John Locke

Locke uses the thought experiment of the ‘severed finger’ to prove how the consciousness is separate from the physical body. When the finger is part of the physical whole, it is connected to the consciousness because the consciousness of aware of it. Thus if we were to prick our finger we would feel pain because we are conscious of the finger, if the finger becomes separated completely and we feel nothing of it, it no longer becomes part of our conscious self. Thus the conscious self and the physical self are not the same thing. The thing that connects one entity in the past with one entity in the future is a connected consciousness, and this connected consciousness comes through memory. Thus is the severed finger retains the conscious thoughts and memory of the ‘whole body’ person then the finger becomes the person even thought the majority of physical body is elsewhere.

By talking about an identity of consciousness Locke is suggesting that it is consciousness itself which defines someones identity and consciousness alone! This consciousness is linked to memory, not bodily substances, or souls etc. Thus if you have someone else’s soul inside you, yet you are not aware of him, then you are not in fact the same person because you have none of his memories. Locke uses the Major of Quinborough and Socrates to emphasis this point. If however Socrates soul was in the Major of Quinborough’s and the memories were merged this would make the same person.

Locke is talking about morals and forensics in his essay, he is not talking 'fluffy' metaphysics, he is precisely interested in what someone can be morally accountable for or not. He is suggesting you are responsible for what you are conscious of doing, because your consciousness is you. Therefore if you truly forget something you are not responsible for it.

Locke predicates his potential detractors. Their objection that someone who committed their crime could well easily forget yet still be responsible is overturned because the physical man is not the same as the consciousness. While the man in the same, the consciousness has changed. Thus the present consciousness should not be blamed for the past if the past is not remembered even though it occurred in the same physical man. In fact we can see this in common language ‘He wasn’t himself today’ etc. Getting punished for something you have truly forgot is similar to a sane man being convicted of his crimes when he was mad (now-a-days this would be over-turned on account of the sane man have diminished responsibility when he was mad.

However, Locke suggests that human courts are right to convict someone who claims to not remember a past sin because there is no way of knowing that the person is lying or not. And anyway in the day of judgement the convicted man who truly didn’t remember would be acquitted before the eyes of his lord.

P47.

In the Audio, Paul Snowden decribes the context in which Locke was writing. The 17th Century was one of massive change. There was religious turmoil as the fallout of the reformation was leading to political disruption across Europe. Eg the English Civil War. Also people were becoming more analytical- the 17th century saw the beginning of science as we know it. Locke was particular interested in the 'self' in terms of what this would mean at the Resurrection and the afterlife...

It is important to define the terms Locke uses. The main point of his essay is that there is a fundamental difference between the person and the man. He also uses the term substance. In this he means 'stuff' which is split into 3 categories, material stuff you can feel and touch, immaterial stuff such as the soul and the consciousness, and divine stuff which is what god is made of.

Snowden argues that is only the immaterial consciousness which defines the person, not the soul of the man body. This leads to a very interesting conundrum. If a soul can occupy two separate men, but because these men do not consciously know of each other and as therefore two separate 'persons' just who will be judged at the resurrection. Will a soul be judged multiple times because it has occupied many discrete persons?

Locke is interested in forensics. This is different from what we would think the modern terms mean (such as the TV show CSI). He means by forensics actions you are responsible for and can be judged for. This is linked to this theory that a person is a conscious thinking thing connected to his past self only by memory. This complex consciousness is what separates man from unthinking beast.

Snowden also explains how Thomas Reids theory undermines Locke. If your consciousness is only linked to memory does this mean that you are different person to the one your were when a boy. (see above). Memory is not transitive Reid suggest. However Locke champions suggest that memory could be 'overlapping' rather than being fully transitive. So long as you at some point in your life you remembered the younger boy person, then that person in still you even though you do not remember you as a boy.

The idea of a transitive memory ia one of the contraditions of Lockes text. Because he is looking to the future at the resurrection he is assuming that we will remember the now. This defeats his modern champions somewhat (somehow?)

Week 23: Meaning-making and metaphors

This week I look at the meaning of words in association with the application of digital technology in education. This is important as words and discourses have numerous connotations. This is more than just the proverbial 'is the glass half empty or is the glass half full'; there is an argument that a whole new vocabulary is needed, especially since the technology is new and rapidly changing. It is important to aware of 'spin doctoring' academically as well. No words are not completely neutral and may eschew debate.

'It matters because the language you use carries with it connotations and hidden assumptions'.
http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=502707

Making sense of complexity
Stepping over the edge (Conole, 2011).

There Conole looks at some of the limitations that current metaphors have in the context of technology. The main problem stems from use of 'common place' metaphors to describe the new phenomenon of the web 2.0 applications. Eg a desktop and a filing system from the traditional office setting is used as a term for an application on the windows operation system. This is no longer suitable suitable for the complexity of the computer desktop and filing system

She proposes 5 new types of metaphors which are more suitable for providing a holistic view of technology, viewing web 2.0 in terms of a 'brain', an 'organism' (eg ecosystem), a 'political entity', 'machines' and 'cultures'. With metaphors based on these headings we can find a proper and better meaning of what is happening in the Web 2.0, rather than be limited by old fashioned metaphors based on old technologies.

In the Ariadne article by Conole, ‘New schemas for mapping pedagogies and technologies’; she lists further examples of how Web 2.0 is different than the disciplines you might expect in education. Wn 2.0 means information is arrived at 'fast', but education is about reflection. Commenting and using peoples work is considered plagarism in the world of education, but this is commonplace in the use of wikis etc.

Week 21, 22 Implications of future trends A1: Impact of technologies on organisations

A1: Impact of technologies on organisations

I have often worked in organisations which has led to a change in work practices. When I was young I worked in a electronics factory which introduced machinery which replaced the need to manual labour. This changed my job role significantly from assembly line worker to machinist (and subsequently led to significant reductions in the work force).

Yet most changes have been subtle; an 'evolution not a revolution'. New databases, new telephones etc have all increased efficiencies at my workplace- even the introduction of an updated operating system has led to changes.

Changes in technology are slower in education because everything has to go through committees, etc. Curriculum is slowly incorporated.

Week 18. Activity 2: The researchers perspective

Activity 2: The researchers perspective

From TLRP-TEL 2008 Report, Education 2.0? Designing the Web for Teaching and Learning,

‘What are web 2.0 technologies and why do they matter?’ by charles cook

Web 2.0 technologies are those which provide the tools for colloboration and sharing over the internet; leading to not just a change in technology use but a fundamental shift in perspectives. It is broadly speaking user generated. It has become a prominent and possible aspect of the internet due to the massive increase in internet users, the increase in hardware storage space and broadband width and the minutiarisation of compatible devices and wifi (meaning the internet is always on); and has resulted in many sites (such as Wikipedia) being in 'perpetual beta'. In point of fact students expect the products to be constantly upgradeable (which would be impossible if students received hardcopy books, etc. The increases in hardware capabilities coupled with the increase in users has led to the virtualisation of communication.

Cook suggests web 2.0 matters because they reflect pre-existing human dispositions in a virtual way: the playful, the expressive, the reflective and the exploratory. He suggest Web. 2.0 strengthen fundamental aspect of learning (incidently referring to traditional modes of learning: Collobration, Publication, Literacies, and Inquiry).

Educational Hopes and Fears for Web 2.0 Neil Selwyn

This articale strikes a balance between the pessimistic and the optimistic views of the impact of Web 2.0 technologies. Some of the critics of Web 2.0 is that they distract rather than orgment students learning experience. Eg checking friends Facebook updates instead of listening to lecturers; as well as more general fears about alienation, disengagement and the detrimental effect on traditional literacies. I would have to agree with this. It certainly distracts me when i am trying to study and is especially difficult since most of my study is online now.

yet on the one hand

'There are strong links between web 2.0 and socio-cultural theories of learning, which see active and authentic learning taking place best where knowledge can be constructed actively by learners who are supported in communal social settings'.p10

but on the other

One popular contention is that schools, colleges and universities are unable to deal with the challenges posed by web 2.0 technologies for a number of structural reasons. These include the many formal and informal systems of regulation and control that characterise the organisation of education institutions, as well as the continued reliance on ‘broadcast’ pedagogies and linear hierarchical relationships to facilitate access to knowledge and learning.

Learning and Virtual World by Diane Carr

Second life could be used to overcome the lonliness of Web 2.0 technologies. By creating an avatar and an online persona this would allow virtual interactions which mirror human interactions and help learners feel part of a community,

.

 

Week 18 Activity a1: The challenge for educational institutions

The challenge for educational institutions

Weller (2009) ‘Using learning environments as a metaphor for educational change’, in On the Horizon

In this article Weller suggests that the use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) is an old fashioned way to use very new technology. The uptake of new technologies is organic and built on the perceptions of old techniques- thus LMS are built which represent standard formal red brick university structures. With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies this is a fundamental problem. Web 2.0 technologies mean the way information is generated is fundamentally different from these traditional approache, it has become more democratic, participatory and user driven (bottom up). One way of overcoming this is for universities to provide only the tools for participation, but allow students to control the outcomes. The Open University iniative Social Learn http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/sociallearn/ was used as an example of a new paragidm shift in pedogogy where the students are in control of their own learning outcomes and learn in an undirected way throuhg collobration with their peers. BUT how can students who learn in this way prove they have the knowlegde if they are applying for a job, etc?. And where is the accountability?

In this course H800 the use of meta-blogs and wikis has been one way in which information and learning has been sourced from the bottom up. However because this has been directed by the course content, even these tools are not really bottom-up iniatives. Students feel inclined to use the meta-blogs and the wikis because they are directed to do so. Perhaps a better example is the H800 cafe forums which are to a large extent self regulated by the students (unlike the tutor group forums which are regulated by the tutor.

But even this is not really bottom-up learning as the fundamental theme of H800 is that of participation. You must participate. This is the fundamental problem of Wellers article, the asumption that students want to participate and are confident to do so. I would argue this is not the case- some students would just prefer to read a book on their own. By making the assumption that it is preferable to participate it could lead to the situation where students have to participate...

Key quotes

'The conclusion from this analysis is that there is a conflict between the centralised learning management system (LMS) and the requirements of online pedagogy. The traditional LMS can be seen as embodying the wrong metaphor, that of the traditional classroom.'

'It has often been noted that when a new technology arrives we tend to use it in old ways (eg Twigg 2001), before we begin to understand what it really offers'

This true of Facebok for instance which started out just as a 'fun' website for university networking. Another example would also be twitter. These were grown from 'below' in the sense that the increase in each media's users, meant the media became more important. Only much later corporations would use this social media as a tool to promote their products. You can also see many instances in history where this has occurred; for instance the mplications of the printing press was not realised until the Guttenburg bible- some may say it has not been fully realised yet. Also some cultures do not see the potential of new technology. China invented gun powder but used it for only fireworks.  Weller also uses the example of the TV intially being considered the 'radio with pictures'. 'This is a sensible way to proceed, since the uptake of technology is rarely a revolution, and more of an evolutionary approach'.


Yet the process is not always so natural a process.

Heppell (2001) argues that “we continually make the error of subjugating technology to our present practice rather than allowing it to free us from the tyranny of past mistakes".

In elearning terms, current LMSs can be seen as the embodiment in code of the

physical structures of learning'."

So if the new technologies are used in an old fashioned way based on principles set in physicalk school environments this means the potential full spectrum  uses of this technology is not realised. These include:

Increase of curriculum. Traditional red-brick educational institutions have overheads to pay and are confined to a geographical location. Therefore, they have a bums on seats policy which means they cannot introduce niche subjects for fear of there unpopularity. Funnily enough the Open University, which has over 200,000 students does not introduce niche subjects!

Personalisation of in the choices of tools you use to learn. Still students follow age old techniques as universities seek enculturation of students into their higher education community,

Meeting changing demands: for instance an e-skills report for the European Union (COM 2007) suggests that conventional higher education is failing to meet the needs of the workforce

Availability of informal learning.

week 18

can Web 2.0 be brought over into formal education. Part of the essence of Web 2.0 is that it is learner-led. So if it is learner-led, what role, if any, does this leave for the teacher, trainer or instructor? And can Web 2.0 be accommodated within a VLE or Learning Management System (LMS), or is it fundamentally at odds with the ethos of a centralised institutional system?

There are different views on the approach that formal education should take when responding to the challenges of Web 2.0. Some highlight the need for a more decentralised approach, others the need to reconfigure the role of the teacher, educational institutions, forms of assessment and the curriculum

Week 17 Administering Knowledge

Week 17 Administering Knowledge

 ‘Internet teaching and the administration of knowledge’, is by Tara Brabazon 2001

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/867/776

In this article Brabazon laments the 'bullet point' culture of learning which changes to the educational system seem to be leading to. Writing in Australia during a conservative led premiership, higher education was promoted as a commodity and a cure to all the countries economic and political woes where the emphasis is placed on productivity and competition. Universities were to be changed under commericialized auspices with the student as their customers.

This lead to Brabazon's first issue. This commodification of education is problematic in that it means students are treated as customers- yet customer satisfaction is not in the remit of academic discipline which requires hard work and dedication (hmmmm not sure I agree with this- here she is camparing student to consumers of cars, a more suitable analogy would be to compare with students with Karate students, etc).

Another change in corrolary to this is a shift towards student centred education. Yet as Brabazon states the tutor and the student are an unequal partnership and has diminished the role of the tutor. A dictomy occurs- tutors expect students to help themselves in there study and on the other hand student (as customers) blame their tutors if they fail their courses.

'I would be far more open to student–centred learning if there was an acknowledgment that teachers — at the very least — are rapporteurs, rather than facilitators. Ironically at the moment when student–centred learning has become the cliche of the age, students are (overtly) evaluating teacher’s abilities [16]. While staff may state that students must be responsible for their own learning, students are blaming staff for their results.'

Brabazon states 'technology is framed as a cheaper, more efficient replacement for university teachers.' She points to the fact that technology has led to an increased workload for tutors, who have increased management administration to undertake. However I can think of numerous cases whereby learning can benefit. Why should a lecturer repeat over and over the same story when he can just do it once and record it for future students?

A final point Brabazon considers is that technology has made students intellectually lazy and well as curtailing the opportunities for individually inspiration by tutors. Any 'Radical ideas and expansive research are crushed into modules, criteria and bullet points, being rendered consistent and predictable'. Students only have to remember the key points and do not have to critical think about her lecture (eg the Powerpoint presentation). This shift has meant tutors only job is to administer marking criteria, rather than promote life long learning.

Week 17: Activity 2. Students’ frustrations

Week 17: Activity 2. Students’ frustrations


Hara and Kling (1999), ‘Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course’
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/710/620

Main points

• feelings of isolation
• technical problems
• lack of effective advising from instructors
• The expectations for technology to transform higher education are disproportionately high
• absence of physical cues
• frustration with technological problems and the absence of personnel to provide technical support

Interesting points

Most of what we read or hear about computers in education emphasizes only one aspect, usually the good points, but occasionally the bad, to the exclusion of other points of view. This is at least partly due to the screening effect of the popular press, who favor the excitement of extremism over the calm of rationality, preferring in the name of "reader interest" to create what Monosky (1984) calls an artificial dichotomy (Ragsdale, 1988, p. 50). Also see Charlie Brooker.

Various criticisms of traditional classrooms appear frequently, such as lack of personal attention, boredom, outdated knowledge, lack of appropriate skills for workplaces and inappropriateness for a diverse population (Diamond, 1997; Gardiner, 1997; Handy, 1998; Roueche, 1998; Wingspread Group on Higher Education, 1993).


Week 17:Activity 4 Oversold and Underused

http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=502670

Using the recent history of Stanford, Cuban proves how new technology adds little value. The figures are in some cases astronomical. In 1994 Anerican Colleges and Universities spent $6 billion for IT techonologies including support- thats $400 for every student. This model was first promoted by the ivy league universities and filtered down. These universities grew in reputation based on the credibility of their research. Tenured staff wanted more time for research and IT was the answer to this teaching vacuum,.

Universities were told they had to adopt these new techologies or get left behind. Either distance learning institutes would take their place or students would seek less formal educational institutes.

Yet in his study, Cuban proved the predominance of the traditional lecture in teaching. While IT technologies were increasingly incorporated by the teaching staff, this was only for the preparation of lessons, lectures, etc; not in conducting the lesson itself

Week 17: Activity 1 Digital Diploma Mills.

Activity 1a What kind of vision of students?

Mike Wesch’s video ‘A vision of students today’ (on youTube).

The biggest theme for me was that of the disconnection between the students and the tutors. One student hold a sign which says only 18% of her tutor knows her name, while another says there are on average 140 students in each class. It is interesting to contrast this with the  ECAR  which report 90% of students using social networking sites yet only 8% use this medium to contact their tutors (Smith and Caruso, 2010) http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden/217333



 Activity 1b: ‘Digital diploma mills: the automation of higher education’. Noble (1998),

Key points

• 'technological changes in universities..(the distribution of digitized course material online, without the participation of professors who develop such material)...is rapidly drawing the halls of academe into the age of automation'. This is similar to the 19th century vision of school/university envisioned by Wesch, however it means the automation of materials with little input by professors and indicates a divide between administrators and companies that sell educational products on the one side (eg Educom); and teachers and tutors on the other. 
• 'Or the classroom versus the boardroom'. Examples include theUCLA administration launching its historic “Instructional Enhancement Initiative” and Canada's York University unilateral  initiatives in the implementation of instructional technology (which was overturned by strike action). This initiative were taken without faculty oversight.
• Reason for change: 'A short answer might be the fear of getting left behind, the incessant pressures of “progress”. But there is more to it. For the universities are not simply undergoing a technological transformation. Beneath that change, and camouflaged by it, lies another: the commercialization of higher education.' involving 'systematic conversion of intellectual activity into intellectual capital and, hence, intellectual property'.
• This happened in two phases.  in first phase: In 70s... in wake of the oil crisis and intensifying international competition...major industrialized countries recognised they were losing their monopoly over the world’s heavy industries and that, in the future, their supremacy would depend upon their monopoly “knowledge–based” industries (space, electronics, computers, materials, telecommunications, and bioengineering). Universities were their chief source especially research departments. This led to 'proliferation of industrial partnerships and new proprietary arrangements' and a' wholesale reallocation of university resources toward its research function at the expense of its educational function'. At the same time, tuition soared to subsidize the creation and maintenance of the commercial infrastructure (and correspondingly bloated administration) that has never really paid off. In the end students were paying more for their education and getting less, and the campuses were in crisis
• 'The second phase of the commercialization of academia, the commoditization of instruction, is touted as the solution to the crisis engendered by the first'. This led to 'transforming courses into courseware, the activity of instruction itself into commercially viable proprietary products that can be owned and bought and sold in the market'. The foremost promoters of this transformation are (a) the vendors of the network hardware, software, and “content”; (b) the trainers;   (c) the University Administration,(who view view computer–based instruction as a means of reducing their direct labor and plant maintenance costs),  and (d) technozealots who think technology is the answer to everything 
• There was also a movement towards nationally connected universities (eg Canada's “Virtual U” network), and completely virtual universities (University of Phoenix) 'market orientation behind these initiatives is explicit'
• 'The implications of the commoditization of university instruction are two–fold in nature, those relating to the university as a site of the production of the commodities and those relating to the university as a market for them. The first raises for the faculty traditional labor issues about the introduction of new technologies of production. The second raises for students major questions about costs, coercion, privacy, equity, and the quality of education'.
• As in other industries, the technology is being deployed by management primarily to discipline, de–skill, and displace labor.  once the faculty converts its courses to courseware, their services are in the long run no longer required. They become redundant, and when they leave, their work remains behind.
• for all the democratic rhetoric about extending educational access to those unable to get to the campus, the campus remains the real market for these products, where students outnumber their distance learning counterparts six–to–one.

Week 17: Technology – imagined negative futures Course content

Week 17 Overview

This week is looking at disutopian view of the education and technology. By using papers which are now quite dated we will review if this pessimism was a well founded. It starts with a quote:

'a warm and dark space for people with too much time and too few ideas’ (Brabazon, 2008, p.50). reviewing 'Here Comes Everyone' by Clay Shirky. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=401300&c=2

PDF converter

Great site for converting PDF files to word files!

http://www.convertpdftoword.net/

week 14: A3a: Reading vignettes

Week 13 & 14-A2: Methodological issues in exploring the learner experience

Week 13/14: A2a: Reading Conole et al


Ideas that technology can be a catalyst for educational change have only been a load of hot air, however, it is now argued that with the collaborative and distributed nature of Web 2.0, this prophecy is closer to being realised. Students are now changing the way they consume (and produce) education. A wide plethora of technologies are used and students are not a homogeneous entity. Each likes to use technology as they see fit.

' Oblinger and Oblinger’s book ‘Educating the net generation’ provides a useful baseline reference for research on students’ use of technologies (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). They describe the characteristics of the ‘net generation’ – students born after 1980 – suggesting that these students fundamentally differ from pre- vious generations in the way they process information and communicate (and hence learn). They argue that these students are comfortable with technologies and suggest that the ways in which they learn is task orien-

tated and experiential. '

Research methodology

an online survey, audio logs and interviews

Finding were split into 4 categories:

Information seeking and handling Communication Assignment preparation Integrated learning.

Key Findings

·     ‘students are learning in a complex and changing environment, using a plethora of technological tools to support their learning’


·     ‘Computer ownership is high and students have become accustomed to being able to electronically access information or people on demand’


·     ‘students are adept at finding and manipulating relevant information and synthesizing across different information sources and use a variety of communication tools to support their learning needs’


·     ‘there is evidence from the data that there is a shift from passive to more interactive interactions across all aspects of their learning, which is another characteristic of the net generation’


·     ‘Universities are ill-equipped to educate a new generation of learners whose sophisticated use of emerging technologies is incompatible with current teaching practice’.
‘Our findings support this and point to a mismatch between our current offerings and student use and a further mismatch between institutions’ perceptions of student use of technology and actual use’.


·     ‘The data indicates that technologies are being appropriated by learners to play to their strengths in terms of visual and auditory capabilities’


·     ‘Both our study and the LEX study highlighted personalisation and appropriation of technologies as major themes to have emerged from the data. Students appear to place greater value on technologies they have ‘discovered’ or selected for themselves. (‘Importantly if students did not find the technology or platform provided by the institutions useful they were in a position to by-pass it in favour of their own personalized approach and preferred tools.’)


·     ‘One of the objectives of our research was to try to gain a better understanding of the different ways in which technologies might be used across disciplines (‘The evidence from our data did not draw out major discipline difference of this kind, although some patterns in discipline differences were evident’)


·     ‘One of the most striking features to emerge from the data is the extent to which students are capitalising on the social affordances of technologies, much heralded under the banner of Web 2.0 (Alexander, 2006), in terms of peer support and communication – the picture emerges of a networked, extended community of learners using a range of communicative tools to exchange ideas, to query issues, to provide support, to check progress.

Ideas that technology can be a catalyst for educational change have only been a load of hot air, however, it is now argued that with the collaborative and distributed nature of Web 2.0, this prophecy is closer to being realised. Students are now changing the way they consume (and produce) education. A wide plethora of technologies are used and students are not a homogeneous entity. Each likes to use technology as they see fit.

To what extent this social peer network replaces or complements existing support mechanisms is not clear. Students evidently do still use traditional support mechanisms – contact with tutor, study guides, additional institutional workshops and training – but it would be interesting to investigate further how much some of these are being replaced by students choosing to turn first to a fellow student for guidance.

Week 13 & 14. Activity 1.

A1a: A vision of students today

 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=dGCJ46vyR9oconfirms)
Michael Wesch video is less academically and statistically studies in the previous blog, yet he underlines anocdotally how pervasive technologies are. His persuasive style shows a number of students in short clips explaining how much laptops, social networking sites, etc; although not necessarily always for educational purposes. Emails and Facebook updates were viewed more than books for instance, also technology made multi-tasking more feasible (and in fact multi-tasking was now a necessity. There are a couple of contentious issues that were brought up.

The video started with a quote from Marshall Mcluhan who suggested how antiquated the education system was, set in a the standards of the 19th century. The system was designed for the regimented factory line  society, and the relevatory technological innovation was the charkboard. This arguement juxtaposed against the modern available technology indicates to me that the school sytstem now needs to move on. (there is also a interesting video covering this arguement: http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/archive/sir-ken-robinson)

A second point was about how the much there is a digital divide between rich and poor countries. One student holds up his laptop which he suggests is worth more than a lot of people earn in a year.

 This video was more provocative than the other research discussed in the previous blog. It also tells a lot on information in a short period of time. However, because it is anocdotal it does carry less gravitas, it is hard to reference and check the truth of what was said. This is ironic, since you are using 'old fashioned' research techniques to research new technologies with the results of the research suggesting that 'new' technologies are increasingly being utilized by students. The research does not suggest ways in which this knowledge about students use of technology can be taken advantage off by educators.

If the use of technology has become ubiquitious then it stands to reason that these tools should be used for education. Facebook is a useful tool because it is so popular, likewise other social networking tools. While the chalkboard has been replaced by the powerpoint, it is still the same style of presentation (i'e all students staring forwards towards a central teacher). New forms of education need to implimented, rather than old forms merely modified with new technology.

A1b Readings

Smith and Caruso  (2010) ‘The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2010’.

This study looked at 40,000 undergraduate students and their use of technology. The methods used to gather the data were questionaires (web based- where most of the students participated) focus groups (from 84 students), student comments, a literature review and a comparison of previous study. Immediately we can see a problem with the survey. If most of the data was from a web-based questionaire it stands to reason that most of the students would be computer literate and this would sure escrew the findings.

 Students were questioned on the types of hardware they pre-existing used, the media they used (social networking site, blogging, etc), whether they used there web for colloborative work. It also analysed their competances with this technology.

The key findings

Most students consider themselves competant at using the internet to seach (80%), how only 57% knew how to check if they were looking up was from a credible source, and also the ethical and legal implications.

98% students own a computer- the majority a laptop. 70% owned a computer that was less than 2 years old. 80-90% use basic applications such as speadsheets and accessing university library resources. Approx. 40% create and share content via web 2.0 applications. 66% own internet enabled mobile devices but this number is growing.

The biggest use of technology is texting and social networking with 90% of students saying that they do this everyday, yet only 30% used this for academic purposes, likewise online colloboration was hardly used used, yet the figures in both cases are increasing.

Course Management Systems (CMS) are prominent in univesities (90% of institutions have their own systems). Students are reliant on these systems with 90% using them, although some quite sporadically. (30% use them daily, but 30% did not use one for months). The popularity of CMS has decreased in the years. (47% thought their tutors were good at IT).

Instructors where not using IT (such as blogs, and social networking as much as their students and are actually falling behind, except in the use of CMS. Tutors rely on old fashioned modes of teaching. Most students have noted their tutors lack of competances and are less than positive about their IT literacy.

Students perceptions about IT where that they made activities more convenient to carry out (70%), yet only 50% felt IT improved their education per ce, and only 30% felt IT made them particate more in their courses. IT then is an extension to pre-existing traditional concepts of education. Students did not want their courses to be wholly online and only wanted a moderate amount of IT in its content. This was consistent result to a similar report 6 years ago which indicates even though technology has moved on, perceptions of learning has not. An alternative view is that the commodization of IT means that what is perceived as a moderate amount of IT in todays courses is qualitively different than what this would mean 6 years ago.

Do tutors adapt tools which suite 'old fashioned' styles of teaching (eg such as Powerpoint). Could this be where the differences of the uses of technology diverge between students and tutors.

Weeks 13 and 14. Listening to the Voice of the Student

The Learner Experience

New forms of technology means there is vast opportunities for learning and, it has been argued,  this has led to a fundamental shift in the way students learn, consume and produce new artefacts. (Braun and Schmidt, 2006; Dillon, 2006; Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001a, 2001b; Brown, 2000).

This idea spawned a swath of research in this area, however these initial studies on the student experiences concentrated too much on module evaluation rather than actually concentrating on the student. More indepth research was needed. (Sharpe et al., 2005). Hence we needed to listen to the voice of the student!!

One such study which did concentrate on the student was Oblinger and Oblinger’s (2005) book, Educating the Net Generation promoted a view of a digitally literate Net Generation who were so used to computing that it changed their mind and the way they think! 'they develop hypertext mind, they leap around' (media is the message?)

'there are a number of implications for colleges and universities. Most stem from the dichotomy between a Net Gen mindset and that of most faculty, staff, and administrators. (Oblinger and Oblinger, 2005, p.21)'

These findings were backed up in a related study in Australia by Kennedy et al. (2008). However, whilst his report recognised that first year students were increasingly using new technologies, it was a far from universal. Also the types of technologies were divergent into two groups between the use of relatively simple artefacts like word processors etc, to more complicated social networking tools like PDAs, web conferencing etc.  However there was a general shift towards the use of technologies and this had to be considered in a considered way by universities using empirical and evidence based research.

Alongside these two studies a third was being developed in the UK by Sharpe et al. (2005). Again he argued that there was little study that focussed on the student. His report led to JISC commisioning two projects:

• Learner Experiences of e-Learning (LEX)
• LXP Students’ experiences of technologies

The Lex project

The Lex project concluded that we were in the midst of a paradigm shift in terms of the use of technologies by students. In a broader study looking at students experience as a whole a similar conclusion was reached in two surveys by the UK Higher Education Academyn (HEA).

The LXP Project

'The LXP study found that the Web is unequivocally the first port of call for students – with extensive examples across the study of how students are using search engines, dedicated subject-specific sites and e-journals to find information of relevance to their studies. The level and type of communication is notable – there is strong evidence of peer support and peer community, resonant with the rhetoric inherent in the idea of social networking and the world of Web 2.0.  They were critically aware of the pros and cons of the use of different technologies and ‘voted with their feet’; i.e. they didn’t use technologies just for the sake of it – there needed to be a purpose and clear personal benefit. They had an expectation of being able to access up-to-date and relevant information and resources and saw this as vital. They didn’t see the technology as anything special, but as just another tool to support their learning. (Course website).'

Week 12: A5: Technology in your context

Identify a form of technology used in an educational context.


1.    What do you think is the likely impact of this technology on the students’ perceptions of the quality of their modules, their approaches to studying and their academic performance?


2.    What do you think is the likely impact of this technology on the teachers’ perceptions of their teaching context and their approaches to teaching?

3.    Do you think this technology embodies particular assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning in higher education?

4.    Are these assumptions likely to promote more positive perceptions, more desirable approaches to studying and better performance on the part of the students?

Week 12- A4: Reading Richardson (2009)

In Richardson's article article , ‘Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education’ he found that there was insignificant differences in students perceptions of online versus face to face versions of courses. He used A103 and A300.

Bearing in mind what I said earlier about the role of rhetoric in reports of educational research, do you find my conclusion – that institutions can feel confident about exploring the use of online forms of tutorial support – a convincing one?

It does seem a very convincing arguement. By using Humanities subjects, which he recognises to be where the weakest 'online natives' seem to exist compared to other disciplines, it seems possible that the results could be easierly transposed to a wider curriculum. Since the statistics show that there is no problem with how students perceive online study then institutions can explore this option if it is relevant to their objectives,

How do the accounts given in these two papers fit with your own experience of online tutorial support in H800?

Having said that i much prefer the face-to-face variety of study. I really miss the charisma of the tutor/student. During my History degree I have somethings felt jaded through the weight of work. This was often cured by a good tutorial or chat with my tutor/fellow students. Online forums just are not as inspiring.

Week 12. Activity 3 Reading Price Et al.

Good website (nothing to do with course: http://www.geekologie.com/). 

article  by Price et al. (2007),  Which showed that students who studied an online version of the had worse experiences than those who studied a face-to-face version.

Make some notes in your blog on whether the evidence regarding online tuition in Price et al.’s paper fits your own experience of online communication in general and your own experience of online tuition on H800.

Time will tell if the results for my course are an improvement on my more face-to-face courses. I do feel that the there is much difference in the tutor support between either version (but I have never really engaged as much in tutor conversions in either version either. Both versions take a bit of time getting used too.

1. Do you agree with Price et al. that online tuition is a pastoral activity and not a purely academic activity?

Yes I do believe so. It is important for a student to be relaxed and to feel confident to contribute to a discussion. In H800 there is a lot of participatory elements so this is crucial for the 'group' effort. If is also important for the individual student as otherwise they would feel alone. I know it sounds bad, but if you feel that other students are struggling then it gives oneself the impression that 'you are not alone'.

2.Do you agree that the absence of what the authors call ‘paralinguistic cues’ (intonation, emphasis etc) in an online environment can limit the effectiveness of online tuition?

Yes I do. Almost as a side effect these paralinguistic clues lead to a personality being perceived. I get inspired by some charismatic teachers (and students), a part of this inspiration comes from them being a good public speaker. This lack in inspiration is a massive problem for online learning,

Week 12: Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ approaches to teaching

This week we look at how and why certain areas are researched in educational research. Unlike science, there is no recognised and defined paradigm (or set of questions) which all scientists follow. Instead researchers have to decide what needs to be discussed- they have to justify the question as well as finding the answer. It is because of this reason a lot of research uses emotive language.

A2: Reading Richardson (2005).

 article  by Richardson (2005), ‘Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’ This article looked at the convergence of students and teachers approaches to learning.

Student approaches to studying

Interview based research saw 3 approaches to studying:

1. Deep Approach based on meaning of course material
2. Surface Approach based on memorizing course materials for purposes of assessment
3. Strategic Approach based on just trying to achieve the highest grade.

Student would adapt different approach for different contextual circumstances
a. the demands of the course materials. (course design)
b. quality of teaching
c. nature of assessment

thus it could be argued that if students could be manipulated into the correct  way of studying if the above three factors were appropriately devised. (educational interventions). This idea was backed up when looking at research for subject curriculum based education versus problem based curriculum. However educational intervention via course design may not be as effective unless it changes students perceptions of the course sufficiently change. Some students who are studying exactly the same course adapt very different strategies based to studying because they have different viewpoints/perceptions about the course. This was confirmed by Ramsden (1991) Course Experience Questionaire results that show there is an intimate relationship  between perceived quality of a course versus approaches to study.

Even taken into account the variation of perception, some differences in the approach to studying exist because students have differing conceptions of learning. Marton argues that students who have a deep approach take an active role, while students who have a surface approach see learning as something that happens to them. Saljo also identified 5 (later a 6th was added) conceptions of learning that fit into Martons broad categorization.

Säljö (1979) asked 90 people aged between 15 and 73 at institutions of further and
higher education in Sweden what “learning” meant to them. He found five different
conceptions:
1. Learning as the increase of knowledge
2. Learning as memorising
3. Learning as the acquisition of facts or procedures
4. Learning as the abstraction of meaning
5. Learning as an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality.
(p. 19)
6. A conscious process, fuelled by personal interests and directed at obtaining harmony
and happiness or changing society

 It was found that the older the student the more likely they were to adapt the 'deep' conception of learning. And also they would change there perception as they got more experienced.

Summary:
3 approaches to studying each interchangable based on contextualised materials.
Can be manipulated by course design
But perceptions of the course have to be taken into consideration
Also students ideas of what it means to study,

Tutor approaches to learning

Through the data gained from the ATI (Approaches to Teaching Inventory), it was found that students would adapt the deep approach to studying if the teacher adapted the student led approach to teaching, rather than the teacher led approach. Tutor who adapted the former method of teaching also had a more positive outlook to their profession.

However, all thing being the same, some tutors still adapted a different approach the teaching. This was based on their perception of what it meaned to teach. (see article Kember). Unlike students, there is little evidence to suggest that a tutors concept of teaching changes over time (through experience).

Finally it has been noted that although some tutors may have a student focussed idea of teaching they could be prevented by fulfilling this urge based on an old fashioned head of unit (etc) who prefers a subject based approach, or by the students themselves who prefer a more didactic approach.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. Would learning design innovations in weeks 8 and 9 induce more desirable approaches to studying on the part of students.

 I do not feel that the learning design programmes we were introduced to in Week 8 and 9 would have changed a tutors approach to teaching. Compendium is all well and good, but it is a neutral technology. Likewise Cloudworks (which I found particulary cumbersome and un-user friendly. What I think the problem is that these programmes only provide blueprints to a study programme, they are still up for interpretation by the tutor and if the tutors perceptions led to a teacher orientated approach to teaching then there would be little that a neutral design template could do to change this.

2. Compare Marton’s idea that some students regard learning as something that just happens to them with Sfard’s account that you read in Week 3.

This does coincide to an extent with Sfard acquisition metaphor, although Martons view is more extreme it almost implies complete passivity of the student. Sfard quite rightly points out that learning is all about a mixure of acquisition and participation, even if the participatory elements are only of the abstract social kind.

3. Do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a learner?

I could relate very much to the interchangability of the three main approaches to study. I also adapt either three based on a 'cold' analyse of the job in hand. If I need good grades for a subject then I will adapt a strategy based on this. If I am studying a subject for 'fun' then I would have a selectively deep approach. As a Spanish learner I find by necessity I have to adapt a deep appoach based on the accumulative nature of this study programme.

4. Which of Säljö’s five conceptions of learning best fits your own definition?

For me I think that learning is increasing knowledge. I had a very difficult time 'handling' Sfard's participation metaphor idea's. Everything is about the individual and therefore learning is about gaining individual knowledge. The latter examples are to me a bit wooley and hippified.

5. If you have (or have had) a role in teaching or training, do the concepts, theories and evidence described in Richardson’s paper fit your own experience as a teacher or trainer?

I would certainly agree with the 3 approached to learning as I certainly adapt these approached myself. The training I give really is about imparting specific knowledge about specific products/procedures. By necessity this leads to a teacher led approach as there is little room for maneavourve within the learning outcomes. Also, even if I wished to adapt a more student orientated approach this would be difficult based on the predictions of my training department.

6. Do you find Richardson’s argument convincing?

Very convincing in is style not not enough statistics for my liking. Another problem I have is that there is a bias towards deep learning. Some learning does not require this as the subject is too simplistic.

Cost and Elearning

Activity A4a: The eUniversity of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom E-University (or UKeD) was conceived in 1999 and instigated in 2000 with £62 million of government money via HEFCE. It failed to achieve high student figures (only 900 students) or gain any private investment and was shut down in 2004. E-learning initiatives that did not reach targeted goals (p63-75).

 One mistake by UKeD was that it tried to create its own VLE which was very costly, only after much money was spent did it decide to use commercial platforms Blackboard and WebCT. UKeD also tried to develop their own platform with Sun Microsystems (and was criticised in parliament for doing so. However there are examples whereby learning providers have created a VLE of their own and it has worked- Learndirect created their own VLE and it has 500,000 students a year.

Activity A4b: Comparing the thoughts of economists

How much does elearning cost?  by Laurie Bassi (2000) presents her case from the point of view of employee development. The main point of her article is that it is impossible to work our the cost of elearning, but that we should consider the cost effectiveness instead. Cost shifts if employees are training in their own time away from the employer.

She did produce a useful chart:

Factors favoring traditional learning	Factors favoring elearning
The nature of the content requires human feedback and practice	The content can be readily modularized and/or focuses on facts and information
The most effective instructional design is highly interactive and/or a great deal of customization is required	Passive learning is acceptable and/or little customization is necessary
The content has a short-shelf life (in cases where elearning development costs are high)	The content has a long-shelf life (in cases where development costs are high) or short shelf-life (in cases where development costs are low)
Relatively few learners need access to the content	Many learners need access to the content
Learners are highly geographically concentrated, so travel costs are relatively low	Learners are highly dispersed geographically, so travel costs are high
The speed with which the learning is rolled out is not particularly critical	Learning must be rolled out quickly to a large number of learners

Week 11 Activity 3: Aspects of Quality and Elearning

 Activity 3a: ICT and test performance.

There seems to be little evidence to suggest that ICT has a positive effect in the classroom setting when viewing test performances. Executive Summary. This may be because the period reviewed was not long enough or the parameters set for data were 'old fashioned', making the change from ICT technologies hard to quantify.

The test case by Banerjee et al did find positive results looking at ICT in rural communities. But this test also found more cost effective results when they compated this data with a counter experiment of more traditional people centred methods (ie by using a local women to help children who had fallen behind catch up).

The Fuchs and Wössmann study was a meta-analysis which did not provide positive results either which showed the ICT effects were insignificant. The use of meta-analysis is also criticised:

Issues such as different groups of subjects, different experimental and analytic methodologies, different experimental contexts, and possible study selection biases are all sources of concern. As is the case with virtually all studies that are quasi-experimental in design, the results are potentially open to alternative interpretations that are not consistent with the researchers’ interpretation. (Caret, 2005)

But could reason behind the bad results be because ICT is being tested against standardised (old fashioned) test criteria.


A3b: Other benefits of ICT 

For me ICT has opened up a world of possibilities. The best is that I have access to a vast library of knowledge in my home, and I can colloborate with people from all around the world. Language exchanges via skype, citizen journalism, etc: are an excellent tool to learn. It is also useful for its informal learing benefits. If a barister does not know how to make a particular blend of coffee, he could simply look it up on Utube! The benefits of this hidden educational benefits are limitless.

Open and distance education is a beneficiary, but not the main one. Distance learning is best situatued in the formal education environment, but this pails in comparison to informal education.

Of course there are disbenefits when things get taken to the extreme  Online risks: from cancer to autism?. But would these not effect people who read all the time, or who were in some way addicted to some other unhealthy lifestyle?

A3c: 'Digital Natives'. 


A3d: Low learner take-up?

It has been noted by educators that there is a reluctantancy to use forum and the internet for education. I am certainly reluctant, mainly because a lot of my day to day job involves using a computer and studying using these medium adds further strain to my eyes.

In terms of joining in forums, before this course I would only join for 'short sharp hits'. Ie I would require specific information about a particular subject. I have never joined a forum for the purposes of discussion.

One thing I have noticed as I have joined in the discussions on the course thus far, is that my behaviour is practically no different than if I was in a face-to-face tutorial- namely reserved and quiet. In the face to face discussion I find that a lot of the times I cannot find my arguement in time and the discussion has moved on, or someone else has suggested the point I was going to make.

Week 11, Activity 2 The Global Digital Divide.

A1a Looking at the Global figures.
Internet World Stats

There is a digital divide between developed and undeveloped worlds, according to the above statistics. This divide is shortening as the number of people with access to the internet is increasing. Internet users are defined as people who have (potential access) to the internet and knowledge of how to use its applications and this can vary widely.

A2b Looking at Latin America

The digital divide is less pronounced for Latin America. About one third of the population has internet access.

A2c Looking at Africa

This has the lowest population of internet users yet is also growing at the highest rate. Like South America there is significant regional variation.

A2d Is the X0-1 the answer?

One Laptop per Child (OLPC) is a project of the Miami-based One Laptop per Child Association which was backed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). It had the goal of producing a computer for $100. This was known as the X0-1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child

Latin American placed a lot more orders in general than Africa, reflecting the digital divide previously discussed. India felt it could do better and produce a laptop for $10. NO WAY. But in 2010 they did unveil a laptop that cost $35 called the Sakshat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshat

The give 1 get 1 scheme (whereby donor would buy an X0-1) was orginally quite successful and had over 80,000 'customers'. However in 2008 when a second initiative was undertaken only 12,000 orders were made.

Criticisms include

• top down approach imperialistic
• other priorities for low income countries (esp. Africa)
• more cost effective solutions without computers would be better
• countries are forced to buy them
• little technical support or teacher training

A2e Digital divide debate: proposition ‘OER will reduce the digital divide’

I think the digital divide is more a matter of hardware. However the statistics seem to indicate that this hardware divide will be shortened (Internet World Stats), at which point OER will be more relevant in a digital content divide. The OER that are produced by Openlearn and MIT are as Santo's states one-way mediums. There seems be little evidence of a framework with Openlearn of MIT, etc, in which localised indigenous providers can contribute there own blend of education.

A second point I think it that because the West has had a headstart in terms of hardware, this will always be reflected in web content. By the time the third world catches up in hardware, the OER market may well be staturated. Like a lot of web services it is a case of 'getting in there first'.

I agree that OER are imperialistic and education is never neutral, but I do not think there is anyway around this. The West cannot produce educational material with a localised indigenous slant because it is not 'part' of that culture. The education it produces will always be originated in Western ideals and philosophy. I am even dubious about the neutrality of free OER software like Moodle is in allowing third world countries to produce completely localised educational resources, as Moodle by its very design does not allow the flexibility in its framework for completely autonomous elearning.

I think OERs only reduce the digital divide by providing a homogenising force to education. Because Western originated OERs will be the only choice of OER to third world countries, educators and learners in those countries will have to subscribe to this Western education in order to use them.

Week 11, Activity 2. The Global digital divide

The Goldern Triangle refers to 'accessibility', 'quality' and 'cost' in education. It has been argued that you cannot increase one without decreasing at least one of the other factors. However the use of ICT may break this rule.

The revolutionary feature of educational technology in general – and of open and distance learning and ICTs in particular – is that it can break open the iron triangle. You can increase access, improve quality and cut costs – all at the same time. This is because of the economies of scale and consistency of quality that come with using media. That is the big miracle.

http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2006presentations/Pages/2006-08-23.aspx

One of the possibilities of meeting the Education For All (EFA) goals is to use ICT. However exists a global digital divide which means the population of many countries do not have access to these techonologies.


Activity A2: Looking at the global figures

Using statistics from the Internet World Stats website (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm) we can see that there is a digital divide between the rich and the poor continents. Over the last 10 years we have seen a growth in all countries.

 The figures do not deliniate the amounts and types of access each country has (although this is understandable as it would be very difficult to assess). An internet user is defined very loosely and does not show the real picture in terms of internet use potential. Having an internet cafe in town does not mean you would be able to afford it, and if you did you maybe could only afford 10 minutes a day. Nor does it take it take into account internet capability of the users.