I wanted to try and get this out yesterday, but had a busy, fun day! Too much fun stuff going on, and didn’t get around to filling out my notes. As it is, this is still largely in note form because I’m still thinking about what Mr. Couch said, and what it might mean for my work.

John Couch is the vice-president for Education at Apple computer. I thought it was excellent that AECT was able to get him to come and speak to us. His presentation largely sounded like a “buy a Mac” commercial, but what else would you expect? Still, he had some interesting points about how the nature of education is changing—or needs to.

The first thing he said that I thought was interesting is that he went to a university that let him design his own major, which was a mix of engineering, design, and something else. I wonder, though he did this a long time ago, if this might be a trend of the future, as online learning increases. People won’t be locked into particular majors and universities, and might be able to put together a course load involving courses from multiple subjects from multiple institutions. But how will we know that they have received “enough” of whatever they “need” to be “qualified?” And that’s an issue of online certification and standards, but that’s another issue …

A lot of Mr. Couch’s presentation was about providing tools that empower students to learn. So rather than limit students by what a teacher knows, or what is available in one place, they are empowered to learn without these traditional boundaries.

He began by discussing the digital natives/digital immigration theories, which are very intuitive, and I believe them to some degree myself (although not completely), but I wish I could see some research supporting these ideas because they are sure thrown around a lot!

He then discussed the traditional model of information acquisition, and that technology allows for new, more effective models of learning more appropriate for digital natives and information creators (rather than simply knowledge consumers). This made me wonder that if technology is creating a generation of digital natives who are “wired” differently and learn differently, than technology is, in fact, driving educational change and learning change, despite our efforts to make change based on theory and research. So despite our argument that technology does not drive learning, maybe it does! However, we still need to base our teaching on theory and research, but our research and theory needs to adapt as students (maybe) are adapting and changing.

A favorite comment that he made is that you never should send a digital native to their room because they are connected and connect to the world through their room. That’s not punishing them by isolating them! I’ll have to remember that with my kids ☺.

He then asked the question, “How do we provide the same functionality they have in their social environments at school? So they can connect and produce rather than receive? They want to exhibit their knowledge in the same media-rich environment that they are absorping” He also said, “To them, the knowledge is not about accumulation but about transformation.”

He then discussed content creation (iLife) and content distribution (iTunes, garageband and podcasting). This is where the Apple advertising was laid on a little thick, but that’s to be expected.

Interestingly, he showed that googling the word “podcast” returned 28 hits in September of 2004, but  611,000,000 on September 8, 2006. This includes 6,000 free education podcasts (at least). In this way, the mp3 player is becoming a mobile learning  device, he claims.

This was where I felt like he undermined his own argument against the knowledge acquisition model by arguing for more information transmission through mp3 players. However, what I think he was trying to say is that students can access information outside of the classroom now, and they are no longer limited by the teacher’s knowledge. Thus, they are empowered. He then discussed how students can be information creators through iLife tools. He finished by quoting, “THE WAY WE DEFINE OUR SCHOOLS TODAY WILL DEFINE OUR SCHOOLS TOMORROW”

Overall, I thought the presentation was interesting, except for the blatant Apple advertising. I like his ideas, which tie into much of the read/write web literature and argument, which basically states that learners are different now, and they are forced to “power-down” for school. The tools are available to empower students to learn by creating, which is a powerful learning theory and model called Constructionism. Now we just need to effectuate the systemic change so that schools allow students to use these empowering tools to construct their learning.

I like those ideas. They taste good.  🙂

technorati tags:AECT2006, AECT, apple, education, digital, native, change

Blogged with Flock

This is part 2 of my summary posts in preparation for the face-to-face BlogTracks presentation. In part 1, I summarized what I have blogged about in this space in the last couple of months. In this second part, I will discuss what I think might be some keys to enabling a successful BlogTracks presentation in the future.

A BlogTracks that focuses just on the blogger’s own research, and simply tries to communicate that blogger’s findings to a listening (or not) audience is basically a presentation that is not at all different from traditional paper presentations. In other words, it is lecture-based (albeit lecture through writing), is focused on a singular point of view, and does not engage the audience in a dialogue about the chosen issues. I think BlogTracks will be a successful conference format if we can make it different, substantially different, from the other kinds of presentations already available (posters, roundtables, paper presentations). Towards that goal, I have a few suggestions from this year’s experience:

1. Have defined goals that are discussion-based.
If a blogger is just blogging about what they would normally blog about, what distinguishes it as a special AECT presentation? I think a successful BlogTracks should have a defined goal and purpose to frame the discussion on that blog. We have tried to do that with our BlogTracks, and each of us has a related, but different, focus for our blogs. Our general theme is distance education literature review, but each of us is looking at a specific portion of the literature. I think this was very helpful for us, and would make it easier for other folks to understand what we are doing and how they could participate.

The second half of this point is that the BlogTracks goals or foci should be discussion-based. I am also participating in the other 2006 BlogTracks presentation, where we are blogging about our personal journey online in developing an online persona. I think this was a good idea and concept, but I think this Blogtrack struggled even more than the present one because we did not understand clearly what we were supposed to actually blog about, and it wasn’t a topic that necessarily encouraged discussion.

I think future successful BlogTracks should consider what issues would engage the most people in a discussion, and propose those as topics.

2.    Define your boundaries.
Our BlogTracks struggled in this area. In AECT’s original call for proposals, it appeared that the blogging would happen the week of the conference. We decided to start before the conference, but I don’t think we really agreed together on when the presentation would officially “start” and how much blogging we would do as part of each person’s “role.” I think AECT could help in this area by setting some time tables (maybe, the BlogTracks presentations will begin two weeks before the conference and continue throughout the week of the conference). This would help bloggers know the level of commitment expected. AECT could then help advertise the BlogTracks by giving a big kick of publicity when the BlogTracks officially start. As it happened this year, each of our bloggers on our team started blogging in earnest at different times. In the other BlogTracks it was the same, and we spent a long time wondering if we were supposed to get started yet, or not. These expectations once established by AECT, could be refined within each blogging team.

3.    Engage nontraditional conference participants.

The BlogTracks could be an excellent way to help people stay connected with AECT if they can’t attend the conference. To do this, I would recommend inviting bloggers from other professional organizations to participate on the blogging teams. We could gain a lot of insight into our topic if we had, perhaps, members of our team that was well entrenched at AACE, ASTD, and other organizations. It would have exposed them to our AECT community and exposed us to conceptions of distance education held by these other communities.

We should also try harder to engage AECT members who can’t attend the
conference. Perhaps by advertising heavily though the AECT website and
all the division listservs, and by blogging in a way that promotes
discussion and engagement in the dialogue, perhaps these folks would
participate in the discussion. I also think the BlogTracks could be a
form of connecting to the conference, and as such should be one of the
last presentations of the week, and the focus should be on blogging
about your topic throughout the week, connecting your thoughts to those
presentations you attend. In this way, people not attending the
conference can get second-hand reports of some of the presentations and
be able to respond and participate. In this situation, the BlogTracks
face-to-face presentation would also be a summary of sorts of emerging
themes throughout the week, an abstracted discussion of major
conference points. This could be a potentially very interesting
face-to-face session, and this would add to the prestige of the
BlogTracks format for the following year.

4. Tie BlogTracks to divisions

The challenge with any online conversation is you need a few folks to help get the dialogue going, before it can take off on its own. I propose that one way to do this for the BlogTracks is to  tie the BlogTracks to the divisions. This is how I think it could work. Each division could have one sponsored BlogTracks. They hold a call for proposals, review the proposals, and pick the blogging team they think best represents their interests. The bloggers commit to post a certain number of times, beginning a specified time before the conference. The division commits to have four or five folks–maybe the division leadership–subscribed to the blog who will engage in the dialogue. The division’s communication officer advertises the division’s sponsored BlogTracks heavily. Eventually, when the discussion takes off, the division no longer concerns itself with forcing the dialogue, but engages in the conversation as it wishes. Then, at the conference, the bloggers attend sessions for that division, and report on them for the members not at the convention.

I think this would be a wonderful thing for both BlogTracks presenters and divisions to meet both of their purposes of advertising and engaging AECT members!

As always, I am interested in your thoughts. Here’s a few questions I still have:

• When should the BlogTracks presentations begin? A month before the conference? Earlier? Later?
• How many bloggers should make up a team? Could one blogger be a BlogTracks by himself?
• How many divisions would benefit from and would support a sponsored BlogTracks presentation?
• What would improve the visibility of the BlogTracks?
• What would engage more people in the conversation?

technorati tags:AECT2006, AECT, BlogTracks2006, BlogTracks, distance, learning

Blogged with Flock

Our face-to-face portion of the BlogTracks presentation will be tomorrow (Thursday) in the Pavilion room at 9:15 a.m. Come join us!

technorati tags:BlogTracks, AECT, AECT, AECT2006

Blogged with Flock

The time has come to give the face-to-face presentation of the activity on this blog as part of the AECT 2006 convention BlogTracks. And as far as the activity outside of my own writing, I can report that …

Nothing happened.

I understand, of course, that folks are busy, and what’s in it for them anyway to engage in the dialogue of this blog? So I am not at all offended. I’ve been blogging in relative obscurity for a couple of years now, content with the benefits I have received personally from writing.

But I am curious about how future BlogTracks presentations can be made more effective, since this is the first one. Like everybody else, I think sitting on my tail and being lectured to all day long at conferences is not very productive, so I applaud AECT for trying to innovate and introduce a new presentation format. Hopefully we can think of some methods for improving the engagement in future BlogTracks. To that end, in this post I will summarize what I have written about during this BlogTracks and my conclusions, and then in my next post I will consider some possible ways we could make future BlogTracks more effective.

Metacognition in TEDLEs

• The use of hyperlinking and repetition that is common in these environments provides cognitive cueing and supports metacognitive awareness
• BUT nonlinear environments require more cognitive load to mentally organize material, reducing metacognition.
• SO, metacognitive prompting is a helpful strategy.
• FUTURE QUESTIONS?: Whether, and in what ways, students are more or less prone to use metacognitive strategies in an information-overload, nonlinear Internet

Intrinsic Cognitive Load in TEDLEs

• Not very much done!
• We could learn from information literacy research.
       Example: Jones, Ravid, and Rafaeli (2004) reported a trend towards high intrinsic load in informal online spaces, causing less participation.
• Future questions
   Is ICL a predictor of attrition in DE?
   Can design compensate for high ICL in DE?
   How can you measure the ICL?
   Can a strong online community keep participation high in subjects with high ICL?

Extraneous Cognitive Load in TEDLEs

•  Limited prior knowledge of the technology used to facilitate the distance learning environment could lead to increased extrinsic load
• Web-based hyperlinking, in the absence of organizational guides, increased extraneous cognitive load associated with learning.
• FUTURE QUESTIONS?
   More replication of studies to verify results
   How can design improve material organization and lower ECL?

            How can we ease ECL with new technologies?

Germane Cognitive Load

•  Not very much done in online environments, although heavily researched by many IT and DL folks!
• We could learn from communications research on navigation and surfing patterns.
      Example: Eveland et al. (2004) reported participants learned factual information best from linear websites, but nonlinear sites improved knowledge structure density.
• NOW WHAT?
   How do you use standard GCL-building methods online?
   How are mental models constructed online?
   How do you measure GCL online?

Course Management Systems

•  Literature audit found 70+ research articles
• Most of these were one-shot, convenience studies
• Less than 10 were studies of more generalizable impacts
• But 95% of colleges and universities use CMS tools!
• Discussion Questions:
   Why isn’t more research conducted about CMS technologies?
   What kind of research should we be conducting about CMSs? What outcomes? What measures?
   Have we missed the opportunity to really see what happens from implementing a CMS because the tools are now ubiquitous?

Other Topics I’ve been discussing

•  What can we learn from popular social networking sites?
•  Are we different personalities online?
•  Social Network Analysis and DE
•  Can “cool” be created?
•  The Creative Digital Divide
•  Educating a global economy
• No family left behind
•  Digital natives
•  Sexy research

I’d love to have anyone discuss these ideas with me! There’s still time this week! 🙂

technorati tags:AECT, AECT2006, BlogTracks, distance, learning, education

Blogged with Flock

Online communities of learning do not work. This, at least, seems to be the message of many researchers who have studied online communities or computer-supported collaborative learning (Hewitt, 2005; Van der Meijden & Veenman, 2005, for example). However, online communities can, and do succeed in some situations. For example, sites such as Myspace.com, Friendster.com, Xanga.com, and Flickr.com rival or surpass Google in visitors. Reportedly, 54 million people use myspace.com to interact together, and similar sites are not too far behind (McPherson, 2006).

One research idea that I would like to investigate one day would be to study why social networking, interaction, and collaboration is so successful, particularly among young adults, with websites such as myspace.com, and yet not so popular in educational settings. My goal would be to better understand the aspects of these social sites that encourage so much participation, and define guidelines for developing educational social communities that employ the same principles, as much as possible. In short, can we engineer better educational online communities by copying ideas from informal and commercial communities? I know, I know, I have my doubts that learning and social connectedness can be engineered and “forced,” but isn’t that what we try to do as instructional designers? Design or engineer environments to allow for more effective learning?

I learned in Robert Alford’s Craft of Inquiry text about crafting theoretical questions (or general questions) and empirical questions (testable or researchable questions). If I were to do a project like this, I had thought that the following might be my questions:

Theoretical questions:

1. Can learning communities employ principles from popular social networking sites to improve educational collaboration and interaction?
2. Do the effectiveness of online learning communities aid in the development of expertise?

Empirical questions

1. How do relationships form in these online sites?
2. What draws people to associate and interact together through these online sites?
3. What are the affordances of these social environments that are lacking in educational communities?
4. What kinds of support or interaction do learning communities fail to provide to students?

How would I organize such a study? Which questions would be most important to research? What are your thoughts? I think it’d be a fun, and interesting project.

References
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567-589.

McPherson, K. (2006). Whose space is it, anyway? Mercury News. Accessed 13 Mar 2006 from http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/technology/13840568.htm.

Van der Meijden, H. & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 831-859.

I have been experimenting with Flock as my browser the last few months. There are some things I love, but it is still in an obvious, true beta form (as contrasted with other, unnamed, corporations who call things “beta” when they really are full-fledged applications!). If you haven’t seen Flock, it is a “Web 2.0” browser that makes it SO easy to drop photos into your Flickr account, post to del.icio.us, or drop a quick blog post to any of your blogs. My favorite feature is the snippets feature, which allows you to drag and drop snippets of websites you visit so you can paste them into blog posts later on.

But the new reason why I love Flock is that it automatically saves copies of your blog posts. How cool is that? So a long time ago I wrote a post about the generations of distance education, and the browser crashed (yes, it is still beta). I never rewrote the post because I was frustrated over the lost effort. But lo and behold, I found a place on my hard drive where Flock had been saving my blog drafts! So, without further ado, I’ll share some ideas I’ve had on how to characterize the history of distance education.
Generations of Distance Education

For this group writing project (this BlogTracks, and a future article that we hope to write), I was asked to research the history of distance education, specifically technology-enhanced distance education. Before I really looked at the literature to see what other scholars have done to characterize the history of technology-enhanced DE, I came up with the following “eras” or “periods” of distance education:

Period 1: CBI/CAI. This was the precursor to Internet-based education, where distance education was mediated by computer-based means, such as CD-Roms. This type of DE tended to focus on bounded content with linear progression through the material (see Merrill, 1996). HyperCard was perhaps the flagship software used for designing this instruction, and was instrumental in opening up new avenues of student mobility in learning and control.
Period 2: Distance transmission. This was the period when we used the Internet to transmit learning materials back and forth. That was the extent of the interaction, and instruction was very similar to the CBI/CAI period except that the medium (the Internet) had changed. During this time, Clark (1994) argues that the medium does not influence learning. He’s right … because the medium hasn’t been used to change any of our teaching methods.

Period 3: Distance interaction. This is the period where computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) emerges as a theory and an instructional method, and emphasis is on creating virtual communities and collaborative spaces where learners can interact together.

Period 4: The emergence of CMS tools. Two course management giants, WebCT and Blackboard, explode in popularity. DE becomes more popular and accessible to different groups of instructors and learners who may not have web-authoring abilities. A few points about this period, which is the period we are in now:

• Now, with over 95% of colleges and universities using some form of e-learning system, (Pollack, 2003)
• Blackboard and WebCT, each being used now at over 2,000 different academic institutions (Pollack, 2003; Arnone, 2002). These two companies have now merged.
• Besides Blackboard and WebCT, there are several other CMS companies, including Desire2Learn, eCollege, and Jenzabar. There are also many open-source or freely distributed CMS products, such as the Manhattan Virtual Classroom Project, Sakai, OpenCourseWare (developed by Utah State University) and a popular open-source alternative called Moodle
• “CMSs have become mission critical systems for many institutions” (Young, 2002)

Period 5: Mobile Learning. This period has been emerging simultaneously with at least periods three and four, but I think this will become even more important in the near future. Chris Dede has explained this trend well in a couple of keynote presentations that he has given at the SITE and AECT conferences, where he described how we have had students going to virtual learning spaces (such as MOOs and MMOGs), but now more and more we have virtual reality coming to the students, and existing simultaneously with the students in the real world through mobile devices. So, for example, instead of students going to a virtual world such as Quest Atlantis, they will have the virtual learning quests on their palm pilots. They will be able to interact with the virtual world and virtual reality as they walk around, participate in, and interact with the real world.
I know I haven’t explained that very well … I need to reread some of Dede’s work, and then I can perhaps write a follow-up post explaining this better.

Period 6: The read/write web. This period is characterized by tools like Furl, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Flickr, Writely, Google Spreadsheets, MySpace, wikis, blogs, and all the other quickly emerging social learning tools available on the Internet. This type of instruction has been championed by various educational bloggers, but is becoming more mainstream. It is typified by involving students in creating, sharing, and building knowledge bases as an e-learning community. I don’t think we really know what the implications will be of these tools on the future of learning.

Remember that this list was basically just the product of my own brainstorming, and hasn’t been refined yet. Since I created this list, I have read about Taylor’s (2001) characterization of “5 Generations of DE”, based on Nipper’s (1989) original list of three generations. Lou, Bernard, and Abrami (2006) also refer to Taylor’s characterizations of the history of DE. I like Taylor’s list, and think that since reading about it, I will re-write my descriptions of the history of DE.
But I’ll get to Taylor’s description of the history of DE in a later post. For right now, I’m open to any suggestions and feedback on my current description of this possible method for chunking the history of technology-enhanced DE into six periods or major patterns.
Questions for you!
I already think I’m missing one or two glaring trends that I need to add, so I admit up front that this is not yet very well developed. But what is your feedback?

References

Arnone, M. (2002). Course-management outfits still seek elusive profits. The Chronicle of Higher Education. July 12, 2002.
Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

Merrill Paul F., Hammons K., Bret R. Vincent. Reynolds P.L., Christensen L., Tolman M.. Computers in Education. 3rd Edition. Allyn and Beacon. 1995

Pollack, T. A. (2003). Using a course management system to improve instruction. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Small Computer Users in Education, held at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Young, J. (2002). Pricing shifts by Blackboard and WebCT cost some colleges much more. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 19, 2002.