Reading Reflection: Web-Based Video for e-Learning

In the short span of around 100 years, motion picture technology has moved from it’s infancy with silent films all the way to streaming high definition videos on mobile devices. The evolution of motion pictures has seen a dramatic turn in the last decade with the advent of Web-based video. The following discussion will focus on understanding the historical development of motion pictures in education, the current setting of videos and learning, and future possibilities within education.

Historical Development of Motion Pictures in Education

Around 1910, the Rochester, New York school system became the first educational organization to use educational video. A few years later, in the late 1920s, sound was introduced in motion pictures, which greatly expanded the technological capabilities of video. The addition of sound with video sparked a great deal of interests as researchers sought to study these dual processes of learning (e.g. dual coding theory).

This evolution continued over the next several decades. Schools primarily employed the film reel and projector technology from the beginning (i.e., 1910) until the 1950s. This technology was soon replaced by videotapes in the 1960s. The next step of development came in the 1980s and 1990s with the advent of several videodisc formats.

While this progress greatly improved motion pictures, the exponential growth in the late 20^th century and early 21^st century has become an issue. Educational organization have a limited amount of funds. Therefore, staying relevant and up-to-date has become increasingly hard as improvements come at a more rapid pace. For this reason, schools are now forced to move beyond mere considerations of technological superiority to also consider the shelf life of a new video format.

Current Setting of Videos and Learning

Web 2.0 videos are the most recent and fastest growing advent in the evolution of video. The author of the article, Chareen Snelson, discussed several facets of this new technology by focusing on one of the most popular providers of Web-based videos, YouTube. YouTube allows users to view videos through Web browsers such as Firefox or Internet Explorer. Users may upload videos in a variety of formats, but once on YouTube’s site, the videos are converted to Flash video. The advantage of Flash is that it is ubiquitous, free and cross platform (e.g., Windows and MacIntosh).

Creating and editing videos has become easy, affordable and accessible. Most camcorders and a growing number of mobile devices (e.g., smartphones) can be synced with a computer, and users can edit videos on their computer and upload the videos to the Web. Several of the recently developed smartphones can actually edit and upload the video within the phone itself (e.g., iPhone 4). Another option to capture video is a Webcam, which is connected directly to a computer. In addition, Adobe Premiere Express (http://www.adobe.com/products/premiereexpress) is a Web 2.0 technology that represents a new Web-based option in video editing.

Once individuals become a member of YouTube, they can create a customized Web page with a playlist, which is called a YouTube channel. The channel and playlist offers users the ability to share a collection of videos with others. Users can share videos by employing the HTML embed code, distributing the hyperlink or using one of the share options found on YouTube. Members are also able to track statistics on various aspects of uploaded videos (e.g., number of views).

After a video is uploaded and converted to Flash, three functions are automatically generated for that video: 1) Web page, 2) HTML embed code, and 3) a player. Basic changes can be made to videos after they are uploaded. For example, the video tags, description and title can be altered with the Info & Settings tool, and background audio files can be added with the Audio Swap tool.

Some Web-based video sites do allow users to download videos. However, YouTube does not allow videos to be downloaded, and this policiy is outlined in their terms of use. However, a number of third party applications give users the ability to capture and download online videos, including YouTube (e.g., Zamzar). If legality is in question, then users can look to The Center for Social Media (http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org) for clarification.

In the classroom, videos can be used to show historical events, depict the real world, visualize concepts, motivate learners or take virtual field trips. A limited amount of research has been conducted on using YouTube in the classroom, but studies about multimedia learning can be considered. Video is a powerful learning tool because it can portray processes, events and ideas.

Learners control the video (e.g., pace or position) on YouTube in an interactive manner. Additional videos are also available to YouTube users through branched and basic interactivity. Branched interactivity links similar videos so that users have the ability to skip from one video to the next and expand learning. Basic interactivity places a series of videos in specific sequence to help learners progress through material. Another facet of interactivity is the ability of respondents to give comments through posts or videoposts.

Precautions and Barriers

As teachers begin to embrace Web-based videos, a number of concerns should be considered. YouTube contains some videos that are inappopriate for educational use, but these videos are usually quickly identified and removed from their site. Another concern is the quality of videos on YouTube. There are a number of instructional videos that contain wonderful substance, but teachers should filter out bad videos and point students to the best media. In some cases, the quality of the videos is so poor that it might interfere with or prevent learning from taking place. Fortunately, some websites can actually help to “fix” poor quality videos, such as FixMyMovie (http://www.fixmymovie.com).

Suggestions for Teachers

Technical support, teacher training and adequate equipment are a vital compenent to using online videos. Technical support should be readily available to help troubleshoot any issues that arise. Professional development is necessary to prepare teachers to create, upload and use videos in the context of a class. Both of these efforts are undermined if adequate equipment is not in place. Ecucational organizations must develop a strong insfrastructure to handle the demands of uploading, streaming and downloading videos. Similarly, students and teachers must have computers and equipment that facilitate the use of videos.

Teachers can take preventative measures to ensure high quality videos. Educators should limit text and use large fonts to help viewers clearly see content. When performing a screen capture, zooming in on text can often help learners see the content more clearly. Finally, creators of video should employ captions and annotations to help meet the needs of all learners.

Future Possibilities Within Education

A huge repository of videos already exists on the Web. Fair use laws need to be clarified in coming years so that the public understands what is acceptable. This situation is compounded by the fact that technology is changing so quickly.

In the near future, users may be able to complete all video related needs through the Web. This technology already exists, but editing is still primarily done on laptops and desktops. As bandwidth continues to expand and new Web 2.0 technologies are created, the Internet will probably become a free, easy and preferred method to edit videos. In fact, a growing number of these videos will probably be filmed, edited and uploaded on a mobile device.

If educational funding continues to be slashed, then institutions will have to turn to online learning to help fill the gap. Whether or not this happens, videos will probably assume a more influential role in e-learning over the next few years. As teachers learn video technology, they will begin posting more videos. As technology continues to develop, viewing videos will become even more accessible and portable. Video is meaningful part of society and might assume a similar position in education.

Snelson, C. (2010). Web-based video for e-Learning: Tapping into the YouTube ™ Phenomenon. In Yang, H. H., & Yuen, S. C. (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-based communities and networking (pp. 147-166). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.

Read Full Post »

Reading Reflection: University 2.0

Colleges and Universities have maintained a great deal of stability and tradition for several centuries. This extended period of permanence has recently been challenged through the emergence of revolutionary technologies. These technological advancements have facilitated changes in the location of where classes are taught (e.g., online), who teaches classes and how classes are taught. Surry and Ensminger (2010) wrote an article that outlined the challenges inherent in some of theses changes and offered solutions.

Many positive changes have been heralded among colleges as a result of new technologies. For example, student information is now easy to track through student information systems. However, the negative impacts of recent changes have not been explored to the extent positives have been highlighted. Some of the negative impacts identified by Surry and Ensminger included commoditization of college, reduced instructional quality, deeper divides in regions and class, impacts on faculty workload, isolation of older and less tech-savvy students, overemphasis on programs that lend themselves to online instruction and loss of cultural and institutional identity.

Background of Issues

The authors offered five areas of discussion that helped to frame these problems. They presented a historical background for each of the five areas:

1. Technological determinism is a philosophy that credits technology as the driving force in modern society. Proponents of this stance hold that technology is an autonomous force, and it has moved beyond human control. These supporters credit five characteristics of technology as being the impetus for technology becoming autonomous: self-augmentation, linkage to other technologies, automation, technical universalism (homogenizing effect of technology) and monism (connectedness of technology).
2. The theory of Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) regards all technology as a mere tool that is created, engineered and employed within a social system. As a result, technological tools are viewed as devices that advance the goals of society, which can be used in a positive or negative manner. One advantage of SCOT is that it adopts a non-linear and broad perspective of technology. In addition, proponents of SCOT regard users as active agents that design and shape technology rather than passive recipients.
3. Co-construction of Technology is an eclectic philosophy that blends the first two philosophies (i.e., determinism and SCOT). These theorists contend that it is one-dimensional to regard technology as either a mere tool of society (i.e., SCOT) or as the driving force behind modern society (i.e., determinism). In this paradigm, society and technology influence one another through a symbiotic relationship.
4. Implementation of technology is quickly becoming the primary concern of innovative institutions, whereas it was once adoption. The adoption of technology does not ensure that the technology will be used in an effective manner. Theories of implementation specific to higher education list seven key factors that influence the effectiveness of implementation: learning, support, resources, people, policies, infrastructure and evaluation.
5. Evaluation is perhaps the most crucial factor from this list. If administrators and faculty can identify goals initially, then all stakeholders will have clear direction to meet these agreed-upon goals. Kirkpatrick (1994) developed a framework for this approach through his four-tiered evaluation model: reaction, learning, transfer and impact.

Specific Problems Identified

After providing this historical framework, the authors discussed specific problems resulting from the negative impacts of technology through the lens of these areas (i.e., determinism, SCOT, implementation and evaluation). They prefaced these solutions by identifying the most “compelling” challenge for administrators in this new frontier, which was finding the appropriate balance between human considerations and technological considerations:

1. The philosophy of determinism could create some barriers. In an attempt to maximize the benefits of technology, core educational philosophies and ethics could be eclipsed. In addition, a host of technologies could become so interconnected and ubiquitous that they are beyond the control or supervision of organizations. Universalism could lead to courses becoming uniform without unique perspectives. As courses move toward this homogenized approach, students might lose their sense of affiliation and identification with any particular college, and this could in turn dramatically effect the personal development of learners, especially traditional students. New technologies will provide greater access to education for the citizenry, but states might not have control of the content and delivery of this curriculum. Therefore, states could react by increasing state control of programs and courses offered through such technology.
2. According to SCOT, technology is derived as a result of social forces responding to societal needs. Therefore, a small group of high-level officials could make unilateral decisions that do not take into consideration the intricacies and details needed to make a wise decision on technology. These shortsighted decisions could lead to counterproductive, secondary, amoral and unimportant goals. In fact, the possibility exists that some members (e.g., business owner) of such an elite group could have ulterior motives that were not in the best interests of higher education or students.
3. Issues related to Co-construction of Technology were covered in the discussion above, which focused on determinism and SCOT.
4. Research has revealed that implementation is frequently regarded as being more difficult and important than adoption. If implementation is not administered correctly, then several consequences could unfold, such as wasted resources and time, inability to monitor or manage the technology, lackluster utilization, heightened faculty frustration and depreciated access for underserved groups. In addition, there are no universal answers for implementation because each organization requires a different approach.
5. Perhaps the most difficult task for college officials now and in the future is predicting the impact of technology on education. If administrators build decisions on incomplete or inappropriate information, then the impact could be deemed too narrow or broad.

Solutions for Problems

There were a number of solutions offered for this set of negative ramifications. Surry (2008) actually offered six steps to help guide administrators respond to determinism: take individual responsibility, reduce social plasticity, establish formalized oversight, increase awareness, push decisions down the hierarchy and provide for meaningful choice. Decisions should be made after all stakeholders have an opportunity to offer insight. Students should be exposed to constant and meaningful interactions in order to combat social plasticity, such as community service or virtual fraternities or sororities.

School officials can also respond to SCOT in several ways. First, educators need to aim toward meeting the goals and values of society at large. Second, educators need to be aware of the competing motives of various groups contributing to higher education.

Implementation should be regarded as a customized process that will be tedious and long. Administrators need to proactively identify and alter policies that are not compatible with the future of University 2.0. For example, faculty tenure, promotion and retention might need to be altered.

In reference to evaluation, the primary advice offered by the authors is that identifying the impact is the most crucial aspect of evaluation. If the impact cannot be fully anticipated, then officials should put in place the resources that will allow for evaluation to take place.

Future Trends

The great unknown in all plans relating to technology is the expanding and evolving nature of student expectations. In addition, technology is a dynamic force that is progressing at an exponential rate. In light of these two realities, colleges will have to place greater emphasis on training faculty and upgrading technology. However, this emphasis should not overlook those learners that do not embrace University 2.0. In order to balance these concerns, officials will need to become active agents in the change process.  The authors suggest that successful administrators in University 2.0 will decentralize decision-making, embrace participation, anticipate obstacles and thrive in changing environments.

Both higher education and society could be forced to make a decision. Society might have to choose between having colleges that generate imaginative and thoughtful students or highly technical students. Similarly, colleges could be forced to choose between offering settings that are personal and human or environments that are technologically advanced.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Surry, D. (2008). Technology and the future of higher education: An Ellulian perspective. In J. Luca & E. r. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of the ED-MEDIA 2008-World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 4901-4906). Chesapeake, VA: Association for Advancement of Computing in Education.

Surry, D. & Ensminger, D. (2010). University 2.0: Human, social, and societal issues. In Yang, H. H., & Yuen, S. C. (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking (pp. 94-108). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch006

Read Full Post »

Social Bookmarking (Diigo): Reflection on Assignment #2

Diigo, founded in 2006, is a popular social bookmarking application. Social bookmarking is a Web 2.0 technology that allows users to bookmark Web sites and place tags on those bookmarks using keywords. In juxtaposition, the traditional concept of bookmarking in a browser simply saved a placeholder for a Web site so that users could return to that site in the future.  Social bookmarking also differs from file sharing in that the bookmarks merely reference resources rather than sharing material. The term “social bookmarking” was actually coined by another social bookmarking service called Delicious, which was launched in 2003.

After registering with Diigo, users can store bookmarks and give a description to each bookmark (e.g., metadata). Users have the option to designate these bookmarks as private or public, add tags, highlight a page for future reference and add post it notes to Web pages for personal viewing. During the process of bookmarking a page, Diigo actually populates a list of suggested tags that are based on classification schemes that other users have already created and saved.

Social bookmarking facilitates a new way to categorize and organize information. These Web sites are usually free and anyone can become a user. This tool is especially beneficial when trying to share resources with other individuals. Interestingly, the users of social bookmarking services (amateurs) create the tags for each bookmark. Over a period of time, these communities of users create distinctive structures of terms and keywords. This bank of keywords has been named a “folksonomy,” as opposed to a taxonomy.

These new groups of users facilitate the creation of new communities that help to evolve and establish the tags and folksonomies within any given field. As a result, folksonomies are constantly changing. This scenario also serves as a potential downfall because there is no oversight on how resources are tagged or organized. For example, if a user created a bookmark with information about guitars and only included the tag “guitar,” then others looking for that source might miss the site because the tags “instrument” and “music” were not also included. Another obvious issue inherent with social bookmarking is that it does add another layer of maintenance in a very busy and congested Web 2.0 world.

Creating social bookmarks is easy and straightforward. There seems to be a continuous shift toward folksonomies and away from taxonomies. This could force databases to include these novel classification systems in the futures. After all, storing and accessing information is one of the most basic tasks involved in education. In the future, more focus might be placed upon retrieving information in the context of a shared peer group rather than remembering where information was stored. In the end, social bookmarks help students and peers to share and distribute resources, papers and references.

Read Full Post »

Reading Reflection: Embracing E-Learning 2.0?

Online learning is a force in higher education because this medium allows students to have access to education anytime, anywhere. This new breed of teaching is challenging traditional instruction in two ways. First, learning is moving from being synchronous to asynchronous. Second, higher education is beginning to shift from being teacher-centered to learner-centered. This article focused on the implications of these two changes. In addition, the authors (Repman, Zinskie and Downs, 2010) identified and offered solutions to problems inherent with the adoption of this new approach to teaching

The authors clearly defined the difference between distance learning, online learning and e-learning 2.0. They defined distance learning as being the expansive idea of teaching individuals at a distance, which has a long and varied history. Online learning was identified as the approach to teach courses through course management system (CMS) in a synchronous or asynchronous format. E-learning 2.0 was defined as a recent approach to teaching that incorporates Web 2.0 applications that are learner-centered.

Web 2.0 applications offer at least two powerful benefits. First, collaboration and connectivity are part of the fabric of Web 2.0 tools. Second, Web 2.0 tools allow students to become active creators of content rather than passive consumers of information. This second benefit moves teachers from the role of knowledge transmitter to a position of facilitation. The authors presented research (Craig, 2007) that questioned whether or not CMS could promote collaboration and creativity. The authors pointed out that there is a huge disconnect between the way individuals currently use the web and how CMS operate.

Unfortunately, the growth of online classes is not limited to a pure pursuit of increased learning and better teaching methods. One of the primary rationales for increasing the number of online courses was access and efficiency. Another reason given for the increase of online courses was a push for schools to do more for less.

Five Obstacles to Developing Robust E-Learning 2.0 Environments

The newfound focus on online education offers solutions for a changing educational setting. Currently, students have a plethora of options in pursuing higher education. In most cases, geography is no longer a barrier for students to attend the college of their choice. These new opportunities have allowed colleges to tap into new markets and see dramatic increases in enrollment. However, the authors presented five obstacles to developing robust e-learning 2.0 environments.

1. As institutions pursue these new opportunities for growth, the mission and vision of the college must be used as a filter. A mere “top-down” approach that mandates online classes does not seem to work efficiently. Also, organizations should develop a means to assess these new courses in a meaningful way.
2. There are several barriers to faculty teaching online courses in an effective manner. Sometimes, educators simply upload traditional materials to a CMS. This approach is often the result of a lack of time, support and skills.
3. The current teaching core is comprised primarily of digital immigrants (e.g., Baby Boomers and Generation X). The student population is comprised of digital natives (e.g., Net Generation). This new generation embraces the ever-evolving nature of technology. Teachers need to embrace the reality that Web 2.0 technologies are, by nature, dynamic and constantly changing.
4. CMS could actually serve as impedance to the growth of e-learning 2.0. CMS are used to replicate the traditional experience in a digital format, managing and formalizing instruction. A shift in approach must occur in online education for e-learning to succeed. Instruction must become more learner-centered and rely on collective intelligence. The Web 2.0 tools are in place, the push to embrace these tools is not thriving.
5. The rapidly changing nature of Web 2.0 application is a major obstacle for faculty members, as was mentioned in #3 above. The apprehension over constantly changing technology is exacerbated by the recommendation that teachers immerse themselves in the technology before using it as a teaching tool.

Action Steps to Embrace E-Learning 2.0:

An increased awareness of available Web 2.0 applications must be the first step. Providing faculty members with overviews and updates of new technology is necessary. Also, the vision and mission of institutions might need to be tweaked to support E-Learning 2.0. The authors offered several recommendations that would facilitate the adoption of E-Learning 2.0.

1. Early adopters should model Web 2.0 tools and require those tools be used to accomplish certain tasks.
2. Important matters of institutional support should be discussed prior to the growth of online courses. Several issues should be addressed, such as ownership, policies, conduct, evaluation and office hours.
3. Innovative ideas in e-learning 2.0 should become part of the faculty reward system, such as consideration for tenure. Revenue sharing is another aspect of the reward system that could be embraced by institutions.
4. Institutions should provide a variety of opportunities for faculty members to train and develop skills. Teachers have a tendency to avoid admitting that they don’t understand new technologies, especially as it relates to their field of expertise.

How can educators improve by using ideas from this chapter?

Several of the implications from this chapter are aimed at administrators. Each of the four action steps provided direction for administrators to facilitate the adoption of e-learning 2.0. Administrators could require that certain tasks or professional development be accomplished through Web 2.0 technologies. This would expose the faculty to these tools. Institutional support should be addressed before dramatic changes are made to online courses. Administrators need to look for opportunities to reward innovative approaches in the e-learning 2.0 realm. A variety of training needs to be offered in order to arm teachers with necessary tools to be successful in the e-learning 2.0 environment.

What are future trends?

The authors ended the chapter by describing the combination of Web 2.0 tools with existing technologies. This might occur, but I think many of the CMS are so entrenched with traditional methods that their evolution will be slow and painful. In my opinion, an easier solution would be to add a few traditional elements to existing Web 2.0 tools. For example, I think Ning (before it started charging) provided an ideal setting for instruction. If a grade book and a roster were added to Ning, then it would be even more robust. However, I don’t think current CMSs (e.g., Blackboard) are going to suddenly become a hotbed for innovation and collaboration anytime soon.

Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Downs, E. (2010). Fulfilling the Promise:  Addressing Institutional Factors that Impede the Implementation of E-Learning 2.0. In Yang, H. H., & Yuen, S. C. (Eds.), Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (pp. 44-60). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch003

Read Full Post »

Reading Reflection: Postmodernism in E-Learning 2.0

When thoughts and ideas appear to be incomprehensible, the reason is, at times, because these thoughts and ideas mean exactly nothing. However, this is not the case with Stephen Downes. Mr. Downes is obviously steeped in the traditions of postmodernism, and his arguments fall exactly into line with the arguments of well-known postmodern philosophers. His arguments around cognitivism versus emergentism coincide with traditional arguments about modernism versus postmodernism.

Therefore, I will approach this chapter summary by alluding to traditional modern versus postmodern arguments in order to better discuss Mr. Downes suppositions. You will notice that this synopsis of postmodernism coincides exactly with Mr. Downes arguments; in fact, I’ll use his quotes to illustrate from whence his ideas are derived. Hence, this review of postmodernism will serve as a review of Mr. Downes’ philosophical viewpoint. After discussing his philosophy, I’ll discuss his points on the future of education, which are better formed than his philosophical views.

Postmodernism: Synopsis in view of Downes’ ideas

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) helped to usher in the philosophies of postmodernism, which were in reaction to modernism. The distillation of his greatest work, Critique of Pure Reason, reveals Kant’s argument that knowledge is derived from the structure of the human mind. That is, humans understand reality because categories exist in the mind, which in turn produce perceptions. Downes picked up on this postmodern idea, “Therefore, in our own minds, the concept ‘Paris’ is a loose association of a whole bunch of different things, and hence the concept ‘Paris’ exists in no particular place in our minds, but rather, is scattered throughout our minds” (Downes, p. 4)

Skipping forward, Nietzche (1844-1900) took up the mantle and argued that truth was simply an illusion. In other words, Nietzche argued that truth is an illusion of human perception, a metaphor. These “illusions” seem real because we become so familiar with the illusions that eventually they become “reality.” This basic premise is foundational to Downes arguments about network theory, “How do we distinguish between true and false—what, indeed, does it even mean to say that something is true and false? The answer to these questions is going to be different for each of us” (Downes, p. 7)

This foundation in philosophical thought forced philosophers to wrestle with two major issues that ushered in the age of postmodernism:

1. Hermeneutics (i.e., Interpretation of text): Postmodern philosophers wanted to identify how one might find the true interpretation of a text. Gadamer (1900-2002) held that no one could objectively and completely understand the intent of the original author. Therefore, the meaning we derive from the text emerges as we “dialogue” with the text.
2. Language: Postmodern philosophers sought to determine whether or not language could objectively express truth. Wittgenstein (1889-1951) argued that all language is conditioned by society. Therefore, language can never objectively portray truth. This led to the stance that “perceived” truth is socially constructed.

Downes actually quotes Wittgenstein on this, “…argues that meaning is context sensitive, that what we mean by a word depends on a community of speakers…” (Downes, p. 6)

Positives and Negatives of Postmodernism and, thus, Downes’ notions

Postmodernism and modernism both have value. Modernism was valuable because it encouraged solutions to age-old problems and encouraged individual rights. The problem with modernism was that it ignored the non-rational parts of life and nature. Postmodernism reacted to these notions, and helped us understand that we can’t change, or even understand, everything.

Many of these postmodern corrections were excellent, but the negatives of postmodernism can be found in areas where it goes to far in reaction to modernism. For example, when Mr. Downes talks about “folk psychology,” he is in large part describing modernism. In describing why anyone might have a “belief,” Mr. Downes boasted, “…they are, in other words, relics of ‘folk psychology’. Saying ‘someone has a belief’ is like saying that ‘the Sun is rising’ – it is literally untrue, and depends on a mistaken world view” (Downes, p. 21).

This is one of many examples in which Mr. Downes argued that there is no such thing as absolute truth. A number of books and philosophers pose a question and two fields of study (i.e., math and science) in order to counter this highly contentious postmodern notion. The question is this: “If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then is that statement absolutely true.” Answering either yes or no to this question is checkmate on this postmodern thought. Math demonstrates that there is absolute truth: |2| + |2| = |4|. Downes tried to proactively debunk math (p. 17), but he used statistics as the foundation for his argument. An elementary understanding of statistics demonstrates that math is not the problem in statistics, rather the interpretation and application of the math is the issue.

Postmodernism in Education

Some postmodern notions in education also serve as an excellent example of over-correction, and Mr. Downes unfortunately falls into this trap. In modernism, scientific ideas were considered to be true to the extent that they corresponded (i.e., made sense) with the observed world. Postmodernism corrected this idea by postulating that these ideas were only tentative because the infinite number of tests required to prove the idea were impossible to conduct.

Postmodernism helped mankind understand the limits of knowledge, but the next step that some postmodern thinkers take does not make sense. The next stage of the “tentative truth” argument is that something is true for someone only in that it fits together with that person’s world-view (perception). Therefore, if truth is tentative or derived through perception, then science is merely an old record of research traditions that is marred by a scientific language and perspective.

Taken to an illogical conclusion, this thought process could lead to absurd ideas. For example, radical postmodernists might abandon traditional, proven curriculum and adopt letting each student discover their own truth, which is very close to what Mr. Downes proposed in relationship to Personal Learning Environments (PLE).

Future trends

I completely agree with the concept of PLE, but not in the context presented philosophically in this chapter. In my opinion, the power of PLE is best realized under the careful supervision of a teacher. I also believe that a PLE would work increasingly better as individuals become more educated. Thus, a PLE would generally work better in graduate school than middle school.

A large number of cutting-edge thinkers have move beyond postmodern thought, and Mr. Downes alluded to these ideas in his summative thoughts. For example, I agree with Mr. Downes that the brain resembles a chaotic system, and I think future research will incorporate this viewpoint. However, I completely disagree with Mr. Downes view on traditional, empirical research, “The days of the controlled study involving 24 students ought to end.”

Mr. Downes offered an insightful observation, “As the web surged toward 2.0 the educational community solidified its hold on the more traditional approach. The learning management system became central” (Downes, pp. 12-13). I agree with this supposition, and educators will begin to embrace Web 2.0 technologies more as they become familiar with such technologies.

In the end, Mr. Downes ideas concerning learning through a network are valid and poignant. However, his philosophical premise to support these ideas was not as sound. In contrast to his ideas, I believe that knowledge is the outcome of an interaction between experience of the world and our ideas about the world, and I hold that finding ultimate truth is possible in certain situations, not all. Learning through a network system and using PLE definitely have a place in the future of education.

Downes, S. (2010). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. In Yang, H. H., & Yuen, S. C. (Eds.), Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (pp. 1-26). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.

Read Full Post »

Twitter: Reflection on Assignment #1

Twitter has quickly become a force in American society and the technology realm. The company was founded in 2006, so the word “quickly” does not adequately describe the mind-boggling growth of this Web 2.0 technology. Twitter has gained over 100 million users worldwide in just four years.

Simply stated, Twitter is a free, web-based application that allows users to send and receive short messages; Twitter is simply a social network/microblog. These short messages (aka, tweets) are limited to 140 characters and are text-based. Each tweet is posted on the author’s Twitter profile page. In addition, individuals have the ability to subscribe to other authors’ Twitter accounts. Once a person “subscribes” to an author’s Twitter account, each tweet, from said author, will automatically be sent to the subscribers account. These subscribers are known as “followers.”

Authors have the ability to restrict delivery to designated individuals, and they can form closed groups. Mobility is a key component of Twitter. The limitation of 140 text-based characters coincides well with Short Message Service (SMS), which is now a standard feature of most cell phones. However, messages can be posted through text messages, instant messages or web forms. There are a number of third party services and other Web 2.0 applications that tie in with Twitter.

The first class assignment in IT 860 was to create a Twitter account and post 5 tweets to our class Twitter account. Joining Twitter was very easy; all that was required was logging on to http://twitter.com/ and filling out a few pieces of basic information. At this point, I seized the opportunity to personalize my Twitter account by configuring settings, modifying the layout and completing the profile questions.

Next, I searched for our class account. I began “following” the class Twitter account (i.e., @it860), which was signified by the standard Twitter icon. I would like to note here that Twitter accounts are generally referred to by using the @ sign followed by the account name (e.g., @it860).

Finally, I posted five tweets to the class @it860 Twitter account. One twist on this assignment was the requirement to post these five tweets through Direct Messages. Normally, you post a tweet by typing a quick message in the “What’s happening?” box, illustrated below:

However, for this assignment we needed to send Direct Messages that would instantly go to all classmates. This was easily accomplished in one of two ways. First, you could post a tweet normally but precede the message text with “d it780”.  In this scenario, the author would literally type “d it780 message…” in the “What’s happening?” box. Second, you can click the “Direct Message” link (illustrated below), and that link takes you to a direct message page from which you can choose a group and type a Direct Message:

Here are the first five tweets I posted to the class account via Direct Message:

• Here is a great Web 2.0 wiki that outlines a number of tools by category- http://is.gd/cz9Ly

• I’m trying to figure out how to send pictures on Twitter. http://twitpic.com/1t74z0

• I just checked out Bebo. I thought it was limited to bands but it’s grown – http://www.bebo.com/

• I just figured out that WordPress has a widget for Twitter!

• Twitter Keys is a shortcut for icons in a tweet. ✌ for now; I’ve had to many cups of ♨ – http://is.gd/czc2g

I learned several new concepts from this assignment. Signing up for and personalizing a Twitter account is free, easy and quick. During the tweeting process, I learned the difference between a normal tweet and a Direct Message. I also discovered several really cool tools and third party plug-ins that work in conjunction with Twitter. For example, Twitter Keys facilitates a shortcut for inserting icons into a tweet by using an icon bank (picture below). Last, I found a WordPress widget for Twitter, so you can check out my latest tweets on the sidebar of this page.

My Twitter page is https://twitter.com/jon_woodward. Feel free to check out this account or subscribe.



Read Full Post »

Introduction to Blogfolio: IT 860, Emerging Technology in Instructional Technology

As mentioned in my brief biography, I am currently working towards a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration with an emphasis in Instructional Technology. I have a learned a great deal from the classes I’ve taken in Instructional Technology, especially concerning Web 2.0 applications. In fact, this blog was initiated in conjunction with my doctoral program.

In the next several post, I will chronicle some of the learning that is taking place in IT 860 (Emerging Technology in Instructional Technology). Each post listed in the IT 860 Table of Contents will serve to outline the major assignments and the learning that takes place. I also hope to reflect on each project and discuss opportunities for application in my current setting. The following description represent a brief outline of the contents to be covered.

The primary focus of IT 860 is on emerging Web 2.0 technologies. And each assignment iss tied to a corresponding chapter from Dr. Yuen’s book, “Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking.“ The major readings for this course include Postmodernism in E-Learning 2.0, Embracing E-Learning 2.0, University 2.0, Web-Based Video for E-Learning, Synchronous Online Learning Environments, Game-Based Learning (VISOLE) and A Pedagogical Odyssey in Three-Dimensional Virtual Worlds (The SECOND LIFE Model). These readings will help to introduce several Web 2.0 tools, provide a theoretical background for each tool and demonstrate points of application in education for each tool.

In conjunction with each reading, students are asked to immerse themselves in the technology. This step is important because instructional technologists need to move beyond a surface level understanding of Web 2.0 tools and actually use them. Without interaction with these tools, comments and discussion would merely be speculative or second hand. The Web 2.0 tools that we will experience during this semester include Twitter, Social Bookmarking (Diigo): Reflection on Assignment #2, Social Publishing Sites (Scribd), Screencasting, File Sharing with Drop.io and VoiceThread. These tools represent current tools that are popular and show a great deal of potential in education. I look forward to experiencing each Web 2.0 application!

Read Full Post »