Web 2.0 – are we intruding?

 I originally posted this on the LTUG site (see links) on 30 April 2008

So, let me get this straight – we all accept that the Web 2.0 matrix of social software has entangled a willing Gen Y in its sticky filaments – or at least those of them who are our current crop of students. But where did we make the non-logical leap that has brought us to the conviction that this same matrix will therefore be accepted by them as an educative medium?

Goerke and Oliver1 recently tested the widely-held premise that students who “equip themselves with convergent and mobile devices, and are heavy users of Web 2.0 social software … can be persuaded to use both not only to socialise, but to enhance their learning experiences in higher education.”

Their research showed that, when given the opportunity to use PDAs for learning experiences and collaboration, students eschewed these handheld devices in favour of laptops and desktops. They also found that “students were unlikely to use social software applications for learning purposes.” Their conclusion was that there is “little transference of social behaviours to learning behaviours”.
“This research also confirms recent international reports that students of the Net Generation are sending clear messages about their resistance to attempts by educationalists to ‘muscle into’ their virtual socialising spaces.”

Leaver2 goes further, saying that students have started “to take matters into their own hands”. Where they believe that universities are not being open enough with teacher evaluation data, students use sites such as ratemyprofessor.com to deliver grass-roots evaluations themselves.

Students are certainly using social software, but on their own terms. Leaver observes that last year in Australia, “over 7500 students joined the UWA (University of Western Australia) network … Facebook. One of the largest groups joined by students in this network was called ‘WebCT is the biggest piece of shit ever invented’ and had over 500 members, many venting their anger at what they saw as failures of the WebCT learning management system.”

Is Barrie Clark3, Swansea University’s UK recruitment manager correct when he claims that “potential students, being very media-savvy, would see universities’ use of social networking and text messaging as intrusion into what they use as a recreational space” ? Will we alienate a generation of students by going too far, too fast by virtually hijacking an innately user-driven technology to achieve a top-down, teacher-driven educational reform?

I hope not. I think we are perhaps seeing the beginnings of a student revolt – emergent behaviour that is signalling an unwillingness to be told how and when their social communication systems are to be used. And that is perfectly understandable.

So let’s employ social software in the way it was designed to be used. Instead of pushing students into those parts of the social web that we feel is educationally desirable, let’s pull them in. As educators, researchers and subject matter experts, perhaps we are the ones who should be authoring more blogs and contributing to wikis in our own fields – with posts that intrigue, challenge, inspire and offend students’ intuition to the degree that they choose to follow what we have to say by willingly becoming part of our social networks. We could earn the right to be respected.

We keep saying that we want our students to construct their own learning experiences, but we don’t quite seem to trust them to do it ‘properly’. We may be micromanaging their learning until they can’t breathe. If we take a step back and provide them with high quality materials that they can use for constructing learning in their own way, chances are that they will be drawn to them like ants to a picnic.

If student perceptions are that we are intruding on their spaces, they might just go away. Baseball’s Yogi Berra is reputed to have said about a popular restaurant: “Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” It would be sad if our social spaces suffered the same fate.

1Veronica Goerke and Beverley Oliver, Will the Net Generation use personal devices and social software for supplementary learning experiences?

2Tama Leaver, Putting windows in the ivory tower: Challenges and changes to university practice in the face of Web 2.0 tool use by students.

[TL Forum (2008). Preparing for the graduate of 2015. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2008. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. http://otl.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2008/contents-all.html%5D

3Education Guardian: MySpace – The final frontier


The eLearning designer/developer – a dinosaur?

 I originally posted this on the LTUG site (see links) on 29 April 2008

 I am becoming a dinosaur. Some of my colleagues have unkindly intimated that the term ‘becoming’ may have been true a decade ago; and have suggested I delete it and just leave the “am” … OK. I am a dinosaur.

Why? Because I used to I like my job. Now I’m turning into a miserable curmudgeon who bitches and moans about the way things were because I don’t like the way things are going. I guess the dinosaurs felt the same way about the asteroid or whatever it was that blew their cosy reign apart as well.

I’m an instructional designer cum developer cum educational technologist cum LMS administrator. (Multitasking rules in today’s institutional mindset – besides, it’s cheaper than hiring four people). What I used to do was help staff crystallise their ideas as to how their courses could achieve desired learning outcomes more effectively. Using an arcane blend of instructional design modalities, commonsense pedagogical frameworks, engaging activities and interesting assessment strategies, I could work with subject matter experts to develop a robust framework for their courses. As a bonus, I could throw in a navigation system that was reasonably intuitive and worked for students regardless of their learning styles.

Then of course it had to look good, so a bit of DHTML pizzazz, a dash of Spry stuff, some Flash interactivity, embedded Web 2.0 collaborative tools, good graphic design and some customised icons helped to put some tinsel on an already functional Christmas tree. Oh yes, and built-in evaluation opportunities for students to let us know when we were becoming overly precious and forgetting their needs …

And now? The emphasis is changing (at least at my place of work). New policy now dictates a “minimum presence” in eLearning. That is arguably a Good Thing. One would naturally think that learning support services would be boosted to provide the necessary increase in, er, learning support. But the trend that seems to be developing is that designers/developers are increasingly encouraged to turn their energies to talking about their core activities rather than actually performing them.

So now, we run workshops. In just a few hours per staff group we get to introduce overworked teachers, lecturers and trainers to the joys of being an instructional designer cum developer cum educational technologist as well. And we get to mention to them (in passing) that it would be helpful if, in their spare time, they familiarised themselves with WebCT/Blackboard, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Articulate, Captivate, Respondus, Wimba Create/Course Genie, Web 2.0 technologies and any other new stuff which may happen to be useful.

My colleagues are right. I am a dinosaur. I believe passionately that specialist support services are essential for quality learning. And I believe that any erosion of those services is a retrograde step that has the potential to reduce quality and unfairly burden teaching staff.

Maybe that’s why going back to private eLearning design consultancy work is starting to look sooooo attractive!

Where are we heading with eLearning?

I originally posted this on the LTUG site (see links) on 28 April 2008
With the vast array of learning technologies now available, do we run the risk of confusing the medium with the message? Or more accurately, with the purpose?

New technologies can be engaging in themselves, but do not necessarily translate into desirable learner engagement. We often describe them as ‘enabling technologies’ – and then forget to specify just what it is that they are supposed to ‘enable’. Or we seize upon the label ‘disruptive technologies’ as if the mere potential of disrupting older paradigms of learning will automatically replace them with new (and better) ones. And don’t forget ‘social software’, with its implicit assumption that all the lone wolf learners out there will magically be transformed into a happily collaborating learning community by the mere availability of the technology …

Don’t get me wrong – I love this stuff, but much of it might be attractive and seductive only because of its novelty. It may be being adopted for the all the wrong reasons – it’s new, it’s got the bling factor and it’s cool. It’s easy to overlook the fact that it might be presenting ‘solutions’ to as yet unidentified problems.

How many designer/developers recognize this little (actual) scenario?

Course coordinator: OK, we’ve got all the notes and guides and quizzes ready to put online – can we have a blog as well? Developer: Sure. What would you like to achieve with this blog?

Course coordinator: ??!! Umm, well … we don’t know yet. We want to something that the students think is cool …maybe we could have a wiki instead … ?

In the case above I did eventually set up something – but only after gaining a lot more clarity about the actual problem that the Web 2.0 technology was supposed to solve. Just because this stuff is cool doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply the same rigour in its learning design and deployment as we do with our other learning experiences.

I’m seeing support staff at institutions are becoming more operationally fluent in a wider range of learning technologies and their practical application. But a parallel challenge is to develop a greater awareness of the whole process – the interrelated flow of design, development, production, evaluation and review stages. By doing this, we are more likely to identify the desired outcomes and the nature of any barriers to learning first, and then to deploy the most appropriate solutions from the arsenal of learning technologies at our disposal.

Hopefully, this will result in better learning experiences, greater student engagement and better outcomes – which is what it’s all about, isn’t it?