Very touching

Under consideration during one of my tutorials were the affordances of touch screen tools such as Apple's iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch. Regular readers of this blog may remember a post I wrote last month on natural gesture interfaces entitled It's only natural. In it I reported that there are a number of ways to interface with a computer now, including touch screen, non-touch (e.g. the XBox 360 Kinect), touch surface (e.g. MIT's Sixth Sense wearable), voice activation, and a number of other operation modes, many of which are spin-offs of adaptive technologies developed to support users with physical disabilities. Even facial feature recognition has been mentioned as a future interface mode.

But it was the Apple iPad tablet and other touch screen tools such as Dell's Latitude laptop that were in our focus today. (A review of the new Latitude 2110 will feature on this blog in the near future) I speculated that it was not only the tactile characteristics of the touch screen that were important, but that haptics could also be a key factor. Non-touch interfaces will no doubt become popular in time, as has already been shown by the rapid rise in popularity of the XBox Kinect. But the Nintendo Wii remains a popular gaming technology, possibly because of the haptic feedback system built into the handset. If you hit a golf ball too strongly for example, not only do you hear the fateful sound of an overhit golf ball, and experience the view of the ball overshooting the green, you also feel the vibration in the handset, which convinces your nervous system that you have made a mistake. Although the iPad screen doesn't vibrate, it never the less provides pressure resistance feedback to the user. It is a sort of middle ground between the flexible 'give' of the conventional keyboard or mouse, and the 'nothingness' of the XBox 360 Kinect. Haptics, I think, will have a big role to play in the future acceptance of natural gesture interfaces and may influence which systems ultimately become the 'Killer App' replacement for the keyboard and mouse. People may not be as ready for the completely non-touch interfaces.

A second point we discussed was that natural gestures such as pinching, flicking and swiping are intuitive, and offer students a tactile, transparent window to manipulation of content and quicker learning. Transparent technologies are those that require learners to invest a minimum of thought and effort into navigating and operating a system, thereby allowing them more cognitive processing capablity to learn. Conversely, an opaque technology (some institutional VLEs fall into this category) is a technology that forces students to concentrate more on using the tools than they do on actual learning. The former is clearly more desirable than the latter, and iPad and iPhone type interfaces provide this transparency. Students 'see through' the technology to more easily find, organise and assimilate the content.

The third important aspect of touch screen interfaces is their capability to support learning, communication and interaction with surroundings while on the move. New and emerging applications such as Augmented Reality, GPS and 3D visualisation also have a lot of appeal, particularly for those who find themselves having to navigate through unfamiliar neighbourhoods. We will probably see a lot of new developments around computer interfaces in the coming few years, but I think Apple have nailed it with the iPad touchscreen for a while at least.

Image source


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

Disruptive activism

At the top end of the new year I have been reading some of the inevitable predictions people 'in the know' have been making. Some are plausible, others a little outlandish, and some downright rediculous. If I were to make my own prediction about what we can expect this year, I would say that we can expect a lot of change. I think this would be a safe prediction, because it has always been thus. We have seen a lot of changes in the last decade, some of them have been game changing. Think of the Apple iPad and other similar touch screen devices introduced in the last year and consider how they have begun to impact upon the world of learning. Think farther back to see the far reaching effects of the Social Web on learning. I'm giving a number of presentations in the coming few months both in the UK and farther afield in Europe in which I will try to outline what I think these changes will be and how technology will play its part in the future of education. My prediction is that the changes will be disruptive. My wikipedia page claims that I am a 'disruptive activist', which is quite an apt description of me - I use the term on my Twitter profile page. But just what is disruptive activism?

Disruptive technologies are those that change the market and in most cases replace an existing technology. They are characterised by their capability to do so over a relatively short period of time. Some are known as 'killer applications' because they completely wipe out the opposition due to their placement in the market, their greater appeal, availability and lower price, to name just a few of the key factors. The replacement of Betamax video tape with VHS tape (even though the latter was technically inferior) was one classic example of a disruptive technology in the 1980s. Another example of disruptive technology was the way digital photography has replaced chemical photography. In just a few years, digital cameras have improved in quality, shutter speed, resolution, and most importantly pricing, to the point that the photographic giant Kodak this week announced the last batch processing of one of its iconic products - Kodachrome film.

As David Conrad recently wrote: The speed of the decline of the traditional wet film approach to photography has been spectacular. Yet in the early days of the digital camera it all seemed so unlikely. The cameras were low resolution, often in black-and-white only, and yet even so the machine just couldn't process the end result. There just weren't disks that could hold that amount of data. The idea that resolution, storage and processing power would increase to the point where a digital camera could rival the quality of a 35mm film image was, and to a certain extent still is, ridiculous.

Digital photography, the digital darkroom and computational photography has changed the way that images are created, manipulated and distributed and wiped out the old ways of doing things astonishingly quick. (Source: Kodachrome Died)

The rapid rise of digital photography is due to the advantages of digital cameras over conventional cameras. Digital cameras are multi-functional, in some cases capable of recording video as well as capturing stills. The multiple affordance of digital media to be able to see instant results, record, delete, share and edit images on the move, and the ability to extract a great deal of information about camera source, geographical location and other useful information, are all attractions the conventional camera cannot compete with. Why wait several days or even hours to get colour prints when you can have them in seconds?

So what is disruptive activism? One of the clues lies in my presentations over the last couple of years on the ideas behind Edupunk. It's a subject I will revisit at the Learning without Frontiers conference in London next week. Along with Leigh Graves Wolf, I am hosting a hack conference session on the subject and will try to outline the philosophy behind the movement, and discuss how and why disruptive activism is necessary in education today. Edupunk is more than simply a 'do it yourself' philosophy. It's about challenging current practices, and in particular the commoditization of learning, and the manner in which edubusinesses are cashing in on gradually disappearing education budgets. Disruptive activism for me is about raising people's awareness to the alternatives that exist. It's about encouraging people to learn for themselves. It's about personalising learning. It's about finding new ways to do things that are more effective and more fit for purpose. It's not about being popular - people are free to shoot at me, and they often do. Disruptive activism is more about being dissatisfied with the status quo and not accepting that 'this is the way it should be'. Yes, we can be sure that one thing this new year will bring is change. I hope it will be the kind of change that disrupts bad practice and creates better opportunities for learning.

Image source


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

Two fingered salute

They stood facing each other across a muddy ploughed field. It had rained heavily the night before. On the one side, flying their colourful banners, the pride of French medieval nobility: at least 30,000 men in shining armour, armed to the teeth and ready for an overwhelming victory. On the other side, the army of Henry V - less than 8,000 English and Welsh soldiers, weakened and bedraggled from weeks of forced marching, dysentery and hunger. The French looked like they had just stepped out of a Louis Vuitton boutique, and their opponents looked like crap. Yet over the course of a few hours, Henry's small dishevelled army systematically took their enemies to pieces with the result that the French dead were piled up in walls, and their noble families, sometimes three complete generations, were slaughtered like cattle. The French snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, losing over 5000 dead, while Henry's army sustained around 200 dead. The year was 1415, and the battle took place just outside the tiny French village of Azincourt. The Battle of Agincourt radically altered the course of European history, and Henry V regained the crown of France through his determination, will to succeed and the sheer pugnacity of his ‘happy few’, his ‘band of brothers’.

The French should never have met the English and Welsh in open battle. From previous heavy defeats at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), they had reason to fear the longbow of the English and Welsh archers, who each could accurately fire a dozen or more armour piercing bodkin arrows a minute. In the reloading stakes the French cross-bows were no match. Legend has it the French feared the archers so much that they threatened to cut off the two fingers on the drawing hands of every one of them if they were captured. At the end of the battle when the hundreds of Frenchmen (those who were fortunate enough to be spared because they were rich enough to attract a ransom) were paraded through the ranks of archers, the archers showed them their two fingers – the V sign that has since become the British gesture of defiance.

The reasons why Henry V won against overwhelming odds?

1) The French had no effective leadership, but the English and Welsh had a strong and determined leader in King Henry V.
2) The English and Welsh were more flexible and manoeuvrable than the French, who came at them in a way that bunched them together and tripped them over so that many simply drowned in the mud.
3) The English and Welsh archers did not wear the heavy plate armour that encumbered the French men-of-war. The French got bogged down in the muddy field and once they were down in the mud, the archers moved in swiftly to dispatch them with their poleaxes and knives.
4) The awesome fire power of the English and Welsh long bows was a significant factor. It did for the first and only French cavalry charge that was meant to destroy the archers.
5) The English and Welsh had very little left to lose and nowhere to go but forward.

Anyone with a modicum of insight will see that there are several parallels here with the battle between the institutional VLE and Edupunk style ‘do-it-yourselves’ personal web tools. The shiny, expensive and cumbersome VLE dominates the battlefield that is education, and is supposedly the killer application that all colleges and universities have bought into. The colour of the banner doesn’t matter, because whatever the brand, the VLE has essentially a common architecture and purpose: it is there to restrict access, deliver homogenous content and control the activities of its users. It lumbers ever forward into confined spaces, tripping itself over as it goes, and is slow to adapt to new requirements. Whilst its champions think it is invincible, they don’t seem to realise that it is becoming bogged down in a morass of apathy, resistance to use and lack of response to change.

The personal web by contrast, moves along lightly at the pace of its users, being directed as changes and personal needs dictate. It has an awesome array of choices, and is responsive to the needs of communities of practice as well as the individual. It is cheap, and not very attractive (at least in corporate terms) when compared to the institutional VLE, but it is a damned sight more effective when it comes to supporting learning. The institutional VLE is led by the entire institution and is therefore slow to respond to change, whilst the personal web is led by one user. The personal web has one more key advantage – it is owned by the individual who created it.

All things considered, it is inevitable that the personal web will win in a straight fight against the institutional VLE. The VLE has had its day and will meet its demise, even though its supporters cannot see it coming. The personal web is on the rise. For me and many, many others, we’re showing our two fingers to the institutional VLE.

Responses to this post and related posts:

VL-istically speaking (Matt Lingard)
It's not dead ...yet (James Clay)
Not dead yet (Mark Notess)
The VLE/PLE debate (Lyndsay Jordan)
Dead personal (Steve Wheeler)
USpace (University of Sheffield)
Virtual Learning Environments (Dan Kennedy)
Is your VLE really a Virtual Learning Environment? (Paul Vaughan)
Social media is killing the LMS star (Bryan Alexander)
The VLE debate (Dan Stucke)
Move to a more agile VLE (Jez Cope)

Image source (From the movie Kes)


Learning with 'e's by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.