Archive for February, 2008

YouTube Confirms Live Streaming for 2008


Via Read/Write/Web (”YouTube Launching Live Video This Year, Chen Confirms“, 28 February 2008):

“YouTube co-founder Steve Chen has confirmed that the service will use Google’s vast resources to launch live streaming functionality this year, according to a video interview on Sarah Meyer’s new show Pop17.”

This is definitely a story to keep an eye on. With YouTube slated to enter the rapidly crowding live streaming niche later this year, currently populated by the likes of Yahoo! Live and Ustream.tv, the field is going to top out extremely quickly and will give new players virtually no chance to compete.

As I discussed earlier this month, the demands of a live streaming service are extensive and can require a substantial amount of hardware to support adequately. Yahoo showed us all the downside of under-resourcing when their inaugural launch caved under the pressure.

The RWW article did not go into much detail on the specifics, so very few conclusions can be drawn based on the information currently available. Nonetheless, YouTube Live Streaming does seem to be on the cards for this year. And if anyone has the resources to make this live streaming work on a vast scale, it’s them.

Update: TechCrunch just posted about this as well (Confirmed: Live Video On YouTube This Year“), and their entry is worth a look as it outlines the current applications in the live streaming field.

References:

Friday, February 29th, 2008

web communication No Comments

Crazy Twitter: Proof of Concept of an A-Grade, Major League Twitter Stuff Up


Via @kolson29:

“here’s a video of the twitter craziness from last night http://s3.jeremybanks.ca/cr… about 1 hour ago from web“

The video is titled simply “Crazy Twitter” and what it depicts is simply astonishing. This screen capture was made during yet another Twitter meltdown last night in which users were randomly gaining access to each other’s accounts. Posts could be made, account details viewed, and passwords changed; anything was possible.

This is a security nightmare for the application to the extent you can now hear Twitter’s credibility dropping like a stone. If they don’t get their acts together they won’t be long for this world. This is an A-Grade, Major League stuff up.

Twitter desperately tried to smooth things over in a post (”Timeline Oddity Update” 27 February 2008), saying:

“Some folks experienced a more dramatic error which had them accidentally updating other people’s Twitter—this is a more serious issue which crosses into the realm of security. We took this very seriously, acted quickly, and learned from our mistake.

We hope our error didn’t put you out too much tonight. We’re pulling together the team and analyzing how we made this mistake so we can avoid this error next time.“

The implications of this bug are HUGE. I don’t care how seemingly insignificant a tool or application is, gaining access to another users account information is completely unacceptable. This borders on a “one strike and you’re out.” There will be people who delete their accounts for this. The question is how many.

Having gone back through my posts over the last few days, I do not seem to have been affected by all this. But based on the screen capture, it’s more than likely that the impact of this bug was substantial.

Twitter’s unexpected outages are an inconvenience. The fact their maintenance windows extend well past the announced endings is irritating. The fact user accounts were compromised and any one could view or change your account without you knowing is something far, far worse.

Update: Dave Winer has recently written a post titled “Guidelines for competing with Twitter” which is well worth a read.  I hope someone adopts his recommendations because I’m ready to switch; there just isn’t anything worthwhile to switch to yet.

References:

Friday, February 29th, 2008

social software No Comments

Edublogs.org Plagued by Outage


The last 24 hours have not been kind to Edublogs.org. James Farmer has indicated that over a period of 4 to 6 hours “a bug between the new forums features and caching caused quite a few blogs to time-out.”  This prevented some users from viewing their blogs.

[NB: My initial introduction indicated the outage lasted 24 hours.  Farmer has since clarified this is not the case.  Apologies for the misprint.]

This is a huge hit for edubloggers and some really bad press for the technology in general. While there are many really keen and switched-on educators in the blogosphere currently, many in the wider academic community have only just begun to wade into the realm.

Unexpected lengthy outages like this only serve to prolong the adoption time by painting blogs - and indeed online technology in general - as something that hasn’t matured yet and is not yet ready for widespread useage.

As someone who helps support services and applications (both large and small) at the uni level, I understand that outages like this are an unfortunate reality; but the blogging evangelist side of me cringes at the impact this may have across the sector.

Kate Olson echoed these sentiments on Reflection 2.0 (”Dependence on Web Apps” 28 February 2008):

“I believe wholeheartedly in opensource, freeware, and all the good stuff that can be done, but sometimes these glitches in otherwise great products can seriously hurt our professional image - for example: trying to do an entire workshop on how to use edublogs or wikispaces and the service is down!

…I’m in no way advocating NOT using web apps (I’m so deeply involved with them right now I couldn’t work without them!), but dealing with these issues needs to be taken into account. This is especially true when working with students who will NOT be accepting of the fact that all of their work has been lost or teaching educators new to technology about these tools - we need to be able to instill SOME confidence!”

Update: An announcement in the edublogs dashboard area just indicated:

“Apologies! - We’d like to apologise for the downtime today, a bug between the new forums features and caching caused quite a few blogs to time-out but we’ve fixed that now.”

Update: As seen in the comment area of this post, James Farm has reiterated his regrets for the problem and has provided the following correction on what I had initially reported:

“Hi Mike,

Completely agree, it was a pretty poor show by us and we’ve taken steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again - it’s a typical painful side-effect of new features (like the forums) meeting old features (like the cache) for the first time in a high load environment (

Just to clarify a few things though the site wasn’t down (people could still log in and do stuff) but some users couldn’t see their blogs… I know this is as good as a ‘might as well be down’ though so no excuses.

The problems lasted between 4-6 hours.

Cheers, James”

References:

Friday, February 29th, 2008

blogs in education 8 Comments

Static Text to Audio Podcast with Odiogo


Via Faces of Web 2.0 (”Odiogo translates your blog posts into podcasts“, 22 February 2008) I’ve just discovered the amazing Odiogo (pronounced “audio-go”).

Odiogo is an amazing innovation which enables you to have your text-based blog posts automatically translated into spoken audio recordings. The posts are then made available online as streaming audio or MP3 download.

In light of its feed-based nature, the recordings are also recognised by media players such as iTunes, Juice, and Windows Media Player. So your readers now have the option of listening to your posts on their way to work, and not just reading them.

Interestingly, the recording featured on Odiogo’s website pitches the tool as a way to avoid getting in trouble in the office for spending too much time browsing blogs and websites. I suppose I can see Odiogo’s relevance in that respect, but it’s arguably selling the tool short. To me its uses are far more valuable than that.

First and foremost are the accessibility considerations. Despite the fact screen readers and proprietary text-to-audio translation software are quite sophisticated these days, it is difficult to say how widespread their use is. Additionally I haven’t looked into the prices of these sorts of technologies, but I would hazard a guess that they aren’t cheap.

Use of Odiogo not only replicates the value of screen readers, it does it for free and incorporates popular RSS delivery methods that enable subscribing by podcasts or RSS aggregators.

Secondly there is the convenience factor. For some - particularly auditory learners - the option to sit back, close your eyes and listen to a recording is far preferable to reading the same content in text on a computer screen. Furthermore, anyone who has spent too much time online will tell you that computer monitors are not exactly easy on the eyes after a while.

From a content delivery standpoint Odiogo empowers webmasters and bloggers with the ability to expand their potential reader-base to an entirely new niche - and it does so without impacting upon the traditional textual delivery method.

Use of this service is incredibly easy. Simply visit Odiogo and enter your blog feed and email address at the top of the screen. After undergoing a quality control screening process you are sent two links:

  • An enriched audio feed - which features your standard text-based blog post along with unobtrusive links to download or stream the MP3 file for each post; and
  • Odiogo Control Page - This features the links to your latest files, several different options to share the feed, subscribe to the podcast in a media player, add to a website (e.g. iGoogle), or even stream all posts.

Tools are also provided for further integration into your blog. In the case of Wordpress users, Odiogo provides a plug that displays a listen button above each post.

Unfortunately the fact this blog is hosted on Wordpress.com means I can’t take advantage of this plugin, however I have burned my feed using Odiogo and will make audio recordings available for all future posts.

I’ll be including the feed link as a new option in the menu. You can also access this information below:

References:

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

digital media No Comments

Google Talk Chatbacks: I’m unimpressed


Via Mashable (”Google Talk Turns Into a Chat Widget“, 27 February 2008):

“A new Google Talk feature called Chatback lets you put up a widget on your website which lets visitors send messages directly to your Google Talk account. Your visitors, however, don’t need a Google talk account; they can simply start writing messages directly into the widget. The chat opens up in a new window, so visitors can leave the actual site and keep chatting.”

Mashable’s statement that the new Google Talk feature “lets visitors send messages directly to your Google Talk account” is not completely accurate.  The only role that the locally installed client plays in the equation is to provide your status update to the widget.

When a guest actually sends you a chat invite you are sent the URL to a web instance of Google Talk and must participate there via a browser.  You can’t do it from within the desktop client.

I’m completely unimpressed with Google Talk these days. What began as a promising uncluttered minimalist foray into instant messaging has quickly been relegated to the role of poorer cousin to Gmail Talk and the web-based GTalk.

Personally, I have no interest in online chat tools like Meebo and Gmail Tallk because I don’t like having the sessions tied to a browser.  Desktop clients circumvent these requirements through the installation of software.  You’re then able to remain logged in to the account without having a dedicated browser open and eating up your RAM.

Unfortunately, all developments in Google’s IM presence for months have been funnelled into their online web chat tools, with none of the same changes passed along to the client you install on your desktop.  The new emoticons aren’t there; the invisible status setting isn’t there; the group chat option isn’t there.  I used to think the changes were coming; now I think Google has written off the application completely but hasn’t bothered to tell users.

With online video, audio, and text chat, file transfer, and other tools so prevalent in other desktop IM clients like Skype, Yahoo! Messenger and MSN messenger, so few people actually using Google Talk relatively speaking, and a complete vacuum of innovation on their Desktop Client I fail to see any reasons for using Google Talk anymore.

References:

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

web communication 1 Comment

The Blackboard Verdict: Potential Impacts and Implications


Two days ago Wired Campus ran an article covering the verdict of the Blackboard vs. Desire2Learn lawsuit and my head has not stopped spinning since. Numerous other articles and posts have covered the outcome since then, but the Wired Campus one in particular really got the mental gymnastics going, specifically regarding the potential implications for the eLearning sector of higher education.

According to the article (”Blackboard Wins Patent-Infringement Case Against Rival Courseware Provider“):

“A federal jury in Texas ruled this afternoon in favor of Blackboard Inc., the nation’s leading online provider of course-management software, in its patent-infringement lawsuit against Desire2Learn Inc.”

Blackboard has been awarded a US$3.1 million dollar judgement in royalties and lost profits.

Potential Impacts

While this judgement certainly doesn’t bode well for Desire2Learn, it has also sent shockwaves across the sector with many people voicing anger, disgust, and concern for the future of online education. Calls for boycotts of Blackboard are common, as are at times guttural tirades against the company.

Frequently this includes accusations that the jury’s upholding of the patent gives Blackboard excessive control over the industry. This has in turn lead to speculation the verdict will have negative impacts to innovation and even additional legal challenges.

As Wired Campus continues:

“In particular, institutions that use open source systems designed by Moodle and Sakai have been concerned that an adverse verdict could shut them down, though Blackboard has promised to take no action against such users.”

Blackboard has shown itself to be ready, willing and able to mount legal challenges against other providers of proprietary Learning Management Systems (LMS), however the opensource movement had at least initially offered a sense of reprieve from the madness. Rumors that this may not be the case, and opensource alternatives could face challenges as well - whether true or just perceived - have caused a lot of confusion, uncertainty, and at times even fear.

According to Blackboard however, there will be no such challenges to opensource, providing certain criteria are met.

A lengthy section on their corporate website called the “Blackboard Patent Pledge”seems to seek to quell these exact concerns. The Pledge begins with the following statement:

“Blackboard hereby commits not to assert any of the U.S. patents listed below, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries, against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software or Home-Grown Systems to the extent that such Open Source Software and Home-Grown Systems are not Bundled with proprietary software.“

Drilling down into the detail on the meaning of “bundled”, Blackboard indicates:

For purposes of this pledge, Open Source Software will be considered to be Bundled with proprietary software if any of the following are true:

  1. the Open Source Software and proprietary software are licensed or provided via a single agreement;
  2. the Open Source Software and proprietary software are sold together;
  3. the Open Source Software and proprietary software are provided together via a media (e.g., on the same CD(s));
  4. the proprietary software cannot operate without the Open Source Software; or
  5. the Open Source Software and proprietary software can both be downloaded from the same location.

At least on the surface, Blackboard seems quite clear about it’s position not to pursue opensource initiatives, devoting several separate paragraphs to the subject including:

Opensource intiatives

“..Blackboard hereby irrevocably agrees not to assert the listed U.S. patents, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries, against the following open source initiatives: Sakai, Moodle, ATutor, Bodington, Elgg, Lon-Capa, Claroline, Connexions, Dokeos, Learnloop, Interact, Segue, Whiteboard.”

Institutions that implement opensource LMS’s

“To promote the use and development of Open Source Software, Blackboard agrees that it will not assert the listed patents against any institution using or providing Open Source Software.“

and also

“Suing an institution to enforce our patent would not be in Blackboard’s interest as it would generate intense dissatisfaction among Blackboard’s clients and potential clients. Blackboard has never sued a school, museum, or library and depends on the goodwill of the academic community for our survival. “

That being said, they don’t say that won’t ever sue an institution:

“Blackboard cannot promise never to sue a school, museum or library to enforce its patent without placing at risk critical rights and protections afforded under this patent. Specifically, nothing in this pledge or FAQ should be read as implicitly or expressly granting a license to practice any patented invention, and Blackboard reserves the right to sue any entity not otherwise covered by this pledge for inducing or contributing to such school’s infringement.“

Potential Implications

On Open Source Implementations

In terms of the potential impact upon the landscape, the green-light effectively given to opensource initiatives increases their profile almost immediately. Particularly in Australia, institutions are already facing a financial crunch in which fewer and fewer resources are expected to support more and more services. Open source has therefore already begun to increase in recognition and consideration for this reason; Blackboard’s hands-off promise can only serve to shed opensource alternatives in an even greater light.

On Personal Learning Environments (PLEs)

Secondly, as Brian Lamb discussed on Twitter:

“@mbogle - I am oddly encouraged by this Blackboard patent. What clearer demonstration of the bankruptcy of this model is possible? 02:19 AM February 23, 2008 from web in reply to mbogle“

Initially I didn’t quite understand what Brian was driving at, however I quickly began to see his logic when considering the implications of the verdict on the emergence of Personal Learning Environments.

As Wikipedia explains:

“Personal Learning Environments are systems that help learners take control of and manage their own learning. This includes providing support for learners to

  • set their own learning goals
  • manage their learning; managing both content and process
  • communicate with others in the process of learning

and thereby achieve learning goals.”

This short definition immediately puts the concept of the PLE in direct opposition to that of the LMS. PLE’s are learner driven, flexible and personal; LMS’s are centralised, instructor-driven, exceptionally rigid and managed.

It is conceivable that the Blackboard verdict will leave increasing numbers of people looking for a new model - be it out of concern for the fate of the LMS, discontent with its relative rigidity, or even disgust with Blackboard. This may prove the perfect opportunity for a new generation in online learning to take root and grow, founded on the inherent freedom and flexibility of the PLE.

In this sense the PLE could prove to be an even greater threat to Blackboard’s empire than Desire2Learn ever was, because it is one that largely eliminates a reliance on one mandatory technical framework, and importantly places a far greater sense of control in the hands of instructors and students. It also renders Blackboard’s patent and model effectively useless, because in PLE’s, the more invisible the technology, the better it is.

References:

Sunday, February 24th, 2008

eLearning No Comments

A reflection on “Learning objects, repositories, sharing and re-usability”


The discussion I put forth yesterday regarding the wider implications of OpenLearn’s content has led to me to reflect upon the one and only academic publication I’ve ever been a part of, “Learning objects, repositories, sharing and re-usability: a case study” (Koppi, Bogle, Bogle; 2005), which I wrote with Tony Koppi and my wife Lisa. Having just re-read it for the first time in years, it’s surprising how relevant our experiences are in the contemporary debate between Schmoller and Lane.

As was the case at the time of our paper’s publication, Schmoller and Lane’s debate highlights a fundamental difference in opinion as to the purpose of online showcases and repositories, and arguably the extent of consideration given to their use in improving the learning experience for students.

The implication of Schmoller’s criticism is that the content featured in OpenLearn should showcase primarily high quality content - if not exclusively. This is effectively adopting an “if you build it, they will come” mentality in which the ends are key, and the means are not even considered.

Not only is this contrary to our experience, it is arguably a narrow-minded view that overlooks the necessity for cultural chance in exclusive favour of the static end-product of the showcase.

Our initial approach mirrored the vision that Schmoller proposes, however in reality this proved a deterrent to sharing rather than an inspiration:

“Initially, senior managers of U21 insisted that only high quality learning resources should be catalogued in the LRC. This had a negative effect on some potential users who felt that their unpublished, every-day teaching materials weren’t good enough to submit to a global pool.”

Lane’s argument points to the more fundamental consideration of facilitation of cultural change, in which consideration to reality is as critical, if not more so, as depiction of the ideal. The significance, as our experiences illustrate, lay in a fairly widespread knowledge vacuum on the reasons for sharing:

“General awareness of learning objects and how they could be shared and re-utilised is not revalent in the academic culture. Most academics do not think of their teaching resources, learning activities and assessment tasks as ‘objects’ let alone that they could be shared with others to make efficiency gains by utilising their colleagues’ learning objects.”

Compounding this issue is a fundamental obsession with resource hoarding in which “teaching materials are considered personal and private and even something to be protected.”

Both of these issues cannot be overcome via a glittering showcase alone, but instead through a complete paradigm shift in perception on the value of open collaboration and sharing. The relevance of showcases in this sense lay in their ability to depict real examples of how this can be accomplished, as well as the possibilities that can emerge once the old perceptions are discarded; but they cannot influence these change in and of themselves.

References:

Saturday, February 23rd, 2008

eLearning, education 2 Comments

Sharing and Reuse: Idealism versus Reality in Academia


An interesting discussion is unfolding on Seb Schmoller’s blog regarding the quality of OpenLearn’s content. Schmoller is Chief Executive of ALT - the Association for Learning Technology.

Earlier this month, Schmoller speculated that the Open Unveristity was being cautious in what content was made available (”Is the Open University making the right content open in OpenLearn?” 7 February, 2008), adding that:

“I think that if the OU does not use OpenLearn to showcase its best stuff, the OpenLearn initiative risks being judged as some rather pedestrian content sitting in a (possibly) innovative environment. That would be a major missed opportunity.”

In a response (”Selecting content for OpenLearn - an insider account“, 21 Feb. 2008), Andy Lane, Director of OpenLearn, argues that to do so would not be representative of OU material as they are now. More significantly than that though, Lane argues the following:

“Unless we grow a culture of sharing and reusing content, good, bad and indifferent then we will remain in our ivory towers doing our own thing, thinking ours is the best or better than someone else’s and we are not looking at what works for learners.”

NB: “The OpenLearn website gives free access to course materials from The Open University. The LearningSpace is open to learners anywhere in the world.”

While I do see the arguments of both sides of the story, in the present state of affairs regarding sharing and reuse - particularly in higher education - Lane’s rebuttal most accurately incorporates the present realities.

When I first started at UNSW I worked on a project called the Learning Resources Community (LRC). This project sought to establish a centralised portal through which lecturers, administrative and general staff could come together to collaborate on projects, hold discussions and importantly, share and develop learning materials.

The project’s vision emerged from the collaborative desires of 18 international institutions in the Universitas 21 Consortium. Significantly, buy-in for this project came from senior level managers rather than grass-roots lecturers on the front line. While the early discussions succeeded in giving the project a fair degree of political recognition, we neglected to seek the input and support of the end-users who’s participation and resource contributions were to be the sustaining lifeblood of the project.

We shared the same idealistic vision that Schmoller describes in his comment, however in practice the implementation quickly ran into the perceptual realities of higher education.

My role was to target and support the end-users - the lecturers and academics - to inspire their uptake of the system, and discuss the significance and value of sharing and reusing learning materials.

Barring the occasional passionate early-adopter willing to try anything once, the responses I received were almost always the same.

They would first support the project’s vision and agree with the idealistic objectives, saying it was undoubtedly a fantastic thing for learning. However this would be inevitably followed by one of two statements:

  1. They would indicate they didn’t think they had anything that was worth sharing; or
  2. They would argue they have no incentives to share their learning materials because teaching was not weighed heavily - if at all - in promotional criteria.

My experiences have shown that academics support the idealism, but trip up on the implementation because many university systems at the time - and indeed still today - did not have policy measures in place that encouraged the sharing of resources in this way. Publishing papers in accredited journals was seen as recognised and important; sharing the resources used and developed to facilitate student learning was not.

In some cases the implication were also that instructors and lecturers had reservations regarding how their materials would stack up to those of others.

In other words, the lack of incentives to share combined with concerns of negative peer feedback resulted in the majority of instructors I met with indicating they were unwilling to share their teaching materials.

The ultimate reality for the LRC mirrored Lane’s description. We realised we needed to achieve a base level of understanding and buy-in across the university regarding sharing and reuse - and the reasons for doing it - before we could even begin to address the showcasing of our “best stuff”, as Schmoller advocates.

This required the facilitation of a fundamental cultural shift and change process - with all the concerns, issues and objections this entailed; not simply a full repository of learning materials or open courseware. Sharing is as much about working together in pursuit of a shared vision to empower learning than it is the resources themselves.

In terms of the debate between Schmoller and Lane, an impressive showcase is but one piece of the overall puzzle. Without motives in place to inspire reuse and sharing - and as importantly recognition of why it’s significant - even the most glittering showcase will be but a hollow victory.

References:

Friday, February 22nd, 2008

education 1 Comment

Dealing with different learning styles in an online framework


As luck and coincidence would have it, I attended a full-day professional development seminar yesterday that featured a strong interwoven thread on learning styles.  We covered the Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, Kinesthetic, Auditory and Visual Learning styles, and importantly began to discuss ways of holistically designing learning sessions to ensure most - if not all - styles are catered to in one form or another.

I’d already been studying up on most of these concepts as a self-directed learning exercise, and was therefore familiar with the basics, but to discuss it in class with people who actually understood the material thoroughly (including my colleagues) was fantastic.

That being said though I’m beginning to gain a better grasp of the complexities of formulating a curriculum design for an online environment that caters to multiple learning styles.  There are so many possible combinations of learning style preferences that my head is spinning.

As I’ve covered here lately (however inadequately), learners can favour left-brain or right-brain activities; prefer to learn kinaesthetically, auditorily, or visually; prefer either concrete experience (feeling) or abstract conceptualisation (thinking); and vary between active experimentation (doing) and reflective observation (watching).

How on Earth do you integrate each of these styles to maximise and facilitate the learning experience?  The answer seems to be: Use a bit of everything.

In a traditional setting this could call upon any of the following:

  • Small group work
  • Self-directed learning
  • Facilitator-directed learning
  • Activities, including hands-on experimentation
  • Use of video, imagery, music and other audio recordings
  • Provision of reading materials
  • Active discussion
  • Time for personal reflection
  • Case Studies and Role Play
  • Large-scale lectures**

This list is hardly comprehensive.  In fact I would welcome any comments that add to the possibilities - I’ll add them to the list.

** Large-scale lectures are an unfortunate reality in higher education, and are used far more frequently than they should be.  Lectures of this nature will cater to certain learning styles, however in an ideal world they would be used sparingly to disseminate information that cannot be presented effectively any other way. **

As I said, the above examples were presented with the setting of a traditional classroom or lecture theatre in mind.  The prospect of translating this into an online environment adds a new layer of complexity to the equation.  Not only does this substantially reduce - if not eliminate outright - the level of face-to-face interactivity, it introduces the need for one or more software applications, tools, or virtual environments to house the framework for the learning activities.  This includes the foundational information, as well as spaces for activities, discussion and reflection.

Furthermore, and arguably even more critical than it is in a classroom, is the facilitation and moderation of the activities.  Bring students together when they’re sitting next to one another is one thing; doing it when they’re online is entirely another.

You also need to consider how best to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the exercises in terms of supporting student learning outcomes, but I won’t even go there yet.

All this makes the critical point that one application or tool doesn’t fit all - not the LMS, not a wiki, not a blog.  As with traditional environments, the activities need to be varied, and so too must the online learning spaces.

Even more pointedly this leads to the criticism that use of the Learning Management System as solely a means of pushing content - e.g. PDF and PowerPoint abuse - is hardly an effective teaching method.  There are times it is an appropriate option; other times it’s trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

As with traditional classrooms, laboratories and lecture theatres, online learning spaces are what you make of them.  In and of themselves they are empty shells; it’s the combination of information, interaction, synthesis, reflection, activity, and participation that ensure an effective learning experience.

Now, I think it’s time for some case studies…

Wednesday, February 20th, 2008

eLearning, education No Comments

Collectivism vs. Connectivism


In elearnspace today (”Collective Intelligence? Nah. Connective Intelligence“) George Siemens discusses his reservations about the increasing emphasis on collectivism in learning - e.g. the collective mind - and argues it doesn’t sit well with him.

“I can (and have) used the term myself to explain the combined efforts of “the many” in achieving an outcome, solving a problem, or determining the value of a resources (such as voting/rating systems in Amazon and Digg). As a term, it resonates with people - the value of being part of a larger community and sharing and creating information together is valuable, if not necessary today.”

In a social software sense I see these two concepts as highlighting an important distinction between wiki and blog.

Wiki’s, being single sites that enable editing and contributions by small through vast communities of users, cater largely to the concept of group collectivism. When developing a wiki, the participatory activities of each individual user contribute to the development of a single knowledgebase. In a sense, the wiki comes to represent the group mind.

This is a powerful concept that enables the aggregating of multiple perspectives and insights into a far more holistic piece of work than could be produced by an individual alone. In doing this however the contributions of each individual contributor are largely absorbed to the point where there is no clear delineation between what they have produced, and what has been produced by others.

As useful an exercise as this is, it raises fundamental questions on the role and importance of the individual in the process.

At stake, Siemens argues, is the question of “how we are to perceive the individual in a world where the collaborative/collective is increasingly valued. Collective intelligence places the collective first. Connective intelligence places the individual node first.”

In the context of education, the purpose of schools and institutions is to facilitate learning. Group work and collectivistic activities can go a long way to doing this, however the opportunity for individual synthesis and exploration must be nurtured as well. This is the significance of connectivism.

As Siemens explains,

“…people do not think together in coming to certain conclusions, but rather than people think on their own and the value of the collaborative comes in the connection and combination of ideas. Each person retains their own identity and ideas, but they are shaped and influenced by the work of others.”

The opportunity for synthesis and exploration necessitates a space for reflection and room to grow. A blog is therefore far more appropriate for this sort of activity than a wiki, because: Blogs are connective; a Wiki is collective.

Anytime a wiki is used in the classroom, blogs should be as well because they enable students to take the information that has emerged from the collectivistic activities and further explore them through connectivistic ones.

References:

Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

eLearning, social software No Comments

Previous Entries