A few questions posed ....
Are such technologies finding new ways of conducting behaviours that were already in operation, or are they promoting new types of behaviour?
New ways of conducting behaviours that were already in operation, for me the one thing that jumps to mind is the mobile phone. We already used phones, but being mobile brought new expectations and at a younger age. It also made us become more slave like to each other and also towards our employer. Following on from this is the Blackberry, now we not only need to be connected to other people by phone, we are expected to pick up email, look at documents etc way beyond the working day. The working day has become extended. Holidays have become shorter. Our working insecurities are seen through the use of technology and in some way and our vanity has been boosted (wrongly) to think we are indispensable.
Are the technologies used uniformly, or do different communities use the same technology in different ways?
Yes, I think different people use technologies differently – young people are attached to their mobile phones, i-players etc as if they can’t live without them…. Older people don’t need to be so connected in the same way. Economic circumstances also come into play
Are internet technologies different in any respects from other technologies?
Yes, and No. They are the same as they are adapting and changing, they are about knowledge and communication. Increasingly it can be accessed on lots of IT equipment, so no longer does one need a computer, a phone will do it now….
No they are not different as they are about communication and connection
Can you think of an example when a technology has changed your behaviour?
Yes, the mobile phone has changed my expectations. The internet has changed the way I shop. All these technologies have changed my expectations and my working life.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Wiki – a reflection of social history
Weller (2006) considers the three most important aspects of the social interaction for the benefit of society in relation to technology are its
Robustness
Decentralisation that promotes democracy and
Openness
In many ways the Wiki displays all these features, it is much talked about in relation to teaching and learning and even those who may not understand what a Wiki is have heard of Wikipedia, thus demonstrating its social influence and power. But untimely there is a limit on all these features in relation to the wider questions of control and power and whose hands this rest in both in relation to Wikis and the wider use of computers.
This short paper will outline what a WIki is and how it relates to all three of these features promoted by Welles, addressing each in tern. Lastly it will ask the wider question of where power lays and who is excluded from entering the world where equality and openness is promoted as a idealist goal.
What is a Wiki?
A Wiki is a basic webpage that unlike its convention counter part begins its life as a blank space and is open to those who have access to edit and create a document. It does not require any specialist software, it does however require access to the site via a computer in the first place and also some IT knowledge to type and edit. Unlike Fountain (2005) who describes a Wiki as open to “anyone in the world can change anything in a wiki page. That is, no one authorizes the creation of wiki pages. Everyone is automatically (by default) authorized to write, edit and publish”, there are a number of barriers for many to overcome and thus this wide statement needs causius use.
That said in relation to many other aspects of IT publishing the Wiki does offer an opportunity for those who wish to collaborate in knowledge building as teachers and learners it is a useful tool.
Robustness resulting from decentralisation
Part of the robustness as Welles sites is the lack of centralisation for ultimate control. All those who have access to the tool can edit and change it; it sits on no one individual computer and as such is owned as a cooperative. This aspect of decentralisation for Welles is not only a technical advantage it represents a social aspect that promotes democracy. In theory at least nobody’s opinion is considered greater than any others, everyone is able to contribute and as a whole the knowledge generated is richer and more robust in its quality. Taking the most well known example of Wikipedia, this collaborative encyclopaedia is thought by some to be robust due to its public peer review process.
The debate surrounding the public V academic peers review process on Wikipedia is documented and has like all debates its supporters and opponents (Barton, 2004; Lamb 2002). The threat felt by some academics to the traditional knowledge institutions is noted frequently by the citing factual inaccuracies and oversimplifications in Wikipedia. However leaving aside the academic insecurities and debates, the principals behind the use of Wikis for teaching and learning are now widely acknowledged as the research and knowledge acquisition has become increasingly important for today’s ‘knowledge economy’ (Siemens, 2005).
If we accept the principals of knowledge constriction along with behaviourism and cognitivism are all part of the wider learning process, depended on experiences and circumstances then the usefulness of the Wiki is evident. For Siemens (ibid) the tools we use to learn are as important as the process itself and here connectivism (Siemens, 2005) fills the theoretical gap, it allows and promotes a multidimensional conversation and construction of knowledge. The skills it promotes at a more local level as listed below, it is not a comprehensive list but importantly it is the tool that promotes this form of learning is as important as the process of learning and the knowledge gained.
Knowledge sharing
Collaboration and acknowledgment of other people’s expertise
Team building
Literacy
Sense of community and sharing that extending beyond learning itself
Who contributes to a Wiki is an important aspect along with why do so. There are many roles for the Wikiite; there is the scribe, the researcher, the reader, the editor, the consultant, the cleaner (one who keeps pages tidy). These identities can be interchangeable; we are the reader for some parts but the scribe maybe for others. We may be interacting as a learner, a teacher, a researcher, or maybe as an escape artist, these social identities are all interlinked and perhaps at least initially demonstrate our cultural capital, or perhaps age (with new generations who have grown up with IT). This openness may be controlled or regulated but it reflects who we are and what we do in addition to the purpose for the interaction.
Open access
The third aspect Welles notes is the fact the technology is Open access, it is free in terms of its licence and can be uploaded and changed according to the skills of the developer. This principal goes beyond financial exchange to space, time and materials and again this can relate to the robust nature and the decentralisation. It links into the psychology of a community and promotes an all inclusiveness of the ideal type that has been promoted for a long time (think of the Coca-Cola adverts); we are all part of the wider global community. We are all human.
This ideal, all inclusive that promotes democracy and knowledge creation and distribution is a worthy goal but has a long way to travel. Its openness and the ability to use the technology is of course depended on a number of skills and commodities the developed world takes for granted, demands and wrongly believes the whole world has access to. In 2004 within the developed world 57% of the population owned a personal computer with 50% having access to the internet. Compare this with developing countries where only 3.7% of the populations have access to a personal computer, internet access is wider with 6% access, partly due to telephone technology (Chinn & Fairlie, 2006). While these figures will have changed it illustrates the disparities between countries and the relational power play of knowledge domination. Questions come to my mind regarding access for informed participation within the international community (at all levels, from government thought to local). Governments cannot participate if their advisors lack knowledge or struggle to obtain it. Further who writes the history, this area of educational control once the power of governments may be more democratised, but it will be from the perspective of the developed world largely. Moving closer to home (while remaining far away), there are the issues of English as the dominant language and literacy and the largest barriers. We are, within the UK, frequently told seven million people lack adequate literacy skills for ‘normal’ life (Moser, 1999). While this figure is questionable in itself as well as the concept of ‘normal’ it does illustrate the care needed when considering how we think tools can change the shape of society and in which direction.
Conclusion
In conclusion from a personal perspective I feel the internet and more specifically the Wiki has and will continue to contribute to the social dimensions of life in many ways both locally and globally. It is a good teaching and learning tool, it does engender the principals of democracy and can be a tool to promote collaboration and discussion on a local and global level. However I think one should always keep in mind the wider inequalities, the power relations of who has the majority control. Many factors come into play in relation to how equal and how collaborative we are and we are open to be.
References
Barton, M. (2004) Embrace the Wiki Way! [Electronic version]. 21st May: 14:34
Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from
http://www.mattbarton.net/tikiwiki/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=4
Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie R.W., (2006) ICT Use in the Developed World: An Analysis of Differenced in Computer and Internet Penetration. Santa Cruz Centre for International Economics, Working Paper 66.
Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from:
http://sccie.ucsc.edu/workingpaper/2006/ICT_use.pdf
Fountain, R., (2005) Wiki Pedagogy
Downloaded on 31st March 2009 from
http://www.profetic.org/dossiers/spip.php?article967
Lamb, B. (2002) Wiki-based Collaborative Learning
Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from
http://www.educause.edu/wiki/Wiki-based+Collaborative+Learning
Moser, C., (1999) “A fresh start; improving literacy and numeracy”
Downloaded 31 March 2009 from
http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/mosergroup/
Siemens, G., (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, January 2005. Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Weller, M. (2006) “The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning”. [Electronic version] The Open University
Downloaded on 30 March 2009 from:
http://learn.open.ac.uk/file.php/5037/Course_resources/block_2_course_resources/h807_b2_mweller_distance.rtf
Monday, 30 March 2009
Weller (2006), ‘The distance from isolation: why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning’
I enjoyed reading this article and it confirmed a lot of what I thought and also grounded it. It also introduced some new ideas to me. I agreed more of less to what Weller said, but put me in mind of social identity as an individual and how we consume IT. We do this on a number of levels and my guess it that education that takes on Elearning for promotion should keep this in mind. We consume education the way we do must things these days so.... Anyway to respond to the questions set:
To what extent do you agree with the central hypothesis that the technological features of the internet are reflected in the social features, and can it be extended to other technologies?
Yes, I agree with this hypothesis. The need for people to be opinionated and stand out is illustrated in Blogs and Newsgroups. The fact people have always tried to communicate fast illustrated by the use of fast (and frequently fresh) horses, the fact the fastest runners were used at Gallipoli. People want communication and they want it now. So email is a form of that. It needs to be robust or else it is not reliable (new horses, the breeding of pigeons that were good at homing).
I agree with the aspect of symbolisation not being underestimated. People need to feel connected and it works well. I can think of examples of voting, the thought we all go to the polls on the same day to make a change (or not) in who we allow to control our services (bit idealistic, but the thought it there). Again a herd attitude is a human trait from football upwards and it is what drives our economy – culture
Culture while it is influenced by technology and can over time change (the car I think is a good example, and within IT think of the mobile phone and how this has changed people’s habits and expectations). I think also the IT is influenced by the culture in the first place (I think Stuart Hall calls this the cultural circuit – where aspects of culture feed into the initial design but as culture modifies so does the design of the object).
If the hypothesis is valid, then to what extent does it reflect a social or technological determinism?
I think this is too simplistic, I think is a mix of the two. The IT represents society or how society would like to be. It taps into our identity and is produced for us to become consumers of it in someway. This in tern is sometimes regulated formally (the train carriages that ask you not to use your phone); it is sometimes informally regulated (parents who allow some form of internet access but not all). It is then re-consumed and re-identified. All this is socially determined but intertwined with the IT. For me no one element can be highlighted as being unique and isolated.
To what extent do you agree with the central hypothesis that the technological features of the internet are reflected in the social features, and can it be extended to other technologies?
Yes, I agree with this hypothesis. The need for people to be opinionated and stand out is illustrated in Blogs and Newsgroups. The fact people have always tried to communicate fast illustrated by the use of fast (and frequently fresh) horses, the fact the fastest runners were used at Gallipoli. People want communication and they want it now. So email is a form of that. It needs to be robust or else it is not reliable (new horses, the breeding of pigeons that were good at homing).
I agree with the aspect of symbolisation not being underestimated. People need to feel connected and it works well. I can think of examples of voting, the thought we all go to the polls on the same day to make a change (or not) in who we allow to control our services (bit idealistic, but the thought it there). Again a herd attitude is a human trait from football upwards and it is what drives our economy – culture
Culture while it is influenced by technology and can over time change (the car I think is a good example, and within IT think of the mobile phone and how this has changed people’s habits and expectations). I think also the IT is influenced by the culture in the first place (I think Stuart Hall calls this the cultural circuit – where aspects of culture feed into the initial design but as culture modifies so does the design of the object).
If the hypothesis is valid, then to what extent does it reflect a social or technological determinism?
I think this is too simplistic, I think is a mix of the two. The IT represents society or how society would like to be. It taps into our identity and is produced for us to become consumers of it in someway. This in tern is sometimes regulated formally (the train carriages that ask you not to use your phone); it is sometimes informally regulated (parents who allow some form of internet access but not all). It is then re-consumed and re-identified. All this is socially determined but intertwined with the IT. For me no one element can be highlighted as being unique and isolated.
Affordances and technology - a few starting thoughts
Affordances - not sure if I understand this fully really.... Is it the act or the outcome that is the affordance??
Anyway the task -
Consider the now commonplace communication technologies of email and blogs, which you encountered earlier. Suggest the affordances found in each technology. Think about how the affordances influence the type of communication you engage in when using the technology.
How does the technology itself shape that communication?
Email – I think the expectation of communication is faster due to email so the shape is faster in terms of what we ask. I also think it has become more chatty and business like and less descriptive, also perhaps less ‘romantic’. For the most part it is also less formal though can be sometimes formal as it is a legally recognised format for communication. As an everyday communication tool it has become as essential today as the Victorian postcard was….. Though on a bigger scale.
Affordances would be I think – expectation, informality and speed and ultimately communication I guess
Blogs – I am not a great fan of blogs both as a form of diary and also as a form of opinion. Diary because I am not a diarist and opinion as I don’t think people really what my opinion on things really. I am not a great one to read the screen of computers as a form of news so that too is not for me…. So what affordances are there for Blogs? I am not sure… I will have to read others opinions on that…..
Affordance - ? Writing, I am not sure it is a prime communication tool as much of what is written is not for disucssion?? Or maybe it is and I have never felt up to discussing
What are the technologies good at?
There is no doubt good for almost instant communication Email, therefore one can feel connected. It shrinks space and to some degree time
When are they a poor medium for communication?
When they don’t work… also when not enough thought has gone into what is written (as they are instant, like potnoodle). They are not personal nor secure, they can be forwarded on unknowingly and then taken out of context. They can also be tagged onto things in many ways and confidential information becomes public.
Was the concept of affordances useful when thinking about the technology?
I am not sure… I am not sure I know and understand what this concept means so may revisit this when others have written their thoughts….
Do you find your behaviour shaped significantly by the affordances of the technology?
Email – speed and instant communication – if this is what it is then yes, I do think this. It is as it says on the tin, instant, and as a result people become impatient when replies are not themselves instant. Also I think people will fire off a number of emails and copy others in when not necessary as a result of it’s ease. This may not be necessary and also be annoying for those who receive a number…..
Were there other explanations for any behavioural influences?
In relation to email, only our general lack of life impatience and expectation within social life. We not only expect things to be easy but we also expect things to be instant.
When you next encounter a technology in this course you can return to the notion of affordances.
Not sure… will have to see
Anyway the task -
Consider the now commonplace communication technologies of email and blogs, which you encountered earlier. Suggest the affordances found in each technology. Think about how the affordances influence the type of communication you engage in when using the technology.
How does the technology itself shape that communication?
Email – I think the expectation of communication is faster due to email so the shape is faster in terms of what we ask. I also think it has become more chatty and business like and less descriptive, also perhaps less ‘romantic’. For the most part it is also less formal though can be sometimes formal as it is a legally recognised format for communication. As an everyday communication tool it has become as essential today as the Victorian postcard was….. Though on a bigger scale.
Affordances would be I think – expectation, informality and speed and ultimately communication I guess
Blogs – I am not a great fan of blogs both as a form of diary and also as a form of opinion. Diary because I am not a diarist and opinion as I don’t think people really what my opinion on things really. I am not a great one to read the screen of computers as a form of news so that too is not for me…. So what affordances are there for Blogs? I am not sure… I will have to read others opinions on that…..
Affordance - ? Writing, I am not sure it is a prime communication tool as much of what is written is not for disucssion?? Or maybe it is and I have never felt up to discussing
What are the technologies good at?
There is no doubt good for almost instant communication Email, therefore one can feel connected. It shrinks space and to some degree time
When are they a poor medium for communication?
When they don’t work… also when not enough thought has gone into what is written (as they are instant, like potnoodle). They are not personal nor secure, they can be forwarded on unknowingly and then taken out of context. They can also be tagged onto things in many ways and confidential information becomes public.
Was the concept of affordances useful when thinking about the technology?
I am not sure… I am not sure I know and understand what this concept means so may revisit this when others have written their thoughts….
Do you find your behaviour shaped significantly by the affordances of the technology?
Email – speed and instant communication – if this is what it is then yes, I do think this. It is as it says on the tin, instant, and as a result people become impatient when replies are not themselves instant. Also I think people will fire off a number of emails and copy others in when not necessary as a result of it’s ease. This may not be necessary and also be annoying for those who receive a number…..
Were there other explanations for any behavioural influences?
In relation to email, only our general lack of life impatience and expectation within social life. We not only expect things to be easy but we also expect things to be instant.
When you next encounter a technology in this course you can return to the notion of affordances.
Not sure… will have to see
Disability awareness
Thinking about ability/disability. The next entry covers this area in relation to weeks 6 and 7
Week 6 - discussing disability
Issue - Videoconference and or other audio materials (tapes, CDs and TV if no subtitles)
Challenge for students - Use of multimedia resources with audio that is important for understanding the resource and is the only resource supplied – this is likely to affect learners with auditory impairments
Issue - Viedoconference
Challenge for students - For deaf student synchrouns viedo communication is problematic.
Issue - Synchronous discussions
Challenge for students - Discussing online (forum and chat): For students with sight difficulties or RSA and other mobility difficulties this could be difficult.
Issue - Website related
Challenge for students -
Using websites that are not designed so that they can be easily read with screen readers – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Need a simple system for signing in and out of the VLE/Website for screen readers - once signed it, be taken directly to the course home page
Using web pages that are divided into segments or frames, thus confusing software programmes that translate text to voice – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Prolonged VLE work sight difficulties and manual dexterity challenge for keyboard and large amounts of navigational issues (mouse work)
Colour and font issues for students with dyslexia this may cause problems
Viewing flashing or moving content (YouTube clips, TV, CDs etc) – this is likely to affect learners with an impairment that makes them sensitive to flashing or moving content;
Issue - Assignments
Assignments able to be submitted in a number of ways to accommodate students needs
Week 7 - Computers and assistive technology
Questions
What sources of advice or financial help are available to disabled students in your country?
If there is financial help, what can it be used for?
If you work in a teaching establishment, what help is available for disabled students?
Response
UK legislation states that UK students are entitled to Disability Students Allowances (DSA) (or at least they are eligible to apply for this).
Undergraduates
• General Allowance: up to £1,640 for full-time and £1,230 for part-time study per year.
• Equipment Allowance: for major items of equipment – up to a maximum of £4,905 spread over the whole duration of the course.
• Non-medical Helpers' Allowance: for help with full-time study-related personal support; up to a maximum of £12,420 and for part-time study up to maximum of £9,315.
• Travel Costs: Assistance may also be available with extra travel costs incurred, but not general everyday travel costs.
Postgraduates
• One allowance of up to £5,915 a year.
• PGCE Students on PGCE courses will be eligible for allowances at the undergraduate level.
All disabled students in post-compulsory education receive the same funding, this doesn’t matter if they are full or part time, undergraduate and postgraduate students they are eligible to apply for the DSA but the amounts differ (see above). Funding does not depend on the programme content but part time students need to have completed the course within the full time equivalent (so a PT postgraduate will need to complete within 2 years if the FT is one year). The DSA is a non-means tested benefit but students need to have an assessment (that needs to be paid for by themselves initially and can be reclaimed from the DSA when received.
Week 6 - discussing disability
Issue - Videoconference and or other audio materials (tapes, CDs and TV if no subtitles)
Challenge for students - Use of multimedia resources with audio that is important for understanding the resource and is the only resource supplied – this is likely to affect learners with auditory impairments
Issue - Viedoconference
Challenge for students - For deaf student synchrouns viedo communication is problematic.
Issue - Synchronous discussions
Challenge for students - Discussing online (forum and chat): For students with sight difficulties or RSA and other mobility difficulties this could be difficult.
Issue - Website related
Challenge for students -
Using websites that are not designed so that they can be easily read with screen readers – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Need a simple system for signing in and out of the VLE/Website for screen readers - once signed it, be taken directly to the course home page
Using web pages that are divided into segments or frames, thus confusing software programmes that translate text to voice – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Prolonged VLE work sight difficulties and manual dexterity challenge for keyboard and large amounts of navigational issues (mouse work)
Colour and font issues for students with dyslexia this may cause problems
Viewing flashing or moving content (YouTube clips, TV, CDs etc) – this is likely to affect learners with an impairment that makes them sensitive to flashing or moving content;
Issue - Assignments
Assignments able to be submitted in a number of ways to accommodate students needs
Week 7 - Computers and assistive technology
Questions
What sources of advice or financial help are available to disabled students in your country?
If there is financial help, what can it be used for?
If you work in a teaching establishment, what help is available for disabled students?
Response
UK legislation states that UK students are entitled to Disability Students Allowances (DSA) (or at least they are eligible to apply for this).
Undergraduates
• General Allowance: up to £1,640 for full-time and £1,230 for part-time study per year.
• Equipment Allowance: for major items of equipment – up to a maximum of £4,905 spread over the whole duration of the course.
• Non-medical Helpers' Allowance: for help with full-time study-related personal support; up to a maximum of £12,420 and for part-time study up to maximum of £9,315.
• Travel Costs: Assistance may also be available with extra travel costs incurred, but not general everyday travel costs.
Postgraduates
• One allowance of up to £5,915 a year.
• PGCE Students on PGCE courses will be eligible for allowances at the undergraduate level.
All disabled students in post-compulsory education receive the same funding, this doesn’t matter if they are full or part time, undergraduate and postgraduate students they are eligible to apply for the DSA but the amounts differ (see above). Funding does not depend on the programme content but part time students need to have completed the course within the full time equivalent (so a PT postgraduate will need to complete within 2 years if the FT is one year). The DSA is a non-means tested benefit but students need to have an assessment (that needs to be paid for by themselves initially and can be reclaimed from the DSA when received.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Rogers’ categories
Thoughts and answers to questions about Rogers’ five adopter types, based on his Diffusion of Innovations.
Q1 Do Rogers’ categories correspond with your experience of people’s attitudes to innovation?
Yes to some extent I can related to this categorisation. However I would not have emphasised the technology and if people are comfortable (or not) with the tools as much as I would have emphasised the pedagogical outcomes and the learning and teaching objectives for the course the tools are being related to…..
Q2 How far can you apply his model to a context you know – a current or past place of work, or a less formal situation? For example, can you link it to an innovation in elearning? You may have one in mind but, if not, how about one of these …
Yes as noted I think it fits to some extent. But how this would fall would as noted to a large extent depend on who the students are and what the course is trying to achieve. I understand the initial innovators would need to have goof IT knowledge to know what was possible in terms of the technology, or what may be possible. But to be an early adopter or an early majority depends on a number of factors including the amount of prior knowledge the person has to build on. Sometimes things can be skipped, for example there is no need to have used synchronous discussion to use Skype is there?
One of the case studies (University of Derby, MSc in Strategic Management in Africa), illustrates the fact that one could be an innovator but other circumstances outside the control of the provider and learner prevent any adoption no matter what stage. There would be I think an argument to revert to email conversations as a means of innovation in this instance… It is not only the tool, it is also the will of the community to make the learning happen.
Q3 Do you think that, deep down, Rogers’ model assumes that innovation is a ‘Good Thing’? And that being an ‘innovator’ or ‘early adopter’ – the inverted commas are there in case you reject those categories – is the only respectable thing to be?
Yes, I would say I do get the impression from the text that innovation is a good thing if only because the last category (and that in itself - listing in this way implies a certain reverence for the top), is classed as the ‘laggards’…. I think this is slightly arrogant and misses the wider point of pedagogy. It puts too much emphasis on tools and not enough on why we are using them and what they are for. Right tool right place, as tools are changing all the time it is important to keep an open mind on what is appropriate for what as it is impossible to keep abreast of it all as a teacher. This is not to say we should stop but it is to say one should be mindful of what they are for, what the externalities are of their use and what their cost is (money, time etc) in relation to what is achieved.
Q1 Do Rogers’ categories correspond with your experience of people’s attitudes to innovation?
Yes to some extent I can related to this categorisation. However I would not have emphasised the technology and if people are comfortable (or not) with the tools as much as I would have emphasised the pedagogical outcomes and the learning and teaching objectives for the course the tools are being related to…..
Q2 How far can you apply his model to a context you know – a current or past place of work, or a less formal situation? For example, can you link it to an innovation in elearning? You may have one in mind but, if not, how about one of these …
Yes as noted I think it fits to some extent. But how this would fall would as noted to a large extent depend on who the students are and what the course is trying to achieve. I understand the initial innovators would need to have goof IT knowledge to know what was possible in terms of the technology, or what may be possible. But to be an early adopter or an early majority depends on a number of factors including the amount of prior knowledge the person has to build on. Sometimes things can be skipped, for example there is no need to have used synchronous discussion to use Skype is there?
One of the case studies (University of Derby, MSc in Strategic Management in Africa), illustrates the fact that one could be an innovator but other circumstances outside the control of the provider and learner prevent any adoption no matter what stage. There would be I think an argument to revert to email conversations as a means of innovation in this instance… It is not only the tool, it is also the will of the community to make the learning happen.
Q3 Do you think that, deep down, Rogers’ model assumes that innovation is a ‘Good Thing’? And that being an ‘innovator’ or ‘early adopter’ – the inverted commas are there in case you reject those categories – is the only respectable thing to be?
Yes, I would say I do get the impression from the text that innovation is a good thing if only because the last category (and that in itself - listing in this way implies a certain reverence for the top), is classed as the ‘laggards’…. I think this is slightly arrogant and misses the wider point of pedagogy. It puts too much emphasis on tools and not enough on why we are using them and what they are for. Right tool right place, as tools are changing all the time it is important to keep an open mind on what is appropriate for what as it is impossible to keep abreast of it all as a teacher. This is not to say we should stop but it is to say one should be mindful of what they are for, what the externalities are of their use and what their cost is (money, time etc) in relation to what is achieved.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Innovation - its all in the mind!
What I think having read a number of case studies now about innovation is not really the technology that could be seen as hugly innovative... It is the way it is used. Maybe education is not the first place that new things are tried out? Maybe educators are too busy educating?
What ever the reason I think for me the important thing is that what we have is used in a way that is best served learners and the learning outcomes.
Kathryn
What ever the reason I think for me the important thing is that what we have is used in a way that is best served learners and the learning outcomes.
Kathryn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)