Web 2.0 applications is something that I have been using and exploring for a good two years, so much so that I have created a web page on my website to keep on top of it all; I also use Netvibes as my personal and professional portal linking to loads of RSS feeds from news sources, blogs and academic journals. Whilst it would have been easier to plumb for one of those sites that I am already using and attach a viable teaching and learning dimension to it, much in the same way that Alexander (2006) does with del.icio.us, I opted to look at something new. I checked out Go2Web20, SEOmoz's Web 2.0 2007 Awards and Webware to look for some inspiration and found myself quite literally drowning in a tsunami of choice.

I did find myself drawn towards the timelining tools such as Dandelife, Miomi, circaVie, TimeLine and OurStory, as I could see them being used in terms of autobiographical research, oral histories, creating historical timelines on a range of subjects and themes, etc. In fact, I liked the idea of looking for any "connectedness" that could be exposed or uncovered using the rather powerful visual interface. I chose Miomi (pronounced my-oh-my) in the end because it allowed me to associate events (or moments as they chose to call them) with people and places.

Whilst Web 2.0 becomes close to Tim Berners-Lee original vision of the World Wide Web as an all inclusive read/write tool, we are presented with a number of issues that we need to resolve or, at least, acknowledge; especially if we want to use them within the context of a teaching and learning resource. These include:

• Copyright
• Authorship
• Identity
• Ethics
• Aesthetics
• Rhetorics 
• May be free, but still usually licenced and may have to pay for extra services or to remove advertising
• Privacy
• Governance
• Permanence
• Reliability
• Support
• Accountability / Control
• Accessibility
• Commerce

We also have the issue, according to Ipsos MORI (2007), that students don't do technology for technologies sake - if it is not clear how a piece of technology is being used within a teaching and learning context, they will not engage with it. Indeed, delegates at this year's ALT-C conference were warned that our students were not as tech savvy as Prensky (2001) would suggest. Clearly we need to tread carefully as the path is fraught with opportunities and traps to paraphrase Davis (cited in Cousin, 2005).

References

Alexander, B., (2006). Web 2.0: a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review. 41(2).

Cousin, G., (2005). Learning from Cyberspace. In: Land, R. & Bayne, S. (eds) Education in Cyberspace. London: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 117-129. 

Ipsos MORI, (2007). Student Expectations Study: Findings from Preliminary Research. JISC [online]. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/studentexpectationsbp.aspx [Accessed 16 October 2007]

Prensky, M., (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. 9(5).

"The moment we invent a significant new device for communication - talking drums, papyrus ... - we partially reconstruct the self and its world, creating new opportunities (and new traps) for thought, perception and social experience."
E. Davis cited in Cousin 2005, p. 119

Over the weekend, I was fortuitous enough to read the Student Expectations Study (Ipsos MORI, 2007) after reading Cousin's rather thought-provoking piece about how "inextricably linked" technology and pedagogy are.

My own background is very much technology-biased but always followed the belief that: "exploration and play are the building blocks of learning". So it was good to see Cousin espouse this sentiment. Indeed, when talking to academics, I don't like (nor want) to "shoe horn" a particular technology into a teaching and learning practice. I'd much rather that I "open the door" to a technology for them to see. If they do step through the door, I want them to undergo their own personal "lightbulb moment" (should it occur). To cultivate that "moment", they really ought to be playing and exploring the tool / technology and make those connections for themselves.

A colleague of mine has invested a lot of time, trouble and effort to match different technologies, such as blogs, discussion boards, chat rooms, etc., against a different range of "traditional" pedagogies backed up with the relevant case studies to reinforce his point. It is a conceit to show the academics how they can take a traditional teaching and learning approach and transform it into it's online equivalent. But as Poster (cited in Cousin 2005, p. 121) points out:

"Reassurances about the primacy of pedagogy and the purely enhancement value of technology offer false protection to academics because they promise a stable transition in an inherently unstable process of change from one media age to another and they promise no loss where there is always loss."

Whilst it is an interesting and useful instrument, I wouldn't want to slavishly adhere to it. What Cousin's article does is to hint at the new opportunities (and those yet to be discovered) that would bring about a paradigm shift in teaching and learning. However, we are still hampered by the traditional "old skool" methodologies and applications that somehow prohibit us from thinking outside of the box.

So it was with interest that I read the Student Expectations Survey (2007) from JISC which consisted of 27 interviews with 15 to 18 year olds and an online survey that resulted in 501 returns. Whilst this was not a big sample, it did glean some interesting tidbits (this would be particularly pertinent for the Web 2.0 section next week) on how the target group ultimately "perceived" I.T. use at University. Some of the highlights include:

1. Students see technology as a core part of social engagement.
2. Prospective students struggle, however, to see how social networking could be used as a learning tool.
3. Students are cautious of publishing / sharing coursework online for public scrutiny.
4. Students don't believe in technology for technology's sake.
5. Students see traditional methods of teacher / pupil learning as neither hierarchical nor outmoded; they see personal, face-to-face interaction as the backbone of their learning.
6. However, students do not fully understand how ICT and learning can work together outside the school context.

What is abundantly clear is that if we do "experiment" with the technology as Cousin suggests; we do need to make absolutely sure that our students understand why this particular technology is being used within a particular teaching and learning context; so that they can make some sense of it and benefit from it.

References

Cousin, G., (2005). Learning from Cyberspace. In: Land, R. & Bayne, S. (eds) Education in Cyberspace. London: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. 117-129. 

Ipsos MORI, (2007). Student Expectations Study: Findings from Preliminary Research. JISC [online]. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/studentexpectationsbp.aspx [Accessed 16 October 2007]

As you can see from the title of the post, I'm betwixted, bothered and bewildered. Why is that? you ask. Well, I've been playing around with the WebCT's e-portfolio tool. I've already have onsiderable experience with using PebblePAD; if you haven't already seen what the PebblePAD e-portfolio tool looks like, there is a rather nice example of it here; and I am now exclusively using Blackboard's e-portfolio tool for maintaining my own professional CPD e-portfolio (as shown in "The Quantum Chimera" article).

The University did have the choice to go with either PebblePAD (a highly structured, high customisable and feature-rich site that is programmed entirely in Flash) or Blackboard (a bare bones, no frillls,  "blank sheet" site). It was decided that the University had already made a lot of investment with the Blackboard VLE, we couldn't possibly support another system.

I had argued at the time that students in other instituitions had expressed the opinion that their e-portfolio tool should be separate from the VLE (the Institutional tool) as the e-portfolio belonged to them. I had heard that some institutions had listened to the students and offered a tool that was separate from the VLE; and equally, I heard that other institutions had scrapped the personalised e-portfolio and brought it back into the domain of the Institution's control.

The WebCT e-portfolio tool seems to sit inbetween PebblePAD and Blackboard in terms of features and functionality, such as the enhanced feedback / comment for each asset created; resume; reflection and goal creation tool along with a range of tools that enable the user to customise the interface. With my own Blackboard e-portfolio site, I am using the HTML features and have created a cascading stylesheet to manage the look and feel, so that it is "low maintenance" and "highly configurable".

The rub that I am having with the WebCT tool is that I don't particularly want to construct yet another e-portfolio space, especially as I already have an emotional and intellectual investment with Blackboard, despite it's severe shortcomings - the feedback / comment element to the tool is excruciatingly poor and unhelpful. Whilst I think it would be good for me to maintain a shareable e-portfolio for my MSc studies, I would much rather maintain it on an e-portfolio tool that I am currently involved with than with one that I am not.

Phew! That was a surprisingly hard entry to write.

Once again, we have been blessed (in my humble opinion) of some fantastic reading material on this course. I have particularly enjoyed most of the e-portfolio readings. We have just literally, this year, brought in the Blackboard e-portfolio tool to support a number of Institutional initiatives such as personal development planning (pdp), continued professional development (cpd) and assessment.

I certainly know from my own research into e-portfolios how difficult it is for people to agree on an overarching definition. You only have to read the raging debate that is going on with the JISC CETIS Portfolio SIG on their wiki and JISCmail sites to know what I am talking about.

The use of meaningful metaphors to make sense of one's own e-portfolio is both powerful and compelling. Barrett (2004) reels off a list that includes mirror; story; journey and campfire. On Jen Ross' blog, she is developing a "mask" metaphor, which I am sure Goffman (1959) would appreciate and even Acker (2005) alludes to it as a "digital representation of self on characteristics of interest to a community". This, somewhat, reminds me of an early incarnation of my website that used "hat" imagery to denote the "wearing of hats" that I have had to put on in both my personal and professional lives. Curiously enough, Sir John Mills, the actor, spoke of not being able to be in character until he wore the "right kind of shoes". Identity is a funny old game as Jimmy Greaves would have said if he were a philosopher and not a footballer.

My personal e-portfolio at work (see embedded picture) uses the "acorn" to denote growth and development. The "branches" indicating all the work, experiences and achievements that you can see; the "roots" indicate all the stuff that you can't see and may need to dig deeper to find out more. When talking to staff about e-portfolios, I have used the image of a "rucksack". The rucksuck is synonymous with journeys and travelling as well as being a means to store stuff. Inside the TARDIS-like zippers and pockets of the rucksack are things you want to keep and present. Each different zipper or pocket of the rucksack provides a different representation to different audiences / viewers.

I was particularly enamoured with Barrett and Carney's (2005) tale of the John Godfrey Saxe poem: "The Blind Men and the Elephant", which in itself is based upon an Indian fable. I was so enamoured with it, in fact, that I e-mailed by colleagues around the office about it today. I liked the notion that the e-portfolio becomes a very different beast when different people look upon it; a bit like Schrödinger's Cat, whereby the poor, old hapless moggy would be isolated from any external interferences; to know whether the cat was alive, dead, or simply not there meant that the observer would have to "look inside the box" to find out, thus interfering with the experiment and, in turn, becoming entangled with the experiment itself.

So for me, at least, the e-portfolio is transformed into a fabulous beast: a quantum chimera. How it reveals itself to you largely depends on how you wish to view it and from which angle you are viewing it from.

References

Acker, S., (2005). Overcoming Obstacles to Authentic ePortfolio Assessment. Campus Technology [online]. Available at: http://campustechnology.com/articles/40147/ [Accessed 08 October 2007]

Barrett, H., (2004). Metaphors for Portfolios. electronicportfolios.org [online]. Available at: http://electronicportfolios.com/metaphors.html [Accessed 08 October 2007] 

Barrett, H. & Carney, J., (2005). Conflicting Paradigms and Competing Purposes in Electronic Portfolio Development. Educational Assessment.

Goffman, E., (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.

McAlpine, M., (2005). e-Portfolio and Digital Identity: Some Issues for Discussion. e-Learning. 2(4).

Stefani, L., Mason, R. & Pegler, C., (2007). The Educational Potential of e-Portfolios. London: Routledge.

The latter half of Feenberg's (1989) paper becomes a rather confused and muddled mess; whilst there are some interesting ideas, he doesn't quite pull them off. I noted some intriguing points in the discourse section where Feenberg refers to Marshall McLuhan's 1960's announcement on the "end of literate culture and the rise of a new 'oral' culture based on electronic broadcasting". This was when the TV star was in it's ascendency and the noble art of conversation was enduring a slow and choking death.

Feenberg raises another pertinent statement; especially when you consider the rhetoric that children spend far too much time watching television, playing computer games and surfing the Internet:

"Recent years have seen the proliferation of remedial writing courses in
colleges and the gradual decline of the childhood pastime of reading for pleasure."

The effect of this particular game of dominos would be reverberating across the academic and corporate worlds for years to come as it becomes painfully apparent to the powers that be that a generation of children would be ill-equipped to learn and to work. These discordant ripples continue right upto (and beyond) the Leitch Review (2006).  

In 1998, the UK Government introduced "Literacy Hour" into all Primary schools to try and get the kids into reading. As fate would have it, a certain bespectacled boy with a lightening bolt scar on his forehead was going to do something that no Government initiative could possibly achieve; and that was to get children to read books for fun, a recent study seems to support this assertion.

We digress somewhat. Feenberg's habit for name dropping those great theorists of Goffman, Lyotard and Derrida makes for heavy work. Terms such as "absorption", "engrossment" and "atomisation" are both unhelpful and a little inaccessible to educationalists or technologists alike, unless they are blessed with a sociological / philosophical mindset.

On the role of the moderator, Feenberg suggests that they should be more like a chairperson within a meeting. In the real world, a skilled moderator would be able to exert a physical presence; much like a conductor would with an orchestra. In the online world, one is not able to exert such a presence. Whilst technologies would give the online moderator the ability to "block" unruly participants - which is a bit like being kicked out of the pub by the landlord - it is hardly conducive towards any meaningful discussions or debates; if anything, it will only serve to make the participants feels isolated and alienated.

If we can imagine for a minute, a parent teaching a child how to ride a bike, then letting go so that the bike is under the child's control; so the moderator's role, therefore, should exhibit a similar approach. Indeed, we would redefine the moderator's role to that of a facilitator. The facilitator would, therefore, steer the participants out of the harbour and allows them to go at their own pace and accord; with the occasional nudge of the compass, the participants are gently brought back on the track and continue to make those connections in a more fruitful and organic way.

References

Feenberg, A., (1989). The written world: On the the theory and practice of computer conferencing. In: Mason, R. & Kaye, A. (eds) Mindweave: communication, computers and distance learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. pp. 22-39.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A. & Jochems, W., (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior. 19, 335-353.

McInnerney, J.M. & Roberts, T.S., (2004). Online Learning Social Interaction and the Creation of a Sense of Community. Educational Technology & Society. 7(3), 73-81.

Crikey! This blog is getting all heavy and doomladen and I haven't even written "Textual Meditations - Volume 2" yet!

I've caught sight of this very funny book called "The Internet Now In Handy Book Form!", which spoofs a number of well-known websites like "Facebook", "Google" and "Apple". There's even hilarious version of popular website genres such as dating and "boys toys" sites.

Take a tour of "Crackbook" today and discover that it "is an addictive social utility that makes you feel that you're connecting with people when actually you're just not".

Ahhh, my kind of website!

The thing that struck me the most about the Feenberg (1989) and Herring (2004) papers was how so out-of-date they were; Herring by a mere three years! It is also indicative of the "instant" and "throw away" culture that we live in.

This rapid (rabid sic) technological obsolescence is an anathema. Things are being built to be broken; a state of alienation (Marx, 1844) is being forged. It was MySpace last year, now it Facebook this year; so what's going to be the "big idea" for next year?

Herring (2004) makes this rather startling prediction:

"Yet I advance this prediction for the next five years: increasing technological integration, combined with assimilation of day-to-day uses and the corresponding need to ensure the trustworthiness of one’s interlocutors, will continue to make the internet a simpler, safer, and – for better or for worse – less fascinating communication environment. If this prediction proves true, CMC researchers would do well to take a step back from the parade of passing technologies and consider more deeply the question of what determines people’s use of mediated communication. In addition to technological determinism, the effects of time, familiarity, and mass popularization would need to be theorized and investigated"

Such a prediction was made well before the so-called Web 2.0 explosion; but the writing was already on the (Facebook) wall. Herring fools herself into thinking that CMC will make a "safer ... communications environment". Whilst most online services have provided tools to help improve privacy and protect your identity, together with the US Government's Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 to protect young or at-risk children from the cluthes of "digital predators". Most individuals are blissfully unaware of the dangers that lurk in the digital recesses of cyberspace; most are ignorant of the implications of disclosing too much information about themselves.

Somewhere in the midst of the flotsam and jetsam of technological obsolescence, we need to be educating people about protecting themselves online and what the reprocussions are if they don't!

References

Feenberg, A., (1989). The written world: On the the theory and practice of computer conferencing. In: Mason, R. & Kaye, A. (eds) Mindweave: communication, computers and distance learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. pp. 22-39. 

Herring, S., (2004). Slouching towards the ordinary: current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society. 6(1), 26-36. 

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts..”

We start this post with a quote from William Shakespeare's play "As You Like It", which conjures up the image of acting a part in front of others. This will become more apparent later on in the post. Week 3 starts off the first "real" readings for the course; principally, Feenberg's (1989) text. It's an interesting, if somewhat archaic, article that occasionally reads like a social science essay with the names of Goffman (a favourite of mine!) and Derrida being bandied around. Feenberg starts off his argument by saying that meeting in our culture are best conducted face-to-face.

"This physical presence is supposed to be the guarantor of authenticity: you can look your interlocutor in the eye and search for tacit signs of truthfulness or falsehood, where context and tone permit a subtler interpretation of the spoken word."

What about those who can't speak and rely on sign language? As Sian Bayne points out during the Skype instant messaging discussion (which, incidently was enormous fun) this evening: signers have a "physical presence". Indeed they do, and whilst sign language is a very expressive language, it cannot delineate the nuances of the spoken word in terms of tone - though this may be achieved by the strength of the expression and sign. Feenberg introduces the notion of "communication anxiety" with a line that particularly resonated with me:

 "Communicating on-line involves a minor but real personal risk, and a response - any response - is generally interpreted as a success while silence means failure."

How many times have I been on MSN Messenger talking to someone, for them to suddenly stop talking for a while, and there's me panicking that I might have said something to upset them? Well, plenty enough thank you! When they do finally get back to me, it turns out their modem has timed out (don't you just love it??) or they have been on the phone to someone (what?? remember me??).

The "cold medium" (Wegerif, 1998) of online communication precipitates what McInnerney and Roberts (2004) describes as "isolation"; without that instant feedback, without that acknowledgement, we feel unnerved and isolated, a bit like walking in thick fog at night.

Fear not, Salmon (2002) offers a solution to this rather thorny isolation problem with her "5 steps" to successfully learning online; and in doing so, building a community of learners who can support each other along the way. Salmon's approach is enormously popular with educators and course developers alike; and is probably the most (and overly) used model in Higher Education today. Not everyone is happy with this model; and with a just a whiff of handbags at dawn; Pam Moule (2007) steps up to the plate to "challenge" Gilly Salmon. Moule claims that Salmon's model "neglects" the variety of e-learning approaches that are available as well as the range of learning theories that are now around. She cites a number of studies that have demonstrated where this model fall down, namely: that it doesn't support a blended approach very well (Chowcat, 2005); it failed to take in the different learning styles (Lisewski & Joyce 2003); dispute over achieveable levels of socialisation (Jones & Peachy, 2005); and so on. The debate continues.

Feenberg comes on to the "management of identity" (identity is an interest of mine) which includes some quotes from Erving Goffman, cue "As You Like It". This is probably the weakest and least coherent argument in Feenberg's essay. As I suggested in the instant messaging chat this evening; Feenberg would have been better off using Goffman's arguments that within Western society an organised group of individuals perform in one of two ways: formal and informal.  When the group is “backstage”, they tend to let their “masks slip”, they are more informal and relaxed towards each other, perhaps using first name, having a joke, or smoking, etc.  But when the group is “on stage”, the masks are put back on, and a more formal and respectful air is adopted towards another group of people. We can take these theatrical metaphors of "backstage" to mean online and for "on stage" to mean offline, i.e. face-to-face.

McInnerney & Roberts (2004) continue this theatrical theme by introducing a "forming stage" which they describe as "a warm up period, designed to assist the formation of a 'sense of community'". During this period, participants would use the informal setting to get to know each others writing styles, online personalities and to learn how to develop a "digital identity" that is unique and recognisable to them.

And so ends "Volume 1" of my week 3 reflections...until next time...well, tomorrow actually!

References

Feenberg, A., (1989). The written world: On the the theory and practice of computer conferencing. In: Mason, R. & Kaye, A. (eds) Mindweave: communication, computers and distance learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. pp. 22-39.

Goffman, E., (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.

Herring, S., (2004). Slouching towards the ordinary: current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society. 6(1), 26-36. 

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A. & Jochems, W., (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior. 19, 335-353.

McInnerney, J.M. & Roberts, T.S., (2004). Online Learning Social Interaction and the Creation of a Sense of Community. Educational Technology & Society. 7(3), 73-81.

Moule, P., (2007). Challenging the five-stage model for e-learning: a new approach. ALT-J: Research in Teaching and Learning. 15(1), 37-50.

Salmon, G., (2002). e-tivities: the key to active online learning. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Wegerif, R., (1998). The Social Dimensions of Asynchronous Learning Environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2(1)

A few years ago, I use to be quite a heavy user of ICQ and MSN Messenger. My online conversations would be peppered with emoticons, iterative punctuation and prominent capitalization. Unbeknown to me, I was using what Garrison & Anderson (2003) called "affective responses" to replace those non-verbal communication and voice intonations that we all rely upon when talking to someone face-to-face.

Irrespective of these "digital expressions", I would occasionally find myself embroiled in a lengthy conversation with someone for them to misunderstand or misinterpret what I was saying. I would then spend the next couple of hours trying to untangle myself from this unholy mess and try to salvage my friendship with that person at the same time. I had deduced that something was clearly going wrong. In my head, what I was writing was perfectly reasonable and made sense; the person at the receiving was somehow not "in tune" to what I was saying. I was tapping away at a tune that someone else didn't recognise; to borrow Kruger's wonderful analogy. Something was clearly at work here. The question was "what?", then I found this article by Winerman (2006):

"The reason for this communication disconnect, the researchers find, is egocentrism–the well-established social psychological phenomenon whereby people have a difficult time detaching themselves from their own perspectives and understanding how other people will interpret them."

It was here that Kruger's research was able to fill in the missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle for me. Quoting from the book: "Send: The Essential Guide to Email for Office and Home", Jenkins (2007) adds a more disturbing relevation:

"On email people aren't quite themselves ... they are angrier, less sympathetic, less aware, more easily wounded, even more gossipy and duplicitous."

This "communication disconnection" has, in some circumstances, led to divorce; unemployment and even imprisonment. So on to week 2's task looking at "the dark side of e-learning" where we were presented with six very different scenarios. Once some of the scenarios were down to some rather poor course design or ineffectual tutor who may not have been comfortable in their "digital skin" or has lacked the necessary understanding to know how to "pilot" a discussion board.

The most common issue is one of misunderstanding and misinterpretation where someone's humour; irony; sarcasm has not been appreciated or realised. The absence of any physical and vocal cues has meant that people have been quick to round up the offending "miscreat" and castigate them for all their worth. The discussions boards have been metaphorically foaming at the mouth this week to the point of information overload on people's thoughts, ideas, arguments and counter-arguments, much to Henry Keil's dismay. We really do have a great bunch of people on board who are going at it with immense gusto. I enjoy reading Tony McNeill's posting, given his rich and diverse background, he always comes up with something erudite and insightful. But it is Ali Press's comment about the "cheeky student" that caught both mine and Tony's eye:

"She says that f2f she’d deal with it by laughing and telling the student to get to the library but online she felt as if the question was out of order. The question is either out of order both virtually and f2f or it isn’t – its nature doesn’t change because of the different communication medium."

It is precisely because the communication medium is different that the behaviour changes. Inside a classroom, the teacher has a "presence". The students are in situ and are within eye and ear contact, so they moderate their behaviour accordingly. Online it is very different; it is glass, plastic. electrons and geography that separates the student from the tutor. In this world, they are bold and brash with their peers - they adopt a more bolder and daring personality and to them, this is quite normal. For the tutor, they have just stepped over the mark. We don't have to make a big deal out of it, we just need to foster some respect and courtesy. We need to understand what our boundaries are. And lastly, we need to think before we send, or as my colleagues like to call it: pussyfooting.

References 

Garrison, D.R., and Anderson, T., (2003). e-Learning in the 21st Century. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Jenkins, S., (2007). I'd rather mingle souls by letter than live a life of regret through email. The Guardian [online]. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2173963,00.html [Accessed 27 September 2007] 

Kruger, J., Epley, N. et al, (2005). Egocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936.

Leahy, S., (2006). The Secret Cause of Flame Wars. Wired [online]. Available at: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179 [Accessed 27 September 2007] 

Winerman, L., (2006). E-mails and Egos. ScienceWatch [online], 37(2).  Available at: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/egos.html [Accessed 27 September 2007]

A thought occured to me whilst reading the Week 2 scenarios over the weekend. Am I being slow on the up-take here or what?

During Week 1, we got to know our fellow virtual class mates by breaking some ice together and turning them into buckets of Pina Coladas and generally gelling very well as a group of online students. In the second week, we are looking at how discussion board activities "go bad" and identifying some of the modus operandi of the culprits who give everyone else a bad and unsatisfying experience.

While I appreciate that the exercise is to look at the scenarios from different perspectives and offer how it could have been done differently or better and how some of the students or groups could have been handled. This thought still niggled away at me. Has the last two weeks been aimed at trying to make us better digizens and to be respectful to eachother whilst operating in cyberspace? Is this an intended or unintended outcome of the programme leaders?

Answers on a postcard to...