H807 Week 15: My approach to teaching and learning

My most recent learning programme contains several elements that are typical of my approach.

From what I have read so far, I think I incorporate a bit of all three associationist, cognitive and situative elements in my work.

Maybe it's because my business clients have a clear objective in what they want their people to learn, but I always need clear objectives/outcomes for an event. Having set these out, I then plot out a very clear route through the material that people need to learn. I think these are both associationist characteristics.

A firm bias of mine is to ask delegates to carry out pre work, which gets them thinking about the subject before they attend the event proper. This pre-work begins the process of how the learning is going to apply to the real world. This connects with another bias, which is to bring real examples/situations from the workplace into the classroom; customer feedback, well known work issues, well known objections are all examples of this.

When it comes to how I get the message across, I like to create a variety of activities; some will be informative, for example a video case study, a model or organising framework, an input with stories and examples, a worksheet with relevant information; others will be activities/mini projects/problem solving etc. I like to be able to vary the learning styles that are called on for these activities - eg. music, drawing, discussions, fun, physical activities.

Where possible, I like to get delegates to teach each other, and draw on each others' experience. In my most recent programme, mixed groups put together a description of the highlights of the company's growth and development to date drawing on each others' experience, and some background information provided by us.

I also favour groups discussing topics and coming up with their own version of the truth. This lets organisers assess the extent to which the message is being picked up.

Finally, I have a belief that for people truly to take on board a new message, they have to put themselves (physically, if possible) into the subject, and get a feel for its real meaning. I usually set this up with a collaborative activity in small groups, which most often has a light hearted dimension to it - performance is usually an important element.

The balance between the three theories of learning in my approach varies from project to project, and client to client, but I definitely don't prefer the lecturing/input approach. Some of my colleagues (especially the American ones!) are much more comfortable with being the subject matter expert, but I am less so.

Ref:
Mayes, T. and de Freitas, S. (2004) ‘Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’ [online], Bristol, The Joint Information Systems Committee, http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20%28Version%201%29.pdf (Accessed 24^th May 2011).

Analysing the Monticello Website

I have gone about the analysis of the Monticello website comparing the affordances of the website with the declared mission and vision of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.
It's mission is :

• preservation -- to conserve, protect, and maintain Monticello in a manner which leaves it enhanced and unimpaired for future generations -- and
• education -- to interpret and present Thomas Jefferson to the widest possible audiences, including scholars and the general public.

Followed by their vision:

• The Thomas Jefferson Foundation engages a global audience in a dialogue with Jefferson’s ideas.
• Facilitate conversations and to use its extensive research and knowledge to stimulate interactions on a variety of topics that were of keen interest to Jefferson, the most powerful of which are liberty and self government.  Through virtual, off-site and on-site engagement, the Foundation seeks to excite the world about Jefferson’s relevance today and ignite a passion for history.

The website has done an excellent job of presenting this extensive knowledge in a format that makes it interesting and engaging for a wide audience. Accessibility and interest are achieved in many ways: 

• The house and grounds are described in separate short mulitmedia animations.
• These animated tours incorporate many of the different areas of interest in the house and grounds (history, architecture, geography, culture, people etc)
• Commentary is given in audio and written format, which caters for different disabilities and preferences.
• Floor plans and maps of the grounds accompany the animations
• Extensive background/further reading material is presented by organising it in separate subject matter sections.
• Users can explore whichever areas interest them at their own pace.
• I was able to access the material via both pc and mobile devices.

I noticed it has missed a number of opportunities to fulfill its vision and mission:

• Sadly english appears to be the only language (misses the global ambition?)
• Although the site educates in an engaging format, there is no way of interacting with the site via feedback, blog etc. (misses offsite interactive and engage in dialogue ambitions?)
• I came across no use of music (lost excitement opportunity?)

All in all, I think a creditable job of presenting the material reflecting many of the values of the organisation has been done. 

I imagine three keystone species which were essential in creating the website were: 

• all of the various historical/subject experts, 
• sensitive multimedia artefact designers
• people with extraordinary user focus, who can look at this subject naively

I  can see how the group that have created the site are operating in an ecology, but am not sure how the user becomes part of that ecology, other than as an observer. Or have I missed the point here?

Using Mahara

Using the OU's Pyramid of Usability, I have approached Mahara to assess how usable it is.

If I had not been aware of what an e-portfolio was I suspect I would have found Mahara tricky to understand, but to some extent that would be because of the intensely personal nature of an eportfolio. However, for novices, there is a good explanation up front (in the 'about' section) that describes the main features of an e-portfolio, and there is also a very useful demo site, which breaks users in gently. The scrolling real examples of e-portfolios on the front page are also inspiring and educational at the same time; wait for an example from someone who works in your field and see how they do it;-)

At a general and technical level, as I expected, the site is very usable. Simple language is used, there are many places to seek help, including open forums, and the navigation feels quite instinctive. A very nice touch is that Mahara is translatable into many languages, and has discussion groups for many. My suspicion is that the general and technical ease of use has a lot to do with the Open Source platform. Many of the pages here openly ask for feedback, and the many users do seem to give this freely. Although I suspect novice users will require scaffolding to help them make the most of Mahara, the functionality will be quite supportive.

As I expected, trouble started to brew for me at the academic and context-specific levels of usability. At the academic level, if I had not been aware of the concept of artefacts, I suspect I would not have known where to start, and the big open space of your new portfolio is rather daunting. But for those who have a basic grasp of e-portfolios, there is huge scope to create your own repository adding documents, files of all kinds, blog entries, plans and the like. The site lends itself very well to personalisation, with your basic portfolio being private to you, but with the option of creating views and collections of views of your artefacts for other to see. Being able also to summarise one's achievements in a resume structure is also a very efficient feature of the site.

The fact that individuals using Mahara can form/be formed into groups, or can find their friends for discussion and collaboration gives much greater pedagogical scope,and a wiki for more formal collaboration is an additional boost.

At a context specific level there seems to be a great deal of depth available. As far as I understand, Mahara is available for download and use locally, which I am sure makes it a useful platform with those who have more advanced technical and pedagogical skills. I find it difficult to imagine what the advanced use of the platform might look like, but with the many examples and general discussion forums, the potential seems to be enormous.

Quite mind bogglingly, the online Mahara community (of which I am now a member!) stood at 19,035 users the day I did the assessment. If I weren't so busy at work and on the H807, I'd be very tempted to get going on a portfolio for myself. Maybe after July 4th?

Ref:
The Pyramid of Usability: http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/resourcepage/view.php?id=373894

Mahara's Usability: 1. Potential issues

I decided to use the e-portfolio platform, Mahara, for the usability assessment.

In thinking about the kinds of usability issues that might arise, I would imagine the following:
Technical usability: since Mahara is an open source platform, I suspect that technical issues will be well handled and the site will be easily available. Ditto the general level: input from lots of developers ought to make the site relatively navigeable and well ordered.

I suspect any usability issues will kick in at the academic and context specific levels. During H808, I found the concept and practice of the e-portfolio very difficult to grasp, and I suspect trying to make the general and specific use of the e-portfolio clear to users will be tricky. The fact that an eportfolio is such an individual record of achievement, and is used for different purposes (reflection, planning, publishing) means that the platform must offer a lot of scope for individual personalisation of the platform. Until a student has got their head around what it is that they want to achieve with their e-portfolio, the many options might be very confusing.

But this is a good experiment for me, as I hope to incorporate the use of eportfolios into a new programme of mine.

Addendum to "When Social Cues are Absent" Post

Having gone on to read Walther's (2006) paper on Non verbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, I now realise that the dynamics I was describing in my previous post relate closely to the Hyperpersonal and Social information Processing Theories.

The important elements of Hyperpersonal theory to these sensitive exchanges are that the sender has been deciding precisely how much and what type of information they are sending to us. "Senders, in the process of message construction, engage in selective self presentation to a degree not afforded in FtF interaction." In situations, such as the example I gave, this gives a damaged person much more space, time and control in sharing their feelings with someone else. The anonymity of the electronic setting has, over time, led to what Walther describes as "greater self disclosure", which in a befriending situation such as this is precisely the intensity of communication we are seeking.

SIP throws more light on the subject: "it may take more messages, over a longer time, to imbue exchanges with sufficient information for participants to decode and aggregate in order to construct impressions and manage relationships." In this case, because the sender was providing very short, sharp, often pointed replies, it was possible over 45 or so emails to build up a picture of the hurt they were feeling. Capital letters, outbursts in reply to questions, emoticons and the use of other punctuation, all painted a vivid picture of the emotional state of the sender. 

All of which goes to show that "CMC users adapt affective meaning to their usage".

Although some colleagues find email a difficult medium for such sensitive 'conversations', I have heard from users of the service that the anonymity afforded by email has enabled them to share feelings they would never have been brave enough to share either in a face to face or a telephone setting. It's sad to hear that this is the case, but what a good thing it is that there is now an outlet for such extreme emotions.




Walther, J.B. (2006) ‘Nonverbal dynamics in computer-mediated communication, or :( and the net :( ’s with you, :) and you :) alone’ in Manusov, V. and Patterson, M.L. (eds) Handbook of Nonverbal Communication, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. (Accessed 24^th March 2011)

When Social Cues are absent

The background reading on Social Cues in H807 week 6 has made me think about what has happened in a volutary activity in which I am involved. The service is one that befriends people in emotionally difficult situations and continues to be telephone and/or face to face based, but over the past 10 years, we have begun to offer the option of email contact, for those who prefer the option. The email service has seen exponential growth in popularity since it was launched, and many users tell us it is extremely helpful.

The remote contact can be welcome because the person is not located in the UK, and therefore would find telephone contact impractical or too expensive. But probably more importantly, some people find themselves in a situation which they cannot bring themselves to talk ahout -  perhaps because of embarrassment, fear or just pain. Being able to write about these feelings is often the first step for these people in dealing with the difficult situation.

I had a difficult email encounter yesterday which has given me pause for thought about the emotional dimension of virtual communication. It would be quite improper for me to disclose anything about the situation, but suffice to say the person concerned had an emotionally charged situation which they had not shared with anyone. There had been 45 emails sent to us and replied to over the past month or so. Every email they had sent had only short statements, or just a word, and the person at first would disclose nothing at all about their situation. But gradually, as my fellow volunteers gently supported and questioned this person, the story began to unfold.

Although we cannot see this person, or hear their voice, the words on the page and the way they are written have many clues about their emotions. And the fact that we can read all the emails sent and all the replies that volunteers have given lets us build up a much better picture of the situation than would be possible in other than a regular one to one relationship. At one point we manage to persuade this person to write two or maybe three short sentences. The next response is short and sharp - pushing back on the quesion or comment made. Or even worse - capital letter shouting!

Several of my fellow volunteers refuse or are reluctant to engage in email befriending, as they think it is too impersonal, but my view is that this is their chosen medium, and we should respect that. What I have to do is to create a mental picture of the person, and to use every word they write to imagine their situation and to try and put myself in their shoes. I then have to do exactly the same with every word I write. Could that word be misconstrued? Have I been too sharp or direct? Could I inadvertantly push them in a direction that might not be natural for them?

The experience of email befriending has definitely made me much more sensitive when I write any email personal or business - and ironically, I think it has also made me a much more sensitive listener.

The other phenomenon that I think makes this kind of communication easier is that these days people are much more used to texting each other and the idea of written communication is getting more acceptable.

So I am wondering whether this point of view that face to face is the only way to pick up emotional cues will in time become irrelevant?

Affordances and Communication Technologies: H807 Week 5.1

Using the affordances cited in Conole et al, I have considered the extent to which email and blogs are technologies which afford the characteristics listed.

I have added a couple of characteristics, which I have found to be important in my practice; Stimulate Action and Reward Action

I have made a spreadsheet on Google docs to record my conclusions.

Although several of the characteristics listed are afforded through email and blog, there are a few that seem particularly well served.

Email, because of its instantaneous capability and its ubiquitousness is good at Accessibility, Speed of Change, Communication, Immediacy, Stimulate Response/Action and Incentivise Action.

Blogging on the other hand is good for Reflection and Collaboration. The technology also enables users to be rewarded for participation when commenters post replies. The use of RSS feeds on blogs also means they can enable speed of change and immediacy.