One reason people don’t take to new e-learning technology

In a recent post I started my collection of quotes on this blog. I also talked about the “mere exposure effect” and suggested it’s one reason behind the horseless carriage approach to using new technology. It’s also one reason why people resist new technology – especially e-learning/computer technology.

In working on another post, one directly related to the PhD, I came across this article from EDUCAUSE Quarterly titled “The Three-E Strategy for Overcoming Resistance to Technological Change “.

One of the quotes it uses to as evidence of why adoption of new technology is hard is from a book by Carolyn Marvin

For if it is the case, as it is fashionable to assert, that media give shape to the imaginative boundaries of modern communities, then the introduction of new media is a special historical occasion when patterns anchored in older media that have provided the stable currency for social exchange are reexamined, challenged, and defended.

The EDUCAUSE Quarterly article also says the following

As technology professionals, we often fail to see how intimidating technology can be to the user community.

I’d expand this out to include instructional designers and management. Instructional designers often don’t see how intimidating many of their pedagogical innovations (forget the use of technology) are to many academic staff. Many management folk I’ve seen make similar mistakes, though generally worse. Management generally don’t see how new pedagogy and technology, if used effectively, needs a radically different approach to teaching and learning practice. More importantly they don’t see or engage in the fact that this type of radical change often brings into question many of the accepts administrative processes, policies and organisational structures within institutions.

The article also quotes an EDCAUSE review article titled “My Computer Romance”. An expanded quote from this review article

What kept me from seeing and acting on those benefits? The question interests me, and not only out of self-regard. The question is at the heart of “faculty development,” a crude, even misleading phrase that cannot suggest the trick of imagination needed to bring substantial, important knowledge into plain sight and to develop in faculty the resolve and courage to risk failure. For an academic, “failure” is often synonymous with “looking stupid in front of someone.” For many faculty, and maybe for me back in the 1980s, computers mean the possibility of “pulling a Charlie Gordon,” as the narrator poignantly terms it in Daniel Keyes’s Flowers for Algernon.

This has significant implications for personal learning environments that surely represents a significant shift in practice created by the capabilities of a new medium and offers an even greater opportunity for academics to “pull a Charlie Gordon”. The Quarterly article

finishes it’s introduction with the following paragraph

Consider for a moment the impact of Web 2.0 on a professor working in academia for 20 or 30 years. The flattening of knowledge production and the ease of access to information represented by Web 2.0 technologies in many ways negates the concept of the “sage on the stage” or even traditional notions of scholarship. This world is not what most professors are used to, and many are threatened by and therefore resist this kind of change.

The solution

The Quarterly article

suggests that the solution is a strategy for gaining acceptance of technology that embodies “Three Es”

  1. Evident – as potentially useful in making life easier.
  2. Easy to use – to avoid feelings of adequacy.
  3. Essential – as part of going about their business.

Sort of sounds a bit like the insights from TAM and Diffusion of Innovations.

The wrong view

The Quarterly article finishes with this sentence

Only then will faculty effectively use the complex technical infrastructure that we technologists labor so hard to put into place.

God I hate the mindset that underpins that sentence. Or at least the common mindset amongst “support” folk in higher education. This isn’t limited to just information technology people. Instructional designers, quality folk and management all suffer from this view from time to time.

How do we get these poor ill-informed and/or obstinate academics to use the great technology/idea. If only we could do this we would solve all the problems of learning/teaching/research in one fell swoop.

This has been a problem with most people peddling innovation. Indeed, diffusion theory (Rogers, 1995) one of the best known innovation theories, has been criticised for having a pro-innovation bias that, amongst other effects, can separate members of a social system into the superior innovators group and the inferior recalcitrants group (McMaster and Wastell, 2005).

In this paper (Jones and Lynch, 1999) we talk about

  • developer based; and
    A developer-based focus assumes that the new product will automatically replace the old and that adopters will see the benefits of the new product automatically and in the same way as the developers.
  • adopter-based approaches to software development.
    These approaches focus on the adopters and their setting in order to understand the social context and the social function the innovation will serve.

The Es approach strikes me as someone who comes from a developer-based culture taking the first steps towards a more adopted-based approach. But someone who still has the same underlying belief that we build it and they use it.

References

Jones, D. and T. Lynch (1999). A Model for the Design of Web-based Systems that supports Adoption, Appropriation and Evolution. First ICSE Workshop on Web Engineering, Los Angeles.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, The Free Press.

Carolyn Marvin, When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking About Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 4.

The value of being open

Moving into the “web 2.0″/social media/online world can be confronting for people. Especially the “open” part. With blogs, photo sharing, social bookmarking etc a lot of what used to be private (or closed) becomes public (or open). This can challenge people. Damien talked about this and other problems with social media in a blog post from late last year.

In the last week three separate things have happened that have reinforced the value of being open. They are:

  • Finding out about an Instructional design group on Slideshare.
    Last week I ran some sessions on Course analysis and design. I used powerpoint slides to structure the sessions and like all of my presentations, uploaded them to slideshare. Within a few hours someone else on Slideshare had seen these presentations and suggested (via slideshare) that I add them to the Instructional design group. Consequently, these presentations have been viewed many more times than might have happened otherwise. For example, the slides on teacher thinking, which includes audio, has been viewed 81 times in under a week.
  • Making a connection with a “name” and enhancing the PhD
    A couple of days ago I posted something related to the PhD. This post arose out of some work I did for the course analysis and design sessions and was only possible because a keynote presentation was publicly available and because Google revealed a blog post that expanded more on this presentation and highlight a particular point.

    The ideas in this work connected with my PhD work and has led to an enhancement of the ideas within it. Also, within 40 minutes of publishing the blog post, one of the presenters of the keynote had made a comment on my post.

  • WordPress’ auto-generated related posts highlighting other interesting stories.

    A few days ago a friend asked whether I had any ideas for iPhone applications. Apparently one of the folk we know of has made a bit of money out of a fairly simple iPhone application. I said I didn’t know of any. I have some ideas now.

    Those ideas have been sparked by this story from Standford. It’s at least a month and a half old but I hadn’t heard of it. At least not until I published this post this morning. I viewed the post after publishing to check formatting and WordPress had automatically included a link to the “Can iStanford take on Facebook mobile?” story from Time.

Making technology more protean?

Taking up the last point, the “Can iStanford take on Facebook mobile?” story highlights a few things related to making technology more protean.

First, there’s a university information technology group that actually gets this stuff. At least to some extent. They realise that they don’t have to provide all the tools for students to access institutional services.

Second, iStanford, based on the little I learnt from the article in Time, is an example of a “small-step” towards making systems more protean. I’m going to assume that iStanford is a traditional application. Only the original developers can modify it. It can’t be easily mashed up and modified by others. Chances are it’s going to be more difficult for other people to go to Stanford and say can we get access to the same information.

A much larger step might have been Stanford making student information available via open APIs or RSS feeds so anyone could produce their own application.

BAM – making e-learning technology more protean

In a post yesterday I talked about how most applications of e-learning within universities seems to actively prevent students and staff leveraging the protean nature of information technology. That is the nature of computer software to be flexible, malleable and customisable.

The rise of “web 2.0” and related concepts has made it easier to put in place elearning technology that is designed to be more protean. In this post I talk about the Blog Aggregation Management (BAM) project and reflect on some of its ideas and implications for making e-learning technology more protean.

What is BAM?

It’s a research project aimed at extending ideas around how to implement e-learning technology at universities, particularly with an emphasis on what the rise of “web 2.0”, software as a service and other related concepts might mean for this practice.

BAM is a set of Perl scripts that aggregates RSS feeds, it matters little from where those RSS feeds originate, registered to individual students and then provides a range of additional services required by university educators. For example, (click on the screenshots to see larger images)

  • Link with the institutional teaching responsibilities database so that staff can see which of their students have (or haven’t) registered their RSS feed.
    BAM show student blog details
  • Show how many posts each staff member’s students have made.
    BAM show all student posts page
  • If required, award a mark and make comments on a student’s posts.
    BAM mark post page

Because of the original context in which BAM was designed (explained in some of the publications and presentations listed in the next section) there are also some scripts to detect plagiarism between student posts.

Origins of BAM

BAM started life as a more flexible way of implementing student journals in a particular course with the intent of encouraging reflection, increasing interactions between students and staff and hopefully increasing student performance. The initial use of BAM for this purpose is talked about in a number of places including:

  • Two presentations given at CQUniversity in 2006 that are available on Google Video. The first talks about the initial design ideas while the second reflects on the experience about half way through the course.
  • A paper describing the use in the initial course.
  • This initial use was also covered in the ELI Guide To Blogging as one of the three case studies.

System usage – examples of the protean nature

The initial application of BAM was intended to encourage student reflection and interaction between staff and students. It succeeded to varying levels of success depending on the staff involved. BAM has been used in all 8 offerings of that course from 2006 to 2008.

It has also been used in 8 other course offerings for a variety of different purposes. The most different was in the course EDED11448, Creative Futuring. EDED11448 was CQUni’s first “Web 2.0 course site” where all of the services used by students and staff in the courses were hosted on external services including del.icio.us, WordPress.com, Wetpaint, and RedBubble.

For EDED11448, BAM was used, in conjunction with Yahoo Pipes to create the Portfolio and Weblog pages. This was done by

  • Students create RedBubble accounts and using this to create their portfolio and their blog.
  • Students register their RedBubble account with BAM.
  • BAM aggregates both the portfolio and blog and produces aggregated RSS feeds.
  • Pipes is used to turn those RSS feeds into a bit of JSON data that can be used by the Javascript on the course website to present the data.

The same idea has been used to create RSS feeds from BAM that aggregate all a staff members students’ posts into one feed. A number of the courses that use BAM can have hundreds of students and tens of staff.

These application of BAM have moved beyond the original design. The protean nature of BAM includes the following:

  • There is choice in what application they use to generate the RSS feeds.
    In some courses that choice is left to the student. In EDED11448 the course designer made a specific choice – RedBubble – for her purpose.
  • There is choice in what BAM is used for.
    The original use was aimed specifically at individual student reflective journals reviewed and marked by staff. EDED11448 aggregated and made public to all students the work of individual students. In some cases the blog posts haven’t been marked.

Implications

I think BAM and the way it operates has the following implications for the practice of e-learning within universities.

  • Increase efficacy and agility while liberating institutional resources.
    This isn’t my view. It’s the one expressed by the authors of the ELI Guide to Blogging. When talking about BAM they say

    One of the most compelling aspects of the project was the simple way it married Web 2.0 applications with institutional systems. This approach has the potential to give institutional teaching and learning systems greater efficacy and agility by making use of the many free or inexpensive—but useful—tools like blogs proliferating on the Internet and to liberate institutional computing staff and resources for other efforts.

  • There is no need to pre-determine and specify all of the technology that staff and students must use.
    Most of the students who have used BAM haven’t really known what a blog is and very few have already had a blog. This lack of knowledge is not a reason to say we must use the blog provided by our LMS in order to minimise confusion. With BAM we recommend that students, who aren’t sure what to do, should make use of WordPress.com to create a blog. But we enable those with more knowledge to be able to use their own.
  • Small pieces loosely joined works.
    To me this is a fundamental characteristic of Web 2.0, the ability to create something larger out of a bunch of small pieces that are all loosely joined. Where each small piece can be replaced or re-tasked depending on the contextual needs. This is simply not possible with traditional enterprise software such as a course management system.
  • There are potential problems but they can be solved, and generally cheaper and easier with this approach.
    The most common question that is asked about BAM is “What happens if a student’s blog provider goes belly up and we can’t access the student’s work?”. This is the “can we depend on external providers” question. The assumption is that organisationally provided systems are more reliable. While that is somewhat questionable, the concern can be mitigated quite easily.

    In BAM’s case, this is done by mirroring. Every hour BAM

    • Visits each student’s RSS feed.
    • If there have been any changes it creates/updates a local copy of the RSS feed.</li

    If the external blog provider ever disappears, we have a copy. These types of problems can be solved.

  • Making existing systems more protean is a good thing.
    A number of benefits arise from systems being more protean. For example, the tools are able to be used for a number of unintended applications and the users are able to use tools that they are familiar with and have a sense of ownership over. For me, this means that making existing systems more protean is a good and worthy thing to do.

Future work

Future work might include:

  • Making BAM more self-serve.
    Currently setting up BAM requires some additional input from technical folk. Wouldn’t be too hard to make this self-serve.
  • Extending the RSS generation capabilities in BAM.
    These are still fairly limited in terms of capabilities. The need some extension in capabilities, especially in increasing the protean nature of such capabilities.
  • Improvements to the BAM interface.
    It was designed by me. Enough said.
  • Enabling more complex group-based manipulation, tagging and commenting within BAM.
    Beyond simple aggregation there is little that can be done. Even marking is not performed with RSS but with databases. One extension might be to create RSS feeds that include comments/marks from markers. Enabling peer marking, commenting and tagging and a range of more complex approaches might also be useful.
  • Looking at supporting privacy capabilities in BAM.
    At the simplest form adding the ability for the student’s RSS feed to be password protected might be useful. At the moment the RSS feed fed into BAM must be freely available. Supporting broader privacy settings makes the tool more flexible.
  • Making existing systems more protean.
    Add RSS feeds to the discussion forums and other features of a learning management system to enable staff and students to start mashing up.
  • Integrating BAM into an existing LMS.
    BAM’s current use is limited to CQUniversity. BAM, at the moment, is essentially a set of scripts that integrate RSS feeds with several CQUniversity systems (online assignment marking, results processing, staff teaching responsibilities, student enrollment etc). This means it doesn’t make sense to sell or release BAM’s code (beyond having people look at it). Another institution would have to rewrite all of BAM to fit with its systems and practices.

    One solution to this might be to integrate BAM with a system like Moodle. These systems already should have data about which staff are responsible for which students, which students are in which course etc.

  • Working closely with a range of different staff to explore and enable different applications of BAM, to extend its protean capabilities and leverage them to improve the learning and teaching experience.
    This is where the real benefit is. Working with staff with different purposes and problems to collaboratively identify approaches and necessary changes to BAM.

VoiceThread as a mechanism for feedback to students

Scott has a post discussing the potential benefits of using VoiceThread as a mechanism for providing feedback to students – both by staff and students. Based on some experience, I agree there is some potential, but I also think there are some issues to be looked at. Details follow.

Scott mentions VoiceThread inlight of some discussion that arose at a session on course analysis and design. One of the participants raised using recorded voice as a way to mark/annotate student assignments. This was as part of a session on teaching strategies. In particular, those framed by Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles for good practice in learning and teaching.

If I’d been organised I would have mentioned the following within that session and given participants a chance to look at some of the example work. However, given time constraints and an increasingly forgetful mind I missed the opportunity. I hope this post might make up for that.

What we’ve done already

In the second half of last year I worked with Markus Themessl-Huber in a 3rd year special topic course for undergraduate psychology students. Our plans to use VoiceThread are sketchily detailed in this post.

Since then the posters have been prepared by students, they’ve been put in VoiceThread and been viewed by some local industry folk at a face-to-face session. But, sadly, due to some local institutional “issues” I have not followed up on this as much as I would like.

For the face-to-face session with local industry folk we made use of this page on our wiki to provide pointers to the students’ posters.

Perhaps one of the best posters (a very subjective measure) is this one on post-natal depression. It includes an introduction from the student and a comment from one of the industry folk attending the face-to-face session.

Reflections

For various reasons this experiment didn’t achieve all of the goals we wished. However, it did suggest that there was enough of a benefit to continue to explore further uses of VoiceThread as a tool. As a first step towards that we’ve purchased a higher education manager account.

In terms of this experiment some thoughts include

  • Are the students prepared for this?
    I believe some of the students had some problems learning sufficient technical skills to prepare the posters using Word, Powerpoint etc. The students didn’t have to use VoiceThread directly to upload their posters. I wonder how difficult they would’ve found this, or perhaps how much extra work they would have perceived this to be and whether it was worth it.
  • Making things public?
    These posters are publicly available. Some people have some issues with making this work public.
  • Account management – especially to comment.
    VoiceThread requires the creation of yet another account. Even if all you wish to do is comment. There are reasons for this, but I wonder if this further increases the perception of difficulty.
  • Other uses beyond feedback and presentation.
    Already someone else at CQU is keen to use VoiceThread for other purposes. She’s already including use of VoiceThread as an alternate approach to developing learning materials for students. The first will be used in the first half of this year. It shall be interesting to see how this goes, it should be good.
  • The management interface isn’t there.
    The interface VoiceThread uses is pretty good for presenting work and getting comments on it. If you are working with individual presentations. In setting up the web page for the face-to-face session we had to deal with all the students’ posters. This was not easy. The interface didn’t provide the affordances necessary to easily work with large numbers of presentations. This potentially has negative implications for using it as method for markers to make comments on student assignments. When you are marking assignments efficiency is important.

    This is exactly one of the problems that the BAM project had to deal with individual student blogs. The added effort and the novelty of marking blogs caused some backlash from markers.

    I am not confident that VoiceThread is going to as “mashable” as blogs were. A major enabler for BAM was that the output of blogs could be easily mashed up with other software for different purposes. I’m not sure that VoiceThread and its flash interface is going to allow this.

What is a PLE? More than a suite of tools? More than social media?

Jocene and I are having a bit of a chat about PLEs and she raises a number of questions or perspectives in her last comment in that discussion that are worth of thought. So, I’m starting a new blog post here, rather than making a comment (the inequity in power and ease of use between the editing tools/interface used to create a post and those used to make a comment – very limited – make an interesting comment about the assumptions and affordances of a blog).

The issues raised by Jocene I want to consider include:

  • Is the notion of PLEs separate from those of Web 2.0/social media tools?
  • The connection of PLE with a set course.

A PLE is not a collection of Web 2.0 tools

In her comment Jocene makes the following point

I keep trying to separate the notion of PLEs and that of Web 2.0 social media tools. The latter may be used to construct various PLEs, but even the sum of these tools, in any PLE context, is still not the PLE itself. A suite of Web 2.0 tools is not a PLE.

My response/current belief can be summarised in two points:

  1. Yes I agree, but how else do you engage in this work?
  2. The tools have to come first, don’t they? No?

How do you do it? or Is a Web 2.0-based PLE better?

This section turned into something different as I was writing. The original point was to ask a question of what more could a University do to enable students’s use of PLEs without focusing on Web 2.0 based technologies. I’ll get to that, but first I’m reflecting on my experience and wondering whether or not a Web 2.0-based PLE is better than a traditional one.

A personal collection of tools to support your learning is nothing new. We’ve all done it. I had a collection of folders and loose leaf paper that I used at University back in the 80s to supplement my textbooks and handouts from the academics. Managing this collection of resources/tools effectively was half the battle of learning. I imagine I did some, perhaps many, of the tasks that Graham Atwell outlined in the slidecast that kicked off this conversation.

The following wasn’t planned. It arose out of thinking about this problem and the idea of comparing my old PLE with my new PLE using the tasks outlined by Graham Atwell in his slidecast.
Those tasks included:

  • access and searching;
    This was incredibly time consuming and poorly supported in the old style. The Internet, Google and my blog provide a much better set of tools to support this. Both individually and also socially, collaboratively with others.
  • aggregating and scaffolding;
    In the 80s this was called photocopying and placing in folders – rarely to be accessed again. What I did access was put into structures and frameworks that perhaps helped me understand.
  • manipulating;
    Much of the learning I have undertaken has always been around ideas and information – computer science, information systems, learning and teaching, philosophy etc. – part in due to the nature of the disciplines but also the nature of teaching/learning. Manipulating the artifacts associated with this learning in my old PLE was laborious. In fact, if I attempt to do this now – e.g. write more than my signature – my body rebels, aches and generally says “stop!”. As a techie the manipulations I can perform in my new electronic PLE is so much easier, powerful and interesting.
  • analysing;
    Given that I eventually graduated there must have been some analysis of the content of my old PLE. I must have worked out what some of it meant. I believe my new PLE is orders of magnitude better at helping me in this analysis. The ability to access hugely diverse opinions and have tools like Google, Wordle and many others to perform various forms of low-level analysis is a great help.
  • storing;
    The question of long-term viability is still open. Moving from my old website to this blog has probably led to some loss of information. But keeping information is getting easier. I certainly have very little of the content from my 80s PLE. The multimedia nature of the new PLE, however, is a significant improvement. On my laptop I have videos and audio that I consider important. I also think there is something to be said for the way that my new PLE makes it much easier to store information/learning in a fragmented form, which is a good thing, really it is.
  • reflecting;
    Did my old PLE help in terms of reflection. To some extent. But the private nature, difficulty of manipulating, storing, accessing and searching that old PLE certainly placed significant constraints. My new Web 2.0 PLE makes reflection much easier. It lets me find and link my thoughts together. The form of a blog and its connection to a diary also helps encourage reflection. (Not to say that the technology determines this, it takes discipline and motivation on my part – but the affordances of the new PLE help.)
  • presenting;
    My old PLE led to presentations only in the form of formal, necessary presentations. To some extent that remains true, but even this post is a form of presentation, perhaps of representation. Trying to show my understanding. Even this bit of reflection is available as a “presentation” for others. The combination of presentation and reflection add meaning, at least for me as the author.
  • representing;
    I’m not sure I got Graham’s meaning on this one. However, the word points to me about representing the meaning and identify I place on what I’ve learnt in my PLE. Have I got it wrong? My old PLE had very little connection with me. If someone picked up the collection of folders and textbooks there wouldn’t be a lot in it that represented me. The odd comment, not a lot of reflection. With my blog, it’s a different story. There are photos of what I experience, there are small personal storied intermixed with the work and learning. Does there need to be a separation between learning and others aspects of life? Certainly in my PLE (my blog) there isn’t one.
  • sharing;
    With my old PLE I could do little or none of this. Access to those folders and their contents was not readily available to folk (access) and the searching was poor. With my blog I’m currently averaging around 50 or so “sharing events” a day as people visit the resources on it. They generally come here through links on WordPress, elsewhere on the web or through google searchers.

However, during my undergraduate education I certainly didn’t engage in the move from “sanctioned knowledge” to “collaborative forms of knowledge construction”. I didn’t talk to many folk, worked on my own with the “sanctioned knowledge” and my own constructions. Almost certainly the poorer for it and am now engaging differently through the Web 2.0 tools. Why the difference?

I’m certainly more mature and open about learning, perhaps I just wasn’t ready for it as a kid. I also know that the Web 2.0 tools, like blogs, have a much greater affordance for the type of “collaborative forms of knowledge construction” that I prefer. i.e. I don’t particularly like synchronous, group-based, warm and fuzzy co-operation. I prefer to be on my own, considering what lots of others have said and done and working through my own ideas.

On the basis of the above, it looks like, at least for me, that a Web 2.0-based PLE is a tremendous improvement over a traditional non-Web 2.0 based PLE. Too many of the tasks which Graham Atwell suggests you want to do in a PLE are much easier, more effective with the assistance of Web 2.0 technology. If it is better, should we look at helping people use it.

Question: Is this part of the difficulty we face with PLEs? A Web 2.0/social media enabled PLE is, because of the affordances of the technology, a completely different kettle of fish. Think of the difference between written, personal communication implemented in the 17th century and implemented now in the 21st century. It’s a completely different ball game. Perhaps the whole PLE thing is getting too bogged down with the “yea, we’ve always done it stuff”. Perhaps we haven’t always done it, perhaps it so different that relying on the old patterns of thought is preventing innovation?

I’m still thinking about this myself.

Back to the original point I was thinking of making. If you decide that students have always made use of a PLE using traditional approaches, just like I did back in the 80s, then what more can we do to support students in using the traditional form of PLEs? If you assume that in some institutions, like CQUniversity, that more and more of the learning experience will be moving online, then are is there anything we can do?

I’ve always believed that it’s not the task of the university to build or specify a PLE for students. Whether it be “traditional” or Web 2.0. The services a university could perform to help students use PLEs, seem to me, to be:

  • Open up its learning activities, resources and services so the student can use the tools they select to perform the tasks Atwell points out.
  • Because this idea is somewhat novel, scaffold and aid the development of individual PLEs, in whatever form, to learn some lessons and see where things go.
  • Learn from what worked and from what didn’t and continue.

PLEs and university courses

In her comment Jocene makes the following point

Conceptually, there is no reason why my PLE needs to service, or make me accountable to a set course (in which I may be enrolled) if my way of knowing (principle 2) does not match that of the course designer. Conceptually, I will learn when I am ready to learn, and I will select the evidence I need from seemingly infinite data, to bring me to the realisation that I know something.

I agree entirely with this perspective. I believe that the amount of learning an individual will go through with a formal learning organisation (like a university) pales almost into insignificance against the amount of informal learning.

The “services” I listed at the end of the previous section seem to allow for this. The emphasis is on opening up the university’s courses to allow students to use the PLEs they chose. Eventually the assumption being that this is the same PLE students use to service the broader array of learning experiences they have. In addition, the “opening up” of university courses may also include developing and helping academics use course designs that allow for more freedom and diversity in how a student travels through a course.

Back to watching the Super Bowl.

How do you implement PLEs into higher education courses?

Jocene reflects a bit upon a slidecast (titled “Personal Learning Environments: The future of education?”) by Graham Atwell.

I tend to sense a touch of frustration in the post. Which I don’t think is at all surprising since the question “How do you implement PLEs into higher education courses?” is extremely complex. Doing anything to change learning and teaching within higher education is extremely difficult. This is made almost impossible when it is something that potentially brings into question not only the pedagogical practice of individual academics, but also the assumptions underpinning the administrative and technological bureaucracies that have accreted within tertiary institutions.

Institutions of higher education have essentially failed to implement “enterprise e-learning” in a way that caters for and values the diversity inherent in university teaching. I’m somewhat pessimistic about its ability to implement e-learning that caters for the diversity of university students – an order of magnitude (or two) greater level of diversity.

A way forward

That diversity, is for me, a clue to a way forward. Implementing PLEs within higher education is about a focus on the potential adopters, both the teaching staff and the students. By answering questions like: “What do they want?”, “What do they do?”, “What is a problem you can solve for them that makes a difference?” with something that is related to, or at least moves them towards the ideals of a PLE.

However, answering these questions should not be done by asking them. When it comes to something brand new, something that challenges established ways of doing things simply asking people “what would you like to do with X” is a waste of time. If they tell you anything, the will tell you what they’ve always done.

I wonder if this explains the current suggestion that the next generation of students don’t want their university life mixed in with their social life. They don’t want universities getting into Facebook and other social spaces. If the students haven’t seen good examples of how this might work, you can’t really rely on their feedback, they don’t know yet.

I’ve talked about the 7 principles of knowledge management and in particular principle #2

We only know what we know when we need to know it. Human knowledge is deeply contextual and requires stimulus for recall.

Which is why I like this comment from Jocene

He talks about the need to contextualise the PLE. Well, yes. My colleague and I have decided to push ahead with our own contextualised understanding, so we can start to reflect upon rather that speculate about our PLE work.

Get stuck in, try a few things and then reflect upon what worked, what didn’t. What did the students like, what might be better. This sounds like a much more effective way than researchers and prognosticators extrapolating what they think people will need and how they should use it. However, I think Jocene’s next quote highlights the difficult in drawing a barrier between teleological and ateleological design.

But we still keep getting stuck, half way over the implementation hurdle! If we telelogically suggest a way forward for any group of learners, then we are not facilitating a PLE, we are imposing our values.

Traditionally e-learning within universities is teleological and because the nature of teleological design is a complete and utter mismatch with the requirements of e-learning problems arise. Some colleagues and I have pointed these problems out in two publications (Jones, Luck, McConachie and Danaher, 2005; Jones and Muldoon, 2007).

One defining characteristic of teleological design is that the major design decisions are made by a small group of experts and/or leaders. There decisions are meant to be accepted by the rest of the group and are meant to be the best decisions possible. I think Jocene’s worried about this type of “imperialism” within PLEs. If she and her colleague make decisions about what should be done, aren’t they being teleological?

They don’t have to be, but it does depend on how you go about it. To my mind you reduce the teleological nature of your decisions by doing the following

  • make small changes to existing practice;
  • ensure that the changes solve problems or provide new services that will be valued by the participants;
  • ensure that you will learn lessons/try new things/make different mistakes than you have before;

i.e. you are doing safe-fail probes rather than fail-safe design. This is a distinction from Dave Snowden and which is talked about more here.

What does that mean for PLEs in higher education

Some quick thoughts on what this might mean in concrete form for implementing PLEs in higher education:

  • Modify existing e-learning infrastructure to enable it to work with the Web 2.0/mashup/PLE technology and approaches.
    e.g. generate RSS feeds out of various course management system (CMS) features and make them available to students and staff.
  • Use the “web 2.0’ifying” of the CMS to build features that solve problems or provide better services for staff and students.
  • Build some examples using these services (of PLEs) in existing social media applications – the obvious is probably facebook – but this decision should be guided by some of the following.
  • Don’t be exclusionary, don’t focus all efforts on one type of PLE or social media application.
  • Implement strategies and techniques to really engage with the students and staff to learn about what they do. NOT what they say they do, but what they actually do and experience. Use this insight to guide the above.
  • Use the strategies and techniques in the previous point to observe what happens when staff and students do (or do not) use the PLE services and use that insight to identify the next step.
  • Ensure a tight connection with and awareness of what other interesting folk are doing in this area and use it to inform the design of the next safe-fail probes you are doing.
  • Try not to do too much for staff or students. The whole notion of the PLE is that you are empowering them to do things for themselves. If the “instructional assistant/designer” does too much for them it breaks this ideal and it also doesn’t scale.

References

David Jones, Jo Luck, Jeanne McConachie, P. A. Danaher, The teleological brake on ICTs in open and distance learning, To appear in Proceedings of ODLAA’2005

David Jones, Nona Muldoon, The teleological reason why ICTs limit choice for university learners and learning, In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore. pp 450-459

Accept the fact that we have to treat almost anybody as a volunteer – implications for learning and teaching

Peter Drucker

I came across this quote from Peter Drucker, who according to Wikipedia was known as the father of modern management

Accept the fact that we have to treat almost anybody as a volunteer

This resonates with me and my experiences within universities. In particular, in connection with trying to achieve anything with academics. Folk who generally take the concept of “volunteer” to the extreme.

It particular resonates with me as I increasingly see attempts made to apply project-based, plan-driven attempts to implement major change within universities. For example, we’ll improve learning and teaching at the university by having a large scale review, evaluated by a small panel of experts, who will develop an objective, that will be handed over to a project group, who will roll this out.

This ignores the importance of engaging academics and their tendency to be volunteers and, in particular, volunteers who don’t volunteer.

There will be no widespread, sustainable improvement in learning and teaching within a university unless the institution adopts approaches that encourage and support the academics in volunteering to engage in the process.

Require them to volunteer and they won’t.

Indications of limitations – blog based discussions

I’m trying to run an experiment in blog-based discussions. Trying to understand, from experience, the realities of using individual blogs for a multi-person discussion. It’s not going well.

The first problem was that WordPress’ pingbacks not always working – as briefly mentioned in this post. The next problem is that links from an external blog (in particular one from Blogger), aren’t currently working in a way that is particularly useful for tracking a conversation.

Tony has attempted to join in the conversation from his blogger hosted blog via this <a href=”post. He’s included a link to my original post in his post. Apparently blogger doesn’t support trackbacks.

His link has not showed up on the post. However, on the admin interface for my blog there is a section that tracks all links point to my blog posts. Tony’s link has shown up there. Which isn’t all that useful for folk trying to following the conversation.

The question will be whether or not there is a configuration setting or a plugin I can enable on my blog to get around this problem. That’s a next task.

More on blogs and discussion

In some previous posts (the original post and the followup post) I’ve been playing around using blogs for multiple discussion forums. As yet, no-one else has joined in :(. Which is not surprising, to some extent, given at least one of the bits of my experiment in the followup post did not work.

This post attempts to explain what didn’t work and in the process introduce some basics of blogs and discussions as per the WordPress.com

Introducing pingbacks

In the followup post I included a link back to the the original post. What was supposed to happen can be seen on this unrelated post. There are a number of responses to the post, including a number that were made using the method I attempted.

Wordpress call this method a pingback. The concept of a pingback expands upon, and at least for some, improves on the idea of a trackback.

It looks like pingbacks don’t work all the time.

Some resources for around blogs and discussion forums

Empty party room

In a previous blog post I tried/am trying to kick off an experiment in using a blog for a multi-person discussion as an attempt to answer a question we will have to address as part of the PLEs@CQUni project.

I’m hoping this is a party to which a few others will come.

This post is an attempt to illustrate one answer to the “mechanics” question, i.e. how might you do this and also to provide some pointers to existing information on this topic.

The mechanics

I’m posting this on my own blog, hosted on WordPress.com. If I include a link to the previous post (as I did in the first sentence of this post) WordPress automatically tells the other blog, which then adds a link to the new blog post. The author of the original blog post gets an email from WordPress saying that someone has linked to the post. The linkage shows up in the management interface of WordPress.

If you visit the previous blog post you should now see a link back to this post towards the bottom.

In theory, this allows each of the participants know when someone comments on their posts. It provides a set of connections between the different blogs, a way of generating a view of the discussion.

Some resources

This is not a new exercise, some existing information includes