Personal Blogs

• Deployment of radio for distance learning and education in Canada
• Beginning in early 1920’s
• Morgan (1930) – ‘not since the invention of movable type by Gutenberg in the middle of the fifteenth century has there been any force so revolutionary in its effect on the human mind’
• Cantril & Allport (1935) – Educators are confronted with a new medium for public instruction whose magnificent possibilities daze them, but whose technical and psychological peculiarities they do not yet fully understand’
• Large scale of Canada, scattered population, difficulty in accessing remote areas, disparity of education between rural and urban areas and the need to access vast areas with a minimum infrastructure were all drivers to use radio as an educational medium
• By 1940 educational radio in higher education in North America was history
• Canadian National Railways CNR – Sir Henry Thornton was being competitive with CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) and introduced many innovations to make the CNR more attractive to the traveller than the CPR.  One of which was putting radios in parlour cars (with headphones)
• The rail track formed the network of radio stations.  This meant that CPR could sponsor and control the content
• Thornton saw the social and commercial value in providing educational programmes as a public service
• 1925 – educational programmes for young children – this then expanded to reach people who were deemed to be learning disabled
• Content included: Lectures; Recitations; Music and activity broadcasts.  For  the activities, instructions to create projects would follow.  Therefore the teacher required advanced knowledge of the activity sessions and info gathered before
• Radio Train – the programme was about an imaginary train that travelled to different locations – presented by ‘Ronnie’ it covered info on sights of the location and some history all delivered in an entertaining way.  It was felt that Ronnie could explain locations to blind listeners as he was blind himself.
• Audience Participation was encouraged to try and retain listeners and encourage new listeners
• Issues that impacted on the success of CNR’s project – Education is a provincial responsibility in Canada and some provinces did not want educational content that had originated outside.  Curricular differences across the provinces meant some broadcast content did not link well
• Many schools lacked the funds to purchase a radio or their budget was prioritised to text books
• Due to the time difference across Canada some broadcast times did not work for some provinces

References

Journal of Distance Education

Revue De L’Education A Distance

Spring/Printemps 2006 Vol. 21, No 1,75-88

• Google Generation – Those born on or after 1993 into a world of rich and abundant information
• There are many extravagant claims about how different they interact with technology and the world
• Able to multi-task and multi-reference
• Perception can influence the views of whether generations are different – Longitudinal Study used to see if there are generational differences

Following two examples detail why stereotyping can be incorrect

• Digital Dissidents (turning their back to technology and in the younger generation)
• Silver Surfers (typically taken early retirement from professional jobs and spending 4 more hours/week than a google generation)

• Information Literacy – people perceive library as print and archive (print legacy) and search is seen as google.  One research showed 98% of research points start with search engines and only 2% with libraries

• Web searching is quick for the young with less time spent on reviewing relevancy and accuracy and quality and clicking through web pages.  Find it hard to express and translate this information.  They search by adding sentences (natural language) rather than through through key words.   Think they are better at multi-tasking and preference for Visual Information Retrieval over Text Information

• New form of online reading becoming evident that uses metadata and abstracts to help  and find the full text and that this is how users are reading online information

• The physical library offered a strong visual mind map that clearly distinguished fiction from journals to other forms of print and gave the visitor a feel for the full organism of information.  The electronic provision has far less form and that the total understanding of the information landscape is far harder to identify with and understand.  There is the need of a clarity map to help people find and locate the information they need in the electronic form in the same way that the library use to give in times gone by.

References - Open University - Dr Ian Rowlands. (2008). The Google Generation. Available: http://stadium.open.ac.uk/stadia/preview.php?s=31&whichevent=1173. Last accessed 10th February 2015

Assignment - Two statements have been described as myths by the authors of the study from which the graph is taken: please try to identify those two statements. And, in your view, how accurate are each of the other statements?

1. ‘They      [the Google Generation] need to feel constantly connected to the web’ – this is challenged as not necessarily an issue for      this generation alone and in fact detail that those aged 65+ are likely to      spend 4 more hours/week online over 18-24.       They suspect individuality, personality and background to be a      factor.  I challenge this to an      extent though as time spent online is different to the need to feel      constantly connected to the web.       For example I have a smart phone or tablet with me pretty much all      the time.  Doesn’t mean I am using      it but I do have it with me so that I am connected to the web and my      communications if I need to be.       Could it be that the ‘google generation’ are better at managing the      time they have so to maximise connectivity time through the devices that      they use?
2. ‘They      are the “cut-and-paste” generation’
3. ‘They      pick up computer skills by trial and error’
4. ‘They      are expert searchers’  this is      challenged within the report – evidence would      demonstrate that the generation find it hard to have a searching strategy      and have a basic viewpoint on how the web is linked and formed and      therefore rely heavily on the same access points of information with poor      ability to read in detail and decipher accuracy and issues

Of the 4 statements the ones that apply to me are:

1 – Sporadically yes although I do try to build a healthy relationship with this.  I am trying to find a way that allows it to embed and positively contribute to my life without becoming a need of no necessity.

2 – I am definitely not into cut and pasting

3 – I definitely pick up computer skills by trial and error

4 – I would say that I am strong at searching and networking to find suitable and strong date/info

So 1,3 and 4 are Yes’s for me with Point 3 (learn by trial and error) being the most important factor for me

References:

UCL. (2008). Information Bahaviour of The Researcher of the Future. Available: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1280125/mod_resource/content/1/UCL_Reading_research.pdf. Last accessed 10th February 2015

In summary, this is how my review of assessment feedback compared to OpenMentor

Bales Category 1 - Positive Reactions

I listed '0'

Open Mentor listed '0'

Therefore the judgements of the assessment language was interpreted the same

Bales Category 2 - Attempted Answers

I listed '7'

OpenMentor listed '8'

Again the judgement was very much the same

Bales Category 3 - Questions

I listed '0'

OpenMentor listed '0'

Again the judgement was very much the same

Bales Category 4 - Negative Reactions

I listed '10'

OpenMentor listed '1'

Some of the comments I listed as more than just one in Category D.  For example for the comment listed below number 3, I analysed that as D1,2 and 3 so already 3 points in the 'D' Category.  I am very careful with language used and I feel that the following assessment feedback does at time have an unnecessary negative tone.  I offer some examples below:

1. 'of course this would become very expensive and not at all scalable' - the words 'of course' offers no additional benefit and I feel sounds a little patronising

2. 'I find using etcetera a bit of a cop out so either complete it or use words like including'.  This seems a bit blunt in its' delivery

3. 'you at least alert me to the fact that you are diverging from the question' -again the tone is rather autocratic and command/obey - language that doesn't work well for me but maybe for some this direct approach would be preferred.

It demonstrates to me the need to use language so carefully, as in principle it may not be negative comments/assessment being made but for some readers it could be seen as so.

• In 2010 significant cuts to HE (40%) and FE (25%)
• Digital Literacy is an agenda item that aligns well with the need for economic recovery
• 'digital literacy defines those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital  age'
• 'literacy' means: Foundation for Other Capabilities; Critical to an individuals life chances; essential to the making/sharing of culturally significant meanings; a society wide entitlement to these capabilitities at some level
• UK Government recognised a RIGHT to some level of functioning access to digital media and networks as constitutiveof citizenship
• 3 Developments Stages - COMPETENCE - USE - TRANSFORMATION (Martin and Grudzieki)
• Web 2.0 has created a model of knowledge in constant circulation (produce - circulate - enrich - reproduce)
• The pace of change in knowledge is increasing so increased need for lifelong learning
• Good evidence that learners' experience and confident with technology in learning is critically dependant on teaching staff
• Martha Lane Fox launched 'Networked Nation' menifesto in July 2010 with aim of getting EVERY working person in the UK onlin by 2015
• Part of this aim was through research that indicated that 90% of all new jobs require basic internet skills.  Much more than 90% proportion of graduate jobs require internet skills
• 'Digital Literacy is a great ENABLER of social mobility' and 'is a power weapon against poverty'
• The digital (technology and content) sector employs directly 2.5 million in the UK and has been described as 'the biggest single economic opportunity the UK has at the moment'
• Leitch report highlighted need of 40% of adults being qualified to Level 4 and above (degree level equivalent qualifications) by 2020
• Students have high expectations of staff confidence and capabilitiy in technology
• Learners experiences of tech-supported learning were largely determined by staff e-learning skills
• The UK sells more brainpower per capita that anywhere else in the world (a quater of UK exports are knowledge-related services)
• Digital literacy is central to strategies for exploiting new markets
• ICT can enable students to overcome physical and situational barriers to accessing educational opportunity - therefore digital inclusion can support other social justice agendas
• Web 2.0 technologies opens up a completely new space for and style of learning - colloborative knowledge building and shared assets
• Still need for institutions to help learners bridge the gap between their informal knowledge practices and demands of study (wikis, tagging, reviewing etc.)
• Some learners have had positive learning experiences of face-to-face and therefore are not pursuaded of the case for change to technology-enhanced learning
• 2008 Survey of 3001 8-16 year olds 'National Literacy Trust' found the following results: 82% wrote a text at least once/month; 52% send hand-written notes to other people in a month; 56% said they had a profile on a social networking site; 24% had their own blog; 89% agreed that computers help them with correcting spelling mistakes; 76% felt computers allow them to present ideas clearly and 60% believe that computers allow them to be creative, concentrate more and encourage them to write more
• Among students there is evidence of a shift of attention from print to screen
• Digital Practices have potential to provide aggregation and continuity
• In 2010 most users of Open Content are university staff and university students
• Students are increasingly making use of a variety of e-tools (mobile phones, emails, MSN, digial cameras, game consules and social networking sites) to support their informal learning within formalised educational settings

References:

Review and Scoping for a cross-JISC Learning and Digital Literacies Programme: Sept 2010 (Helen Beetham)

Relationship between Technology and Pedagogic Theory

Good Technology + Good Teaching = Rich Learning Experience

This simplistic formula list is to try and visually demonstrate the need of both technology and teaching being good or outstanding to ensure a rich learning experience. 

My experience (in a reasonably large, predominantly Further Education establishment), is of a vehicle very slow and very hard to move/turn.  It can be risk averse and if there is no established evidence of the success of features it can be extremely hard to gain investment in both time and budget to innovate.  Often the only way is to invest your own additional time and use  your own finances to access resources to then show to higher management (with success indicators) to then look to roll-out to other departments.

The college consider equality to the point that it can impact on technological progressions with a focus that if not ALL learners can access the feature then not to use it at all.  This is difficult when your learners use their own devices at home or at work as they do not attend the college.  The technological limitations impact upon and minimises the pedagogical options.

Activity 19 – Week 11

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. Each      week I have encouraged learners to contribute to the forum and to review      their views alongside others to identify similarities and differences
• Learning is a process of connecting specialised nodes or      information sources. For weeks 1-3 I have set tasks to identify      organisations that are key for information.  Weeks 4-5 have less formal bodies or      organisations so I have left this open to general research.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. – The      course aims to learn as much from other views and from research identify      key sources of information
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning –      Week 1 there is encouragement to introduce and      form preferred contact methods and then through the entire course there is      the need to collaborate and share ideas and views both in blogs and forums.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core      skill. – There are tasks that asks learners to research      and find information and then form they own ideas and concepts from this      and present to the group
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.  The course is not descriptive to any particular      organisation so can adapt to the changing face of the internet and digital      world (i.e. social networking sites used as the majority in 3 years may      not be those used right now).  This      is a big improvement to the rigid structure of the original course that      used OER’s.  This model offers more      sustainability.
• Decision making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of      incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While      there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations      in the information climate affecting the decision. – The      activities and tasks are set and the assessment and review of these are      through posts on the forums and blogs, which will be driven by the learner      community and then contributed and advised (if necessary) by the      Tutor/Facilitator.

The Role of ‘Abundance’ - Tom Cheek April 2014

My Review, Analysis and own views on reading the Article ‘A Pedagogy of Abundance’ (Martin Weller 2011).

• Learners represent Demand
• Supply provided by Teaching
• The digital world offer almost limitless capacity to provide information

The ‘demands of Scarcity’ results in an Instructivist Pedagogy where there places a need on physical resources such as Lecturers delivering lectures in a campus environment.  The scarcity of information places further need of facilities such as libraries to provide access to the limited information.  This results in a Supply/Push model.

The ‘demands of Abundance’ results in a Connectivism Pedagogy where the digital world allows learners to access large numbers of Learning Objects including dialogue and collaborative/sharing tools that can be accessed easily at a time and in way that works for the learner.  The learning journey can only be ‘pre-planned’ a certain amount as the ultimate results and learner dialogue will build and evolve the curriculum in the future.  This results in a Demand/Pull model. 

Boyers’ Definition of Scholarship included 4 Components:

1. Discovery – creation of new knowledge
2. Integration – making connections
3. Application – Engaging outside of academia
4. Teaching – sharing of knowledge

This model works very well with the ‘Demands of Abundance’ and the pedagogy of Connectivism (which I feel aligns with the digital world and social demand and needs of learning). 

Reflection and dialogue are key components of learning.  Both the ‘scarcity’ and ‘abundance’ educatory worlds would agree with this, but through pedagogy such as Connectivism, the needs for this is best met through the collaborative, open world that ‘abundance’ allows.  It places far less emphasis on someone being an ‘expert’, with current vast knowledge but rather focus on the ability of adaption and the potential to take on new knowledge and apply it in various setting.  The key words being, ‘transferrable skills’.  This is ultimately something that the working world demands.  A job for life is rare.  The ability to evolve and use a skill-set and modify to meet future needs is key for both individuals and industry.

To educate learners on how to use Connectivism will give them a skill that can be applied for the rest of the life and meet formal and social learning needs.  The video link below offers a neat summary of Connectivism from the perspective of the learner:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwM4ieFOotA

Martin Weller Summarises that to be ‘Abundant’, the following must be covered:

• Free Content
• Quantity of Content
• Varied Content
• Sharing is Easy
• Social Based
• Cheap to Organise
• Generative Capacity (evolve through the experiences  of learners and not pre-planned too far and too robust)

References:

A pedagogy of abundance   Weller, Martin (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249 pp. 223–236.

What is a PLN? – Personal Learning Network

An empowering collection of contacts gathered over time, to interact in an informal or formal way with the intention to share and collate knowledge and experiences.

References:

http://jiscrsc.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/03/personal-learning-network/

http://onceateacher.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/pln-your-personal-learning-network-made-easy/

http://www.21things4teachers.net/17---professional-learning-networks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_learning_network

https://www.pinterest.com/esheninger/personal-learning-networks/

The Pedagogy of MOOCs

Dave Cromier Theory of How to study on a MOOC:

1. ORIENT – review where and how to access features for the course.  Book mark and review how the course is to be delivered on a week by week basis
2. DECLARE – Find an outlet to record thoughts and reflections such as a blog and posts on threads
3. NETWORK – follow others on the course and reflect on their comments.  Comment back with thoughtful replies
4. CLUSTER – identify a cluster of people that you can work with and discuss further specific ideas or discussion points
5. FOCUS – Try not to wander.  Focus on why you wanted to start the course.  Start a project and use the course to develop it

MOOC is a catalyst for knowledge that works best with inputs from participants and facilitators

1.  Aggregate; 2. Remix; 3. Repurpose; 4. Feed Forward

It is important that MOOCs remain the focus of early trials where the pedagogy holds faith to discussions, forums and participant engagement rather than didactic teaching methods that are simply campus-based delivery models digitilised.

Connection is key.  Participant experience is rich and participant views have value.

MOOCs need to continue to find the balance that allows open web to combine knowledge, expertise and connections between students and facilitators and the sharing of ideas and development of knowledge between participants.

Stacey (2013), The pedagogy of MOOCs.

Conclusive statement from Blog:

• Be as open as possible. Go beyond open enrollments and use open pedagogies that leverage the entire web not just the specific content in the MOOC platform. As part of your open pedagogy strategy use OER and openly license your resources using Creative Commons licenses in a way that allows reuse, revision, remix, and redistribution. Make your MOOC platform open source software. Publish the learning analytics data you collect as open data using a CC0 license.
• Use tried and proven modern online learning pedagogies not campus classroom-based didactic learning pedagogies which we know are ill-suited to online learning.
• Use peer-to-peer pedagogies over self study. We know this improves learning outcomes. The cost of enabling a network of peers is the same as that of networking content – essentially zero.
• Use social learning including blogs, chat, discussion forums, wikis, and group assignments.
• Leverage massive participation – have all students contribute something that adds to or improves the course overall

Big OERs are institutional and developed by a project team with clear structure.  The production value is high and therefore the materials designed are taken and used in their form with no change.  They are seen as good teaching material that can be used in its’ primary form.

Little OERs are developed by independent educationalists and may be in the form or a resource or alternatively as a podcast, blog or article to name a few.  As detailed in Weller’s slide-cast they can be seen as ‘invitation to participate’.  Many will take the concept and idea but then revise to meet their learning and teaching need.   This may be partly due to the lower production value and be seen as work in progress that encourages collaboration to further develop and enhance material.

Key strengths - Big OERs:

• Good quality/high production value
• Seen as accurate and good teaching material
• Control and structure offers material that works well for core information

Weaknesses - Big OERs:

• Low contribution and development of the existing resource – it remains as it is
• May meet the original teaching aim but may not meet future teaching aims and the lack of revision of the original material could impact on its sustainability

Key Strengths - Little OERs

• Sharing of  information globally by independent academics offers a diverse view and presentation style
• Encourages others to use the idea and adapt to meet specific needs so has the ongoing ability to adapt to the environment and task so supports sustainability
• In a world where ‘half-life’ has reduced from 10 years to 18 months (I.e. half of what we will know in 18 months we do not know now) could indicate that there will be the need for resources and teaching objects that can evolve with this ever quicker changing world and knowledge as otherwise they could become inaccurate or irrelevant
• Lots of little contents makes up a large database of knowledge and allows for a large spread of information needs
• Can use resources to develop that do not need high technological knowledge or access

Weaknesses - Small OERs:

• Lower production value and budget means that to meet the needs of learning aims there  is the need for time to revise material to meet that need
• Need to ensure a suitable outlet of the resource as it could become hidden and viewed very little if ever.  Weller explained that he uses his twitter and blog to ensure that his slide-casts are viewed by those who would be interested in it.  This is a key issue for Small OERs in ensuring the product reaches its target audience.

Ultimately, there is a sustainable model for both Big and Small OERs to work collaboratively.  Big OERs can approach and cover subject matter that is less likely to change frequently and present in high quality.  Small OERs can cover a broad subject knowledge by contributions made by many whose specialism it is and this will ensure teaching resources are up to date and relevant. 

References:

Weller (2011a), Academic output as collateral damage (slidecast).

http://www.slideshare.net/mweller/academic-output-as-collateral-damage

On visiting the Creative Commons website, I initially watched the video to get a feel of the content.  As it has legal applications I thought a visual and auditory resource would help and it certainly did.  I was able to continue some further reading and the process seems clear and easy to follow.

I particularly like the attention made on the development of awareness and using a language and presentation that is easy for all to recognise and acts as a quick reference tool to identify the type of licence each resource is bound to.  Amanda highlighted in an earlier activity the need for a label or indicator that is standardised and could easily reference or place a stamp of quality when accessing and reviewing OERs.  This offers a similar solution when looking at the copyright of the resource.

Just as others have detailed in the activity, I would have the preference of allowing my work to be shared as long as there was no commercial use of it and that others are bound to the same licence level for work they have adapted that originated from the  work. 

By selecting this it encourages others to share the work and as highlighted in a previous activity, small OERs are at their best when a community develops and evolves them.  This licence allows for this to happen, remaining true to the sharing culture but with an element of guarantee that it does occur. 

I think it is right that if there is to be commercial benefit, that individual or organisation need to account for resource development.  It also gives some reassurance to those who are worried about sharing their work, as the concern of commercial benefit, is I am sure, high up on top reasons why some choose not to share.

From my selection to the 2 questions asked my licence selection would be:

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

References:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

3 KEY ISSUES FOR OERs

Accessibility –There are resources out there used in education that are functional and great but as learners learn more and more from their own devices, the accessibility to these features on their devices needs to be considered.  Example: Mural.ly is a collaborative tool for visual people and offers a facility where contributions can be made by others to develop the resource or given access via a link.  It will not open on iPads or on some Internet Browsers.  This results in significant access issues.  Therefore it is important to identify resources that can be accessed in multiple ways not just for accessibility but also for sustainability which we will look more into later on in this blog post. 

A very basic example of this in practice would be when repositories would have word documents uploaded.  These could be high in data size or be incompatible to other systems therefore for reading material of this type it would be advisable to be in pdf format as this is a far more universal viewing format that is also lower in file size.

Sustainability – For OERs to be sustainable the key requirement is growing a community that both values and uses them.  Developing a culture is a key feature of this.  Educators once making contact and having experience with OERs will like them as they can gain kudos for the quality of their resource or gain constructive advice on how they can be developed.   They will also have a bank of knowledge and shared information that they can access and utilise.   It takes time to develop resources and in a world where educators are becoming busier the use of OERs makes practical sense.  It gives more time for the educator to adapt and identify how they are to express this knowledge with their learners.

Additionally, time saved will result in money saved.  Budget holders in educations institutions will like this.  The use of OERs offers the opportunity to raise the quality of teaching as high quality and strong functioning resources can be shared and the saved time can be invested in the quality of how this is delivered and learning supported.

Culture – The major concerns within educators with sharing their resources includes a lack of confidence the quality of their resources and how they will be perceived, discouraged by criticism and a concern over the ownership and rights of their resources.  As the range of OERs increases these issues are being broken down bit by bit.

Quality – OERs can be categorised as Big and Small.  There is an expectation that small OERs will be of lower production quality and that they will be developed and reused to meet the needs of other educators and learners.  All can benefit from this as there are many resources that can act as a base and save development time.  Once educators can see this mutually beneficial sharing of resources the culture will continue to change to accept this.   These OERs can support the higher production value of Big OERs which are unlikely to be adapted or changed.  Tes-Connect allows users to access resources through download and re-use and a quick graphical indicator and comments can be added so there is some ability to develop an OER within the community of users with feedback on quality of resource in a productive setting.

References:

McGill, L., Falconer, I., Dempster, J.A., Littlejohn, A. and Beetham, H. Journeys to Open Educational Practice:  UKOER/SCORE Review Final Report. JISC, 2013  https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/60338879/HEFCE-OER-Review-Final-Report

OU and William&Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2014). Hypothesis. Available: http://oerresearchhub.org/collaborative-research/hypotheses/. Last accessed 24th March 2014.