Sunday, 5 July 2009

Serious games

I watched my 14 year-old son this morning as he created avatars on our Nintendo Wii, but got a little concerned when he created a Hitler Mii and a Stalin Mii. Still, it was impressive, because from memory he also created a Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln, all with very recognisable features, which leads me to believe that he must have paid a lot more attention during his History lessons than I ever did. He set them all running in a dubious U.S. 'presidential race', and I'm not sure who eventually won, but you can probably guess. The Barack Obama Mii picture here gives you some idea about how accurate these avatars can be, although I'm not sure POTUS would be too wild about the 'B.O.' label...

This led me to some thinking about games based learning, and how we can conjecture by simulating events that will never happen. My son was having great fun, but there was a serious underpinning to the games he was playing with images of world leaders. Watching him was a relevant little distraction, because I'm currently ploughing through a number of new books that have landed on my desk from IGI Global under the banner of their Information Science Reference series. The one I'm concentrating on at the moment is GBL focused and has the grand title: Games-Based Learning Advancements for Multi-Sensory Human Computer Interfaces: (Techniques and Effective Practices). It's a 372 page volume edited by Thomas Connolly, Mark Stansfield and Liz Boyle (all at the University of the West of Scotland). Despite it's very expensive tag ($195.00, or about £120) this hardback book has some readable chapters, and it tackles some relevant and emerging issues in this fast-moving field of learning technology.

The book seeks to: 'disseminate knowledge on the theory and practice of games-based learning, promoting the development and adoption of best practices'. And there are some best practices shared in the book, with stand out chapters by Nicola Whitton (Manchester Metropolitan University) who covers the use of computer games in HE, Dan Livingstone and his colleagues who discuss MUVEs and the use of Sloodle, and Colin Price (University of Worcester) who talks about the path between pedagogy and technology. He examines the metaphor of space and notions of embodiment in the context of discourse and collaborative learning. Good to see that there is also an entire section dedicated to disabilities and gender issues in games-based learning.

But there are two chapters that made the book worth reading, for me at least. The first is by Matt Sweeny and Helen Routlege - Drawing Circles in the Sand - in which they share how to integrate content into serious games. They hold that synergistic alignment of game and content is a gradual process that must be built into the game design. Too much initial instruction they argue, 'sucks the fun out of the game', but too much fun 'can make the learning harder to contextualise'. The second chapter, by the editors Connolly and Stansfield, showcases a model for Games-Based evaluation. Their model seems overtly psychological, involving the complex interplay between a number of components, including the perceptions of learners and instructors, their attitudes, motivations, and performamces. Although it appears to be hard to operationalise and there is a long way to go, this framework may point the way games designers and tutors in the future.

My only criticism of this book (apart from the now traditional whinge that the high cost of IGI Global books puts them out of the reach of most educators), is that I could find nothing about digitial identity and the importance it plays in making games-based learning successful. Still worth a read though, if you can get your hands on a copy.

Image source

Thursday, 2 July 2009

We have issues

What is the most important issue in e-learning? That was the question I asked this morning when I first logged on to Twitter. There are, it seems quite a lot of issues, judging from the responses I received. The majority seem to be generic and seem to affect most sectors of education. Here's a brief summary of the responses:

There were some technical and design issues: Jedd Bartlett in New Zealand, says that the most important issue is to ensure availability of real broadband in the home. Alex Hardman who is in Liverpool, UK says that integrating e-learning into the mainstream (and perhaps losing the 'e' that distinguishes it) is important, a sentiment echoed by Cath Ellis (Sheffield, UK) and Robin Cox (Edinburgh, UK) who thinks that we should be designing e-learning to be as interactive as f2f learning. Pat Parslow (Reading, UK) had a lot of suggestions including: 'Reliable computer services, high SLAs. Student acceptance. Open standards. Assessment...' but thinks that it is vital to nurture students to develop their personal learning networks. Clive Shepherd (e-learning consultant in Brighton, UK) thinks that the 'important issue in e-learning is how to free itself from its dull CBT heritage.'
Teaching and learning issues were cited by several: Bjarne Slipsager (Berlin, Germany) wants to know how we can get teachers to use new technologies and experiment with them, a comment echoed by Dorothy Burt, (Auckland, New Zealand) who thinks that teacher skills are generally lacking, whilst Meredith James in Sydney, Australia, makes a simple plea: We need clean, concise e-learning materials to make it work. More words on skills from Sarah Stewart who is a health professional in Dunedin, New Zealand. She thinks that we need to address the level of computing/internet skills for all.
Mel Phillips (Leicester, UK) thinks that teachers need to understand the pedagogical changes associated with move from f2f to online, so that they can adjust their methods appropriately. Dave Sugden (Huddersfield, UK) Asher Jacobsberg (London) and Rose Heaney, (London, UK) all agree, pleading for pedagogy over technology. Dave also argues that 'e-Learning isn't necessarily online learning'. He calls for a 'common understanding of terms.' Julian Prior (Swindon, UK) made an incisive comment I'm sure many of us would agree with: We need to wrest control of e-learning from the technocrats and hand the control over to the teachers and learners. Catherine Emmett (Cardiff, UK) thinks we need to ensure that educational technologists and teachers need to work more closely together to ensure that e-learning is more learning focused.

Some general issues were also raised: Thomas Curtis in Essex, UK, thinks the main issue is a fundamental one: He wants to make e-learning relevant, 'not just a box of tricks that is thrown at education with the expectation to solve everything'. The Digital Maverick over in Rickmansworth, UK, sees e-learning changing working practices and wants to see new pay structures. Adam Read (Plymouth, UK) and Pete Whitfield (Manchester, UK) both think that institutions need to better support e-learning initiatives and there is already some discussion on Twitter that the institutional VLE and e-learning are not synonymous, although many universities and colleges work as though they are. Shelly Terrell, in Stuttgart, Germany, underlines this by arguing that e-learning tools need to go beyond simply pushing information to students, and begin to support problem solving and critical thinking. Cristina Costa (Salford, UK) made one of the most searching comments, when she suggested we should promote the idea of learning as an active process, and then ensure that e-learning provides the basis to empower the learner in that process. And Sarah Horrigan (Leicestershire, UK) thinks 'one of the most important issues in e-learning is the gap between innovators & lack of real engagement by the majority'. Sarah is supported by Natalie Lafferty (a medical educator in Iran) who also argues for better staff development to make it happen.

If you have any more comments on what you consider are the key issues in e-learning, please post them below as comments. Many thanks to all who have contributed to this important discussion.

Image source

Monday, 29 June 2009

100

In September 2008, Jane Hart created a list of 100 learning professionals to follow on Twitter. Inevitably the list grew to more than 1000 individuals in the Connexions Directory, and now she has compiled another list of 100 featured learning professionals, who in her own words: 'will provide you with information, inspiration and interaction on a range of educational and workplace learning topics from around the world - via their blog, on Twitter or on other social networks'.

It's a bit like the movie '300' I think, except that this list is only a third of the size, it's not quite as epic, and none of us are wearing loin cloths (well, I can only speak for meself of course). And I'm not sure who we would be fighting until the last (wo)man against - possibly After-Dinner-Jab or some such similar middle eastern dictator? No, seriously it's simply a useful list containing a number of well known and some lesser known educators, learning technologists and theorists, all of whom, according to Jane, are well worth following. The list has the added bonus of also listing not only each professional's Twitter links, but also their blogs and websites too, so it's eminently clickable.

I was very pleased, nay honoured, to be included in the list, so I am apparently considered as one of those who provide the three 'I's for those who are interested in e-learning. No list is perfect and I suppose many out there will argue that some people who they would include are missing, and others don't deserve to be there in the 100. Some may even argue that we shouldn't have lists, because they emulate a kind of taxonomy which simply isn't on in the Social Web. Maybe there should be a meta-list (a list of lists)? Whichever way, it will never be perfect, and any list is just a set of recommendations. Thanks anyway Jane for adding me to your recommendations. I will reciprocate if ever I compile a list of my own!

Thursday, 25 June 2009

Another nail in the coffin?

I will be speaking in a symposium at ALT-C in Manchester in September along with James Clay and Graham Attwell. The title of the symposium is 'The VLE is Dead!'. I'm looking foward to it because it promises to be controversial and should generate a lot of heat and (I hope) some light too. I was very interested then to spot a recent Ofsted report which suggests that e-learning is failing in many schools and colleges. The report is quite damning, suggesting that many institutional VLEs are being poorly used. The survey was conducted across a wide range of educational and training settings, including schools, colleges, work-based learning and adult and community learning centres. The results showed that the VLE concept was still a relatively new idea and that no institution had a VLE that covered all aspects of the curriculum. The best VLE deployments were generally reliant on single enthusiastic teachers rather than whole institutions. VLEs in most schools and colleges, says the report, represent only a small proportion of the student learning experience.

These disappointing results point up a number of issues, but most notably, many teachers, when forced to use something as complex as an institutional VLE, tend to take the short cut and simply dump their content into it (a kind of 'shovelware'). They then expect it to work in a similar manner to content delivered in a face to face classroom setting, which of course, it doesn't. The e-Learning Lounge Blog puts it rather well:

"The key lesson from the report is clear enough; good elearning programmes require good implementation. It’s about more than just the technology. There is little point in stamping VLE, DLE or elearning on something and hoping that everything will take care of itself."

I have previously argued that VLEs tend to constrain students into particular ways of thinking and stifle creativity. I also maintain that most proprietary VLEs have been designed by businesses not by teachers, and therefore are unfit for purpose. This latest report shows that in the schools and colleges surveyed, the VLE is hardly a popular or successful tool and that there is minimal uptake on its use. More to be concerned about however, is the vast amount of money that has been poured into providing tools which are just not being used appropriately or effectively. Is this yet another nail in the VLE coffin, and should we now be looking toward more simplified, personalised learning environments based on individual needs?

Related links:

Martin Weller The VLE is dead
JISC Advantages of VLEs for tutors
Steven Verjans The VLE/LMS is dead
Pontydysgu F-ALT09: Symposium on VLEs
Martin Weller Some more VLE demise thoughts
Anne-Marie Cunningham In praise of the walled-garden (VLE)
Podcast The VLE debate

Image source

Tuesday, 23 June 2009

The edgeless university?

This just in from JISC: British universities will lose their leading international standing unless they become much more radical in their use of new technology, a JISC commissioned report says today. British universities occupy four of the top ten world rankings and the UK isone of the top destinations for international students. But the Edgeless University, conducted by Demos on behalf JISC, suggests that a slowness to adopt new models of learning will damage this competitive edge. The research showed that the recession has put universities under intense pressure as threats to funding combine with increasing demand. A wave of applicants is expected to hit universities this summer as record numbers of unemployed young people seek to ‘study out’ the recession.

The report says that online and social media could help universities meet these demands by reaching a greater number of students and improving the quality of research and teaching. Online and DIY learning can create 'edgeless universities' where information, skills and research are accessible far beyond the campus walls.

Malcolm Read OBE, Executive Secretary for JISC, which supported the research, said: ‘The UK is a leading force in the delivery of higher education and its universities and colleges have been punching well above their weight for some time. Safeguarding this reputation means we have to fight harder to stay ahead of developments in online learning and social media, and embracing the Web 2.0 world. ‘This is a great opportunity for UK universities and colleges to open up and make learning more accessible to students who would not traditionally stay on in education. 'Edgeless universities' can transform the way the UK delivers, shares and uses the wealth and quality of information its institutions own.’

The report also calls for universities to acknowledge the impact of the internet by making academic research freely available online. Author of the report, Peter Bradwell, said: ‘The internet and social networks mean that universities are now just one part of the world of learning and research. This means we need their support and expertise more than ever. Just as the music industry may have found the answer to declining CD sales with Spotify, universities must embrace online knowledge sharing and stake a claim in the online market for information.’

The report makes a series of recommendations for opening up university education, including making all research accessible to the public. It says teaching should be placed on a more even footing with research in career progression and status and teaching which uses new technology rewarded.

Read the full report www.jisc.ac.uk/edge09

Image source

Monday, 22 June 2009

Mashing it up

Earlier today I was invited by my good friend Maged Kamel Boulos to write a paper on educational mashups for inclusion in a special issue of Future Internet - an online open access journal, which he is guest editing. So I have put together a title and an abstract which I hope fits the bill.

The paper is based upon some talks I gave recently at Online Educa Berlin, the Plymouth E-Learning Conference, and the JISC Regional South West Conference. I also had a paper planned for the EDEN Conference in Gdansk, Poland last week, but health issues intervened and I never got to give it. Well, every cloud has a silver lining, so the paper has been repurposed. Here it is, awaiting your comments.

Wiki Blog Space Mashups: Combining Web 2.0 tools to create collaborative and reflective learning spaces

Recently teachers have used wikis, blogs and other open architecture Web tools to encourage student interaction (Richardson, 2006). Wikis can promote collaborative learning, and serve as repositories for user generated content (Wheeler et al, 2008). Blogs can encourage greater reflection on learning and enable students to enter into dialogue on specific topics (Kop, 2007). Wikis form a part of a community space, whilst blogs are situated within an individual’s personal space. Interest is growing about how social software tools can provide added value to the learning process, and this is reflected in the growing literature on the topic. Less is known about how wikis, blogs and other Web 2.0 tools might be combined and mashed up to create dynamic new learning environments. In this paper, Web 2.0 tool combination is explored, with reference to two case studies of recent initial teacher training programmes where blogs and wikis were blended to create new virtual learning spaces. Students offer their views about using these tools, and reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. There is also discussion about aggregation of content and a theorisation of how community and personal spaces can create tension and conflict. A new ‘learning spaces’ model will be presented which aids visualisation of the processes, domains and territories that are brought into play when content and Web 2.0 tools are mashed up within the same space.

References

Kop, R. (2007) Blogs and wikis as disruptive technologies: Is it time for a new pedagogy? In M. Osborne, M. Houston and N. Toman (Eds.) The Pedagogy of Lifelong Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. and Wheeler, D. (2008) The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating Student Generated Content as a Collaborative Learning Tool. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (6), 987-995.

Image source

Sunday, 21 June 2009

In person

There has been a lot of talk recently about PLEs (Personal Learning Environments) and everyone it seems, wants to know what they are, what they contain, or if they will replace current institutional VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) or LMS (Learning Management System) provision. No one seems to be able to agree on what a PLE is. I've heard several people complain recently that they can't find enough published research in the area of PLEs either. I simply point them in the direction of the journal I edit: Interactive Learning Environments. Last year we ran a special issue on PLEs, and to give you a flavour, here are two of the abstracts:

The first article, written by the guest editors Mark Johnson and Oleg Liber, examines learner agency:

We present the Personal Learning Environment (PLE) as a practical intervention concerning the organization of technology in education. We explain this by proposing a cybernetic model of the “Personal Learner” using Beer's Viable System Model (VSM). Using the VSM, we identify different regulatory mechanisms that maintain viability for learners, and how physical engagement with tools is of fundamental importance in learners being able to manage their learning environment. We explain how the PLE, in exploiting Service Oriented Architecture, attempts to address this issue of the engagement with tools by allowing learners to control their own instrumentation. This, however, is more than a practical issue. In shifting the locus of control over learning to the learner, the ways in which learners exercise that control becomes an important educational issue. Drawing on sources ranging from Bandura's work on self-efficacy, and philosophical work on social ontology, we argue that self-regulation and technological personalization are issues which strike at the heart of current debates about the organization of education and the nature of the relationship between institutions and learners, and more deeply, the human condition in the modern world. Some anecdotal practical implications are reported in the final section of the paper as we describe the response of learners to the challenges of increased personalization.

Johnson M and Liber O (2008) The Personal Learning Environment and the human condition: from theory to teaching practice. Interactive Learning Environments, 16 (1), 3-15.
The second article I can draw your attention to was written by the so called 'Father of the PLE', Scott Wilson. In the article, Scott examines design issues surrounding the deployment of PLEs:
The use of design patterns is now well established as an approach within the field of software systems as well as within the field of architecture. An initial effort was made to harness patterns as a tool for elaborating the design of the elements of personal learning environments as part of the University of Bolton's Personal Learning Environment project; however, this earlier effort had a number of limitations that prompted a revisit to the pattern language documented here. In particular, the initial patterns, while functionally useful, lacked some of the moral and generative qualities that are the essential qualities of an effective pattern language. This paper presents a revised pattern language focused around two primary categories, learning networks, and personal learning tools.

Wilson S (2009) Patterns of Personal Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 16 (1), 17-34.
Related Links:
Mohamed Amine Chatti: LMS vs PLE
Steve Wheeler slideshow: Self organised learning and PLEs
Image source
 
View blog authority

Delicious Bookmark this on Delicious