This refers more to education in general, both face-to-face and online contexts and I must admit I got sidetracked while researching this topic but being a teacher myself and currently working in a sort of assessment-obsessed environment I couldn’t resist the temptation of writing more on assessment. So here you go:

ON WORKING TOGETHER (ONLINE)

There is no doubt that group work might be beneficial to learning - it is more student-centred, promotes more self-directed learning and social construction of knowledge. In more practical terms it helps students develop a range of important skills, including problem-solving, communication, leadership, collaboration and decision-making, all of them being important personal and professional assets sought by prospective employers. However, some groups prove to be dysfunctional, mostly due to the so-called ‘lone wolves’ or the phenomenon of social loafing.

Lone wolves are primarily interested in achieving their own goals while social loafing can be defined as little or lack of activity on the part of a group member who ‘shirks their obligations in the hope of benefitting from the work of others’ (Dommeyer, 2007:175). If the loafer or the free rider manages to slip unnoticed through the system they receive the same mark as the rest of their more industrious group members, which seems to be the most common reason for students’ concern, dissatisfaction and complaints (Aggarval & O’Brien, 2008; Kennedy, 2006).

Both these dysfunctionalities are likely to occur in face-to-face and online settings alike but perhaps they are more common in the latter due to lack of bodily presence and issues around community building? Besides Hron and Friedrich (2003) claim that due to its characteristics, online discussions (and I dare to speculate that by extension probably  any form of online communication) might pose a number of problems, among others difficulty maintaining topic coherence and understanding the context of a message, which could instigate a number of difficulties in group activities.

For instance, based on my own experience of setting up group discussions within a virtual learning environment (Moodle), students often contribute a single post and rest on their laurels, satisfied that they have completed the task. There is usually very little or no interactive value in the post, e.g. a question or a challenging comment. When I run the activity report I often find out there is one post per student – is that a discussion or rather a series of minipresentations – I ask myself.

Such eventualities should be borne in mind while creating the tasks and perhaps more guidance in ‘global learning methods for organising group work, behaviour rules for structuring dialogues, so-called co-operation scripts’ (Hron & Friedrich, 2003: 73) should be offered. Introducing peer evaluations during the process of group work or final peer assessment could also reduce the incidence of loafing (Aggarval & O’Brien, 2008; Pond et al, 2007).

ON PEER ASSESSMENT (ONLINE)

This  idea of peer assessment, as you remarked in your comment, Clara, is however both compelling and problematic.

To start with, there are obvious benefits to introducing peer assessment, such as increased motivation, engagement and accountability (Falchikov, 2005). To illustrate this, in a piece of research carried out by Bouchoucha & Woznak (2010) the engagement and interaction in an online group discussion increased upon introducing peer assessment from 1.4 to 3.6 posts per person in a single discussion. Other potential advantages include facilitation of deeper understanding of the subject matter and the student’s own achievement (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007).

Besides, in a situation where the group project entails other communication media, beyond the tutor’s control, let’s say emails, conversations on the phone or skype, chat or texts, the tutor is not really in the position to gain a good insight into the group dynamics and fabric and thus cannot make a fair judgement. The only people who are capable of assessing their own and others’ relative contributions are the students themselves (Race, 2001) but the question arises whether they are able to do so fairly and reliably.

ON PROBLEMS RELATED TO PEER ASSESSMENT

According to the reading I did on the subject, it seems there is some discrepancy in the views in that respect from quite favourable findings that students grade accurately and consistently (Marcoulides & Simkin, 1995), through stating that they mark with a slight bias to over-mark (Boud & Holmes, 1995) or under-mark (Hamer et al, 2009), to discovering that the correlation between the students’ and tutors’ marks tends to be restricted to a holistic judgement, based on well-understood criteria (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000). I guess these might be even more conflicting if a more thorough comparison is carried out across departments and faculties with their different grading scales, approaches and the nature of their typical assignments. If you think further of interdisciplinary degrees or post-grad degrees with students from different backgrounds, humanities and sciences, and you add online on top of that, the issue might get even more muddled (illustrated by your comment).

ON POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Ways of addressing the problem include involving students in the process of creating the peer assessment instrument. For example, they could select from a pre-prepared bank of questions or criteria using various scoring scales (Nicol & Milligan, 2006); alternatively they could even formulate the criteria themselves. Theoretically, in such a situation, they should be able to understand them inside out and allocate a fair mark. However, even this might be problematic as students might have varying notions as to what particular terms stand for or how achieving a given criterion translates into a particular grade. This might result in the students either over or under-marking. Clarity of the rubrics might be tested by means of a calibration process prior to launching the group project. In order to further reduce this stringency or leniency effect, each student could be assessed by all the other group members (multiple peer assessment) and the assessors could be encouraged to write more detailed comments to justify their scoring.

Hmm, it all sounds ideal but I guess in terms of preparation (creating criteria, running assessment trials) as well as implementation (students filling in the assessment forms and tutors reading them) might prove time-consuming and thus adding to the workload of everybody in question. It is also unclear to what extent the peers’ mark should influence the final grade and how the calculation should be performed.

I’d be quite interested in doing more about this as the issues of peer/self-review and assessment have been on my mind for some time now. Basically, I’d like to encourage more reflection on part of my students, deeper thinking on their performance, goals, abilities and skills. The issue of formative peer assessment springs to mind too (as suggested in the article by Aggorval and O’Brien (2009) it is multiple peer evaluations that best prevent social loafing). Something perhaps to ponder on the assessment module in the future?

 

This post continues a theme from the second entry: Remember the Human

 

One of the stories from week one described a situation in which a wheelchair user participated in an online course – an example of inclusion on a logistical level where online creates a convenient and easily accessible environment for learners with disabilities. However, as I mentioned in the previous posting, online might offer inclusion in other respects too. In that particular case the disabled student chose to keep their health condition secret. That could have been dictated by many motives, for instance their unwillingness to manifest their otherness and so not to get ‘preferential’ treatment (being it true or fake sympathy or even harassment – hence inverted commas – or a degree of favouritism in assessment – ‘She is scraping through but since she is disabled and so making an extra effort to continue her education, let’s reward her with a higher mark) or the fact that they thought it was irrelevant in the given circumstances. Whatever the reason, the person did not experience any exclusion which could have otherwise occurred, became an integral part of the group and only at the in an off-hand remark revealed the actual state of things.

 

Clara, you pointed out in your comment that this might be just illusion of receiving equal treatment and so the need to hide a part of oneself might be considered exclusionary. I agree you can’t be certain whether the environment is inclusive or exclusive unless you test the waters by simply revealing who you really are and the others’ gut reaction might provide the proof of the pudding (I’m not sure though what counts as a gut reaction online and how you measure it!) However, I think it all comes down to how the ‘other’ person perceives themselves. If the self-perception is linked with feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, then the main reason for withholding the truth might be fear and thus could count as exclusionary. If there is acceptance of the condition in the person and they simply opt out because they think it’s their private matter and it’s not pertinent to the course (but if asked, they would admit it), then it’s more inclusive. I think what I wanted to stress in my previous post is that the online might offer more control over private information to learners with disabilities or belonging to minorities (sexual, racial, cultural, religious) who could be subjected to discriminatory behaviour and simply denied access to the group on the grounds that they are transsexual, a Gypsy, an orthodox Muslim or Palestinian. They identify themselves to others, thus shaping the way the others can interpret them (‘if the [visual] cues are not discussed, pragmatically they do not “exist;” textualisation constitutes “reality”’ [Lai & Ball, 2004: 24]). Thanks to that they can promote themselves as individuals without being unjustly associated with  collective stereotypes that every Palestinian is a terrorist.

 

I think the idea of inclusion and exclusion might have some connection with how the participant sees themselves, especially in relation to other people. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs the needs of love/belonging (feeling of acceptance  by the community)  and esteem (being valued and respected by others) constitute two of the 4 basic deficiency needs, coming right after physiological and safety belonging needs. If these needs are not satisfied, a person might experience feelings of social anxiety and develop notions of low self-esteem and inferiority, which in extreme cases might lead to depression.

 

Levy (1998:34) pointed out that the boundaries between the private and the public blur online. Once I log into the course VLE, the classroom and my own cosy room penetrate each other. For this reason, it is often claimed that shy, less confident students often feel empowered by the online medium and contribute more when seated within their comfort zone than in an actual face-to-face classroom ([Faculty Focus, 2010] but I need to find more references). By more active participation they might start blossoming, gelling with the rest of the group,  building relationships and gaining respect of the others, thus satisfying their needs of belonging, a certain sign of online being inclusive.

However, and this is me thinking aloud, it might also happen that some hypersensitive and more vulnerable individuals might experience enhanced insecurity and anxiety, and in their fear of losing face, they might post nothing or very little to the forum. As it becomes increasingly more difficult to contribute, they might fade into oblivion (especially on big courses, self-study courses, or courses where participation is not part of assessment). In such a situation in order defend themselves and to pre-empt any imagined rejection they might project feelings of dislike, or even hostility onto their actually neutral coursemates. By doing so they exclude themselves from the group, in extreme cases spiraling downwards to depression.

 

Online experiences can shape the way we perceive ourselves, can’t they? An example (although this is personal it’s just an observation, I was just analyzing my thoughts and feelings): I posted my introduction to the forum, nothing fancy but that’s me (or how I see myself), no frills, straightforward. No response from anybody and a thought creeps into my mind: quite pejorative self-assessment fed by feelings of hurt, exaggerated by other circumstances having nothing to do with the course. A moment of reflection and I slowly regain the grasp of the reality (accompanied, however, by a shrug of shoulders). Then somebody replied, so far it seems the only fellow student I established some communication with. I don’t feel part of the group … Self-exclusion but I’m ok with it. How many students do a similar thing, how many students do it and are ok? How many do it and suffer in silence? And what should a tutor do? Fish them out and save (but the course is not a psychotherapy session), reason with them (it’s good for their learning to participate and it strengthens the fabric of the course and network) or maybe  leave them in peace (they are adults after all and so should know themselves what’s best, they are responsible for their actions).

 

I wrote in the previous posting that the basic principle of online communication is to remember the human, which means consideration for other online users.

Simple and basic as it is, it might seem difficult to implement in online settings, especially in asynchronous ones where we often don’t see the person at the receiving end of the message. Considering the diversity of online communication tools (both synchronous and asynchronous), I wonder if some of them are more successful in helping us comply with the rule. For example,  using videoconferencing should theoretically help us be more human than, let’s say, on an anonymous discussion forum (like the one found in online versions of tabloids where people regularly slag others off for trivial things like an unfetching hat or crazy haircut). And how about instant messenger type of communication tools, including mobile phones,  which sometimes might fall somewhere in between synchronous and asynchronous modes of communication. Due to their frequently limited size (text messages, direct messaging on twitter), users often have to take shortcuts when expressing their views. There is also a question of emotional closeness to the recipient; for example mobile phone messages tend to be more personal so the ‘humanness’ index should be higher. Twitter  is a bit more controversial, especially when you think of its use as a back channel where somebody can be heckled, or tweckled! See Steve Wheeler's post on Weapon of Mass Destruction. Strangely enough this happens when you actually see the person but this sadly doesn't prevent you from forgetting the human!

 

More loose thoughts related to entry two to follow.

 

Even when plunging into the ‘black hole’ of the online, the basic rule of thumb to follow is the same as offline,  to remember the human (from an article on netiquette). Despite the tech element, it is still all about interaction and building relationships. Transferred into the educational context, the classroom might be swapped for a VLE, accessible at any time and place, but technology should not supersede pedagogy. And the learning theories that I have in mind here are blend of humanistic approaches and social constructivism, a balance of individualism and collaboration.

 

For that to work, the students need to be instructed what they are using the technology for and what is expected of them in terms of input (content plus assessment criteria) if they are to treat the online component seriously and not as a fancy (and probably clumsy) add-on. The purpose of different tools and choice of online activities should also be made clear so that students do not develop wrong expectation. This would refer especially to self-study courses where the student is left altogether to their own devices. To illustrate what I mean, I will refer to the first story ‘The black hole’. There is perhaps a natural tendency for people to moan and groan or exchange views on topics unrelated to the course but that can be done on a separate, non-learning, forum, e.g. ‘virtual cafe’ and the purpose of such a forum should be clearly spelt out and differentiated from that of learning forums and this is what happened in the story about ‘the black hole’. The message got ignored, sucked into a vacuum, leaving the student distressed and disappointed. It’s possible, however, that it was the course design that was to blame rather than the self-absorbed cat-loving fellow students. Namely, the design could be summarized as ‘laissez faire’, the students were let to get on and in doing so the cat group opted not to respond to the other student’s call for help. For obvious reasons (age, different outlook and priorities) she hadn’t engaged in interaction with them and so she might have been perceived as an outsider and intruder, somebody they did not care about.

 

To develop a sense of community and add dynamics to the course, many online courses introduce groupwork. Things might go wrong though, especially when individuals present different views on how to go about the task. In order to facilitate smooth collaboration and get students more involved and perhaps become watchdogs themselves, a working agreement could be devised at first which could describe in detail how they are going to collaborate and behave towards each other. The students could regularly reflect on the effectiveness of the agreement, refining it if need be. 

 

Creating rubrics specific to groupwork could perhaps encourage more active participation from quieter or idler students. It is true that, similarly to a traditional classroom, there will be an array of learning styles on an online course, with some students sharing their ideas publicly more readily while the more reflective types might lurk in the shadows of online back channels but certain mechanisms need to be put in place which will squeeze the minimum from the latter, especially in the case of groupwork. Assigning a leading role to a quieter student, putting them in a position of responsibility might spur more activity on their part too. Collaboration could also be subject to anonymous peer assessment, something one presenter in the workshop I recently went to  had introduced on their course. What is more, the peer assessment could influence the final mark, which kept all the potential idlers on their toes!

 

Since the online overly relies on the written word, there is much more permanency. Once you write something on an online forum, it's frozen there and irremovable (unless there is a good reason to take it off, e.g. abuse, indecency, etc.). So, greater care needs to be taken when posting messages but, on the other hand, there needs to be more forgiving  of other people's mistakes, being it spelling, grammar, a silly question or a daft contribution. Sometimes, the computer screen creates a buffer or a distance; you cannot see the recipient, their face or gestures, you deal with lone words, making the one who typed them become somehow disembodied and dehumanised. This might induce more assertiveness in you, make you feel more vociferous and bold in your opinions, putting forward criticisms. I think it's always worth asking yourself a simple question ‘Would I say something like this to the person face-to-face?’ (the flamer story).

 

The online might exert an interesting influence on how people present themselves and how much of personal info they decide to disclose, and how much of it they tamper with, embellish, distort and how fast they allow the truths to trickle into the open. This is particularly interesting in the case of people who are perceived as 'different' by the society at large, for example due to their disability or people who have experienced some misfortune in their life. In order to receive equal treatment, some of them will choose to hide the fact of their otherness. This way the online might promote inclusion more effectively than face-to-face.

 

 

According to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of flow, the process through which we are going while trying to achieve our goals is more enriching than the success of attaining them at the end. This can be explained by the sense of enjoyment one derives from overcoming obstacles on the way, often through trial and error, momentarily groping in the dark in order to be enlightened in the most unexpected moment, forming hypotheses, scrutinising them to either refine them or refute them. It is these little successes (and likewise failures) that provide a sense of fulfillment, progress and flow.

I am now embarking on a new journey and although the final destination seems to be clear – completion of the introductory module of the post-grad course in e-learning, the adventures on the way seem equally, if not even more, enticing. As a true traveller, I cannot NOT keep a log of events – let it be ICTraveBlogue (50% after all).

LOOKING BACK & AHEAD

In order to explain how the idea of the flow applies to blogging, let me go to the roots. I’ve had a go at blogging before. While doing an online course in autumn 2008 (ICT in the Classroom), one of the tasks was to set up a blog. Mine was very impressionistic and featured a handful of stories from distant places, embellished with pictures and music. It’s still floating somewhere in the blogosphere but I’ve given up on it as I didn’t have a clear idea of what to fill it up with.

At the same time, I discovered a few blogs kept by language educators, some of them exemplary, some of them not. I also tried blogging with my learners but again due to insufficient planning, the blogs soon fell into oblivion. There’s been and still is a desire in me to blog but seeing how many people reach for this tool to share their personal or professional musings, I feel overwhelmed and somewhat reluctant to throw in my two pennyworth. Sometimes, I feel like there are too many words already produced and the blogosphere becomes a massive dump of verbal waste, creating a sort of e-pollution. Cautious and maybe overprotective of my digital identity and image, I’m slightly sceptical about blogging.

Blogging means getting enmeshed in the Web, Web 2.0 to be exact. By establishing your online presence in the blogosphere and contact with your audience you build social relationships. As in real life you look after your reputation, maintaining your online self requires careful planning and management. This is your online footprint, coded in pixels and bytes, easily replicated and reproduced elsewhere by means of pings, tweets, mentions, linkbacks. Therefore, to prevent the blog from becoming a double-edged sword, some quality-assurance formula is essential. This means determination,  an awareness of the audience, sharing interesting, thought-provoking ideas and posing good questions for the audience to ponder and finally being willing to involve in the dialogue. I am an educator in the first place, a technologist in the second so pedagogy will always come first and thus the basic questions to ask yourself before venturing into the blogosphere are 'why am I doing this and what do I want to achieve?' and 'how do I want my audience to benefit from it?', questions I keep asking myself before each face-to-face or online class.

Ideally the ideas shared with the reader should be new but these are sometimes hard to come by and perhaps require a spark of genius ;-) I much rather prefer the other route of the so-called ‘creative recombination’ which might involve the following steps (aptly described in the course on Personal Learning Environments):

·         Aggregate

·         Remix

·         Repurpose

·         Feed further

In case of this blog, the aggregation has been partly managed by my course tutors – it’s the module list of core and secondary texts. It’s also the input from fellow students in form of the discussion forums. Lastly it’s the blogs and sites on e-learning I have been following for a while, Steve Wheeler’s or George Siemens’ to name a coupls. Combined with my personal experience of being an online student and tutor, this should provide enough food for thought for this blog. By engaging with concepts pertinent to e-learning, I am hoping to increase my expertise in the field. But an additional goal is to harness the idea of blogging, dispel any sceptisism about its feasibility and instill a healthy habit of reflecting on the web reality/e-learning. This is the journey or the process I am going to take part in and hope to derive a sense of flow. This should be easier as the blog at the moment is to grow in a closed environment, a little greenhouse visited only by my tutors – less worry about my digital footprint. Another ‘bonus’ is the fact it’s subject to assessment – otherwise my procrastinating self could easily forget about the required frequency and quality of postings.

In order to do so I need a plan too. I thought I could start with setting up some basic rules by filling in this simple but imaginative worksheet from Blog of Proximal Development:

Echoing the thoughts of Hubert L. Dreyfus the last week of the course dealt with fear – fear of the new, the different and in general fear of change. In the history of mankind this is not a new theme – during the course we have been reminded of it over and over again: from Socrate's times when fear of the written word was key (quoted in Dreyfus' “On the internet”) to today's threat of video conferencing. In most cases the fear of information overload is in the shadows.

As an example we start with Dreyfus' view of Socrates as a supporter of the disembodied though. However, Socrates believes that writing would: "create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories." Centuries later, when the written word became common (thanks to handwritten books) scholars once again were worried about the advent of the printing press - different mechanisms were devised to deal with this threat. Similar concerns were raised when newspapers were becoming common, in his book “on the Internet” Dreyfus quotes Søren Kierkegaard – a 19^th century philosopher – as saying: “Europe will come to a standstill at the Press and remain at a standstill as a reminder that the human race has invented something which will eventually overpower it” (Dreyfus, page 74). Near the end of the 19^th century (1883) a weekly medical journal the Sanitarian discussed the subject of schools for children, it reached the following conclusion that schools will: “exhaust the children's brains and nervous systems with complex and multiple studies, and ruin their bodies by protracted imprisonment.”

Concerns were raised again with the introduction of radio: “This new invader of the privacy of the home has brought many a disturbing influence in its wake. Parents have become aware of a puzzling change in the behavior patterns of their children. They are bewildered by a host of new problems, and find themselves”. By the time television became common the radio was legitimised, the new technology, however, was different: “questions were raised about how it would affect children: Would it debase their tastes? Distort their values? Teach violence and crime? Cause withdrawn and addictive behavior? ” (both quotes were taken from “Children and Computers: New Technology - Old Concerns”, Children and Computer Technology, Volume 10 Number 2 Fall/Winter 2000).

One can only imagine the criticism when man first used fire – “it will make us lazy and weak since our stomachs will no longer be able to digest raw meat and fancy, cooked dinners will become the norm!”. There is no doubt that new technology has to be tested in the context of what it is intended to be used for (or new manners of usage should be introduced) however, it is VERY surprising to see the academic community jumping to conclusions about the applicability of technology instead of conducting the appropriate research first. Technology is an enabler - we can choose to become a mindless crowd as claimed by Kierkegaard or not, in the same way that we can decide to use the atom for its destructive power or to provide cheap energy for millions. Surely, this is all down to education...

One of the issues raised in the discussion forums of the course was the silence and contemplation required from religious believers. It is important to note however, with all due respect to religion, that the amount of information involved means that Jewish scholars need to study the Torah “night and day” and devout Muslims pray seven times a day... Other examples exist in most religions demonstrating how believers need to dedicate their whole being to deal with information intake required by religion. The main problem with the religious intake of information is the singularity of the source – by studying the religious sources one can only reach conclusions which are derivatives of the data provided in those sources.

In our history we have been repeatedly limited to what is known, what is acceptable, what has been published etc etc... for the first time in human history we have access to the raw data and the possibilities are mind-boggling. We can finally move from the need to collect the data to using and contextualising it. In a previous blog post I have mentioned the technology of mash ups as can be found on the Internet, this short presentation given at TED is a good example of what can be done when raw data is available:

http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_berners_lee_the_year_open_data_went_worldwide.html

In light of this and in the context of past fears it seems as if once again human beings are plagued by the fear of losing control: control of thoughts, control of knowledge, and control of raw data and where it might lead individuals to. Perhaps what we need is not time for silent contemplation but a better way to get from raw data to wisdom? A better way to contextualise and apply the opulance of data and information. Could something like the DIKW model provide us that?

I have previously mentioned a research commissioned by Hewlett Packard and conducted by Glenn Wilson which identified a 10 point drop in IQ as a result of “infomania” (also mentioned in “the university of google”, Barbazon). This demonstrates the fact that some of the challenges that we are currently facing as a result of information overload are real (and therefore the fear justified to an extent) but rather than dismiss the benefits that current, and new, technology offers us I believe that it is our responsibility as educators (both in the education and corporate sectors) to provide learners with the tools to make the best of what they have. This includes – the ability to define what is urgent and what is not, how to prioritise, how to identify 'real' (i.e. valid and relevant) information versus redundant and irrelevant and so on. Internet-based technology is here just like writing, schools radio, television and many other technologies were introduced to us in the past... we now need to respond, adapt to existing reality and, to quote one of my fellow students:

“I would argue that adapting is precisely what people do best. ”

Having recently started sending my daughter (now aged 4½) to school I was very worried when I saw Ken Robinson's talk on schools and creativity. One of the opening statements relates to the purpose and origins of the public schooling system - unfortunately, Robinson is right – schools still operate as if their purpose is to “produce” standardised employees for an industrial era. The main problem with this is that this era is long gone (in the majority of the Western world at least). It is my experience that this intention to “produce” labourers is also present within the corporate training world. However, with today's information economy this ancient type of labourer is no longer needed – most work places need a multi-disciplined individuals capable of solving problems especially valuable in a 'cost cutting' environment where less employees are required to complete more and more diverse tasks.

Commercial organisations both in the UK and the US have, over the last few years, complained about young workers (coming out of schools and universities) not having the necessary skills for today's workplace. If we accept the purpose of the public school systems as stated in the opening paragraph than I would argue that those educational systems need to reconsider the way they teach if they are to continue fulfilling their own objectives of 'producing' a capable workforce. An example of this lack of skills can be found in the following – “A study commissioned by Hewlett Packard and conducted by Glenn Wilson, a psychologist at the University of London, confirmed that endless typing at a phone or computer keypad – along with the clearly obsessional checking for text messages – temporarily removes ten points of a user's IQ. … The hypothesized cause for this drop in IQ is that the constant distraction of messaging and emails prevents concentration on important tasks. Rapid reaction replaces thoughtful reflection.” (“the univesity of google”, Barbazon, p 76). The inability of employees to deal with today's information overload is creating what Barbazon (and the research she mentions) describes as “infomaniacs”. It is my opinion that the skills required to deal with this overload – effective time management, dealing with sensory overload, prioritising information are but a few of the skills (all within the digital context) which schools should be teaching.

However, schools, and other educational establishments are still stuck in the 19^th century mode of operating – in their article “Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping the technology landscapes of young learners” Clark et al discuss the ways in which youngsters use current technologies such as social websites and mobile phones. One of the questions raised by their work is “the potential transferability of skills between informal and formal settings.” In other words it is assumed that the skills acquired while using the web are informal and therefore not directly useful to the classroom or education. Schools are so troubled by this 'irrelevant' use of technology that “young People's 'everyday' use of digital technologies is encountering a process of de-legitimization as evidenced by the banning of mobile phone use in schools”.

In today's capitalist environment one would expect this skills gap to be bridged by an overactive training department in most organisations, surprisingly this is not the case - more and more companies understand that the majority of learning occurs outside the classroom. There can be a number of explanations for this situation (not enough research has been done on this) but to me it looks as if the speed of development of the new tools and required skills and the fact that we are a social learners translates into a failure on the part of traditional formal training.

This failure has translated well into e-learning: the majority of today's content is in the form of electronic flip books (where the “next” button is the king) which employees detest. The advent of standards like SCORM as meant that content producers can create mediocre and boring materials because of the standard. The truth is somewhere in between – while the existing standards do not dictate a boring online training product they make creativity almost impossible: in an attempt to be as efficient as possible (meaning: to be able to resell the same content to as many clients as possible) such concepts as reusability, (learning) content syndication, content repositories, training efficiency etc etc have taken the place of ideas such as knowledge retention, understanding, contextual applicability.

During the Internet bubble of the 1990s various researchers found out that one of the key elements to employee retention is the ability to offer such employees opportunity for personal growth this has also been the case with staff motivation. Staff retention and development is more important during tough economic times – a survey of 700 CIPD members held in February 2009 indicated that developing more talented in-house is the key approach (over 55%) to talent management during the recession. If e-learning is to take its proper place as an effective tool in the trainers (and managers) toolbox then 'efficiency' needs to be redefined; There is nothing wrong with an efficient learning program when efficiency means that students retain information after seeing it once. It is this efficiency that we need to strive to attain.

Learning is defined by the free dictionary as: “The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.” and “Behavioral modification especially through experience or conditioning”. Looking at social learning / web 2.0 tool led me to realise that while tools as delicious can be extremely useful in an academic learning and research setting it is actually the more mundane social learning tools which hold the key to realising the theory of true organisational learning.

In his book “The fifth discipline” Peter M. Senge defines the four disciplines required to build the learning organisation:

• Personal mastery

• Mental models

• Shared vision

• Team learning

   

While personal mastery and mental models can be achieved on an individual basis, reaching a shared vision and team learning in today's large multinational corporates is virtually impossible without the help of technology. Senge states that “There has never been a greater need for mastering team learning in organisations than there is today” this is partially a result of the rate of change in every day life – a shared vision established today might not be relevant by the tomorrow, team learning is subject to the same speed of change but is also a victim of globalisation – where teams could be spread across different countries.

According to a recent Bersin & associates factbook report, approaches to learning using social networking tools “are still in their infancy in the U.K. But training organisations are realising that most learning takes place outside of the classroom or online course.” this realisation that MOST learning occurs OUTSIDE the classroom cannot be underestimated when discussing learning in the corporate space. In fact, some organisations “noted that they are working toward a 70 / 20 / 10 learning model, wherein 70 percent of the learning takes place through on-the-job experiences and practice, 20 percent through collaboration with others (e.g., coaching, mentoring, social networking), and 10 percent through formal learning interventions. This type of blended approach uses formal learning to build fundamentals. But the bulk of learning happens through carefully crafted informal learning activities.”

When looking at the multitude of tools that fall under the category of social learning the most used one in the corporate space is communities of practice. According to the aforementioned Bersin report the most used social learning technology is currently used by 24% of US firms – Communities of Practice. These communities are supported by a number of tools such as Microsoft sharepoint (with a number of plug-ins), ELGG etc.

In their article “Communities of Practice for Professional Development” Heidi Fisk and David Holcombe define a Community of Practice (CoP): “a place where people with similar interests connect to learn from and with each other — to freely share their knowledge, insights, triumphs and tribulations.” It is easy to see how the shared vision mentioned by Senge fits into such a community when it exists within a specific organisation. Team learning is a little harder to distil from this definition but if we take into account Senge's definition of it: “Team learning is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire.” then the ability to record and retrieve “knowledge, insights, triumphs and tribulations” means that the team (and in-fact the organisation as a whole) has gained knowledge which will modify the way the team (and therefore the organisation) behaves in the future.

Technological tools to store and retrieve this knowledge are critical since they are in effect the organisation's long term memory: when an employee wants to consult, for example, how the organisation dealt with a severe recession in the past he can bring it up in the internal system etc... this makes sure that learning takes place and not just an experience.

While the idea of social learning within educational organisations can prepare young learners for life in the workplace the concept comes into its own when used in universities and corporates: these are organisations which require long term memory to build on their activities in the past.

Bayne holds that “the discussion about the striated nature of the network is of limited relevance” I believe that this issue is of great importance, especially so in the corporate space (although the nature of such a discourse couldn't be further from that space).

It is useful to begin with definitions – when looking at the subject of the striated net I found the way in which Bayne applied the Deleuze & Gattari concept to be too polar. I believe that it is possible to define levels of striation. One simple way of defining levels can rely on continuity: the smoothest websites can be accessed using a web browser, in these the navigation toolbar is in the same place and visual appearance is more or less similar. They are followed by striations created by visual appearance (where the user needs a few seconds or minutes to reorient himself) an example of this could be the system is available to a student at the Edinburgh University:

The two levels which follow are websites which have walls between them (the need to log in) and then Internet environments which require users to use external applications to access them (for example second life). Even with the simple differences - every new environment (and with it the different visual layout) gives the user the feeling that he is in a new place which needs to be explored.

According to the the Nielsen Norman Group, a firm specializing in human-computer interaction, “intuitive equals familiar”. In other words, a space (or website) which we are familiar with is intuitive. The move between spaces on the web (and specifically between striated and smooth spaces) manifests itself as a 'difference' between the two spaces. Bayne refers to this difference: “such a difference is as likely to make the task of online learners and teachers more problematic, or problematic in unfamiliar ways”. As mentioned before, despite identifying this difference, Bayne finds the discussion behind it to be “of limited relevance”.

My personal experience, mostly in the corporate world, has taught me otherwise – This is far from being a purely academical discussion – IT managers go to great lengths to create smoothness in the striated corporate 'INTRANET': unifying the look and feel of the different components of the system and using such devices as 'single sign-on' to streamline the user experience. This is done in the corporate quest to achieve “enhanced efficiency and productivity” and to make sure that while the user is in the 'protected corporate garden' they are faced with the familiar. This ensures that new systems can be added relatively painlessly into the garden and as such, also affects learning. As such, these are the “virtual shanty-towns” that Bayne finds hard to see. It is the regulation of function and form but not of content which leads to users who operate in a smooth net where they are not bogged down by the differences and therefore do not waste time on getting to know the new place they have travelled to.

Internet users actually strive for the smoother – the number of services targeting striation is constantly growing: services such as iGoogle and Symbaloo are just two examples. These are personal portals which are dedicated to 'smoothing out' of the differences between a number of independent information sources and websites. Further examples can be found in the multitude of tools unifying instant messaging, e-mails and in boxes etc

However, even when outside the corporate space, striated spaces can have their benefits when used in an educational setting - specifically for younger children. Closed environments make sure that children are not exposed to inappropriate materials creating a “protective garden” where experiences can be had but without the inherent risk that results from the openness of the web. In fact, looking at the pedagogies that Bayne mentioned (Ulmer and LeCourt) a similar exercise to Ulmer's mystory could be very effective for younger children within the context of the striated space – preparing them to operate within the smooth one outside. In this context striated space can be a positive: enabling and empowering. These children will grow up used to using closed e-learning systems, they will not see themselves as “unfortunate... to be working within an institution in which the use of the virtual learning environment is compulsory”.

 

In an article by Donald H. Taylor in the December 2008 issue of inside learning technologies the author describes the process by which the early LMS systems were designed: “How did the vendors or the market researchers they employed, guess what functionality to include in their LMS1.0? They asked potential clients.” This process, carried out in the late 90s was applied to most other types of software (apart from those following a worse process – ask the developers to build them wherever they can). According to Taylor the result of this process was a “functionality wish-list based on solving today's issues piecemeal, not building something better for the future.” To me, this is the embodiment of: “you don't know what you don't know” – we invent things, solve problems and imagine based on what we know and experience: as a result we miss out on “the trick of doing things better or differently.”

Taylor provides the following table as an example:

PAPER-BASED APPROACH	TECHNOLOGY 'REPLICATION'	TECHNOLOGY EXTENSION
Provide manuals for instruction in the classroom.	Provide the same manuals in PDF online with no tutor support.	Divide resources into: A. Reference manuals, cross-referenced and with great searching B. Easily searchable instruction manuals C. EPSS/help systems D. Provide people for help were they can have the most effect.
Collect paper evaluation forms after every class and analyse obsessively.	Collect electronic evaluation forms after every class and analyse obsessively.	Forget evaluation forms and instead identify skill gaps prior to learning.
Collect paper-based performance / competency information once a year during an annual review and do little with it.	Do the same, but electronically.	Do the same, but use Internet technologies to make the information always in view and always linked to performance.

 

I believe that VLEs have suffered from a similar fate to that of the corporate LMS. However, we are now starting to see systems that use technology to extend, not fix, our paper-based everyday life. This 'extension' is critical to enabling learning in the information age where access to and contextualisation of information transforms it into knowledge.

These new 'systems' are not actually systems at all – the concept of content aggregation allows the user to 'pull' specific pieces of information and connect them together into a context relevant to him / her. Content aggregation systems have also gone from replication to extension; As explained in the mash-up wiki the two types of content aggregation systems – portals and mash-ups are different in that portals allow you to display information from different sources in the same way that this was exposed. In essence this is technology replication: by 'cutting out' the pieces of information that interests us (in the form of RSS feeds and similar) and glue them together on the same sheet we create the portal. On the other hand, the mash-up is actually technology extending an everyday task: it allows a user to take the raw data behind webpages (and other sources) and to re-contextualise it.

An excellent example of the more advanced content aggregation is the recent mash-up of tweets and Google maps: tweets that scored local snow out of 10, gave their postcode and used the tag uksnow were mapped on to a Google map of the UK essentially transforming raw data (tweets) into information by means of contextualisation. This can be found at: #uksnow Map 2.0 (see screenshot).

Moving forward, there is no doubt in my mind that the solution is, as mentioned by Wilson et al, standardisation. However, it is very important that we do not choose a rigid, limiting set of standards which are based on APIs and ensure that only students who have programming abilities can create a personalised environment. The answer to this could easily be products like Yahoo! Pipes or Apatar which rely on a visual model to facilitate the mashing-up. The one point on which I disagree with Wilson at al is that this is not the future: mashing up is happening every day by users who are not programming savvy. In fact, the ability to contextualise without external intervention opens up an additional option which current systems do not deal with – informal learning.

Tying the student's ability to contextualise raw data using today's e-portfolios will eventually lead to the more students centric approach that Ayala is pushing for. Personal development plans will define the path and competencies and skills rather than exam results will be the outcomes. This will of course mean that the targets system today in place will need to be abolished – that will happen eventually if not through intelligent governing than as a result of pressure from the corporate sector that needs capable employees.

At the end of the day, and probably in the same manner as they did in every century, schools and universities will have to equip students with the tools to learn and continue learning. From the introductory: enabling students to read through the basic – understanding how to access websites and how to evaluate their content and on to the intermediate: creating basic mash ups to the advanced: manipulating data in its raw form. Being the information technology the digital natives of tomorrow will move within the scope of consuming digital information and creating raw data (coming from researchers in universities and corporate). Anyone lacking the tools to process the never ending sea of data will be consigned to an underclass equivalent to today's illiterates.