Thursday 24 November 2011

Funny take on Social Media

This is funny: www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/may/stewart-lee-social-media-bbc
Thanks to @andytedd for the lead...

Virtual worlds and identity - Second Life

Having used SL on a few occasions I have to say that it has not grabbed me. I have seen the enthusiasm that others have for it and I think to some extent that has carried me this far but basically I have to conclude that it's not for me.


We can look back at Bayne and our discussions around that. The ability in SL, and I would assume on WoW, to create an avatar that bears zero physical resemblance to yourself suggests to me that there is no merit in such a practice. The advantage of SL giving you a physical presence - making you feel part of the world, where perhaps forums and blogs disembody you, is lost when you can look like something different from your natural form.


For a teacher, if you require trust, or maybe even respect, you need to have the imagethat people have ingrained in them. We can be extreme in this and say someone with a mortar board and black cape, maybe a pair of learned glasses. Ok this is extreme but to take the other extreme are you likely to learn effectively from someone who looks like a punk or animal? (not the one from the muppets but...)


There have been the mandatory technical issues that new tech brings with it, those who struggle to connect mentally with new tech will disengage readily if they are not able to connect in a literal sense.


I haven't dismissed SL without trying it - I didn't think I would like humus until I tried it so I'm always prepared to be proved wrong. Perhaps it's my PC and the lack of a decent processor or graphics card effecting my experience but it's not something I have bought into...so far.

The use of cartoons to engage users

http://edu.xtranormal.com/


This is work related so it's dry, dry, dry, but thankfully the use of xtranormal movie maker has made it that little bit more engaging.


CIS is a system that we teach (pronounced C.I.S or 'sis')


Course intro


Learning objectives 

Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution

A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education by Philip G. Altbach, Liz Reisberg, Laura E. Rumbley. (Link to PDF)


Focusing on section 10: Information and Communications Technologies and Distance Education, the report outlines how there has been a growing need globally for higher education that cannot be met without the aid of distance learning.

Overall the report focuses not on the nice shiny tech that we have read about in the previous activities but more on the digital divide that exists between 'us' and 'them', the them being countries where the electricity supply is not robust enough to consider much of the new innovations being laid out before the developed world. It makes fascinating reading and helps to keep your educational feet on the ground. 

Notes
more than 20 terms which describe the employment of the new technologies in education, such as:
Internet mediated teaching, technology-enhanced learning, web-based education, online education,
computermediated communication (CMC), telematics environments, e-learning, virtual classrooms,
I-Campus, electronic communication, information and communication technologies (ICT), cyberspace learning environments, computer-driven interactive communication, open and distance learning (ODL), distributed learning, blended courses, electronic course materials, hybrid courses, digital education, mobile learning, and technology enhanced learning.

I should of course add to that list Online and Distance Education!



Distance education [..] more as a "method of delivery than an educational philosophy," while "distance is not a defining characteristic of e-learning"

ICT resources-like e-mail, instant messaging, and online social networking spaces-provide avenues for academic collaboration, joint research, and personal and professional networking.

[..] development and use of OER has picked up significant momentum, making notable inroads onto the agendas of the higher education sectors in less-developed countries.

Unfortunately, in the face of a very real "digital divide" between richer and poorer countries and institutions, the capacity for implementation often appears to be inversely proportional to the perceived need and strong desire for access to these resources.

It has been suggested that this disconnect between hopes around ICT and what they have proven capable of delivering hinges on several false assumptions that were highly pervasive during the initial ICT "craze" of the 1990s. Key among these erroneous beliefs were that

  1. time and space were globally problematic in higher education;
  2. that the desire to broaden access was essentially universal;
  3. that the advantages of the new technologies coming out were self-evident;
  4. that there was no significant difference between accessing information and constructing knowledge in higher education;
  5. that contemporary students of traditional university age were naturally inclined to like and respond well as learners to emerging ICT; and
  6. that the purveyors of the new technologies could not fail to achieve economies of scale and make profits on their innovative products and services.
In Africa, for example, despite considerable growth in enrolment numbers in the last decade, the gross enrolment ratio there hovers around 5 percent, with considerable disparity by country and subregion.

In many countries around the world, the need for continuous learning and ongoing skill upgrades has become increasingly apparent. In countries where nations struggle to cater to the traditional-age cohort of 18-to-24-year-olds, the challenge of providing lifelong learning opportunities for broad swathes of the adult population via traditional delivery modes of delivery is daunting. In many places around the world, distance education can and has already played a growing role in filling this gap.

Teledensity-"a term commonly used to describe the number of telephone lines per some unit of the population", which can also shed light on the degree to which a community or nation has access to computers, the Internet, and e-gadgets-is not uniform around the world and is an important indicator of the immense divide between "haves" and "have-nots" across the globe.

A greater reliance on cooperative arrangements, such as consortia, to leverage resources and share costs inherent in implementing ICTs in higher education, may occur. And more and different kinds of dual-mode universitiesemploying both ICTs and traditional program delivery methods-may emerge.

The future:
There are exciting possibilities for the ways in which m-learning may open up access in some of the world's poorest countries, where Internet access is most limited and unreliable.

"immersive education" offers one window on the next generation of educational technologies, focused on virtual and simulation technologies, 3-D graphics and interactive applications, and gaming approaches. 

Finally, strengthening capacity in regard to technology issues and open and distance learning is an extremely important objective in a global context characterized by profound inequity.

BitStrips

As the kids in the film say 'Awesome' (hate that word BTW...)

Crowd sourcing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8788780.stm


Crowd sourcing and the Wisdom of crowds is one of my favourite topics for debate.


If you get the chance read ‘The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations’ by James Surowiecki.


It's all to do with the weight of a cow!

Finding out more about mobile practices

In all cases, learning on the move, or in environments where learners are not confined to sitting in front of a fixed computer, means that the nature of what is learnt, and how it is learnt, is liable to change.


Mobile and wireless technologies support learning designs that are personalised, situated and authentic. Can also support learning designs that are opportunistic, informal, and spontaneous.


Personalised learning: learning that recognises diversity, difference and individuality in the ways that learning is developed, delivered and supported.


Personalised learning: includes different learning styles and approaches, and recognises social, cognitive and physical difference and diversity.


students in formal learning are under a range of growing pressures, time, money, resources and conflicting/competing roles. mobile and wireless technologies can allow these students to exploit small amounts of time and space for learning, to work with other students on projects and discussions and to maximise contact and support from tutors.


It is still not clear how much professionally generated content they will access, and how far - in contrast - they will wish to generate and share content in what Shirky (2002) called 'mass amateurization'.

We're all being a bit more social - virtually

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/social-media-accounts-for-22-percent-of-time-online/


According to a study from Nielsen showing Internet usage in April 2010, 22% of the time, we’re engaging with social media.


Do you remember when 'social' meant going out?

Reflecting on Twitter as a research tool

What do you make of the personal messages that appear in a Twitter stream – ones that do not appear to be related to work, but reveal sometimes seemingly banal or trivial matters, such as what a user had for lunch or where they are going for a holiday?

As the 'Twitter in plain English' video said the little things are sometimes what brings people together. It's horses for courses; I find it banal and trivial unless it carries some form of slant, or irony, or humour.

E.g. "I'm drinking coffee"... great, thanks, that's changed my life!
"I'm drinking coffee and I've burnt the end of my tongue"... now I'm laughing (in an empathetic manner).

In what ways could Twitter be used for the kind of research you have been doing this week to find information on the three key issues?

The use of links would seem to be the biggest possibility for sharing information. Links, basically, because there is not room to post anything of any length on Twitter.

That information can be 'tagged', and also 'retweeted' meaning that it can reach a large audience quickly and with some degree of accuracy in that audience.
Do you think Twitter does anything different from other common forms of online communication, such as email, forums and instant messaging?
Twitter is a short and snappy, synchronous/asynchronous tool for communicating. It has some advantages over other methods and some disadvantages.
Advantages:
- Instant - synchronous
- Searchable for tags
- Short messages : succinct, key message, bullet-points
- Informal
- Networked

Disadvantages:
- Instant, yes, but not as 'flexible' as Instant messengers
- Searchable for tags, yes, like Delicious, but only as good as the original tag.
- Short messages : no room to expand when required
- Informal : so are blogs where you expand your message much easier
- Networked : Unlike forums where there is a clear thread I found it hard to follow a stream when other messages were intermingled.

To my mind Twitter, or micro-blogging, is simply another method which fits the way that some people wish to operate, another choice that, potentially, students could use for educational purposes.

Does it fit my idea of an educational tool? No, not really although it has some potential it is too restrictive.

The researchers’ perspective - Neil Selwyn 2

Notes:
The conversational, collaborative and communal qualities of social networking services are felt to "mirror much of what we know to be good models of learning, in that they are collaborative and encourage active participatory role for users".


promoting ‘critical thinking in learners’ about their learning, which is one of ‘the traditional objectives’ of education’


Social networking services are used for peer communication and ‘news-casting’ experiences to others


lecturer-led ones can feel overly formal


Would I agree with Selwyn’s tentative conclusion that ‘the primary educational significance of social networking would appear to be its informal use’?
Yes, personally and in the readings in the past week, it has been shown that although students like to use these for social reasons few would embrace it as a means for education.

The researchers’ perspective - Diane Carr

Notes:
capacity to immerse and motivate learners, and the potential to alter a user’s relationship to technology


undertaking effective pedagogic design in virtual worlds involves recognising and then selecting from the various offers of the particular application (from the technical to the theatrical) while bearing in mind the needs of a given educational context


judging any affective aspects of the student experience in real time in Second Life can be difficult. A motionless avatar could mean a student is avidly following a rapid discussion, or that they are confused and alienated. Or that the student has gone to make coffee.


While virtual worlds may invite experimental pedagogy, students’ familiarity with the interface and in-world social practices still need to be considered, as do their expectations of what constitutes learning and teaching.


Virtual worlds have the potential to trouble the roles of teacher, learner and researcher in productive ways. These offers - in addition to their more obvious social, technical and creative potentials - are why educators are right to be interested in virtual worlds.


How is Second Life being used in ways that might counter the fears around Web 2.0?
SL is a synchronous event, set virtually but in real-time, so rather than with other means of communication such as forums, wikis, blogs, 'conversations' are in real-time, and also situated allowing the student to feel they are part of something rather than the remoteness they are actually in. Situated in the sense that you may be sharing your course with a robot of course!


note: At the time I wrote this I was still to venture into SL as I was so easily distracted, and SL was a whole new world of distractions. I have since been in, maybe twice. It failed to engage me on so many levels that I can't begin to relate them here. I know people who swear by it, and those that swear at it, so it's horses for courses - It's just not for me.

The researchers’ perspective - Neil Selwyn

Notes:
some commentators have used web 2.0 to generate moral panics about young people and the supposed death of education


Much of the learning potential of web 2.0 is seen to derive from the co-construction of knowledge.
heightened disengagement, alienation and disconnection of learners who use Web 2.0 from education


the detrimental effect that web 2.0 tools may have on ‘traditional’ skills and literacies


creation of a ‘Google generation’ of learners incapable of independent critical thought


social networking = exciting educational tools, some critics think they may distract learners from their studies.


‘the Facebook generation’ who text-message during class, talk on their cell phones during labs, and listen to iPods rather than guest speakers in the wireless lecture hall".


Selwyn raises a number of fears on page 11, including disengagement and impact on ‘traditional’ literacies. Weller takes a different view. Which side of the argument do you favour at this stage?
I find myself firmly gathering splinters as I sit on the fence. I agree with both Weller and Selwyn on different aspects. I would like to think that SNSs are used in a positive educational way but I'm also aware of the amount of distraction that they provide. This is a distraction from the course itself but it can also be seen as a 'nice' distraction during difficult times. I'm stuck in the middle somewhere.

The researchers’ perspective - Charles Crook

Notes:
Web 2.0 = ‘many-to-many’ rather than being transmitted from one to many


The first is the growth in the sheer number of internet users, which we term an increase in engagement.


This increased engagement arises from and stimulates a potent mix of technical developments, notably growth in bandwidth, ubiquity, mobility, and capacity for data storage.


Second, the internet allows the virtualisation of exchange practices.


The ease with which digital products can be upgraded has encouraged a perpetual beta attitude towards design, where products and practices are inherently evolving, rather than comfortably finished.


The social networking sites, famously Facebook and MySpace, can be seen as elaborations of this format into more tightly-knit and manageable communities of reflective users.


The blog tradition is personal and diary-like.


The wiki shares a quality of ‘perpetual beta’ with the blog but it allows other users an equable right to edit and develop content in a common space. Thus it is well-suited to the collaborative building of specialist knowledge.


collaboration = classroom communities


the term ‘literacy’ now has to be stretched to admit other forms of representational fluency than those associated with the printed word.


(a) What does Crook mean by the ‘virtualisation of exchange practices’? (p.6)
Under Web2.0 the traditional ways of sharing personal effects such as photos, messages, music, and so on have been added to by virtual methods online. Add to this the exchange of money for goods online and the traditional methods of meeting, postal services, going to the shops have all been virtualised. You still need the physical action of having online purchases delivered however - you might even have to open the door and sign for it!


(b) Would you agree that the learning dimensions that Crook sets out as characteristic of Web 2.0 can be grouped as either more social or more cognitive? (p.9)
Yes, but only in the sense that he has 'managed' to broadly bracket the activities into four areas, there will naturally be some cross-over between the disciplines.

I've come up with my first Brownism...maybe my last...

Online Technology is only as successful as the next click.

Drawing the threads together

1.      What are my personal thoughts on the relationship between technologies and educational reform? (For example, is technology itself a cause of reform or an instrument used to encourage reform?)

I would say that technology is an instrument to encourage reform. As we always keep coming back to - technology has it's place, but that place must be carefully chosen to make it effective. Educational reform appears to be a well-informed, considered process (you might say slow) and so so much led by knee-yerk reactions like the ones we have seen in Noble's article. The fear of being left behind doesn't really seem to be an over-riding concern in education, some would say that they are already behind and as such we have seen studies written about the need to support the Digital Native.
 
2.      What influence do I think the producers and developers of technologies and services have on university decisions about introducing new technologies?

As I don't work in a university environment it's difficult for me to give an informed view but here's a nice subjective view:
Educationalists by their very nature are thinkers, and they like to give due consideration before diving in - do a study over a number of years, read some articles, ask why?.
'Peddlers' from the business world will tell you that if you're not doing it 'this way' then you are doing it wrong - black and white, no room for negotiation, but they have a product to sell, or some other vested interest such as raising their profile.
Do technologies influence decisions? I think the answer has to be yes, but how much they influence change appears to be less clear.

Making sense of the student experience

notes:
Bennett et al. argue that there is no need for to react to the studies that suggest we are not catering for the educational needs of the Net Generation. They state that those placing content (20ish %) on the internet is relatively low when compared the the users (high 90%). If the curricula were more ICT-based this would surely lead to those figures rising significantly?


within the digital native generation as between the generations


the substantially greater popularity of games amongst males compared to females (Kennedy et al2006; Kvavik et al 2005) - perhaps this is the stimulus that Selwyn was looking for?


Tapscott (1999) urges educators and authorities to ‘give students the tools, and they will be the single most important source of guidance on how to make their schools relevant and effective places to learn’


recognition of the school’s in loco parentis role in protecting them from inappropriate material.


Advocates making claims with little evidence are in danger of repeating a pattern seen throughout the history of educational technology in which new technologies promoted as vehicles for educational reform then fail to meet unrealistic expectations (Cuban, 2001).


Neither dismissive scepticism nor uncritical advocacy enable understanding of whether the phenomenon of digital natives is significant and in what ways education might need to change to accommodate it.


1. What do you understand by the use of the term ‘moral panic’?Suggestion from previous studies is that it is not right that we are not catering for the Net Generation when they are the main student base now attending HE institutions. They use ICTs as part of their day to day lives and expect to use they educationally to.
2. What does this article suggest to you about the technological determinist thrust of the Net Generation argument?
The article suggests that it is wrong to assume that just because someone is born into the NG it does not follow that this should predetermine the way they wish to use ICTs (particularly in education) or indeed that they use them at all.


3. Is there a theoretical or empirical basis to the arguments that are presented using the terms, Net Generation, Digital Natives or Millennials?
They are theoretical, or at least the references used in this article talk about conclusions and theories made by others. There may be deeper empirical data in the other articles referred to but only limited empirical evidence is mentioned in Bennett et al's writing.


4. If there is, what do you think are the key features of this change in generations?
The assumptions that Bennett et al refer to are:
- young people live their lives completely immersed in technology and are ‘fluent in the digital language'
- young people do not even consider computers ‘technology’ anymore.
- constantly connected
- ‘today’s kids are always “multiprocessing”
- accustomed to learning at high speed, making random connections, processing visual and dynamic information and learning through game-based activities
- young people prefer discovery-based learning that allows them to explore and to actively test their ideas and create knowledge



5. How might these changes affect education?
I think Bennett et al suggest that they shouldn't affect education to such a high degree as the writers whom he references are suggesting. The 'moral panic' is pushing for a rapid change in the way that technology is used to deliver the curricula in HE institutions, to bring them in line with the Net Generation, those who make up, and will make up the major populace of these institutions now and in the future.
Bennett et al. are not the only ones to suggest that this needs a 'dispassionate investigation' to ensure that these changes firstly need to take place at all and if they do that they have quality and 'fit'.

UK students and the Net Generation

assumption students inherently inclined towards using the internet as a source of information, and disposed towards academic use of the internet.


Broad et al. (2004: 137): motivation behind the integration of the internet into HE driven by ‘internal political pressures’ rather than by sound educational rationales.


burgeoning literature on HE and the use of ICT - here's another one


academic use of the internet is heavily entwined with leisure uses, and tends to be curtailed by issues of cost and time


discouraged from using ICT due to access limitations and the cost of personal ownership of equipment


‘more due to matters of “digital choice” rather than “digital divide”’ Brotcorne (2005)


influenced by perceptions of usefulness, ease-of-use and other psychological attitudes


differences in the quality of internet access [...] in terms of differences between ‘public’ and ‘private’ locations of use (Hassania, 2006).


institutional and faculty support and resourcing (Eynon, 2005).


(Cotton and Jelenewicz, 2006) divisions along the lines of gender, race, educational background and/or technological experience.


research needs to provide a more holistic view of students’ actual use of the internet in their studies as opposed to what they could or should be doing


results:
internet for educational information was ranked lower than communicative and social software uses, higher proportions reporting frequent use for email, chat-room and social-software applications such as blogging, myspace.


A significant difference in terms of the context of internet access – ‘private’ access to their own computer more likely to report looking for information about university studies/assignments than the 10% who were restricted to accessing the internet in shared settings


female significantly more likely than male to look for information about university studies/assignments


no significant differences were discernable in terms of students’ ethnic background, age, year of study or educational background


notable differences in terms of subject discipline


traditionally reported barriers to student internet use (deficiencies in terms of access, skill and know-how) appear to be steadily diminishing


minority of students whose use appeared to be compromised either by their reliance on shared, public access points (10%) or lack of competence and/or confidence (1% ‘novices’) [...] these students’ needs should not be overlooked amidst future moves to cater for the majority of competent and confident internet-using students.


consistent differences were apparent in terms of students’ gender and subject of study
during the 1980s and 1990s men’s dominance (Sutton, 1991). Now assumed gender differences have all but disappeared (Mossberger et al., 2003), any differences which do remain are in terms of female reticence. Our data suggest making online learning and internet-based information attractive to male students. Backed up by what other recent research? research should be conducted along more longitudinal lines than the ‘snap-shot’ nature of the present data set


subject departments could be encouraged to further consider how online information sources can be made to better ‘fit’ with the demands and nature of the different subject areas


have not examined the nature, quality or effectiveness of this engagement.

Collaborative learning in a wiki environment

notes:
  • the creation of explicit knowledge from tacit understanding of course concepts;
  • learning through discussion, disagreement, and consensus building;
  • team working; and
  • effective communication of ideas to others through networked knowledge environments; articulation, analysis and synthesis of ideas and knowledge-sharing.
Leadbeater (2000) states that:
We do not need more information, we need more understanding.
Learners build on their knowledge by interacting with each other, their educators, and their learning materials. This learning process requires social interaction that can foster a shared sense of belonging and purpose.


Bruns and Humphreys (2005) suggest that the pedagogical models need to change from the traditional linear learning paradigms to a social constructivist pedagogical model which includes problem-solving in a collaborative environment that requires students to enact knowledge through a process of shared understanding.


The key learning outcomes of this course are:
·         to identify the stakeholders of a business problem and its solution, and understand how to interact with stakeholders and to manage any stakeholder conflicts;
·         to solve conflicts, duplicates and ambiguities in the gathered requirements; and
·         to deal with the varying perspectives and views of different requirements engineers in a project-team.


The ice-breaker activity has two objectives: students are able to familiarize themselves with the wiki environment, and the activity gives them an opportunity to introduce themselves to their fellow group members.


The marking is based on both the student's own contribution to the activity as well as on the product of the activity. A significant advantage of the wiki is that it records each and every change to the document, which means that there is evidence of each student's contribution.


We had responses from 117 students. Of these responses, we have analysed a random sample of 40 (34%). In this sample there were 9 (22.5%) females and 31 (77.5%) males compared with 20 (17%) females and 97 males in the full data set. All students on the course are adults studying part-time and, in our sample, 23 (57.5%) were studying other OU courses simultaneously with our course.


The students' accounts show that collaboration enhanced their learning on the course through clarification, re-interpretation and re-assessment, and reflection.
Students raised a number of positive reasons why they felt that a wiki is a good medium for collaborative work when they are remote from one another. There were four major themes that emerged: the continual availability of the wiki, its facilitative qualities, cost savings, and traceability.


The students noted a number of disadvantages of collaborative authoring, some of which were ameliorated by the use of the wiki and some that were exacerbated. In the part-time distance-learning environment of the OU, students have the expectation of studying in their own time, and any collaborative activity is considered to be a burden because it imposes additional synchronization points.


In an institution such as the OU where flexibility in studying patterns is one of the main advantages that it offers, collaborative work can seem inflexible - Same experience in H800 when arranging Elluminate sessions


There has been some discussion in the literature of the need to ensure that student engagement in the use of wikis is dependent on their confidence with the tool (de Pedro et al. 2006, Britcliffe and Walker 2007). However, our students were generally unaware of wikis at the start of the course and certainly could not be said to be proficient in their use, and did not comment upon any difficulties in using the wiki. Nevertheless, we found that a lack of robustness of the software can be demotivating (Chen et al. 2005). our students were sometimes hesitant to change the contributions of others or comment on one another's contributions

Reading Conole et al (2008)

‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology Conole et al (2008)


Information seeking and handling
used the web extensively to extend their understanding of concepts and supplement course material. i.e. Wikipedia frequently mentioned.
Google was their first action when trying to get information for an assignment. 
they cross-referenced and validated material found on the web with other sources (text books, lecture notes, etc.), to test credibility
enabling them to access up-to-date information.
Specialised subject-based sites were frequently cited.
Printed textbooks were considered by some to be outdated and difficult to digest
Online textbooks were popular in medicine and computing science
Students recognised the value of library catalogues
searching for images (to include in presentations), as well as downloading relevant Podcasts.


Communication
communication technologies to support their studies was extensive.
mobile phones to phone and text each other
instant messaging software
Email was used universally and was the main channel for communication with tutors.
Students expected and generally received quick responses to their emails
Low cost communication technologies were considered invaluable
more ambivalent about the value of discussion forums.
Student use of blogs varied; some used blogs as a means of reflecting on their learning, whilst others used them more as an information source or ‘expert filter’


Assignment preparation
A high proportion of reported ICT-usage was in connection with assessed work.
Students used Word  and PPT to write assignments/notes and oral presentations.
extensive use of the e-portfolio integrated into their virtual learning environment (VLE) 
self-assessment was likely to be an important part of their future post-university continuing professional development (CPD) activities.


Integrated learning
VLE only one like to use most, and ten listed a VLE as a dislike.
appear to centre on whether the VLE was well designed, relevant to their needs and appropriately embedded into the culture of the course
alternative sources of course-related information (such as tutor or fellow-student websites), more important
Tutor usage appeared patchy with only a selection using it as a primary course tool.
particular technologies served individual learning style and needs
students who worked part-time, had children, lived some distance from campus or had heavy work placements, really appreciated access to an integrated set of online course-related information and resources.
download lecture notes or view course timetables
importance of face-to-face contact with tutors was still considered necessary and important
benefit of meeting with classmates and tutors to discuss work issues
Face-to-face contact was considered vital in building a sense of community or ‘belonging’ to the class or study group.
arguing that online communication did not provide the same quality, value for money or degree of interaction.

Reading Salaway (2008) and Kennedy (2006)

Salaway et al (2008) ‘The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology’.


The scope of the study
27,317 students/98 colleges and universities - majority being under 25 (78.8%), attending a four year course (87.8%), full-time (84.0%)


The research questions the authors focused on
Ownership of laptops
Internet-capable phones
Student technology skill level
Social Networking Sites
Instructors use of IT in courses

The methods used to capture the data

literature review and review of other relevant surveys
quantitative web-based survey
student focus groups
analysis of qualitative data
comparison to previous survey data

The overarching findings

Increase in laptops (2006 - 65.9 < 2008 - 82.2)
Decrease in desktops (2006 - 71.0 > 2008 - 51.2)
Increase in use of SNSs (2006 - 74.8 < 2008 - 88.8)

1.      Students perceive that more instructors need to use IT effectively in courses
2.      Students value f2f instruction - year after year
3.      SNSs are much-used and valued by students
4.      Students are increasingly mobile
5.      Students expect IT to be available


--------------
Kennedy et al. (2006) ‘Questioning the net generation: a collaborative project in Australian higher education’


The scope of the study
2120 students - represented 27.2% of first year students, analyses for this study were restricted to students born after 1980 (n = 1973; 25.3% of first year students) to highlight the 'Net Generation'


The research questions the authors focused on
Demographic information
Access to hardware and the Internet
Use of and skills with technology based tools
Preferences for the use of technology based tools in University studies.



The methods used to capture the data
A four page questionnaire asked students about their access to, use of, skills with, and preferences for an array of established and emerging technologies and technology based tools.


The overarching findings
While some students have embraced the technologies and tools of the ‘Net Generation’, this is by no means the universal student experience.
..the widespread revision of curricula to accommodate the so-called Digital Natives does not seem warranted and, moreover, it would be difficult to start “Adapting materials to the language of Digital Natives”
a diverse range of skills exist across the student population
familiarity with the use of email does not imply expertise in rigorous online debate and discussion
Clearly we cannot assume that being a member of the ‘Net Generation’ is synonymous with knowing how to employ technology based tools strategically to optimise learning
This study clearly provides sufficient evidence to negate the ‘one size fits all’ approach to the integration of ICTs into university curricula.
While these figures in no way suggest a moratorium on the use of podcasting, they do indicate the need to provide appropriate support for students.
a number of promising opportunities for integrating innovative technologies into university curricula.
also want to use it in their studies? [...] the answer seems to be ‘Yes’.
Evidence of who our students are must remain an important factor in informing how we use the array of technological tools at our disposal to design rich and engaging learning experiences for all students.


-----------------


How does the study compare with the ECAR study?
The two come to quite similar conclusions; that there are skills there for core technologies. The ECAR study seemed a little more encouraging in it's 'tone' than the Kennedy study which seemed a little more critical in 'tone'.
The USA study covered a larger study group


Are similar findings emerging?
There are certain niches where students are working at advanced levels - SNSs, and Podcasts. Ultimately though there is not enough advanced knowledge across the board to warrant the full scale changing of a curriculum to suit a minority.
Care must be taken to use the appropriate technology in the appropriate situation to enable it to be of benefit to the institution, the tutor, and the learner.
Students doing academic courses did not favour IT or online courses.


Are there any differences in what is being reported for students in the USA compared with those in Australia?
The Australians seems more prepared to use IT to replace some of the existing methods whereas the US, despite having a large percentage of IT ownership (and implied usage) still feel that F2F has it's benefit in an academic course.

Technology in my context

I am looking at e-learning/online training, as this is my current role and these are questions that I don't always ask myself so there could be some useful issues I raise for my own development.


Likely impact on the students’ perceptions of the quality of their courses, their approaches to studying and their academic performance?


Certainly, from a historical point, e-learning within my organisation has never been well received. Most of the mandatory training that is delivered online is provided by a third party provider. The issues that delegates have simply logging into their system are widespread, and for a student attempting to log in, on shift, outside of normal hours there is little if no support. The result is that the course is not done and the perception of e-learning has been lost before the student has even reached the course itself - bringing us back to the now aging chestnut of 'accessibility'.
Once in the course the students approach is obviously different from that of a classroom session. Having negotiated the time to complete the course with a line manager the student must then find an environment conducive with being able to concentrate on the training. This again is not always easy.


The course is not being looked at unfavourably - regardless of the quality of the course itself, which are actually of a very good standard and the objectives within them, once met through completion of the course lead to students who are able to complete their roles better.


Likely impact on the teachers’ perceptions of their teaching context and their approaches to teaching?


I work in an office of trainers and their perception of e-learning is equally dimmed by the accessibility issues that have happened in the past. "What have you got on today?", "Oh, I've got to facilitate the diversity e-learning", not happy bunnies. The outcomes again are effective and I think the trainers acknowledge this, they would however argue that they could deliver the material just as effectively in a traditional classroom scenario.


When I joined the diversity training was done in a classroom and the ability to discuss some of the finer points with those present to get views/experiences is invaluable in this context. The e-learning was then bought in to replace the classroom and completed 'solo', this was not so successful. The blended learning approach has now been initiated where the trainer facilitates the package in a classroom allowing for debate - the best of both worlds? The results are only comparable to those obtained from the course as a solo exercise as the classroom session was a pass if you attended. The blended sessions have yielded better results.


Embodies particular assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning in higher education?


E-learning taken on it's own I would say embodies a large number of assumptions. To name a few; that it will solve issues with getting education to remote areas, that it will save large amounts of money by offsetting costs of classrooms, that training can take place 24/7/365. The reality of course shows this not to be the case although there are benefits that e-learning can bring to a blended learning program.


Taking H800 as an example of a blended experience, where classroom is completely negated, I have found that the different methods of technology we have used to be very effective in delivering the material. I think in this case there has obviously been a lot of thought given to the design of the material and to the method best suited to deliver each part. That said one of the issues that arose early in the course was with the amount of time shown as appropriate for each activity - these timings in practice were different for different people - plans I often find are perfect until you include people.


Assumptions likely to promote more positive perceptions, more desirable approaches to studying and better performance on the part of the students?


E-learning is still relatively 'young', certainly relative to existing methods of learning delivery and so there is still a need to find where it fits best within the structure of course delivery. There is a lot of proving to be done to give e-learning/online learning a more positive perception both from students and tutors but in my perception there has been large advances in the decade that I have been involved. If those advances continue and the benefits both educationally and financially can be proved then the inclusion of online material will undoubtedly increase. Beyond that there will be an improvement in accessibility and therefore some of the assumptions associated with e-learning may come to fruition. The result would be to allow students to tailor their learning approach to fit better with their commitments, would this ultimately lead to a better performance? A happy student is probably one who will study better/deeper, and deeper learners achieve better results.