Faceworking

Should we try to use social networking services such as Facebook and Myspace as serious educational tools, or should they remain the domain of informal chat and backstage antics? This is one of the questions addressed in the latest issue of Learning, Media and Technology. Neil Selwyn and Lyndsay Grant are to be applauded for bringing together an excellent, very readable special issue of the journal which focuses on Learning and Social Software. In his podcast on the journal website, Neil talks about exposing the 'gritty reality' of social software, and how he wanted the special issue to 'priviledge robust empirical study' into the likes of wikis and social networking tools in formal learning contexts. He calls for a serious debate on these issues, as a means to move away from the 'hype' and presumptions of Web 2.0 toward a more critical perspective. There are 6 main articles in the issue, but two stand out for me, both of which deal with how Facebook is being used in education.

The first article examines Facebook as a tool for socialising. Written by Clare Madge and her colleagues, the article reveals that socialising is the prime functionality of the service, and that attempts to use it in a formal educational context are problematic. 'We therefore feel that it is important that the British Higher Education sector is aware of Facebook and recognises its potential and importance to students but we would recommend caution about moving into a social networking space that students clearly feel is 'theirs' for social rather than academic purposes'.

Madge C, Meek J, Wellens J and Hooley T (2009) Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work'. Learning, Media and Technology, 34 (2), 141-155.

The second stand out paper is by Neil Selwyn, who explores students' actual education related use of Facebook. He uses Goffman's notion of presentation of self through 'facework' to analyse the comments from a number of university students, and counsels: '...Facebook appears to provide a ready space where the 'role conflict' that students often experience in their relationships with university work, teaching staff, academic conventions and expectations can be worked through in a relatively closed 'backstage' area'.

Selwyn N (2009) Faceworking: exploring students' education-related use of Facebook, Learning, Media and Technology, 34 (2), 157-174.

Read also: Mistaken Goal Blog

Image source

One bad apple

When the Israelites went into battle against the men of Ai, they were soundly defeated. It was a shock for them. They weren't in the habit of losing. The whole nation became discouraged, and their 'hearts melted and became like water'. They remind me of a first rate Barcelona soccer team, so confident and fired up for victory, who are then defeated 0-3 in their own splendid Camp Nou stadium, by a supposedly second rate team of no-hopers (insert your least favourite team here). The Israelites couldn't believe they had been given such a kicking, after enjoying so many other famous victories against all the odds. Then they discovered that one of their soldiers, a fella called Achan, had disobeyed orders and had stolen a whole shedload of silver and gold which should have belonged to the people. Because Achan had disobeyed God, the entire Israelite army had been collectively punished. After this little local problem had been 'dealt with', the Israelites went back for the return match, and beat seven shades out of the Ai first team. The whole story is found in the Bible, in Joshua, Chapter 7.

This story reminds me of the problems surrounding mobile phones and social networking services, and how so many schools have banned their use during school hours. These are inherently neutral tools which can be used for good or bad. Because there have been some isolated incidences of abuse, such as cyberbullying, most schools have banned these tools outright. There are good arguments for this approach of course, including duty of care and the need to protect vulnerable individuals. Yet many are now questioning such a blanket ban on these tools in schools. Children still use their mobile phones anyway, regardless of the ban. They just do it secretly, like smoking a crafty cigarette behind the bike sheds. They also use the websites that have been banned on school premises when they go home. The threat still exists, but outside of the remit of the school. So should schools continue their bans, or should they begin to reintroduce access to social networks on school premises, where the environment is a lot more controlled than at home, and educate children into safer use? Should schools now begin to tap into the tremendous liberating potential of mobile phones to promote better pedagogy, whilst showing children that they can be a positive thing, not something that should be disallowed?

I remember when I was in school that if one student misbehaved but remained unidentified, the teacher would punish the entire class. We all suffered because of the bad behaviour of one individual, just like the Israelites paid a stiff price because of the sins of Achan.

I wondering if the same thing is happening in schools today. I'm just asking. Are we in danger of placing negative connotations onto mobile phones and social networking services, so that children only think of them as illicit, or something that is divorced from learning? Are we storing up trouble for the future, whilst we deprive children the opportunity to explore learning using new tools? Here's my key question: Is the blanket ban the real bad apple in the bunch? The Osmonds and The Jacksons both sang 'One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch'. Well it will if it's left there long enough.

Image source

Learning space mashups

The open access article I mentioned in yesterday's blogpost Access all areas has been published online, exactly 12 days from the date I submitted it. The review process was exceptionally fast. Apparently it was blind reviewed by up to 5 reviewers, so it would seem that the review process is more rigorous than many other journals I have published with. My paper appears in the first edition of an exciting new journal entitled 'Future Internet'. The journal is so new it looks as if my article is the first to be published in it. More will undoubtedly follow. Here's the link to the pdf of the article and below is the abstract:

In this paper, Web 2.0 open content mashups or combinations are explored. Two case studies of recent initial teacher training programmes are reviewed where blogs and wikis were blended to create new virtual learning spaces. In two separate studies, 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 theorization of how community and personal spaces can create tension and conflict. A new ‘learning spaces’ model will be presented which aids visualization 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.

Keywords: mashup; wiki; blog; Web 2.0; collaboration; reflection; learning

Wheeler, S. (2009) Learning Space Mashups: Combining Web 2.0 Tools to Create Collaborative and Reflective Learning Spaces. Future Internet. 1 (1), 3-13.

Image source

Access all areas

Back in 2006 I moaned about how difficult it is to get quick turn around for review and publication of articles in paper based peer reviewed journals. In one of my blog posts - publish and be jammed - I named and shamed one journal for its abysmal feet dragging which saw one of my papers delayed by almost 3 years before it was published. Now I'm a journal editor myself, I try my level best with my review and editorial team, to turn round reviews quickly so that academics and researchers can see their work in print before its sell by date. It's hard, but not impossible to turn a paper round in 3-6 months from submission to publication.

I also wrote about how some of my papers were published rapidly in open access online journals, and how the experience was infinitely more satisfying. Two of my papers (co-written with Maged Boulos) are ranked as highly accessed and as a result have been cited numerous times. I have just had another article (on mashups) accepted for publication in a new open access journal called Future Internet (it looks interesting and well worth bookmarking). I submitted it last week, it was reviewed within a few days by two experts, I received back the feedback on Friday, revised and resubmitted it the same day, and on Saturday I was advised that it will be published in a few days. Turn around time? Approximately one week from submission to publication.

Articles published through open access journals often enjoy a higher profile than say, articles published in conventional paper based journals, because they are made freely accessible on the internet. Their high visibility is mainly due to full texts being visible on, and searchable from, all major search engines. Open access articles are also easily and quickly added into many literature databases and generally become more frequently cited over a shorter period of time.

The old model for conventional journals is that readers pay for subscription to read the articles they are interested in. Generally the open access model differs - instead it is the authors pay for their articles to be reviewed and published. The same rigorous review process is in place to ensure quality, but readers don't have to pay to read the article, and the readership is exponentially higher. (I have not paid a single penny though, because these articles have usually been invited). There is a third model, where organisations, institutions and third parties pay for the article to be published, and the author and reader participate for free.

My honest opinion is that the days of the conventional journal are numbered. The business model no longer makes a lot of sense in the context of social media, and other more relevant models will soon become dominant. What do you think about the new business models? What are your experiences with open access journals?

Directory of Open Access Journals (via @josswinn)

Image source

Dangerous liaisons?

Keeping children safe on the Internet is an increasing concern for parents and teachers alike. Sites such as CEOP's Think You Know have become useful resources to raise children's awareness of the dangers of using social networking tools such as Bebo and Myspace. Yet media reports continue to highlight a number of concerns about how children use social networking services and whilst schools continue to block access to a number of sites, the question is: How can teachers train/educate children to understand Internet safety in authentic contexts?

I created a poll below, because I was interested in finding out what people thought was the biggest threat to children who use social networks. The poll was open for a week, and 160 people voted. I will post an analysis of the results on this blog later, and hopefully engage us all in a discussion about what schools can do to improve children's understanding of how to keep safe while enjoying use of the web. One of the questions already posed by @simfin (Simon Finch) is what should be our priorities for children's safe use of social networks in the future? Many thanks to all those who voted and made comments!

Image source

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 for 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

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