Core skills

It's funny that there is so much debate about whether we should use technology in education (ie. computers, cellphones and all sorts of net-based tools). The question should really be why shouldn't we? Why don't we expand the definition of technology to include books, pens, whiteboards, calculators, paper clips and so on?

Back in the early 19th century some educators questioned the usefulness of the blackboard and the slates that pupils wrote on. They were considered expensive and unnecessary (sounds familiar). This interesting historical perspective is featured in an excellent blog post by Ira Socol, Technology: the wrong questions and the right questions. One important point is that the way we were taught is completely irrelevant to today's situation. We learned the skills required for that period; learning by heart, handwriting, exam-based study, hierarchical management etc. Students today need the right skills for the future, in some cases skills for jobs that don't even exist today.

The paradox of the education sector is that today's new generation of teachers enjoyed their own schooldays and therefore tend to model their teaching on their own favourite teachers. The tendency is for the new teachers to simply continue the tradtional forms of teaching since that is the way they learn best themselves. The people who did not succeed in traditional schooling would probably be more interested in experimenting with new methods but they are highly unlikely to be attracted to a career in teaching. So traditions are hard to break.

Howard Rheingold points the way with a presentation of 21st century literacy skills on Personal Life Media (Have a look at the whole presentation video). Here he names five key competences that students will need to build:

• Attention - in an age of multi-tasking we need to learn how to focus
  
• Participation - active participation is the key to working in networks
  
• Cooperation - sharing and openness
  
• Critical Consumption - critical thinking is vital on the net (read Howards excellent advice on this - Crap Detection 101)
• Network Awareness - build and nurture your networks
  

All levels of education should foster these skills and we should never be too complacent. All too often we assume that students already have these skills on the grounds that they are so-called digital natives.

On the bandwagon

After several months of passive membership I have begun playing with Twitter (see my Twitter feed in the right hand column, @alacre). Each year one social networking tool gets the full media spotlight and Twitter is the star of 2009 (Facebook was 2008 and Second Life was 2007). If the present media hype is any guide I'm probably one of the last people on earth to join up but you can't have an opinion unless you've actually tried using something.

The reason behind my hesitant approach is that once you start it's hard to set limits. My three blogs have become rather addictive and they're a bit like those wonderful Tamagotchi creatures that once inhabited people's cellphones; once you've got one you need to feed it regularly or it will die. I'm interested in following other people's tweets to get ideas and links but once you start following you soon feel the urge to start contributing! There are of course lots of tools that can gather all these channels together and I use Netvibes for all RSS feeds from news sites, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Delicious and many other clever widgets. Another nice tool for gathering all your feeds in a graphically attractive way is Seesmic.

The key is to integrate all the new communication channels. Back in the early nineties there were numerous e-mail tools which were mostly incompatible with each other. It took a few years before the world could agree on common principles and suddenly we could all communicate. It seems we're heading into a similar situation today. As I write this I have the following communication tools open: desk phone, cellphone, 2 e-mail accounts, Skype, Facebook and Twitter. Then there are several more channels that I use only seldom. All with different user names, passwords, addresses and so on.

Augmented reality

Ever wished that virtual reality and real reality would get together? Maybe not but it's coming anyway in the form of augmented reality, a technique that allows information from the net to be superimposed on real life views via a cellphone camera.

There's an interesting example of this on trial in the Netherlands where you can look at, say, a street scene with your cellphone and it superimposes clickable links that can give you more information about a building, services or shop. This application allows you to see which properties in your viewer are for sale and details on them (see demo video below). It's basically a clever mashup of GPS, maps, Wikipedia, Yellow Pages and other services and is even clearer evidence that the future belongs to position-based technologies.

GPS isn't always spot-on but the next phase could well be image recognition allowing the device to realize where it is and provide the relevant information. Another potential development, according to an article in the New York Times (Kicking reality up a notch), is to use this technology to superimpose games onto reality. Look through your cellphone window and suddenly the world is full of virtual creatures straight from your Play Station. Indeed Sony are planning to introduce Invizimals (virtual monsters) to the unsuspecting world before long.

Maybe flying pink elephants will be an everyday sight in the future.

Nanopayments

Most people start off in Second Life with the free basic account. You can see the sights, meet people and change your appearance without paying but after a while you realize that you need a proper account and a wad of Linden dollars to be able to do interesting things like creating objects or getting a more interesting appearance. The price tags on all these virtual clothes, furniture, skins, textures and works of art are very low indeed but people are perfectly willing to pay for them.

Similarly the success of low-cost text messaging has provided mobile operators with considerable income over the years with very little protest from the customers. People have been willing to pay relatively small sums for trivial downloads such as virtual pets, ring tones, icons, sound effects or screensavers. In Japan in particular this trend has been the norm for many years and the key seems to be buying pre-paid credits rather than charging a credit card.

A recent article in Tech Radar, How nanopayments finally came of age, argues that so-called nanopayments could be one answer to the problems caused by file-sharing and suchlike. If we paid very small sums of money (or even virtual money) for services on the net there would be income for the artists/writers/companies but at a level that doesn't make a noticeable impact on users' wallets. In Second Life many people "earn" virtual money in order to pay for their in-world consumption and maybe this would be possible on the net in general (fill in a questionnaire and earn enough to download a few free songs on iTunes).

Somehow the content on the net must be paid for and maybe it's better for millions of people to pay very small fees for a service than a few thousand paying today's commercial rate. The only problem is that such a solution requires universal consent; it won't work if there is still an alternative service that costs nothing.

In a nutshell

There was a sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus where contestants on a TV game show had to summarize Marcel Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu in 15 seconds. Impossible of course, though the first contestant does make a reasonable attempt. Now with the advent of Twitter and YouTube this idea has really taken off.

First there were all those wonderful five second YouTube versions of movies like Rocky, Titanic, Lord of the Rings and Die Hard (see a cavalcade of them). In a world where attention spans are shrinking fast, Twitter seems to encapsulate the mood and tweeters are now summarizing literary classics in 140 characters (haven't seen a Twitter version of Proust yet). I can't help quoting the Twitter version of Moby Dick:
Bloke goes bonkers pursuing large white whale across oceans and ends up harpooned to its side. Moral: don't become a fisherman. (See more at Daily Telegraph Twitter literature: Bloke goes bonkers pursuing whale)

Furthermore, two students at the University of Chicago are about to publish a book (yes, a book!) called Twitterature full of very brief summaries of classic novels

There's a nice post on TechCrunch (Short is sweet) about the background to the current craze for short messages, tracing Twitter back to SMS and even postcards. Evidently the 140 character restriction on Twitter and the 160 limit on cellphone texts relate to the length of the average postcard message of days gone by (Having a time. Wish you were lovely etc etc).

All good fun of course but I wonder if we are sacrificing developed argument for bite-sized quotes and knee-jerk reactions. Is this another sign of homo zapiens restlessness or can we find new creative uses for the short message medium? How about Twitter poetry - maybe a modern version of the haiku?

Mobile etiquette

A guy at work many years ago spent most of his working hours talking on his cellphone. Being a salesman this was understandable but trying to have a face-to-face discussion was almost pointless since the cellphone always got top priority. As a result, the best way to get his undivided attention was to phone him, even from a range of a few metres.

Then, as now, there was debate about cellphone etiquette but it seems to have had little effect. Today the phones still ring in mid-meeting but even more frequent is the irresistable urge to check and answer e-mails, chatrooms or Facebook in meetings and even in negotiations or job interviews. A few weeks ago the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, was went so far as to confiscate a journalist's cellphone after being repeatedly interrupted during a press conference (see YouTube video).

There's an article on all this in the New York Times, Mind your Blackberry or mind your manners. The challenge in meetings today is to keep the group's attention otherwise all eyes will be focused downwards and the tip-tap on tiny keypads will begin. In defence of it all is the fact that today's customers want 24-hour access and if you don't answer then your competitor will. So you switch off at your peril.

Just as schools and universities complain about students' on-line activities during class time the executive world is far from immune. Companies seem equally at a loss as to how to restrict the use of technology in meetings and the hope is that common sense and consideration will eventually prevail. We often talk about kids having a short attention span but the rest of us are no better, happily zapping from one distraction to another rather than concentrate on the matter at hand. I'll admit I'm not immune either.

A new smart way of working or just a way of trying to impress each other with how effective we all are?

Group work - creative or conformist?

There's a post on Psyblog that I found interesting called Why group norms kill creativity. There is considerable evidence it seems that group work can actually stifle creativity due to the fact that groups tend to be focused on reaching a consensus. Groups quickly establish norms that govern their interaction and because of these norms it is very difficult to propose radically different ideas if they threaten the balance of the group.

We've all been in situations where you realize that your opinion is in conflict with the rest of the group and the most diplomatic move is to go with the flow or to make your idea more palatable. But what if your original proposal was right? How many good ideas have been sacrificed to please the group? Are there significant differences between working in physical groups and working in net-based groups?

George Siemens comments nicely on his blog, elearnspace:
"Wisdom of the crowds is often misinterpreted as suggesting that people are intelligent when they think together. It’s more accurate to say that people are intelligent when they think alone and that this intelligence is amplified when they connect. It’s a subtle but vital distinction. A homogeneous group is often not very effective at creativity. Individual diversity, connected, produces substantial advances. A group can refine, extend, augment, and even perfect certain concepts and ideas."

In education we assume that working in groups is good in that students will offer mutual support and provide a social dimension to the learning process. However, not all students appreciate the benefits of groups and I recently heard of students actually dropping out of courses due to a group assignment. Group work can indeed be frustrating when so much energy is required reaching a consensus or if some members are not willing to pull their weight. Some part-time distance students can only study late in the evenings making synchronous meetings with the rest of the group almost impossible.

All in the mind

There's a good article in Times Higher Education on the future of distance learning, Coming to a screen near you. It discusses the growth in distance learning in the UK and the increasing use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. The net is a prerequisite to most university education today with both campus and distance courses making increasing use of podcasted lectures, video feedback, social networks, mobile learning and meetings in Second Life.

Whilst students clearly value face-to-face contact they also expect to be able to access course material and to participate in on-line discussion.
"Students have increasing expectations about the use of technology on campus, but importantly they continue to value face-to-face contact. It's not a question of removing face-to-face contact, it's about developing a broader and richer mix. I don't see any evidence at all of lessening demand for campus-based institutions."

The big problem just now is the lack of solid research into evaluating the success of new technologies in education. There is, of course, research in progress but it needs to reach a critical level in order to gain full credibility. At the same time I wonder how much research is available into the effectiveness of, say, paper, pencils, whiteboards or lectures in the learning process.

We should see modern net-based tools as complements or improvement on traditional tools. You don't learn more just because you use a particular tool (analogue or digital), learning is the process going on in your head. The tools can aid that process and provide alternative paths to more effective learning. All the technology in the world, however, will not help you learn unless you have the necessary motivation, enthusiasm and curiosity. Those qualities cannot be downloaded.

Passwords

I have far too many passwords, PIN-codes and user names. There are tools for keeping them in order but I haven't really come to terms with them either and they, of course, demand a user name and password. I try to keep things simple by using variations on a theme when it comes to passwords but the real problems occur when I try to log into a service that I seldom use. Now what password did I choose for this one? Sometimes I know the password but what user name did I have? I remember reading a few years ago that the most popular password on the net was, wait for it, PASSWORD! Now that's easy to remember.

Now I see that there is a campaign in Australia this week to encourage people to focus on net security, National E-security Awareness Week. The site has simple tips on how to improve your security as well as a video presentation. The message is to use more secure passwords, change them twice a year, use a security tool and update it regularly and to think before you click on ads, e-mail offers etc. Seminars and events are being arranged all week around Australia to focus on this.

We all need reminding about these issues and the Australian campaign is a fine example for other countries to follow. The problem is implementing all the good advice. My passwords probably need beefing up but how on earth am I going to remember them all?

Music for supermarkets

We seem to have a fear of silence in public places and try to fill those awkward spaces with background music or muzak as it's often known. Muzak is meant to be gentle and soothing but often has the opposite effect, as anyone who has wandered round a supermarket to the strains of instrumental cover versions of Una paloma blanca or I just called to say I love you will know only too well. The ultimate horror is working in a place that plays a limited selection of easy listening favourites in a never-ending tape loop.

Even if the muzak versions of such hits are very pale copies of the originals they still are copyrighted to somebody and the shops have to pay for the privilege of playing it. However the answer to this problem is on the way in the form of computer generated muzak. According to an article in Techradar.com (Death to muzak!) researchers at the Spanish University of Granada have developed a program that will generate muzak on the fly, in a variety of genres. Since the muzak is composed and played immediately there is no copyright and so we can enjoy our supermarket melodies free of charge and with infinite variation.

This is of course bad news for synthesizer players who live off recording instrumental versions of old Barry Manilow hits but a giant leap for the rest of civilisation as we know it.

Not all muzak is like this however. Back in the late seventies musician and composer Brian Eno experimented with various forms of background music (ambient music) that were not meant to be listened to but would create an atmosphere conducive to, say, studying or writing. Indeed one of his albums of this period is called Music for airports. Music can be used positively in public places; the trick is to make it as unobtrusive as possible.

What happens when most students are off-campus?

My university (Kalmar in south-east Sweden) had 40% of its students as distance learners in 2008. The figure has been steadily climbing for several years and the question is whether the off-campus students will some day be in the majority. Many universities have already crossed that line, though few have actually made the psychological adjustment. Throughout history schools and universities have been seen as places where people come to learn. Generations of students have developed high levels of loyalty to their alma mater represented by the campus area and the often impressive buildings there.

What happens then when most of a university's students hardly ever visit the campus and learn instead on the net? This is taken up in an article in the magazine Inside Higher Ed, The Distance Ed Tipping Point. Traditions and loyalty are much harder to maintain on the net though some are trying to counter that. Bryant & Stratton College in the US, for example, are holding a virtual graduation ceremony in Second Life for 40 of its distance students, complete with avatars in academic robes (see article in Campus Technology).

So what has to change as the university goes more net-based?

• When most students are on the net suddenly net-based learning is core business and administrative routines have to be revised accordingly.
  
• The role of the teaching staff changes when lecture time is no longer so relevant.
  
• Staff training has to focus on the new skills of teaching effectively on the net.
  
• Digital competence becomes a key factor in staff recruitment.
  
• The use of campus buildings, classrooms and infrastructure needs to be reviewed.
  
• Many universities are supported by local authorities and industry and are seen as integral to the region's development so what happens when most of the students live outside the region?

The next health issue - text thumb?

Some of us just can't stop communicating. The simplest form of digital communication is of course good old SMS or texting. It's really a primitive service of max 140 characters that was included in second generation cellphones to enable the telecom operator to tell you that you had a voice mail message waiting. However teenagers in particular discovered that it was cheaper to text a message than to make a phone call and the rest is history. Today modern cellphones can send all sorts of multimedia messages but the good old text is still going strong and now has a trendy cousin in the shape of Twitter (also 140 characters).

In the health section of the New York Times there's an article about many teenagers' addiction to texting, Texting may be taking a toll. It claims that the average American teenager sends and receives 2,270 texts per day and that the communication often goes on all through the night. One extreme case is given of a girl who was clocked at an incredible 24,000 texts in a month. Concerns for the health of our young are of course voiced, in particluar the problem of constantly waking up at night to check and answer the latest messages. Not to mention the danger of a new health risk - text thumb, the modern equivalent of tennis elbow or mouse arm.

Is this just another media scare on the dangers of modern technology? It's really about people wanting to communicate but in some cases it can become obsessive. Is obsessive texting worse that obsessive reading or TV viewing? Many people can read a book non-stop for hours or even days and that is seen as a healthy interest in literature. Everything in moderation. It would be really interesting if there was some real research in this area because without that we can only speculate.

Back chat

Twitter has definitely become this year's Facebook. Just about everyone is on Twitter including a cat called Sockington who has amassed around half a million followers, thereby putting many top celebrity tweeters to shame. What started as a simple way of telling your friends what you are doing has found many other uses such as providing front line news coverage, non-stop celebrity updates and customer feedback. I registered for Twitter ages ago but I'm afraid I have so far not found any good reason to start tweeting yet. I've thought about being a follower but who do I follow out of the millions already out there?

Twitter is certainly thriving in the education sector and there are already many excellent guides on using it on courses, among colleagues or at conferences. See, for example;

• Twitter for teachers
• Twitter literacy (Howard Rheingold)
  
• Twitter tips: for teachers and educator (David Hopkins)
• Even a book! The Twitter Book (O'Reilly and Milstein)
• And a conference - The Twitter Conference
  

One feature often used today is that Twitter provides a back channel for discussion at conferences. The conference Twitter feed can be shown on a screen on stage though this can be a major distraction since the chat can be more interesting than the speaker. Some chat is highly relevant to the topic being presented but can also be highly irrelevant. It's really a digital version of the age-old custom of passing notes under the desk during class. Should it remain under the surface or shown up front? Are we really multi-tasking or are we bored with the one way nature of the lecture format and long for a discussion?

A new phenomenon is discussed on Tony Karrer's blog, Twitter and webinars. E-meeting tools like Adobe Connect or Elluminate are used for seminars and lectures and even though such tools offer simultaneous text chat between participants it seems many are choosing to chat via Twitter instead. This means that the discussion is only visible to those participants with Twitter accounts and the main chat window is therefore relatively empty. The answer suggested in the post is to encourage participants to chat in the e-meeting chat session as a service to the group. The long-term solution is for the e-meeting tools to integrate Twitter and other social media and make it easier to interact with other participants. More integration and fewer proprietary solutions.

Art for art's sake

A recent article in the New York Times made some radical suggestions on how to reform universities to meet the demands of the 21st century. Mark C. Taylor's article, End the university as we know it, is highly critical of an academic world largely lacking in relevance for the outside world and increasingly inward-looking, producing ever more specialised research papers that are of interest only to a tiny circle of specialists.

"Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans)."

Taylor suggests abolishing permanent subject-based departments and working towards inter-disciplinary collaboration in areas such as Water, Infomation or Body which can be examined from multiple perspectives leading to deeper insights and unexpected conclusions. Universities should collaborate on programs even internationally providing multi-national perspectives for students. The traditional dissertation format should be questioned and alternative ways of presenting research findings using net-based tools should be encouraged in order to make the findings more accessible to the public.

The article prompted 437 comments and they are probably more interesting than the article itself. There are, of course, universities that are already doing what Taylor suggests and show that many of his ivory tower accusations are rather too sweeping. A lot of research today may well seem rather obscure but haven't many great discoveries been made by examining seemingly insignificant details? The analysis of many small and obscure details can lead to the discovery of important patterns. Much research today is indeed closely linked to industry and public interest but curbing the pursuit of pure knowledge would be a dangerous path to follow.

This is an age-old debate of course and will rage on. Change is happening, though academic traditions are mighty hard to break.

Why technology?

Ben Grey's article Why Technology? in Tech & Learning sees signs that universities will start cutting technology spending on the grounds that it's a big budget item and there are few concrete signs that student performance has improved due to increased use of technology in class (ie. measureable improvement in terms of exam success). He advises us to sharpen our arguments about how the pedagogical use of technology can enhance the learning process. The comments after the article provide plenty of possible answers.

Maybe it's good to have convincing arguments ready to meet any 'back to basics' initiatives but I find it strange that we still have such scepticism about net-based education. Does anyone seriously question the use of technology in finance or administration? Is it possible to work in a university administration and say that you don't believe in using technology, preferring to use mechanical calculators, typewriters and filing cabinets?

Read a response to the article on John Strange's blog; part 1 and part 2.