Serendipity

While I was thinking about things which are challenging me - which seem to be about putting my views out there for all to see - this Tweet from iOPT popped up on my screen...

"The Internet requires us to adopt norms of open sharing & participation - publishing has become the new literacy" - Clay Shirky

This fits so nicely both with my current struggles about publishing a podcast and sharing posts in a forum (and the internal debates and doubts I had about starting a blog way back at the beginning of the MA ODE), and with the wider themes of sharing and participation which have emerged through our discussions of the definition of innovation in elearning.

Warning: unanswered questions ahead. Cognitive dissonance in progress.

If it is the Internet which is requiring us to adopt these norms, can we chose to go another way, to ignore 'the Internet'? It seems unlikely - that genie is well and truly out of the bottle - except, perhaps this isn't the case, as we've also seen that individuals and, in particular, institutions, are struggling to cope with new methods of openness, sharing and collaboration.

Could it be that the is Internet requiring this of us because actually it's designed/developed/emerged from the way people actually think - another Tweet from iOPT:

The Internet is not changing people's way of thinking but rather it is adapting to the way people think - Steven Pinker

So which is the innovator and which the adopter here - the Internet, or the people who use it? Is it the Internet pushing (or pulling) us and our students... or is it us who are responsible for shaping what it has become? And what are the implications for education? We know norms are shifting, and expectations and opportunities are changing, but how much control can the individual have over the effects on them and their personal learning or teaching? Where does choice end and societal pressure begin?

Whatever the case, the concept that publishing is a new required literacy is very real. We now need to learn, not only to use language to communicate, but to understand what it means to publish it, to identify and evaluate sources, to understand how we credit original work, and to have an eye on the social and cultural effects of publishing, and being part of a community of publishers.

Will a potential innovation 'fly'?

This week's course notes adapt a framework for considering innovation, based on Rogers (pp. 229). In order to consider an innovation's strengths and weaknesses, the framework offers the following criteria:

• Relative advantage - is it a much better way of doing something, or a valuable improvement?
• Compatibility - does an innovation fit with the values, experiences and needs of potential adopters?
• Complexity - will complexity of the innovation, or skills or concepts it requires, make it hard to adopt?
• Trialability - can adopters trial and innovation before committing to it?
• Observability - can others perceive the advantage of the innovation?

In the following post, I reflect on my own experiences of innovation, and whether I make calculations using this type of framework.

What have I innovated?

The chatbot, allowing learners to negotiate about their learner model and reflect on their knowledge. But this was research - I don’t feel that was quite the same as innovation. I think perhaps an activity/intervention/method needs to have adopters in order to be an innovation (although clearly not the only criteria), and the fact that the research was only extended to trial populations means it can't be said to have been adopted. It was an innovative elearning tool and method though, regardless of the fact that I didn’t have the means to develop it further and make it adoptable.

Did I ask questions from the Rogers’-adapted framework?

Not knowingly. However, I must have weighed up the relative advantage - if I hadn’t believed that there was some improvement possible through the chatbot integration, then I wouldn’t have bothered. Similarly compatibility - it was not such a great step from the existing IT experience of potential users. Clearly compatibility was in my mind to some degree, but more from the need to ensure the HCI was good. Complexity - yes it was complex; that’s why it was research. It’s also probably why this field of research hasn’t made the mainstream - it’s expensive to design and produce robust, nuanced,personalised and scalable AI products! Trialability - again as it was research, designing a trial was what it was all about, as was observability - improvements had to be objectively demonstrated.

I think the framework is really hard to apply to an innovator - I've struggled above. It seems to make much more sense as something which adopters of innovation would employ (knowingly or otherwise)

So, what have I adopted?

Use of online chat.
1997- using online chat wasn’t widespread. I only had the option to adopt this because my parents provided the Internet access - there wasn’t any financial risk to me (although there were phone bills, risky to a 17 year old!)
Relative advantage - Yes, but it wasn’t just a better way of doing something, but a completely new way of doing something I couldn’t do before - I didn’t have to weigh anything up.
Compatibility - Clearly fitted with my values and needs. The technology was easy to learn, with rapid positive effects. I don’t recall making any kind of assessment.
Complexity - Again, not a technical challenge, so not something I thought through.
Trialability - Highly try-able - it was there, inviting being tried. And there was nothing to be lost if I tried it and didn’t like it.
Observability - It’s easy to demonstrate advantage when it’s a brand new tool!

And again, did I ask questions from the Rogers’-adapted framework?
Certainly not!

So perhaps a more recent example of adoption, or in fact decision not to adopt...
Smartphone/iPhone/iPad

I haven’t adopted these. I have a laptop with home broadband, and office computer also with Internet facilities, an iPod for music/podcasts and a mobile phone with a half decent camera built in. I believe I can read email on it and view mobile web on its tiny screen, but I’ve never read email on it, and not used the web capability outside the first month free trial. I think that’s what this lack of adoption comes down to for me - the relative advantage compared to the facilities I already have just doesn’t seem like something I want to pay for. So, for me, the most helpful of the five criteria in explaining my own adoption (or lack of it) is relative advantage.

Reference
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn), New York, Simon and Schuster.

Discussing true innovation in elearning

This first week's course forum discussions have had a view to moving closer to an understanding of the concept of innovation in elearning. There have been many interesting points raised and questioning of whether something is or is not innovative. This post tries to draw together a few threads from our discussions which seem to identify criteria or elements of what members of my tutor group considers to be true innovation in elearning.

• ‘innovation’ in the context of e-learning involves a sense that something may be achieved using that technology that otherwise would not or that the outcome is materially improved using e-technology
• one of the great benefits is the opportunity for interactivity - innovation in elearning appears not to be static and monolithic
• innovation by definition in Wikipedia is :"the process that renews something that exists and not, as is commonly assumed, the introduction of something new."
• it's really important that elearning innovation delivers measurable benefits
• there is a question of whether the technology made the difference or whether having the technology facilitated the use of different methods. Innovation is the realisation of the idea, and technology could support that
• innovations in e-learning seem to have shifted the pattern of learning from centralised class room activity to a collaborative yet de-centralised nature
• innovation in elearning is enabling something different or materially better to occur that cannot happen using existing methods
•  innovation can be equated with progress, improvement, and with something that is new (in either revolutionary or evolutionary ways). 
• innovation has the potential to change things for the better, although this may not always be achieved
• innovation does not necessarily mean something completely new, often it refers to a new use or outcome from an existing (but differently used) method or technology. 

Colin King found an article on technology for technology's sake, and suggested that its conclusion may be a clue as to how we should approach technology in learning. I think it's a perfect way to sum up this discussion:

"The truth of the matter is that technology is neither the problem nor the solution, it cannot be blamed for what we do with it. It is the way we actively choose to apply it that matters."

Small print:
This post draws heavily on the contributions of tutor group members to our discussion forum. However, as that is a private student-only area I have not added names to suggestions above, but have attempted to paraphrase and draw together themes on which there was agreement across participants. Full credit and references will of course be given in any course assignments.

Beginning to explore innovation in elearning

Week 1, activity 3 is beginning to explore what we mean by innovation in elearning. This post summarises and records some thoughts relating to papers on the subject.

Firstly, ‘New technology in learning: a decade’s experience in a business school’ by Rich and Holtham (2005).

This paper describes the introduction of innovative uses of IT into campus-based MBA courses in 1992 - almost 20 years ago. At this point home and business computing was minimal and email was only just beginning to be explored within the academic network. It doesn't go on to describe changes over the decades since, but it's a short paper, so forgiven!

The MBA programme used email based activities with the aim of adding value to their existing process, particularly through fostering effective group work. Valuable opportunities for international collaboration via email were noted, and email was used for simulations in which students could practise management skills. The paper is brief and doesn’t state in detail how value of the interventions was measured.

It is noted that there was reluctance both amongst some faculty and some students. Some felt that IT should be taught as a practical skill or separate topic, and didn’t appreciate its value as a learning tool. Student’s initial computer literacy was variable, and the need to learn basic computer skills obscured further learning outcomes for some.

The paper reports that changes to teaching/learning were achieved by using IT “as an adjunct to existing channels for instruction”. Given the unfamiliarity with technology of many of the students, I wonder if this use of IT as an additional rather than sole medium made the technology more acceptable, appealing and less daunting to use. Perhaps this is a note to not go overboard with innovation, but to ensure that students are guided in their development, rather than thrown in at the deep end?

Students are described as having participate in a “dynamic knowledge network... which was used to encourage professional knowledge creation... exploiting active learning and knowledge building...” These seem to me to be very common aims or uses of ‘innovative’ elearning, i.e. the development of community, social and connectivist learning and knowledge creation and sharing with varying degrees of collaboration. These can be aims of non-e-learning too, so I’m wondering about what additional or further goals innovative elearning might be able to achieve.

The paper concludes that a small group of faculty with only limited technical resources were able to produce innovative, pedagogically sound material using ICT. I wonder if if the group had in fact been larger or had wider institutional support, whether this might have hindered their ability to be flexible and creative in their learning design. Or perhaps, conversely, did the lack of wider support mean that this was a limited experiment? We’re not told about subsequent elearning innovations trialled by this particular institution, and clearly the growing uptake of elearning suggests that lack of support is not excessively stifling. However, a number of student colleagues on H807 have expressed frustration at their own institutions’ reticence to support or adopt innovation. It seems that a certain critical mass might be necessary to get early innovation going, but that attaining wider acceptance is much harder, and indeed may limit the level of innovation which can be achieved within an institution.

Take away points/thoughts:

• Despite a massive growth in familiarity with IT in past 20 years, we should not assume that technological innovations (even with pedagogical value) will be universally appreciated by students/educators.
• The need to acquire technical skills could obscure other learning objectives if computer (and wider technology) literacy is assumed or under-supported.
• Innovation in elearning needs sufficient technical support and positive attitudes towards adoption, but not stifling by large bureaucratic institutions.
• The paper didn’t talk about how success of the innovation was measured. Measuring what is innovation and what makes a successful innovation are areas for more thought!

---

The second paper was ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’ by Lück and Laurence (2005).

This is a 2005 paper referring to a process of developing videoconferencing to support lectures by internationally-absent lecturers to a tourism degree class in 2003. I was somewhat surprised to see the substantial effort which was expended on developing the technology - this wasn’t the case of adopting a commercial off-the-shelf solution and applying it to the interactive lecture scenario, as I would have assumed such technology might have been available in 2003.

The aim of the work was to provide a technical solution which permit guest lecturers, possibly based on another continent to lecture to a local class. The desire was to enhance student knowledge through exposing them to the perspectives of international experts with whom they would otherwise be unlikely to be able to interact. It was this contact with “out-of-class sources” which students rated particularly positively.

The paper also cites the principles of “good practice in undergraduate teaching” by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996), including:

• encouragement of contacts between instructor and students,
• involvement of active learning
• respect for diverse ways of learning
• prompt feedback.

These were written pre-widescale adoption of elearning, but still provide useful guidance. I was somewhat surprised by the argument that the ‘prompt feedback’ principle was fulfilled by asking students to complete evaluation forms after the event; I was expecting this type of principle to relate to providing feedback to the student on their learning - not an elearning or innovation issue though!

The authors argue that videoconferencing offers new possibilities to higher education, predominantly through the extended opportunities for collaboration. They note that they would prefer not to view videoconferencing as a replacement for face-to-face class time, but as an event integrated into the class syllabus. This seems to echo the argument for elearningHoltham.

Again, this paper was about the use of technology to expand knowledge networks - an apparently emerging theme for H807. The aspect I found hard to believe was that video-conferencing was particularly innovative in 2003. However, it was clearly a novel, engaging and inspiring experience for both the students and lecturers involved in this project, and therefore, for them, innovation in elearning. This raises a new (still ill-formed) thought for me - that innovation is relative to its context. What is new and innovative for one user or user community may be old hat to another. Applying a technology or method in that scenario is innovative, even if not a brand new idea which would be globally ‘innovative’. So, some aspects of innovation can involve re-use, or re-application or techniques. Innovation doesn’t require re-inventing the wheel.

Take-away points/thoughts:

• Innovation may be through technology development, or through the application of technology in some new way
• An activity or use of technology may be innovative in one context but not in another
• Students valued opportunities for interaction particularly highly
• Providing a technology, even though it may offer a valuable opportunity (e.g. a technological solution to interact with someone geographically distant), does not necessarily mean that the activity will be easy. Every day social influences such as feeling intimidated by a senior/expert, conventions around group interaction, etc will also play a part.

---

References:

Rich, M. and Holtham, C. (2005) ‘New technology in learning: a decade’s experience in a business school’, British Journal of Educational Technology – Special Issue on Innovation in Elearning, vol.36, no.4, pp.677–679 http://libezproxy.open.ac.uk/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00545.x

Lück, M. and Laurence, G.M. (2005) ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’, Innovate, vol.2, no.1 [online] http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue1/Innovative_Teaching-__Sharing_Expertise_through_Videoconferencing.pdf

15 minutes of thinking...

A gentle start on the course theme for week 1, activity 3 - jotting down a few initial ideas of your own about innovation in elearning... here's what I thought.

Does just doing the same thing but with new technology mean it’s innovative? I think not - technology per se does not equal innovation, but it may lead to or facilitate it. For example, putting a spelling test online doesn’t make it innovative, but offering learners a context in which to understand their results, opportunities to practise using the words, links to example uses, ways to document their progress, or reflect on what they’ve learnt might make it innovative. There seems to be a rush to add an e- or i- prefix, but that certainly doesn't automatically make something innovative.

Lots of ‘innovative’, or a least new or re-thought ways of learning seem to involve social aspects of learning - communication, collaboration, development of communities of practice. These aren’t innovative in themselves - we have long encouraged them by teaching students in classes rather than as individuals and by gathering together in university departments rather than writing theses alone. What the technology has facilitated is predominantly the opportunity to access a far wider audience/community, rapid publishing and feedback, access to resources and peers and greater opportunity for co-creation and sharing of knowledge.

Does something have to be truly iconoclastic in order to be innovative? My arguments that ‘just doing it online doesn’t make it innovative’ might seem to suggest so. I'm reminded a bit of Dillenbourg (1992) 'The Computer as Constructorium'. Dillenbourg described an iconoclastic goal of breaking the learner’s passive model of learning. He noted that becoming aware of one’s own knowledge, i.e. the ‘reflection’ process, is of interest not only to researchers on metacognition, but also now to designers of educational computing systems. Dillenbourg wasn't only interested in elearning, but I still feel that elearning that can meet his goal would quite probably be innovative - even today when you might hope our expectations for computer supported learning have moved on.

What about measuring innovation? Do you need to measure how innovative it is? (and can you anyway?!) We do need to be able to compare effectiveness with existing methods - there is no point being innovative if it doesn't improve something. However, the improvement doesn't necessarily have to be in outcomes - it could be in motivation, student retention, engagement, etc... some of which are tricky concepts to measure too.

Reference:
Dillenbourg P. (1992) The computer as a constructorium: Tools for observing one's own learning. In M.Elsom-Cook and R. Moyse (Eds), Knowledge Negotiation.(pp. 185-198) London: Academic Press. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.2.pdf