Major points:

The web has been highly social since it began (listservs, Usenet groups, discussion software, groupware etc)

Web 2.0 breaks “away from the notion of the Web as book, they are predicated on microcontent. Blogs are about posts, not pages. Wikis are streams of conversation, revision, amendment and truncation.”

“Like social software, microcontent has been around for a while. Banner ads, for example, are often imported by one site from another directory. Collaboratively designed web pages sometimes aggregate content created by different teams over a staggered timeline”

“Openness remains a hallmark of this emergent movement, both ideologically and technologically”

“Openness and microcontent combine into a larger conceptual strand of Web 2.0, one that sees users as playing more of a foundational role in information architecture” (tagging)

“How can social bookmarking play a role in higher education?… First, they act as an “outboard memory”, a location to store links that might be lost to time, scattered across different browser bookmark settings or distributed in e-mails, printouts and Web links.

Second, finding people with related interests can magnify one’s work by learning from others or by leading to new collaborations. Third, the practice of user-created tagging can offer new perspectives on one’s research, as clusters of tags reveal patterns (or absences) not immediately visible by examining one of several URLs.

Fourth, the ability to create multi-authored bookmark pages can be useful for team projects, as each member can upload resources discovered, no matter their location or timing. Tagging can then surface individual perspectives within the collective. Fifth, following a bookmark site gives insights into the owner’s (or owners’) research, which could play well in a classroom setting as an instructor tracks students’ progress. Students, in turn, can learn from their professor’s discoveries. ”

Wikis, blogging and RSS are good. (He says more but you surely know this stuff by now

The reverse chronological nature of Web 2.0 is particularly good for queries on current events.

Potential issues – copyright, network security when hosted on local networks, stability/longevity of service providers, preservation of useful pieces of microcontent, corporate buy-ups

Some interesting ideas in this one, much more based in what is happening rather than the hype of what might come.  

In which the usually slightly curmudgeonly Stephen Downes jumps on the 2.0 bandwagon and rides it for all it’s worth. 

“Where we are now

In general, where we are now in the online world is where we were before the beginning of e-learning [1]. Traditional theories of distance learning, of (for example) transactional distance, as described by Michael G. Moore, have been adapted for the online world. Content is organized according to this traditional model and delivered either completely online or in conjunction with more traditional seminars, to cohorts of students, led by an instructor, following a specified curriculum to be completed at a predetermined pace.”

If it’s online, can’t the learners access any and all of the material when and where they want?
“One trend that has captured the attention of numerous pundits is the changing nature of Internet users themselves. Sometimes called “digital natives” and sometimes called “n-gen,” these new users approach work, learning and play in new ways [2].

They absorb information quickly, in images and video as well as text, from multiple sources simultaneously. They operate at “twitch speed,” expecting instant responses and feedback. They prefer random “on-demand” access to media, expect to be in constant communication with their friends (who may be next door or around the world), and they are as likely to create their own media (or download someone else’s) as to purchase a book or a CD [3].”

I.T and media literacy has seen a boom in the creation of media content but statistically, only about 1% of people visiting web 2.0 sites are actually contributing to them.  

“The changing demographics of the student population and the more consumer/client-centered culture in today’s society have provided a climate where the use of student-centered learning is thriving” [6]. Learning is characterized not only by greater autonomy for the learner, but also a greater emphasis on active learning, with creation, communication and participation playing key roles, and on changing roles for the teacher, indeed, even a collapse of the distinction between teacher and student altogether [7].

The breaking down of barriers has led to many of the movements and issues we see on today’s Internet. File-sharing, for example, evolves not of a sudden criminality among today’s youth but rather in their pervasive belief that information is something meant to be shared. This belief is manifest in such things as free and open-source software, Creative Commons licenses for content, and open access to scholarly and other works. Sharing content is not considered unethical; indeed, the hoarding of content is viewed as antisocial [9]. And open content is viewed not merely as nice to have but essential for the creation of the sort of learning network described by Siemens [10].”

The technology might have made it easier but I don’t think it’s given birth to the attitude, I remember friends making tapes of albums for me as a youth.  

“In short, the structures and organization that characterized life prior to the Internet are breaking down. Where intermediaries, such as public relations staff, journalists or professors, are not needed, they are disregarded. Consumers are talking directly to producers, and more often than not, demanding and getting new standards of accountability and transparency. Often, they inform the productive process itself, and in many cases, replace it altogether. Passive has become active. Disinterested has become engaged. The new Internet user may not vote, but that is only because the vote is irrelevant when you govern yourself. ”

If producers spend all their time among other producers, are they able to see that most people are still consumers?

“What was happening was that major parts of the World Wide Web were acquiring the properties of communications networks, the sorts of networks found to exist (albeit on a much smaller scale) in the physical world. And that the Web itself was being transformed from what was called “the Read Web” to the “Read-Write Web,” in accordance with Tim Berners-Lee’s original vision. Proponents of this new, evolving Web began calling it Web 2.0 and in short order the trend became a movement.”

 In broad terms, yes.

“In a nutshell, what was happening was that the Web was shifting from being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along. And what people were doing with the Web was not merely reading books, listening to the radio or watching TV, but having a conversation, with a vocabulary consisting not just of words but of images, video, multimedia and whatever they could get their hands on. And this became, and looked like, and behaved like, a network.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the world of blogging. In a few short years the blog went from a few idiosyncratic Web sites to something used by millions of people empowered by content creation tools such as Blogger and Wordpress. Even more importantly, these blogs were connected to each other through the mechanism of RSS, a simple XML format that allows bloggers to send their content to a network of readers (called ’subscribers’).

But it wasn’t just blogging. Creating an online community became a snap with tools such as Plone and Drupal. Moreover, using a collaborative writing tool called the wiki Jimmy Wales and a few thousand of his friends created a site called Wikipedia, rendering Encyclopedia Britannica obsolete in the process. Others, using the free audio-recording tool Audacity, began recording their own talk and music; this, when combined with RSS, became podcasting, a rapidly rising phenomena that is transforming what we think about radio.

E-Learning 2.0

In the world of e-learning, the closest thing to a social network is a community of practice, articulated and promoted by people such as Etienne Wenger in the 1990s. According to Wenger, a community of practice is characterized by “a shared domain of interest” where “members interact and learn together” and “develop a shared repertoire of resources.”

For the most part, though, what constituted “community” in online learning were artificial and often contrived “discussions” supported by learning management systems [15]. These communities were typically limited to a given group of learners, such as a university class, had a fixed start and end-point, and while substantially better than nothing, rarely approached Wenger’s theory.”

Other points of interest

•  blogs and wikis give a larger audience
• blogging gives more personal insights
• podcasting enhances convenience
• structure comes to resemble more of a conversation
• personal learning environments offer a space to showcase work
• learning comes not from the design of the content but how it is used
• games allow students to take charge of their learning

Overall, some interesting ideas – my feeling is that the technology might allow many things to happen but it is the organisational philosophies and culture that will have to evolve for these things to actually happen.

Begins with a quick overview of some of the benefits of collaboration and community interaction in learning:

• increased motivation
• promoting learning achievement
• enhanced perception of (and satisfaction with) skill development
• nurturing, socialisation & support

“modern societies tending to develop more relational communities… or communities of the mind”

“a learning community is characterised by a willingness of members to share resources, accept and encourage new membership, regular communication, systematic problem solving and a preparedness to share success (Moore & Brooks, 2000)”

“Potentially negative influences include the need for members to conform and the subsequent loss of individuality… and the potential to hoard knowledge and thus restrict innovation… Also noteworthy is the potential for community structures to exert pressure on some individuals to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming behaviours, resulting in dissidents and the formation of sub-communities..”

“Sense of community is based on an attachment relationship and this relationship is not based on the interactions with any one member of the community but instead with any member (Hill, 1996)”

“Sense of community has been defined as ‘a sense that members have a belonging, members matter to one another and to the group and a shared faith that member’s needs will be met through their commitment to be together’(McMillan & Chavis, 1986p.9)

Strategies to support a good online community might include:

• a common symbol system
• establishing a common purpose
• facilitating frequent and easy meetings
• developing a sense of place
• being non-judgemental

“Constructionism is seen as offering an important bridge between cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on cognitive development, by arguing that individual development cycles are enhanced by shared constructive activity in the social environment. Furthermore, social settings are enhanced by the cognitive development of the individual”

“It has been suggested that the social construction of knowledge in the online environment progresses through five sequential phases (Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson, 1997):

Sharing and comparing of information: statements of opinion and observation and corroborating examples provided by one or more participants characterise phase one

The discovery of exploration of dissonance or inconsistency among ideas, concepts or statements: Phase two identifies and states areas of disagreement, and perhaps escalates conflict through reference to research or experience

The negotiation of meaning: exploration of meaning and the identifying of areas of agreement characterise phase three

Testing and modification of proposed synthesis or co-construction: phase four is characterised by testing the proposed synthesis against ‘received fact’; as shared by the participants and/or their culture

Agreement statements and the application of newly constructed meaning: metacognitive statements by the participants, illustrating their understanding that their new knowledge or ways of thinking have changed, characterise phase five.

People may participate in communities because of the perceived benefits even if their nature is to avoid such interactions – teachers may need to emphasise the benefits in ’selling’ the community

“Factors that may influence community development include policies…, the discipline and education level of the course…, the instructor… and the students. At a process level, influencing factors include the purpose the community serves in the lives of its members.., support for communication…, the nature of meetings… and the gathering place…”

Some ideas, tips and strategies: 

“It has been suggested that the role of the instructor is pivotal in the development of online learning communities… The manner in which this role is approached depends on the characteristics and beliefs of the instructor…, including educational philosophies…, perceptions of self as either connected of separate… and perceptions of their role. Other considerations include the instructor’s online experience, the nature of the social environment they develop and the manner in which they manage the learning environment”

“The nature of the cohort, including the number of participants, may also influence community development strategies. In asynchronous environments, groups size is recommended to be no larger than 25, while 10 is suggested for the synchronous environment”

“Groups that are dominated by individuals who perceive themselves as separate are likely to be characterised by competition, while those dominated by connected individuals are likely to be characterised by cooperation”

“Essential in the formation of all communities is the purpose that the community serves in the lives of its members”

“Purpose may reflect the manner in which student participation is encouraged. Suggestions include mandated participation through the allocation of grades…, providing an increase in intellectual resources through guest experts…, presenting a problem or disorienting dilemma… and linking activities to the lived in world…  The purpose and context may also be established through encouraging collaborative construction of knowledge…, facilitated through group work or projects… or by the instructor acting as an agent provocateur”

“An essential requirement for community development is regular and meaningful meetings… Communication may be encouraged through grading participation, based on the quantity or quality of communications…, requesting responses…, establishing a sense of positive outcome as a result of belonging… and encouraging members to pay their dues.”

“Setting an appropriate pace and schedule for participation that maintains active engagement, without dominating the learning experience, may provide further support”

“Strategies that promote connectedness include engendering the human elements of community… and establishing user profiles… Additional strategies include welcoming new members, sharing wisdom, resolving problems and sharing success…”

I think that the user profiles part in particular is important – the more you know about someone the more interested you are in what they have to say. Questions might also be framed in such a way that learners are encouraged to relate them directly to their experiences, bringing personal anecdotes to the discussion. An initial face-to-face orientation session is also a useful idea as a way of creating connections – maybe voice or even video chat (even avatar based) could add something. – Maybe a chat session in second life?

  “Supporting communication includes assisting students in becoming proficient with the technology…, developing text based communication skills… and instituting a sequencing of activities…”

“Due to the more independent nature of the online learning environment, there is a need to support students in managing their own learning experience including setting goals and prioritising tasks… It is also useful to provide weekly reminders… and clearly state roles and responsibilities…”

“Given the importance of non-verbal factors in communication…, which are to a large extent absent in text based environments…, helping students develop text based communication skills may also support community development…”

The rather glaring alternative to this – or perhaps supplement – is to be less reliant on text for communication – again, audio, video, images and virtual world based communication  might help level the playing field a little here. I’d say that half of the fellow students in my class have English as a second language and while you get the gist of what they are saying in text, it may well come across more effectively in other ways.  

There’s a bit of other stuff about encouraging respect and trust with codes of conduct – I’d suggest that these be generated by the group and possibly even subject to regular review. It also talks about creating a greater sense of place by using welcoming messages (hmm maybe) and acknowledging individual contributions, making sure that trade in ideas and information is fair (some people will just lurk, it’s the nature of the boards) and avoiding anonymity and “electronic self”s

Quite a few interesting ideas which draw on a lot of research that has come before – I would have liked to have seen a few more specific strategies for encouraging contributions beyond the initial entry point but all in all, this is a useful piece of writing.

Feedback is a vital part of the reflection process as it introduces external ideas and extends the range of experiences and information that the learner is exposed to. It stands to reason then that the broader the range of feedback that a learner receives, the richer their reflection will be. Social web tools offer the possibility of feedback from a global audience.

Oliver (2004) points out that “Students involved in self evaluation are more interested in the criteria and substantive feedback than the grades achieved. The interest is piqued by the need for honesty in the application of the criteria for others (peer assessment) and to their own work as well as being able to defend opinions through evidence over subjective judgements.”

Brown & Voltz (2005) go on to say that “Experience becomes knowledge through reflection, which is enhanced by timely and appropriate criticism”.

On a practical level, “the range of available feedback strategies is vast, including reflective responses to prescribed questions, semi-automated responses by the system to student actions and work, shared comments in online forums and blogs and personal responses via email, telephone and post.”(Brown & Voltz, 2005).

It can be used in such a way that learners complete an initial draft of assessment work, post it publicly as an RFC (request for comment) and then incorporate feedback from the community into an updated final version.

Networked based learning offers opportunities for feedback from beyond the usual teacher and fellow students spectrum. The growth of the social web adds the notion of audience to the pool of sources of feedback – learners can now publish the work that they produce in class to the world and receive unvarnished feedback instantly which expands the range of knowledge being drawn on exponentially.

This notion of audience has been used in the Schools News Project. “The feedback from the community will inform the student teams of the quality of the product, its story telling qualities and its social responsibility in terms of ethical treatment of those whose stories have been included in the news items.” (Lockyer, Brown & Blackall, 2003).

The addition of information from the real world is one of the most exciting things about using the social web in education as it brings greater authenticity to the learning experience which heightens motivation.

It also has a useful side effect of developing greater levels of information, technological, critical and media literacy.

Practitioners (particularly those in the K-12 schools sector) considering making use of the social web will need to be mindful of the fact that it is a relatively uncontrolled environment and conscientious moderation of communication may be required. School and government policies may also determine the level of access learners are given to social web sites.

Lockyer, L., Brown, I. & Blackall, D. (2003). A learning design to support multi-literacy development in K-12 contexts. In A. Rossett (Ed.). Proceedings of E-Learn 2003 World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education. (pp.1703-06) Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Brown A.R., & Voltz B.D. (2005) Elements of Effective e-Learning Design, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/217/300

Oliver, R. (2004). Moving beyond instructional comfort zones with online courses.. In R.Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 713-723). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/oliver-r.html

]]> http://elearningnews.edublogs.org/2007/08/19/915-heuristic-4-audience-feedback-enhances-critical-reflection/feed/ 0 http://elearningnews.edublogs.org/2007/08/14/using-second-life-for-education/ http://elearningnews.edublogs.org/2007/08/14/using-second-life-for-education/#comments Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:22:56 +0000 colinsimpson http://elearningnews.edublogs.org/2007/08/14/using-second-life-for-education/ Interesting overview of some of the educational uses of Second Life from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com

While there are some interesting ideas in this chapter of the book about different approaches (prescriptive vs democratic) to the use of multimedia in education, for the most part this came across as something of a historical curiosity.

The rise of the Internet and the social web (which were at the time of writing, in fairness, respectively in their infancy and a mere twinkle in the eye) have rendered much of this discussion irrelevant.

However, because I’m meant to glean some wisdom from this and I have a big assessment on the differences between prescriptive and democratic approaches to education, I’ll press on.

Main points:

“Romiszowski (1986), discussing the function of control in self-instructional media, organizes a schemata of systems for individualizing instruction. He identifies three characteristic positions: prescriptive, democratic and cybernetic”

“Instructor preferences and learner characteristics… impose structure on instructional decisions”

PRESCRIPTIVE

“A prescriptive multimedia environment… prescribes what the learner is to learn. Instruction is concocted and delivered to the learner”

“There are usually specific objectives the learner is expected to achieve, and in most cases learning is evaluated in accordance with the specified objectives” (such as competencies in a VET context but surely there is an element of this is ALL assessment?)

“Access to content is structured”

“Learners are either granted or denied access to areas of instruction based on their progress in the instruction or they are advised which paths would be most profitable.”

“The focus of this environment is the achievement of specified, externally defined goals”

“A popular breakdown of prescriptive instruction designs includes drill and practice, tutorials, most games and some simulations”

“Drill and practice usually takes the form of a string of question-answer-feedback sequences. The purpose is usually to review previously learned material in a test-like environment rather than learn new material” (Reinforcing learning – this doesn’t seem like a bad thing)

“For drill and practice, multimedia instruction can be used to increase the types, amounts and layers of stimuli and feedback presented”

“Tutorials are used to teach new information. Information is usually presented, learners are given opportunities to practice using the information and learning is reinforced.

For example, a typical tutorial environment will have an introduction (including motivational set), organizing material (e.g. advance organizers, objectives, topics), novel content, embedded practice and interaction (e.g. adjunct questions, exercises, activities), feedback, review and evaluation.”

“In mediated tutorial instruction, our challenge is often to provide a rich, vicarious experience which approximates genuine human interaction” (reasonably achieved in the Web age with computer mediated communication)

“…tutorials constrict learner control over instruction. This is desirable in many instructional settings but highly undesirable in others” (making the incredibly insightful point that different learning approaches are needed in different situations)

“Games are usually directed at a specific goal and involve some measure of competition. Simulations provide an abstraction or simplification of reality – some level of mimicry, in which the learner encounters circumstances and tries to respond to them. Instructional gams are rule-based, focused on specific goals or outcomes, usually divorced from reality and based on competition among players or against the system.

Instructional simulations, by contrast, typically use rules to define the parameters of interaction within a model of reality and play ultimately results in one of several available conclusions. Which conclusion is reached by a player is determined by choices and decisions made during instruction. Close approximation of the dynamics of reality is desired and the learner becomes a part of the system rather than a competitor against it.” (Interesting take on games vs simulations – some merit to it although I think it’s simplistic)

Many simulations and games may not emphasize prescriptive instruction, the primary purpose of many games and simulations is entertainment or vicarious experience, with learning as a convenient by-product. (This may be true in some instances but a lot of research has gone into edugames since this was written. It also misses online gaming and the key element of interaction with others)

DEMOCRATIC:

“Democratic environments shift the control of instruction to the user… Democratic environments permit the learner to influence what is learned, or how it is learned, or at least the order in which it is learned” (This talk of learner-centredness reminds me of the approach of constructivists in defining constructivism by trying to belittle the behaviourist/directed learning methods. It seems bigger on rhetoric than solid examples)

Instructors or instructional designers do not impose structured instruction. The democratic environment either supports prescribed instruction or it exists without reference to prescribed instruction .(Um, so which one is it – how can it be different if it is the same?)

“The difference is in intent and control. Learner controlled instruction would supplement prescribed instruction in this case, not substitute for it. The learner chooses to use it or reject it. For other democratic resources, the emphasis shifts from constructing and controlling instructional events to providing easy access to instructional support. These types of multimedia learning resources emphasize navigation, motivation and access and would likely downplay objectives and evaluation” (Reminds me a little of problem based learning – learners first need to work out what they need to know to solve the problem. As far as providing easy access goes, this seems to describe hyperlinks. Moving away from objectives and evaluation sounds better in theory than practice – the StageStruck game offers next to no guidance (certainly none in exiting it) and I found it frustrating. )

Supplementary instruction “assumes primary instruction exists elsewhere. Supplementary instruction either reinforces what has already been taught or it attaches new instruction to what has been taught…the difference is that supplementary instruction is voluntarily undertaken; the locus of decision-making rests with the learner” (As far as I can see, the defining characteristic of democratic learning environments is that learners can choose to ignore all the material presented to them – and doesn’t the notion of supplementary resources just seem like the World Wide Web)

(So to sum up what seems to be the authors point:)

To us, instructionality is defined by intentionality and simply allowing a learner to “graze” informational resources (databases) does not necessarily lead to instruction (Now aside from the horrible mangling of language in that sentence, the point seems to be that a prescriptive, focused approach is better)

“Most well designed learning resources provide multiple avenues of access to material” (this I’m happy to agree with – but an avenue is still a path)

From here the datedness of this chapter becomes abundantly clear as it delves into current developments in multimedia – with respect they do touch on “Nelsonian Hypermedia”, which appears to be a forerunner to html hypertext as we know it today but after 15 years it seems a little less amazing than it did back then.

CYBERNETIC ENVIRONMENTS:

The authors make another interesting point in this section – that a lot of computer based designed relies too heavily on the “book metaphor”. “In other words, we think of interactive treatments in terms of chapters, tables of contents, pages, headings and subheadings” (This can be seen today in a lot of web design – particular web 1.0 )

“By contrast, human thought is a robust metaphor for interactive treatments. Conceptual environments, cognitive mapping and logic approaches may gain high status in the metaphoric pecking order” (definitely an interesting thought – not sure how well this has been realised yet though)

The chapter goes on to look at A.I options for designing interactive educational multimedia and the challenges this offers but again, the rise of computer mediated communication tools and the social web seem to render this a bit of a dead end.

Web:

The Web (short for World Wide Web) is a “space for sharing information” (Berners-Lee, 2005) which uses the global network known as the Internet. (Some people use the term interchangably with Internet but the Internet also offers other functions including email and file transfer.)

While it was initially intended to act as a space where information was collaboratively edited online, in the 1990s it was generally a one way source of information, where one person published and the audience passively consumed.

In a network based learning context, this was (and is) a useful way of making information more accessible.

Berners-Lee, T. (2005) timbl’s blog Retrieved August 5, 2007 from Decentralized Information Group website : http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/38

Social Web:

The Social Web (also commonly referred to as Web 2.0) is “a subset of … technologies that are highly interactive, conversational and participatory” (Wikipedia, 2007).

It includes websites such as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Del.icio.us and Wikipedia as well as tools such as blogs and wikis.

In some ways, it returns to Berners-Lee’s original intention of “a space for communal design, for discourse through communal authorship” (Berners-Lee, 2005) by creating communities of users with common interests who share their collective knowledge in a central space.

The social web has many potential applications in network based learning, offering tools for collaboration and communication, critical reflection and engaging learners by making them producers of content rather than just consumers.

Wikipedia – Social Web – Retrieved August 5, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Web

I made a couple of suggestions for Abdullah’s definition (I haven’t heard from him yet about any thoughts on mine) so it reads like this.

Collaboration:

Collaboration in network based learning involves “joint intellectual effort by students or students and teachers together” in “mutually searching for understanding, solutions or meanings”(Smith & MacGregor, 1992) using electronic technologies.

The relationship between e-collaboration and cognition. Stephen C. Hayne and C.A.P. Smith.International Journal of e-Collaboration 1.3 (July-Sept 2005): p17(18).
http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/teaching/toolbox/glossary.html

Over the last twenty-five years the exponential growth of ICT (information and communications technology) has had a profound effect on our society. It has sparked a shift from an industrially focused culture to what is known as the Information Age.

We now live in a world where information is easily created and shared and where its skilled application is highly valued. This has significant ramifications for education, as the new tools and new ways of thinking necessitate dramatic new approaches to teaching and learning. This directly affects the design of interactive multimedia learning resources.

The so-called Net Generation (Net-Gen) are the first generation to grow up knowing nothing other than this highly connected, information rich world. As “digital natives”, they “think and process information fundamentally differently.” (Prensky 2002). Their use of ICT and attitudes toward ICT and information in general offer us a set of ideas for a new approach to education which embraces the information age. Among these are an emphasis on collaboration, connectivity, flexibility and experiential learning.

The needs and attitudes of the Net-Gen aren’t the only factors that will influence education and multimedia design in the coming years – ongoing research in education, the priorities of industry and society, emerging technology as well as institutional and teacher needs will all play a part.

Examining the key traits attributed to the Net-Gen however allows us to consider practical changes in approach and design that can be made today.

Who are the Net Generation?

While the precise years are disputed, it is generally agreed that the Net-Gen were born in the period between the early 1980s and 2001. They are also referred to as Generation Y, Echo Boomers, the iGeneration and their apparently preferred term, Millennials. (Wikipedia: Generation Y, 2007)

Alan Kay, a member of the 1970’s Xerox PARC team, has described technology as “anything that wasn’t around when you were born” (Frand, 2000). This means that for much of the Net-Gen, personal computers, mobile phones, digital audio, sophisticated computer graphics and even the Internet aren’t considered technology, they are simply a fact of life.

While it is obviously simplistic to ascribe any characteristic to a large group of individuals, there are a number of traits which appear common to many members of the Net-Gen.

Interested in technology: Having grown up with technology, Net-Gen students consider themselves far more Internet savvy than their teachers and report seeing better ways to use technology than they are offered in the classroom.(Oblinger 2003) “Every time I go to school I have to power down”, complains one student according to Prensky. (2001)

Emphasis on collaboration: They gravitate toward group work (Howe & Strauss, 2000) and want to work with people they click with. (Raines 2003) . Massively multiplayer online games popular with the Net-Gen such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft are strongly based on collaboration.

Need Connectivity: In some ways related to their preference for collaboration, the Net-Gen make heavy usage of a plethora of communications tools including SMS, instant messaging, email and particularly online communities such as MySpace to maintain connections with friends and family. This connectivity is 24/7 and the Internet in particular means that it isn’t limited by geography.

Another interesting aspect of connectivity in online communications is that the Net-Gen have “blasé attitudes about the loss of private space” and an “expectation of speaking to an audience even in personal communication” (Wikipedia:Internet Generation, 2007)

Multitasking: Multitasking is considered to be the most practical response to the exponentially increasing sea of information we find ourselves in. (Frand, 2000). As highly connected digital natives more familiar with this environment, the Net-Gen are considered particularly adept at navigating a range of tasks simultaneously, which may include both work and play.

Goal oriented: Net-Gen learners are more focused on skills than knowledge. “In many disciplines, the half-life of information is measured in months and years. From this perspective, what a person can do is more important than what degree they obtained”(Frand, 2000 p.17)

Confident and optimistic: The Net-Gen are seen as highly positive, confident and optimistic. They expect respect (Raines, 2002) and, conscious of their power as consumers, will either speak their mind or vote with their feet if they don’t get what they want.

According to Saulwick Muller Social Research (2006): “Not only has this generation been born into a prolonged period of economic growth, but they have come too late to experience the severe economic restructuring brought about by globalisation and the information revolution.

They have grown up understanding and accepting that the future is all about mobility, adaptability and change. For the most part, they are preparing for it and they embrace it.”(p.5)

Seek instant gratification: The combination of a customer service oriented world and the immediacy of digital technology means that members of the Net-Gen are felt to have “zero tolerance for delays”. (Frand, 2000 p.22).

Marc Prensky (2001) sums most of these traits up nicely when he says that “Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work.” (p.2)

Implications for designing interactive multimedia learning resources.

In addition to the obvious technological changes, the Information Age (and globalisation) has had a profound impact on the way people work and live. The increasing rate at which new information and knowledge is generated means that learning has become a lifelong process.

UNESCO’s 1996 report Learning : The Treasure Within (The Delors report) identified a key pillar of education for the future as “Learning to know – the mastery of learning tools rather than the acquisition of structured knowledge. It includes learning to learn and developing concentration, memory skills and the ability to think”. (RED CIT 2000 P.1)

The Information Age, lifelong learning and shifts in family, work and leisure priorities present educational multimedia designers with a range of new opportunities and challenges.

The need for more educational content and new approaches, in combination with enhanced access to tools to create richer and more sophisticated learning resources means that multimedia designers could be well positioned to make a significant contribution to education in coming years.

The learning needs of the Net-Generation feature heavily here and it is their particular desire for these following qualities to be a part of their education that fuels much of this demand. Many of these qualities have also been identified in educational multimedia research as adding to learning.

Flexibility: Flexibility encompasses notions of enhancing access to learning as well as catering to different learning styles. Kearns (1999) takes the position that we can and should “use modern technologies to widen equitable access to education and training opportunities”.

The Internet has long been seen to be a powerful platform for the distribution of information untrammeled by time or space, two significant impediments to learners in the past. It could be argued that multimedia learning resources have been used in one form or another for decades in distance learning practice to address these issues however the speed with which they are now available makes learning more accessible than ever.

Mobile technology takes this accessibility and flexibility to a higher level still by allowing learners to access sophisticated multimedia learning resources anywhere. Many mobile phones, PDAs and other devices support HTML pages, Flash objects, audio and video – any of which could be learning resources. The use of audio and video as podcasts and vodcasts respectively is now well established and offers another option to educational multimedia developers. RFID tags and QR codes (Simpson, 2006) are further options that might considered with mobile technology.

Multimedia learning objects also offer flexibility in terms of providing a wider choice of learning activities which cater to different learning styles. Developers should consider different ways to achieve the same learning outcomes in the process of designing multimedia resources.

Relevance: As already mentioned, the half life of information has dropped significantly in the Information Age (Oblinger, 2003) and this has the potential to quickly outdated some learning resources.

Developers might consider embedding weblinks to information sources (though this too isn’t foolproof), reviewing created resources to a schedule or making some of their multimedia learning resources customisable, allowing teachers/users to make changes if relevant data changes. (Customisability is an underpinning principle of Flexible Learning Toolbox Learning Objects.)

A more significant application of relevance in multimedia learning resources comes when they take the form of simulations and games with problem based approaches. This offers the Net-Generation (and other users) the experiential, skill developing learning that they prefer and enhances learning by making it authentic and context based.

Dalgarno (2001) feels that these support a Constructivist approach to learning, particularly in that they “allow the learner to explore, manipulate, or construct within a world and consequently to discover real or abstract concepts within the domain”. (p.156)

The development of simulations can be an intensive process however the increasing sophistication of multimedia production software as well as the support of growing user communities means that it is getting easier by the day.

It is equally important however for developers to resist the temptation to make use of all of the bells and whistles available to them in the increasingly sophisticated multimedia production software if it is not directly related to the learning content. Pretty pictures and interesting sounds have been found repeatedly to actually depress the learning benefits of multimedia resources. (Colvin Clark & Mayer, 2007)

Interaction: The interactivity of games and simulations is a factor that appeals to many users including the Net Generation. A well designed game/simulation focuses the learners attention and the sense of fun and user control offers high levels of engagement. (Prensky, 2001).

Interaction also has the potential to offer feedback, another key motivator. Virtually any multimedia learning resource can incorporate “practice tools, which require the learner to carry out specific tasks or answer specific questions and provide feedback on the learner’s performance” (Dalgarno, 2001 p.156).

This addresses another of the key Net Generation traits, their impatience with delay.

One issue for educational multimedia developers to consider is the actual nature of the interaction that learners have with the multimedia resources. Does it have to be about pushing buttons or typing? Could it include speaking, singing, gesturing with the mouse, drawing with a tablet, using a web cam? (Dalgarno, 2001)

Structure: The organisation of knowledge is a key factor in teaching and learning. Multimedia offers “more complex and interesting ways to structure and access knowledge.” (Bates, 2000, p.42).

A multimedia learning resource might be structured in a linear fashion like a book, it might work as a website with a hypertext structure or it might consist of a linked list of smaller, self contained learning object, breaking the knowledge up into digestible chunks. These are but three possible approaches of many. The nature of the information age suggests that we need to consider any number of approaches to sharing information. (Bates, 2000)

The goal oriented nature of the Net Generation as well as their desire for flexibility and multitasking tendencies suggests that multimedia learning resources developed with them in mind should offer multiple paths to knowledge acquisition.

Collaboration: The question of collaboration raises a number of questions as to the very nature of multimedia resources and few answers.

Even with interactivity and feedback, do multimedia resources still primarily using a traditional transmission model for learning?

What options are available for learners to collaboratively work on tasks?

Is there a capacity for communication through a multimedia resource?

Could a blog or a wiki be considered a multimedia resource?

Should multimedia learning resources contribute to scaffolding knowledge (or even higher level skills) which the individual learner adds to collaboratively in a separate space or tool?

Given the teamwork oriented, collaboration favouring nature of the Net Generation, these are some of the most significant issues of all to consider in the development of multimedia learning resources.

Bates (2000) makes the salient point that “Learners still need to discuss and argue, to challenge and question what they have learnt”. (p.41). I would extend that to include work together and generate collective knowledge.

As the standard bearers of the Information Age, educational multimedia developers can learn a lot from the Net Generation. Ongoing research in education continues to enlighten our understanding of how multimedia can be more effective but their instinctive use of contemporary ICT and unquestioning acceptance of it as today’s paradigm are driving the need for change now.

It means that the design of interactive multimedia learning resources needs to be more flexible, relevant, engaging and particularly collaborative – and that’s a good thing for all.

(As a Gen-Xer, I would like to mention however that the founders of Google, MySpace, YouTube, Blogger, Odeo and Wikipedia are all Gen X.)

References.

Kearnes, P. 1999 VET in the learning age – the challenge of lifelong learning for all, Paper presented at Post-compulsory Education and Training: Looking to the future, Canberra 27 August 1999.

Raines, C. (2003). Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook for a new workplace. Mississauga, Ontario : Crisp Publications

RED CIT (2000 August) What is Lifelong Learning? Research Digest Canberra: Research and Evaluation Department CIT

Howe, N. & Strauss W (2000). Millennial Rising: The next great generation. New York, NY : Vintage Books

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials. Understanding the new students. Educause Review, July-August, 37-47

Bates, T. (2000). Teaching, Learning and the Impact of Multimedia Technologies. Educause Review, September-October, 38 – 43

Frand, J (2000). The Information Age Mindset Educause Review September/October, 14-24

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

Dalgarno, B (2001) Technologies supporting highly interactive learning resources on the web: An Analysis Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12. 153-171

Joshua Schachter. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Schachter

Larry Page. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page

Steve Chen. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chen

Chad Hurley. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Hurley

Jawed Karim. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawed_Karim

Jimmy Wales. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

Evan Williams. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Williams

Generation Y. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y

Information Age. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Age

Internet Generation. (2007, May 27). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Generation

Saulwick Muller Social Research (2006 October). Fearless and Flexible – Views of Gen Y. Retrieved May 27, 2007 from http://www.dsf.org.au/papers/189/SaulwickReport3_0.pdf

Simpson, C. (2006) Make barcodes that can be read by mobile camera and provide web links. Retrieved May 27^th, 2007 from http://citfls.blogspot.com/2006/09/make-barcodes-that-can-be-read-by.html

The use of these various tools in a learning environment can offer students new and engaging means to share information and to offer each other feedback which allows them to reflect on concepts in a more meaningful manner.

Driscoll (2002) makes the point that students benefit from hearing ideas other than their own in group work and that they can use software to collaborate by “creating notes to express their ideas or integrate outside information about a topic. They then read and respond to the notes of others, all of which builds a communal database producing shared knowledge abut the topic or problem”.

Dede (2005) goes on to support this by identifying among emerging learning styles an shift towards “communal learning involving diverse, tacit, situated experience with knowledge distributed across a community and a context as well as within an individual”.

My personal experience of using blogs with learners dates back to a class I ran in 2003 teaching platforms and formats for media production. I had the learners keep a blog where they journaled their experiences in working on a number of multimedia projects. They were to reflect on creative decisions that they made as well as technical issues that arose and the ways they were able to overcome them.

A page with links to the blogs was made available in the online space for the subject so they could visit each others blogs and leave feedback or offer suggestions.

I found this a very useful tool as it was an effective way to get greater insight into learner’s understanding of the process and it was a great resource for learners to use for trouble-shooting.

Some suggestions for use:

• Use an RSS feed reader to track blog posts

• Provide clear direction as to expected frequency and length of posts

References:

Robyler, M. D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M. A. (1997). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching (pp. 54-79). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Driscoll, M.P. (2002). How People Learn (and What Technology Might Have To Do with It). ERIC Digest. ED470032

Wikipedia – Social Software – Retrieved April 26 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_software

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1).