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.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
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!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The Commons - pedagogy for 'human beings'
Last week I read Mohamed Amine Chatti's post comparing the ideas of Wenger on a Community of Practice with his ideas on Learning as a Network. It made me realise that it is time for me to put together my thoughts on learning on online networks. Chatti explains that in a CoP there is a central 'hub', the community, where through social interaction, participation and communication with others in the community, people move from the periphery to the centre of a community and that this process makes that people learn. Learning in his LaaN would be different as it would be more an individual process. The learner would determine the activity and the people who he or she communicates with and might help in his or her learning, rather than that the social participation in a particular community would be at the heart of the learning.
Other views of teaching and learning have emerged over the past few years. Weller explained the idea of a 'pedagogy of abundance' in which people learn informally in an environment of easy access to an abundance of information and conversation with people facilitated through technology. Kenway (2001) discussed the need for direction from adult educators as it is not just enough for technology to be there and used, or for that matter for attempts to be made to make the use of technology more effective, eg through intelligent aggregating and recommender systems, but for people to look critically at technology and what technology does to change our lives and society. Wheelahan discusses a 'pedagogy of human beings' as in the uncertain and complex times in which we now live different forms of knowledge determine our lives and should all form part of the learning we do, where they might influence our formal education, or our lives in the workplace or at home. Technological change has not been the only change in post-modern society!
This morning I received a link to the periodical of CASAE, the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education in my inbox, in which one of the articles took me back to the thinking of Ivan Illich in which he proclaimed that technology helped to facilitate the 'closure of the commons' (1991, p51.). The restriction of people in society to determine what happens to the world in which we live. Illich’s vision was to see people take ownership of the learning process, rather than institutions controlling their education. In order for agency and participation to return to the learning experience, Illich (1971, p. 2) called for ‘the possible use of technology to create institutions which serve personal, creative and autonomous interaction and the emergence of values which cannot be substantially controlled by technocrats’.
Silke Helfrich (2010, p3) argues for people to re- claim the commons; 'to take our lives in our own hands, and to protect and widen what is common to us, instead of witnessing its enclosure and privatization.' she emphasises that the commons trans-sect all issues in society, and could ensure that all knowledge is brought together, and no longer is fragmented as it currently seems to be (Midgley, 1991) . Would we live more wisely by making connections to all disparate issues that have slipped away from our control at a time that multinationals and banking institutions seem to have been in charge and determined the direction, rather than representatives of the people? Helfrich questions who really owns the world in the super-complex times that we now live in and states that: 'The commons enhances self-determined rules and commonly developed & controlled open technologies instead of proprietary technologies which tend to concentrate power within elites and enable them to control us' (2010,p3).
Why do I write this on a blog related to a Personal Learning Environment?
It is so easy when designing and developing a technological innovation to only look at how the technology will increase the effectiveness to the user, rather than to also think about the wider implications of its use. When developing a PLE would it simply be enough to develop a useful tool, and to work with partners to achieve knowledge transfer to achieve a high-spec product development, or should it be of paramount importance that the wider community is served in the words of Illich:
1. To liberate access to things by abolishing the control which persons and institutions now exercise over their educational values. 2. To liberate the sharing of skills by guaranteeing freedom to teach or exercise them on request. 3. To liberate the critical and creative resources of people by returning to individual persons the ability to call and hold meetings – an ability now interestingly monopolized by institutions which claim to speak for the people. 4. To liberate the individual from the obligation to shape his expectations to the services offered by any established profession- by providing him with the opportunity to draw on the experience of his peers and to entrust himself to the teacher, guide, adviser or healer of his choice. (Illich, 1971, p. 103)
Other views of teaching and learning have emerged over the past few years. Weller explained the idea of a 'pedagogy of abundance' in which people learn informally in an environment of easy access to an abundance of information and conversation with people facilitated through technology. Kenway (2001) discussed the need for direction from adult educators as it is not just enough for technology to be there and used, or for that matter for attempts to be made to make the use of technology more effective, eg through intelligent aggregating and recommender systems, but for people to look critically at technology and what technology does to change our lives and society. Wheelahan discusses a 'pedagogy of human beings' as in the uncertain and complex times in which we now live different forms of knowledge determine our lives and should all form part of the learning we do, where they might influence our formal education, or our lives in the workplace or at home. Technological change has not been the only change in post-modern society!
This morning I received a link to the periodical of CASAE, the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education in my inbox, in which one of the articles took me back to the thinking of Ivan Illich in which he proclaimed that technology helped to facilitate the 'closure of the commons' (1991, p51.). The restriction of people in society to determine what happens to the world in which we live. Illich’s vision was to see people take ownership of the learning process, rather than institutions controlling their education. In order for agency and participation to return to the learning experience, Illich (1971, p. 2) called for ‘the possible use of technology to create institutions which serve personal, creative and autonomous interaction and the emergence of values which cannot be substantially controlled by technocrats’.
Silke Helfrich (2010, p3) argues for people to re- claim the commons; 'to take our lives in our own hands, and to protect and widen what is common to us, instead of witnessing its enclosure and privatization.' she emphasises that the commons trans-sect all issues in society, and could ensure that all knowledge is brought together, and no longer is fragmented as it currently seems to be (Midgley, 1991) . Would we live more wisely by making connections to all disparate issues that have slipped away from our control at a time that multinationals and banking institutions seem to have been in charge and determined the direction, rather than representatives of the people? Helfrich questions who really owns the world in the super-complex times that we now live in and states that: 'The commons enhances self-determined rules and commonly developed & controlled open technologies instead of proprietary technologies which tend to concentrate power within elites and enable them to control us' (2010,p3).
Why do I write this on a blog related to a Personal Learning Environment?
It is so easy when designing and developing a technological innovation to only look at how the technology will increase the effectiveness to the user, rather than to also think about the wider implications of its use. When developing a PLE would it simply be enough to develop a useful tool, and to work with partners to achieve knowledge transfer to achieve a high-spec product development, or should it be of paramount importance that the wider community is served in the words of Illich:
1. To liberate access to things by abolishing the control which persons and institutions now exercise over their educational values. 2. To liberate the sharing of skills by guaranteeing freedom to teach or exercise them on request. 3. To liberate the critical and creative resources of people by returning to individual persons the ability to call and hold meetings – an ability now interestingly monopolized by institutions which claim to speak for the people. 4. To liberate the individual from the obligation to shape his expectations to the services offered by any established profession- by providing him with the opportunity to draw on the experience of his peers and to entrust himself to the teacher, guide, adviser or healer of his choice. (Illich, 1971, p. 103)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
The interface of a Personal Learning Environment
The way a website looks and feels to the user is important in the experience a person will have while online. Nathan Shedroff has written extensively about 'the online experience'. As people are unique, they will each have their own experience, but, Shedroff identified several factors that are important to any good experience and should be incorporated in the online design. I have adapted these a little to incorporate in these the issues important in creating a positive online learning experience.
These six principles are:
1. Time and duration: A learning experience will quite often start before the learner even puts fingers on key board; a process of reflection precedes the actual learning activity, and thinking processes might continue long after the actual online activity has finished.
2. Interactivity. People can interact with people and resources online and for the creation of meaningful learning experiences it will be important to ensure that the layout and connections between the two, information and communications tools to connect people through the interface, are intuitive and make sense to the learner.
3. Intensity. The level and depth of these interactions will be important to the experience people have. The higher the level of engagement in the interactions, the deeper the experieince.
4. Sensorial and cognitive triggers. ‘There are many ways to view the same thing, though we often become so accustomed to certain standard views that we take the possibilities for granted and forget to even explore alternatives.’ (Shedroff, 2009, p70). Trying to find new forms to present, represent and visualize what we are trying to communicate will be important in engaging learners in learning activities. ‘The most important aspect of any design is how it is understood in the minds of the audience.’ (Shedroff, 2009, p60) Everyone will create mental maps of what they have experienced and the crunch is to design the PLE in such a way that what you would like the learner to remember or know will remain in his mind. Which once again makes the design of the interface of the PLE important.
5. Breadth and consistency. The design of the learning experience, through the PLE interface, should be consistent. People experience not only with their finger tips on the key board, but as a whole person; through the senses, but also cognitively and emotionally, so the whole experience should make sense to people and 'hang together', be holistic, even though details could be different.
6. Significance and meaning. Shedroff claims that if all these factors are incorporate in the design of the experience, it will be meaningful. I would like to add issues of relevance here as well as the more relevant the information on the site is, the higher the motivation to use it and the more meaningful it will be.
There are also a few other issues of importance to the design of the PLE interface, related to usability. Accessibility is one; after all, if people cannot access what they would like to learn, they cannot experience it. Simplicity and 'learnability' are two other issues. The simpler the operation of the site, through the interface, and the easier it is to learn how it 'works', the better the accessibility. In the technological landscape of today there will be a need to weigh up the accessibility issues against what is now possible in terms of interface design and tools and applications used. The W3C has set worldwide standards for accessibility.
Peter Korn from Sun Microsystems advocates thinking about accessibility issues from the start of the design and development process as it is difficult to adapt a site to full accessibility at a later date. A site that is fully accessible to all, including to people who use screen readers for reading text, might not have all the flash visual and interactive 'bells and whistles' that can now be created. An alternative that is seen quite often is the design of two sites: one text based and another that contains a variety of images and objects. Choices will have to be made!
What makes a PLE different from a news aggregator?
People frequently ask me what makes a Personal Learning Environment different from a news aggregator or an application such as iGoogle, which also bring information sources together. Similarly to the question that has been asked about the iPad over the past week: In what way is it different from equipment that is already out there? My top choice of articles on the iPad was by Charlie Brooker in the Guardian newspaper. He questions Apple's assertion that the iPad will make our lives more efficient and thinks it should be branded differently: 'Come off it. It's an oblong that lights up. . . I want to hear how it'll amuse and distract me; how it plans to anaesthetise me into a numb, trancelike state. Call it the iDawdler and aggressively market it as the world's first utterly dedicated timewasting device: an electronic sedative to rival diazepam, alcohol or television. If Apple can convince us of that, it's got itself a hit'.
A PLE is not as high profile as a new Apple-device; it is still only researched by a relatively small group of people world wide. But the interest in informal as opposed to formal learning is growing and some interest in the PLE was noticable at the Alt-C conference in the UK last autumn and at the PLE conference that we organised in collaboration with Manitoba university. Stephen Downes highlighted the trends in personal learning in an online presentation to an audience in Australia last night.
The PLE is meant to help learners manage all tools they use for learning. It is expected to not only make life more efficient by aggregating information, but to add to this by using currently available technology that will facilitate intelligent information gathering and recommend information relevant to the person using it. This in combination with communication tools to connect learners to one another and knowledgeable others. The presence of editors, publishers and scaffolds related to learning and education can help a person to make the PLE truly personal, with the learner at the centre, while actively engaging in producing digital artifacts that are based on the original information collected and that can be published online to make them available for discussion with others. It is expected to be a pedagogical platform that can help learners with the management of all tools, activities and components related to their learning journeys.
A PLE is not as high profile as a new Apple-device; it is still only researched by a relatively small group of people world wide. But the interest in informal as opposed to formal learning is growing and some interest in the PLE was noticable at the Alt-C conference in the UK last autumn and at the PLE conference that we organised in collaboration with Manitoba university. Stephen Downes highlighted the trends in personal learning in an online presentation to an audience in Australia last night.
The PLE is meant to help learners manage all tools they use for learning. It is expected to not only make life more efficient by aggregating information, but to add to this by using currently available technology that will facilitate intelligent information gathering and recommend information relevant to the person using it. This in combination with communication tools to connect learners to one another and knowledgeable others. The presence of editors, publishers and scaffolds related to learning and education can help a person to make the PLE truly personal, with the learner at the centre, while actively engaging in producing digital artifacts that are based on the original information collected and that can be published online to make them available for discussion with others. It is expected to be a pedagogical platform that can help learners with the management of all tools, activities and components related to their learning journeys.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Spotify
Am I lucky to live in the UK! Spotify has been launched here and I can't believe my luck. A legal music downloading site with a fantastic library of tunes. The only snag is that you will have to listen to an advert (for public services for now) every 25 minutes. Don't mind hearing Moira Stuart now and again. You could try this link that the Guardian provided this morning tinyurl.com/spotifylink to get started. I have just got hold of quite a few of my old Dutch records, fantastic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)