It is what you do with the tool that is important

I am currently the guest of Pyatigorsk State Linguistics University (PLSU) in Russia (http://www.pglu.ru/) and it is interesting to observe that culture and language make little difference to the problems and potential solutions to the effective use of technology in teaching and learning (T&L). It is often said that pedagogy is the key issue, and so it is, but it is only one part of the complex problem of using technology to support T&L. There are a number of others. One of the more important is to acknowledge that information and communication technologies (ICTs) offer new ways of working and to make this part of the strategic plan of the institution. This requries a significant input and vision from the senior management of the university. PLSU has such support, both from their Rector who is championing the changes, and key academic staff (Deans). Another key factor is the flexibility, willingness to listen and innovative approaches to solving problems by the information technology support group. PLSU has a young dynamic IT Head who sees opportunities rather than threats (e.g., tight budgets = work smarter by using free and open source software). A third factor is the willingness and support for staff to work in new ways. Change is always difficult but there is a synergy of key factors working together here and I am certainly learning a lot from interactions with the staff and students.

Excellent report on eLearning

Hi All
A new report titled, 'Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web2.0 Innovation on Education and Training in Europe' has just been published by the Institute for Prespective Technological Studies. This report is worth a look, especially since it addresses the issues of Learning 2.0 and the potential impact of social networking technologies in particular. The abstract is reproduced below.

"This report presents the outcomes of the expert workshop held at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) on 29 and 30 October 2008 to discuss the impact of the social computing on Education and Training (E&T) in Europe.
The workshop aimed to validate the results of the Learning 2.0 study, launched by IPTS in collaboration with DG EAC. The study explored the impact of social computing on E&T in Europe (in terms of contribution to the innovation of educational practice, and to more inclusive learning opportunities for the knowledge society). It also assessed Europe’s position in the take up of social computing in formal educational contexts and - by identifying opportunities and challenges - devised policy options for EU decision makers.
The report offers a structured account of the debate that took place during the two day workshop. It reflects the discussion on the potential of social computing take up in organized educational contexts, focusing on innovation (from the pedagogical, organisational and technological standpoints), and on inclusion. It further discusses how, despite the recent emergence of the phenomenon mostly outside E&T institutions, its primarily experimental nature within formal E&T contexts, and the speed of its evolution, there are clear signs that it can transform educational practice and that a new schooling culture is called for. The report then presents the main risks that were identified by the experts and proposes a number of items for research and the policy agenda to respond to the educational needs of society as it is being transformed by the social computing wave. Finally, it summarizes the trends identified as likely to affect the future evolution of the learning landscape."
URL http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2139

Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
This blog has been inspired by recent conversations with a number of colleagues. The buzzword is, without doubt, Web 2.0 leading to education 2.0, a rethinking of student engagement, teaching and learning. There are some that would have us believe that the elements of a Web 1.0 environment are somewhat old-fashioned and that somehow transmission of information is less desirable. Web 2.0 and Education 2.0 are where the up-to-date teachers are now!

I prefer to think of a Web 1.0 and 2.0 applications as offering a possible synergy of potential activities and engagement that can be conveniently organised and managed. Web 1.0 applications, particularly in education (for example, learning management systems) offer a number of affordances that are useful in large institutional settings. A little bit of bureaucracy is a necessity when faced with multiple groups of students undertaking a myriad of different subjects and taught by a variety of academic staff. In particular, learning management systems help structure groups of students with common interests and provide mechanisms for scaffolding and organising learning. Personally, I prefer the mix master approach. Does everybody remember the Mix Master? You bought your basic machine for mixing eggs and creating cake mixes. However, you could also buy attachments which could slice onions and carrots, beat dough for bread, juice oranges or lemons, and grind coffee or nuts. Modern learning management systems such as Moodle fit the idea of a mix master, with the LMS providing the 'engine' for managing the student learning experience. For example, creating student profiles, enrollments in courses/subjects, grouping students, grading and grade books, access to content, forums and glossaries, to name a few. Into this environment one can now add Web 2.0 applications such as YouTube videos, Blogs and Wikis, ePortfolios, and RSS feeds, for example. For too long learning management systems have been not unreasonably described as being too teacher centred. The flexibility (for example Moodle) offered by a second-generation LMS allows teachers to enrich the learning environment by adding additional Web 2.0 applications and links to these applications as required by the learning outcomes. One of the combinations I have been particularly impressed with is combining Moodle and Mahara, or what is now described as MaHoodle. The two applications provide a learning environment that can be co-constructed with students. The organisational component is provided by Moodle with single sign-on into Mahara. In Mahara students have the ability to organise their own groups, publish and tag blogs, develop and present a personal eportfolios, embed media created by them or from external sources (e.g., YouTube) and comment on other student work. In effect, the two applications provide an environment which supports what teachers are expected to be able to do well (designing an effective learning environment) and what students are encouraged to do well in enlightened learning environments (articulating their ideas, mentoring others, interacting with and creating a variety of media artifacts which may also be used for presenting and structuring arguments). Moodle supports RSS feeds and Delicious or Diigo bookmarking, to name just two Web 2.0 applications. Mahara supports publication of student work in the form of an ePortfolio, Blogging and tagging. Initial observations in a recently taught Masters subject (module) suggest that students value the organisational framework provided by Moodle while relishing the freedom offered by Mahara to express their ideas and collaborate with peers of their choosing. Feel free to share your comments about these two applications.

Intellectual property in Higher Education II

After six very stimulating days with a group of very clever and thoughful people, I feel that I have learnt a lot about the issues associated with Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) as applied to areas outside those of universities, in particular. It is clear that the issues around the 'first to invent' and 'first to file' are key concepts in the work that universities do. The USA and the European Union represent the two positions, respectively.

In universities, I would argue, the first to invent (ideas) is of paramount importance, and more important than 'first to file'. In universities we are encouraged to collaborate, to seek to understand the broader implications of the work we do, and ensure that we have been thorough in our articulation of understanding of a concept, interpretation of data, or creative idea. In a 'first to file' application the inventor of a process, the person to whom the intellectual property rightfully resides, can lose their IPR by virtue of not being first to file a patent or trademark etc. This could come about from a casual conversation at a conference or discussion with the wider community. Under the 'first to file' the participant of the conversation/ discussion can then patent an idea, thus effectively taking (a stronger word is 'steal') the originator's IPR. Universities and their academic staff deal in ideas, and the IPR invested in those ideas is crucial for publications, a means by which academics staff gain their affirmation (e.g., promotion, tenure). I and my colleagues have published some thoughts about the myths associated wity this problem, particularly in relation to when one leaves one university to commence work at another (see Williamson, Andy, et al. (2003), 'Issues of intellectual capital and intellectual property in educational software development teams', Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19 (3), 339-55.
--- (2005), 'A framework for the effective management of intellectual capital and intellectual property within IT communities of practice', in Elayne Coakes and Steve Clarke (eds.), Encyclopedia of Communities of Practice in Information and Knowledge Management (London, UK: Idea Group), 364-74.).

I was left with the feeling by the end of the conference that the 'first to invent' is a precident that should be followed in that it rewards the inventor rather than some third party. What do you think?

Intellectual property in Higher Education

This might seem like a strange topic to blog about but it is one that is quite important in relation of the life of an academic in a university. How does an academic receive affirmation for their work? The traditional metric is the publication, preferrably in a high impact journal. But, creative output can take a variety of forms including teaching and learning materials, reports and university documents, and in my academic life, software. I am currently attending the Salzburg Global Seminar series (see http://www.salzburgseminar.org/2009/Sessions.cfm?IDSPECIAL_EVENT=1580&refercode=1580Ad) where these and other questions are being discussed. (click HERE)

Much of the work I have undertaken (with collaborators) in software creation has been released under the conditions of a Creative Commons licence. Why do I believe this important? One, it has the potential to affirm my intellectual property (output), and create a viral licence using the creative commons mechanism that can help improve the longevity of the software, and data. This is the approach taken by the Wellcome foundation in the UK and a prime example is the Human Genome project (see the work of Tim Hubbard from the Wellcoem trust) where the data was released immediately, rather than waiting for the publication. The second reason is to look at a different metrics for thinking about academic output and creativity.

I will be publishing more on this topic as the sessions unfold and would welcome comments. It would be interesting to know if anyone has downloaded the software we have created. Is it being used and developed? Will the conditions of the Creative Commons licence be followed?

Feel free to comment.

Digital natives in Hong Kong

Digital natives
I am long overdue to make posting to my Blog. In this particular posting I'd like to share with the readers that I have some results relating to both mobile lending and the use of technology by undergraduate students. I led a recent survey which asked students about their use of technology, perceived usefulness in regards to learning, and what mobile technologies they had available to them. The results were interesting. Students in Hong Kong are no different to students elsewhere and use a significant range of technologies for both social and learning purposes. In the first graph on the right it is easy to see that students' engagement with mobile technologies is both significant and purposeful. While it is clear to see that SMS and voice calls are the dominant features of the use of a mobile phone (or smart phone) there are significant numbers of students that even use these devices for Blogging or looking at Blogs. the second graph is more significant, and looks at the technologies students value for personal learning. It is very clear that students consider technology to be a key component of their learning environment and generally very useful.

In the second graph the comparative figures shown in red are students who did not value technology for a particular task, for example, some students did not perceive as downloading lectures particularly useful. However, these students were in the minority and in this example more than 55% of students valued the opportunity to download variety of course offerings.

So what? While the full data set is far more extensive and will be reported elsewhere, these two graphs provide one with evidence that the inclusion of technology as part of the learning design is likely to result in, at the very least, engaging with students in ways in which they are very familiar and value for their own learning. This current project is now completed, the results of which will support other projects and undertakings. there is a great deal more data available from the survey including some preliminary discussions with groups of students to examine some of the findings in more detail. I am currently working on a journal article with a colleague which analyses the results in more detail. If you would like more information then e-mail me directly.

Mobile application: iCount

One of the more interesting outcomes from the trip to Thailand was the use and testing of a very simple tool called iCount. The iCount tool is designed to do just what it says, count things. When students undertake field trips they are often required to create frequency graphs of a variety of objects. For example, on this particular field trip students were required to count pedestrians, different kinds of vehicles, and/or the variety and nature of signage in the business district. Traditionally this is done with a notepad and pen or pencil, a list of things to be counted and some kind of frequency counting method involving simple strokes on paper. However, it is not this activity that is specifically valued. What is important is what the students can do with the data, the interpretations they make and the conclusions formed. The iCount tool is intended to make the first part very easy, data collection, while simultaneously putting the data into a format that can be analysed using Excel, for example. The figure on the right shows a screen captured from a PDA during the data collection process undertaken by the students on the field trip.

The iCount tool is simple in the extreme. Once the data has been captured the saved file is in the form of a .CVS file. When students download the file to their PCs and click on it, it opens automatically in Excel. The issues of transferring data from paper to electronic form for analysis disappear. Students are better able to focus on the key requirements of analysis, graphing and interpretation of the data. In discussions with students this particular tool was valued because of its:

• ease-of-use; and
  
• ability to create a file ready for analysis using Excel.

The students were very pragmatic in their use of the PDAs for data collection and analysis purposes. Implicitly, they subscribed to the KIS principle, keep it simple! They did not value any tools that were complex or difficult to use, thus requiring a steep learning curve.

Creating a file that the iCount tool uses as its source file is relatively simple also. The source file is an XML file. One of the students modified the original demonstration file in order to count different types of signage -- one of the prescribed tasks. This was about five minutes after being shown how the source files could be created. The text from a typical source file is shown below.
The XML file is of the form:


The iCount tool would seem to be one of the success stories of data collection and analysis on this particular field trip using a PDA. I have received inquires expressing considerable interest from others who have heard of the tool and want to use it in a similar way with their students. If you would like to use the tool, you are free to download it from my personal web site (http://people.cite.hku.hk/dkennedy/DMK/dmk7.html). I am interested in working with people to develop the tool futher and make it even more useful and user-friendly. Please send me an e-mail if you are interested in collaborating.