Thursday, November 29, 2007
We will be talking about mobile learning, the next frontier. I reflected this a bit in my Wikibook how the University of Western Florida has developed a HPT certification course by for the Coast Guard delivered via PDA. The PDA wireless and Bluetooth capabilities have been turned off for security purpose but anytime anywhere is becoming a reality. This is also what Bryan Alexander asked me in this blog. It definitely is the future.
I have not finished the readings for this week but will later in the weekend. However, I want to get this out so I do not hold my critical friend, Yichun, back from commenting. This week is my final blog post for R685 but, I have a feeling not my last blog post here.
Traxlar, John (2007, June). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ…. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(1). Retrieved July 2,2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/875 or http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/346/875oor
Kadirire, James (2007, June). Instant messaging for creating interactive and collaborative m-learning environments. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(1). Retrieved July 2,2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/344/874
Rekkedal, Torstein, & Dye, Aleksander (2007, June). Mobile distance learning with PDAs: Development and testing of pedagogical and system solutions supporting mobile distance learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(1). Retrieved July 2,2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/349/871
Sideman, Jessica (2006, August 27). Wired for safety, late-night snacks. USA Today, Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2006-08-27-campus-tech_x.htm
This week Intellagirl was amongst our midst. I really did not know who Intellagirl really was but, I must say, she is a very creative and articulate educator that is pushing barriers. I signed up for Second Life and I did not know what to do, or who to talk to. Heck, I did not even want to talk. However, after seeing Intellagirl’s presentation I am starting to rethink Second Life, not as a social site but for education. It made me think about how this could be used in the Coast Guard and if the skills taught in Second Life could transfer to “First Life.” This could be huge in training personnel, especially, in marine safety and security. We are taught to inspect ships, conduct, investigations, respond to pollution. What if the personnel in San Francisco, after the ship hit the Bay Bridge recently, had been through a oil spill of the magnitude, in that spot before in Second Life? I am really starting to think.
I had read Dr. Bonk’s Massive Muti-player Online Gaming in the military article for my Wikibook and it is very interesting.
The second article I read was Galanxhi & Nah’s research on deception in Second Life. They looked into how people can deceive, how they chose there avatars, and anxiety level. The most interesting finding was, using IM brought less anxiety than using an avatar. People were more comfortable being someone or something else.
Lastly, was the article by Kurt Squire. I liked the article but he really “brought” the topic and borderline hostile to Instructional Designers. I agree that instructional design needs a jab but after he had ID down he kept kicking. It really turned me off instead of waking me up, like I think he intended. It is too bad because it was a wonderfully written article using ID terms and concepts to show how gaming fits into IST.
In the tidbit Oishi gives a nice introduction to Second life and its possibilities.
Bonk, C. J., & Dennen, V. P. (2005). Massive multiplayer online gaming: A research framework for military education and training. (Technical Report # 2005-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense (DUSD/R): Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from http://www.adlnet.gov/downloads/189.cfm
Squire, Kurt (2005, February). Game-based learning: Present and future state of the field. The Masie Center. Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.masieweb.com/research-and-articles/research/game-based-learning.html or http://www.masieweb.com/dmdocuments/Game-Based_Learning.pdf
Galanxhi, Holtjona, & Fui-Hoon Nah, Fiona (2007, September). Deception in cyperspace: A comparison of text-only and avatar-supported medium. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(9), 770-783. Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGR-4NKJ0MW-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dcac1150950338288c99862e4ff88d26
Oishi, Lindsay (2007, June 15). Surfing Second Life. From Technology and Learning (TechLearning). Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=196604483
Thursday, November 22, 2007
This was an interesting week because Dr. Bonk came at us live from Maryland. I knew the concept of video conferencing but have never participated. You know what? It worked, it worked well and I was very impressed with both the video and audio quality. I also was impressed with the way he could pick up everyone in the room. Some people were no where near the microphone but Dr. Bonk could hear everyone. This is a more promising concept than I had realized. He then presented “Podcast, Wikis, and Blogs, Oh My” giving an entertaining and candid representation of what these mediums are and how they can assist education, in a scarecrow outfit. He had a screenshot from each of our blogs which really brought home how much additional content we are putting on the web as a collective. Podcasting was discussed at length but the main point was Dr. Bonk’s opinion on whether it is a web 2.0 technology. In his opinion it is not, it could be in the future but right now it is just a way to deliver content, I agree. Wikis are the main topic for this week. The following is the summary of the readings.
Bryant, Forte, and Bruckman, was the main article I analyzed this week. It was very interesting study on how wiki participants turn from novice to “Wikipedians.” They opened the article with what Wikipedia is and how it is almost identical to other encyclopedia websites that do not use a collaborative means of adding content. They used the concept of legitimate peripheral participation to describe how novices build a community and the building of a community of practice (CoP). What I found most interesting is the CoP principle is not just what one’s memberships in but everything, including ones neighborhood, friends, etc. Vygotsky’s Activity Theory was used in organizing the data. Nine participants were involved and the most significant find was that novices are end-users or minor editors on one site while Wikipedians see Wikipedia as a whole and are concerned with the accuracy and legitimacy of the entire site and the community it fosters.
Viegas, Wattenberg and Dave also looked at Wikipedia and how this community of openness can be viable with everyone and anyone editing. They analyzed the history flows of pages and created visualizations of these histories. Through these visualizations they were able to identify who changed the site, how long the site is or was, and show patterns. A good example was the site on chocolate, the visualization showed a zigzag pattern indicating an editing war. This type of information is interesting showing how each site comes to be, including the quarrels.
The final article for this week is Sanjjapanroj, Bonk, Lee, and Lin focused on Wikibooks. In this study they looked at novices and Wkkibookians. The novices were students from Indiana and Texas and the others were identified contributors to Wikibooks. The biggest find, in my opinion, was the demographics; 97% were male, 57% 25 or younger and 50% had not graduated from a 4 yr institution. In addition, the novice’s motivation was mostly to publish while the experts were to knowledge share.
The tidbits were brief articles for Campus technology. MIT launched “The Center of Wiki Intelligence” looking at how collaboration works in wiki sites. In line with this MIT and Wharton are collaborating a Wikibook titled, “We are Smarter than Me” where thousands are called upon to produce a Wikibook. Finally, Stanford opened its own Wiki site that is specific to Stanford.
Bryant, S. L., Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2005). Becoming Wikipedian: Transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In M. Pendergast, K. Schmidt, G. Mark, and M. Acherman (Eds.); Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, GROUP 2005, Sanibel Island, FL, November 6-9, pp. 1-10. Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/~aforte/BryantForteBruckBecomingWikipedian.pdf
Viégas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.), Proceedings from ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 575-582). Vienna, Austria. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf
Sajjapanroj, S., Bonk, C. J., Lee, M., & Lin, M.-F. G. (2007, April). The challenges and successes of Wikibookian experts and Wikibook novices: Classroom and community perspectives. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. See http://wiki-riki.wikispaces.com/Research+Papers+and+Reports
a. Campus Technology (2006a, October 10). News Update: MIT launches center for Collective (Wiki) intelligence. Campus Technology. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://campustechnology.com/news_article.asp?id=19384&typeid=150
b. Campus Technology (2006b, October 10). News Update: Stanford debuts Wiki of all things Stanford. Campus Technology. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://campustechnology.com/news_article.asp?id=19384&typeid=150 Campus Technology (2007, January 30). News Update: MIT, Wharton to publish collaborative textbook by Wiki. Campus Technology. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://campustechnology.com/news_article.asp?id=20096&typeid=150
This week we had a guest speaker Dr. Valerie O'Loughlin who is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology. She came to demonstrate her Human Embryology Animations which were very good. However, she was not there to teach the lesson she was there to ask for help. There are assessment issues with the sites and she wants to better to evaluate how her sites are affecting learning. The tools she has now are mediocre at most. I think this is the divide I was talking about in my previous post and what Dr. Bonk was saying, other fields are asking for out assistance and we should be jumping on the chance. The web is for learning and, of course, education should lead the way. Hey other field thinks so too, that is why they ask. However, if we do not assist they will 1) figure it out themselves, or 2) ask someone in computer science or informatics that does not have the background to do insightful evaluation (sorry but it is true). My evaluation class is next semester maybe we can help.
The best article of the week was the whitepaper by Ashley Deal. It was an interesting article talking about how podcasting is being used to record lectures. I think the article is right that it “extends education rather than assists learning.” More people are able to participate or review but do not necessarily assist in learning or collaboration. This was affirmed by Cara Lanes article which I think was a mandated review because she even admitted she did not have a proper sample size. However, what was interesting was there was a concern kids would skip class more if they knew it was being podcasted but there was not evidence. Also, people listen to podcasts mostly on their computer they do not download them to the player taking one of the prime selling points out of the equation.
Judith Boettcher’s article discussed how universities are using podcasts and mp3 players to assist in the school. Finally, but definitely not least is Scott Carlson who decided to lifelog by recording everything, he even wore a sign around his neck stating that he was recording. The key point is “what’s the point” reviewing them in the future could be nostalgic but that’s about it. I say get rid of them Mr. Carlson.
The tidbit asks; where is the podcasting revolution? Good question Ms. Holahan.
Deal, Ashley (2007, June). Podcasting. A Teaching With Technology White Paper. Educause. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://connect.educause.edu/files/CMU_Podcasting_Jun07.pdf
Carlson, Scott (2007, February 9). On the record, all the time: Researchers digitally capture the daily flow of life. Should they? Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i23/23a03001.htm
Boettcher, Judith (2007, July). iPod stands for: Absorb, engage, and matter! Campus Technology, Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/48799/
Lane, Cara (2006). UW podcasting: Evalution of Year One. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://catalyst.washington.edu/research_development/papers/2006/podcasting_year1.pdf
Holahan, Catherine (2006, November). What podcasting revolution? Business Week. Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061127_441486.htm
Monday, November 5, 2007
I AM MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! This week was a rant, a rant by Dr. Bonk to vent frustration on the use, or lack of use, of new technological tools in education. He presented that all these things are happening and education is standing “flat footed” (that is my take). The first sentence is from the movie The Network which is based on how television is infiltrating our lives. Dr. Bonk argues one could superimpose “the tube” with “the web” and you will have today’s argument. Hmmmm interesting. My take? As I have always stated the web is a tool…
This weeks readings discuss how to or what is needed to build a “sense of community” in distance learning. After reading about online learning for the last 11 weeks this has surfaced to be the factor in both distance dropouts and the argument against distance learning. However, each of these studies show that a community can be built through text. Rovai, speaks of Spirit, Trust, Interaction, and the Common Expectation to learn. Garrison, Anderson, & Archer talk about critical inquiry and the components of; cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Kimble, Li, and Barlow key point is about social and active trust. Finally but definitely not least, Ruth Brown discussed community.
Ruth Brown had the best reading of the week as she brought in new ideas. The main idea was there is three levels of community; on-line acquaintances, community conferment, and camaraderie. What griped me was the “conferment.” Conferment was defined as “securing a community membership card” and it was obtained by participating in “a long, thoughtful, threaded discussion of importance to all.” It reminded me of the street advice I was given if I ever went to prison (if you do not know what I mean ask someone) if I was ever going to survive. That is what I thought of as I read about conferment; it is a right of passage, a way to stand out so no one doubts your abilities. I practiced this in one of my online classes this summer without knowing it. I had some success in another online class and obtained a bit of confidence on how this “online” thing worked. I read the articles and developed some long profound “off the wall” statement and pasted it in the thread. Immediate trust was built with my classmates and the instructor; keep it up with timely posts and you’re on your way to a successful online career. This is a lot easier than “getting to know” everyone online. I had never thought about until this week but, in my experience, I think it is true. Good article Dr. Brown
The tidbits are group and chat (text and voice) areas where communities can be built, I belong to both.
Alfred Rovai (2002, April). Building Sense of Community at a Distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved August 21, 2007, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/79/153
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf (also see Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., Archer, W. and Rourke, L. (2004). Research into Online Communities of Inquiry. Retrieved March 8 , 2007, from http://communitiesofinquiry.com/)
Ruth Brown (2001). Process of Community-Building in Distance Learning Classes. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 5, Issue 2. http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/v5n2_brown.asp
Chris Kimble, Feng Li, & Alexis Barlow (2000). Effective Virtual Teams through Communities of Practice. Management Science: Theory, Method, and Practice. http://econwpa.wustl.edu/eps/io/papers/0504/0504006.pdf and http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0504006.html (abstract)
a. Google Groups: http://groups.google.com;
b. Skype: http://www.skype.com/
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Last week in class we started to present content on the web supporting web 2.0. Everyone who is being graded needs to present YouTube videos or some web application. We did not get to mine so I will be doing two (see last weeks tidbits) this week. We are moving to how the web can be used in learning. Dr. Bonk brought up an interesting point how engineers want to collaborate with education professionals to deliver content over the web. This is the same with librarians. Why? Because, besides porn, that is what the web is tailored for. To deliver INFORMATION so others may KNOW or LEARN. What does this spell? E D U C A T I O N. Others see it why not education? Hey, I think we need to hitch our wagon to these partners because sooner or later they are just going to do it themselves…
For this week’s readings, Nora Jones kicks it off with a study of 5 online courses from Wales. The first thing I found interesting is Wales is “Objective One” as determined by the EU. This means they receive extra funding, I had no idea Wales would fall anywhere in any depressed category but now I know. I need to Google Wales economics to get a quick tutorial sometime. Anyway, they utilized Gilly Salmon’s five step model used in the Open University in the UK. To make a long story short Ms. Jones found the social interaction of an online class was very important and should be first to enable cohesiveness. Although it was the 2nd Step in Salmon’s scale after “setting up system…” and “welcoming…” Salmon never gave how to socially interact. These courses chose to have a F2F meeting first then set up the system. The study only validates her hypothesis (although it was not framed as such). In my opinion, this article started out evaluating online classes and ended up evaluating Gilly Salmon.
Dr. Bonk said to read this article to “get” what this upcoming week was about and he was right. Ms. Swan has written a nice over view in her “Learning Effectiveness Online…” I also think that Dr. Bonk likes her writing is because she uses the word “stuff.” Anyway, she discusses how F2F and distance learning has proven to be “no significant differences” but argues there are differences and online learning is different. The key of the article was her call to personalization, as it was the “… key to innovation in distance learning.” She then goes into interaction with instructors, interaction with classmates, and learner interface interaction. These were talked about in the other articles I am going to discuss below but she made it very interesting by giving examples from a diverse range of online institutions. She also sums it up very well in a 3 page table that spells out the findings and the implications of each.
I do not know why everyone wants to study MBA classes but that seems or seemed to be the hot research area around 2005. Bude Su along with Dr. Bonk put out another article in the long term study of online learning effectiveness in distance MBA classes. I have read a few of these already but this is the first time I grasped the idea of “vicarious interaction.” I also liked how this article defined interaction as “process oriented” and interactivity as “feature oriented. I never thought about the difference of the two and am guilty of using them interchangeably. Well, no more! The other MBA study used a real-time case meaning a problem was presented and the students made a decision and the business went with it. It was an evolving problem solving case that differed with decisions, just like the real world. In the end students liked it and learned a lot but as opposed to the numbers the comments were not as reassuring.
The tidbit was e-conferencing instruction. It discussed what was out there beyond a basic CMS. Speaking of e-conferencing, I just used Connect (old Breeze) in one of my other classes and it sucked did not work well. Long way to go boys and girls…
Jones, N. (2005). The development of socialization in an on-line learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(3), http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.3.4.pdf
Su, B., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R., Liu, X., Lee, S. H. (2005, summer). The importance of interaction in web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1). http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/4.1.1.pdf and http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/2005/summer/toc.asp
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness online: What the research tell us. In J. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.). Elements of quality online education, Practice and direction. Sloan Center for Online Education, 13-45. http://www.kent.edu/rcet/Publications/upload/learning%20effectiveness4.pdf
Theroux, James, Carpenter, Cari, & Kilbane, Claire. (2004). Experimental online case study for a breakthrough in student engagement: Focus group results. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3), retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v8n3/v8n3_theroux.asp
Shi, Shufang, & Morrow, Blaine Victor (2006). E-conferencing for instruction: What works? Educause Quarterly, 29(4), pp. 22-30. Retrieved July 10, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm06/eqm0646.asp
Sunday, October 21, 2007
This week is about turning the traditional Course Management System on its head. The issue from the entire articles this week is that the CMS we know (and many love and hate) is now obsolete. Weigel summed up all the articles when he states; “… many educators and administrators are locked into a “classroom on steroids” model of e-learning that is more preoccupied with the categories of accessibility and convenience than pedagogical effectiveness and skill development.” Meaning the CMS is more for the facilitator than the students. In a web 2.0 realm not only is it NOT necessary the instructor try to emulate a classroom setting but is flat out wrong.
Mr. Downes comes in again with an opinion (surprise) but calls the CMS a learning management system and defines as the same (Blackboard, Web CT) but they are in fact different. A CMS manages a course while a LMS is a comprehensive approach to managing learning which a CMS would be a part. He starts with discussing learning objects then moves to the CMS. He explains Learning objects are connected to computer based delivery systems (CBT) and can be used as course building blocks but by connecting LO’s to CBT he has in essence connected LO to behaviorism. I agree with Weigel that the current CMS is steeping in behaviorism but am having a difficult time with the LO being thrown in there, something I need to think about more. Mr. Downes brought in again the “digital native,” blogging, and wikis while defining web 2.0 and those who use it, nothing new from him. However, he brought up George Siemen’s connectivism and Rushkoff’s Cyberia then segued to a discussion of an “open society.” I think he really likes this connectivism thing; I do not (as a learning theory).
Bryan Alexander does a great job of giving a brief history and current update of web 2.0 by discussing specific applications. He takes the reader from the beginning (1960’s) to the start of social bookmarking with del.ico.us and the rapid explanation of some of the applications. He then discusses how these can be used in the classroom including the use of RSS feeds and collaboration sites.
John Thompson gives the same background of web 2.0. He like the others call on educators to embrace this technology and not shun it as the students will be expecting it. He refers to Alexander’s article when discussing precedents and the future but does not go as in depth. He also brings in Tufts mapping technology, Penn State’s texting program, and Duke’s iPod program. For the future he said that institutions need to transform to avoid the “Starbucks Effect” (Hammonds, 2006) where a better business model and product will take away market share. This is prevalent in the University of Phoenix’s takeover of the non-traditional student. They are the largest accredited university in the US because they catered to a large group of the population who were largely ignored by academia unless the student wanted to conform. I am an alum from UOP and they offered exactly what I needed while I was working, an accredited curriculum, a set class schedule, convenient times, and a good education. I did not need a student union, football team, or a sprawling campus. However, I paid for it, UOP is very expensive…
Wiegel, V. (2005). From course management to curriculum capabilities: A capabilities approach for the next-generation CMS. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(3), 54-67. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm05/erm0533.asp
Downes, Stephen (2005, October). E-learning 2.0. E-Learn Magazine. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
Alexander, Bryan (2006, March/April). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm06/erm0621.asp
See Table: Brown, Malcolm (2007, March/April). Mashing up the once and future CMS. Educause Review, 42(2), 8-9. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm07/erm0725.asp
Thompson, John (2007, April/May). Is education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate Journal of Online Education, 3(4), Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=393
Tidbits: Class Presentation
Wikis in plain English: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY
Did you know; Shift Happens; globalization; information age: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q
Thursday, October 18, 2007
This week we entered into the actual web products in web 2.0. Only 1-2 article were required this week due to the volume of each of the readings. The first article is a book. It a good book but it is still a book. The Open eLearning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS) has produced a European Roadmap for 2012 is an incredibly dense publication that outlines everything done and everything we will do in this class. It is an outline for education and business, and acknowledges most will be done in higher ed. The report takes on tough topics of access, participation, licensing, etc. It also gives recommendations to educational institutions and separate recommendations for teachers. If someone wants to know about open source and is practical application one needs look no further than these 149 pages.
The article by Steven Downes is his attempt to alleviate excuses. For everyone who thinks open source is too hard or is not worth trying he gives suggestions to mitigate common excuses. First he understands that open source is not really free and needs money to sustain the movement he gives multiple models to obtain funding. This is repeated for both the technology and the staffing of projects. Dr. Bonk stated this sounds like Mr. Downes was sick of answering these questions, I agree.
The tidbits are open source project projects that we reviewed. My favorite is the Global Text Project. They are giving free text books via the web, CD, or DVD to economically depressed areas. The textbooks are written by reputable individuals and are free for all. Look at this movement to start to permeate throughout the world. The second is the Open Knowledge Foundation that does the same thing but is more of a distributor rather than a producer. Both these projects are means to bring once exclusive materials to the masses. A Dr. Bonk says, “Learning should be free.”
Geser, Guntram (ed.). (2007, January). Open Educational Practices and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012 (149 pages). Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.olcos.org/english/roadmap/ and http://www.olcos.org/english/roadmap/download/
Downes, Stephen (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects. 3, Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes.pdf
The Open Knowledge Foundation: http://www.okfn.org/
Global Text Project: http://globaltext.org/
This week was interesting; we conducted a panel of key players in the open source movement. Each person in class had 1 or multiple roles to play. The person acted as if they were the person they were assigned from the information gleaned from the articles and bios retrieved.
I had 4 assignments this week. The first was a debate between Eric Raymond and N. Bezroukov about the Eric Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The basic premise is that software built in a cathedral style with a core team and built from the bottom up is no match for the bazaar style where it is lateral and people pick and choose as they shop for projects of interest. Nicolai thinks it is a bit idyllic, and it I, but it was intended to be that way. Open source has its issues but there are never problems in the “theory.”
The second session I was the mediator and the topic was Open Source Software in North America and China. The main idea is that open source has no government oversight here but in China it is the gov’t producing and distributing the software and the code, mainly Red Flag Linux.
The 4th session I was David Wiley from Utah State stating that everyone needs to embrace open source and not be afraid of it. The best quote was when he states; “if teachers are not as good as the materials they use they should be replaced by them.” He also goes on to say we should not be afraid of information or if it is going to replace their job and equates it to the library. The library is full of information and nobody is afraid of the information in the library why should the information on the web be different?
Finally, I was asked to role play Phillip Dodds who has recently passed. He was the gentleman on “First Encounters or the Third Kind” that worked the keyboard in the communication scene and said “What are we saying to each other?” He worked for ADL and was instrumental in developing and advancing SCORM.
Raymond, E. S. (2000). The cathedral and the bazaar. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/.
Bezroukov, N. (2005a). Open source software development as a special type of academic research (Crique of Vulgar Raymond). First Monday. Retrieved December 22, 2005, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_10/bezroukov/index.html
Bezroukov, N. (2005b). A second look at the cathedral and the Bazaar. First Monday. Retrieved December 23, 2005, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12?besroukov/
Pan and Bonk Open Source Articles (3 choices):
Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007, March). The Emergence of Open-Source Software, Part II: China. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(1). See http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/331/762; special issue on the “Changing Faces of Open and Distance Learning in Asia” is found at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007, September). The Emergence of Open-Source Software, Part I: North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 8(3). See http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/issue/view/26
Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). A socio-cultural perspective on free and open source software. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. See http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Apr_07/article01.htm
3. Wiley, D. (2006). Open Source, Openness, and Higher Education. Innovate, Volume 3, Issue 1. Retreived October 18, 2007 from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=354
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Dodds http://web.archive.org/web/20030321033727/www.rhassociates.com/background.htm http://aicc.org/blog/2007/10/passing-of-phillip-vw-dodds.html
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
This week we are starting to look at web 2.0, the tools and the users. In class the big item was what is needed to be a successful online student today as compared to 2000. After reflection, my own opinion is not much. People need to be good time managers, have time (online is extremely time dependent), and have a willingness to explore. The latter is where learners get “tripped” up by not having an open mind going into the instruction to try something new. I guess this could be said for the instructors also. The new lists had more tools than the 2000 checklist but the aforementioned principles are sound. One only needs a better computer and broadband and figure it out from there.
The articles were in line with what was discussed, learning styles for today’s education. The first article was from the Partnership for 21t Century Skills. This partnership is a medley of public and private organizations that give opinions and recommendations for education. My big take was how industry wanted to use NCLB to introduce and have education embrace measurement. This was the first time I have heard this argument besides on my parent’s porch discussing this same topic with my mother. I think education and teachers need to be measured just like everyone else. Although it may not be perfect it is a means of accountability.
Educating the Net Generation was an excerpt from Ch 6. This was a good analysis comparing the Baby Boomers, Gen X, and the Net Generation and how they learn online. To no surprise the Net generation was more comfortable with technologies but what was interesting is the Baby Boomers got more out of it.
The next two articles are by or assisted Chris Dede of Harvard University discussing Neomillennial learners. Chris Dede is adamant that everyone has the potential to be a neomillennial learner, not just the millennials or the net generation whatever they are called. A lot of people talk about the generation divide, boomers, gen X, and millenilals (gen y. net gen, etc.) and classify learning styles through this divide. Not Dede, NO, everyone can be a neomillenial learner one just needs to grasp and accept (enjoy?) the latest in educational technology today. Not only accept it, immerse oneself in it. He uses the work immersion a lot.
My tidbit this week was from the San Francisco Gate discussing media usage time. If that sounds like the studies I already covered, you would be right. They just regurgitated the Kaiser and Pew studies I reviewed last week. So, if you want to read the actual studies go to the studies. If you want a shorter read with a little bit of drama, this article is for you. Wait! There is something worth noting, multitasking. Dr. Jordan Grafman, Chief of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, part of the Institute of Health (he must not be able to fit his phone #s on his business card) stated no one can do two things at once it is genetically impossible. The brain can only focus on one thing at a time. People can be doing multiple things but can one focus on one at a time. Although he admitted to often try to multitask.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1), http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0511.pdf
Hartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2005). Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101f.pdf
Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Schrier, K. (in press). “Neomillennial” learning styles propagated by wireless handheld devices. In M. Lytras & A. Naeve (Eds.), Ubiquitous and pervasive knowledge and learning management: Semantics, social networking and new media to their full potential. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. Retrieved on August 28, 2006, from http://gseacademic.harvard.edu/~hdul/Dieterle-Dede-Schrier-NLS-2006.pdf#
Learning for the 21st Century (A Report and MILE Guide for 21st Century Skills) http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Report.pdf. MILE (Milestones for Improving Learning) Guide for the 21st Century skills. http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Mile_Guide_Printable.pdf
Seligman, K. (2006, May 14). Young and wired. San Francisco Chronicle, Retrieved November 20, 2006, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/CMGGKIACOL75.DTL
Thursday, September 27, 2007
In the last paragraph of the Introduction she introduced Davidson-Shivers (2001) and Chou (2001) who found “… more responding, reacting, and supportive talk in chat.” Using Fisher and Coleman (2001-2002) “… (synchronous) afforded community building among their distance learners.” Armitt, Slack, Green & Beer (2002) were quoted “…synchronous chat, in contrast to asynchronous discussions, affords “immediate clarification and the development of thought.” (p.9) Levin et al (2006) found learners reached higher levels synchronously.
Those are not her words BUT she does not rebut or dispute them as she does with asynchronous learning. In the third paragraph of the Introduction she talks about asynchronous drawbacks, not once does she challenge synchronous. I can only conclude that she supports the authors siding with synchronous.
As for the grades, although she only has course grades as an achievement record, it is mentioned only orange and plum received the highest grades. Orange and plum were the only teams to use all media. I concluded the article was trying to convey the more forums used the better, apparently not.
It was a good article but I obviously walked away with more than I was suppose to.
Monday, September 24, 2007
New Learner Roles: Expectations, Issues, Dilemmas, and Resolutions
I am going to start this week with the class discussion as we talked about instruction in an “e” environment. We were broken into groups and conducted a colloquium on the acronym IRISE or Issues, Roles, Incentives, Support, and Expectations. Each group presented and the group that gave the best presentations won the book Learning at the Back Door by Charles Weidermeyer. Well, as you probably guessed the support team (Sharon, Nunthika, and I) won but really only because we were the only ones to give a skit. The others just presented from their seats. Except Dr. Bonk’s group but company family mbrs were not eligible. I am glad I held off buying the book that was a nice prize.
This week we focus our attention to the learners. All the studies focused on smaller children through high school. The first was a Report – “Are they really ready for work?” I had a tough time with this article because it placed so much focus on an excellent response. People with a high school diploma received mostly a rating of adequate of being prepared for employment and were not rated excellent in any category. I think adequate is fine, we cannot please everyone and the education system does not have time to focus on an excellent. If they are working then they are ready. Yes, it would be nice for every kid that walks through the door to have been to “Student Council Camp in Leadership” but not a reality. Two-Year and 4 year institutions did better on the “excellent ratings” (mostly 4 year) – duh.
Next was a Pew Study on the Teens and Technology. I thought this was pretty good and gave a good description of what America’s youth were doing. The main concepts I got out of the study were:
· 7th Grade is the break fm technology innocence to indulgence (my words)
· Children are still active in other non-technological activities
· Would rather spend time WITH friends rather than call, IM, email, or text them.
· IM is the preferred method of communication (in this study)
Then from the Kaiser Family comes another 145 page of love on the same topic but this one is packed with great info. To sum it up:
· A typical American kid lives in a home with “3 TV sets, 3 CD/tape players, two video game consoles, and a computer. The TV received cable or satellite and probably has premium channels.” (p.10)
· If grades are high reading is also high
· Parents who exhibit some control of media the kids have 1:50 less exposure time a day.
There was a lot more in this study but it could be a paper unto itself. I just thought the relationship with parental oversight had direct effect on exposure which may affect reading wich lead to better grade. As a parent I severely limit my children to the TV and it is nice to see, in print, there is a benefit because as a parent I am always questioning that decision.
The tidbit I read was on ETS coming out with a technology usability test – good for them.
Cassner-Lotto, Jill, & Wright Benner, Mary (2006). Report: Are they really ready to work?: Employers perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. The Partnership for 21st Century; Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF9-29-06.pdf
Lenhart, Amanda, Madden, Mary, & Hitlin, Paul (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on November 3rd, 2006 from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf
Roberts, Donald F., Foehr, Ulla G., & Rideout, Victoria (2005). Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. Washington, DC: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Generation-M-Media-in-the-Lives-of-8-18-Year-olds-Report.pdf
Pope, Justin (2006, February 2). New ETS exam tries to measure students’ “information literacy.” Boston.com News. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/02/02/new_ets_exam_tries_to_measure_students_information_literacy/
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The following readings are for the 17 September class. Before I delve into the readings I want to discuss class a bit more as I did not much in my previous post. The class was interesting esp. with the controversy George Siemens stirred. Dr. Bonk used the You Tube Video “The machine is Us/ing us” to so how a Professor Michael Wesch at Kansas State University teaches, and is not a bad tutorial of web 2.0 and where we are going. Anyway, it was all wrapped up when Dr. Bonk sent the questions we posed to Mr. Siemens and he responded. I liked his responses (but still do not necessarily agree). Mr. Siemens is very much aware of the controversy and embraces a “good chat” about it. Thanks Dr. Bonk for taking our discussion to a different level. I always wondered when discussing material when I was in my foundations course why we debated what the author thought. Most of these people are still around why don’t we ask them? Dr. Bonk, again, thanks.
The readings this week are focused on the benefits and challenges of web learning. The Wingard study was interesting because it polled instructors that were suppose to be more familiar with educational technology. The studies found that although online takes more time and a social aspect is lost, the learners are more engaged, relay learning to practice almost immediately, and the instructors use the web for pragmatic and pedagogical reasons ie. delivery of material, changes, and able to post more advanced models to the web. It seems the benefits outweigh the problems (the problems are being solved with blended learning and more social software). What is different with this other articles is the push to utilize an instructional designer. I lied; it was also discussed in Dr. Parker’s article that stated instead of additional pay, online instructors were given technical and design support. I think that is a good deal although the time commitment is great for an online instructor if the technology and instructional design responsibilities were stripped the course would be more manageable.
The JALN article and the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration (OJDLA) both related to a survey of online MBA professors. Again, the same issues can out, not social enough BUT the learners are very engaged AND able to put learning to practice. In the JALN article they brought Salmon’s idea that facilitators are “weavers” and need to fill this role in an online environment. If the facilitator cannot “weave” the class is going to be less than exceptional. It was proposed the instructor has pedagogical role (as described above), a social role, a managerial role, and a technical role. Each of these areas was discussed more thoroughly but shows how being an online instructor is very complex, even more than a “live” facilitator. The OJDLA article again took 28 online professors and interviewed each. Although some classes were trouble at times overall it is a successful program. Again, assistance in instructional design and technology will go a long way.
The tidbits were about an online instructor from Penn State and show how much time it takes to run an online class (started at 0430). He was an extreme case as he had over 200 students that is a lot to handle, however, again (reoccurring theme) he had help from a technical assistant. The other was “Teach in your Pajamas” which gave ideas of how to develop and how to deliver an online class. I thought it was pretty good even for being 5 years old. If even a few of the items were used I think it would be a successful class. The theme I heard here was feedback. She was always referring to ways to get feedback and tweaking the class to the suggestions. Let the learner drive…
Robin G. Wingard (2004). Classroom teaching changes in Web-enhanced courses: A multi-Institutional Study. Educause Quarterly, 27(1). http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0414.pdf
Liu, X., Bonk, C. J., Magjuka, R. J., Lee, S. H., & Su, B. (2005). Exploring four dimensions of online instructor roles: A program level case study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 9(4), pp. 29-48. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n4/index.asp and http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v9n4/v9n4_liu_member.asp
Liu, S., Kim, K-J., Bonk, C. J., & Magjuka, R. (2007). Benefits, barriers, and suggestions: What did online MBA professors say about online teaching? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(2), see http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer102/liu102.htm
Angie Parker (2003, Fall). Motivation and Incentives for Distance Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3), http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/parker63.htm
Chronicle of Higher Education (2002). The 24 hour professor: http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i38/38a03101.htm
Karen Hyder (2002). Teach in Your Pajamas: Becoming a Synchronous E-Trainer. The E-Learning Developer’s Journal. http://elearningtech.pbwiki.com/f/Teach%20in%20your%20pajamas.pdf
Sidebar: Why does everyone have to propose a new theory? Almost every week I read of someone trying to tell me we need a new theory. We need to stay current and we need change but the models we have now can be worked with and made better. If you want to propose a new theory or model hook your hitch to constructivism, which has yet to be defined.
Anyway, as clarified in class Mr. Siemens proposes the theory of Connectivism. Now, after learning a bit more he is not the first to propose this theory but appears to be, currently, the loudest. The basics of the theory it is not the learner that learns but a “node.” A node can be a learner but it also can be a database, server, etc. any “thought” (thoughts being defined by Vyogotsy as “not a thought until it has been spoken,” Mr. Siemens referred to this often). We discussed this in class and most believed, as Dr. Bonk stated, that this stuff is nothing new that has not been presented before. However, it is intriguing that the network learns but Dr. Bonk brought up a great point by stating if the leaner does not learn then it is in all probability not a psychological theory but may be a sociological one. The idea is the network is there with the information if we need it. This sounds like JIT or cognitive assistance, not learning.
The other articles read were on the Pew Institute’s survey of bloggers. This was very interesting but I question the credibility with a low respondent rate (n = 422). The biggest things I got from this survey is it is mostly suburban kinds (<30), not necessarily white, that like to talk about themselves, and most likely do not get paid. This is a good segue into Steven Downes article on blogging. What caught me off guard was the introduction where every Fifth Grader had a blog and was checking and updating it at school. He is right, as well as everyone else I have read, this is the future and these kids will expect to learn in this way. Finally this also goes well with my tidbit this week from Will Richardson taking about blogging and RSS. He, again correctly, argues that blogs are now and should be used in education. In addition, by using RSS one can manage and benefit from a large amount of constantly refreshed content.
From the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication I read an article by Trena Paulus fm the University of Tennessee. She did a survey of 10 groups learning online. The one thing I found interesting is it was relayed that asynchronous discussions were not as valuable as synchronous. However, what was not as surprising is the groups that received the highest grade used email, asynchronous, and synchronous to complete the assigned tasks.
Siemens, George (2006, November 12). Connectivism: Learning theory of pastime for the self-amused? Retrieved July 11, 2007, from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
Lenhart, Amanda, & Fox, Susannah (2006, July 19). Bloggers: Portrait of America’s new storytellers. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Report. Retrieved on July 9, 2007, from: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP%20Bloggers%20Report%20July%2019%202006.pdf
Special Issue on Blogging: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ (16 articles to choose from).
Downes, Stephen (2004, September/October). Educational blogging, EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 14–26. Retrieved August 27, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0450.asp?bhcp=1
Richardson, W. (2004). Blogging and RSS — The "what's it?" and "how to" of powerful new web tools for educators. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools, 11(1). Retrieved Feb 8th, 2006 from http://www.infotoday.com/MMSchools/jan04/richardson.shtml
Thursday, September 6, 2007
This week’s topic was on blended learning. I have to initiate this entry with two pieces of important instruction obtained from the classroom. First, the definition of blended learning which is simply utilizing both face-to-face (F2F) instruction with online instruction. The second is IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH TO BLEND TO BE EFFECTIVE. Dr. Bonk was adamant in this point and does not understand why we would place percentages and definitions on what is F2F, blended, or completely online such as the SLOAN Institute has. The important thing is that blended (or hybrid to us military types) is utilized because more and more studies show blended is better as explained the readings for this week.
First I read two chapters from the book, Handbook of Blended Learning (Bonk & Graham (2004). This book is a culmination of multiple authors and views from business, government, and education explaining how blended learning is used and impacting each area. Graham gives the introduction and does a good job summing up the book and evoking interest in what is to come. He immediately takes the above definition on what blended is and which leaves no ambiguity for the reader. Also, he comes out with an amazing fact (supported by Dr. Bonk’s chapter) that in higher ed 80-90% of all courses are some sort of blended learning. This was amazing to me but taken into context it is more realistic because this includes those who have only posted a syllabus to the web. Graham goes on to discuss a hierarchal model of blending from instructor thru the instruction then segues into the challenges which are:
· Live interaction,
· Learner choice and self-regulation
· Balance between, innovation and production,
· Cultural adaptation, and
· Dealing with the digital divide. (Bonk & Graham (2004))
The whole idea of this chapter, and maybe the book, was when Graham stated, “It may even become so ubiquitous that we will eventually drop the word “blended” and just call it learning.”
The Chapter that Dr. Bonk co-authored with Kim and Zeng brought in an updated survey to MERLOT, WCET, and WLH members. There was an education survey and a second corporate survey. What immediately jumps out is the current usage of sort of blend in both areas. Currently, 93% of higher ed and 86% in the corporate arena use some sort of blend in the learning/training. These numbers are surprising even though I expected the results that both areas are moving to more blended approaches and most expect to grow in the near and distance future. In addition, the surveys brought forth what the respondents thought would be the most important technologies in the future. In higher ed the top three are; reusable content objects, wireless technologies, and peer-to-peer collaboration tools. In the corporate world the top three were knowledge management tools, online simulations, and wireless technologies. Both are no surprise to me. They then go on to identify trends in blended learning
1. Mobile Blended Learning
2. Greater Visualization, Individualization, and Hands-on Learning
3. Self-Determined Blended Learning
4. Increased Connectedness, Community, and Collaboration
5. Increased Authenticity and On-Demand Learning
6. Linking Work and Learning
7. Changed Calendaring
8. Blended Learning Course Designations
9. Changed Instructor Roles
10. The Emergence of Blended Learning Specialists (Bonk & Graham (2004))
All of these are have, are, or will happen within education.
I then read an article by Ellen Cohn discussing the practice of instructors developing one web site for each class. She equated this to the monochromatic model that has been in place when it should be polychromatic. She offers these solutions:
- “ One Web site, successive courses,
- Two instructors, two classes, one course,
- Master instructor, consortium-based courses,
- One Web site, demographically diverse student cohorts,
- Student-stakeholder/mentor interactions,
- Student-alumni interactions, and
- Interdisciplinary learning opportunities”
I agree with her article. It is more instructor centric but if web 2.0 is to be about “sharing” and efficiency streamlining the delivery of instruction would definitely be in this realm.
I read two tidbits again this week the first was blended learning models described by Purnima Valiathan where a skill, attitude, and competency driven models were discussed. The second was by Bersin & Associates stating that blended IS the next big thing. A few take-aways from this one are, it is a lower cost/high impact method, the most simple and most effective is to “sandwich” the technology with the classic learning, and it is not necessarily an easy process but the rewards can be huge.
We are going to be starting a Wiki Book in the near future. I do not yet know my topic but am shooting for “emerging technologies in the military.” It is general but focused in my area, the Coast Guard. I will start posting some of the material and timeline here.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Chapter 1: Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/graham_intro.pdf
Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. J. (2006). Chapter 39: Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of blended learning: Global Perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing. http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/c083_bonk_future.pdf
Cohn, E. R. (2004). One course, one Web site—of course? Maybe not! EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27(2), 6-7. Retrieved October 4, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm04/eqm0421.asp
1. Blended learning models (corporate); Purnima Valiathan (2002, August): http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/aug2002/valiathan.html
2. Blended learning: What works (Josh Bersin, 2003): http://www.e-learningguru.com/wpapers/blended_bersin.doc (similar article at Chief Lnrg Officer Mag http://www.clomedia.com/content/templates/clo_feature.asp?articleid=357&zoneid=30)
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The world of technology has evolved rapidly which is readily prevalent in the education realm. The increase of usable applications within an education setting is not only quantifiably large but is VIABLE. Most of these applications work and can enhance learning and accommodate any schedule. The question arises why is it not more prevalent? Well, it is! Go on the internet and I bet you will see an ad for e-learning. Talk to people at your office and there is a good chance most of them are taking classes on-line. It is a revolution, either you’re with us or against us...
The first article I read was by Dr. Bonk, The Perfect E-Storm 1 and 2. Within this very interesting article (which he claims he should have made a book) he describes 4 looming storm systems that are converging and when they do, there will be this turbulent storm where some will die and some will thrive (a bit of an embellishment but the concept is sound). The “storms” described are emerging technology, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. The article was published by the Observatory in two parts, Storm 1 & 2, and Storm 3 &4.
In the first part he discusses emerging technologies and learner demand. Within the learner technologies he individually discusses 30 learning technologies and readily acknowledges there are more, some include reusable learning, objects, massive multi player online games, tablet PCs, virtual worlds, plus 26 more. Then the article explains more general aspects of emerging technologies like, adventure learning, mentoring, and the impact on online learning. He also includes a survey conducted with participants of MERLOT and WLH asking about emerging technology trends that is referenced throughout the article. The point is, technologies are not restrained but he raises the question; is it too much? The second was learner demand which has grown exponentially since 1999 and quantify is the findings with statistics from the US and Internationally. Most have seen a nearly 1000% increase. So, obviously there is a thirst for online learning throughout the world.
Storm 3 talks about online pedagogy and the ways learning can be brought to and even from the learners, on-line. He boils these pedagogies to asynchronous a synchronous and gives a table outlining strategies related to the amount of risk, time, and cost giving a low, medium or high ranking. Utilizing this table an instructor can manipulate what type of instruction delivery is desirable to the factors stated. As stated in the conclusion this has potential as a very useful tool for those in remote or underprivileged settings where low risk, time, and cost can be implemented but have extreme returns. The final storm is decreased budgets which have fueled a movement to online learning as it is seen as a low cost alternative. He states that 70% of US institutions charge residency rates to online learners. Also, as budgets are cut there is a movement toward using and developing open source software for the world to use which obviously will lower the cost of e-learning.
The next article I read was Thirty Two Trends Affecting Distance Education: An informed Foundation for Strategic Planning by Howell, Williams, and Lindsay. Within this article they were informing future teachers and administrators where technology in education was heading. In fact they quoted Beaudoin (2003) saying; “to be informed and enlightened enough to ask fundamental questions that could well influence their institutions future viability.” Although I do not think this article brought “enlightenment” but it does a great job outlining trends in student/enrollment, faculty, academic, technology, economic, and distance learning. It does well condensing and delivering where education was moving. They again brought up the theme of “vision” quoting Bates (2000) saying “the biggest challenge (in distance education) is the lack of vision and the failure to use technology strategically.” I agree.
Garrison (2000) discussed distance education’s roots and transformation. He focused on theory and the need or not to grasp onto a central theme in distance learning which nearly lost my interest. I do not think we need a central theory to “dance around” to make distance learning work. He does concede that although there continues to be no central theory (do to rapid evolution) the theories of the future “will demand theories reflect a collaborative approach to distance education.” However, I enjoyed reading the article as he discussed the theories of the distance learning pioneers like Charles Weidemyer (independent study, British Open University through Articulated Instructional Media (AIM)), Otto Peters (industrial production model, self-learning, tele-learning, and social intercourse), Borje Holmberg (guided didactic conversation), Michael Moore (transactional distance), Garrison (producing many “real two-way communication”), and Henri (five dimension analytical model. All had their positives but had flaws also because, as stated, this continues to be a rapid moving field.
I also read two tidbits As We May Think by Vannevar Bush was an article produced in 1945 and was amazing to read the technologies he predicted including the computer (memex), and hyperlinks for data retrieval. He did focus a lot on microfilm and photography but the idea of “prints without needing to be wet” was definitely an accurate prediction. The second was Smith’s (2004) article in EDUCAUSE where he discussed the NEED to move to a more technologically based education system. He relates the current system in a metaphor to that of the titanic saying the ship was doomed, iceberg or not, due to the recent invention of the airplane. I agree with the content of the article but was a bit “the sky is falling” for me…
The first class offered a great introduction with Dr. Bonk’s presentation of the “The World is Flat” relating to Friedman’s book of the same name. He discussed the reasons that “flattened the world” and the ten forces that flattened the world:
1. Web Search
2. Enormous E-Learning and Blended Learning
3. Open Source and Free Software
4. Leveraged Resources and Open0Course Software
5. Online Learning Objects and Portals
6. Learner Participation in Open Information Communities
7. Electronic Collaboration and Interaction
8. Alternate Reality Learning
9. Real Time Mobility and Portability
10. Networks of Personalize Learning
What I found most interesting was the concept of “sharing.” I experienced a real “ah-ha” moment when Dr. Bonk explained how everything was now shared when just a few years ago privacy of “knowledge” was the norm. Now everyone shares everything from personal lives (facebook, myspace) to school and professional work (e-portfolios). These would have been deemed “private” issues not that long ago. The move to “open” is allowing a new door to open in learning and we are only in the beginning of its potential. This first week was a real eye-opener of what the world of “e” has to offer to learning.
Bonk, C. J. (2004, June). The perfect e-storm: Emerging technologies, enormous learner demand, enhanced pedagogy, and erased budgets. London: UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. (see http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/article.html or http://www.publicationshare.com/). http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/part1.pdf and http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/part2.pdf
Scott L. Howell, Peter B. Williams, & Nathan K. Lindsey (2003, Fall). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(3). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html
Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 1(1). Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2/333
1. Peter Smith, (2004, May/June). Of Icebergs, Ships, and Arrogant Captains, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 3 (May/June 2004): 48–58. http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0433.asp
2. Vannevar Bush (1945, July). As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly; Volume 176, No. 1; pages 101-108. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm