The middle of September, from 13th of September to be precise, I will be involved in another open online course. After our course on Critical Literacies over the summer the course this time will be about our bread and butter, Personal Learning Environments. Stephen Downes and I will be working with George Siemens from the Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute of Athabasca University and Dave Cormier from the University of Prince Edward Island to get at the heart of PLEs .
The course aims to discuss the research literature that is now available on PLEs and we will for instance talk and think about questions such as:
Is the PLE a technical environment, or a concept?
Is it even possible when learners are in control of their online environment to produce a PLE at all?
What could such an environment look like? How could environments and developments of this nature be evaluated?
Can PLEs be linked to institutions of education or is that connection a contradiction in terms in a learner-controlled environment?
Should people have a particular level of autonomy in their learning to make the most of PLEs and would some literacies be critical to working with PLE/Ns?
How do PLE/Ns relate to social , informal, non-formal, incidental, formal, networked and self-directed learning ?
How do PLEs related to the eXtended Web?
If you’re interested, you can sign up here
The format will be similar to the Critical Literacies course we held this summer. It is also a connectivist course and you can find a course outline and a programme here.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Emerging Technologies in Distance Education is published
Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, the latest book in the Issues in Distance Education Series of the Athabasca University Press, edited by George Veletsianos has just come out and it is a cracker! As you might expect all chapters deal with the latest emerging technologies and how they might be applied in open and distance education. If you click the link to the eBook you can download a copy for free, or if you prefer to have a hard copy as reference on your shelf you can order that as well.
Yes, one of the chapters is about my work at Swansea University. Enjoy.
Yes, one of the chapters is about my work at Swansea University. Enjoy.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The eXtended Web and the Personal Learning Environment
The eXtended Web and the Personal Learning Environment
Steve Wheeler’s presentation on Web3.0 has stirred Stephen Downes and George Siemens into discussing not Web3.0, but Web X (or Web eXtended) as Stephen calls it, on their blogs. Semantics in names and name tags aside, Web 1.0 mainly seemed to consist of semantics, Web 2.0 of connections, communications, multi-media, virtual worlds and the introduction of mobile devices through the emergence of wireless and higher Internet connection speeds; while Web 3.0 connects data streams in a supposedly intelligent way.
The combination of all four would lead to Web X.0 (Steve) or Web X (Stephen). I myself actually prefer the full name ‘the eXtended web’ as it tells us a little more about its possibilities for learning, and George rightly asks for the lift of the debate from semantic games towards what this Xweb (;-)) means for education and learning.
I am mostly interested in these developments in their relation to Personal Learning Environments as several people over the past months have asked me why I think there is a need to develop a Personal Learning Environment at all. Applications and aggregators of information are freely available and people can take their pick of their preferred ones and create their own network. Why would anybody need some researchers and developers to work on a PLE for them? After all, we all know how easy it is for conglomerates to take over the development of tools and applications and transform them into a moneymaking machine, rather than the powerful and promising tools that they could be for the learner.
Well, there are three issues that I find important in this respect.
1. Intelligent data connections are one exciting option for PLE development and networked learning, as these connecting data streams could through intelligent use of personal data, and of data and searches generated through earlier learning activities, inform the new searches and learning activities. Recommender systems of information, resources, critical friends and experts could form part of the access options for learners in a PLE that they would not likely be finding in a self-directed fashion.
2. That brings me to the challenges of an open online networked environment for learning. It is all good and well as academics and learning technologists with a high level of epistemological maturity and critical thinking skills to feel confident that all adults, if they want to, can find the relevant information they need, and communicate with others online and learn in the process. The reality, however, is different and research is available to show that not all adult learners are able to critically assess what they find online and might prefer to receive guidance from knowledgeable others. There is also research available to show how difficult it is for anybody to reach and access a deep level of information by using search engines. Self-directed networked learning stops with a commercial search engine or highly visible node on the network, whose interests might not be served by providing the learner with information far removed from its top search results or choice of displayed resources.
Interestingly, educators have highlighted that there is a real need for critical literacies while learning informally on networks. A high number of courses and publications discussing critical literacies are emerging, and show that educators in the field also see that a major stumbling block to personalized learning on informal networks is that people might not necessarily have the critical literacies required to learn and search independently.
Learning in my view is not synonymous with accessing information, and requires a level of reflection, analysis, perhaps also of problem solving, creativity and interaction with people to be able to get the best out of the structures and sub-structures of the Internet. A PLE with the right components can help with this.
3. Access to technology. Issues of access to technology have been moved aside in recent years as the majority of people in the northern hemisphere should now have access to technology. I have followed the trends in access and digital divides over the past six years; in haves and have-nots being able to access technology, and it is true that more than half the population of countries such as the UK now have access to technology, broadband and the Internet. It still means that millions don’t have access and don’t use the Internet. There are reasons for their non-participation. Some are related to age and socio-economic group, but some are also related to relevance, confidence and skills set. Clearly the most vulnerable people in society and the people who could benefit from access through cheaper bills and access to social services are also the people not using it.
The people least likely to use the Internet are also the least likely to participate in adult education. And I haven’t even spoken about the people on the southern half of the globe, where the access and participation rate to technology and learning is even lower and the group of vulnerable people greater. Should we just leave these people behind?
Or could PLEs that would provide help with Internet use and might be used on mobile devices be the answer to making the Internet relevant to the lives of all? Although technology is not high on the priority list of excluded people, slowly but steadily they become involved as it is clear that there is a correlation between the rate of convergence and the access threshold for people. The higher the rate of convergence of digital devices, the lower the access threshold to technology use has become. I think that PLEs that hold the right components will aid learners who are not so confident in using the internet for learning activities.
What components would be needed?
The components that were formulated in Stephen Downes’ vision for a PLE at the start of the PLE project of the National Research Council of Canada are the following: 1. A personal profiler that would collect and store personal information. 2. An information and resource aggregator to collect information and resources. 3. Editors and publishers enabling people to produce and publish artifacts to aid the learning and interest of others. 4. Helper applications that would provide the pedagogical backbone of the PLE and make connections with other internet services to help the learner make sense of information, applications and resources. 5. Services of the learners choice. 6. Recommenders of information and resources.
I think Stephen was right. The further we are in the process of developing these components, the clearer I can see how together they could really work in a PLE based on the eXtended Web. The could help overcome challenges related to learning on informal online networks, such as to advance people’s confidence levels in using technology and increase the relevance of their searches and communication.
Steve Wheeler’s presentation on Web3.0 has stirred Stephen Downes and George Siemens into discussing not Web3.0, but Web X (or Web eXtended) as Stephen calls it, on their blogs. Semantics in names and name tags aside, Web 1.0 mainly seemed to consist of semantics, Web 2.0 of connections, communications, multi-media, virtual worlds and the introduction of mobile devices through the emergence of wireless and higher Internet connection speeds; while Web 3.0 connects data streams in a supposedly intelligent way.
The combination of all four would lead to Web X.0 (Steve) or Web X (Stephen). I myself actually prefer the full name ‘the eXtended web’ as it tells us a little more about its possibilities for learning, and George rightly asks for the lift of the debate from semantic games towards what this Xweb (;-)) means for education and learning.
I am mostly interested in these developments in their relation to Personal Learning Environments as several people over the past months have asked me why I think there is a need to develop a Personal Learning Environment at all. Applications and aggregators of information are freely available and people can take their pick of their preferred ones and create their own network. Why would anybody need some researchers and developers to work on a PLE for them? After all, we all know how easy it is for conglomerates to take over the development of tools and applications and transform them into a moneymaking machine, rather than the powerful and promising tools that they could be for the learner.
Well, there are three issues that I find important in this respect.
1. Intelligent data connections are one exciting option for PLE development and networked learning, as these connecting data streams could through intelligent use of personal data, and of data and searches generated through earlier learning activities, inform the new searches and learning activities. Recommender systems of information, resources, critical friends and experts could form part of the access options for learners in a PLE that they would not likely be finding in a self-directed fashion.
2. That brings me to the challenges of an open online networked environment for learning. It is all good and well as academics and learning technologists with a high level of epistemological maturity and critical thinking skills to feel confident that all adults, if they want to, can find the relevant information they need, and communicate with others online and learn in the process. The reality, however, is different and research is available to show that not all adult learners are able to critically assess what they find online and might prefer to receive guidance from knowledgeable others. There is also research available to show how difficult it is for anybody to reach and access a deep level of information by using search engines. Self-directed networked learning stops with a commercial search engine or highly visible node on the network, whose interests might not be served by providing the learner with information far removed from its top search results or choice of displayed resources.
Interestingly, educators have highlighted that there is a real need for critical literacies while learning informally on networks. A high number of courses and publications discussing critical literacies are emerging, and show that educators in the field also see that a major stumbling block to personalized learning on informal networks is that people might not necessarily have the critical literacies required to learn and search independently.
Learning in my view is not synonymous with accessing information, and requires a level of reflection, analysis, perhaps also of problem solving, creativity and interaction with people to be able to get the best out of the structures and sub-structures of the Internet. A PLE with the right components can help with this.
3. Access to technology. Issues of access to technology have been moved aside in recent years as the majority of people in the northern hemisphere should now have access to technology. I have followed the trends in access and digital divides over the past six years; in haves and have-nots being able to access technology, and it is true that more than half the population of countries such as the UK now have access to technology, broadband and the Internet. It still means that millions don’t have access and don’t use the Internet. There are reasons for their non-participation. Some are related to age and socio-economic group, but some are also related to relevance, confidence and skills set. Clearly the most vulnerable people in society and the people who could benefit from access through cheaper bills and access to social services are also the people not using it.
The people least likely to use the Internet are also the least likely to participate in adult education. And I haven’t even spoken about the people on the southern half of the globe, where the access and participation rate to technology and learning is even lower and the group of vulnerable people greater. Should we just leave these people behind?
Or could PLEs that would provide help with Internet use and might be used on mobile devices be the answer to making the Internet relevant to the lives of all? Although technology is not high on the priority list of excluded people, slowly but steadily they become involved as it is clear that there is a correlation between the rate of convergence and the access threshold for people. The higher the rate of convergence of digital devices, the lower the access threshold to technology use has become. I think that PLEs that hold the right components will aid learners who are not so confident in using the internet for learning activities.
What components would be needed?
The components that were formulated in Stephen Downes’ vision for a PLE at the start of the PLE project of the National Research Council of Canada are the following: 1. A personal profiler that would collect and store personal information. 2. An information and resource aggregator to collect information and resources. 3. Editors and publishers enabling people to produce and publish artifacts to aid the learning and interest of others. 4. Helper applications that would provide the pedagogical backbone of the PLE and make connections with other internet services to help the learner make sense of information, applications and resources. 5. Services of the learners choice. 6. Recommenders of information and resources.
I think Stephen was right. The further we are in the process of developing these components, the clearer I can see how together they could really work in a PLE based on the eXtended Web. The could help overcome challenges related to learning on informal online networks, such as to advance people’s confidence levels in using technology and increase the relevance of their searches and communication.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
How critical?
At an online presentation at a conference in Barcelona on Personal Learning environments, I made the following statement:
To learn independently using a Personal Learning Environment people not only need to become self-directed learners, but also need particular abilities and competencies. There is no ‘overarching tutor’ to guide learners and to challenge their ideas and beliefs or to help them in gathering information and understanding the media and the way they represent information. Instead, the onus is on learners themselves to make these judgments and to validate information and knowledge, and to find knowledgeable others who can help them with this.
Downes (2009) discussed the concept of ‘critical literacies’ in relation to successful learning on informal networks, while Bouchard and Kop (2010, in press) emphasised the need for individuals to be able to ‘network’ effectively, which requires considerable levels of meta-cognition and collaboration skills that, they argue, not all learners possess. Networks are not neutral and power free; there are influential hubs that determine what information people are able to access
The new learning environment requires learners to be active in their learning by editing and producing information themselves in a variety of formats and by communicating and collaborating with others in new ways. People need to have a certain level of creativity and innovative thinking, in addition to feeling competent, confident and comfortable at using ICT applications to be able to do so.
Learners need to be flexible, able to adapt to new situations and able to solve problems that they come across during their learning journey. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people learn some of these informally from each other, but other critical literacies, i.e. information literacy, develop at a very early age and will be hard to acquire at a later date.
Critical thinking skills and media literacy require the presence of an expert to challenge beliefs and show opposing points of view to the one the learner has which is hard to facilitate in an open online environment.
Although some, eg Stephen Downes, argue that these skills will develop while engaging in online communication with others, or via challenging feedback or recommendations through the PLE system itself (Downes, 2009).
What do you think?
Rita
To learn independently using a Personal Learning Environment people not only need to become self-directed learners, but also need particular abilities and competencies. There is no ‘overarching tutor’ to guide learners and to challenge their ideas and beliefs or to help them in gathering information and understanding the media and the way they represent information. Instead, the onus is on learners themselves to make these judgments and to validate information and knowledge, and to find knowledgeable others who can help them with this.
Downes (2009) discussed the concept of ‘critical literacies’ in relation to successful learning on informal networks, while Bouchard and Kop (2010, in press) emphasised the need for individuals to be able to ‘network’ effectively, which requires considerable levels of meta-cognition and collaboration skills that, they argue, not all learners possess. Networks are not neutral and power free; there are influential hubs that determine what information people are able to access
The new learning environment requires learners to be active in their learning by editing and producing information themselves in a variety of formats and by communicating and collaborating with others in new ways. People need to have a certain level of creativity and innovative thinking, in addition to feeling competent, confident and comfortable at using ICT applications to be able to do so.
Learners need to be flexible, able to adapt to new situations and able to solve problems that they come across during their learning journey. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people learn some of these informally from each other, but other critical literacies, i.e. information literacy, develop at a very early age and will be hard to acquire at a later date.
Critical thinking skills and media literacy require the presence of an expert to challenge beliefs and show opposing points of view to the one the learner has which is hard to facilitate in an open online environment.
Although some, eg Stephen Downes, argue that these skills will develop while engaging in online communication with others, or via challenging feedback or recommendations through the PLE system itself (Downes, 2009).
What do you think?
Rita
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Design and Development of a Personal Learning Environment: Researching the Learning Experience
Here a presentation on my PLE research. This time a presentation that I gave at the EDEN conference in Valencia earlier this month. I didn’t manage to capture the audio at the conference so recorded the half hour audio, which doesn’t sound as natural as it would have been at the conference, but there you are, that’s life!
The presentation is on the research in developing engaging learning experiences in a PLE.
The presentation is on the research in developing engaging learning experiences in a PLE.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Critical Literacies
Next week a new massive open online course will take place. This time by Stephen Downes and me. As part of our PLE Project and its research, we will be holding a connectivist style learning event on Critical Literacies.
Is it going to be a course? Or will it be a learning opportunity? Or rather e-information? Is it a conversation or a dialogue? Will there be guides on the sides or sages on the stages? Will people learn from each other, from knowledgeable others, from aggregated information or not at all? What tools do the learners choose to use, and how important are these in all our learning?
All these questions came up in research on earlier Connectivist courses that were held in 2008 and 2009 by Stephen and George Siemens and I look forward to being involved in this new project as I have a couple of questions of my own. If you are interested in thinking with others about the literacies that now seem critical to learn while using new and emerging technologies, you can enroll here.
Is it going to be a course? Or will it be a learning opportunity? Or rather e-information? Is it a conversation or a dialogue? Will there be guides on the sides or sages on the stages? Will people learn from each other, from knowledgeable others, from aggregated information or not at all? What tools do the learners choose to use, and how important are these in all our learning?
All these questions came up in research on earlier Connectivist courses that were held in 2008 and 2009 by Stephen and George Siemens and I look forward to being involved in this new project as I have a couple of questions of my own. If you are interested in thinking with others about the literacies that now seem critical to learn while using new and emerging technologies, you can enroll here.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
presence and the learning experience
I have been reading and thinking again about the concept of presence the last couple of weeks and how presence can be raised in an online (learning) site. It seems others are also interested in this as Clarence Fisher wrote this week about raising the level of trust in an online community, while Robert Squire discussed teaching presence.
What do I mean by presence, and why do I think that it is relevant to PLEs?
I found the ideas by Lombard & Ditton very helpful in getting my head around all different aspects of presence. They wrote an excellent article on presence and highlighted six views of it in web-based developments. Even though their literature review was carried out in the late 90s, their six interrelated variations are still valid today I think. They are:
1. Presence as social richness: The word presence as a medium ‘perceived as sociable, warm, sensitive, personal and intimate when it is used to interact with other people’ (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.4). Communications are expected to somehow express the ‘social, symbolic, and nonverbal cues of human communication’, which is of course difficult in an online environment. This form of presence is associated with ‘two important forms of non-mediated interpersonal communication: intimacy and immediacy’ in the form of body language through for instance smiling and eye contact, and also voice quality, choice of language, speech duration and laughter (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.4-5). In this sense a medium high in ‘presence as social richness’ would convey a high level of intimacy.
2. Presence as realism: Media that represent a realistic representation of people, objects and events also contribute to the level of presence. Television and film are media that try to do this. By creating a sense of reality in the pictures they produce and create an experience that would be plausible in real life (Lombard & Ditton, 1997)
3. Presence as transportation: Presence as transportation could take three forms: it could transport people or scenes from different times or different places to the here and now, it could move us to other locations or other time zones, or these two are mixed to a time and place where they are shared. The idea in this form of presence is ‘the degree to which participants of a telemeeting get the impression of sharing space with interlocutors who are at a remote physical site’ (Mulbach et al, 1995, p.293). This could be in video or film, or through videoconferencing.
4. Presence and immersion: In this form of presence the participant perceives to be immersed in a virtual environment. This could involve not only psychological immersion, but also through the senses in for instance immersive virtual reality systems, games, simulations, IMAX theatres wearing 3D-glasses.
5. Presence as social actor within a medium:In this form of presence a para-social interaction is created. This would entail for instance that ‘personalities use direct address camera views. . . informal speech patterns, sincerity, and simplicity . . .. In a parasocial interaction media users respond to social cues presented by persons they encounter witin a medium even though it is illogical and even inappropriate to do so’. (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.8). A heightened form of presence is created, where it seems that an interaction with the viewer or another person is taking place on the screen, while in reality this is not the case. Examples of these would be avatars, or examples have been highlighted of people talking to people on television screens (Lombard & Ditton, 1997)
6. Presence as medium as social actor: In this form of presence participants in the media experience will interact socially to clues provided by computer programmes themselves (not representations of people). It seems that people respond to computers as social entities, especially if there are associations in the activity with social activities in real life, such as education. Lombard and Ditton (1997) gave the example of people being more susceptible to praise by a tutor in an intelligent tutoring system if it was given by a different computer than when their own computer praised its own performance.
The main characteristic running through all six conceptualisations of presence is that of an illusion of non-mediation. In other words, there is a high level of presence when a participant in an online activity experiences the activity as if it was taking place in real life, without the mediation of the computer. Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) added some ideas on presence related to online teaching and learning in particular. They argued that deep and meaningful learning results if three forms of presence play a role in education. They highlight cognitive presence, that ensures a certain level of depth in the educational process, which could be compared to “intensity” as highlighted by Shedroff (2009) in developing web-based experiences and “Vividness” by Lombard and Ditton (1997) in the creation of meaningful online experiences. Anderson (2008) also refers to social presence, which would be similar to the social presence described by Lombard and Ditton, and in a formal educational environment that of a teacher presence. In PLE based learning the teacher presence is not there, but you could argue that there are knowledgeable others out there on the Web who might to a certain extent take on that role.
It seems that most important other factors related to presence are “sensory richness” and “vividness”, which was highlighted by Shedroff (2009) as important factors in enhancing online experiences in the form of “sensorial triggers” and “intensity”. The higher the number of human senses engaged in the activity, the higher the presence experienced will be. Lombard and Ditton (1997) argue that ‘visual media have more social presence than verbal (audio) media, which in turn have more social presence than written media. Particular camera techniques when using video can for instance enhance presence by using close-up views, direct address techniques where the person in the image speaks directly to the user, or by creating views through the eye of the user.
The level of interactivity was another aspect that enhances presence. ‘The number of inputs from the user that the medium accepts and to which it responds’ could affect presence and the level of experience, while the type of input by the user, ie. through voice, video, or button clicks, and the type of response received was also seen as an influence on the level of presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.18), in addition to the speed with which the medium responds to user inputs. The number of people involved in the activity was seen as another factor in the level of presence, while the content of the online presentation was highlighted as a contributing factor in the level of presence during online activities. The level of enjoyment and “fun” that people experience and a high level of immersion were also seen to have a positive effect on people’s involvement in learning activities.
So the higher the level of presence, the higher the level of involvement in the online activity and the deeper the experience. The question of how to create presence in the design of a PLE is an important one as at the heart of PLE-based learning would be a high level of engagement and depth of learning. Thinking about the six principles that Lombard & Ditton identified and integrating them somehow into the environment might make all the difference to the experience the learner has while using a PLE. The NRC research will certainly take note of them!
What do I mean by presence, and why do I think that it is relevant to PLEs?
I found the ideas by Lombard & Ditton very helpful in getting my head around all different aspects of presence. They wrote an excellent article on presence and highlighted six views of it in web-based developments. Even though their literature review was carried out in the late 90s, their six interrelated variations are still valid today I think. They are:
1. Presence as social richness: The word presence as a medium ‘perceived as sociable, warm, sensitive, personal and intimate when it is used to interact with other people’ (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.4). Communications are expected to somehow express the ‘social, symbolic, and nonverbal cues of human communication’, which is of course difficult in an online environment. This form of presence is associated with ‘two important forms of non-mediated interpersonal communication: intimacy and immediacy’ in the form of body language through for instance smiling and eye contact, and also voice quality, choice of language, speech duration and laughter (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.4-5). In this sense a medium high in ‘presence as social richness’ would convey a high level of intimacy.
2. Presence as realism: Media that represent a realistic representation of people, objects and events also contribute to the level of presence. Television and film are media that try to do this. By creating a sense of reality in the pictures they produce and create an experience that would be plausible in real life (Lombard & Ditton, 1997)
3. Presence as transportation: Presence as transportation could take three forms: it could transport people or scenes from different times or different places to the here and now, it could move us to other locations or other time zones, or these two are mixed to a time and place where they are shared. The idea in this form of presence is ‘the degree to which participants of a telemeeting get the impression of sharing space with interlocutors who are at a remote physical site’ (Mulbach et al, 1995, p.293). This could be in video or film, or through videoconferencing.
4. Presence and immersion: In this form of presence the participant perceives to be immersed in a virtual environment. This could involve not only psychological immersion, but also through the senses in for instance immersive virtual reality systems, games, simulations, IMAX theatres wearing 3D-glasses.
5. Presence as social actor within a medium:In this form of presence a para-social interaction is created. This would entail for instance that ‘personalities use direct address camera views. . . informal speech patterns, sincerity, and simplicity . . .. In a parasocial interaction media users respond to social cues presented by persons they encounter witin a medium even though it is illogical and even inappropriate to do so’. (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.8). A heightened form of presence is created, where it seems that an interaction with the viewer or another person is taking place on the screen, while in reality this is not the case. Examples of these would be avatars, or examples have been highlighted of people talking to people on television screens (Lombard & Ditton, 1997)
6. Presence as medium as social actor: In this form of presence participants in the media experience will interact socially to clues provided by computer programmes themselves (not representations of people). It seems that people respond to computers as social entities, especially if there are associations in the activity with social activities in real life, such as education. Lombard and Ditton (1997) gave the example of people being more susceptible to praise by a tutor in an intelligent tutoring system if it was given by a different computer than when their own computer praised its own performance.
The main characteristic running through all six conceptualisations of presence is that of an illusion of non-mediation. In other words, there is a high level of presence when a participant in an online activity experiences the activity as if it was taking place in real life, without the mediation of the computer. Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) added some ideas on presence related to online teaching and learning in particular. They argued that deep and meaningful learning results if three forms of presence play a role in education. They highlight cognitive presence, that ensures a certain level of depth in the educational process, which could be compared to “intensity” as highlighted by Shedroff (2009) in developing web-based experiences and “Vividness” by Lombard and Ditton (1997) in the creation of meaningful online experiences. Anderson (2008) also refers to social presence, which would be similar to the social presence described by Lombard and Ditton, and in a formal educational environment that of a teacher presence. In PLE based learning the teacher presence is not there, but you could argue that there are knowledgeable others out there on the Web who might to a certain extent take on that role.
It seems that most important other factors related to presence are “sensory richness” and “vividness”, which was highlighted by Shedroff (2009) as important factors in enhancing online experiences in the form of “sensorial triggers” and “intensity”. The higher the number of human senses engaged in the activity, the higher the presence experienced will be. Lombard and Ditton (1997) argue that ‘visual media have more social presence than verbal (audio) media, which in turn have more social presence than written media. Particular camera techniques when using video can for instance enhance presence by using close-up views, direct address techniques where the person in the image speaks directly to the user, or by creating views through the eye of the user.
The level of interactivity was another aspect that enhances presence. ‘The number of inputs from the user that the medium accepts and to which it responds’ could affect presence and the level of experience, while the type of input by the user, ie. through voice, video, or button clicks, and the type of response received was also seen as an influence on the level of presence (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, p.18), in addition to the speed with which the medium responds to user inputs. The number of people involved in the activity was seen as another factor in the level of presence, while the content of the online presentation was highlighted as a contributing factor in the level of presence during online activities. The level of enjoyment and “fun” that people experience and a high level of immersion were also seen to have a positive effect on people’s involvement in learning activities.
So the higher the level of presence, the higher the level of involvement in the online activity and the deeper the experience. The question of how to create presence in the design of a PLE is an important one as at the heart of PLE-based learning would be a high level of engagement and depth of learning. Thinking about the six principles that Lombard & Ditton identified and integrating them somehow into the environment might make all the difference to the experience the learner has while using a PLE. The NRC research will certainly take note of them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)