Self-assertive and integrative tendencies and the connection to the BAD/SET mindsets

I’ve just started reading Capra & Luigi Luisi (2014), in large part because I think that the shift in scientific thinking they apparently describe in the book may have some useful insights for BAD/SET mindsets and trying to understand and improve digital learning.

In the first chapter they propose

two tendencies – the self-assertive and the integrative – are both essential aspects of all living systems. Neither of them is intrinsically good or bad. What is good, or healthy, is a dynamic balance; what is bad, or unhelathy, is imblance – overemphasis on one tendency and neglect of the other. When we look at our modern industrial culture, we see that we have overemphasized the self-assertive and neglected the integrative tendencies

A perspective that echoes the point @damoclarky and I made in conjunction with digital learning and the BAD/SET mindsets

Capra and Luigi Luisi (2014) then present a table that compare and contrast the two tendencies and their “thinking” and “values”. I’ve split it into two separate

“Thinking” comparison of self-assertive and integrative tendencies (adapted from Capra and Luigi Luisi (2014)
Self-assertive Integrative
rational intuitive
analysis synthesis
reductionist holistic
linear nonlinear
“Values” comparison of self-assertive and integrative tendencies (adapted from Capra and Luigi Luisi (2014)
Self-assertive Integrative
expansion conservation
competition cooperation
quantity quality
domination partnership

They go onto suggest that

  • self-assertive values are generally associated with men
  • the self-assertive tendency is most effectively implemented within hierarchy
  • the integrative tendency aims more towards empowering others
  • best achieved within a network, rather than a hierarchy

References

Capra, F., & Luigi Luisi, P. (2014). The Systems View of LIfe: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Computers ‘do not improve’ pupil results, just like wood ‘does not improve’ houses

Here we go again. There’s an OECD report on “Students, Computers and Learning” that is doing the rounds. @palbion points to one media report

A report that starts with the observation

Investing heavily in school computers and classroom technology does not improve pupils’ performance, says a global study from the OECD.

The same OECD report has been mentioned in Moodle research discussion forum.

Almost 30 years ago Seymour Papert (1987) wrote “Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking” in which he asked people to

Consider for a moment some questions that are “obviously” absurd. Does wood produce good houses? If I built a house out of wood and it fell down, would this show that wood does not produce good houses? Do hammers and saws produce good furniture? These betray themselves as technocentric questions by ignoring people and the elements only people can introduce: skill, design, aesthetics. Of course these examples are caricatures. In practice, hardly anyone carries technocentrism that far. Everyone realizes that it is carpenters who use wood, hammers, and saws to produce houses and furniture, and the quality of the product depends on the quality of their work. But when it comes to computers and LOGO, critics (and some practitioners as well) seem to move into abstractions and ask “Is the computer good for the cognitive development of the child?” and even “Does the computer (or LOGO or whatever) produce thinking skills?” (p. 24)

Beyond asking an “obviously absurd” question, there are other problems I have with this study.

What is meant by “use tablets and computers”

The BBC report quotes the OECD’s education director as saying

Those students who use tablets and computers very often tend to do worse than those who use them moderately.

But what does “use tablets and computers” mean?

Papert (1987) again

Stated abstractly, the two studies have the same explicit intention: the children are to be given “programming”– and the purpose of the experiments is to see what happens. But there is no such thing as “programming-in-general.” These children are not given “programming.” They are given LOGO. But there is no such thing as “LOGO-in-general” either. The children encounter LOGO in a particular way, in a particular relationship to other people, teachers, peer mentors, and friends. (4) They don’t encounter a thing, they encounter a culture. (p. 27)

Now read that quote again and replace “LOGO” with “tablets and computers”.

The culture in schools impacts on how students are using the tablets and computers. At best the report has found a correlation and not the cause. The cause would seem likely to arise from the culture and how it impacts that nature and quality of students’ use of “tablets and computers”.

Given that the 2015 Horizon Report for K-12 identifies “Integrating technology in teacher education” as one of the problems facing the use of “tablets and computers” in K-12 education, might not this say something about the culture influencing the way “tablets and computers” are used in schools. Especially given that the 2015 Horizon Report for K-12 suggests that

the most important finding is that the level of a teacher’s digital competence directly correlates with students’ learning outcomes when technology is used

The OECD’s education director understands that how “tablets and computers” are used are important. The BBC report again

But Mr Schleicher says the findings of the report should not be used as an “excuse” not to use technology, but as a spur to finding a more effective approach.

But don’t start blaming the teachers and the teacher educators (at least not solely).

Warning: reliance on anecdote.

Every year I teach a course in “ICT and Pedagogy”. A course with the aim of helping them be able to design effective ways to use tablets and computers for student learning. Each year around 400 of these students go out into schools through Australia and abroad. Each year there are positive and negative stories.

There are stories of classrooms with little or no technology that actually works. Stories of where the only technology available is in a computer lab that the class can access for an hour or two each week. Stories of a full curriculum and a focus on standardised tests. Stories of teachers and school leaders that are only now starting to use technology in their everyday life. What might these stories say about the culture in these schools?

Both the negative and positive stories feature the above elements. Typically the only difference between the negative and positive stories is effort put in by a mentor teacher and/or the pre-service teacher involved. Very rarely are the positive stories a result of the school culture as a whole.

How is “learning” measured?

The BBC report reports the OECD’s education director again

He said making sure all children have a good grasp of reading and maths is a more effective way to close the gap than “access to hi-tech devices”

Which brings me to the question of “learning” is measured?

The summary of the report suggests that learning is being measured in this report “Based on results from PISA 2012”. PISA 2012 “assessed the competencies of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics and science (with a focus on mathematics) in 65 countries and economies”.

Okay, so learning is being measured by a test on “reading, mathematics and science” and results indicate that “a good grasp of reading and maths is a more effective way to close the gap”.

Using the available data, not the meaningful data

Lastly, it appears that report seems to have taken the available data (i.e. PISA data showing performance on the PISA tests and ICT use) and sought to identify patterns and draw conclusions from that data.

Data about how students actually use ICT. Data about the culture within schools around learning, teaching, and the use of ICT doesn’t seem to have been available and hence it wasn’t considered.

Disclaimer

The comments/argument above is based on the BBC report. I have not read the full report. Hence I’m liable to be committing the following offence.

References

Papert, S. (1987). Computer Criticism vs . Technocentric Thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.

Helping teachers “know thy students”

The first key takeaway from Motz, Teague and Shepard (2015) is

Learner-centered approaches to higher education require that instructors have insight into their students’ characteristics, but instructors often prepare their courses long before they have an opportunity to meet the students.

The following illustrates one of the problems teaching staff (at least in my institution) face when trying to “know thy student”. It ponders if learner experience design (LX design) plus learning analytics (LA) might help. Shows off one example of what I’m currently doing to fix this problem and ponders some future directions for development.

The problem

One of the problems I identified in this talk was what it took for me to “know thy student” during semester. For example, the following is a question asked by a student on my course website earlier this year (in an offering that included 300+ students).

Question on a forum

To answer this question, it would be useful “know thy student” in the following terms

  1. Where is the student located?
    My students are distributed throughout Australian and the world. For this assignment they should be using curriculum documents specific to their location. It’s useful to know if the student is using the correct curriculum documents.
  2. What specialisation is the student working on?
    As a core course the Bachelor of Education degree, my course includes all types of pre-service teachers. Ranging from students studying to be Early Childhood teachers, Primary school teachers, Secondary teachers, and even some looking to be VET teachers/trainers.
  3. What activities and resources has the student engaged with on the course site?
    The activities and resources on the site are designed to help students learn. There is an activity focused on this question, has this student completed it? When did they complete it?
  4. What else has the student written and asked about?
    In this course, students are asked to maintain their own blog for reflection. What the student has written on that blog might help provide more insight. Ditto for other forum posts.

To “know thy student” in the terms outlined above and limited to the tools provided by my institution requires:

  • the use three different systems;
  • use of a number of different reports/services within those two systems; and,
  • at least 10 minutes to click through each of these.
Norman on affordances

Given Norman’s (1993) observations is it any wonder that perhaps I might not spend 10 minutes on that task every time I respond to a question from the 300+ students?

Can learner experience (LX) design help?

Yesterday, Joyce (@catspyjamasnz) and I spent some time exploring if and how learner experience design (Joyce’s expertise) and learning analytics (my interest) might be combined.

As I’m currently working on a proposal to help make it easier for teachers “know thy students” this was uppermost in my mind. And, as Joyce pointed out, “know the students” is a key step in LX design. And, as Motz et al (2015) illustrate there appears to be some value in using learning analytics to help teachers “know thy students”. And, beyond Motz’s et al (2015) focus on planning, learning analytics has been suggested to help with the orchestration of learning in the form of process analytics (Lockyer et al, 2013). A link I was thinking about before our talk.

Out of all this a few questions

  1. Can LX design practices be married with learning analytics in ways that enhance and transform the approach used by Motz et al (2015)?
  2. Learning analytics can be critiqued as being driven more by the available data and the algorithms available to analyse it (the expertise of the “data scientists”) driving it. Some LA work is driven by educational theories/ideas. Does LX design offer a different set of “purposes” to inform the development of LA applications?
  3. Can LX design practices + learning analytics be used to translate what Motz et al (2015) see as “relatively rare and special” into more common practice

    Exceptionally thoughtful, reflective instructors do exist, who customize and adapt their course after the start of the semester, but it’s our experience that these instructors are relatively rare and special, and these efforts at learning about students requires substantial time investment.

  4. Can this type of practice be done in a way that doesn’t require “data analysts responsible for developing and distributing” (Motz et al, 2015) the information?
  5. What type of affordances can and should such an approach provide?
  6. What ethical/privacy issues would need to be addressed?
  7. What additional data should be gathered and how?

    e.g. in the past I’ve used the course barometer idea to gather student experience during a course. Might something like this be added usefully?

More student details

“More student details” is the kludge that I’ve put in place to solve the problem at the top of this post. I couldn’t live with the current systems and had to scratch that itch.

The technical implementation of this scratch involves

  1. Extracting data from various institutional systems via manually produced reports and screen scraping and placing that data into a database on my laptop.
  2. Adapting the MAV architecture to create a Greasemonkey script that talks to a server on my laptop that in turn extracts data from the database.
  3. Install the Greasemonkey script on the browser I use on my laptop.

As a result, when I use that browser to view the forum post at the top of this post, I actually see the following (click on the image to see a larger version). The red arrows have been added to the image to highlight what’s changed. The addition of [details] links.

Forum post + more student details

Whenever the Greasemonkey script sees a Moodle user profile link, it adds a [details] link. Regardless of which page on my Moodle course sites I’m on. The following image shows an excerpt from the results page for a Quiz. It has the [details] links as well.

Quiz results + more student details

It’s not beautiful, but it’s only something I currently use and I was after utility.

Clicking on the [details] links results in a popup window appearing. A window that helps me “know they student”. The window has three tabs. The first is labelled “Personal Details” and is visible below. It provides information from the institutional student records system, including name, email address, age, specialisation, which campus or mode the student is enrolled in, the number of prior units they’ve completed, their GPA, and their location and phone numbers.

Student background

The second tab on “more student details” shows details of the student’s activity completion. This is a Moodle idea where it tracks if and when a student has completed an activity or resource. My course site is designed as a collection of weekly “learning
paths”. Each path is a series of activities and resources design to help the student learn. Each week belongs to one of three modules.

The following image shows part of the “Activity Completion” tab for “more student details”. It shows that Module 2 starts with week 4 (Effective planning: a first step) and week 5 (Developing your learning plan). Each week has a series of activities and resources.

For each activity the student has completed, it shows when they completed that activity. This student completed the “Welcome to Module 2” – 2 months ago. If I hold the mouse over “2 months ago” it will display the exact time and date it was completed.

I did mention above that it’s useful, rather the beautiful.

Student activity completion

The “blog posts tab shows details about all the posts the student has written on their blog for this course. Each of the blog posts include a link to that blog post and shows how long ago the post was made.

Student blog posts

With this tool available, when I answer a question on a discussion forum I can quickly refresh what I know about the student and their progress before answering. When I consider a request for an assignment extension, I can check on the student’s progress so far. Without spending 10+ minutes doing so.

API implementation and flexibility

As currently implemented, this tool relies on a number of manual steps and my personal technology infrastructure. To scale this approach will require addressing these problems.

The traditional approach to doing this might involve making modifications to Moodle to add this functionality into Moodle. I think this is the wrong way to do it. It’s too heavyweight, largely because Moodle is a complex bit of software used by huge numbers of people across the world, and because most of the really useful information here is going to be unique to different courses. For example, not many courses at my institution currently use activity completion in the way my course does. Almost none of the courses at my institution use BIM and student blogs the way my course does. Beyond this, the type of information required to “know thy student” extends beyond what is available in Moodle.

To “know thy student”, especially when thinking of process analytics that are unique to the specific learning design used, it will be important that any solution be flexible. It should allow individual courses to adapt and modify the data required to fit the specifics of the course and its learning design.

Which is why I plan to continue the use of augmented browsing as the primary mechanism, and why I’ve started exploring Moodle’s API. It appears to provide a way to allow the development of a flexible and customisable approach to allowing “know thy student” respond to the full diversity of learning and teaching.

Now, I wonder how LX design might help?

What might a project combining LX Design and Analaytics look like?

In a bit more than an hour I’ll be talking to @catspyjamasnz trying to nut out some ideas for a project around LX Design and Learning Analytics. The following is me thinking out loud and working through “my issues”.

What is LX Design

I’ve got some vague ideas which I need to work on. Obviously start with a Google search.

Oh dear, the top result is for Learning Experience Design TRADEMARK which is apparently

a synthesis of instructional design, educational pedagogy, neuroscience, social sciences, design thinking, and UI/UX—is critical for any organization looking to compete in the modern educational marketplace.

While I won’t dwell on this particular approach, it does link to some of my vague qualms about LX design. First, there’s a danger of it becoming too much of another collection of meaningless buzzwords used to label the same old practice as conforming to the latest buzzwords. Mainly because the people adopting don’t fully understand it and fail transform their practice. Old wine, new bottles.

Second, there’s the problem of the “product focus” in learning. Where the focus is on building the best product, which troubles me. Perhaps this says more about my biases, but I worry that LX Design will become just another tool (perhaps a very good tool) applied within the dominant SET mindset within institutional e-learning (which is my context). Which not surprisingly is one of my concerns about the direction of learning analytics.

And talking about old wine in new bottles, this post suggests that

Although LXD is a relatively new term in the field of design, there are some established best practices emerging as applied to creating online learning interfaces:

Mmm, not much there that I’d class as something that LXD has provided to the world. e.g. Donald Clark’s current sequence of “10” posts, including “10 essential rules on use of GRAPHICS in online learning”.

Needs and wants of the user?

This overview of User Experience Design (UX Design) – the foundation on which LX design is built – suggests

The term “user experience” was coined by Dr. Donald Norman, a cognitive science researcher who was also the first to describe the importance of user-centered design (the notion that design decisions should be based on the needs and wants of users).

As I wrote last week I’m not convinced that the “needs and wants of users” is always the best approach. Especially if we’re talking about something very new that the user doesn’t yet understand.

Which begs the question:

Who is the user in a learning experience?

The obvious answer from a LX design perspective is that the user is the learner. That the focus should be on the learner has been the broadly accepted in higher education for some time now. But then all models are wrong, but some are useful. In critiquing the raise of the term Technology Enhanced Learning, Bayne (2014) draws on a range of publications by Biesta to critique the focus on learning and learners. I’ve just skimmed this argument for this post, but there is potentially something interesting and useful here.

Beyond this more theoretical question about the value of a “learner focus”, I’d also like to mention something a little closer to home. The context in which I’m framing this post is within higher education’s practice of formal learning. A practice that currently still assumes that there is some value in having a teacher involved in the learning experience. Where “teacher” may not be a single individual, but actually be a small team with diverse roles. Which leads me to the proposition that the “teacher” is also a user within a learning experience.

As I’m employed as a teacher within higher education, I can speak to the negative impact of the blindingly obvious, almost complete lack of user experience design around the tools and systems teachers are required to engage with around learning and teaching. Given the low quality of those tools, it’s no surprise to me that most learning in higher education has some flaws.

This is one of the reasons behind the 4 paths for learning analytics focusing on the teacher (as designer of learning, if you must) and not the learner.

Increasingly, I wonder if the focus on being learner centered is arising from a frustration with the perceived lack of quality of the learning experiences produced by teachers combined with a deficit model of teachers. Which brings me to this quote from Bayne (2014)

points us toward a need to move beyond anthropocentrism and the focus on the individual, toward a greater concern with the networks, ecologies and sociomaterial contexts of our engagement with education and technology.

Impact of LX design for teachers?

What would happen to the quality of learning overall, if LX design were applied to the systems and processes that teachers use to design, implement, support, and revise learning and teaching? Would this help teachers learn more about how to teach better?

Learning analytics

I assume the link between LX design and learning analytics is that learning analytics can provide the data to better inform LX design. In particular, what Lockyer et al (2013) call “process analytics” would be useful

These data and analyses provide direct insight into learner information processing and knowledge application (Elias, 2011) within the tasks that the student completes as part of a learning design. (p. 1448)

One of the problems @beerc and I have with learning analytics is that it really only ever focuses on two bits of the PIRAC framework i.e. information and representation. It hardly ever does anything about affordances or change. This is why dashboards suck and are a broken metaphor. A dashboard without the ability to do anything to control the car are no value whatsoever.

My questions about LXD

  1. Just another FAD? Old wine in new bottles?
  2. Another tool reinforcing the SET mindset? Especially the product focus.
  3. Does LX design have a problem because it doesn’t include complex adaptive systems theory? It appears to treat learner experience design as a complicated problem, rather than a complex problem.
  4. The “meta-learning” problem – can it be applied to teachers learning how to teach?
  5. Where does it fit on the spectrum of: sage on the stage, guide on the side, and meddler in the middle?
  6. How to make it useful for the majority of teachers and learners?
  7. What type of affordances can/should analytics provide LX design to help all involved?

References

Bayne, S. (2014). What’s the matter with Techology Enhanced Learning? Learning, Media & Technology, 40(1), 5–20. doi:10.1080/17439884.2014.915851.Available

Exploring Moodle’s API

API centric architecture is a coming thing in technology circles. It’s the way vendors and central IT folk will build systems. It is also going to be manna from heaven for institutionalised people who are breaking a little BAD.

Moodle has a growing web services API. The following documents some initial exploration of how and if you can “break BAD” with those APIs.

Background

Web services API

Moodle has a capability for plugins to define a Web services API. The question is, how many plugins provide this and how much of Moodle core has exposed APIs. It’s likely to be quite large given APIs are increasingly used for mobile devices.

A quick check of my basic Moodle 2.9 install reveals

dj:moodle david$ find . -name services.php
./admin/mnet/services.php
./enrol/manual/db/services.php
./enrol/self/db/services.php
./lib/db/services.php
./message/output/airnotifier/db/services.php
./mod/assign/db/services.php
./mod/forum/db/services.php
./mod/lti/services.php

Not a huge number, but at least enough to start playing with (assign and forum are likely to be particularly useful) and there may well be more.

Of course, I should be looking to add a Web services API to BIM. This page will apparently help with that.

That page also includes a template with a test client. Could be useful later on.

What about the Core APIs

Moodle defines a number of Core APIs that are used within Moodle. Are these available via Web services? Some (all?) wouldn’t make sense, but maybe…

External functions API

The external functions API apparently “allows you to create fully parameterised methods that can be accessed by external programs (such as Web services API)”. Searching for evidence of that in my Moodle install is a little more heartening

dj:moodle david$ find . -name externallib.php
./calendar/externallib.php
./cohort/externallib.php
./course/externallib.php
./enrol/externallib.php
./enrol/manual/externallib.php
./enrol/self/externallib.php
./files/externallib.php
./grade/externallib.php
./group/externallib.php
./lib/external/externallib.php
./lib/externallib.php
./message/externallib.php
./message/output/airnotifier/externallib.php
./mod/assign/externallib.php
./mod/forum/externallib.php
./notes/externallib.php
./user/externallib.php
./webservice/externallib.php

Just have to figure out if the presence of these implies connections with a Web services API and the ability to access from a client.

Web Services

Which brings me to the Web Services category page. There’s also a web services forum and a related FAQ, which includes:

Security

External services security outlines various ways services can be called and how security is handled.

Using web services on my Moodle instance

As per these instructions and elsewhere

  1. Enabling web services.
  2. Enabling protocols

    Appears REST is enabled by default (don’t think I did this earlier).

Explore – Site administration / Plugins / Web Services – and its range of options

  1. Overview.
    Includes directions on steps for enabling web services for mobile devices and for external systems to control Moodle.
  2. User.
    Need to allocate permission to use web services to specified users.
  3. Add services to be used.
    Which web services can the user use. In this case, a range of “built-in services” were already enabled for “all users” (assuming they have the required capabilities). This might be interesting to test and explore. Includes a broad array of interesting functionality (mod_assign_get_???) but not overly long.

    Adding a service requires specification of the functions to be enabled.

  4. Each service can be configured to a particular user or multiple users.
  5. Create a token – select a user and the service.
  6. And then there’s a test client embedded in Moodle.
    Which only allows testing of a small subset. Looks like having to write a client will be required.
    Tried a function via the test API. Got a security error. Added it to the functions in the service I’d set up, and hey presto it worked.

Writing a client

There’s a github repo with sample-ws-clients. I’ll use the <a href="https://github.com/moodlehq/sample-ws-clients/tree/master/PHP-REST"PHP-REST code.

  1. Clone the repository
  2. Modify the token, URL, etc.
  3. Use the API documentation to figure out the correct format for the request.
    Which was quite straight forward

    $functionname = 'moodle_user_get_users_by_id';
    $restformat = 'xml'; 
    $userids = array( 489, 2 );
    $params = array('userids' => $userids);
    
  4. Change the format to json and it works just as well, but of course different format in the data returned.

The JSON option (from 2.2 onwards) means that planned use within the browser should work fine.

Exploring functions of interest

In the short term, I’m particular interested in whether there are existing functions for the following tasks

  • Get all enrolled users (and perhaps just students) in a course.
    course_enrol_get_enrolled_users( $course_id )
    Also accepts:

    options => array( 
        withcapability => string, 
        groupid => int,
        onlyactive => int,
        userfields => Array( string, string..),
        limitfrom => int,
        limitnumber => int )
    
  • Get a user’s activity completion details.
    Appears to be implemented in 2.9. Will update my version and see if it appears. Yes.
    core_completion_get_course_completion_status( int courseid )
    Returns a list of statuses including: comment id (cmid), activity module name (modname), instance ID (instance), state (0 incomplete, 1 complete, 2 complete pass, 3 complete fail), timecompleted, tracking (0 none, 1 manual, 2 automatic) )
  • Get information about status and results of assignments.
    • mod_assign_get_assignments( array of course ids )
      Returns a list of courses, but also a list of assignment details.
    • mod_assign_get_grades( array of assignment ids )
      Returns a list of assignments and a list of grades for each assignment. Grades include the userid, attemptnumber, timecreated, timemodified, grader and grade.
    • mod_assign_get_submissions( array of assignment ids )
      Similar to get grades but includes status, also submission plugin, list of files and additional information
    • mod_assign_get_user_flags( array of assignment ids )
      Flags include workflowstate, allocated marker, and extension date.

Some longer term services

Longer term some other areas of interest might include

  • Adding web services to BIM.

    A job for me at a later date.

  • core_message – list of services around the messaging services, perhaps as a way to intervene?

What type of “digital knowledge” does a teacher need?

Apparently teacher education has a technology knowledge problem.

The 2015 Horizon Report for K-12 lists as it’s second “Solvable Challenge” (defined as “Those that we understand and know how to solve”) the problem of “Integrating Technology in Teacher Education“.

It includes statements such as

Teacher training still does not acknowledge the fact that digital media literacy continues its rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession….training in the digital-supported teaching methods is still too uncommon in teacher education and in the preparation of teachers….the most important finding is that the level of a teacher’s digital competence directly correlates with students’ learning outcomes when technology is used

Given that teacher education typically happens within higher education a mention should also be given to the 2014 Horizon Report for Higher Education that identified as its number 1 “Solvable Challenge” that “Low digital fluency of faculty” and has some obvious connections

Faculty training still does not acknowledge the fact that digital media literacy continues its rise in importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession…training in the supporting skills and techniques is rare in teacher education and non-existent in the preparation of faculty

The 2015 Horizon Report for Higher Education picks up this theme with “Improving Digital Literacy” as its number 2 “Solvable Challenge” and amongst other statements includes the following

Lack of consensus on what comprises digital literacy is impeding many colleges and universities from formulating adequate policies and programs that address this challenge.

This is the problem the following tries to engage with.

Aside: The Horizon Reports organise problems into three categories: solvable, difficult (“those we understand but for which solutions are elusive”), and wicked (“those that are complex to even define, much less address”). I have some significant reservations about the categorisation of these types of problems as solvable. If these problems are solvable, why is it that there is still a “lack of consensus on what comprises digital literacy”? Let alone examples of institutions that have successfully solved this problem?

Our problem

I work in teacher education. I teach pre-service teachers a course titled “ICT and Pedagogy”. At the moment, my colleagues and I are engaged in the process of re-designing our 4-year Bachelor’s program in Education. It would seem an appropriate time to address the above “significant challenges”.

Different types of “digital knowledge” and “digital knower”

The literature is overflowing with labels and ideas about how to identify the type of “digital knowledge” and “digital knowers” that we’re trying to develop. It involves labels such as: digital native/digital immigrant; digital resident/digital visitor/digital tourist; digital literacy; digital fluency; multiliteracies; and, computational thinking.

Fragile by bb_matt, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License   by  bb_matt 

As the 2015 Horizon Report suggests, there is an apparent “lack of consensus on what comprises digital literacy”. It goes on further to suggest (emphasis added)

definitions are broad and ambiguous. Compounding this issue is the notion that digital literacy encompasses skills that differ for educators and learners, as teaching with technology is inherently different from learning with it.

Personally, I tend to see the influence of Maslow’s Hammer. People from a literacy background approach the question of the type of knowledge required in terms of communication and representation. Limiting what you can do with digital technologies to multimodal presentations. People from a coding background see computational thinking as the core. Librarians see digital literacies as involving the ability to “find, evaluate, create, and communicate information”.

Beyond that you have people who may not exactly live and breath in the new digital world making pronouncements on the importance or otherwise of various aspects of digital knowledge. For example, a recent review of the Australian Curriculum contained some reservations about the proposed “digital technologies” learning area that generated this response from one professional association. Not to mention some recent comments from the Australian Prime Minister.

Initial thoughts on coding in schools

Of course, there are also people who are engaged with the digital world who are questioning the value of coding to school children. For example, Bron Stuckey is left with two big questions around teaching coding in schools

Where should coding be positioned in the already overcrowded curriculum? And bottom line, where do we get the teachers with the knowledge and passion to teach it?

Rather than get drawn into the debate about whether students should be taught coding in school, the focus here is on what type of digital knowledge should teachers have in order to effectively teach?

A metaphoric typology of place and tool

Back in 2011 I asked “Residents and visitors, are builders the forgotten category?”. A question sparked by thinking about the Visitors and Residents typology proposed by White & Cornu (2011) (I paper I need to read again) for “individuals’ engagement with the web”. As a teacher who regularly used coding to enable the design of learning experiences, I wondered whether “builders” should be added. In a comment @palbion wondered whether there was a place for “renovator/handyman/DIY enthusiast”.

The aim here is to see if expanding the visitor/resident typology offers any value in understanding the breadth of “digital knowledge” and in turn identifying whether or not that offers any assistance in thinking about the type of “digital knowledge” that would be required and useful for a teacher. Especially if that teacher engages primarily in a digital learning space.

What follows is an initial attempt at expanding the White & Cornu (2011) visitor/resident typology. It has flaws, not the least of which is whether the “roles” added to this typology are defined in ways that fit with White & Cornu’s original thinking. In particular, their comments on “technical aptitude”

we do not consider the Visitor to be necessarily any less technically adept than the Resident. The concept of ‘technical’ aptitude should be viewed as more than simply an ability to manipulate hardware and software.

There are also questions to ask about whether these roles are distinct. Can you be a resident and not a decorator? Can you be a decorator and either a visitor or resident? And many more.

And importantly I’ll echo White and Cornu’s (2011) sentiment that this “typology should be understood as a continuum”.

Excluded visitor

There remain people who are disconnected or excluded from participation in digital spaces, especially online digital spaces. While the proportion is reducing there will remain people who are excluded visitors.

A potentially troubling factor in this is the balakanisation of the Internet, which apparently also goes under the name of the splinternet. Increasingly “online spaces” are not freely open spaces where anyone can wander through. The online spaces used by many formal educational institutions have boundaries which exclude people. Some times the people that are excluded were once residents.

We already have this at Universities with the LMS. @timklapdor inspired the following from @s_palm

And it’s not just the LMS. There’s Elke’s comment about what she misses most about studying at University “Access to all of those journal articles!”.

Visitor

White & Cornu (2011) define visitors as being those that

understand the Web as akin to an untidy garden tool shed. They have defined a goal or task and go into the shed to select an appropriate tool which they use to attain their goal. Task over, the tool is returned to the shed. It may not have been perfect for the task, but they are happy to make do so long as some progress is made. This is important, since Visitors need to see some concrete benefit resulting from their use of the platform. Significantly, Visitors are unlikely to have any form of persistent profile online which projects their identity into the digital space.

When it comes to institutional learning and teaching tools such as the LMS, can anyone ever be more than a visitor? Is it simply a place to visit, complete a task, and then exit? Is this part of the problem facing digital learning?

Resident

White & Cornu (2011) describe residents as those that

see the Web as a place, perhaps like a park or a building in which there are clusters of friends and colleagues whom they can approach and with whom they can share information about their life and work. A proportion of their lives is actually lived out online where the distinction between online and off–line is increasingly blurred. Residents are happy to go online simply to spend time with others and they are likely to consider that they ‘belong’ to a community which is located in the virtual. They have a profile in social networking platforms such as Facebook or Twitter and are comfortable expressing their persona in these online spaces. To Residents, the Web is a place to express opinions, a place in which relationships can be formed and extended.

Can you be a resident in a LMS? How does owning the space impact your sense of residency and ownership of that space? Should everyone own their own space, their own personal cyberinfrastructure (and this)?

Decorator

Decorators might be seen as residents that wish to extend their sense of belonging to/project more of their identity into a digital space by decorating that space. You can change the colour scheme, re-arrange the furniture, hang art on the wall, and put up new curtains.

The ability to decorate a space is more than simply having the knowledge to do so.

First, you need to have the permission and right to do this. You probably can’t decorate a public space. If you’re renting a space, the rental agreement probably limits what decoration you can undertake (no nails in the wall).

Concrete Lounge

Second, the space needs to offer the affordances necessary for decoration. For example, you’re probably not going to be able to re-located the concrete seating in the image to the right.

Does the amount of decoration (e.g. customising their profile) someone performs in an LMS give an indication of their sense of belonging to the space? Does it say anything about the perceived affordances of that space?

An example of decoration as a teacher might include what I’ve done with my digital course learning space. Thanks to the institution’s standard look and feel it looks like the following. Including, pre-defined locations for all the furniture. e.g. the “Assessment” furniture is all located in a specific location (URL) and the “Assessment” item in the left-hand menu is the hall way to that institutionally defined location.

And that location sucks. As a space it provides far less than what I’d like to provide. So I redecorated.

I used jQuery to change where the “Assessment” item in the left-hand menu pointed to. It now points to a much more useful space for Assessment.

tooltip

Renovator

In the words of @hapgood, the concept of a digital renovator

captures that idea – no one is just a resident of the digital world. We co-create the digital environment with others. We evolve with the environment in a never-ending cycle

And perhaps extends this co-creation beyond just using Facebook to share content or customising our Twitter home page to actually making changes to the environment. White & Cornu (2011) talk about both digital visitors and residents as using “‘tools’ such as online banking and shopping systems”, but the distinction they make is that residents “also use the Web to maintain and develop a digital identity”. A digital renovator may well be a tool user and maintain a digital identity, but they also use tools to significantly change the digital space.

An example of this would be @palbion’s creation of a Greasemonkey script to add functionality to the Moodle assignment submission activity. In particular, to enable the comparison of results from different markers. A script

that runs over Firefox works on the Moodle assignment system page that lists submissions. It extracts names of markers and marks awarded and calculates means and standard deviations of marks overall and for each marker. It then formats those statistics in a table and injects that into the page.

A digital renovator is quite happy to put up a new set of shelves, knock down a wall, revamp the kitchen, and generally make changes to the digital space so that it better suits their purpose.

(Owner) Builder

The distinction between digital renovator and digital builder may become increasingly blurred. It’s a distinction that might be made based on at least two different criteria:

  1. the complexity or novelty of what’s being built; or,
    Tweaking an existing space (e.g. @palbion’s Greasemonkey script above) is renovation, where as building is constructing a new space. This is perhaps a more meaningless distinction in the digital world where everything is linked.
  2. who they are building for.
    This is where the idea of “owner builder” might be a better metaphor for teachers and learners in a digital space. They “own” the space but are adding something significant to it for their own purposes. Where as a builder is arguably a professional employed to construct spaces that will be utilised by others.

The type of work that @cogdog does with ds106 and elsewhere is probably the best example of a “teacher” builder. Though a builder who largely works outside the staid digital spaces of formal education.

Which is the space my “builder” work tends to occur. The main example is perhaps building the BIM module for Moodle that I use in my own teaching.

Considerations and limitations

What follows are a few extra considerations/limtations around this typology.

The problem with typologies

White and Cornu (2011) mention a number of disadvantages with typologies

disadvantages focus principally on the inflexibility of types, as well as the tendency to box individuals into one type or another, overlooking contradictory evidence. Theories of learning styles favour typologies of this sort, as do certain theories of human development, and many struggle to allow individuals the space simultaneously to exhibit traits characteristic of different types.

But they also point out that there are also advantages

benefits are that these categories allow others to use this new knowledge to augment the learning experience

Avoid the teacher deficit model

Another problems with the above typology and the question that framed this whole post – What “digital knowledge” does a teacher need? – is that it appears to suggest that the whatever deficit of knowledge exists, it is a deficit on the part of the teacher. It’s the teacher that is lacking the necessary knowledge. That this is the problem to fix, and that this is obviously done by training them more and better.

This is a very limited view of knowledge. As suggested by various types of distributive views of knowledge (e.g. Jones, Heffernan and Albion (2015)), knowledge isn’t just within the head. It arises from the networks of people, tools, processes, policies etc. surrounding the teachers. The lack of knowledge or inability to “move up” the typology isn’t just about the teacher’s lack of knowledge and it won’t be solved simply by more and better training.

Questions

All this is still a work in progress and has generated additional questions for me. These are listed below.

What questions or problems has it generated for you?

My current questions

  • Is there really a single type suitable for all teachers? (Of course, no).
  • How and what can pre-service teacher education do to help build this knowledge?
    Is training enough? Walk the walk?
  • Is it all about the formal teaching, what about the environment?

    e.g the idea that “branding the LMS” hurts learning/digital literacy.

  • Beyond training, is there benefit in creating institutional, digital learning spaces that feel more like places you want to live, than hovels you wish to escape as quickly as possible?
  • How do teachers and students perceive current digital spaces? What impact does this have on their self-perceived place in the typology?
  • What would be the characteristics of a digital learning space where people wish to reside, rather than leave?
  • Is there literature and research about teachers, teaching, and physical spaces that can help inform the space/tool metaphor that underpins this typology?
  • Is it possible to map existing forms of “digital knowledge” (e.g. digital literacy, digital fluency, computational thinking) onto the above typology? Is that helpful?
  • What are the distinguishing types of digital knowledge for each role in the typology?

References

White, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and Residents : A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3171/3049

Requirements, solutions, design, and who should decide

22 years ago I helped a group of undergraduate Information Technology students set up CQ-PAN – Central Queensland – Public Access Network. An early attempt to allow CQ residents get on the Internet. CQ-PAN got used by a range of people for a range of tasks. In 1994 CQ-PAN started hosting mailing lists for a range of purposes, including for courses being taught by my then employer, the Department of Mathematics and Computing (who were funding the hardware).

Thus began my life of producing feral or shadow IT systems. IT systems that were “feral” because they were not produced by the central IT group officially charged by the organisation to support its strategic goals. IT systems that I needed to write because central IT never seem to know and/or be able to deliver the type of IT-based functionality that were needed to improve learning and teaching.

Here were are decades later, living in the new age of digital learning and still suffering from the same problem. For example, a week or so ago Jon Dron wrote about A waste of time in which he talks about IT systems that

requires individuals to do the work of a machine. For instance, leave-reporting systems that require you to calculate how much leave you have left, how many hours there are in a day, or which days are public holidays

Personally, I’ve spent the last 3+ years since starting at my new institution engaging in various forms of bricolage to develop kludges that fill the gap between the concrete lounges provided by the institution and what’s required to be effective. Just like I did at my old institution.

Which brings me to the question…

Who should design the functionality of an IT system? Particularly one used for learning and teaching?

It’s stupid to ask the user

A few days ago @EdwardTufte re-tweeted (not necessarily a sign of approval) the following partial answer to this question provide by @MrAlanCooper (two gentlemen with a lot of runs on the board around these types of topics)

The idea that asking users what they might need is stupid generated a few responses similar to this one.

Cooper expanded with

Leave it to central IT and/or L&T

In a University context this generally means that folk from central IT or learning and teaching (though in the worst cases it’s some senior manager who some something in a airline magazine) are given this responsibility. However, if the experiences of Dron, myself, and countless others in Universities is anything to go by, then the track record hasn’t been all that good.

Why is this the case?

No deep understanding

In a post titled “Never delegate understanding” Tim Kastelle the in-depth process used by Charles Eames and Eero Saarinen to win a home furnishings design competition and link it to organisational design. Kastelle’s conclusion is

When we try to design better organisations and better outcomes for people, there are no shortcuts. We have to start with building a deep understanding of how they are now and operate within that framework.

I’ve never worked in a University where central IT and learning and teaching people have a “deep understanding” of how students and teachers engage with the daily process of learning and teaching. Given my recent experience, I’d have to say I’m not sure that the people responsible for designing systems have a deep understanding of an administrative task like process final results or booking travel.

Dron identifies one reason that may contribute to this lack of understanding

This is one of those tragedies of hierarchically managed systems. Our ICT department has been set the task of saving money and its managers only control their own staff and systems, so the only place they can make ‘savings’ is in getting rid of the support burden of making and managing cogs.

Rather than develop the deep understanding to design something effective, the focus is on saving money on the “staff and systems” within the budget reporting line of that particular department.

What are the alternatives

Better design approaches – ux/lx design

Of course design could always be done better. It could be focused on developing the type of “deep understanding” required to effectively design a change. User experience design and its offshoot learning experience design offer a range of techniques and processes for doing this.

The question is whether or not these approaches can battle the “tragedy of hierarchically managed systems” and other factors that are contributing to the long-term problem with University IT systems? After all, I’ve known a number of people who have worked in central IT and learning and teaching (including myself) who didn’t want to design crap systems.

I also wonder whether or not learning experience design (lxdesign) will have a broader problem caused by the problems of hierarchy? As I understand it lxdesign focuses on the design of learning experiences. In a university context, learning experiences typically take place within courses, which in turn are located within programs, which in turn are the responsibility of specific units within the university. For me, it looks like the tragedy of hierarchical systems all over again, but only worse.

Learning from Steve Jobs

For better or for worse, Apple remain a reasonable benchmark – if perhaps a somewhat extreme example – for designing quality artefacts. Can anything be learned from Apple and Jobs?

One of Jobs more famous quotes echoes the point made by Cooper at the start

it’s really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.

And if you have a company that includes world-class designers and an explicit focus on producing the highest quality products, then you might be use this as a template for success.

Personally, I find a couple other Jobs quotes more broadly useful. For example, in a 1985 interview with Playboy he’s quoted as saying

We built [the Mac] for ourselves. We were the group of people who were going to judge whether it was great or not. We weren’t going to go out and do market research.

This speaks to me as the importance of the people designing systems also being people who use the system. People specifying and developing a system should – In Taleb’s phrase have “skin in the game”. In AntiFragile, Taleb cites the Hammurabi code and quotes the following

If a builder builds a house and the house collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house – the build shall be put to death

. Poor software for learning and teaching (hopefully) won’t cause death, but some sort of “skin in the game” might be useful. Of course, with large organisational software projects it would be unfair to apply this to the developers. The project board might be a better recipient.

End-user development is the other form of “skin in the game” and that’s where all my (and most) “feral” systems come from. People who actually have to use these systems and know they suck. So they build work-arounds. But it’s not enough to allow developers, even end-user developers, to work alone.

It’s not a quote, but this article on “How Twitter users can generate better ideas” describes Job’s instructions to the architects of the Pixar headquarters as

to design physical space that encouraged staff to get out of their offices and mingle, particularly with those with whom they normally wouldn’t interact. Jobs believed that serendipitous exchanges fueled innovation.

Increasingly designing physical spaces that allow “serendipitous exchanges” isn’t possible in Australian multi-campus universities. Increasingly staff in such institutions aren’t physically co-located. Leaving at least two possibilities for encouraging the production of this type of innovation fuel.

First, is the practice of hackfests and similar. Get disparate people together from all over the organisation (and beyond?) and share problems and desires. Group people with problems and desires with people who can implement them, and then have a crack at implementing them.

Second, recognise that increasingly people are often using the same digital space. Design the digital space so that “serendipitous exchanges” can take place in the digital space. That’s one of the aims of this project.

Both these approaches break the “tragedy of hierarchically managed systems”. Pair them with approaches like UX and LX design and you might have something.

But for these approaches to work will rely on what Dron describes as “tools that make cog production fast and simple”. Traditional monolithic enterprise systems are not such tools. The technologies that make up the current move toward API centric architectures are such tools.

One of the problems with enterprise systems is that “decisions” about the design of the system are essentially forever. Once they are made, it’s very, very hard to change. “Tools that make cog production fast and simple” allow for decisions to be made, tested, and re-made when and if they fail. They allow for learning.