To all the Second Life educator-users, especially those interested in language teaching. Visit one of the most exciting in-world conferences! More info at the Second Life Languages 2011. Looking forward to meeting you there!

The ownership issue is a very complex one, depending on individual circumstances. It is probably easiest to assume that, since a given piece of work has been created by me solely, I myself should be its rightful owner. Period. Why, therefore, Intellectual Property studies thrive across universities? Clearly, there is more to that than just the above logic.

My opinion

My personal belief is that ownership rights of the content of PLEs and any work created during the study period should belong to the author him/herself. Such work, after all, is most frequently a result of unslept nights and hours spent in libraries/in front of a computer, desk, etc. To my astonishment, that was not the case with my former Polish alma mater, where the ownership to all my assignments, including a 20,000-word thesis belonged to the university.

Why is it so important?

That is a debatable matter. Mainly, because people are afraid that someone else is going to steal, copy or use the result of our effort, subsequently providing him/her with money, fame, recognition, success we would have gained otherwise. Petty reasons, all in all, but they can also be self-contentment with achievement or willingness to help others.

Who, if not us?

In learning environments the ownership of intellectual property may belong to the author, as well as a fellow student while collaborating, the supervisor, and research staff.

How is it determined?

A number of factors may intervene, namely: the given country’s law, the school’s policies, the external platform’s regulations, and principles of the given discipline.

Implications

The very fact that we know some external body is the rightful owner of our work may have a very adverse effect on our work. Simply out of fear of being intellectually robbed the quality of our performance may suffer greatly. We will simply not be willing to fully engage in the production process, knowing that we will not be adequately praised for our hard work. The content of the work is also likely to be less personal.

 

Many more details regarding this interesting topic can be found below:

 

• http://www.cags.ca/media/docs/cags-publication/Guide_Intellectual_Property.pdf
• http://blogs.msdn.com/b/alfredth/archive/2010/09/03/students-and-intellectual-property-rights.aspx

The article opposes the statement that the technology should follow the learning and teaching objectives.

 

The main argument of the text is that cyberspace allows for a different from traditional structure. The tree-shaped organisation of traditional knowledge (from biology to linguistics) allows for one way of learning – following an ordered sequence of what elements of knowledge are to be learnt one after another. The tree stems from a root, from which we can proceed via branches to growths. This leaves a learner with a duly pre-arranged sequence of learning, with little space for individual experimenting, moving to certain parts of knowledge more interesting to the particular learner.

According to Cousin, cyberspace compares well to the structure of rhizome. With all elements connected to any other ones, all parts of a given knowledge can be accessed at any given time, adjusting the learning sequence to one’s personal interests and requirements.  Learning becomes custom-made, bespoke, personal, thus interesting and engaging. That seems to be advantageous for the learners, since the pace, difficulty level, and personal interest are factors that can greatly affect one’s learning progress.

There are certain drawbacks of such personalised online learning, however. Those mentioned by Cousin include e.g. high negotiability and reliability of learning sources and available materials. With near-endless resources the obvious problem is where to start reading. Sieving the right from the wrong creates learners who engage in the never-ending search for information, merely ‘surfing’ on the surface of knowledge, rather than reaching deep into it and acquiring it.

Moreover, the power of the internet lies in its social structure, in the WEB 2.0 participatory creation, interoperability, and cooperation. High individualism focuses excessively on taking and using rather than collaborating in creation, thus reducing the role of social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies, all such useful in the cyberspace learning.

Such ‘cherry-picking’ learning style, characteristic of the Net-Generation, may highly diminish the role of an in-depth research, too. Students may be satisfied with snaps of information that may be available quickly, with little critical thinking.

All this does not change the fact that the contemporary learning style is and will continue to change as the technology available constantly develops. I do agree with Cousin on that technologies are not instruments of our identities, they are its constitutive elements which not merely influence but change our social practises and the way new generations learn. According to Cousin, “technologies work dynamically with pedagogics, not for them. The moment a new device of communication is invented it changes our way of thinking, recreates our minds, creates new opportunities for thought.”

Undoubtedly, more large-scale research is needed to ascertain to what extent the personalisation of online learning is best to be allowed. We are facing a paradigm shift in the conception of the role of technology in pedagogy and we would better be thoroughly prepared for its arrival.

My stance with respect to Second Life reality is that of extending and freely recreating myself. I opt to shape my virtual self, overcoming the limitations of my real self imposed on me by the circumstances I am in (me being in a particular place in the world, constrained by the laws of nature, subject to weather and health matters). I like to think of Peter Nitely as an improved me. Yet, at first I inadvertently chose my avatar to be as similar to me as possible, thus selecting the gender options for ‘male’, in late 20’s, blonde, white, skinny, dressing quite casually. I even tried to match his name as closely as possible to mine.

My interactions with other SL users won’t differ much from my real life interactions, where I wouldn’t try to bother strangers with conversations, or wouldn’t act foolishly, even though I am fully aware of still being completely anonymous in SL. In fact I have yet to explore the SL’s social use.

I am very glad with our group Second Life session and the first striking feature I noticed was the observance of the “social proxemics”, characterised by us walking in an organised manner to an agreed area, apologising each other when stumbling on or pushing somebody, sitting down and facing each other while talking, etc. All these came very naturally to each one of us; we submerged into our virtual identities as students quite easily. But what if the task was more difficult than just taking part in a discussion? What if new skills and new knowledge were to be gained?

 

Answers to this question are provided quite extensively by Gee. According to him if children cannot make associations between their real-world identities (who they are, what values they represent) and their virtual identities (who they can become), the learning process will fail. In fact, according to Gee, helping to form such associations is what teacher’s role should be about. With the right assistance from the teacher, students will make the right associations between the available identities, thus moving from the real identity (as represented by “That’s what I think), to virtual identity (as represented by “That’s what I would think if I was a…”). The final step being the student’s realisation of their projective identity could be represented by “That’s what I’ll think right here and now, being this type of person”.

Possibly a good and simple explanation of Gee’s ideas is mentioning passive versus active -or critical- learning. Learning things without being able to refer them to one’s own goals or to own context, has much smaller chances of being remembered and mastered by a student than learning critically, knowing what the particular knowledge and skill will help one with. Gee’s video game example, accompanied by succinctly explained learning principles is a must read for any ambitious educator.

I was genuinely encouraged to continue reading by a statement right at the beginning of Boellstorff’s article, whereby all virtual world users are engaged in a role play throughout all of their online time. I particularly agree with one user quoted in the text who said that people – no matter if deliberately role-playing or not – “tend to suppress certain aspects of their personality and accentuate others”. In other words, people would rather keep their flaws (e.g. of looks or character) their own secret, thus gaining more self-confidence in their contacts with each other.

The most interesting part of Boellstorff’s study of SL was his deliberation on gender, transgenderism, gender-switching and cross-dressing. There seems to be a strong link between user’s choice of his/her avatar’s gender (and clothes he/she is wearing in SL) and the user’s behaviour or attitude. Apparently, a common practice these days is to have two avatars simultaneously, each one of different gender. This means to allow us to experience, not only observe, what it feels to be the opposite gender. Among other reasons of virtual gender swaps the author mentions: ‘reflecting upon one’s gender’ or simply willingness to be left alone (usually for a woman to be left alone by men). I truly believe that still there might be other underlying reasons for such gender swaps, which could possibly form a solid base for a psychoanalytical discussion. I will gladly attempt to have one with my friend, an expert in Freud, when the nearest opportunity arises. I also find it striking how stubbornly the users may protect their actual RL [real life] gender from being revealed, treating such cases as breaches of their cherished and valued privacy.

 

A completely different, yet equally interesting, aspect of virtual worlds is being discussed in another article of this week’s reading list, the text on the Daedalus Project. The topic under scrutiny, among others, is the 3-D graphics available in some virtual worlds, including Second Life.

I had always thought of the 3-D graphics as an element that helps to immerse in the virtual reality, to feel that by trying to copy the world around us I will engage in the virtual world to the full extent. It seems to work perfectly well in games. Naturally, then, it should work for all other platforms, too. And yet, I had never realised that the underlying function of copying real world laws to a virtual world is to limit us and slow us down in achieving our game goals. Therefore, using it in education or business, for instance, may not be of much help after all, other than that of an extra feature (such as e.g. more light in a room).

It works well in Second Life and other MUVEs, I thought. And yet what is the point of changing clothes, observing the ‘social proxemics’, and sitting in chairs in the world where we do not get cold, can not push or touch each other or get tired of standing.

 

The Daedalus Project text did make me realise, however, that the 3-D may in fact be there for other reasons. It seems to form a ‘familiar metaphor for interaction,’ where simplest conversations can go by as comments on the weather, somebody’s looks or clothes, presence in a virtual place of common interest. The 3-D virtual reality is a ground for a conversation in itself, just like the real world is.

 

Isn't there too much focus on the form over the content in this video, then? (couldn't add as an ext. vid.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD2JseYe-Rk&feature=related

Levy in his  introduction to the 2007special issue of Ethics and Information Technology entitled ‘Information, Silence and Sanctuary’ raised a few crucial questions:

• What do we mean by silence?
• Why and to what extent do we need it?
• To what extent do we need a sanctuary in, or from, cyberspace, and how might we achieve this?

 

in the sanctuary

 

mutely cheering itself on

the self performs a striptease

and gets pregnant with ideas

 

In the context of learning, creating materials, writing assignments and alike, silence for me often involves an act of courage as this is the moment when I am left on my own with the blank screen or page of paper and my thoughts (and sometimes there aren’t any) and there is no escape from not-thinking. I switch on my internal ears and eyes to listen and watch attentively for SOMETHING. Sometimes the Something stirs in my mind straight away, sometimes I need to wait. But when it comes, it engages me deeply, draws me in so much that it keeps me awake, seeps into my dreams and keeps simmering at the back of my mind even when going through the motions of the day. It leaves me exhausted but empowered.

****

This blog has provided me with a number of moments like the one above (something I could add to my arguments against Dreyfus' crticism of distance learning). When I first started, I thought it would be a journey from A to B, through a fairly familiar landscape of e-learning. It turned out to be a wander, by no means an aimless wander! I have gone to familiar quarters only to discover unknown cul-de-sacs, sometimes real gems. This makes me want more so I’d like to carry on – Again my life motto proves right perambulation stimulates the imagination (William Boyd)!

I thought of writing a summary at this point of the blog, just minutes before submission, but I’ve given up on this idea. Instead I’d like to share a personal impression. While doing the course, I often struck me how I go in circles around ideas, coming closer, picking up a detail, going away and coming back to understand better. Sometimes it felt I was unknowingly jumping ahead – I migrated to the wiki to discover weeks 8 and 9 were all wiki-based (I wasn’t checking the course schedule in advance), I mentioned Community of Inquiry on my wiki and later we read the whole chapter on it from Garrison's book on e-learning. It baffled me – this penetration of ideas and thoughts, strange hunches. It felt a bit magical at times, uncanny, to use my favourite now word. Another one is rhizome and now time for my little story:

My first posting compared blogging to growing a flower. I didn’t know at that moment that it would be an orchid (which often develops rhizomatic systems and which Deleuze and Guattari refer to in their work 'A Thousand Plateaus' mentioned both in Bayne’s and Cousin’s papers). Now this is a very strange orchid because here on the blog and the wiki I was tending to its tubers and rhizomes but the pretty petals were already formed a year earlier – it’s like growing a plant backwards! Strangely enough, I put a little video together in February 2010 – embedded below – which, could it be an uncanny coincidence?, somehow subsumes my learning here?

The video shows various pictures of orchids from Glasgow Botanic Gardens mashed up with an audio consisting of layers of narration which penetrate each other, merge and diverge, creating a strange-sounding song (uncanny blurring of boundaries, penetration of the striated and the smooth, the dynamic relationship between the techs and pedagogy, all being the landmarks of my e-learning). The narration is in Polish but basically it’s a short fragment from Wikipedia (a mother of all hyper-texts, wikis being another area I saw in a different light) about classification of orchids. And I remember moments of concentrated contemplation and creativity when working on the audio, moments of silence and sanctuary!

 

 

Thank you!

The final set of course texts (Levy 2007a, Levy 2007b and Land 2006) explicating the need for silence and sanctuary in one’s life (my first prezi summarising the key ideas) has provided a lot of food for thought and, what is interesting, that provision turned out to be very well-timed.

First, after the frenetic ten weeks of an intense course, it brought a perfect closure, tying up all the dangling loose ends and allowing one to distance oneself from the experience by encouraging to take ‘time off’ in order to reflect on the ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ of e-learning (and learning in general), digital literacies and presence. For me, the texts had a particularly soothing effect on how I perceive my participation in the course and in online spaces. As documented here on the blog, I have focused solely on my individual learning process, without trying much to engage with others, which I had very mixed feelings about, ranging from anxiety and guilt through occasional indifference to enjoyment I derived from being undistracted and independent . Although I’ve perhaps taken my solitary habits too far, the texts have helped me understand that one does not always have to be in the centre of things, that sometimes it’s good to take a step aside, that solitude is justifiable and beneficial as it might provide time for reflection, deep thinking and thus unleash creativity. I think, without sounding too pompous, I can confirm that within the limits of my mental faculties, I have experienced little epiphanies and sparks of ‘divine inspiration’ while engaging with the course content, leading to a deeper understanding of the discussed phenomena. I’m especially thankful for the fact that I could learn about threshold concepts and liminal spaces, something that Land (2006) links to in his paper about dromology. I’ve got a feeling that the elements of that massive jigsaw puzzle I faced back in January are starting to fall into places – it’s rewarding to discover their interrelatedness, a telling sign of deeper thinking (?) With all respect to my colleagues and tutors as I am sure that the discussion forums are teeming with great ideas and links to excellent resources, sometimes I think I haven’t lost much. I might have less but sometimes ‘less’ is better. Maybe by sticking to my own comfort zone, I have prevented myself from getting bogged down in making sense of frenetic buzziness of discussion forums and let myself hear my own voice speaking!

At the same time, I have noticed a slowly emerging trend on the ELT blogs – a couple of renowned practitioners wrote about the increasing dilution of high-context relationships in their professional lives  due to the profusion of cybercommunications with a number of ‘followers’ and other ‘friends’ on social networking sites and expressed a strong longing for fewer but deeper interactions. One ‘guru’ has questioned the value of personal social networks, taking it so seriously that he decided to commit twittercide and deactivated his account. Although it is generally considered a great loss among ELT community members, I can understand his reasons, even more now when I have read about the need for silence and sanctuary. Strangely enough, he is the same person I mentioned in the previous posting about the uncanny education (toward the end in the post scriptum) on the occasion of discussing two approaches in m-learning. The apps approach could be likened to the routinised ‘ratio’ thinking stipulated by (Levi 2007b). There is nothing bad about such quizzes and alike because they let language learners familiarise themselves with vocabulary and grammar chunks probably quite effectively but other approaches are needed too which will allow them to use the language creatively and expressively. And as you have aptly summarised it, Clara, we should be  speakers of thoughts, not mimics of noise!

What really struck me in Levy’s paper is the origin of the word ‘school’ – it derives from ‘leisure’ (2007b: 247), which itself has a very interesting etymology in Greek philosophy! I found these two facts very revealing. And since universities - but I think this applies to other educational institutions too - are regarded as our culture’s think tanks, on the one hand, and ‘descendants of Plato’s academic’, on the other hand, contemplation and reflection should be placed in the foreground (Levy, 2007b:247). Land (2006:6) argues that these could facilitate better integration and thus transformative learning, in the process of which threshold concepts can be acquired, threshold concepts being important gateways providing insights into links between and within theories. The necessary processes of analysis and synthesis often resulting in problem formulation and solution as well as fostering creativity and criticality in more general terms can be instigated and managed in slow motion of liminal spaces more effectively than in ‘concertina-like time compression’. Since life seems to have accelerated rapidly in recent years and so creativity is likely to be obstructed, Levy (2007b: 248) claims that unfortunately education often pursues these societal trends and focuses on preparing ‘efficient multi-taskers in a world of total work’ (247). This can be seen in business-like obsession with outcomes and objectives (CEFR), summative assessment being the driving force of teaching and learning (high-stakes English preparation courses I teach on) and students’ attitudes – interestingly enough two weeks ago in a class of 16 Chinese pre-masters students, to my question why they decided to do a uni course, 5 admitted it should increase their future job prospects, 4 wanted to get a degree (their hope being that a good job would follow), which shows their strategic and business-like thinking. Of course, it can be questioned whether such strategic approaches are a result or a reason for the education to often so oriented towards outcomes. Just to finish the digression on a more positive note, two of my students admitted honestly that they want to do it for the sake of life experience, which is a ray of hope! Land (2006) introduces an interesting concept of ‘virtual stacking’ in which ‘every vacant spot is filled’, debilitating our higher thinking skills of spotting intra- and interdisciplinary relations. Our knowledge becomes fragmented into bitesizes of often meaningless noise. Digesting so cooked ‘knowledge’ presents a challenge in terms of time. Suffering from its permanent shortage, we fall victim to Eriksen’s temporal principle which says that within unchanged time limits, attention span decreases as the amount of information grows. A vicious circle is thus created. Slowing down to contemplate paradoxically seems to be a solution for businesses, universities, organisations and individuals (Levi, 2007 and Loy, 2007).

What is alarming about the situation is that digital technologies often get blamed for such a state of affairs. As clarified in my prezi presentation, it’s not the Internet itself. Time compression seems to be strangely pre-programmed in the history of the human kind, particularly the contemporary one. Land (2006:7) points out how digital education often gets limited to stacking (within VLEs?) instead of being used for internal integration. This is probably due to reasons Cousin mentions in her 2005 paper, e.g. the toolbox view of technology. Instead, as Garrison and Anderson (2003:122) suggest, e-learning represents a new ‘learning ecology’, which for has a strong flavour of wetlands from the prezi. These and other smooth spaces might help us reconceptualise teaching and learning by establishing integrative practices (e.g. Landow’s hypertext, Ulmer’s electracy) and contemplative practices whereby individuals might focus ‘within and beyond the human’ (Braman, 2007; see also your comment on the uncanny).

 

An assortment of notes with what others said and what I said, albeit in my mind, during the video chat. The topic was information, silence and sanctuary.

It would have been so nice if I had managed to break my silence habit in that chat but I didn't. Should I look at that in terms of failure? Should I look for excuses like potentially malfunctioning microphone (I wasn't sure if it was working properly - there seemed to be a lot of background noise) - I could have asked for assistance, I could have used the text chat. It's tiring to think of what I could have done and equally tiring to promise myself what I will do next time. I felt much calmer though as I could smile and show I was listening, something I wasn't able to convey in the previous real-time sessions. Nevertheless I could not relate to what people were saying about contributing to the discussion boards, connecting with others on a more personal level, or the possibility to lurk in audio chats but not a video chat (ha! I managed that!). I think the issue has somehow exhausted itself. I've probably overanalysed it and not much has come out of it, at least not in practical terms. 

Would I qualify to be described as one of the stories from the dark side of e-learning discussed in the first week of the module (some of them commented here - what lofty and idealised opinions I had then!)?

Anyway, it was nice seeing people - both tutors and other students and hear their voices. First, I thought that this sort of contact was introduced too late. Perhaps it would have been easier to relate to people seeing them face-to-face instead of being freaked out by the little pencils writing away at a maddening pace in the first skype chat. However, I can see why it has been structured this way. The gradual introduction of identity (from words only via graphics and audio to video: text > text plus visual avie > audio plus visual avie > audio, video, real person) makes perfect sense to me, especially when you think of how the content was introduced in a sort of reverse order from more hectic hectic, group oriented activities like virtual worlds and wikis to calming down, reflecting on the need to pace yourself, the importance of silence, withdrawal. Nice closure!

It was interesting how you averted your eyes and doodled to concentrate better on what was being said, how Rory was gesticulating, shifting in the chair, moving away from the screen and then closer to it, Jacki sitting so straight, Chantelle looking to sides to glance at the papers, or maybe gather her thoughts. I found it interesting how I was switching from one looking mode (looking at me, especially when I was scratching my nose;), looking at another person (which could have looked like I am looking away - but that was a kind of eye contact I was trying to maintain) and looking at the camera so that others could see my eyes - I think Dreyfus is trying to explain this paradox that it's never possible to replicate the eye contact you have face-to-face.

The first reading or rather skimming of Dreyfus' text raised quite a lot of interest in me. I quite liked his scepticism and I thought 'Great, finally there is one person who is not raving about online learning!' and got down to reread the text more carefully, wanting to hear some refreshing arguments which would stir me to think more carefully of why I personally like online learning.

 

However, each time I reread the text, my head got hotter and I produced this series of responses (click on the image):

 

 

 

A series of shorter or longer postings dealing with digital natives fallacy can be found in the Prenskyan Polemics section of my IDEL11 wiki.

The postings are organised in the following way:

1. Digitial natives and immigrants - my take on terminology introduced by Marc Prensky 

2. Is there really a divide? - related issues and questions

• What seems to be a pervasive attitude among young people toward innovative technology?
• Does young people's increased use of technology equal their full literacy in using the innovations, including educational and professional settings?
• What is their actual attitude to the use of technology in education?
• Is introducing the terminology of the digital divide and digital natives actually fair to young people?
• Are the digital immigrants really behind in the use of innovative technologies?

3. Summary

4. Clippings