My own internet of things
Bloggers’ Rules | Harold Jarche
In reading these rules (which are Dave Pollard’s rules), it seems increasingly obvious to me that as blogs become more “mainstream” as a way of publishing, we really don’t need to distinguish between blog readers /writers and readers and writers of content published in other formats.
As per one of the comments, bloggers are discovering basic journalistic rules and the trick is to produce good content on a consistent basis …
Blackboard Unveils Blackboard Beyond Initiative: Financial News – Yahoo!
Finance
Stephen Downes is very optimistic in his OLDaily comments
“… And maybe the 2.0 thing is buzzword bingo. On the other hand, though, maybe the right push at this point of time will see the words result in product. And that would be a good thing. I think we can do a lot of good if we try to help and nudge Blackboard in the right direction, and that includes nodding positively when they say the right things. “
James Farmer is much less impressed and I tend to be on his side in this instance.
I see Blackboard’s “initiative” as a blatant and deliberate continuation of a specific marketing strategy, already seen to good effect with the Blackboard Content System. The perceived need for content management of LMS content is high on the agenda at many academic institutions. So Blackboard puts out a product called a Content System to supplement their Learning System. It sounds like it is a tailored solution to the problem, so it easy to convince institution management to buy on name alone without too much examination of specific functionality. The Content System and Learning System are obviously integrated if they come from the same company, aren’t they? Once a “solution” has been purchased, institutions are very reluctant to change. Blackboard deliberately brought to market an immature content system to ensure that they were “in the space” early with a “solution” – they figured that by the time institutions noticed the staggering degree of immaturity of the product, they would have had the time to backfill the system and make it work.
The more recent buzzwords in eLearning are things like: Community of Practice, Networked Learning Environments, Social Networks, Collaboration. Institution managers will be hearing these terms and how their institutions need to adapt to the learning needs of “digital natives” entering our universities … and Blackboard is talking the talk and sounding like they have the solutions already to go. They are the leading eLearning vendor, and they are right up there with the latest stuff.
Of course, a cursory examination of the underlying course-based architecture of the Blackboard Learning System would make one wonder exactly how Blackboard will be able to graft the community-of-practice and social-network concepts of learning onto an architecture designed specifically to restrict access to courses based on enrolment, to allow guest and observer access to resources but not interactive tools, and to deny all that is not expressly permitted (rather than restrict only where necessary).
I suspect that it will be enough for most institutional administrators that Blackboard executives can talk the community / collaborative talk with great earnestness and enthusiasm, and have tools with plausibly community-minded collaborative names, without actually needing to transform their products to allow the full eLearning 2.0 experience (whatever that really means … something to do with student-centered learning, learners creating content, online communities etc … blogs, wikis, aggregation, personal identity, etc – basically using internet technology to support social networs of learning). In fact, I can’t really see why you would ever need an LMS for eLearning 2.0.
And as for the marketing power of product names: insofar as the Blackboard Content System was an example of marketing genius (allowing the name to imply functionality that is glaringly absent), by the same token, the Blackboard Portal System was a marketing disaster – many institutions already had plans for portals, so despite the fact that Blackboard Portal provided significant extra functionality specific to Blackboard, it was often overlooked for purchase. It has since been renamed the Blackboard Community System, which is much more desirable, despite the same functionality …
(first posted to lwise.edublogs.org)
There has been a long break in writing to this blog – but mostly because I have been too busy “doing” to be writing …
The most exciting thing in my taekwon-do life is the fact that USMA (my school) now has its own Headquarters, a full-time dojang in Clayton.
It is a fantastic venue, and it was a privilege to help with building it. And with a full-time dojang to enjoy, it might be a while before I find time to write too much more in my blog !!
What is the etiquette for “blogging” into the past – ie posting reactions and commentary written in longhand at a particular point in time, then posted to a blog a long time after the event? I am about to start transcribing a set of opinion pieces that have taken form in a notebook and are journal-like in nature (ie they are dated entries around topics-of-the day).
When I blog these things (as in put them into blogging software) is the date of publishing when the piece was first written (on paper) or when it was transcribed into the ether? How does one handle the temporal mismatch? If my blog is a representation of the evolution of my own individual opinions, then date of publishing should reflect the date of writing. But if my blog is a representation of my place in the conversational space of the blogosphere, then the date of publishing should be the date of entry to said blogosphere.
And if I blog to this site, should I refer to or copy this article to my other sites …? Am I self-plagiarising? Or does my writing become a different piece if it is embedded in a different context? What is semiotic implication of where I post something?
These and other questions have bubbled to the surface via a talk at UniMelb by James Farmer …
(first posted on my yabber edublogs blog)
In order to understand appropriate use of technology in teaching, we need to understand which aspects of our curriculum are critical for which aspects of our future learning. For example, if general hand / eye coordination is transferable across tasks, do we need to agonise over detailed task-specific simulations for each task we want to learn? And if hand / eye coordination is transferable, do we need a few authentic, high fidelity simulations, or a broader range of generic simulations.
Let’s take a specific example of a visuo-motor task simulation using stereoscopic 3D vision and haptic (active touch) feedback from a hand-held probe. If haptic feedback is only helpful with the level of fidelity provided by a stereoscopic visual display, this implies that it is critical for the visuo-haptic feedback to be ecologically valid and temporally faithful, and for the task model to be authentic. If ecological validity and authenticity are not critical, the question must be asked as to which specific aspects of the simulation are important (rather than just “cool”)?
If active exploration of visuo-haptic-motor space versus passive presentation of sensory information is critical, then would it be enough to provide a 2D visual display and allow active exploration through joystick control? Does it depend on whether you are learning how to perform the specific task (where differential haptic feedback might be important) versus learning how to conceptualise the specific task (where joystick-controlled exploration might be enough)? Does the “analogue” continuous control provided by the joystick teach something different from the digital discrete-step control provided by keyboard controls? Would haptic feedback through specific sequences of pre-determined tasks (selected for cue salience) provide better learning outcomes than free exploration of the model space (which may not result in the student exposing themselves to relevant comparisons from which they can extract salient task cues)?
Research into haptic feedback is a perfectly reasonable undertaking, but is there enough evidence to suggest that one should invest in 3D VR models and haptic probes for real training and education situations? Not only does the haptic feedback need to have a demonstratable impact on learning outcomes, but the learning outcomes must be critical to the goals of teaching and financially supportable compared with other teaching strategies. For high fidelity visuo-haptic simulations to be financially viable, new task models would need to be able to be developed more cheaply and quickly than the active life of the simulation hardware, the haptic feedback itself would need to have made a significant contribution to the specific task learning outcomes, and the learning outcomes would have to be achieved more cheaply than by other available methods.
How do you test the learning outcomes? Is it in terms of specific skill acquisition? Should task-specific training also be generalisable to other similar tasks? In order to address these questions, there needs to be some theoretical understanding of the nature of the task and a clear articulation of task-critical features. Some differential learning situations (in presumed order of ecological validity) to think about for example in a surgical scenario are:
1) training on cadavers / animal models
2) training on 3D models with haptic feedback
3) training on 2D models with interactive exploration (joystick / keyboard control)
4) “yoked control” observation of surgery (real and simulated)
In considering differential learning outcomes, what framework of learning do we assume? Do we have measures which can provide critical data to distinguish between hypotheses? What would we consider to be evidence for improved outcomes between, for example, task 2 and task 3? Is task 1 the appropriate control condition, is it a test condition, and / or is actual surgical performance the only valid “test” of learning? Without a strong model for how haptic feedback enhances skill acquisition, it is difficult to provide a strong justification for the significant financial outlay in introducing VR + haptic feedback training solutions.
How do the issues raised for this specific simulation example pan out for other teaching paradigms? I contend that we need to be able to identify specific teaching and / or learning objectives and to take a position about how our practice brings about the achievement of those objectives. This necessarily entails a conceptualisation of what occurs during teaching and learning. It also requires some position on short-term versus long-term learning, specific skills versus task-specific knowledge versus discipline-area knowledge, and the metacognitive processing around these things.
Do we take a position that declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge are acquired differently? If so, what primary learning outcomes are desired – skill based or discipline based? How do we conceptualise the relationship between theoretical knowledge and practical skills deriving from that technical knowledge? I contend that without taking a position on these questions, we cannot make informed decisions about educational design. Furthermore, for practical skills, we can break down requirements with respect to domain knowledge about a domain versus metaknowledge and insight around aquiring domain-specific practical skills. Does evidence from the perceptual-motor learning area suggest different approaches to teaching dependent on the requirement for repetitive accuracy of well-defined motor skills in a well-defined environment, versus creative perceptuomotor response and adaptability for a defined outcome in a changeable environment? Do we need to incorporate redundancy in simulations to ensure exposure to multiple cues to increase the potential for adaptability in changeable environments or are we aiming to extract the essential, minimal cue set to perform a task to become extremely efficient? What are the implications for robustness, pattern recognition (synthesis / generalisation …) and rule extraction (analysis / abstraction …) of different forms of simulations?
(now also posted on my OLU blog)
I have become increasingly frustrated with the literature on educational technology and online learning, in part because so often the connection between theory and practice in applied / action research seems to be entirely absent. I am not quite satisfied with research which claims to be situated within a “framework” rather than to be testing any specific hypothesis deriving from a theory or theoretical perspective. In research on how we use technology to enhance learning, I believe we need to have a plausible model of learning, a plausible model of teaching, and a clear articulation of the desired outcomes from our teaching practice. I would actually go further, and question whether we should be focussing more on teaching than learning, since it is the teaching side of the equation that we engage in, and over which we have some level of control. It does not seem appropriate especially in a university, to answer basic questions about the nature of teaching and learning with motherhood statements about “student-centered learning” and terminology which seems to derive more from political correctness than scholarly investigation.
The choice of whether we focus on teaching or learning alone seems to me to have theoretical implications which should follow through into our practice. For example, with a focus on (social constructivist / student-centred) learning, we are implicitly favouring inductive models through which students build on what they already know and follow their interests and strengths. With a focus on teaching, we are externalising domains of knowledge, setting learning objectives, and defining the things to be learned at the end of a course of study irrespective of the student’s individual knowledge base or interests. We need to be clear about our purpose and intent, because there are strong implications for practice, depending on which position we adopt.
So here are some questions that I believe deserve due consideration. When we engage in educational / instructional design, is it appropriate to consider teaching and learning without having a position on the nature of knowledge representation and epistemology? Is it appropriate to consider the effect of “learning styles” or interface design on learning without a good understanding of cognitive processing, perceptual processing, memory and attention? In taking account of learning styles, are we aiming to build all modes of learning for each individual (work on areas of weakness as well as, or in preference to areas of strength) or are we focussed on relative fairness in terms of assessment (allowing everyone to focus on their areas of strength and hide their weaknesses)?
In designing simulations or replacing practical classes with virtual projects, can you really consider or measure learning outcomes without a fairly comprehensive understanding of the whole process of learning? Which learning outcomes are relevant indicators of good teaching? Which learning outcomes are indicators of inherent student ability / skill? Are short-term learning outcomes or long-term learning outcomes the ones to focus on? Do our educational theories speak to which outcomes are relevant? Does our rhetoric on desired graduate attributes speak to what indicators should be important?
Convenience measures do not make for good science if they do not measure things relevant to a theoretical position. The fact that something has been measured does not substitute for a theory. Quantitative analyses and statistical differences between groups do not by themselves constitute good research if they are not theoretically grounded and do not form critical tests of specific hypotheses. The fact that a data set is compatible with a theoretical position is no great contribution to science if the same data set is compatible with a range of other theoretical positions, and a different data set from the same study would not have allowed rejection of any competing theories.
In thinking about theory in this area, I am repeatedly drawn to the position that educational technology research is not a discipline area by itself, but provides a potential context for data which speak to theoretical questions from core discipline areas such as cognitive science, social psychology and computer science. It is important for us to ensure that any research questions relate back to core discipline areas rather than building an entirely self-referential data set around a single piece of technology or learning design.
I don’t know of any research off the top of my head that would relate the changing age profile in our society to failure of leadership and I haven’t really looked very hard, but
here’s my line of thought:
– population demographics are such that we have an ageing population
– political / social leaders are now reaching leadership positions when they are older (cf age of famous political / military leaders in history …)
– because people are living longer (and because of the loss of a reasonable percentage the world war 2 generation of males ?), baby boomers reached leadership positions sooner, with less basis, and occupied them for longer
There is now a mismatch between peak of intellectual / motivational / creative force so that potential energy for leadership is lost and people develop wisdom and / or cynicism before they get an opportunity to practice energetic leadership.
In the emerging model in my head, the peak of focussed, driven intellectual energy maybe around the age of 30 to 35 … when potentially great people know enough to lead, but don’t know enough to have doubts.
Internet users quick to judge. 16/01/2006. ABC News Online
“Visual appeal can be assessed within 50 milliseconds, suggesting that web designers have about 50 milliseconds to make a good impression,” the Canadians report in the journal Behaviour & Information Technology.
Given that users continue to view the large number of visually unappealing sites out there, maybe this research suggests that visual appeal can be assessed, but is not actually all that important to people accessing a site for information.
NOTES & IDEAS: Using Blogs to Teach Philosophy | Academic Commons
via Stephen Downes
Students taking their first philosophy course often express surprise when encouraged to use “I” in their papers. Unlike academic writing in most other disciplines, philosophical writing frequently and strongly states the “I” because philosophers have to develop and defend their own positions. They cannot weasel out of taking responsibility for their views, and thus the assertion of the “I” means that they are willing to stand or fall with their expressed position.
This is an interesting perspective – I always understood that the third person / passive voice of scientific writing was to indicate that the concept being expressed could stand alone by itself without the need for a personal appeal by me as its proponent. But the mood has drifted such that it has become more like parliamentary privilege – I am sufficiently removed from the concept that I don’t need to identify with it or suffer any discomfort or guilt-by-association if it is flawed.
Wow – I think I’m finally beginning to understand a bit about sine wave. Sure, I’ve got the basic bit about down-up-down and I’ve understood that sinewave is part of coordinated action so that within a technique, everything ends at the same time, but I hadn’t really considered the role of sinewave in coordinating with other people or coordinating sequences of movement.
Wow – I think I’m finally beginning to understand a bit about sine wave. Sure, I’ve got the basic bit about down-up-down and I’ve understood that sinewave is part of coordinated action so that within a technique, everything ends at the same time, but I hadn’t really considered the role of sinewave in coordinating with other people or coordinating sequences of movement.
When we spar, we are always encouraged to keep moving, to keep bouncing on the balls of our feet, and all good fighters in all forms of fighting keep moving even when they aren’t actually punching or kicking. Maybe it is obvious to everyone else, but I have only just realised that the bouncing is part of sinewave, and the rhythm provides an internal beat for planning and coordinating sequences of movements. More importantly, you can speed up or slow down the beat and still execute the same sequence of movements. When you are watching your opponent, you’re not only watching them with your eyes, but you are entraining the rhythm of your bouncing to the rhythm of their movements (ie you are mirroring their timing so that you know when they will be able to execute a technique). You can then set an appropriate phase lag between your sinewave and theirs so as to time your own techniques for when your opponent is unable to respond.
So when are they unable to respond? If you know by understanding your opponent’s rhythm when they are capable of executing a technique, whether or not they do, you can adjust your sinewave (bouncing) so that your techniques will only show themselves when your opponent is already committed to whatever they were going to execute (they have already selected a ballistic movement to a specific target) or they are not yet ready to attack (they have missed that wave of their own sinewave). You will have so much more time in “planning” because you have already encoded the relative timing information between their actions and yours into your own sinewave or bouncing rhythm.
Adjusting the frequency of your bouncing (your sinewave) to encode your opponent’s movement, and adjusting your own movements to fit into that rhythm also cuts down on planning. A jumping kick is no longer different in its premotor planning to the same technique on the ground – the jump is part of the sinewave, but the wave just goes a bit higher 🙂
So – the bit that started to fall into place was that bouncing (keeping moving) in sparring is not just random moving, and not just keeping a rhythm for yourself, but it is a part of a “conversation” with your opponent to keep the appropriate timing and phase relationship between your movements and theirs, so that you always have the advantage. If you are sparring with someone who understands this conversation, the trick is to be able to change the tempo to keep the advantage.
The reason that skipping is the preferred endurance training for fighters is also an obvious correlate of sinewave. The circular motion (sine wave is a circular function in mathematical terms) of the rope powered by your arms ensures that you have to entrain your arm movements to you leg movements and you have to jump. The cyclical visual cues of the rope are also being entrained so that you can start to associate visual information with motor information. The “conversational” aspect of skipping – the entrainment to the visual cue – can be seen when someone else turns the rope. If you watch kids run in to skip in an already turning skipping rope, they move their arms or bodies up and down for a few cycles to get the rhythm of the motion. There is an easy side and a hard side to run into because on one side, there is room for error (the rope is coming down so you can duck) whereas on the other side, the rope is going up so there is no room for error.