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...

I've done my tasks for week 1. I'm making my blog entries frequent-ish. I've read scores of discussion boards entries and posted some stuff up myself and I am talking to some of my virtual class mates. All in all, so far, so good. Though, the special Facebook group doesn't seem to be exploding in a buzz of activity like the discussion boards are. Is this because they are too open? Therefore they feel a little too exposed? Or are people genuinely beavering away at their blog and discussion board postings to want to worry about it just yet. Hmmm, time will tell.

I am massively impressed at how the WebCT course has been carefully and painstaking laid out and structured to facilitate the range of teaching and learning aids, so much so that my jaw dropped. Masses of reading materials to pick and choose from, opportunities to discuss, debate and critique these subjects, topics and themes using the forums and e-mail.

As Ali G. would say: Respect!

We have to teach lecturers how to use the basic fundamentals of being a Blackboard instructor - what we don't cover in that session is how to plan and construct a Blackboard course to enhance teaching and learning. My colleagues feel this is a little too "advanced" for them and that it should be covered in further staff development sessions should they feel they need it.

As a web developer, I am deeply conscious at how the usability / design of a site will impact upon the user experience of it. Developing an online element to your course that supports your face-to-face sessions should start with planning it out on paper as to how it should be structured that best suits the nuances of the course and how best to maximise the students engagement with it. Whilst many use Blackboard as a links farm; document repository; noticeboard; sending bulk e-mail or all of the above - none of these activities actually involves any real learning; it only makes some elements of the course easier to administer as well as downsizing on their carbon footprint, i.e. spiralling photocopying costs.

The art of learning, therefore, comes with the communication; collaboration and assessment tools - this is the element that is so much more alive and buzzing on this course. Yes, necessity dictates it; and yes, we have all chosen to be here - studying at a distance - in the first place. But, you can almost feel how tangible (don't tell Dreyfus that I said that, will you?) the sense of community is within this course in the first few days of it running. I have a really good feeling about this and am looking forward to when the course starts to really kick off next week with the online discussions and debates - we'll then see who are the lurkers; the flamers and the saboteurs.

I wonder which one am I? Can you tell yet? ;-)

I started using Second Life (SL) about 8 months when I first saw Gilly Salmon demonstrate it (via a series of PowerPoint slides in her keynote speech) to a bemused audience at the Learning Futures Conference 2007 which was held at the University of Leicester. Gilly was offering it up as a possible virtual learning space; and like everyone else who was exploring SL for its' potential for teaching and learning - the jury was still out.

My rather basic knowledge of SL, at the time, amounted to the fact that people were, apparently, making a lot of money out of it and there were a number of news stories concerning some rather seedy and sordid going ons. I've never been a great one for computer games, favouring board games and role-playing games like "Call of Cthulhu", so it never really registered on my radar.

However, Gilly Salmon's enthusiasm for her subject is highly contagious - so much so that it should come with a Government Health Warning - and as a result I created myself a Second Life account and Wray Bourne was born. The basic avatar mechanics of moving, flying and teleporting I had got the hang of quite quickly. I even bought Wray some new clothes. In many ways, Wray was created to represent my ideal self (Bessiere, Fleming Seay & Kiesler, 2007), largely inspired by my love for all things gothic and, in part, by the characters that have appeared in Anne Rice's novels.

I wasn't really much interested in the shops and night clubs that permeated this rich and beguiling metaverse; and by the time I got online to visit those "islands" of education and learning, there was hardly anyone to talk to about their experiences. But last night (19-09-07), I got to talk to some of my classmates around the campfire which was utterly brilliant whilst sipping some virtual champagne (I much prefer the First Life version tank you!). I am so looking forward to those sessions taking place in Second Life and exploring those potential teaching and learning opportunities that could come from that experience.

Whilst I accept that SL isn't, strictly speaking, a computer game; it is a world full of addictive possibilities in the form of avatar relationships; making money; building objects and magnificient virtual architectures and ecosystems (the detail that has gone into designing and coding of the ducks and the fish in Holyrood Park is pure poetry in animation); gambling and avatar sex. My use of the word "addictive" is a cautionary concern for people losing a grip on their "First Life" identities. Dreyfus (2001) and Turkle (1997) have had plenty to say about digital identities and how malleable they can be.

It's not only the educationalists getting excited by the opportunities that can be afforded by SL, but the sociologists, psychologists and the tax man are getting very excited by it to!

Whilst SL is rather computer resource and bandwidth heavy, I do note that MetaPlace is going to release some free tools that will allow everyone to create their own virtual world and, so they say, it requires no programming expertise whatsoever. So runs the news item:

"In contrast, Metaplace is entirely web based and connections can be made between all of the different worlds.

'We modelled this on the web,' said Mr Koster. 'You can think about each world being a webpage and every object within in it is a link.'

Users can create the worlds using different methods.

People with no programming background can use the graphical interface and choose worlds from a number of templates, such as a shop or a puzzle game.

They can also clone worlds developed by other Metaplace users.

More competent visitors to the site can build a world from scratch using the tool's own programming language known as metamarkup.

The language is 'platform agnostic', according to Mr Koster, which means that it can be used to create worlds which can run on anything from a powerful PC to a mobile handset."

I can't wait...

References

Fildes, J., (2007), Virtual worlds opened up to all [online]. London: BBC. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6193462.stm [Accessed 20 September 2007]  

BBC News, (2006), Online gamers addicted says study [online]. London: BBC. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6193462.stm [Accessed 20 September 2007]

Bessiere, K., Fleming Seay, A. & Kiesler, S., (2007). The Ideal Elf: Identity Exploration in World of Warcraft. CyberPsychology & Behavior [online], 10(4).  Available at: http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2007.9994 [Accessed 20 September 2007]

Dreyfus, H.L., (2001). On the Internet. London: Routledge

Turkle, S., (1997). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. London: Phoenix

One of my favourite "educational" videos at the moment comes from Common Craft who make these wonderful lo-tech videos involving paper, pen and a little DIY animation which is quite reminiscent of "Vision On", the old BBC children's programme from the 60's and 70's that featured Tony Hart.

So pull a chair up and watch how they explain the concept of social networking in plain english.

As you can see, I have discovered how to embed YouTube videos into an EduSpaces blog. To do this, use the following syntax:

video:url

Where "url" is the URL of the video you want to show, so in the above example it's: http://www.youtube.com/v/6a_KF7TYKVc

Note: You then must enclose the "video:url" statement within the opening and closing double curly brackets, so it reads:

Have fun and enjoy.

References

Elgg User Support / Experiences Forum [online]. Available at: http://elgg.org/mod/forum/forum.php?weblog=users [Accessed 18 September 2007]

Using Elgg - Elgg Documentation [online]. Available at: http://elgg.org/mod/mediawiki/wiki/index.php/Using_Elgg [Accessed 18 September 2007]