and the ways in which wikis foster collaboration among teachers and students. While these issues and concerns are noted in numerous articles on wikis, the one statement made by the authors that attracted my attention was the following: "While a weblogs is most often based on a diary metaphor in which the weblog author is the primary author who posts on a regular (often daily) basis, a wiki is more like a friendship based on a specific interest."
Even though I think this is an interesting and unique metaphor, the term "friendship" is perhaps too strong of a word. The authors refer to stamp collectors who have no connection to each other with the exception of stamps. However, if the stamp collectors meet to discuss/trade etc. stamps, then there may be more to the relationship than people independently contributing to an entry on the cyberpunk movement. To me, friendship is more than just people who share an interest in a particular topic - there has to be some type of communication or interaction. In this section of the article, the authors don't mention the interactions contributors may have on the discussion pages. If they had, it might be easier for me to buy into the friendship metaphor; but, based solely on the arguement made by the authors, they have not convinced me.
Blended learning, blogs and wikis - oh my!
A new book on blended learning - Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines (Garrison & Vaughan) - takes a look at the blended learning trend. Not only do the authors discuss the theories surrounding the incorporation of technology into the curriculum (e.g., active engagement, social presence), but they also examine ways educators can use blogs and wikis to enhance the f2f learning experience. In this Inside Higher Ed interview with the authors, they outline the design of assigments using blogs and wikis that foster collaboration, self-reflection, and peer review.
Monday, November 12, 2007
CNN in SL
This just in...
CNN has just launched a news site in Second Life!
"Just as CNN asks its real-life audience to submit I-Reports -- user-generated content submitted from cell phones, computers, cameras and other equipment for broadcast and online reports -- the network is encouraging residents of Second Life to share their own "SL I-Reports" about events occurring within the virtual world."
For those interested in honing their amateur reporting skills, CNN will be hosting its first in-world training session on Tuesday, November 13, at 5 p.m. ET at the I-Report Hub.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/12/second.life.irpt/index.html
CNN has just launched a news site in Second Life!
"Just as CNN asks its real-life audience to submit I-Reports -- user-generated content submitted from cell phones, computers, cameras and other equipment for broadcast and online reports -- the network is encouraging residents of Second Life to share their own "SL I-Reports" about events occurring within the virtual world."
For those interested in honing their amateur reporting skills, CNN will be hosting its first in-world training session on Tuesday, November 13, at 5 p.m. ET at the I-Report Hub.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/12/second.life.irpt/index.html
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Podcasting and Web 2.0
As I was reading the articles for this week, I was thinking about the question, "Is podcasting a Web 2.0 technology?" Stevens (2006) makes the following distinctions between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. To him, Web 1.0 was "the era of the 'read-only' Web"; in contrast, Web 2.0 is the "'read-write' Web (p. 3). When I think of Web 2.0, words like sharing, collaboration, participation, interaction come to mind. The white paper by Deal (2007) outlines three ways podcasts are being used: 1) lectures for review; 2) supplemental material; and 3) podcast assignments. None of these activities requires interaction through the technology per se. Sure, student may interact and collaborate while creating their podcast assignments, but once that recording is posted, that's it. Instructors could also design activities that foster this type of environment, but thus far, this does not appear to be the case.
Further, Deal, as well as Brittain et al. (2006) and Lane (2006), also points out that most students do not take advantage of the mobility afforded by the podcasting technology; instead, students listened to the recordings via their computer. To me, this type of use takes us back to the days of Web 1.0. The only difference is that instead of reading the content, they are listening to it. While I do believe that podcasting technology does have the potential to become more Web 2.0-like, I don't think it's there at this time. As was the case with early cinematographers, we are replicating what is familiar as we learn more about this technology. Perhaps the uses of podcasting will become more innovative and creative as we learn more about the technology and its capabilities.
Further, Deal, as well as Brittain et al. (2006) and Lane (2006), also points out that most students do not take advantage of the mobility afforded by the podcasting technology; instead, students listened to the recordings via their computer. To me, this type of use takes us back to the days of Web 1.0. The only difference is that instead of reading the content, they are listening to it. While I do believe that podcasting technology does have the potential to become more Web 2.0-like, I don't think it's there at this time. As was the case with early cinematographers, we are replicating what is familiar as we learn more about this technology. Perhaps the uses of podcasting will become more innovative and creative as we learn more about the technology and its capabilities.
Gadget Giveaway or Educational Tool?
The articles we read this week discuss podcasting and its use in academic settings. While the focus is primarily on initiatives at institutions such as the University of Michigan and Harvard, the Duke iPod program was mentioned in passing.
In August 2004, Duke University launched an initiative designed to expand the use of technologies in education by distributing iPods to approximately 1,600 first-year students. The results of this program can be found in this report. Even though data were collected to support the notion that the iPods added value to the educational mission of the institution, the actual impact of this tool is still unknown. Like the authors of this week's articles, Duke University researchers also concluded that more research is needed; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that the iPods did positively influence exam outcomes.
Still, the Duke program was scaled back and iPods were only distributed to students who were enrolled in courses that used the technology. Despite this turn of events, though, many institutions were making the move to hand out various types of devices (e.g., laptops, PDAs, Blackberries, etc.) to their students. This raised the question as to whether podcasting did foster learning, or whether it was merely a pawn in the "great gadget giveaway" - efforts not to enhance student learning but to recruit students to certain campuses.
What makes pieces like the one by Brittain et al. (2006) so important is that these individuals clearly illustrate why the University of Michigan School of Dentistry integrated podcasting into the curriculum. Even though students were asking for video recordings of lectures, the authors worked to determine whether this technology would best match the needs of the students. After several stages and pilot studies, podcasting was found to be a better match. Rather than selecting a technology just because it's hip and cool, this program and its students rationally considered their options before selecting one. It's research like this that can be used to counter claims made by skeptics. With anecdotal evidence alone, though, this is a much harder case to make.
In August 2004, Duke University launched an initiative designed to expand the use of technologies in education by distributing iPods to approximately 1,600 first-year students. The results of this program can be found in this report. Even though data were collected to support the notion that the iPods added value to the educational mission of the institution, the actual impact of this tool is still unknown. Like the authors of this week's articles, Duke University researchers also concluded that more research is needed; however, anecdotal evidence suggests that the iPods did positively influence exam outcomes.
Still, the Duke program was scaled back and iPods were only distributed to students who were enrolled in courses that used the technology. Despite this turn of events, though, many institutions were making the move to hand out various types of devices (e.g., laptops, PDAs, Blackberries, etc.) to their students. This raised the question as to whether podcasting did foster learning, or whether it was merely a pawn in the "great gadget giveaway" - efforts not to enhance student learning but to recruit students to certain campuses.
What makes pieces like the one by Brittain et al. (2006) so important is that these individuals clearly illustrate why the University of Michigan School of Dentistry integrated podcasting into the curriculum. Even though students were asking for video recordings of lectures, the authors worked to determine whether this technology would best match the needs of the students. After several stages and pilot studies, podcasting was found to be a better match. Rather than selecting a technology just because it's hip and cool, this program and its students rationally considered their options before selecting one. It's research like this that can be used to counter claims made by skeptics. With anecdotal evidence alone, though, this is a much harder case to make.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Student Retention
Tresman, Susan (2002, April). Toward a strategy for improved student retention in programmes of open, distance education: A case study from the open university UK
As I was reading this article, I found myself jotting down a number of notes in the margins. I suppose that means that Tresman's work really resonated with me or that some of her comments hit a nerve.
Starting with the hit nerve: In the early portion of this article, Tresman discusses the theoretical work she is using to frame her discussion. She points to Ball's work on the "market economy" approach, including a critique on the notion that "educational problems can be solved by technological means." A number of articles refer to these "educational problems," but few elaborate on what these are. What problems are we hoping to solve by implementing technological solutions? Is there a common list that educators are working from? Is this notion constantly changing and evolving? In the 1930s, Dewey was talking about the inadequacies of education. Are we still dealing with the same issues? (I would imagine not.) Tresman concludes this section by arguing that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. She states, "Careful observation and analysis of what is actually happening within a given institution, can lead to a theory that is both relevant to a given institutional context, rather than that of the government."
Continuing with the market economy approach, Tresman highlights the assumption that students are customers/consumers. She questions the idea that consumers "are the best judges of their educational needs and how these should be met." How do students know what they need? They often do not have any experience in a particular area and are not aware of the work that may be relevant to it. If students did have the experience and knowledge, then why would they even need education? While I agree with Tinto's assessment that educators should make students' needs a priority and create a rich learning experience, I do not think that students always know what is best for them or what they really want/need. As many retailers have discovered, young people are a fickle market - what's hot today is passe tomorrow.
In the section, "The Student Learning Journey," Tresman asserts, "All higher education institutions regard student dropout as an issue." It is interesting how quickly things change. When I was an undergraduate, it was a source of pride to weed out students. In fact, the professors in some of my course we repeatedly state that they intended to create an environment where students either dropped or flunked out. I suppose that is what happens when education becomes a business - those undergraduate dollars are what fuels the institution and now have purchasing power.
The last section that was of interest was Tresman's discussion of "rescue strategies" designed for those students who have to interrupt their studies. She proposes that these individuals would be able to carry forward earned credits if they decided to "recommence their work within a reasonable period of time." This statement reminds me of the article that appeared in the October 29, 2007 issue of the Arizona Republic (the one that includes the quotes by Curt). This article discusses a new system implemented at Rio Salado College where courses started every week. While the Arizona Republic article does not specifically refer to stopping and starting courses mid-stream, it and the one by Tresman both do refer to a more flexible model of education. While this many be beneficial for students, how does this work for the instructor? It seems like these revolving door logistics (student in class - student not; one students signs up for class; next week another one starts, etc.) would be mind boggling.
As I was reading this article, I found myself jotting down a number of notes in the margins. I suppose that means that Tresman's work really resonated with me or that some of her comments hit a nerve.
Starting with the hit nerve: In the early portion of this article, Tresman discusses the theoretical work she is using to frame her discussion. She points to Ball's work on the "market economy" approach, including a critique on the notion that "educational problems can be solved by technological means." A number of articles refer to these "educational problems," but few elaborate on what these are. What problems are we hoping to solve by implementing technological solutions? Is there a common list that educators are working from? Is this notion constantly changing and evolving? In the 1930s, Dewey was talking about the inadequacies of education. Are we still dealing with the same issues? (I would imagine not.) Tresman concludes this section by arguing that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. She states, "Careful observation and analysis of what is actually happening within a given institution, can lead to a theory that is both relevant to a given institutional context, rather than that of the government."
Continuing with the market economy approach, Tresman highlights the assumption that students are customers/consumers. She questions the idea that consumers "are the best judges of their educational needs and how these should be met." How do students know what they need? They often do not have any experience in a particular area and are not aware of the work that may be relevant to it. If students did have the experience and knowledge, then why would they even need education? While I agree with Tinto's assessment that educators should make students' needs a priority and create a rich learning experience, I do not think that students always know what is best for them or what they really want/need. As many retailers have discovered, young people are a fickle market - what's hot today is passe tomorrow.
In the section, "The Student Learning Journey," Tresman asserts, "All higher education institutions regard student dropout as an issue." It is interesting how quickly things change. When I was an undergraduate, it was a source of pride to weed out students. In fact, the professors in some of my course we repeatedly state that they intended to create an environment where students either dropped or flunked out. I suppose that is what happens when education becomes a business - those undergraduate dollars are what fuels the institution and now have purchasing power.
The last section that was of interest was Tresman's discussion of "rescue strategies" designed for those students who have to interrupt their studies. She proposes that these individuals would be able to carry forward earned credits if they decided to "recommence their work within a reasonable period of time." This statement reminds me of the article that appeared in the October 29, 2007 issue of the Arizona Republic (the one that includes the quotes by Curt). This article discusses a new system implemented at Rio Salado College where courses started every week. While the Arizona Republic article does not specifically refer to stopping and starting courses mid-stream, it and the one by Tresman both do refer to a more flexible model of education. While this many be beneficial for students, how does this work for the instructor? It seems like these revolving door logistics (student in class - student not; one students signs up for class; next week another one starts, etc.) would be mind boggling.
So, what is a community?
The articles for this week discussed building communities among students at a distance and virtual teams. One thing that was mentioned in the Kimble et al. (2000) piece is that "the concept of the virtual team is not clearly defined and it often overlaps with concepts such as the virtual or networked organizations, the virtual workplace, virtual communities, electronic commerce and some forms of teleworking" (p. 3). Perhaps one of the difficulties in creating a sense of community in virtual spaces is rooted in the fact that online educators have not reached a consensus on the definition of community. How can we as researchers understand online communities and the formation of these entities if we cannot first define what they are?
Not only are there different ways of defining "community," but, as Brown (2001) notes, there is little research on the way students define community. In her study, Brown found that not all students participating in courses that were reported to have high levels of community did not share that viewpoint. Moreover, Brown states that while she was able to identify three levels of community (making online acquaintances or friends; community conferment; and camaraderie - p. 24), five of the students reported that they felt no sense of community in these courses; responses from four of the others were questionable. This discrepancy between the researcher's observations and the comments revealed during the interviews complicates the notion of community even further. Where does (or should) our focus lie - on the findings of our observations based on theory, or on the self-reports of those participating in these courses?
Brown indicates that this research involved telephone and email interviews. It would have been interesting to see whether the comments made in the first round were consistent with those made in the second. It is possible those who reported no sense of community had a bad day and upon reflection would revise their initial response. One explanation Brown gives is that the "participants did not want to be part of the community - did not want to bother with positive, supportive messages and interaction in the cafeteria" (p. 26). Isn't it possible that these individuals could have had an external support group, and because the cafeteria interactions were not a required part of the course did not feel the need to engage in optional activities? Overall, Brown's spin on her five explanations are somewhat simplistic and negatively skewed.
People are complex and developing a deeper understanding of what makes a community for individuals who participate in online course may require research that is more longitudinal in nature.
Not only are there different ways of defining "community," but, as Brown (2001) notes, there is little research on the way students define community. In her study, Brown found that not all students participating in courses that were reported to have high levels of community did not share that viewpoint. Moreover, Brown states that while she was able to identify three levels of community (making online acquaintances or friends; community conferment; and camaraderie - p. 24), five of the students reported that they felt no sense of community in these courses; responses from four of the others were questionable. This discrepancy between the researcher's observations and the comments revealed during the interviews complicates the notion of community even further. Where does (or should) our focus lie - on the findings of our observations based on theory, or on the self-reports of those participating in these courses?
Brown indicates that this research involved telephone and email interviews. It would have been interesting to see whether the comments made in the first round were consistent with those made in the second. It is possible those who reported no sense of community had a bad day and upon reflection would revise their initial response. One explanation Brown gives is that the "participants did not want to be part of the community - did not want to bother with positive, supportive messages and interaction in the cafeteria" (p. 26). Isn't it possible that these individuals could have had an external support group, and because the cafeteria interactions were not a required part of the course did not feel the need to engage in optional activities? Overall, Brown's spin on her five explanations are somewhat simplistic and negatively skewed.
People are complex and developing a deeper understanding of what makes a community for individuals who participate in online course may require research that is more longitudinal in nature.
Friday, October 26, 2007
A Virtual College in a Virtual World
Miss those college years? The current ones not living up to your expectations? Thanks to Second Life avatars Roberta Beauchamp and Redd Columbia, you can experience the stereotypical college years (e.g., beer parties, Greek life, late night cram sessions) in a SL role playing game, Kindly State University. Just complete their online application and pay 200 Linden dollars, and you too could be a part of this experience!
More about this "institution" is available through the Chronicle of Higher Education's Wired Campus blog.
More about this "institution" is available through the Chronicle of Higher Education's Wired Campus blog.
Blackboard and Connections
At the EDUCAUSE conference this week, the CMS company, Blackboard, announced its latest initiative - the K-20 Connection. According to the company's project site, the K-20 connection is "new initiative designed to foster collaboration between higher education and K-12 institutions worldwide." The overarching goal of this project is to create a bridge between K-12, community colleges, and 4-year institutions.
More about this project is available "Online Education: Tailoring, Measuring and 'Bridging'" in the October 26, 2007 issue of Inside Higher Ed.
More about this project is available "Online Education: Tailoring, Measuring and 'Bridging'" in the October 26, 2007 issue of Inside Higher Ed.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Face-to-face: How important is it?
Jones, N. (2005). The development of socialization in an on-line learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(3), http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.3.4.pdf
The Richardson and Swan article (previous post) was not the only one that brought to mind methodological questions. Another article where I started to think about alternative methodologies and what outcomes they might produce was in conjunction with the Jones and Peachy (2005) article. In their concluding remarks, the authors state, “Face-to-face contact played a significant part in the socialization process and subsequently in the creation of a community of learners” (p. 15). But how do they know that for certain? While they employed Solomon’s model, with the exception of the face-to-face component as an add-on, all of the students followed the same stages. What would have been enlightening, given that Jones and Peachy privilege the f2f interactions, would have been to really put that belief to the test. For example, half of the students could have followed an unmodified version of the Salmon model; the others could have followed the version with a f2f stage. The findings under these conditions may have confirmed the authors’ claims…or not.
Swan (2003) also mentions the techniques such as ice breakers and a f2f component to cultivate a sense of community among the students. One program she mentions is the LEEP program at the
Even though the article is older than the others, the points made by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) are still relevant today. This, in spite of all the technological changes that have occurred since the mid to late 1990s. After they address and describe their seven principles, the authors make a point of concluding that technology is not enough. In fact, they argue that students and faculty need to be “tough-minded about the software- and technology-assisted interactions they create and buy into.” Those like Salmon indicate that a f2f component is not needed, and the cost savings alone behind this line of thought would make administrators tend to believe this to be sufficient evidence. However, those affiliated with the LEEP program have found a strategy that works for them and are doing as Chickering and Ehrmann suggest – being “tough minded.”
Democratization and Methodology
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003, February). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Environments, 7(1). Retrieved February 19, 2006 , from
Rhetoric suggesting that the Internet has democratizing effects appears to be back in vogue. In this 2003 article by Richardson and Swan, they state in their Introduction that “the ability of personal identities to remain concealed mans that all students, regardless of race, sex, disability, or appearance are on equal ground” (p. 69). However, scholars, such as Herring (gender and language cues) and Nakamura (race and ethnicity) argue that the anonymity afforded by the Internet may be more revealing than users (and others) once hoped or believed.
Another section of this piece that made me stop to think for a moment is the one that includes the results associated with Hypothesis 4: Students’ perceptions of social presence for individual course activities are related to their perceived learning for those activities. The authors’ survey revealed that “about one-third of students indicated written assignments while one-quarter of students indicated class discussions/questions and answer activities” (pp. 79-80). Respondents to the questionnaire also mentioned that interactions and feedback were also important. The reason why this stands out is because, as the authors note, class discussions, feedback, and interaction are aligned with social presence, but the written assignments are not. As a result of this contradiction, the authors suggest that social presence “permeates not only the activities generally designated as social activities but also those activities usually designated as individual activities” (p. 80).
However, an alternative explanation may be related to their methodology. This study employed mail/online questionnaires that the students completed. Perhaps face-to-face interviews would have clarified some of these discrepancies. Interviews may have also enabled the authors to probe into the reasons behind the responses to their questions, which may have been more revealing.
CMC and Context
Rourke, L., Andersen, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education. http://cade.icaap.org/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html
In their discussion on the community of inquiry model, particularly the core component of social presence, Rourke and his colleagues provide a nice overview of computer-mediated conferencing (CMC). In their discussion, they integrate much of the literature that makes up the history of CMC – work by Sproul and Keisler (1986) and Walther (1994), just to name a few. They even mention a piece by Angeli, Bonk and Hara (1998) that concentrated on a content analysis of messages created in a social setting. While these pieces serve to frame the concept of social presence, and the authors also acknowledge the tension between certain perspectives outlined by these historical pieces (lack of cues versus hyper-personal for example), they do not mention one factor: many of the studies conducted in the “early” days of CMC were done so in labs. The context was not an authentic one, and the study participants were not as invested as students relying on CMC in an online course may be. This is not to suggest that these lab-based studies are not valid or important; they are. As social informatics researchers would say, though, context matters.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Online Learning
Inside Higher Ed reports that the Sloan Foundation has released a new report on the growth of online learning over the past five years. The report appropriately titled, "Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Higher Education" indicates that the enrollment figures for online courses has begun to slow down a bit. While students continue to enroll in online courses, the increase is not as dramatic as in previous years. For example, the percentage increase last year was almost 37%; in contrast, this years increase was only around 10%. In addition to examining student enrollment in online courses, this report also outlines topics such as where the growth has occurred, areas of future growth, and barriers to widespread adoption of these types of courses.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Michael Wesch is at it again!
If you have not seen this YouTube video by Michael Wesch, an assistant professor at Kansas State University, and his Introduction to Cultural Anthropology students, it is definitely worth a look. In the spring, these students created a survey about student learning and also wrote the script for the video.
While some of the figures are striking, particularly those associated with the use of technology (e.g., students will write 500 pages of email but only 42 pages for class; students bring a laptop to class but aren't doing coursework - okay, not so striking), I wonder how this really differs from when I was an undergrad many moons ago? I knew plenty of students who purchased a $100 textbook and never opened it; there were also those who paid for a class and never attended (particularly those huge lecture courses at UIUC in Foellinger Hall). Even though technology played a very minor role (if at all) in my undergraduate classrooms, I saw a lot of similarities between my experiences and those of the students in this video.
While some of the figures are striking, particularly those associated with the use of technology (e.g., students will write 500 pages of email but only 42 pages for class; students bring a laptop to class but aren't doing coursework - okay, not so striking), I wonder how this really differs from when I was an undergrad many moons ago? I knew plenty of students who purchased a $100 textbook and never opened it; there were also those who paid for a class and never attended (particularly those huge lecture courses at UIUC in Foellinger Hall). Even though technology played a very minor role (if at all) in my undergraduate classrooms, I saw a lot of similarities between my experiences and those of the students in this video.
Video Clips and SL
Here are the clips that I'm going to show in class on Monday night:
Education in Second Life: Explore the Possibilities
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TMGR9q43dag&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMKXPjMLCk
Library Education Goes Virtual
http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=2410?=atwc
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/611
Intellagirl Tully - student engagement and student retention (just the beginning)
http://www.slcn.tv/bpe-intellagirl-tully
Web 2.0, CMS, and Questions
As I've been reading the articles for this week, I can't help but notice that they take a rather utopian stance on Web 2.0 technologies, including course management systems (CMS).
Full disclosure: For another course, I've been reading a book titled, Brave New Classrooms, which takes the opposite approach - the authors included in this collection of essays take a very cautious if not a dystopian position on the adoption of technologies in the classroom. The chapter by Lockhard, "Manifesto for Democratic Education and the Internet," summarizes the tone of this book. To give an example, he states, "A 'virtual campus' is an educational scam in progress" (p. 290). Lockhard continues by noting that "electronic education is no less than a means of technological colonization in the service of capital" (p. 291). While he does temper these beliefs toward the end of the chapter, it is possible that these and similar views have caused me to question the ideas presented by the authors we read for this week.
In the article by Thompson, which compares and contrasts Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, he refers to the work of early filmmakers. He states, "It took time for filmmakers to move the actors off stage and into studios and even more time for them to begin making movies on location." Thompson is not alone in his connection to the movie industry. In a piece by Livingstone and Kemp, they too point to the connection between cinematographers who replicated existing work and in their case, 3D virtual worlds.
However, Thompson continues by arguing that "Web 2.0 applications will continue to evolve, making the process of change much more complicated." Which leads to my question: If the technologies that educators want to integrate into the curriculum are constantly morphing into new technologies, will it ever be possible to move beyond the fits and start stage?
Downes (2005) also talks about technology and education in his article on e-learning 2.0. Not only does he assert that "living and learning...will eventually merge" but he also notes that as a result of e-learning 2.0, there will be a "collapse of the distinction between teacher and student altogether." But, aren't teachers in that role because they possess a certain level of experience and expertise? By moving to a system where there is no distinction between students and teachers, why do we even need to bother with the teacher? Couldn't we just have the students "talk amongst themselves" as the "Saturday Night Live" character Linda Richmond (played by Mike Meyers) would say?
Moving on to CMS, I had a difficult time envisioning this application as one that would allow students to "experience deeper learning" (p. 27) as Carmean and Haefner (2002) contend. I suppose I still consider this tool to be a "system container" (p. 28). In their 2003 article on CMS tools, they boldly state, "As information literacy grows more significant in learning outcomes, the role of the library in course support increases" (p. 10). Does it? Not according to the OLCOS Roadmap 2012, which predicts that in 2012 "library services may be slow to find their place in open learning environments" (p. 115). The authors of this report also suggest that "traditional and current digital libraries will have a long way to go before they become part of 'the flow' of a new generation's learning landscape" (p. 106).
So, I suppose the overarching question for both educators and librarians is this: Do we roll with the punches and try to adopt the new technologies as they happen? Or, do we stop and take the time to assess how we can use these systems and applications most effectively (while hoping we don't get left behind in the process)? Or...
Full disclosure: For another course, I've been reading a book titled, Brave New Classrooms, which takes the opposite approach - the authors included in this collection of essays take a very cautious if not a dystopian position on the adoption of technologies in the classroom. The chapter by Lockhard, "Manifesto for Democratic Education and the Internet," summarizes the tone of this book. To give an example, he states, "A 'virtual campus' is an educational scam in progress" (p. 290). Lockhard continues by noting that "electronic education is no less than a means of technological colonization in the service of capital" (p. 291). While he does temper these beliefs toward the end of the chapter, it is possible that these and similar views have caused me to question the ideas presented by the authors we read for this week.
In the article by Thompson, which compares and contrasts Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, he refers to the work of early filmmakers. He states, "It took time for filmmakers to move the actors off stage and into studios and even more time for them to begin making movies on location." Thompson is not alone in his connection to the movie industry. In a piece by Livingstone and Kemp, they too point to the connection between cinematographers who replicated existing work and in their case, 3D virtual worlds.
However, Thompson continues by arguing that "Web 2.0 applications will continue to evolve, making the process of change much more complicated." Which leads to my question: If the technologies that educators want to integrate into the curriculum are constantly morphing into new technologies, will it ever be possible to move beyond the fits and start stage?
Downes (2005) also talks about technology and education in his article on e-learning 2.0. Not only does he assert that "living and learning...will eventually merge" but he also notes that as a result of e-learning 2.0, there will be a "collapse of the distinction between teacher and student altogether." But, aren't teachers in that role because they possess a certain level of experience and expertise? By moving to a system where there is no distinction between students and teachers, why do we even need to bother with the teacher? Couldn't we just have the students "talk amongst themselves" as the "Saturday Night Live" character Linda Richmond (played by Mike Meyers) would say?
Moving on to CMS, I had a difficult time envisioning this application as one that would allow students to "experience deeper learning" (p. 27) as Carmean and Haefner (2002) contend. I suppose I still consider this tool to be a "system container" (p. 28). In their 2003 article on CMS tools, they boldly state, "As information literacy grows more significant in learning outcomes, the role of the library in course support increases" (p. 10). Does it? Not according to the OLCOS Roadmap 2012, which predicts that in 2012 "library services may be slow to find their place in open learning environments" (p. 115). The authors of this report also suggest that "traditional and current digital libraries will have a long way to go before they become part of 'the flow' of a new generation's learning landscape" (p. 106).
So, I suppose the overarching question for both educators and librarians is this: Do we roll with the punches and try to adopt the new technologies as they happen? Or, do we stop and take the time to assess how we can use these systems and applications most effectively (while hoping we don't get left behind in the process)? Or...
Friday, October 12, 2007
OLCOS Roadmap 2012 and Libraries
Geser, Guntram (ed.). (2007, January). Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012 (149 pages). Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.olcos.org/english/roadmap/ and http://www.olcos.org/english/roadmap/download/
As I was reading through this report, libraries and the role of librarians kept coming to mind. While the focus was primarily on individuals affiliated with educational entities, I was pleased to see occasional references made to librarians. To me, librarians are an integral part of the educational mission - at least that is the way I approached it when I was a reference/instructional librarian.
Like those in education, one of the core components is the concept of sharing (knowledge, information, resources). Yet, the library community is not one that is quick to change. One of the first library jobs I had out of grad school was at an institution that was proposing to convert their online catalog to a new system. Many librarians threatened to retire - some did once the conversion was underway, but others stayed and found that this was not their worst nightmare come true. For some, it is difficult to be flexible and optimistic (and willing to invest a lot of time) when facing the unknown that often accompanies new technologies. As this OLCOS report indicates, this is true for educators, as well.
On page 106, a reference is made to a report by Lorcan Dempsey (OCLC) that asserts that libraries will have to change the way they do business if they want to become part of "'the flow' of a new generation's learning landscape." As this section of the report suggests, librarians are worried about losing control of information. This is evident on numerous librarian discussion lists, particularly when tools, such as Google, Wikipedia, or MySpace find their way into the conversation. Librarians believe they are the only gateway to "good" information - in other words, they continue to call for a top-down model that the report warns against.
In the long-term influence section of the Roadmap Briefs (- 2012), library services are listed as an inhibitor rather than a driver/enabler. The report makes the following prediction:
Library services may be slow to find their place in open learning environments. It is widely felt that libraries will need to adopt better to the considerable changes in information behaviour and Web-based environments. (p. 115)
As a librarian, I find this to be a very depressing outlook for the profession. No wonder librarians are worried about losing control of information resources. They may not be able to find their place in the larger picture in a few short years!
Perhaps, librarians should look to the model proposed for teachers - a more bottom-up approach. Rather than being the "expert" and a dispenser of knowledge, teachers are to become coaches that emphasize the students' own activities. As is the case for teachers, though, the culture has to change.
As I was reading through this report, libraries and the role of librarians kept coming to mind. While the focus was primarily on individuals affiliated with educational entities, I was pleased to see occasional references made to librarians. To me, librarians are an integral part of the educational mission - at least that is the way I approached it when I was a reference/instructional librarian.
Like those in education, one of the core components is the concept of sharing (knowledge, information, resources). Yet, the library community is not one that is quick to change. One of the first library jobs I had out of grad school was at an institution that was proposing to convert their online catalog to a new system. Many librarians threatened to retire - some did once the conversion was underway, but others stayed and found that this was not their worst nightmare come true. For some, it is difficult to be flexible and optimistic (and willing to invest a lot of time) when facing the unknown that often accompanies new technologies. As this OLCOS report indicates, this is true for educators, as well.
On page 106, a reference is made to a report by Lorcan Dempsey (OCLC) that asserts that libraries will have to change the way they do business if they want to become part of "'the flow' of a new generation's learning landscape." As this section of the report suggests, librarians are worried about losing control of information. This is evident on numerous librarian discussion lists, particularly when tools, such as Google, Wikipedia, or MySpace find their way into the conversation. Librarians believe they are the only gateway to "good" information - in other words, they continue to call for a top-down model that the report warns against.
In the long-term influence section of the Roadmap Briefs (- 2012), library services are listed as an inhibitor rather than a driver/enabler. The report makes the following prediction:
Library services may be slow to find their place in open learning environments. It is widely felt that libraries will need to adopt better to the considerable changes in information behaviour and Web-based environments. (p. 115)
As a librarian, I find this to be a very depressing outlook for the profession. No wonder librarians are worried about losing control of information resources. They may not be able to find their place in the larger picture in a few short years!
Perhaps, librarians should look to the model proposed for teachers - a more bottom-up approach. Rather than being the "expert" and a dispenser of knowledge, teachers are to become coaches that emphasize the students' own activities. As is the case for teachers, though, the culture has to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)