E-learning - it's life, Jim, but not as we know it!

I've recently sent in my final assignment of a long and grueling Masters Course in Open &  Distance Education - what a relief! I embarked on it way back in 2003, when all that most of us had was a dial-up connection; but even then the internet was beginning to change the way we all live and work. I had an inkling that a powerful bombshell was about to hit the world of training and development, and sure enough it has, although it has not been the magic bullet that some thought it would be. Nevertheless, a recent study I saw said that 50% of learning will be delivered online by 2015!! Quite a turnaround in the world of education, eh?

I signed up with the UK's Open University, a remarkable organisation that has been a pioneer in delivering Distance learning for over 40 years. In the early days of the OU, students used to receive big boxes with course materials at the start of their courses, and were left largely to their own devices. But over the years, as technology has moved on so has the OU. Where better to learn about Distance Learning, I argued? As well as learning about the disciplines of Distance Learning, I got to be a Distance Learner myself.

I plan to try and capture some of the main learning points relevant to me and my practice whilst they are fresh in my mind. These reflections may well run to several blogs - maybe you'll find them interesting too?

I'm kicking off by looking at the place where learning takes place - the virtual classroom, often called the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).

As someone who has spent almost all of my 'teaching' career in the classroom, the face-to-face arena is where I have learned my trade. The social contact in the classroom plays a really important part in the way I do my job; being able to see the audience, judge their reactions to presentations/activities/group discussions, and then being able to adjust my teaching style to fit has become an instinctive matter for me. And the social contact also works well for students too - group discussions are very good for deepening learning, and the relationships that are developed between students often have carry-over benefits into the workplace.

Is there any way that this can be replicated online?

My short answer to that question is no, or at least not in the same way! The energy that can be generated in a lively classroom is well nigh impossible to create when you are separated in space and time from your audience. My three years as a Distance Learner have seen a few moments of high emotion, most notably when a 'group' online activity has been taking place and I have felt some sense of ownership of what was going on. But group activities are just as likely to lead to frustration, either because you can't get others to join in, or because the group dynamics are hard to orchestrate when you can't see what's going on with others. On my most recent module, two of the group activities were abandoned due to lack of participation, and a third took place, but had very few participants.

The most important adjustment I  am struggling to come to terms with in the virtual classroom  is that the balance of power well and truly shifts from teacher to student. The student decides when, how, and how much they are going to contribute. If the material and activities are not of interest, there is not much the facilitator can do about it! Some might argue that the same is true in the real classroom - just because someone is present does not mean they are interested or are learning anything. But it does feel different!

My sense is that the way we deliver content and engage with our learners online has not yet come to terms with this new learning arena. Although there are many more organisations offering e-learning these days, its questionable just how qualified they are in the use of the new media for education. Few have got the pure track record of the Open University in delivering Distance Learning, and I'm sure the OU would be the first to acknowledge the challenges. The generation that is teaching today has learned its trade in a non-digital world, and is inevitably influenced by that. And the majority of (adult) learners have similarly developed learning skills in an era when the teacher was the fount of all knowledge. Both parties will have to learn new skills in this digital era - teachers seeing their role as guiding students to make good learning choices, and learners being more independent and choosing their own learning path.

Disappointing results of a study into student participation in e-learning (Garavan et al, 2010) are evidence of how hard it can be to get engagement. In a large sample of students from 275 organisations they found that less than 50% of participants successfully completed their courses. Garavan and his colleagues observe that e-leaning is an isolating experience, and that this isolation is a major cause of attrition.

If teachers and students can't make the shift to different ways of teaching and learning, its hard to see how the use of e-learning will deliver the results that our education systems need to deliver.

What's your experience of participating in e-learning? Which methods of teaching have you found work well for you, and which have been disappointing?

More later....

Reference:

Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R., O’Malley, G., and O’Donnell, D., (2010) Understanding participation in e-learning in organizations: a large-scale empirical study of employees, International Journal of Training and Development 14:3, pp 155 – 168 ISSN 1360-3736

Scaffolding for Student Generated Content?

The subject of student generated content seems to be in a state of dynamic flux at the moment, most notably due to the fact that access to media that lets users broadcast their points of view to the world is increasingly available. The fashion for blogging saw a massive uptake in the noughties with all and sundry blasting out opinions and advice. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter have simply served to fan the flames of this already highly combustible brush fire. 


So just how useful can this phenomenon be for educators? There are several issues that struck me as important if SGC was to be a useful tool for learning;

• Focus; I have found myself on many occasions in my elearning past being completely thrown off-course in my investigations. The sheer breadth and connectivity of the web is enticing, but can waste time and leave one feeling lost. My sense is that for SGC to be productive, we must find ways to give direction and guidance, without being restrictive.
• Scaffolding/ Pedagogies: The web 2.0 generation is likely to resist/reject the kind of guidance that declares absolute truths. However, I can think immediately of three ways to provide scaffolding that can keep students on the right track; 1. a variety sources of credible information, 2. tools to help with the interpretation and discussion of this information and 3. fora in which students can seek mentorship in the application of what is learned. 
• Student Motivation: the most promising aspect for the growth of SGC that I can see is that it lets the student follow their own interests. In the online arena, participation of students is voluntary, hence prompting students to create content that has meaning for them, albeit with support, challenge and input from others, seems the only way to generate widescale participation.
• Plagiarism: this was a topic I did not see covered in any of the articles that I read, but the move to e-portfolios and web 2.0 assessment seems to lay tutors/educators open to much greater plagiarism. The OU's methods of providing discussion fora and using the evidence of forum posts for assessment is one way of discouraging plagiarism. The tutor/student discussion around ECA submissions is another such method. I am sure that, in time, software that identifies authorship of material will progressively become commonplace and should, hopefully stamp out the abuses that are no doubt currently taking place.

Comments that resonated from my H807 readings included:

A wider content provider base means more areas of knowledge can be covered (Chin 2006)

The challenge for educators is to define emerging pedagogies in terms of 21st

century skills where the ability to use new technologies and to shape social communication and interaction using a range of multimedia tools will define success in the future. (Johnson & Dyer, p2)

• Adaptive learning support is a type of learning support typically found in tutorial session or peer group informal learning.

• Computer-based adaptive learning support (Ljubojevic et al, 2005) has the goal of orchestrating the available reusable learning objects so as to meet a particular learner’s context and learning needs. (Cook and Light 2006, p56)

Although content provision can provide scaffolding for internet based learning it is community pull, characterised by social discourse and dialogue, which provides opportunities for critical reflection, problem solving and collaboration. (Johnson & Dyer, p2)

The most effective learning occurs where the learners’ interests are aroused and their self-defined pathway meets their needs, (Johnson and Dyer, p2) 

Since all users can become potential content providers, little is known about the credibility of the person and the content being posted (Chin, 2006)

in a corporate environment, there must be some measure of oversight to ensure the quality and accuracy of content (Chin, 2006)

Evidence from the study shows that participants are not driven exclusively by vocational objectives, being motivated by a variety of personal goals, which include, but do not rest upon, keeping up to date. (Cook and Light 2006, p59)

Chin, P. (2006) The Value of User-Generated Content, Intranet Journal, http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200603/ij_03_07_06a.html (Accessed 8th June 2011).

Johnson, J. and Dyer, J. (2006) ‘User-defined content in a constructivist learning environment’ [online], elearning papers, http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=8404&doclng=6 (Accessed 9^th June 2011).

Student Generated Content; F2F

I have read several of the recommended H807 articles on the subject of Student Generated Content; what I have been wondering is - what is the link between Student Generated Content and Social Constructivism? Here I will reflect on my recent use of Social Constructivism in a Face to Face setting, in which one of the outputs has been Student Generated Content. In particular I want to think about the kind of scaffolding and pedagogy that means that the learning objectives of the client and the student are met. I am hoping this will help me create some guidelines that can be applied in the online setting.

In a current face to face programme of mine we are making extensive use Social Constructivist pedagogies. The client has engaged us at a critical point in her company's growth to reinforce amongst all staff (new and experienced) the essential difference they are seeking to bring to the troubled banking sector. When it came to the session in which we were engaging with the subject of the principles that will guide the way employees act, the client was very anxious that we had failed to give her a slot in which she could explain these concepts to the audience. What we had done was to:

• encourage existing employees to bring their own examples of these principles in action today 
• encourage new employees to bring examples of treatment they had experienced from companies that they have appreciated/admired
• provide high level descriptions of the five principles
• organise employees into groups that have varying amounts of company experience

There is another structural benefit at play here, too, which is that the company is part of the Virgin group, which has a strong brand presence amongst consumers.

With all of these pieces in place, we set the mixed groups on a task of 'storytelling' and working out together how they would explain the company's principles to their mum or their pals in the pub! All I can say is that the results have been most impressive, and are being collected into a repository of stories that can be accessed by any employee. They have taken concepts that are more typically converted into 'corporate gobbledegook', and turned them into authentic and personal explanations. Having been initially concerned at the 'lack of structure' the client has agreed that the outcome was exactly what she was looking for, and is now happy with this pedagogy going forwards!

I have to say that the quality and credibility of the outputs does vary - but these sessions and the conversations they are generating back at work are a perfect way to inform and develop newcomers, and to iron out misunderstandings without declaring anyone right or wrong;-) When all is said and done, getting principles into action can only be done if people agree with them and are motivated to work out how to use them for themselves.

In the next blog I will attempt to draw out some principles of Student Generated Content that can be applied in the online setting.

IMS Learning Design Use Case: Excellence Audit Analysis

The IMW Learning Design Use Example provided on H807 was used to create this outline design:

Learning objectives

Awareness of the data available in the Excellence Audit

Experience analysing data of a real client

Come to conclusions about what to recommend to the client

Roles:

Tutor

Learner

Evaluator

Different types of learning content used – the following content is used:

Task narrative

Excellence Audit Data; Full Group and 3 subgroups

External web based resources with client background

Practitioner's guide to ExAud analysis

Different types of learning services/facilities/tools used

Conference – to share out activities, report back, consolidate results and come to conclusions: tutor to moderate.

Different types of collaborative activities – students engage in the following

collaborative tasks:

Division of audit analysis jobs

Discussion of any differences in results

Consensus on client recommendations

Conclusion

Learning activity workflow – There are four activity structures, each comprised of a

number of learning activities:

• Division of groups (Full group and subgroups)

Proposed division

Agreed division

• Analysis

Reading of explanatory information on audit

Apply analysis to allocated group

Draw conclusions on recommendations

Report analysis back to group workspace

• Asynchronous discussion

Agree process

Contribute analysis on allocated group

Read summaries of others

Debate the full picture created by analysis of each group

Debate which areas require attention based on the audit results

• Sum Up/Conclusions

Agree three recommendations for the whole group, and any further advice for the client

Individuals create their own presentation of the analysis of results

Scenarios – Real life example of final report presentation.

Other needs / Specific requirements – none.

Ref:

http://learn.open.ac.uk/file.php/6591/Course_resources/block_3_resources/ebook_h807_b3_Patterns_Example5_l3.pdf

Support and My Learners

The sequence of activities that look at learner support have given me pause for thought about my current approach.


Knowing a bit more now about student support, I realise that I have so far only focused on one - the pedagogical support. Even then, I have tended to limit support only to the content of the learning and not the process. For example, I have not thought about whether any support is needed to help people use the technology we are using. I have also failed to give much in the way of pointers for further research, other than the content that we provide. With the variety of resources now available on the web, this seems to limit the richness of material studied. The 10 scaffold supports given by McLoughlin are a good resource to expand on current practice. The spectrum of support from instructor-learner is also valuable for progressive reduction in scaffolding. 


Looking at the support that encourages students to sustain their studies (Dearnley, 2003), there are several points here to consider. Although the core delivery mechanism of an online web tutorial does build some sense of community, the extent to which support goes on outside the tutorials is not obvious. I am aware that some connections have been struck up between individuals and the tutoring staff, but that has happened naturally rather than being an explicit design feature. Maybe these are examples of what Dearnley (2003) calls "informal professional networks". This is a feature which could be developed in future.


On occasions, an individual's personal commitments (holiday/family illness etc) has prevented them participating in a tutorial, but the fact that the session is recorded does at least let the person catch up what they have missed. This is a helpful support feature, it seems to me. 


One aspect that is not covered in any of the readings is language. I invariably have at least one delegate out of the 8 who does not have English as their first language. Although there is no promise made that allowances will be made for difficulties in this area, I am wondering whether there is any support that can be made available. The fact that the core discussion forum is via a synchronous web conferencing system may well make it much harder for 'non-English speakers' to stay engaged. One option that comes to mind is that any content to be delivered is provided in advance, say, as a podcast, and that the discussion topics are also provided in advance to allow for preparation. A further option is to create a discussion thread in an asynchronous setting, which can supplement the live discussion, and give those requiring more time to think the chance to do so.


The final reading, Ludwig-Hardman, S. and Dunlap, J.C. (2003) has opened my eyes to what is probably the biggest oversight in my distance learning offers - what the student is looking to gain the learning. All my students are university educated and most also have a postgraduate qualification. However, it is rare that they have done any distance learning. The learning orientations assessment they describe provides a sense of the motivation that the learner has towards the learning outcomes of the programme, and can also point to the extent to which they are disposed to self directed learning. A version of this kind of assessment at the outset would provide information about the kind of support that each learner may need to achieve the outcomes they are looking for from the course.

Dearnley, C. (2003) ‘Student support in open learning: sustaining the process’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

[online] http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/132/212 (Accessed 1 June 2011).

Ludwig-Hardman, S. and Dunlap, J.C. (2003) ‘Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [online] http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/211 (Accessed 1st June 2011).

McLoughlin, C. (2002), Distance Education Vol. 23, No. 2, Learner Support in Distance and Networked Learning Environments: Ten Dimensions for Successful Design.

Learner Support: Two Important Dimensions

Of the 10 dimensions that McLoughlin (2002) identifies as important for the scaffolding of learners, two seem very relevant to a course of mine; constructivism and learning orientation.

Constructivism scaffolding encourages the learners to make new meaning as opposed to conducting memorisation or rote learning.
Learning orientation scaffolding reduces the active contribution of the teacher as the learner gains more knowledge, skills and confidence.

In my situation, the learners have tended to remain in a passive role, accepting input from tutors, and offering critique or comments. The scaffolding to encourage them to create knowledge of their own and articulate it has been missing.

To encourage greater learning orientation, I envisage an individual task in which the learner must find their own case study examples that illustrate the theory they have been taught. An example can be provided, to model the way the case studies can be analysed and recommendations can be made about how and where to search for examples. If we were then to add the use of a shared workspace where the results of this research are logged, a further scaffold (collaboration) will be available.

Constructivism can be scaffolded by means of an activity that invites students to create a short presentation; this will articulate their learning to an audience of their choosing. A template which provides an outline structure for this presentation can be offered for those that a looking for greater guidance.

Yet again, I am finding that the subject of e-learning innovation is like the peeling of an onion. You think you've got the hang of a topic, and then another level is opened up into view. What strikes me about my previous efforts at e-learning is that I have overlooked the diversity of support needs and existing levels of knowledge of my students. I have assumed levels of knowledge, rather than looking for evidence of what that knowledge is and having a sense of what the next zone of development should be. Although the zones are likely to be different for each student, the more that the responsibility for that learning can be handed over to the student, the less crtical it is for the tutor to shoulder that burden.



Reference:
McLoughlin, C. (2002) ‘Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: ten dimensions for successful design’, Distance Education, vol.23, no.2, pp.149–62.

Looking Forwards with e-Learning Theory and Pedagogy

Having reviewed the Mayes and de Freitas (2004) study, they provide some very helpful pointers to incorporating e learning theories and pedagogies into my online teaching approach. 


As I said in my previous post, my current face-to-face practice begins with an associationist approach to defining outcomes and breaking a topic down into manageable chunks. But once I get into teaching and learning activities, my approach becomes more cognitive, with learners being encouraged to make their own meaning with scaffolding from tools and activities. Whether my learners could ever be called a community of practice, as in the sociative genre, is less arguable, as they are often from different disciplines, levels of experience, intellect etc. However, by the end of a programme, I do think my activities become more socially constructivist in style, with groups being asked to work together to make sense and communicate main messages from an event.


In moving into e-learning, my early efforts have fallen into the category that Mayes and de Freitas (2004) describe as "pragmatic rather than pedagogic" (p4), consisting of groups of participants for whom getting together to learn is completely impractical. In adopting more of an associationist approach to delivering content, we have failed to exploit many of the affordances of the new technology.


Mayes and de Freitas outline the following overall approach to e-learning design

• carefully defined intended learning outcomes,
• learning and teaching activities that enable the students to achieve that learning, 
• assessment tasks which will genuinely test whether the outcomes have been reached

I'm sure I can do a better job of breaking down the various learning outcomes needed, and that incorporating more constructivist activities into the programme will help my learners to build better frameworks for their own learning.


However, the big gap I can now see in my approach is that I have left assessment too late in the process. In the current programme, assessment only occurs at the end of a five module programme, by which time gaps in understanding may have been missed. An important affordance of technology is that formative assessment becomes much easier and offers the chance to make learning much more personalised. This takes me back to one of my eye opening moments on H807 - web 2.0 assessment (Elliott, 2008).  I can now see that formative assessment is a vital element in being able to offer learners scaffolding for their development.


Not quite back to the drawing board, but a lot of food for thought;-)




Ref:

Elliott, B. (2008) Assessment 2.0: Modernising Assessment in the Age of Web 2.0 [online], Scottish Qualifications Authority; available from http://www.scribd.com/doc/461041/Assessment-20 (Accessed 12th April 2011)

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).

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.

Darwin and the Demon: Connections with H807

Moore, Geoffrey A, (2004), Darwin and the Demon: Innovating Within Established Enterprises, Harvard Business Review; Jul/Aug 2004, VOl 82, Issue 7/8, p86-92, 7P, 1


This article was recommended background reading during week 3 of H807, where we were looking at who innovates and who follows. I have written some notes on the article on Google Docs.The author is a managing director of TCG Advisors, a strategy consultancy based in San Mateo California. The company declares; We specialize in a set of challenges common to technology companies and technology-related sectors, where rapid changes in market dynamics force frequent adjustments in corporate strategy.


The technology and consumer market focus of the article means that its relevance in the world of education is not wholesale. In educational circles, we are offering a professional service, and I question whether the consumer product model fits precisely. However, I can see that the article has a number of aspects that can be applied in H807 assignments, as well as in my own work.

1. The different types of innovation are a useful structure for reviewing the various case studies we are asked to study and report on in TMA1
2. When interviewing my innovator for TMA2, the innovation types and the market life cycle might offer a good basis on which to analyse the innovation, the innovator and the market life cycle position her company is in.
3. The 'overcoming inertia' guidelines will have relevance for educational organisations that are having difficulty in getting existing staff involved in adopting innovations. To some extent that is true in my own organisation where experienced staff are proving somewhat reluctant to participate in elearning
4. Deciding what type of innovation the redesign of our current elearning programme is will help me focus on the right activity for my H807 ECA.
5. The section on 'overcoming inertia' resonates with the change management work that my company undertakes