Exploring the relationship between learning design and OEP

Another year and another institutional grant opportunity around openness. This year the focus is on Open Educational Practice and is

designed to raise awareness and understanding of open educational practice (OEP) across USQ and to provide the opportunity for USQ academics to experiment with OEP in courses and programs.

What follows are some early ramblings that have arisen from discussions with various folk about whether or not we might submit an application.

What is Open Educational Practice (OEP)?

I think getting common agreement on an answer to this question will be a major challenge, and not just for us.  Stagg (2014, p. 154) writes

There is evidence to also suggest that OEP is, after ten years, neither widespread, nor well-known (Conole, 2013; Conrad et al., 2013

Wikipedia, amongst much else, offers this on OEP

Open educational practices (OEP) are teaching techniques that draw upon open technologies and high-quality open educational resources (OER) in order to facilitate collaborative and flexible learning.[1][2] They may involve students participating in online, peer production communities [3] within activities intended to support learning [4] or more broadly, any context where access to educational opportunity through freely available online content and services is the norm.[1] Such activities may include (but are not limited to [1]), the creation, use and repurposing of open educational resources and their adaptation to the contextual setting.[4][5][6] OEP can also include the open sharing of teaching practices[1] and aim “to raise the quality of education and training and innovate educational practices on an institutional, professional and individual level”.[7]

What might we do

Initial interest is focused on actually trying to share and re-use open content between different contexts.  Not just making content open (OERs), or using open content (OERs) to produce our own teaching materials, but exploring how, if, and what happens when you try to set up an OEP ecosystem between educators (what about learners? hopefully they’d be included) in different contexts.

So far we’ve identified three possible “contexts” in which we might be able to explore

  1. Between similar courses within a single institution
    One likely participant teaches a course to pre-service teachers based on the Technologies learning area. Another colleague and I have been tasked with developing a course for another program to help pre-service teachers learn about both the Arts and Technologies learning areas. Can we engage in a bit of OEP between these two courses? Not to mention the two cohorts of learners in each course.
  2. Between similar courses between institutions.
    There are other Universities that teach similar courses. Can we engage in a bit of OEP between these courses between universities? Not to mention the different cohorts of learners?
  3. Between universities and teachers.
    In-service teachers may benefit from what’s done in these courses. In-service teachers could definitely help improve what’s done in these courses. Can we engage in a bit of OEP between teacher educators, pre-service teachers, and in-service teachers.

#3 might be a step too far in a year long project, but…

Learning design

When this rough idea was circulated one of those included mentioned some commonality with some earlier work on “Implementing effective learning designs”.

I’ve always been a bit of a learning design skeptic, but off I went to explore this idea. Cameron (2008) was amongst the first papers I came across. The research questions in Cameron (2008, p. 45) certainly resonate with my early thinking about this project (in the following, I’ve replaced “learning designs” with “open educational practices”

What open educational practices can be readily adopted by particular disciplines as templates for best practice?
What pedagogical issues emerge from the implementation of open educational practices in particular contexts?
How can identified barriers to academics’ adoption, adaptation and reuse of open educational practices be overcome?
How can the adoption of effective open educational practices be facilitated by the use of supports and scaffolds, such as, a learning activity planning tool?

The last one is a bit of a stretch, but these still appear to be in the same ballpark.

Learning designs are descriptions of learning and teaching processes that are known to be effective. By abstracting what is known to work into a learning design it is hoped that these designs can be communicated and shared between teaching staff, especially staff who do not have expertise in designing learning. It is hoped that learning designs can act as a pedagogical framework that will help teachers create enhanced learning. This is done by customising the generic learning design in ways appropriate to the context.

If this description is somewhat appropriate, then learning designs are about producing abstractions of good practice and then encouraging others to customise those abstractions to their context. I wonder about the level of tacit knowledge involved in creating those abstractions and the gulf it produces between the creators and users of learning designs.

OEP versus Learning design

As mentioned above the notion of OEP is very much up in the air.  The understanding I’m using here is that OEP is about making the practices I use, and subsequently the artefacts I produce, in my teaching open for others to see, consider, reuse, and re-purpose. Unlike learning designs, it won’t be going through much of a process of abstraction.

What is being shared will still be very contextual. It will be bundled up with the assumptions that I and my environment bring to my teaching. Assumptions that will range from the administrative, technological, pedagogical, etc.

This will make it very difficult for other people to understand what I’ve shared, let alone understand why it is the shape it is, let alone reuse what is shared in their context. This could perhaps all fail.

However, if someone takes the time to engage with that contextual baggage, perhaps they may learn a different way of thinking about a problem. Or better yet, by engaging with my practice they might pass on to me a different way of thinking about a problem.

By sharing the very different models we bring to the act of teaching (and learning) we have to revisit and perhaps remodel our conceptions of teaching. i.e. to learn.

I’m not sure that the use of learning designs require the same level of learning. Since its an abstraction with context removed, does this makes it easier to reuse a learning design than to engage in OEP? Does this also mean that you a likely to learn less by reusing a learning design?

If the contextual difference between those engaging in OEP is too much, does this decrease the likelihood of OEP being adopted and having an impact?

What if you were sharing heavily contextual OEPs within fairly similar contexts, would this impact adoption and impact?

What are the contextual factors that influence adoption and impact?

Design funnels and complexity

Just before I started writing this I read this blog post from Dave Snowden summarising some thinking about Complexity Theory and design thinking. The post suggests that design thinking (emphasis added)

is appropriate in the complicated domain of Cynefin and to some extent as a complex to complicated transition method. But it falls down in the complex domain. A parallel point is that it originates in, and is appropriate for, product creation but starts to have problems in a service environment. The points are linked because service is nearly always complex, product complicated

The post gives an overview of some difficult territory which I need to read and ponder more. But what strikes me is that it can be argued that teaching is a service, not a product. Thus design thinking, if you accept Snowden’s argument, is probably not appropriate for teaching.

Also, at some level the production of learning designs follows a logic similar to design thinking. It aims to understand the complexity of teaching and reduce it to a complicated collection of learning designs that can be reused.

OEP (using the definition above) is about opening up the complexity of teaching so that you can see what others are doing and more easily question, share, and repurpose what they do in your context. i.e. learn.

The problem is that the modern neo-liberal university doesn’t really want to accept and work with complexity. That’s too uncertain and impossible to manage. It wants/needs to reduce complexity to obviousness or complication (using words from the Cynefin framework). Preferably complication because that’s the realm of the expert.

References

Cameron, L. (2008). Implementing effective Learning Designs : An overview of an ALTC Competitive Grants Program project. In L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (Eds.), 3rd International LAMS & Learnign Design Conference (pp. 43–49). Sydney. Retrieved from http://lams2008sydney.lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04b.pdf

Stagg, A. (2014). OER adoption: a continuum for practice. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 11(3), 151 – 164. doi:10.7238/rusc.v11i3.2102

Extending a little thought experiment

David Wiley has posed a little thought experiment that encourages reflection around levels of automation and “personalisation” within a University course. Judging by my Twitter stream it appears to have arisen out of a session or happening from the ELI conference. The experiment describes a particular teacher purpose, outlines four options for fulfilling that purpose, and offers a standard against which to consider those options.

It’s a thought experiment that connects to a practice of mine and the growing status quo around higher education (at least in Australia). It’s also generated some interesting responses.

I’d like to extend that experiment in order to

  1. Reflect on some of the practices I have engaged in.
  2. Highlight some limitations with the current practice of e-learning in Australian higher education.
  3. Point out a potential problem with one perceived future for e-learning (replace the teacher with technology).

First, it would be useful to read Wiley’s original (and short) thought experiment and the responses.

Types of extensions

There are a range of ways in which the original thought experiment could be extended or modified. I’ll be looking at the following variations

  1. Modify the teacher’s purpose. (The support extension)
    In Wiley’s experiment the teacher is seeking to acknowledge success (score 80% or higher on an exam). Does a change in purpose impact your thinking?
  2. Clarify the context. (The inappropriate massification extension)
    Does the nature and complexity of the educational context matter? Does it change your thoughts?
  3. Add or modify an option. (The personalisation extension)
    Wiley gives four options ranging on a scale from manual/bespoke/human to entirely automated. Some of the comments on Wiley’s post offer additional options that vary the relationship between what is automated and what is manual/human. Generally increasing the complexity of the automation to increase it’s level of “personalisation”. At what level does automation of personalisation become a problem? Why?
  4. Question the standard
    The standard Wiley sets is that the students “receive a message ‘from their teacher’ and that students will interpret the messages as such”. In a world of increasingly digitally mediated experiences, does such a standard make sense?
  5. Change the standard each practice is being measured against. (The “connection not the message” extension).

The support extension

In Wiley’s experiment the purpose is stated as the faculty member deciding

that each time a student scores 80% or higher on an exam, she’ll send them an email congratulating them and encouraging them to keep up the good work

What if the purpose was to

Identify all those students who have not submitted an assignment by the due date and don’t already have an extension. Send each of those students an email asking if there’s a problem that she can help with.

This is the purpose for  which I’ve recently developed and used an option similar to Wiley’s option #3.

Changing the purpose doesn’t appear to really change my thoughts about each of the options, if I use the standard from Wiley’s thought experiment

to ensure that students are actually receiving a message “from their teacher” and that students will interpret the messages as such.

With an option #3 like approach, it’s possible that students may not interpret the message as being “from their teacher”/personal. But it’s not sufficient for me to stop (more below)

But it does rule out an automation option suggested by @KateMfD

Email is bad enough, but faux email? Why not make them badges and be done?

A non-submission badge strikes me as problematic.

The inappropriate, massification extension

Does the context within which the course is taught have any impact on your thinking?

The context in which I adopted option #3 was a course with 300+ students. About 160 of those students are online students. That is, they never aren’t expected to attend a campus and the geographic location of most means that they it would be impossible for them to do so. I’m directly responsible for about 220 of those students and responsible for the course overall. There are 2 other staff responsible for two different campus cohorts.

The course is 100% assignment based. All assignments are submitted via a version of the Moodle assignment submission activity that has been modified somewhat by my institution. For the assignment described in this post only 193 of 318 enrolled students had submitted assignments by the due date. Another 78 students had received extensions meaning that 47 students hadn’t submitted by the due date.

The tool being used to manage this process does not provide any method to identify the 47 that haven’t submitted AND don’t have extensions. Someone manually needs to step through the 125 students who haven’t submitted and exclude those that have extensions.

Having done that the teacher is then expected to personally contact 47 different students? Many of whom the teacher will never meet face-to-face? Many of whom chose the online study option due to how well asynchronous learning fits their busy life and part-time study? Even though attempting to personally contact these 47 students is going to consume a significant amount of time?

Another problem is that the system provided by the institution doesn’t provide any other choice than to adopt Wiley’s option #1 (send them each an email). Not only does the system NOT support the easy identification of non-submit, no extension students. It provides no support for sending a bulk email to each student within that category (or any other category).

In order to choose Wiley’s other options a teacher would have to engage in a bit of bricolage just like I did. Which tends not to happen. As an example consider that my course is a 3rd year course. The 300+ students in my course have been studying for at least 3 years in an online mode. Many of them for longer than that because they are studying part-time. They will typically have studied around 16 courses before starting my course. With that in mind here’s what one student wrote in response to me adoption option #3

Thank you for contacting me in regards to the submission. You’re the first staff member to ever do that so I appreciate this a lot.

Does a teaching context that has seen significant massification unaccompanied by appropriate changes in support for both students and teachers make any difference in your thoughts? If the manual options are seen to take time away from supporting other (or all) students? What if the inappropriate massification of higher education means that the teacher doesn’t (and can’t) know enough personal information about (most of the) individual students to craft a meaningful, personal email message?

The personalisation extension

Wiley’s options and some of the responses tend to vary based on the amount of personalisation, and how much of the personalisation is done by a human or is automated.

A human manually checking the gradebook and writing an individual email to each student seems to strike some as more appropriate (more human?). Manually sending an email from a range of pre-written versions also may be ok. But beyond that and people appear to start to stuggle.

What about the option suggested by James DiGioai

scripting the criterion matching step, which informs the teacher which students are above 80%, and pushes her to write bespoke messages for each matching student. She automates the tedious part of the task and let the teacher do the emotional work of connecting with and support her students.

Is it the type of work that is automated that is important?

What about the apparently holy grail of many to automate the teacher out of the learning experience? Are we fearful that technology will replace teachers? Can technology replace teachers?

Or is it the case that technology can and should

replace many of the routine administrative tasks typically handled by teachers, like taking attendance, entering marks into a grading book

Bringing us back to the question of where do you draw this line?

Question the standard

Wiley’s standard is

our faculty member wants to ensure that students are actually receiving a message “from their teacher” and that students will interpret the messages as such.

The assumption being that there is significant value to the student in the teacher sending and being seen to send a message written specifically for the student. A value evident in some of the responses to Wiley’s post.

In this “digital era” does such a standard/value continue to make sense? @KateMfD suggests that in some cases it may not, but in Wiley’s original case it does

But an email of encouragement strikes me as a different kind of thing. It’s intended either to be a personal message, or to masquerade as one. Political campaigning, marketing, all the discourses that structure our lives, and that we justly dismiss as inauthentic, reach for us with the mimicry of personal communication. “Dear Kate” doesn’t make it so.

Is the “is there a problem? can I help?” message that I use in my context one that can be automated? After all, the purpose of the message is that I don’t know enough about the student’s reason for not submitting to personalise the message.

What if the massification of higher education means that the teacher doesn’t (and can’t) know enough about (most of) the students to craft a personal message? Alright to automate?

I have some anecdotal evidence to support this. I have been using options at or around Wiley’s 3rd option for years. An “email merge” facility was a feature we added to a system I designed in the early 2000s. It was one of the most used features, including use by teachers who were using a different system entirely. This facility mirrored the functionality of a “mail merge” facility where you could insert macros in a message that would be replace with information personal to each individual.

One example of how I used was a simple “how’s it going” message that I would send out a key points of the semester. One response I received from a student (which I’m sure I’ve saved somewhere, but can’t find) was along the lines of “I know this is being sent out as a global email, but it still provides a sense of interaction”.

Suggesting that at least for that student there was still value in the message, even though they knew I didn’t hand craft it.

The “connection not the message” extension

Which brings me to my last point. The standard for Wiley’s thought experiment is based on the value of the message being and being seen to be a personal message to the student. That’s not the standard or the value that I see for my practices.

For what it’s worth I think that the “7 Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education” from Chickering and Gamson (1997) are an ok framework for thinking about learning and teaching. The first of their 7 principles is

  1. Encourages Contact Between Students and Faculty
    Frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement. Faculty concern helps students get through rough times and keep on working

The standard I use is whether or not the practices I use encourage contact between my students and I. Does it create a connection?

Whether or not the students see the message I sent as being personally written for them is not important. It’s about whether or not it encourages them to respond and helps a connection form between us.

In the case of the not submitted, no extension students I’m hoping they’ll respond, explain the reason they haven’t submitted, and provide an opportunity for me to learn a little more about the problems they are having.

While I haven’t done the analysis, anecdotally I know that each time I send out this email I get responses from multiple students. Most, but not all, respond.

For me, this standard is more important than the standard in Wiley’s thought experiment. It’s also a standard that my personal experience suggests that moving further up Wiley’s options is okay.

It’s also a standard which argues against the complete automation of the personalisation process. The reasons why students haven’t submitted their assignment and the interventions that may be needed and appropriate tend to represent the full richness and variety of the human condition. The type of richness and variety for which an automated system can’t (currently?) handle well.

 

What if our digital technologies were protean? Implications for computational thinking, learning, and teaching

David Jones, Elke Schneider

Submitted to ACCE’2016 and an extension of Albion et al (2016).

Lot’s of room for further work here, especially in the implications section. Really only just touched the surface (IMHO).

Abstract

Not for the first time, the transformation of global society through digital technologies is driving an increased interest in the educational use of such technologies. Historically, the translation of such interest into widespread and effective change in learning experiences has been less than successful. This paper explores what might happen to the translation of this interest if the digital technologies within our educational institutions were protean. What if the digital technologies in schools were flexible and adaptable by and to specific learners, teachers, and learning experiences? To answer this question the stories of digital technology modification by a novice teacher educator and a novice high school teacher are analysed. Analysis reveals that the modification of digital technologies in two very different contexts was driven by the desire to improve learning and/or teaching by: filling holes with the provided digital technologies; modelling to students effective practice with digital technologies; and, to better mirror real world digital technologies. A range of initial implications and questions for practitioners, policy makers, and researchers are drawn from these experiences. It is suggested that recognising and responding to the inherently protean nature of digital technologies may be a key enabler of attempts to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy.

Introduction

Coding or computational thinking is the new black. Reasons given for this increased interest include the need to fill the perceived shortage of ICT-skilled employees, the belief that coding will help students “to understand today’s digitalised society and foster 21st century skills like problem solving, creativity and logical thinking” (Balanskat & Engelhardt, 2015, p. 6), and that computational thinking is “a fundamental skill for everyone” (Wing, 2006, p. 33). Computational thinking is seen as “a universal competence, which should be added to every child’s analytical ability as a vital ingredient of their school learning” (Voogt, Fisser, Good, Mishra, & Yadav, 2015, p. 715). Consequently, there is growing worldwide interest in integrating coding or computational thinking into the school curriculum. One example of this is the Queensland Government’s #codingcounts discussion paper (Department of Education and Training, 2015) which commits the government “to making sure that every student will learn the new digital literacy of coding” (p. 9). It appears that students also recognise the growing importance of coding. The #codingcounts discussion paper (Department of Education and Training, 2015) cites a Microsoft Asia Pacific survey (Microsoft APAC News Centre, 2015) that suggests 75% of students (under 24) in the Asia Pacific “wish that coding could be offered as a core subject in their schools” (n.p.). While not all are convinced of the value of making coding a core part of the curriculum it appears that it is going to happen. Balanskat & Engelhardt (2015) report that 16 of the 21 Ministries of Education surveyed already had coding integrated into the curriculum, and that it was a main priority for 10 of them. Within Australia, the recently approved Technologies learning area of the Australian Curriculum includes a focus on computational thinking combined with design and systems thinking as part of the Digital Technologies subject. This is the subject that is the focus of the Queensland government’s #codingcounts plan. The question appears to have shifted from if coding or computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum, toward questions of how and if it can be done effectively in a way that scales for all learners?

These types of questions are especially relevant given the observation that despite extensive efforts over the last 30+ years to eliminate known barriers, the majority of teachers do not yet use digital technologies to enhance learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). It appears that the majority of teachers still do not have the knowledge, skills, resources, and environment in which to effectively use digital technologies to enhance and transform student learning. The introduction of computational thinking – “solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behaviour, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science” (Wing, 2006, p. 33) – into the curriculum requires teachers to move beyond use of digital technologies into practices that involve the design and modification of digital technologies. In recognition of the difficulty of this move, proponents of integrating computational thinking are planning a range of strategies to aid teachers. One problem, however, is that many of these strategies seem to echo the extensive efforts undertaken to encourage the use of digital technologies for learning and teaching that have yet to prove widely successful. At this early stage, the evaluation and research into the integration of computational thinking into the curriculum remains scarce and with a limited amount of “evidence as to how far teachers really manage to integrate coding effectively into their teaching and the problems they face” (Balanskat & Engelhardt, 2015, p. 15).

However, attempts to integrate coding or computational thinking into the curriculum are not new. Grover and Pea (2013) identify the long history of computational thinking, tracing it back to recommendations for college students in the 1960s and to Papert’s work with Logo in K12 education in the 1980s. By the mid-1990s, Maddux and Lamont Johnson (1997) write of “a steady waning of interest in student use of the Logo computer language in schools” (p. 2) and examine a range of reasons for this. In the late 1990s, the dotcom boom helped increase interest, but it did not last. By the 2000s the overall participation rate in IT education within Australia declined. With an even greater decline in enrolments in software development subjects, and especially in female participation (Rowan & Lynch, 2011). The research literature has identified a range of factors for this decline, including the finding that “Students in every participating school joined in a chorus defining the subject as ‘boring'” (Rowan & Lynch, 2011, p. 88). More recently the rise of interest in computational thinking has led to the identification of a range of issues to be confronted, including: “defining what we mean when we speak of computational thinking, to what the core concepts/attributes are and their relationship to programming knowledge; how computational thinking can be integrated into the curriculum; and the kind of research that needs to be done to further the computational thinking agenda in education” (Voogt et al., 2015, p. 716). Beyond these important issues, we are interested in exploring how and if common perceptions of our digital technologies may hinder attempts to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy.

What if the digital technology environments within education institutions do not mirror the environments in contemporary and future digitalised societies? What if our experience within these limited digital technology environments is negatively impacting our thinking about how to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy? What if thinking about digital technology has not effectively understood and responded to the inherent protean nature of digital technologies? What if the digital technologies provided to educators were protean? What if the school digital environment was an environment rich with protean digital technologies (ERPDT)? Might this have an impact on attempts to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy? It is these and related questions that this paper seeks to explore.

The paper starts by drawing on a range of literature to explore different conceptions of digital technologies. In particular, it focuses on the 40+ year old idea that digital technologies are the most protean of media. Next, the paper explains how stories of digital technology modification by a high school teacher and a teacher educator were collected and analysed to offer insights into what might happen if our digital technologies were protean. Analysis of these stories is then discussed and used to develop an initial set of implications for practice, policy, and research for attempts to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy. The paper concludes with the suggestion an environment rich with protean digital technologies (ERPDT) appears likely to have a range of positive impacts on attempts to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy.

Digital technology: A protean meta-medium, or not?

The commonplace notions of digital technologies that underpin both everyday life and research have a tendency to see them “as relatively stable, discrete, independent, and fixed” (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001, p. 121). Digital technologies are seen as hard technologies, technologies where what can be done is fixed in advance either by embedding it in the technology or “in inflexible human processes, rules and procedures needed for the technology’s operation” (Dron, 2013, p. 35). As noted by Selwyn and Bulfin (2015) “Schools are highly regulated sites of digital technology use” (p. 1) where digital technologies are often seen as a tool that is: used when and where permitted; standardised and preconfigured; conforms to institutional rather than individual needs; and, a directed activity. Rushkoff (2010) argues that one of the problems with this established view of digital technologies is that “instead of optimizing our machines for humanity – or even the benefit of some particular group – we are optimizing humans for machinery” (p. 15). This hard view of digital technologies perhaps also contributes to the problem identified by Selwyn (2016) where in spite of the efficiency and flexibility rhetorics surrounding digital technologies, “few of these technologies practices serve to advantage the people who are actually doing the work” (p. 5). Digital technologies have not always been perceived as hard technologies.

Seymour Papert in his book Mindstorms (Papert, 1993) describes the computer as “the Proteus of machines” (p. xxi) since the essence of a computer is its “universality, its power to simulate. Because it can take on a thousand forms and can serve a thousand functions, it can appeal to a thousand tastes” (p. xxi). This is a view echoed by Alan Kay (1984) and his discussion of the “protean nature of the computer” (p. 59) as “the first metamedium, and as such has degrees of freedom and expression never before encountered” (p. 59). In describing the design of the first personal computer, Kay and Goldberg (1977) address the challenge of producing a computer that is useful for everyone. Given the huge diversity of potential users they conclude “any attempt to specifically anticipate their needs in the design of the Dynabook would end in a disastrous feature-laden hodgepodge which would not be really suitable for anyone” (Kay & Goldberg, 1977, p. 40). To address this problem they aimed to provide a foundation technology and sufficient general tools to allow “ordinary users to casually and easily describe their desires for a specific tool” (Kay & Goldberg, 1977, p. 41). They aim to create a digital environment that opens up the ability to create computational tools to every user, including children. For Kay (1984) it is a must that people using digital technologies should be able to tailor those technologies to suit their wants, since “Anything less would be as absurd as requiring essays to be formed out of paragraphs that have already been written” (p. 57). For Richard Stallman (2014) the question is more fundamental, “To make computing democratic, the users must control the software that does their computing!” (n.p.).

This perceived 40 year old need for individuals to make their own tools with protean digital technologies resonates strongly with the contemporary Maker movement. A movement that is driven by a combination of new technologies that increase the ease of creation, a cultural shift toward do-it-yourself practices, and is seeing people increasingly engaged in creating and customising physical and virtual artefacts. Martinez & Stager (2013) make this link explicit by labelling Seymour Papert as the “Father of the Maker Movement” (n.p.). Similarly, Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) note the resonance between the Maker movement and a tradition within the field of education that stretches for Dewey’s progressivism to Papert’s constructionism. Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) see tinkering “as a playful style of designing and making, where you constantly experiment” (p. 165) for which digital technologies – due to their association with logic and precision – may not always appear suitable. A perception reinforced by the evolution of digital technologies from the work of Kay and Goldberg to today.

The work of Kay, Goldberg, and others at Xerox PARC on Dynabook directly and heavily influenced Apple, Microsoft, and shaped contemporary computing. However, their conception of computers as a protean medium where tool creation was open to every user has not attained any prominence in contemporary computing (Wardrip-Fruin & Montfort, 2003). In fact, there’s evidence that digital technologies are getting less modifiable by the end-user. For example, desktop personal computers once had an architecture that enabled enhancement and upgrading. While increasingly mobile devices are typically “not designed to be upgraded, serviced or even opened, just used and discarded” (Traxler, 2010, p. 5). The decision by Apple to prevent the creation of executable files on the iPad means “that you can’t make anything that may be used elsewhere. The most powerful form of computing, programming, is verboten” (Stager, 2013, n.p.). But it’s not just the technology that hardens digital technologies.

As noted above, Dron (2013) argues that technology can be hardened by embedding it “in inflexible human processes, rules and procedures” (p. 35). Resnick and Rosenabuam (2013) make the point that designing contexts that allow for tinkerability is as important as designing technologies for tinkerability. The affordance of a digital technology to be protean is not solely a feature of the technology. An affordance to be protean arises from the on-going relationship between digital technologies, the people using it, and the environment in which it is used. Being able to code, does not always mean you are able to modify a digital technology. Selwyn and Bulfin’s (2015) positioning of schools as “Schools are highly regulated sites of digital technology use” (p. 1) suggest that they are often not a context that is designed for tinkerability by providing protean digital technologies.

Even though the context may not provide protean digital technologies, this hasn’t stopped educators modifying digital technologies. Albion et. al. (2016) examine and map stories of digital technology modification by three teacher educators by the traces left in the digital landscape and the levels of modification. Table 1 provides an overview of the levels of digital technology modification used by Albion et. al. (2016). It ranges from simply using a digital technology as is, through changing its operation via configuration options (internal and external), modifying the operation of a digital technology by combining or supplementing it with other digital technologies, and finally to coding. Table 1 suggests that digital technologies can be modified via configuration, combination, and coding.

Table 1: Levels of digital technology modification (Albion et al., 2016)

Type of change Description Example
Use Tool used with no change Add an element to a Moodle site
Internal configuration Change operation of a tool using the configuration options of the tool Change the appearance of the Moodle site by changing Moodle course settings
External configuration Change operations of a tool using means outside of the tool Inject CSS or Javascript into a Moodle site to change its appearance or operation
Customization Change the tool by modifying its code Modify the Moodle source code, or create/install a new plugin
Supplement Use another tool to offer functionality not provided by existing tool Implement course level social bookmarking through Diigo
Replacement Use another tool to replace/enhance functionality provided by existing tool Require students to use external blog engines, rather than the Moodle blog engine

 

Methodology

This paper uses a qualitative case study to describe and explore the potential values, impacts, and issues faced by educators when they seek to treat digital technologies as protean. The aim being to offer some initial responses to the question “what if our digital technologies were protean?” As this is an attempt to understand a particular social phenomenon as it occurs in real-life it is well-suited to the case study method (Aaltio & Heilmann, 2010). Data for this case study is drawn from the authors’ own experiences as educators. For David this draws on his experiences as a teacher educator at the University of Southern Queensland from commencement in 2012 through 2015. During this time his main teaching responsibility was for a large – 300+ students split evenly between on-campus and online students – 3rd year ICT and Pedagogy course within the Bachelor of Education. For Elke, this draws on her experience as a teacher at secondary schools (neither her current school) within South-East Queensland in 2014 and 2015 teaching grades 7 to 12 in IT and Business subjects.

The authors’ experiences provide a number of advantages for the purpose of exploring the potential impact of protean digital technologies. Both authors have: formal tertiary education in fields related to the development of Information Technology; undertaken professional work within Information Technology; and, later trained as Secondary IPT teachers. Consequently, both authors see digital technologies as more inherently protean than those without an IT background, and have the knowledge and skills necessary to modify existing digital technologies. While not an activity currently broadly available to all educators, the authors experience and knowledge provide an indication of what might be possible if digital technologies were more protean. At the same time, the authors have very different cultural backgrounds (Australia and Canada). The case also explores the impact of protean digital technologies within two very different educational contexts: tertiary and secondary education. The tertiary education context involves a large course with hundreds of student in both on-campus and online modes. This large and diverse student cohort means that there significant use of digital technologies with online students learning solely via digital technologies. The secondary education context involves a greater number of smaller student cohorts with digital adoption in a state of flux and still primarily delivering teaching and assessing learning with traditional, non-digital means.

The authors engaged in an iterative and cyclical process that involved the gathering, sharing, discussing, and analysing stories of how, why, and what digital technologies they had modified while teaching. Both authors drew on personal records and writings in the form of tweets, blog posts, email archives, and other documents to generate a list of such stories. These stories (David: 16, Elke: 10) were written up using a common format, shared via a Google document, generated on-going discussion, and led to an iterative process of analysis to identify patterns and implications. A major part of the analysis was grouping the stories of digital technology modification via: the purpose (e.g. improve administration, model good practice, teaching, or learning); cause (e.g. inefficient systems, non-existent systems, missing functionality); impact (e.g. save time, improve learning); and, the type of change (as per Table 1). From this analysis a number of evident themes were extracted and are described in the next section.

Themes evident in stories of protean technologies

Upon reading each other’s stories, both authors were immediately struck by the level of commonality between the stories both had told. Not so surprising was that all stories told of attempts to improve learning, teaching, or both. However, even though these stories were taking place in very different types of educational institutions there were three themes prevalent in stories from both authors. The three themes were: filling holes (14 stories); modelling effective practice (12 stories); and, mirroring the real world (7 stories). There were, however, significant differences in the amount of coding required for these stories and the levels of digital technology modification undertaken.

In terms of coding, eventually 0 of Elke’s 10 stories involved the use of coding. 2 of her stories did initially involve coding (Yahoo Pipes and Java), but she subsequently implemented other modifications that did not require coding. 7 of David’s 16 stories involved coding using Perl, PHP, or jQuery/Javascript. This suggests the digital technologies can be modified without necessarily being able to code. However, it does raise questions about the reasons between the greater prevalence of coding in David’s stories. Is it due to the greater reliance on digital technologies within David’s context? Is it his longer work history within higher education? Was David less fearful of getting in trouble for wandering away from officially mandated practices? Is it his longer engagement with modifying digital technologies for learning and teaching? Or, are there other factors at play?

Table 2 describes the level of digital technology modification evidence in the stories from each author (some stories involved more than one level of modification). All but 1 of Elke’s stories involved supplementing or replacing digital technologies provided by the school. This suggests some significant perceived limitations with the school digital technology environment. David’s stories were almost evenly balanced between configuring provided digital technologies, or supplementing/replacing them with different digital technologies.

Table 2: Number of stories for each level of digital technology modification

Type of change Elke David
Use 1 0
Internal configuration 0 5
External configuration 0 2
Customization 0 0
Supplement 2 7
Replacement 8 4

4 of Elke’s stories and 10 of David’s stories of digital technology modification were designed to fill holes in the functionality provided by institutional technologies. In her very first story (Digital grading using Excel) Elke outlines her use of Excel spreadsheets to supplement the school’s requirement that teachers update paper-based student profiles located within a dedicated physical folder kept in the head-of-department’s office. Her use of Excel spreadsheets to supplement the required practice provided necessary support for teacher tasks such as maintaining student progress records and discussing progress with individual students, support missing from the practice required by the school. In the story “Web scraping to contact not submits” David describes a similar hole in an institutionally provided technology. In this story, the University’s online assignment management system provides no mechanism by which students who have not submitted an assignment and have not received an extension can be identified and contacted. Instead, David had to use a combination of Perl scripts, regular expressions, manual copying and pasting, and an email client to fill the hole. The value and difficulty in making this particular modification is illustrated by the following quote from a student

Thank you for contacting me in regards to the submission. You’re the first staff member to ever do that so I appreciate this a lot.

6 of Elke’s stories and 6 of David’s stories of digital technology modification were intended to improve student learning. These were all driven by a combination of modelling the effective use of digital technologies and/or adopting enhanced pedagogical practices. In “Moviemaker to introduce teacher and topics” Elke describes how the production of a movie (trailer) is intended to model the use of digital technologies to visually present information, but also to engage students. In “Course barometers via Google forms” David describes how functionality provided by the University LMS is replaced with Google forms as a way to more effectively gather student feedback, but also model a technology that they may be able to use in their practice. That both authors primarily teach in subjects related to the use of digital technologies would appear to suggest that prevalence of the modelling theme would likely be reduced for teachers of other areas.

4 of Elke’s stories and 3 of David’s stories suggest that the institutionally provided digital technologies do not always appropriately mirror the capabilities of real-world technologies and subsequently negatively impact learning and teaching. Both authors share stories about how the visual and content capabilities of institutional learning management systems fail to mirror the diversity, quality, and capabilities of available online technologies, including social networking software. Consequently, both authors tell stories of creating teaching related websites on external blog engines. In “Creating a teaching website with Edublogs” Elke outlines the visual and functional limitations of the official Learning Management System (LMS) and how use of Edublogs saved teacher time, was more visually appealing, and provided a more authentic experience services students are likely to encounter in the real-world. Elke also tells stories where computer hardware and network bandwidth provided by the school to students is supplemented through use of personal resources from both students and herself. The story “Encourage student use of phone hot-spots” tells of how the widespread inability of school Internet connections to fulfil learning needs was addressed by encouraging those students with access to use their mobile phone hot spots.

In general, the modification of institutional digital technologies does not come without problems, risks, or costs. Both authors make mention of the additional workload required to implement the changes described, especially when such changes aren’t directly supported or encouraged by the institution. Such cost can be assuaged through on-going use of the changes and the benefits they generate. However, these types of changes can challenge institutional polices and be frowned upon by management. In “Hacking look and feel” David describes how an institutionally mandated, default look and feel for course websites was modified to avoid a decrease in functionality. A story that also describes how the author had to respond to a “please explain” message from the institutional hierarchy and was for a time seen as “hacking” the institution’s online presence. Similarly, in “Encouraged students to hot-spot with their phones to connect to the web” Elke describes one digital technology modification that both broke institutional policy, but also enhanced student learning. It is not hard to foresee situations where the outcomes of these stories may well have been considerably more negative for those involved.

What if? Discussion, implications and questions

The perception of digital technologies as protean does not appear widespread within educational institutions. What if our digital technologies were protean? The following explores some of the implications that might arise if your education institution provided an environment rich with protean digital technologies (ERPDT). Such an environment would be designed to enable, encourage, and support all teachers and learners to engage in the modification of digital technologies to create the tools necessary to best support their learning and teaching. We focus on the ERPDT because as noted by Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) tinkerability requires a focus on both the technology and the context. The following does not and cannot offer an exhaustive set of implications. Instead it seeks to outline those implications for practice, policy, and research of interest and relevance to the authors. The aim is to start a discussion about these implications and inspire further work. The implications are framed as a series of “implication families” organised into three categories: implementation, computational thinking; and, learning and teaching. Each “implication family” is framed around a specific question related to its category, starts with a brief explanation and rationale, and finishes with a incomplete list of related questions.

Implementation

Experience suggests that there are few, if any, educational institutions that provide an ERPDT. It appears that few organisations of any type provide an ERPDT. As such an ERPDT represents a significant departure from common conceptions of and practices around digital technologies. Hence the design, implementation, and support of an ERPDT will be extremely challenging. Without the successful implementation of an ERPDT all other questions become academic.

How do you create an ERPDT?

While few organisations provide an ERPDT there is a variety of research and development work that promises to provide principles upon which to base the design of an ERPDT. Perhaps closest to this paper is research focused on the design of digital technologies for learning and teaching. Grover and Pea (2013) draw on work creating computationally rich environments for learners to identify a range of potential principles including: low floor, high ceiling; support for the “use-modify-create” progression; scaffolding; enable transfer; support equity; and, be systemic and sustainable. Resnick and Rosenbaum (2013) identify three core principles for designing for tinkerability: immediate feedback; fluid experimentation; and, open exploration. They also emphasise the importance of modifying the broader context so that it encourages tinkerability. Matuk et. al. (2015) identify: four kinds of customisations made by teachers; three technology features that support teacher customisation of curriculum materials; and, offer preliminary design principles for protean curriculum materials . What technology features are useful or required for an ERPDT to effectively support learning, learners, teaching, and teachers? Are there schools or other organisations that already have ERPDTs? If so, what can be learned from those examples? What are the necessary characteristics of an ERPDT? What are the most effective design principles for an ERPDT? Where do the characteristics and principles of an ERPDT clash with existing practices? How can this clash be handled?

How might safety, risk management and related challenges be handled?

Accountability, student safety, and risk management are topics important to management and a range of other education actors. These are all topics that involve and require elements of control. An ERPDT involves disrupting, removing, or distributing control beyond existing structures. What types of disruptions to control and other topics are necessary for an effective ERPDT? Are such disruptions appropriate within existing cultural norms and practices? What new practices and conceptions are practical or desireable?

Does an ERPDT help produce more effective digital environments?

Almost 40 years ago, Kay and Goldberg (1977) recognised that any digital technology that attempted to anticipate the needs of a diverse user population would end up as “a disastrous feature-laden hodgepodge which would not be really suitable for anyone” (p. 40). The largest category of digital technology modification stories gathered for this paper were those focused on filling holes in the functionality offered by existing digital technologies. Suggesting that the digital environments experienced by the authors are examples of the “hodgepodge” problem. Would an ERPDT encourage the creation and sharing of digital technologies that are more appropriate to the context and needs of teachers and learners? Would this lead to improvements in learning, teaching, and administration? What challenges would need to be faced? How might context specificity be balanced with the potential for reuse?

Computational thinking

The stories of digital technology modification in this paper are arguably examples of computational thinking. The stories describe attempts by individual teachers to solve learning and teaching problems through an understanding of human behaviour and drawing on computer science concepts to modify digital technologies.

What comes first: the ERPDT, or computationally thinking teachers?

This is the chicken and egg problem. Modifying digital technologies requires some level of ability with computational thinking. An effective ERPDT would seek to reduce the required level, but some ability would be required. One of the identified problems with the integration of digital technology into pedagogy and curriculum is the limited technical knowledge of teachers. It is typically the minority of teachers with appropriate levels of knowledge that use digital technologies in pedagogy and curriculum. Will providing an ERPDT suffer the same problems? Will just a minority of teachers make use of it, and thus limit its impact? Should all teachers undergo professional development to have sufficient skills prior to using the ERPDT? Or, can principles from situated and distributed cognition (Jones, Heffernan, & Albion, 2015), and emergent development promise different and better outcomes? Will the potential of an ERPDT provide support for teachers to make “use of new technologies to enhance their personal work before learning to use them in their teaching” (Lankshear & Bigum, 1999, p. 453)? If you build an ERPDT, will teachers and learners ability increase?

How would it impact the integration of computational thinking into schools?

Margolis (2008) identifies classroom practices associated with the teaching of computer science in schools as “disconnected from students’ lives, seemingly devoid of real-life relevance” (p. 102). It appears likely that teachers with little knowledge or authentic experience with computational thinking will find it difficult to address the problems Margolis and others have identified. Does an ERPDT increase the ability for teachers to observe and engage in authentic practice of computational thinking? How does this experience impact their ability to develop authentic computational thinking learning experiences? Does an ERPDT help teachers fit and more authentically integrate computational thinking into an already crowded curriculum?

Does computational thinking require the use of coding?

Voogt et. al. (2015) explain that programming, computer science, and computational thinking are intertwined, but not equivalent. They suggest that programming “is but one context for the practice of Computer Science and Computational Thinking” (Voogt et al., 2015, p. 718). This echoes ideas from the computational thinking literature that suggest that computational thinking does not necessarily involve programming or computers. Others argue that introducing computational thinking without computers “may be keeping learners from the crucial computational experiences involved in CT’s common practice” (Grover & Pea, 2013, p. 40). It is difficult to see how the teaching of computational thinking without the use of digital technologies will effectively help students better understand today’s digitalised society, or help address the perceived shortage of ICT-skilled employees. As mentioned above 0 of Elke’s stories of digital technology modification required coding.

Is programming the only way you can apply computational thinking within the context of digital technologies? Does the configuration and combination of protean digital technologies provide an appropriate environment for developing and applying computational thinking? What is lost and gained when computational thinking is taught within the context of digital technologies, but without reliance on coding? Does an ERPDT provide a more effective context for learning and applying computational thinking? Is such an environment a more appropriate representation of today’s digitalised society? Is the assumption that coding is the only way to apply computational thinking using digital technologies indicative of people who have not experienced an ERPDT? What are the relative value and roles played by configuring, combining, and coding protean digital technologies in developing computational thinking for both learners and teachers? In terms of configuring, combining, and coding protean digital technologies, where does digital or computational literacy end, and computational thinking begin?

Is this anything more than techno-solutionism?

Is the idea of an ERPDT just another example of techno-solutionism? Is it yet another attempt to solve a complex problem by focusing on a technological solution, rather than seriously investigating the complex historical and social factors that contribute to the problem? How might an ERPDT be any different in its impact than the introduction of IWBs or the Digital Education Revolution? Will it be yet another of those “over-hyped, pre-configured digital products and practices that are being imported continually” (2013, p. 3) into education settings? Or is an ERPDT likely to enable the type of mass participation in the production of digital technology for educators that is required to help realise the disruptive and democratising possibilities of digital technology in education? Are teachers with already significant constraints on their time going to have the capacity and motivation to engage with an ERPDT? Will the highly contextual potential of an ERPDT generate sufficient perceived benefits to encourage engagement?

Learning, teaching, and ICT integration

All of the stories of digital technology modification analysed here involved the use of computational thinking to improve aspects of learning and teaching. What implications might an ERPDT hold for learning, teaching, and the use of digital technologies to enhance and transform student learning.

Does an ERPDT increase the level of TPACK?

For Shulman (1987) the knowledge unique to a teacher is that required to “transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are pedagogical powerful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by the students” (p. 15). Mishra & Koehler (2006) suggest that quality teaching involves developing “context-specific strategies and representations” (p. 1029) by “developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy” (p. 1029) or Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Does an ERPDT help teachers develop TPACK and respond to context-specific requirements? Does it help improve the quality of student learning? Does an ERPDT encourage more teachers to effectively use digital technologies to enhance and transform student learning? Might an ERPDT be the key enabler in the successful transformation of learning and teaching through digital technologies?

Conclusions

This paper has posed the question “What if our digital technologies were protean?” To answer this question the paper has explored what is meant by protean digital technologies and analysed stories of digital technology modification from a high-school teacher and a teacher educator. Analysis of these stories revealed that they were driven by attempts to improve aspects of learning and/or teaching either to: fill holes in existing digital technologies; model effective practice with digital technologies; or, to better mirror real world digital technologies. Only 7 of 26 stories of digital technology modification required use of coding. The majority of digital technology modification stories involved the configuration or combination of digital technologies. Drawing on these experiences the paper has identified an incomplete and initial set of implications that ma arise from an educational institution providing an environment rich with protean digital technologies (ERPDT). These implications appear to offer some interesting avenues for future research and perhaps for practitioners and policy makers. Largely because there appears to be little current recognition within schools or broader society that digital technologies are protean, or that both learners and teachers should be actively engaged in creatively configuring, combining, and coding these digital technologies to solve problems and innovate. That is, there appears to be little recognition and support for the idea of learners and teachers engaging in computational thinking to solve problems with their own learning. The authors suspect that an ERPDT may help encourage this practice and consequently may be a key enabler of attempts to harness and integrate digital technologies into curriculum and pedagogy.

References

Aaltio, I., & Heilmann, P. (2010). Case Study as a Methodological Approach. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. (pp. 67–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412957397.n28

Albion, P., Heffernan, A., & Jones, D. (2016). Mapping the digital practices of teacher educators: Implications for teacher education in changing digital landscapes. To appear in the Proceedings of SITE’2016.

Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding – Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.eun.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=3596b121-941c-4296-a760-0f4e4795d6fa&groupId=43887

Department of Education and Training. (2015). #codingcounts: A discussion paper on coding and robotics in Queensland schools. Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from http://advancingeducation.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Coding-and-robotics-booklet.pdf

Dron, J. (2013). Soft is hard and hard is easy: learning technologies and social media. Form@ Re-Open Journal per La Formazione in Rete, 13(1), 32–43. Retrieved from http://fupress.net/index.php/formare/article/view/12613

Ertmer, P. a., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K-12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051

Jones, D., Heffernan, A., & Albion, P. (2015). TPACK as Shared Practice: Toward a Research Agenda,. In L. Liu & D. Gibson (Eds.), Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2015 (pp. 13–20). Waynesville, NC: AACE.

Kay, A. (1984). Computer Software. Scientific American, 251(3), 53–59.

Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal Dynamic Media. Computer, 10(3), 31–41.

Lankshear, C., & Bigum, C. (1999). Literacies and new technologies in school settings. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 7(3), 445–465. doi:10.1080/14681369900200068

Maddux, C. D., & Lamont Johnson, D. (1997). Logo: A retrospective. Computers in the Schools, 14(1/2), 1–8. doi:10.1300/J025v14n01

Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. MIT Press.

Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Matuk, C. F., Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2015). Technology to support teachers using evidence from student work to customize technology-enhanced inquiry units. Instructional Science, 43(2), 229–257. doi:10.1007/s11251-014-9338-1

Microsoft APAC News Centre. (2015). Three out of four students in Asia Pacific want coding as a core subject in school, reveals Microsoft study | Asia News Center. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from https://news.microsoft.com/apac/2015/03/23/three-out-of-four-students-in-asia-pacific-want-coding-as-a-core-subject-in-school-reveals-microsoft-study/

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Orlikowski, W., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: desperately seeking the IT in IT research a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.

Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Basic Books.

Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for Tinkerability. Design, Make, Play: Growing the next Generation of STEM Innovators, 163–181. doi:Resnick, M.; Rosenbaum, E. (1993). Designing for tinkerability. In Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators (pp. 163–181). New York: Routledge.

Rowan, L., & Lynch, J. (2011). The continued underrepresentation of girls in post-compulsory information technology courses: a direct challenge to teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 83–95. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2011.560650

Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age. New York: OR Books.

Selwyn, N. (2013). Digital technologies in universities: problems posing as solutions? Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 1–3. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.759965

Selwyn, N. (2016). The digital labor of digital learning : notes on the technological reconstitution of education work. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://newmediaresearch.educ.monash.edu.au/lnm/the-digital-labor-of-digital-learning/

Selwyn, N., & Bulfin, S. (2015). Exploring school regulation of students’ technology use – rules that are made to be broken? Educational Review, 1911(October), 1–17. doi:10.1080/00131911.2015.1090401

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

Stager, G. (2013). For the love of laptops. Adminstr@tor Magazine. Retrieved January 30, 2016, from http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3757848

Stallman, R. (2014). Comment on “We can code IT! Why computer literacy is key to winning the 21st century.” Mother Jones. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06/computer-science-programming-code-diversity-sexism-education#comment-1437791881

Traxler, J. (2010). Will student devices deliver innovation, inclusion, and transformation? Journal of the Research Centre for Educational Technology, 6(1), 3–15.

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. doi:10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6

Wardrip-Fruin, N., & Montfort, N. (2003). New Media Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

Mapping the digital practices of teacher educators: Implications for teacher education in changing digital landscapes

Paper accepted for SITE’2016.

Authors: Peter Albion, Amanda Heffernan, David Jones

Abstract

Almost 40 years since the first personal computers appeared in classrooms Education is still awaiting transformation on the scale experienced in other parts of society. The replacement of digital immigrant teachers by a younger generation of digital natives has not made the anticipated difference. That metaphor is discredited and new perspectives are needed. In this paper the metaphor of digital visitors and residents is adapted to support examination and mapping of the digital practices of teacher educators according to the traces they leave in the digital landscape and levels of modification to tools as supplied. Questions are asked about the degree to which teachers and teacher educators need to modify tools or create their own in order to better adapt ICT in support of learning and teaching.

Priming the Future

In his introduction to an Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) report on Technology and Australia’s Future (Williamson, Raghnaill, Douglas, & Sanchez, 2015), Australia’s Chief Scientist commented that humanity would be better served by ‘future-priming’ rather than ‘future-proofing’ (Chubb, 2015) since the future is something we create through our actions in the present rather than necessarily a threat. The report itself laid out four key messages: technology will drive long-term economic growth, technology will transform the workforce, Australia can leverage technology change for societal benefit, and forecasting future technology development is challenging. In essence, we are in a period of rapid technological change and future citizens need to be prepared through their education to adapt creatively and manage, rather than be shaped by, technological change.

If our future generations are to be prepared for adaptability to technological change as suggested, then education in the present must deal with a cascading series of challenges. Changing the capabilities of graduates from our schools and universities requires that the teachers responsible for their education must change their practice. For teachers to change, their own preparation and professional development must change and that requires change in the practice of teacher education and teacher educators. Hence questions about the technological capabilities required of teachers inevitably raise questions about the capabilities required of teacher educators.

As recognized in the ACOLA report (Williamson et al., 2015), many of the technological changes to which we must adapt are based on digital technologies in whole or part. Hence there is increasing emphasis on digital technologies in education. The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015) includes digital technologies in multiple guises. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is included as one of 7 general capabilities, incorporating investigating, creating and communicating with ICT, managing and operating ICT and applying social and ethical protocols and practices. The curriculum lays out a learning continuum and expectations for how ICT should be represented within the 8 learning areas. One of those areas is Technologies for which the recently endorsed curriculum includes two related subjects to be taught from Foundation to Year 10. Design and Technologies is an updated version of a subject that has been taught around the country in varying forms over the past couple of decades. Digital Technologies is a new departure with a focus on computational thinking in conjunction with design and systems thinking. It includes some required study of programming alongside study of hardware, including robotics, and data design. Over and above the inclusion of ICT in the curriculum there is a general expectation that ICT will be used effectively for learning and teaching across all curriculum areas. One indicator of the prevalence of that idea was the Digital Education Revolution, a national project initiated in 2008 with a series of measures including funding to provide laptop computers to all students in Years 9 to 12 (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2014).

Priming Teachers for a Changing Future

There are teachers in Australian primary schools doing excellent work with ICT in support of learning and teaching across the curriculum while at the same time embedding the ICT general capability and engaging with elements of the new Digital Technologies curriculum. However, it seems certain such teachers are a small minority and that many primary school teachers risk being overwhelmed by the perfect storm of ICT general capability, Digital Technologies and ICT-enhanced pedagogy. A requirement to engage seriously with coding, which will be literally a foreign language for them, may push them too far. Schooling has often been a convenient location to send problems identified in the wider society. The consequence has been an increasingly crowded curriculum and uncertainty about the knowledge required of teachers.

The challenges of preparing pre-service teachers (PSTs) to enhance learning and teaching with ICT have been widely canvassed and the associated challenges of supporting teacher educators to model the behaviors desired from PSTs have been examined (Jones, Heffernan, & Albion, 2015). Those challenges have been described as “wicked problems” (Mishra & Koehler, 2007) for which solutions are elusive. Nevertheless, “Integrating Technology in Teacher Education” has been identified as a “solvable challenge”, one that “we understand and know how to solve” (Johnson et al., 2015), with the proposed solutions ranging across competency training based on national standards, using ICT to recruit and train teachers for technology integration, and specially produced training resources. Variations of these approaches have been tried over the past 30 years but the challenge persists and it is tempting to ask how the new projects are different.

Early observers of the limited application of ICT by teachers in their classrooms easily leapt to the conclusion that the change was difficult for teachers unfamiliar with ICT but that the arrival of a new generation of teachers who had grown up with ICT would make the difference. For several years this idea drew support from the meme about digital natives and immigrants (Prensky, 2001) but subsequent examination of the evidence debunked that concept, likening it to a form of ‘moral panic’ (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). Other researchers have confirmed that the age-related fault lines suggested by Prensky’s metaphor do not exist. In reality, the rate of development in ICT means that we are all perpetual immigrants required to adapt to a constantly changing and unfamiliar landscape.

Granted that adaptability is a desirable quality in a time marked by rapid technological change (Williamson et al., 2015), there are questions around the nature and degree of adaptability required of graduates from schools, their teachers, and the teacher educators who prepare them. Tools and practices that are familiar as analogues can be adopted easily. For example, word processing was widely adopted based on its similarity to using a typewriter and email and other communication tools have followed, though there is often little sophistication of use and advanced features are mostly neglected. Spreadsheets and databases have been much less widely adopted and very few ‘immigrants’ have attempted to learn a local language and engage in coding. What level of adaptation will, or should, be required of teachers and teacher educators? Is it realistic, as seems to be suggested by the Queensland Government (DET, 2015), to expect all to engage in learning and teaching coding? If coding is the new literacy required by every student, then how will teachers and teacher educators make the necessary transition? The type of ‘moral panic’ induced by the native/immigrant meme can limit our ability to understand what motivates individuals’ engagement with digital technologies and make it more difficult to understand and develop the capability and desire for individuals to engage with digital technologies (Connaway, White, Lanclos, & Le Cornu, 2011).

White & Cornu (2011) introduced the Digital Visitor and Resident (V&R) model as a framework to understand how people engage with digital technologies, especially the participatory web. The V&R model does not assume that either age or gender determines engagement with digital technologies. Instead it focuses on examining what is done with digital technologies (digital activities) and why. The V&R model uses a space/place metaphor. A Digital Visitor sees the digital space as a collection of disparate tools that are used to achieve specific tasks before beating a hasty retreat, leaving little evidence of having entered the digital space. A Digital Resident sees the digital space as an environment to inhabit, build relationships with other people, and project identity(ies). For a Digital Resident there is value in inhabiting the digital space. The visitor and resident modes are not exclusionary, with individuals likely to practice a mixture of both, dependent on the goals or tasks they have set themselves from time to time. The V&R model was used as the primary framework for a three-year longitudinal study (Connaway et al., 2011) to understand the motivations behind, and types of engagement with, digital technologies by a sample of students and scholars from late secondary students through experienced academics. This study led to the development of a V&R mapping tool that has been used to explore how students and scholars are engaging with the digital services provided by institutions.

This paper adopts and adapts the V&R mapping tool to explore the motivations and engagement with a digitally rich learning space by teacher educators with the hope that such an approach can help understand how and why teacher educators are engaging with digital technologies. Given the growing level of interest in computational thinking and the identified importance of the protean nature of digital technologies (Jones et al., 2015) this project has a particular interest in exploring how and why teacher educators engage in practices where they modify the digital tools provide by institutions, and adopt or create new digital tools to serve their pedagogical purposes.

The remainder of the paper offers a brief description of the participants and process used for data collection followed by a description of the mapping dimensions as adapted for this study. It will then present some examples of stories and describe their mapping on the axes before proceeding to derive some implications for teacher education.

The Queensland Government has recently launched a new action plan for its next phase of educational advancement (DET, 2015). One aspect of that plan includes a commitment to implement the new Digital Technologies curriculum from 2016 with a focus on the “coding and robotics skills needed by students for their future”. According to the website, “coding has quickly become the new literacy and a ‘must have’ for every student”. The launch included a hashtag, #codingcounts, and invitations to “join the conversation” by completing online surveys.

Understanding and mapping digital practices

Participants and process

The data for this research are provided by stories of the digital practices undertaken by each of the authors within a teacher education program that has up to 70% of its students studying some subjects online (Albion, 2014) and has identified digital learning in various forms as a strategic priority. This particular sample is seen as likely to provide useful insights due to the apparent digital richness of the learning environment and the diversity of the three authors. Given the strategic importance of online learning in this context, teacher educators are required to make significant use of digital technologies. However, as reported previously (Jones et al., 2015) there has been the need to engage in a range of practices to address limitations in institutional practices and technologies. Each of the authors also represents a cross section of experience (20+ years in teacher education; 4 years in teacher education; 3 years in teacher education) and digital literacy (proficient user but no formal qualifications; graduate diploma in Information Technology; bachelor degree in computer science and PhD in information systems).

Each author was asked to generate a list of stories where they have modified (broadly defined) digital technologies while undertaking their role as teacher educator. Each story used a consistent format of four parts: a descriptive title; a description of the change made; an explanation of the rationale; and, a summary of the outcomes. All stories were added to the same Google document (http://bit.ly/1nuLZdH) allowing each participant to read the others’ stories. Each participant then located his or her stories on a map (Figure 1) adapted from the V&R mapping process (White, Connaway, Lanclos, Hood, & Vass, 2014). As an exploratory process the story creation and mapping process was iterative. The final maps (Figures 2-5) from each author were then used as the basis for discussion and analysis.

The map

While informed by the original V&R mapping process (White et al., 2014) and attempting to retain its overall goals to understand digital practices, the change in focus in this work has led to adaptation of the V&R map (Figure 1). The V&R map remains as a Cartesian graph with an X- and Y-axis. The X-axis retains the Visitor and Resident scale, but with the scale understood to start with individual use of a tool and then proceed through increasingly large groups of people including: individuals; small groups; whole course cohorts; multiple course cohorts; and eventually onto the open web. Given our focus on why and how teachers are modifying digital technologies, the original scale of personal/enterprise for the Y-axis is replaced by a scale indicating the level of modification summarized in Table 1. While the focus in this project is on how digital technologies are modified, “use” is retained in the scale so that the map can be part of broader explorations of the digital practices of teachers. Table 1 describes the levels of modification used on the Y-axis of the map and Figure 1 represents the template used during initial mapping of stories. The mapping process was iterative, with the template and dimensions subject to refinement as stories were mapped.

Table 1: Levels of modification for Y-axis

Item Description Example
Use Tool used with no change Add an element to a Moodle site
Internal configuration Change operation of a tool using the configuration options of the tool Change the appearance of the Moodle site with course settings
External configuration Change operation of a tool using means external to the tool Inject CSS of Javascript into a Moodle site to change its operation
Customization Change the tool by modifying its code Modify the Moodle source code, or install a new plugin
Supplement Use another tool(s) to offer functionality not provided by existing tools Implement course level social bookmarking by requiring use of Diigo
Replacement Use another tool to replace/enhance functionality provided by existing tools Require students to use external blog engines, rather than the Moodle blog engine.

 

V&R modification map

Figure 1: Axes used for mapping stories

Stories and themes

Part of the ‘wicked problem’ of ICT in education (Mishra & Koehler, 2007) is the particularity of each context. Hence it is important that teachers be able to modify or contextualize their learning environment. The mapping exercise encouraged the authors to review the various ways each of us has modified our course learning environments, and identify that while some of our practices skewed toward the ‘resident’ dimension, our behaviors generally remained primarily in the ‘visitor’ dimension. A wider spread in behavior was identified in the modification dimension, with practices evident from the lower end of the scale and the ‘use’ of tools as they were initially intended, moving through to the higher end of the scale and the ‘replacement’ of tools that were deemed to not meet our needs.

David's V&R modification map

Figure 2: David’s V&R modification map

Peter's V&R modification map

Figure 2: Peter’s V&R modification map

Amanda's V&R modification map

Figure 3: Amanda’s V&R modification map

Minor Modifications: Internal and External Configuration of Tools

 

The stories provided us with examples of practice at each level on the modification scale. For example, at the lower end of the scale, Amanda achieved minor renovation of the learning space through the internal configuration of the layout of the weekly study schedule page on her course site within the Moodle Learning Management System (LMS). This is traditionally an area where students are provided with an overview of the semester’s work and default headings provide students with information about required readings, module work, and assessment information. Amanda adjusted the traditional headings and layout to provide two streams of sequencing throughout the course, directing students towards course content as one stream and employment information as the other. As a result, she was able to configure the tool to better meet the needs of her course and its participants, all of whom are in their final semester and looking towards employment and career development as well as their coursework.

 

At the next level, David and Peter both provided examples of practice where they used external configuration of tools to meet their needs. David identified the use of jQuery and CSS to modify the operation of the course environment’s university-wide standardized look and feel. The key outcome of this configuration was that ongoing cultivation of the learning environment was not halted by the university’s new streamlined look, and students were able to access the course content in a way that was more functional and efficient. Similarly, Peter made use of AppleScript/JavaScript to more efficiently organize student groupings within the online environment based on data managed in a spreadsheet. The external configuration of the grouping option enabled Peter to have greater control over group composition according to factors that were identified as being important (such as geographic location, age, or other demographic factors).

 

These minor modifications at the internal and external configuration levels are representative of some of the stories shared by the authors, and the practices above are indicative of renovations being made for pedagogical as well as administrative purposes, enabling us to configure the learning environment for our needs. More advanced modifications were also identified within the stories, resulting in higher levels of customization and the tailoring of learning environments to our needs, as well as the needs of our students.

Major Modifications: Customization, Supplement, Replacement of Tools

During the mapping and analysis of practices, it became evident that David and Peter worked more in these areas of customizing, supplementing, and replacing tools than Amanda did. Their level of expertise and experience no doubt plays some part here in enabling higher levels of customization of tools through the use of coding. However, all three of the authors was able to identify some practices at the replacement level, wherein an internal tool was replaced with an external tool that better suited our purposes.

David and Peter identified practices of customization, providing examples of modifying codes within the tools to meet their needs. Peter described his use of HTML and CSS to arrange the display of Twitter and Diigo in boxes on his Moodle sites. In previous semesters this had been a simple inclusion but the shift to the new look and feel of the institution’s LMS removed the ability to use pre-existing blocks to do this. Instead, Peter had to modify the code of the page, using the browser inspection tools to deconstruct the HTML and CSS in order to customize the layout of the page and place the code for the required content.

Similarly, David’s practices at the customization level included the installation of his BIM activity module, enabling students to use blogs outside of the institution’s own tools and register them within his course environment. David outlined a number of reasons for the creation and implementation of this activity module, ranging from pedagogical reasons (enabling his students to connect with networks outside of the course) to administrative processes (the inclusion of marking interfaces and options into the module). Even though David is the designer and maintainer of the BIM activity module, the mismatch between the functionality of this tool and the requirements of the learning design led David to undertake some supplement level modifications.

At this higher level of modification, David and Peter detailed practices within the supplement level, many of which minimized administrivia by enabling system tools to interface more efficiently. For example, David used his coding skills to develop a collection of scripts and tools referred to as ‘know thy student’, providing him with information about students with the ease of a single click, which would otherwise take over ten minutes and multiple webpages to unearth (Jones and Clark, 2014). This supports David’s teaching in both a pedagogical sense (enabling him to better know his students and meet their needs more effectively), and in a practical sense, ensuring the value of his time is maximized by having this information readily and easily available when needed. David’s use of practices at the supplement level frequently resulted in streamlined processes that saved time and unnecessary additional work, with another practice being identified that more easily supported the process for finalizing course results. Through a collection of Perl scripts and spreadsheets, David is more easily able to undertake the potentially onerous process of finalizing results in a large course with over 300 students enrolled. David also had a number of other supplement stories with names including: ‘Diigo’; ‘Google docs’; ‘Gradebook fix’; parts of the ‘Book authoring process’; and, ‘A duplicate Moodle’.

Peter’s practices at the supplement level were equally effective in enabling efficient use of time to undertake administrative processes. He was able to develop a Greasemonkey script to assemble and display simple statistics for comparing results from different markers in his courses. With 150 students over 4 offers, and markers being typically casual staff with limited experience of the course, Peter felt it necessary to guard against any systematic advantage that might occur for students in one or other offer because of marker differences. Rather than the traditional method for comparing marks by markers, which requires exporting data from Moodle to a spreadsheet and constructing formulas to generate statistics, Peter developed a script to perform these calculations. Again, this is pedagogically sound and ensures equity in marking and assessment for all students, regardless of their circumstances. The ability to renovate at this level saved Peter a significant amount of time.

Examples of practices at the final level of the modification scale, replacement involve the teacher replacing an internal tool with a similar external tool. Examples of these practices were very limited in our story collection. One example of replacement was of Amanda making use of Vimeo rather than the institution’s internal media repository to organize and share videos so that other users, including students’ mentor teachers and past students, can access certain videos and presentations. The use of Vimeo also allows Amanda to embed videos within pages and reflects the internal configuration level, where existing tools are enhanced. David had two – somewhat similar – stories of replacement both based on the use of external blog engines to replace institutional systems. In ‘Escape the LMS` the primary course site for a Master’s course titled Networked and Global Learning was moved from the institution’s Moodle to a blog hosted on WordPress.com. In ‘Student space as their space’ students in an undergraduate ICT and Pedagogy course were required to create and use a blog on an external blog engine for reflection and building a personal learning network, rather than use an institutional e-portfolio or the Moodle blog. It is arguable whether these two stories are truly examples of replacement, rather than stories of how to supplement.

Discussion and implications

The aim here has been to use the metaphor of digital visitors and residents to examine and map the digital practices of teacher educators, in particular, those practices that involve the modification of provided tools or the creation of new tools. This is important due to a range of factors, including: the perceived value of teachers being able to modify or contextualize their learning environment; the protean nature of digital technologies; the growing prevalence of digital technologies within curriculum, learning and teaching; and, the argument that being successful in the future will require such skills. The focus here has been on the stories of digital modification practices by three teacher educators operating in a learning environment where use of digital technologies is compulsory. These stories have been examined and mapped using a modified Digital Visitor and Resident mapping process.

The analysis has revealed that all three teacher educators – regardless of perceived digital literacy – have engaged in a range of practices where the digital environment was modified. The greater digital knowledge of two of the teacher educators did increase the breadth and complexity of modifications. While there a few examples of modification at the replacement level, most modification was at the supplement level or below. By default, the digital learning spaces offered by the institution are limited to course participants; hence they are not part of the open web. This is evident in that most of the modification stories tended to congregate toward the Visitor end of the spectrum. It is interesting to note that all of the stories of replacement involved moving learning out onto the open web. Looking more closely at the stories suggests that there were two underpinning reasons for the modification activities. The first was to improve the efficiency of institutional systems or practices, and the second was to enhance learning through specific learning activities not directly supported by institutional systems.

This suggests that there is value in teachers being able to engage in digital modification practices to customize and contextualize the digital learning environment to the needs of themselves and their learners. It raises questions about how broadly digital modification practices are amongst teachers, the outcomes of those practices, and how any perceived inability to engage in digital modification practices is impacting student learning and the teacher experience. Experience engaging in these digital modification practices suggests that institutional systems and policies are not always able to recognize the need for teachers to engage in digital modification practices, let alone allow and enable such practices. What is the impact of these limitations on digital modification? Do digital modification practices become more important only in a learning environment – like that described here – where the use of digital technologies is a compulsory part of the learning and teaching experience? What, if any, digital modification practices do teachers in a more blended environment engage in?

We are operating in a learning space where we must use digital technologies. We have no choice. This is different from many other learning spaces. There is a chance that increasingly more learning spaces will have some level of compulsory digital technologies. The stories and maps arising from this work indicate that it will be likely that teachers will have to engage in activities that modify the provided digital technologies.

This work is exploratory. As such any findings may be specific to the particular institutional context and the three teacher educators. The broader value of these findings will need further testing and consideration but the V&R lens seems useful in terms of revealing new insights into educators’ use of ICT.

References

ACARA. (2015). The Australian Curriculum.  Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Connaway, L. S., White, D., & Lanclos, D. (2011). Visitors and residents: What motivates engagement with the digital information environment? Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1), 1-7. doi: 10.1002/meet.2011.14504801129

Chubb, I. (2015). ‘Technology and Australia’s Future’ report launch, from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2015/09/speech-technology-and-australias-future-report-launch/

DET. (2015). Advancing education: An action plan for education in Queensland.  Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Department of Education and Training) Retrieved from http://advancingeducation.qld.gov.au/.

Jamieson-Proctor, R., Redmond, P., Zagami, J., Albion, P., & Twining, P. (2014). Redefining education for the digital age: a snapshot of the state of play in three Queensland schools. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, Adelaide, SA.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Jones, D., Heffernan, A., & Albion, P. (2015). TPACK as shared practice: Toward a research agenda. In L. Liu & D. C. Gibson (Eds.), Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2015 (pp. 13-20). Waynesville, NC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Jones, D., & Clark, D. (2014). Breaking BAD to bridge the reality/rhetoric chasm. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 262–272). Dunedin. Retrieved from http://ascilite2014.otago.ac.nz/files/fullpapers/221-Jones.pdf

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the Wicked Problems of Teaching with Technology. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2007, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1, 3-6.

Selwyn, N., & Bulfin, S. (2015). Exploring school regulation of students’ technology use – rules that are made to be broken? Educational Review, 1911(October), 1–17. doi:10.1080/00131911.2015.1090401

White, D. S., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). doi: 10.5210/fm.v16i9.3171

White, D., Connaway, L., Lanclos, D., Hood, E., & Vass, C. (2014). Evaluating digital services: a Visitors and Residents approach. Retrieved October 22, 2015, from http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/whole-infokit/?infokit=10856

Williamson, R. C., Raghnaill, M. N., Douglas, K., & Sanchez, D. (2015). Technology and Australia’s Future: New technologies and their role in Australia’s security, cultural, democratic, social and economic systems. Melbourne: Australian Council of Learned Academies.

Wright, F., White, D., Hirst, T., & Cann, A. (2014). Visitors and Residents: mapping student attitudes to academic use of social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 126–141. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.777077

 

Finishing tweaks to Moodle book search block

A previous post recorded some early exploration of what tweaks might be necessary to be made to the Moodle book search block. The original code for the block and the tweaks I’ve made are available via GitHub.

Current status

This is something I started before Xmas. Coming back to it in 2016, I’ve finished off item #1 of the todo list below. What I’ve done is described in more detail below.

In essence, I’ve replaced the old Book search method with the method used in the forum search mechanism.  This

  1. Removes the SQL injection problem;
  2. Improves support for standard search approaches (e.g. use of double quotes); and
  3. Slight changes the default treatment of title and content.
    i.e. Old search mechanism returned a match only if all parts of the search string appeared in either the title of the book chapter OR the content of the book chapter. (A book chapter equates more closely to a page in the book, than a collection of pages).   e.g. a search for copyright creative would only find pages where both words appear in either the title or the content.The new search mechanism returns a match if all parts of the search string are find in the title or the content. e.g. a search for copyright creative would find pages that had copyright in the title and creative in the content; copyright in the content and creative in the title; both copyright and content in the title; and, both copyright and content in the content.

Giving back to github

Bugger, didn’t have these changes managed via git.  Stick it back in my repository for this block and create a pull request for the original.

 Original to do list

The to do list I’m working from includes:

  1. Remove the sql injection problem;  DONE.
  2. Improve the search results format;  DELAYED
    e.g. as illustrated in this image.
  3. Provide a bit more scaffolding about how to use the search mechanism (e.g. use of ” + and – etc) DELAYED
  4. Provide an advanced search form/mechanism; DELAYED
    e.g. as shown in this image which is a modification of Forum search interface.

Remove the sql injection problem

As of yesterday, an initial modification had been made to the block to adopt the approach used by the Forum search block.  This needs to be further tweaked, tested and improved.  Steps include:

  1. Install a vanilla version of the Book search block for testing
  2. Move the “get identifiable” books into a function.
  3. Finalise and test the move to the “Forum search” approach.
  4. Explore what other changes might be possible

Vanilla book search for testing

Clone a version of the block straight from the original, stick it in a v_search_books directory and update the code to use this slightly different name (v = vanilla)

Can it install?  Yes.

Can I add it as a block?  Yes

Does it work? Not yet

  • Change the hard-coded URL to put to new location
  • The language strings aren’t working. Why? Need to rename the language file.

Working and it appears that they are producing the same output.  My tweaks yesterday were better than I thought.

Relocate “get identifiable” books

This is basically a cosmetic/personal preference change.

Finish the move to the “Forum search” approach

Parameters && get_in_or_equal – this is done and working.

The old search block when searching for “copyright creative” generates the following (partial) SQL

(
( bc.title ILIKE ‘%copyright%’ AND bc.title ILIKE ‘%creative%’ ) OR
( bc.content ILIKE ‘%copyright%’ AND bc.content ILIKE ‘%creative%’ )
)

The forum search method (that I’ve adapted for searching books) for the same string generates the following SQL  (I’ve manually replaced the parameters with the actual string)

OLD    ( TITLE = A && TITLE = B ) or ( CONTENT = A && CONTENT = B )

NEW ( TITLE = A or CONTENT = A ) AND ( TITLE = B or CONTENT = B ) — possibly more inclusive and better

(
 (bc.title ILIKE "%copyright%" ESCAPE E'\\') OR (bc.content ILIKE '%copyright%' ESCAPE E'\\')
 ) AND
 (
 (bc.title ILIKE '%creative%' ESCAPE E'\\') OR (bc.content '%creative' ESCAPE E'\\')
 )

Support for – and +: the existing block supports the following searches

  • “copyright creative” – search for whole strings. Old doesn’t support it. New does. NEW is better
    • old - (( bc.title ILIKE '%"copyright%' AND bc.title ILIKE '%creative"%' ) OR ( bc.content ILIKE '%"copyright%' AND bc.content ILIKE '%creative"%' ) )

      This is actually including the double quotes.

    • new – ((bc.title ILIKE ‘%copyright creative%’ ESCAPE E’\\’)
      OR (bc.content ILIKE ‘%copyright creative%’ ESCAPE E’\\’))This is what is expected from a normal search.
  • copyright +creative – to ensure that it’s a word – new is using “proper” Postgresql approach. Old is using a regular expression kludge. NEW is better
    • old

       (( bc.title ILIKE '%copyright%' AND 
             bc.title ~* '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9])creative([^a-zA-Z0-9]|$)' ) 
      OR ( bc.content ILIKE '%copyright%' AND 
          bc.content ~* '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9])creative([^a-zA-Z0-9]|$)' ) )
    • new
      
      ((bc.title ILIKE "%copyright%" ESCAPE E'\\') OR 
           (bc.content ILIKE "%copyright%" ESCAPE E'\\')) 
      AND ((bc.title ~* "[[:<:]]creative[[:>:]]") OR 
               (bc.content ~* "[[:<:]]creative[[:>:]]" ))
  • copyright -creative – has copyright but not creative  – largely the same.
    • old
      (( bc.title ILIKE '%copyright%' AND 
          bc.title !~* '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9])creative([^a-zA-Z0-9]|$)' ) 
      OR ( bc.content ILIKE '%copyright%' AND 
          bc.content !~* '(^|[^a-zA-Z0-9])creative([^a-zA-Z0-9]|$)' ) )
    • new
      ((bc.title ILIKE "%copyright%" ESCAPE E'\\') OR 
          (bc.content ILIKE "%copyright%" ESCAPE E'\\')) 
      AND (NOT ((bc.title ILIKE "%creative%" ESCAPE E'\\') OR 
           (bc.content ILIKE "%creative%" ESCAPE E'\\')))  
      

 

Explore other changes

 

 

Improve results format

This particular task includes the following sub-tasks

  1. Rewrite the interface using a renderer
    I haven’t used the rendered approach and no bugger all about it.  Might be too much work for now.
  2. Improve the interface.

 

Improve the interface

The current search results look like this

Book search (existing)

The earlier mock up I produced looks like this

004_results
Some possible improvements include:

  • Nest book and chapter titles
    As shown above, the current search interface repeats the name of the book “Copyright and what you can use” for each chapter.  A different interface might be to next book, chapter, and sub-chapters.
  • Include the module/topic name in the hierarchy
    Book’s typically fit within a module/topic. Including that in the search response would likely help the user orient themselves to where the discovered books reside on the broader site.
  • Show some of the matching content.
    Provide a snippet of the content matching the search for each chapter. In much the same way that Google does.

Advanced search form