Libraries without walls

I recently wrote about how libraries are adapting to the digital age. The traditional library is viewed by many as a place for stacks of books to gather dust, and where stern librarians in tweed jackets tell you to keep quiet. Libraries are shaking off this image, and embracing new technologies and approaches to support learning in the 21st Century.

In Library 2.0 I outlined some of the changes that are taking place in libraries as they align their services toward technological developments such as the digitisation of content, social media and the widespread use of mobile devices. To extend this discussion, I recently sat down for a conversation with some of my colleagues in Plymouth University's library and resources centre to ascertain their views on how libraries are changing in the digital age.

I firstly wanted to find out what the contemporary library had to offer today's 'tech savvy students'. The answer was four-fold - libraries provide content, services, spaces and skills. My library colleagues then proceeded to elaborate on these four key areas of provision.

Content

Content has been the mainstay of libraries throughout the ages, whether in paper form or in the form of other media. However, the nature of this content is changing radically. One of the first questions I asked our library staff related to some news that had broken the previous day, when Encyclopedia Britanica announced that after 224 years in print it was finally going exclusively digital. This came on the back of reports late in 2011 that the online store Amazon was now selling more Kindle and e-book versions than paper based. Was this a trend that was a threat to the library? The library staff told me they actually welcomed these developments, pointing out that digital content could more easily be updated when errors were discovered. It is better, I was told, to have up to date digital Britanica, than out of date text books on the shelves. Britannica has admitted that it has more content in its database than would comfortably fit into a print set, so digitisation is a prudent step forward. The conversation around online encyclopedias inevitably led us to discuss Wikipedia and its relevance in academic study. Wikipedia is good as a starting point, but students need to be aware that there is more in-depth knowledge available elsewhere in journals and books.

Services

Many libraries are now exploiting the power of social media to expand their reach, beyond the traditional walls of the institution. Although still in its infancy, Twitter, Facebook and other social networking tools can be strategically employed to issue alerts and news updates, whilst SMS text can be sent to individual users to remind them that their loans are about to become overdue, or that a new service has been introduced. Students want personalised SMS alerts, direct to their mobile devices - 'push' for personalised content, 'pull' for everything else as and when they require it. However, this can be expensive for the average campus library to implement. Libraries now need to make services available at any time and any place, because students and academics are increasingly mobile.

Many libraries are also offering services which reach out to the local community, providing them with opportunities they would not be able to access anywhere else.

Spaces

Users of libraries need to be aware that the model of management of the physical space is changing. Learning is now much more social, and students tend to gravitate to areas that are conducive to study in groups. The on campus library is in a strategic place to offer such social spaces and specialist services.

As a study space, the Plymouth University library is a busier physical space than it has ever been, despite the reduction of physical content on shelves. The library encourages flexible learning spaces where furniture and other items can be moved around to suit the needs of students. Many of the traditional constraints are being relaxed, and the library space is becoming more agile. It is clear that Plymouth University students are looking for spaces where there are few (or no) distractions, and the library is able to offer these environments. Whether it is quiet study space or group space for collaborative project work, today's academic libraries have to respond in a flexible manner. As is the case with most university libraries in the UK, every part of the Plymouth University library is wireless enabled and students can bring their own devices to support their learning. The library space is a haven in the midst of a bustling campus that supports over 30,000 students. It is a dedicated space for independent study, and students will not be ejected to make way for a lecture, but can stay as long as they wish.

Skills

One of the key development areas of learning in the 21st Century is the ability to use technology to support study in a variety of modes. Often referred to as digital literacies, the ability to harness the power of new technology to enhance, extend and enrich learning is becoming a key graduate attribute. Libraries are in a unique position to offer students training in digital literacy, whether it be searching for academic content, systematic retrieval of library resources, or simple making the very best use of what is available.

The web is 'the wild west' of learning, I was told, and students need to have savvy to survive it. Students need to know the provenance of content - who wrote it and in what context. What students need to discover is how to drill deeper and triangulate content in a wider knowledge context. Sourcing content for reference purposes is more involved than Google searching.

Consumption of content on the web is not the only area for skills development. Students need to be aware that they leave a digital footprint wherever they go in online space. This digital trail What they say, do and search, may do them out of an interview in later life. Another skill is media literacy - the ability to creatively use a wide variety of formats of content, including gaming, video, text and images - is a new literacy students and researchers need to learn. Learners have to be confident in how they collaborate with others and how they collate and apply content in academic contexts.

The future

What will the future hold for the library? Libraries will become increasingly disaggregated from the publishing world, and will become highly specialised in serving their academic community. They will continue to extend services beyond their walls to serve students everywhere, ragardless of geographical location. It is also clear that libraries will continue to develop their digital collections, and increase their connections to share this content. The future of the academic library will be to act as the intermediary and enabler that connects learners and knowledge.

Image by Steve Wheeler


Libraries without walls by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Classroom without walls

I've written before about the idea of the classroom without walls. Today, with the sun shining down on the UK's warmest March in recorded history, my students and I sat in a classroom without walls - literally. We went outside and held our final teaching session of the term in the warm sun. The students enjoyed it, and frankly, so did I. It has been a very long time since I last conducted a lesson outside in the open air. I know this is not what I normally mean when I talk about classrooms without walls. Normally I'm alluding to the idea that with technology to mediate our communication, we can extend our traditional classroom boundaries to encompass learners across the globe. Through the use of webinars, videoconferencing, podcasting and even blogging, we can become global educators, and the tyranny of distance is overcome.

But today was the real deal. It was refreshing to just step away from all the artificial lighting, technology and classroom furniture and simply sit out on the grass, in the open air, learning from each other. It got me wondering what we actually do when we sit in a classroom, enclosed by four walls and with the door firmly closed. It tends to shut down learning, so that the world outside cannot witness what is happening in the room. Why do we shut the doors when we teach? Possibly to eliminate distractions, but there are so many distractions still in the room.

Today, in the warm sunshine, with nothing but blue sky above us, and with no power sockets, interactive whiteboards or computers in sight, the group listened intently, engaged completely, and spent two full hours focused on the task of putting together a research report. Often they are hunched over their computers, tapping away trying to make notes, or passing messages to each other on Facebook or Twitter. Today, all they had was a pad and pen to scribble their notes. Makes me wonder how learning could be transformed if we had warmer weather, and the outdoor learning movement had more influence than it currently enjoys.



Classrooms without walls by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

What the flip?

Everywhere I look I'm seeing 'Flip teaching' or 'Flipped classroom'. There's a lot of hype about this 'flipping' idea and it's getting me flipping irritated. What does flipping actually involve? Does anyone know, or is the term being misused or misrepresented? Even Aaron Sams, a highly visible proponent of the flipped movement admits that the term is ambiguous. This morning, the May issue of Wired Magazine landed on my doormat, and what did I see inside? An article entitled 'University just flipped'. Well, dip me in mayonnaise. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but when you get down to the fundamentals, isn't flipping the classroom a load of old hat? Haven't we been doing it for years?

What 'flipping the classroom' boils down to it seems, is the creation of online content including videos that offsets the need for students to physically attend class. There are several vaunted examples of this. The Khan Academy videos have been hailed as a departure from 'boring old lectures', and I suppose the same could be said for the TED series of videos. Don't get me wrong, video has its place in education. I enjoy watching videos and I am often inspired by great speakers, and some of the video talks from Khan and TED are truly inspirational. But by any stretch of the imagination, just watching a video cannot be seen as a viable substitute for good learning, and should not be used to replace campus based education just for the sake of it. I used to jump all over lecturers who, when they had nothing better to speak about, decided to 'put on a video.' It made no sense then to simply cop out and fill time by showing a video, when a well considered discussion session on a thorny topic was much better at getting the synapses sparking.

Another objection to the flipped classroom is the digital divide. What happens to all those students who cannot afford or access the technology they need to participate in this kind of learning? And what about students who suffer from visual impairment? Have these been considered in the flipped classroom equation?

Do we seriously think that we can replace teaching with a video? Shouldn't we instead be concentrating on replacing bad lecturers? Far too often institutions buy into the latest shiny idea without enough thought about what the implications are for the student. With increased student tuition fees looming, more and more students are going to demand better quality tuition, more engaging lectures and richer learning experiences. If they don't get them, we can expect to see litigation, institutional black listing and plenty of students voting with their feet. Asking them to stay at home, watch a video and then do an assignment based on their own independent study isn't going to cut it.

According to the Wired magazine article, 'flipped teaching is essentially a type of tutoring. The difference is that new digital tools enable teachers to coach large classes: one-on-one tutoring, scaled by the web.' Oh yeah? Sounds like the old style distance education to me. What is not explained in Wired, is how on earth a tutor can conduct one-on-one tutorials (using any conceivable web tool yet created) to provide quality support for upwards of 160,000 students (this is the figure cited as the number of students enrolled on the 2011 Stanford University AI course run by Peter Norvig and Sebastian Thrun).

More important for discussion than economies of scale, is the quality of learning experienced by the learners in this so called 'flipped' learning environment. The most fundamental criticism of the flipped classroom model (argues the Innovative Educator website), is that it is based on the old instructional model of education - which we all know is no longer appropriate nor relevant in this digital age. All we are doing, under the guise of new technology is perpetuating previous errors on a grand scale.

Wired does report that to cope with such a massive programme as the Stanford course, online assignments were 'auto-graded'. This prompts serious questions about what exactly students are learning, and at what level of depth they are learning it. Exactly what is the added value of the 'Flipped Classroom' besides the fact that students don't need to leave their home town? It's quite telling that when 160,000 students enrolled on the Stanford programme, Thrun and Norvig decided to set up their own for-profit online college, which they called Udacity. It figures. There is obviously big bucks in the idea. No wonder they are so enthusiastic about the flipped classroom.

So besides making lots of money out of the idea, and having an article about you featuring in Wired magazine, what is the flipped classroom good for? What are we actually achieving by flipping the classroom? If it is, as Seth Godin suggests, to avoid the turgid ramblings of out of date professors, then I welcome the change. If on the other hand, all we are doing is giving distance education another name, then what is the point?

One very useful piece of information in the Wired article is the mention of the British Open University and their work around using online learning platforms such as Moodle to support their distance learners. Bearing in mind that these thousands of learners already exist, and it is expedient that they receive high quality resources and support from their remote tutors whilst studying at home and/or at work. Niall Sclater who is Director of Online Learning at the OU, is quoted as saying that students should be able to do an entire degree on an Android phone or iPhone (other brands are available). Niall is correct, but the OU has been supporting distance learners for a lot longer than Khan or Udacity, and it knows how to do it effectively. One of the first things anyone who contemplates offering technology supported learning needs to consider is that delivering resources to remote learners is only half the equation. You also need to support them. A lot.

I want to propose an alternative form of flipped classroom. If we are in the business of turning things on their heads, let's do it properly. Sending students off to watch a video doesn't cut it. To my mind, flipping the classroom is a lot less complicated than it is portrayed. We don't need to use hi-tech solutions to help us flip the classroom. If we want higher quality learning experiences, we simply flip traditional roles. Flipping learning for me means teachers becoming learners and students becoming teachers. I have already elaborated on this in a previous blog post. If teachers assume the role of a learner, and accept that they are not the fonts of all knowledge, but are there to facilitate learning instead of instructing, positive change in education would happen. Similarly, if we ask students to become teachers, and we encourage them to independently create their own content, share and present their work - either in the classroom, or on the web - we place them in a position where they must take responsibility to learn and develop their understanding of their subject. This is active, participatory learning. Students can aspire to become specialists in their chosen field, because in order to be able to teach, you first need to become intimate with your subject. We learn by teaching. Now that's flipping good.

Image by Sneebly


What the flip? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Create, connect, collaborate

With Pelecon (the 7th Plymouth Enhanced Learning Conference) only a few weeks away, preparations are almost complete. We are very excited about this year's event, with its lineup of world class speakers. As many readers will already know, we rebranded the event this year. With a new logo and website, we are sure Pelecon will retain its reputation as a friendly and stimulating event that showcases advances in technology enhanced learning. We believe Pelecon provides an excellent meeting place for those involved in promoting the use of learning technology across all sectors of education and training. Set in an idyllic part of the South West of England, we hope Pelecon is now established on the annual international conference schedule. There is still plenty of time to register for the event, and a chance to hear firsthand the thoughts of leading thinkers in the field including Keri Facer, Alec Couros, Jane Hart, Simon Finch, Leigh Graves Wolf, Helen Keegan and David Mitchell.

Pelecon has some secret weapons. Our social media team of Oliver Quinlan, Edd Bolton and Jason Truscott have been hard at work behind the scenes creating a host of social media platforms to promote the pre-conference discussions and raise awareness of the event.

We set up a Pelecon Twitter account which is a regular broadcast channel for all the latest news and views on the conference as we draw closer to the day. The account already has in excess of 200 followers, and is growing its reach daily.

Our Pelecon blog already hosts links to abstracts of all of the accepted papers for the conference this year, and an open invitation for anyone to post comments and questions to any of the speakers at the event. We want to encourage dialogue before the conference starts. The Pelecon blog will also feature regular posts from the team, including interviews with speakers, news and other updates as the conference progresses.

The Pelecon YouTube channel features videos of previous talks given by our invited conference speakers, and other associated content related to the event.

We have a Pelecon Lanyrd site where you can see all those attending, and where those who cannot attend can track the conference as it progresses.

The Pelecon Flickr site hosts images of previous conferences, and has a facility for delegates to add further content from their own personal photo collections related to the conference.

There is even a Pelecon official Facebook event page (but we won't talk too much about that...) and a LinkedIn page too!

The official hashtag for the conference is #pelc12 which is already being used in the run-up to the event. There are also session specific hashtags such as #TMpelecon which will be used during the Pelecon Teachmeet.

We think we have the social media angle well covered for the conference, but if you think we are missing a trick, I would like to hear from you.


Create, connect, collaborate by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Bring your own

Mobile learning is on the rise. It was inevitable that the mobile phone would be brought into the classroom, with or without 'permission'. Many children use their mobile phones in class even though school rules forbid them to do so. What would encourage schools to sanction the use of personal devices?

There has been a lot of discussion recently about Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) in schools. There are two camps forming. On one side, there are those who believe that children should not be permitted to use their own devices in the school because mobile phones are distracting, can cause behaviour management issues and can also lead for example to serious issues such as cyberbullying and sexting. There are also teachers who fear that allowing children to bring their own devices will amplify the socio-economic digital divide - a kind of Bring Your Own Divide. Some children will have the latest, expensive devices while others from less affluent families will have cheaper, less enabled devices, or none at all. Concerns have also been voiced about liability and the potential loss, theft or damage of devices while children are inside the boundaries of the school.

On the other side, there are teachers who believe that allowing children to bring their own devices into school will liberate learning. Supporters of BYOD argue that allowing students to use their own devices, with which they are familiar, will give them a head-start where they don't need to learn to use a tool before learning through it. Children already use their mobile devices for a large variety of social purposes, including networking with their friends, accessing peer-related information and sharing content (images, links, status updates). The argument is that it would be natural for children to use their devices for learning in formalised settings. Teachers who support BYOD argue that children will feel more comfortable using their own devices, that BYOD will teach children to take more responsibility for their actions, and that policing their use should not be problematic.

This is a simplified version of what is shaping up to be a complex debate, but there is a strong case for both sides of the argument. There are of course many grey areas too. Some teachers have no strong views about BYOD, but for those who are actually implementing BYOD in the classroom, there are claims of positive outcomes.

In a post at the end of 2011 I reported on my visit to Albany Senior High School in Auckland, New Zealand, who have been supporting a school wide BYOD scheme for some time. To get around the problem of the perceived 'digital divide' the school also provides laptops and other tools for children who don't have their own personal device. They have also discovered that giving children the responsibility to manage their own learning through their own devices has largely eliminated behavioural problems. Children cherish the freedom to use their own devices, don't wish to run the risk of losing their privilege, and therefore take the responsibility to keep within the school rules seriously.

What are your views on the debate? Do you know of schools that have successfully implemented school-wide BYOD?  Do you have stories of BYOD failure?

Image by Freefoto


Bring your own by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Web 2.0 culture

In previous posts I argued that as teachers, we should be prepared to give our content away for free. There are two reasons for this. One is to benefit those learners worldwide who wish to learn from you and need to see your content. Secondly, it is so you can reap the exponential rewards the social web offers. In Giving it all away I showed how offering free online access to your ideas and works actually increases your audience size. Licensing your content under a Creative Commons agreement that allows for repurposing or remixing provides an opportunity and invitation for others to translate your slides or blogposts into another language. Several of my posts and slideshows have been translated into Spanish, which opens up vast new audiences in South America I can share my ideas with, with no extra effort.

Look at the photograph. There were several images I could have used to illustrate this post, but all were protected by a copyright licence. In doing so those photographers lose the opportunity for their work to be amplified to a larger audience. The image I chose was licenced for free use and remix with attribution, so Noel Hidalgo gets the prize and receives a larger audience for his fabulous picture.  But the ethos of sharing on the social web goes deeper than the act of sharing content. It's also the adoption of a new mindset and a new culture for many professionals - the culture of Web 2.0. By way of explanation, here's an adapted extract from a book I published a couple of years ago:

The introduction of wikis into conservative environments such as classrooms requires all participants to adopt a new culture - one of co-operation and sharing. When they understand they can actually create and share content on a global stage, students can be both excited and daunted. Many of those who welcome the experience are probably in some way already connected into the culture of Web 2.0 and will probably already have accounts on social networking sites such as Facebook. They may be familiar with other media sharing sites such as YouTube or Flickr, and aware of the protocols that are active within these micro-cultures.


Those who are reluctant to share or co-operate, or anxious in some way about posting their content up on the web for all to see, may need to work a little harder to assimilate the culture of Web 2.0. It is only later, when they are more immersed into the Web 2.0 culture, and they have begun to develop the specialist digital literacies which gain them full access into it, that these students begin to understand the power and potential of sharing, co-operation and collaboration. Some never make the transition, and steadfastly refuse to allow their work to be edited by others, preferring instead to protect their ideas and maintain sole ownership over their content.

Canadian academic Brian Lamb once declared that during times of economic challenge, when so many people need access to learning, it seems preverse to hoard knowledge in any form. And yet, in schools, colleges and universities around the globe, there are many teachers and academics who jealously guard their content, as if by doing so they will benefit in some way from their protectionism. They may receive some financial reward, but will they have the satisfaction of knowing that in some way they have also helped other people, without cost? I have a message for such professionals. Change your mind. Choose to share your content openly and freely - it is only through giving it away that you will begin to reap the full rewards of the Social Web. Knowledge is like love. You can give as much away as you like, but you still get to keep it.

Adapted from Wheeler S. (Ed: 2009) Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. (p. 9).

Image by Noel Hidalgo


Web 2.0 culture by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Shock of the new

Teachers in many schools will tell you they are running hard just to stand still as they attempt to adopt new technologies for learning.  It is a real struggle to keep up with the rapid pace of change that defines the digital age. Often, this is a bewildering process, and one which many teachers try to avoid. And yet, with a clear framework or roadmap for adoption, many of the challenges of adopting new technology can be met, and many of the fears teachers have can be assuaged.

Mandinach and Cline (1994) identified four distinct phases of adoption of new technology in schools. In the first phase, known as survival, teachers struggle to define what they wish to achieve with the new technology, and attempt to learn how to use it effectively to support pedagogy. Often, schools make the mistake of purchasing new technology before they have fully considered the reasons they need it. This suggests that the survival phase could be shortened if forethought went into the design of learning, before technology was procured.

The second phase of adoption is known as mastery, and involves teachers moving beyond the survival phase and into a phase where they start to apply the technology to meaningful and authentic learning contexts. During this phase, the technology should become transparent to the users - that is, it should begin to be used without significant cognitive energy.

The third phase, impact, is evaluative, and requires users to apraise the extent to which the technology is being effective . It also involves an assessment of how well teachers and learners are coping with any new issues or challenges that may have arisen during the implementation of the new tools.

The final phase, referred to as innovation, is where teachers have developed enough expertise to begin experimenting with new and innovative ways to use the technology. This can be a particularly creative phase, and often gives rise to the incorporation of even newer technologies, or the development of new pedagogical techniques. Venezky (2004) suggested that this final phase is recognisable by the number of restructured learning activities that occur within the classroom and the extent to which these enhance or extend best practice. Schools that are in the fourth phase of adoption are generally staffed by teachers who feel free to adapt technology to their own particular styles of teaching.

[Adpated from John, P. D. and Wheeler, S. (2009) The Digital Classroom: Harnessing technology for the future. Abingdon: Routledge/David Fulton. (p 99).]

References
Venezky, R. L. (2004) Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication and Information, 4 (1), 3-21.
Mandanach, E. B. and Cline, H. F. (1994) Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology based learning environment. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Image by David Wright


Shock of the new by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

New ideas in a digital age

How are new ideas spread through society? Before the digital age, we had mass media to do the job - TV, radio and newspapers and prior to that, more primitive technologies were employed to spread news. But these media were used to spread ideas, news, and views that were often sanctioned by the broadcasting channel or publisher. We can go right back to the oral cultures where stories were told to preserve cultural values and tribal history from generation to generation. This kind of transmission of ideas was less filtered and more closely aligned to the culture it was aimed at. Today we are more and more reliant on social media channels to access ideas and news. Because this content is often crowd sourced and relatively unfiltered, it is arguably closer to the oral culture of ideas transmission than the mass media that dominated during the last century. One of the best explanatory models I have ever seen about the diffusion of ideas was devised by American sociologist Everett Rogers. In his famous 1962 model (in the figure below) Rogers synthesised the work of over 500 published innovation studies, and identified five phases of innovation diffusion, which are represented in the model as adoption types.

An interesting feature of the model is a gap or chasm between the early adopters and the early majority, which has been referred to as the 'bowling alley'. This concept was elaborated further by Geoffrey A. Moore in his 1991 book 'Crossing the Chasm'. For some ideas, this chasm can be difficult to bridge but must be if the idea is to achieve critical mass and penetrate sufficiently into the collective consciousness of the target society or community. This means that enough people have to subscribe to the idea before it becomes acceptable and desirable for the majority of that society. In most cases, 16 per cent is simply not enough. This model is a useful explanatory framework not only for ideas, but also for new technologies.

If we apply Rogers' model to technology in schools it follows that newer technologies such as tablets, games consoles or 3D televisions need to be purchased by enough schools for manufacturers to earn enough income to establish scalability of production, hopefully lowering their prices in the process. Another social effect is the self-help user groups that spring up to support the product and its application.

Image source 

In the digital age however, many have questioned whether Rogers' model still has any traction. One critic of the model is Rudi Dornbusch, who argues that change does not always occur along the trajectory that Rogers describes. Why might this be? In a time where the power and reach of mass media is beginning to ebb, and instantaneous global communication is now possible; and where individuals have the power to engage immense audiences through handheld tools, does the model still hold any significance?

Several years ago I published an edited volume entitled Transforming Primary ICT (Wheeler, Ed: 2005). In the opening chapter I attempted to provide a 21st Century contextualisation of Rogers' model. Essentially, I reasoned that the categories of Rogers' innovation adoption model could be reframed to enable a better understanding of how people adopt new technologies in the fast moving and hype-ridden age of disposable devices.

We know that the innovators identified in Rogers' model are those who generally adopt new ideas with little difficulty. Some may stand waiting outside a store for hours before the doors open, so they can be the first to own a new device the moment it is released for sale. For the digital age, I thought of this group as 'techno-romantics' because many who fall into the innovator zone tend to see technology as 'the answer'.

The next group - the early adopters - are often opinion leaders within a community, and in this position of respect, they can influence behaviour. They are a little more pragmatic in their outlook, and tend to buy into a new idea or technology when they see its momentum growing. They may also be 'technophiles', in that they have an affinity with new technology and perceive no particular threat to their way of working, but rather embrace it as a means to enhance or extend their practice.

The early majority are the 'techno-realists' - people who deliberate their decisions about purchase of technology and who carefully watch what the technophiles do, before eventually buying into the trend. By the time this section of society adopts the new idea, prices have already begun to fall due to manufaturing economies of scale, and at this point in the lifecycle, version two has probably been released. At this time, the new technology is no longer seen as a fad, or a gimmick, and probably has earned a certain amount of kudos as a desirable device or tool to use.

By the time the late majority have adopted the technology it is no longer new. The late majority are the 'techno-sceptics' who prefer to remain at the periphery of innovation, and only buy into a new device when it has been long established, and there is evidence of good use, and a large enough support network.

The final group, which Rogers calls the 'laggards' are those who never, or only rarely adopt a new idea or technology. They are in digital terms 'techno-luddites', and in Rogers' terms, this group tend to have no opinions leaders within their ranks, but if provoked or threatened by the new tools, may actually take some form of negative action. According to Venezky (2004) this model can explain the adoption of ICT in schools, and holds true in many countries. Although Rogers' model of diffusion of ideas is now more thanfive decades old, I believe it still has a place in our understanding of how technology is adopted.

References

Moore, G. A. (1991) Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business Essentials.
Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Venezky, R. L. (2004) Introductory Paper: Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication and Information, 4(1), 2-22.
Wheeler, S. (Ed: 2005) Transforming Primary ICT. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Main image source


New ideas in a digital age by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Radio Waves

I have just returned from a very enjoyable few days up in Leicester where I spoke at the NAACE Annual Conference. The event was well organised, and we were all very well looked after. I had the pleasure of meeting up again with several old friends, and was pleased to make so many more new friends during the three days of the event, which was held at the Marriot Hotel. Having dinner with former Education Secretary Charles Clarke and hearing his inspirational after dinner speech was a significant highlight of the conference, as were the many encounters with truly knowledgeable and passionate educators from across all sectors of education. Other significant presentations came from the likes of David Mitchell, Stephen Breslin and Mick Waters, all three of whom presented in the same plenary session on the final day of the conference.

Leon Cych approached me prior to my keynote to request an interview about the content of my presentation and I was happy to oblige. The link to the short 3 minute audio interview is below:



After my keynote, I was interviewed again, this time by an extraordinary young man. 16 year old Lewis Phillips is a student at Inverkeithing High School in Fife, Scotland, where he helps to run the RadioWaves internet radio station. Many of the interviews conducted by the RadioWaves team of school children during the conference can be found on this website. My video interview can be accessed from this link.

Image source


Radio Waves by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Who let the blogs out?

Who, who, who who? Yes. Exactly. I have unleashed my blog.

It was about time. For all these years I have been focusing mainly on content. It was substance over style. Focusing solely on content at the expense of context is a mistake. In my previous blog posts I discussed the age old debate about the tension between the two, but I have come to the conclusion that content and context are not a binary. They are dependent upon each other, and need to be balanced. So I have balanced the two here on this new look blog, I hope.

But context is still vitally important. In education, if all learners receive is content, content, content, then they will be... well, discontent. They will feel overwhelmed, hemmed in by the continuous onslaught. Students need to be given some time to reflect, digest, ask the 'what if?' type questions. They need context for the content they have been given. All too often in formalised education settings, there is no time built into the programme to do this, because curriculum comes first. But we need to challenge this. We need to start asking the questions that will cause our leaders to stop and rethink the constraints they are imposing upon the teaching profession. Teachers are doing their best, but with the best will in the world, how are they going to inspire young people to get excited about learning, if they have no time themselves to teach creatively? We need to ask what exactly are schools for? Why are there so many subjects covered in the curriculum? Why is so much time spent on testing, and so little spent on the development of critical skills, creativity, experimentation?

So I gave my blog a makeover a few days ago. I invoked one of the new templates that Blogger has just started to offer its users. You can see the difference it has made. I have unleashed my blog, and now it's free to make as much of an impression on my readers as they are to ask of it. I think it's a cleaner context, a more open and accessible format for the content to sit within. Many others have already agreed, and interestingly, my blog traffic has almost doubled. I'm not claiming that this solely because I have changed the context, the format of my blog. But it seems strange that in the last two days, all I have done is alter the look and feel of the wrapper, and have added no new content. Yet, in the last two days I have received over 10,000 views, up from the normal 2500-3000 views per day I would normally get during the week. For me, this is at least an indication of the power of context. It holds the content, and presents it in a manner that is more accessible, easy to explore and in a more dynamic way. Can we do the same with school content in the given constraints? Success will rely on the tenacity, determination and inventiveness of creative teachers, but as I have always said, teachers are the best society has to offer, and somehow we will find ways to do it. Doctors save lives, but teachers make lives. Let's unleash the content.

Image source


Who let the blogs out? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

...context is king

In yesterday's post I made the statement that the internet is better as a creative space than it is as a repository. Let me clarify this statement. Much of pre-social web based content was difficult to edit or change. Web 1.0 - sometimes referred to as the 'sticky web'- was largely controlled by webmasters and corporations, and was used mainly as a broadcast channel to promote ideas and products. The advent of Web 2.0 type participatory tools and services such as social media and social networks, voting and filtering tools and personalised spaces, provided users with the ability to be directly involved in the creation of web content. Media sharing sites such as Flickr, YouTube and a variety of podcasting services offered users the capability to go beyond the repository mentality of earlier web iterations, to host their own TV and radio channels, blogs enabled them to publish their own newspapers. The web had become a place where people could generally create and share their ideas on a global stage.

The concept of digital repository - collections of useful artefacts that are aggregated together online in an accessible form - is a good one, but the idea loses traction if users cannot interact with the content and hold relevant conversations about it. Increasingly, users also want to repurpose and remix content they find, something which the old style repositories did not allow. The introduction of copyright workarounds such as Creative Commons have given web users the capability to use content in new and creative ways, thereby extending the capabilities, reach and scalability of the content beyond the original intentions of its creator.

As I argued yesterday however, content is no longer the driving force of the web, and should not be viewed in isolation. The context within which the content is situated should also be focused upon as an important component of any analysis of web based learning activity. Content can have two completely different meanings (or functions) if seen in two different contexts. Writing about assessment methods on a teacher discussion site would probably be well received, and users would no doubt engage with any ensuing conversations. Posting the same article up on a site frequented by accountants would be stupid. Unless of course the assessment you were talking about was tax assessment.

I was joking yesterday when I tweeted that my post 'Content is a tyrant' had received over 500 hits in just a few hours, and perhaps the reason was because I used a pretty picture. I was of course being ironic, because it's debatable whether the picture is content or context. For me, the images featured in my blogposts are better seen as contextual, in that they frame the content and provide additional meaning. Photographs are indeed content, but in this setting, they serve as signposts and illustrations to situate the content. We also need to be aware that the value of such content, any content, is subjective and can be interpreted any way the reader wishes.

More to follow on these thoughts in a future post...

Image from Fotopedia (can you see what it is yet?)


...context is king by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Content is a tyrant...

Never before has gaining access to information been so easy. The imminent arrival of widespread 4G broadband and LTE (Long Term Evolution) will usher in wider availability to information and push even more data to our mobile devices over the same amount of radio spectrum. At least that is the plan. Better coverage and faster download/upload speeds would ensure that just about everyone who is connected would have even greater access to online content and services anytime, anywhere. But in adopting these communication advances, are we also opening the door for a deluge of content? Are we not already swamped by a tsunami of content?

In 1996 Microsoft's Bill Gates claimed that 'content is king'. Those who are hot on history will recall that it was around this time that the internet first started to enter the collective consciousness. The mid-1990s was an interesting time. Microsoft dominated the computer software market, and Google wasn't yet conceived (Brin and Page didn't launch Google until September 1998). In 1996, most pre-Google online searching was done using Yahoo! (a company founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in January 1994) and I remember using Pegasus e-mail, and browsing the web using Netscape Navigator. Mobile telephones were a lot larger than they are today, and quite expensive to buy and use. When people talked about ‘smart phones’ they were referring to the design and appearance of the device, not its capability. Looking back on that embryonic period of telecommunication, and considering the sophisticated tools and services we now have at our disposal, and can use without a second thought, does the statement made about content by Bill Gates still stand?

The reasoning behind the Gates statement is that content is what drives the web. So for example, if a blog constantly publishes good content, the theory is that people will keep coming back to read more. The medium itself is not as important as the content it holds.

The Canadian media theorist Marshall McLuhan had a somewhat different take on media. His famous statement, in pre-internet times, was that 'the medium is the message' (or indeed the massage). Put simply, McLuhan was more interested in the characteristics of the medium that conveyed the content to the user. In 1996 Richard E. Clark, argued that media and technologies were 'mere vehicles' that delivered content to users in much the same way that delivery vans brought goods. His argument was that all media and technologies are neutral, and that the user imposes their own interpretations upon them. His view was that media do not influence learning any more than the delivery van influences diet. While Clark held the view that media do not influence learning, Robert Kozma countered by arguing that specific media do possess certain characteristics that suit particular types of learning activity. Kozma made the statement: 'If we move from "Do media influence learning?" to "In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?" we will both advance the development of our field and contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning.'

In essence, Kozma and McLuhan both believed that context (i.e. the tools, the media), were at least as important as the content they delivered, whilst Clark agreed with Gates that the content was king. Increasingly, in today's digital age, many of us are following Clark’s perspective, focusing on content, without paying much attention to the tools we use to make sense of it. In some ways, this is a natural progression, because tools and technologies are becoming more transparent and easy to use without too much thought. Yet in focusing on the content, as McLuhan warned, we may miss the entire message. Highly digitally literate individuals are able to communicate effectively across several platforms without loss of power or nuance. This is known as 'transliteracy', a sophisticated grasp of the affordances of the media and technologies that is becoming the passport to success for today's digital learner and scholar. Transliteracy goes beyond content, and exploits the power and potential of many different tools and services, giving the user an edge over content, enabling them to connect, communicate, consume, create and collaborate more effectively.

Access to information is one thing. But information should not be confused with knowledge. Knowledge comes about through learning and through the diligent application of information. Anyone who is interested in learning will also be interested in cognition and its relationship to knowledge. A popular recent theory is that cognition does not exclusively occur inside the head, but is also increasingly reliant on tools and other people. This theory represents a distributed form of cognition that is highly resonant in the age of ubiquitous and personal connections. David Jonassen talked about using computers and the internet as 'mind tools' - extensions of our cognitive ability and mental space which have the potential to advance personal learning beyond the constraints of normal boundaries and spaces. This mind tool effect can be observed today in large social networks and across distributed communities of practice, and might be explained through connectivist theory which holds that we now store our knowledge more with our friends than we do in any physical repository.

Yet connecting into a community of practice can work as a double edged sword. Although membership of an online network of interest (or community of practice) brings many benefits and rewards, it also has the potential to swamp individuals with content, because every active community member is generating, sharing and recommending content. The larger the community network, the more content is likely to be made available. This experience has been likened to taking a drink from a fire hydrant. Enter any term into a search engine and you are likely to receive back millions of hits. The veritable tsunami of content that assails us can make us feel as though we are drowning in a sea of information. Content has become a tyrant, and although there are many tools to help us moderate and filter this content, not everyone knows how to use them effectively.

One final thought: The internet is better as a creative space than it is as a repository. This is due in no small part to the gradual evolution of so called Web 2.0 tools and services, the majority of which are richly social and participatory in nature. The capability of social networks to connect people with similar interests from across the globe also promotes the need to create, organise, share and consume content within appropriate contexts. As a society, and within our communities of practice, we need to be able to discern the good content from the bad content.

Next time: .... Context is king

Image from Fotopedia


Content is a tyrant... by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Library 2.0

What does the future hold for our university libraries? Are they obsolete or are they essential? The library has long been seen by many as a very traditional, conservative institution, and is often portrayed as a place where rows upon rows of antiquated book shelves slowly gather dust. Yet a visit to the university library today will reveal a substantial investment in technology to streamline research and provide users with a more seamless and rewarding experience.

Just how are libraries adapting to the digital age and all it brings? In the past they have been a pivotal part of university life. They are not simply a repository of books and learning resources, although many may see them as just that. If all libraries did was store and loan out books, their doors would have closed years ago. The digital age would have put paid to them. In an era where digital media holds sway, and where online stores such as Amazon announce they are now selling more Kindle and e-versions of books than paper versions, what will be the future for the university library? What changes are they making that bring them into the digital age, and enable them to compete with current advances in technology?

Firstly, libraries offer specialised search services which go beyond the simple searches you can perform on Google or other search engines. Publications such as Kelly et al's Library 2.0 indicate the trends away from traditional repository approaches to a more distributed range of digital services for staff and students, with particular emphasis on the tools students are already familiar with - Web 2.0 social media.

Secondly, as Ian Clarke (2010) suggests in his Guardian article, we still need libraries because they inform users about best practice in the use of search tools and the promotion of better digital literacies. Clarke also shows how libraries can bridge the digital divide, arguing: "Libraries are a bridge between the information-rich and the information-poor. They need reinforcing, not dismantling. We need to continue to provide a highly skilled service that is able to meet the needs of the general public." He warns though, that libraries must continue to innovate and keep pace with the changes fomented by digital media, because without the services they offer, we would run the risk of living in an ill-informed society. It's not difficult to see that this perspective is influenced by the rise in informal learning, but those who are engaged in formal education also rely on centralised library services.

The College Online website provides an excellent list of reasons why librarians are not obselete that includes arguments about the changing roles of librarians, but in essence focuses on practicalities. One reason offered is that not everything is on the Internet.  Whilst this is still a reasonable argument to make at present, we can speculate that this may not always be the case. How long will it take to digitise everything so that it becomes available online? The advent of Google Books, Amazon's Look Inside feature and other similar services offer potential readers a preview of the insides of books and other artefacts. Although the entire book may only be readable on purchase, it may not be long before the open access movement gains enough ground to facilitate the digitisation of everything - for free. Some authors and publishers will resist the open movement, but if they do, they are likely to find themselves marginalised from the literary world and on the periphery of the global reading experience. The digitisation of difficult to find materials is sensible and sustainable. Readers can now access a great many historical maps, genealogical records or rare volumes without leaving their armchairs. But there is still a great deal to achieve in the grand plan to digitise everything, and there are those who are opposed to the very idea.

More convincing is the argument that library attendance isn't falling, it's just migrating to virtual attendance. By this, the writer is arguing that more users are deciding to access library services online, and with more university libraries digitising their content and services, this seems to be a rising trend. If so, what becomes of the physical library space in the future? This is a question each library must answer in its own way, because each library is different. Will some for example, begin to repurpose their spaces to provide different services? Will some create culturally and socially rich environments which will attract users back into the physical space? Or will they instead downscale their physical footprint to enable the funding of other digital services that require less groundspace?

In a future blogpost, I will report back on the librarians' perspective on these and other related questions. I will also present a keynote speech at the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals of Scotland (CILIPS) conference in Dundee on June 11 - where I will elaborate on this discussion.

References

Clarke, I. (2010) Why we still need libraries in the digital age. The Guardian, 13 July. Available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/13/internet-age-still-need-libraries (Accessed 2 March, 2012)

Kelly, B., Bevan, P., Akerman, R., Alcock, J. and Fraser, J., (2009) Library 2.0: balancing the risks and benefits to maximise the dividends. Program Electronic Library and Information Systems, 43 (3), 311-327. Available online at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/15260/ (Accessed 2 March, 2012)

Picture by Steve Wheeler (Victoria State Library, Melbourne, Australia)


Library 2.0 by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.