OU blog

Personal Blogs

Eleanor Dommett

Lifelong learning in a second life

Visible to anyone in the world

I have just read the article by Seeley Brown and Adler (2008) about innovations in learning and I found the scientist in me interested to learn more about a project Harvard Law School implemented. They ran a course in Autumn 2006 on CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion. The thing that particularly interested me about it was the distinct ways in which learners could engage in the course, akin to the different conditions of an independent variable in a scientific experiment:

1. Law School students could enrol in the class and attend face to face i.e. in a traditional learning environment.

2. Other Harvard students (not studying law) could enrol in the class through the Harvard Extension School and could attend lectures, participate in discussions, and interact with lecturers within second life.

3. Anyone in Second Life could review any lectures or other materials for free.

Now as a scientist I would obviously like to be able to compare how the outcomes of the three groups of learners on the module but to make that meaningful they would need to matched on all manner of characteristics and this was clearly not what Harvard set out to do. Nonetheless I decided to do some further research to see what happened with this innovation. Google scholar threw up nothing of note and so I decided to see if anyone had published anything indexed in Academic Search Complete. I found just three publications, from 2006 to 2008. One was written by an academic involved in the project:

Harvard to Offer Law Course in 'Virtual World'

However, what I hoped would be an extensive article explaining the rationale for certain features and details of use appeared to be more of an advert for it.

As it appeared there was no published evaluation or summary of this I decided to look on the university pages instead and found their main intro page:

https://blogs.harvard.edu/cyberone/2006/07/21/hello-world/

The latest entry I could find on this was 2008 which implies it is no longer running but a later item found online implies this may have switched to a facebook group and so the main blog from Harvard is no longer used.

In the years immediately after the course was launched they gained a lot of publicity with articles in newspapers such as the Guardian and more specialist publications such as the TES and Computer World, all of which discussed the innovation of this course.

It goes without saying that interest declines in something new over the years and over a decade has since passed so I would not necessarily expect to find more recent articles but it is disappointing that there was published material evaluating the course. The first two groups listed above were students enrolled at Harvard so presumably they could have been tracked and interviewed or even their attendance reviewed. Innovation is great and we should all strive to be innovative but I think to be truly innovative we must add to an evidence base in education and it seems this has not happened here.





Permalink 1 comment (latest comment by Alan Clarke, Wednesday, 14 Feb 2018, 17:20)
Share post
Eleanor Dommett

Looking back for the future of educational technologies

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eleanor Dommett, Tuesday, 30 Jan 2018, 07:47

As part of my studying H800 I recently had the opportunity to look for a paper on the future of educational technology. I selected this one:

Sanders, M. & George, A. Educ Inf Technol (2017). doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9604-3

This paper appealed to the scientist in me because it looked back very systematically to see why technology had not met the promise it was thought to show, a belief supported by reports such as ECAR (2015). In doing so they produced a technology innovation cycle.

Here I consider each stage of the cycle and relate it to my own experiences (all universities shall remain nameless!)

1. Installation of expensive new ICT system. The authors suggest that this stage is influenced by hype from biased promoters and decisions by top-down naïve visionaries. I do have experience of this; a new system comes in with little consultation of those on the front line, often accompanied by unsubstantiated claims of success (or anecdotal claims of a problem this technology will solve). These claims, interestingly, often come other contexts and are rarely backed up by substantive evidence. I compare this situation to research. I would never change the set up of my lab just because a sales person said their kit was better than my existing equipment. Instead, I am likely to wait until I see solid research papers from labs doing similar work to me using the newer kit, or in the very least talk to other researchers who have the new kit and see what it is helping them do. Even then I would need to see it was significantly better (in terms of saving time or improved accuracy) before I would upgrade. I wonder why we don't apply the same rationale to educational technologies.

2. Trialling by enthusiastic early adopters. I thought quite carefully about this one because I think (and worry) that I am one of these enthusiastic early adopters! They suggest that a factor influencing this is poor teacher training. I do partially agree with this because I have endured numerous training sessions on various educational technologies and, on reflection, I can see that the focus is on process not meaning i.e. this is how you upload a video or set up a poll as opposed to why you might want to do these things. That said, this has not been a consistent experience and some training is very good. I am also a big fan of the champion idea as well because I think it is a way to get to those who would otherwise not engage at all.

3. Low uptake by other educators. This is all too often the experience we have but I think it is influenced by many practical things as well as just negative beliefs and attitudes towards the technology. For example, if you do not have time to rethink your modules or teaching significantly then any add-on technology will be less effective and having time is often an issue. There is also an all or none sense to this. If you will polling in one lecture, should not try it in all. I think unless things are considered best practice or policy, uptake will always be lower than ideal

4. Failure of technology to improve learning. They cite a number of factors influencing this including ineffective usage and the inappropriate nature of the technology. Both of which are likely to be important. I think there is a third important factor which is unreliable or invalid analysis of the effects of the technology. In addition, I suspect that technologies that are introduced institutionally are doomed to fail overall because the technology must be selected for the teaching and learning outcome so where these necessarily vary, results will be give a mixed picture at best.

5. Deterioration of an ageing ICT system. The authors suggest that a main factor driving this is the lack of initial financial planning. I do not have any direct experience of this but I am sure it does happen in some cases. I also think that another factor influencing this is outside/external promise. I am aware of situations where universities have held on to older technology on the promise of a newer version or upgrade that never appears.

6. Fading out the technology. Given the stages above, this seems inevitable and certainly I have experienced technologies being faded out, although more often they seem to be abruptly replaced!

Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 11133