Alex Spiers (Learning Innovation & Development, LJMU) alerted me via Twitter to rumours in the 'Internet playground' that Google is considering branching out into educational software. According to the article spreading the rumour, Google plans to fulfil its recent pledge to acquire one small company per month by purchasing Blackboard.
The area of educational software is not completely alien to Google. The Google Apps Education Edition (providing email, collaboration widgets, etc.) has been around for a while now (I think) and - as the article insinuates - moving deeper into educational software seems a natural progression and provides Google with clear access to a key demographic. This is all conjecture of course; but if Google acquired Blackboard I think I would suffer a schizophrenic episode. A part of me would think, "Great - Google will make Blackboard less clunky, offer more functionality and more flexiblity". But the other part (which is slightly bigger, I think) would feel extremely uncomfortable that Google is yet again moving into new areas, probably with the intention of dominating that area.
We forget how huge and pervasive Google is today. Google is everywhere and now reaches far beyond its dominant position in search into virtually every significant area of web and software development. If Google were Microsoft the US Government and the EU would be all over Google like a rash for pushing the boundaries of antitrust legislation and competition laws. This situation takes on a rather sinister tone when you consider the situation in HE if Blackboard becomes a Google subsidiary. Edge Hill University is one of several institutions which has elected to ditch fully integrated institutional email applications (e.g. MS Outlook, Thunderbird) in favour of Google Mail. Having a VLE maintained by Google therefore sets the alarm bells ringing. The key technological interactions for a 21st century student are as follows: email, web, VLE, library. Picture it - a student existence which would be entirely dependent upon one company and the directed advertising that goes with it: Google Mail, web (and their first port of call is likely to be Google, of course), GoogleBoard (the name of Blackboard if they decided to re-brand it!) and a massive digital library which Google is attempting to create and which would essentially create a de facto digital library monopoly.
I'm probably getting ahead of myself. The acquisition of Blackboard probably won't happen, and the digital library has encountered plenty of opposition, not least from Angela Merkel; but it does get me thinking that Google finally needs reining in. Even before this news broke I was starting to think that Google was turning into a Sesame Street-style Cookie Monster, devouring everything in sight. Their ubiquity can't possibly be healthy anymore, can it? Or am I being completely paranoid?
Showing posts with label e-learning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label e-learning. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
When Web 2.0 business models and accessibility collide with information services and e-learning...
Rory Cellan-Jones has today posted his musings on the current state of Facebook at the BBC dot.life blog. His posting was inspired by an interview with Sheryl Sandberg (Chief Operating Officer) and was originally billed as 'Will Facebook ever make any money?'. Sandberg was recruited from Google last year to help Facebook turn a financial corner. According to her interview with Cellan-Jones, Facebook is still failing to break even, but her projections are that Facebook will start to turn a profit by the end of 2010. If true, this will be good news for Facebook. Not everyone believes this of course, including Cellan-Jones judging by his questions, his raised left eye brow and his prediction that tighter EU regulation will harm Facebook growth. Says Cellan-Jones:
The adoption of Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter (and the rest) within universities has been rapid. Many in the literature and at conferences evangelise about the adoption of these tools as if their use was now mandatory. Nick Woolley voiced sensible concerns over this position. An additional concern that I have – and one I had hoped to verbalise at some point during the proceedings – is whether it is appropriate for services (whether e-learning or digital libraries, or whatever) to be going to the effort of embedding these technologies within curricula or services when they are third party services over which we have little control and when their economic futures are so uncertain.
The magic word at the MmIT event was 'free'. "Make use of this tool – it's free and the kids love it!". Very few of the tools over which LISers and learning technologists get excited about actually have viable business models. Google lost almost $500 million on YouTube in the year up to April 2009 and is unable to turn it into a viable business. MySpace is struggling and slashing staff, Facebook's future remains uncertain, Twitter currently has no business model at
all and is being propped up by venture capitalists while it contemplates desperate ways to create revenue, and so the list continues. Will any of these services still be here next year? Well published and straight talking advertising consultant, George Parker, has been pondering the state of social media advertising on his blog recently (warning – he is straight talking and profanities are order of the day!). He has insightful comments to make though on why most of these services are never going to make spectacular amounts of money from their current (failed?) model (i.e. advertising). According to Parker, advertising is just plain wrong. Niche markets where subscriptions are required will be the only way for these services to make decent money...
A more general concern relates to the usability and accessibility of social networking services. Very few of them, if any, actually come close to minimal W3C accessibility guidelines, or DDA and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001. Surely there are legal and ethical questions to be asked, particularly of universities? Embedding these third party services into curricula seems like a good idea but it's one which could potentially exclude students from the same learning experience as others. This is a concern I have had for a few years now, but I had thought it would, a) have been resolved by services voluntarily by now, and, b) institutions wishing to deploy them would have taken measures to resolve it (this might be not using them at all!). Obviously not...
There are many arguments for not engaging with Web 2.0 at university, and - where appropriate - many of these arguments were cogently made at the MmIT conference. But if adopting such technologies is considered to be imperative, should we not be making more of an effort to develop tools that replicate their functionality, thus allowing control over their longevity and accessibility? Attempts at this have hitherto been pooh-poohed on the grounds that interrupting habitual student behaviour (i.e. getting students to switch from, say, Facebook to an academic equivalent) was too onerous, or that replicating the social mass and collaborative appeal of international networking sites couldn't be done within academic environments. But have we really tried hard enough? Most have been half-baked efforts. It is also noteworthy that research conducted by Mike Thelwall and published in JASIST indicates that homophily continues within social networking websites. If this is true, then it is likely that getting students to make the switch to locally hosted equivalents of Facebook or MySpace is certainly possible, particularly as the majority of their network will comprise similar people within similar academic situations.
Perhaps there is more of a need for the wider adoption of social web markup languages, such as the User Labor Markup Language (ULML), to enable users to switch between disparate social networking services whilst simultaneously allowing the portability of social capital (or 'user labour') from one service to another? This would make the decision to adopt academic equivalents far more attractive. However, if this is the case, then more research needs to be undertaken to extend ULML (and other options) to make them fully interoperable with the breadth of services currently available.
I don't like putting a downer on all the innovative and excellent work that the LIS and e-learning communities are doing in this area; it's just that many seem to be oblivious to these threats and are content to carry on regardless. Nothing good ever comes from carrying on regardless, least of all that dreadful tune by the Beautiful South. Let's just talk about it a bit more and actually acknowledge these issues...
"And [another] person I met at Facebook's London office symbolised the firm's determination to deal with its other challenge - regulation.This is all by way of introduction, because a few weeks ago I attended the CILIP MmIT North West day conference on 'Emerging technologies in the library' at LJMU. A series of interesting speakers, including Nick Woolley, Russell Prue and Jane Secker, pondered the use of new technologies in e-learning, digital libraries and other information services. Of course, one of the recurring themes to emerge throughout the day was the innovative use of social networking tools in e-learning or digital library contexts. To be sure, there is some innovative work going on; but none of the speakers addressed two elephants in the room:
Richard Allan, a former Liberal Democrat MP and then director of European government affairs at Cisco, has been hired to lobby European regulators for Facebook.
With the EU mulling over tighter privacy rules for firms that share their users' data, and with continuing concern from politicians about issues like cyber-bullying and hate-speak on social networks, there will be plenty on Mr Allan's plate.
So, yes, Facebook suddenly looks like a mature business, poised for steady progress towards profitability and ready to engage in grown-up conversations about its place in society. Then again, so did MySpace a year ago, until it suddenly went out of fashion."
- Service longevity, and;
- Accessibility
The adoption of Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter (and the rest) within universities has been rapid. Many in the literature and at conferences evangelise about the adoption of these tools as if their use was now mandatory. Nick Woolley voiced sensible concerns over this position. An additional concern that I have – and one I had hoped to verbalise at some point during the proceedings – is whether it is appropriate for services (whether e-learning or digital libraries, or whatever) to be going to the effort of embedding these technologies within curricula or services when they are third party services over which we have little control and when their economic futures are so uncertain.
The magic word at the MmIT event was 'free'. "Make use of this tool – it's free and the kids love it!". Very few of the tools over which LISers and learning technologists get excited about actually have viable business models. Google lost almost $500 million on YouTube in the year up to April 2009 and is unable to turn it into a viable business. MySpace is struggling and slashing staff, Facebook's future remains uncertain, Twitter currently has no business model at
all and is being propped up by venture capitalists while it contemplates desperate ways to create revenue, and so the list continues. Will any of these services still be here next year? Well published and straight talking advertising consultant, George Parker, has been pondering the state of social media advertising on his blog recently (warning – he is straight talking and profanities are order of the day!). He has insightful comments to make though on why most of these services are never going to make spectacular amounts of money from their current (failed?) model (i.e. advertising). According to Parker, advertising is just plain wrong. Niche markets where subscriptions are required will be the only way for these services to make decent money...A more general concern relates to the usability and accessibility of social networking services. Very few of them, if any, actually come close to minimal W3C accessibility guidelines, or DDA and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001. Surely there are legal and ethical questions to be asked, particularly of universities? Embedding these third party services into curricula seems like a good idea but it's one which could potentially exclude students from the same learning experience as others. This is a concern I have had for a few years now, but I had thought it would, a) have been resolved by services voluntarily by now, and, b) institutions wishing to deploy them would have taken measures to resolve it (this might be not using them at all!). Obviously not...
There are many arguments for not engaging with Web 2.0 at university, and - where appropriate - many of these arguments were cogently made at the MmIT conference. But if adopting such technologies is considered to be imperative, should we not be making more of an effort to develop tools that replicate their functionality, thus allowing control over their longevity and accessibility? Attempts at this have hitherto been pooh-poohed on the grounds that interrupting habitual student behaviour (i.e. getting students to switch from, say, Facebook to an academic equivalent) was too onerous, or that replicating the social mass and collaborative appeal of international networking sites couldn't be done within academic environments. But have we really tried hard enough? Most have been half-baked efforts. It is also noteworthy that research conducted by Mike Thelwall and published in JASIST indicates that homophily continues within social networking websites. If this is true, then it is likely that getting students to make the switch to locally hosted equivalents of Facebook or MySpace is certainly possible, particularly as the majority of their network will comprise similar people within similar academic situations.
Perhaps there is more of a need for the wider adoption of social web markup languages, such as the User Labor Markup Language (ULML), to enable users to switch between disparate social networking services whilst simultaneously allowing the portability of social capital (or 'user labour') from one service to another? This would make the decision to adopt academic equivalents far more attractive. However, if this is the case, then more research needs to be undertaken to extend ULML (and other options) to make them fully interoperable with the breadth of services currently available.
I don't like putting a downer on all the innovative and excellent work that the LIS and e-learning communities are doing in this area; it's just that many seem to be oblivious to these threats and are content to carry on regardless. Nothing good ever comes from carrying on regardless, least of all that dreadful tune by the Beautiful South. Let's just talk about it a bit more and actually acknowledge these issues...
Friday, 29 August 2008
A conceptual model of e-learning: better studying effectiveness
My personal development has recently led me to explore and research the effectiveness of e-learning approaches to Higher Education (HE) teaching and learning. Since the late 1990s, e-learning has become a key focus of activity within pedagogical communities of practice (as well as those within information systems and LIS communities who often manage the necessary technology). HE is increasingly harnessing e-learning approaches to provide flexible course delivery models capable of meeting the needs of part-time study and lifelong learners. Of particular relevance, of course, is the Web, a mechanism highly conducive to disseminating knowledge and delivering a plethora of interactive learning activities (hence the role of informaticians).
The advantages of e-learning are frequently purported in the literature and are generally manifest in the Web itself. Such benefits include the ability to engage students in non-linear information access and synthesis; the availability of learning environments from any location and at any time; the ability for students to influence the level and pace of engagement with the learning process; and, increased opportunities for deploying disparate learning strategies, such as group discussion and problem-based or collaborative learning, as well as delivering interactive learning materials or learning objects. Various administrative and managerial benefits are also cited, such as cost savings over traditional methods and the relative ease with which teaching materials or courses can be revised.
Although flexible course delivery remains a principal motivating factor, the use of e-learning is largely predicated upon the assumption that it can facilitate improvements in student learning and can therefore be more effective than conventional techniques. This assumption is largely supported by theoretical arguments and underpins the large amounts of government and institutional investment in e-learning (e.g. JISC e-learning); yet, it is an assumption that is not entirely supported by the academic literature, containing as it does a growing body of indifferent evidence...
In 1983, Richard E. Clark from the University of Southern California conducted a series of meta-analyses investigating the influence of media on learning. His research found little evidence of any educational benefits and concluded that media were no more effective in teaching and learning than traditional teaching techniques. Said Clark:
Is the same true of e-learning? Is there a similar assumption fuelling the gargantuan levels of e-learning investment? I feel safe in stating that such an assumption is endemic - and I can confirm this having worked briefly on a recent e-learning project. And I am in no way casting aspersions on my colleagues during this time, as I too held the very same assumption!!!
It is clear that evidence supporting the effectiveness of e-learning in HE teaching and learning remains unconvincing (e.g. Bernard et al.; Frederickson et al.). A number of comparative studies have arrived at indifferent conclusions and support the view that e-learning is at least as effective as traditional teaching methods, but not more effective (e.g. Abraham; Dutton et al.; Johnson et al.; Leung; Piccoli et al.). However, some of these studies exemplify a lack of methodological rigour (e.g. group self-selection) and many fail to control for some of the most basic variables hypothesised to influence effectiveness (e.g. social interaction, learner control, etc.). By contrast, those studies which have been more holistic in their methodological design have found e-learning to be more effective (e.g. Liu et al.; Hui et al.). These positive results could be attributed to the fact that e-learning, as an area of study, is maturing; bringing with it an improved understanding of the variables influencing e-learning effectiveness. Perhaps electronic media will "revolutionise" instruction after all?
Although such positive research tends to employ greater control over variables, such work fails to control for all the factors considered – both empirically and theoretically - to influence whether e-learning will be effective or not. Frederickson et al. have suggested that the theoretical understanding of e-learning has been exhausted and call for a greater emphasis on empirical research; yet it is precisely because a lack of theoretical understanding exists that invalid empirical studies have been designed. It is evident that the variables influencing e-learning effectiveness are multifarious and few researchers impose adequate controls or factor any of them into research designs. Such variables include: level of learner control; social interactivity; learning styles; e-learning system design; properties of learning objects used; system or interface usability; ICT and information literacy skills; and, the manner or degree to which information is managed within the e-learning environment itself (e.g. Information Architecture). From this perspective it can be concluded that no valid e-learning effectiveness research has ever been undertaken since no study has yet attempted to control for them all.
Motivated by this confusing scenario, and informed by the literature, it is possible to propose a rudimentary conceptual model of e-learning effectiveness (see diagram above) which I intend to develop and write up formally in the literature. The model attempts to improve our theoretical understanding of e-learning effectiveness and should aid researchers in comprehending the relevant variables and the manner in which they interact. It is anticipated that such a model will assist researchers in developing future evaluative studies which are both robust and holistic in design. It can therefore be hypothesised that using the model in evaluative studies will yield more positive e-learning effectiveness results.
Apologies this was such a lengthy posting, but does anyone have any thoughts on this or fancy working it up with me?
The advantages of e-learning are frequently purported in the literature and are generally manifest in the Web itself. Such benefits include the ability to engage students in non-linear information access and synthesis; the availability of learning environments from any location and at any time; the ability for students to influence the level and pace of engagement with the learning process; and, increased opportunities for deploying disparate learning strategies, such as group discussion and problem-based or collaborative learning, as well as delivering interactive learning materials or learning objects. Various administrative and managerial benefits are also cited, such as cost savings over traditional methods and the relative ease with which teaching materials or courses can be revised.
Although flexible course delivery remains a principal motivating factor, the use of e-learning is largely predicated upon the assumption that it can facilitate improvements in student learning and can therefore be more effective than conventional techniques. This assumption is largely supported by theoretical arguments and underpins the large amounts of government and institutional investment in e-learning (e.g. JISC e-learning); yet, it is an assumption that is not entirely supported by the academic literature, containing as it does a growing body of indifferent evidence...
In 1983, Richard E. Clark from the University of Southern California conducted a series of meta-analyses investigating the influence of media on learning. His research found little evidence of any educational benefits and concluded that media were no more effective in teaching and learning than traditional teaching techniques. Said Clark:
"[E]lectronic media have revolutionised industry and we have understandable hopes that they would also benefit instruction".Clark's paper was/is seminal and remains a common citation in those papers reporting indifferent e-learning effectiveness findings.
Is the same true of e-learning? Is there a similar assumption fuelling the gargantuan levels of e-learning investment? I feel safe in stating that such an assumption is endemic - and I can confirm this having worked briefly on a recent e-learning project. And I am in no way casting aspersions on my colleagues during this time, as I too held the very same assumption!!!
It is clear that evidence supporting the effectiveness of e-learning in HE teaching and learning remains unconvincing (e.g. Bernard et al.; Frederickson et al.). A number of comparative studies have arrived at indifferent conclusions and support the view that e-learning is at least as effective as traditional teaching methods, but not more effective (e.g. Abraham; Dutton et al.; Johnson et al.; Leung; Piccoli et al.). However, some of these studies exemplify a lack of methodological rigour (e.g. group self-selection) and many fail to control for some of the most basic variables hypothesised to influence effectiveness (e.g. social interaction, learner control, etc.). By contrast, those studies which have been more holistic in their methodological design have found e-learning to be more effective (e.g. Liu et al.; Hui et al.). These positive results could be attributed to the fact that e-learning, as an area of study, is maturing; bringing with it an improved understanding of the variables influencing e-learning effectiveness. Perhaps electronic media will "revolutionise" instruction after all?
Although such positive research tends to employ greater control over variables, such work fails to control for all the factors considered – both empirically and theoretically - to influence whether e-learning will be effective or not. Frederickson et al. have suggested that the theoretical understanding of e-learning has been exhausted and call for a greater emphasis on empirical research; yet it is precisely because a lack of theoretical understanding exists that invalid empirical studies have been designed. It is evident that the variables influencing e-learning effectiveness are multifarious and few researchers impose adequate controls or factor any of them into research designs. Such variables include: level of learner control; social interactivity; learning styles; e-learning system design; properties of learning objects used; system or interface usability; ICT and information literacy skills; and, the manner or degree to which information is managed within the e-learning environment itself (e.g. Information Architecture). From this perspective it can be concluded that no valid e-learning effectiveness research has ever been undertaken since no study has yet attempted to control for them all.
Motivated by this confusing scenario, and informed by the literature, it is possible to propose a rudimentary conceptual model of e-learning effectiveness (see diagram above) which I intend to develop and write up formally in the literature. The model attempts to improve our theoretical understanding of e-learning effectiveness and should aid researchers in comprehending the relevant variables and the manner in which they interact. It is anticipated that such a model will assist researchers in developing future evaluative studies which are both robust and holistic in design. It can therefore be hypothesised that using the model in evaluative studies will yield more positive e-learning effectiveness results.Apologies this was such a lengthy posting, but does anyone have any thoughts on this or fancy working it up with me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)