Tag Archives: eci831

Media Literacy – Consumers and Contributors

This post is my reaction to Alec Couros’ presentation on 11/10 as part of eci831. The main topic was media literacy. Slides are online.

What is Media Literacy?

The world is full of people trying to sell us things – products, destinations, ideas, and messages. Much of it we don’t really need. We are subject to this every time we turn on the TV or radio, pick up a magazine or newspaper. Internet websites are no different. When you visit a website you are a potential consumer of whatever the creator or sponsor is trying to sell. The skill related to being able to decipher the sales pitch and make a decision about its worth is media literacy. Of course the Internet is more about interacting with the media, or can be, and that creates issues related to what you consume and contribute. Learning what you should and should not post and what is appropriate online behavior is also related to media literacy.

Can/Should Media Literacy be taught?

  • Teaching teachers. I worked on a course for pre-service teachers a few years ago and the content expert included a unit dedicated to media literacy. This seemed unusual to me at the time (note: my background is not K-12) but important for teacher candidates who would be moving on to positions of influence with students and reacting to issues related to internet access and censorship in school administrations. In hindsight, the students in that course would have probably been better served with a course that addressed media literacy throughout, not just in a specific unit.
  • My media literacy via TV. Couros’ presentation made me think about how I may/may not have learned media literacy prior to the age of the Internet. I grew up watching television. A lot of television. Not unlike the Internet, television was and is full of “good” and “bad”. Learning media literacy happened though the modeling and control of my parents, what they watched and wouldn’t let me watch. And perhaps also through the comments and lessons provided by my teachers and conversations with my friends and classmates, etc.
  • Knowing how it works. This presentation’s discussion reminded me of a general session with Andrew Keen at a recent conference. His approach was a little controversial with the audience – basically, kids don’t have knowledge or wisdom about the world-at-large. He gave the example of his son doing a Google search before making a purchase. When Keen asked his son which item he purchased and why, the son replied that he purchased the first one that came up on the result page since the one at the top must be the best. Did the son understand that the result page was the result of an algorithm and not a group of people rating the quality of the product? Keen supposed not, another issue of media literacy and the Internet – understanding how search engines work.

  • Online identity. As I watched Couros’ presentation I realized that I may live in an Internet bubble (a similar comment was made by a participant.) I don’t find myself exposed to offensive content, hate, racism, violence, porn, etc. on a regular or even occasional basis. We are all making choices about how we consume and contribute to Internet media. Perhaps this should be taught, or at least modeled in schools: creating, protecting, and maintaining your online identity. As a career counselor I used to encourage clients to consider what a future employer might find online and post accordingly. This might fall into the definition of media literacy. It may also be too conservative, to limiting to potential creativity and expression. Or maybe it depends on your career path. Your thoughts?

Other items to pass along:

photo credit: musha68000,  Flickr

Connecting – Networked Learning

This post is my reaction to the George Siemens presentation on 9/29. The main topic was connectivism, but he covered much more ground ranging from a review of learning psychology theorists/theories to artificial intelligence and neuroscience. Using a couple of the presentation’s prompts as a guide, here are the ideas that resonated with me.

LightMyPath-FaithGobleHow do we teach (design) differently?

Since I am an instructional designer, not an instructor, I modified this question a little: How do we design formal educational experiences differently? As noted in the presentation, we have technologies available that allow us to store information and knowledge (and lots of it) outside of ourselves, outside of our own memories. These technologies offer ways to “off load part of our thinking”. Designing courses, particularly ones that will be delivered online can use these technologies, should incorporate these storage tools in ways that make the massive amounts of stored information accessible to learners, and allowing them to move beyond. Designers are thinking more about how to get students to interact and engage with these knowledge stores through course assignments and activities. The days of weekly quizzes are not gone, but I see them less and less as a ‘must-have’ presented by a faculty content expert.

George Siemens also brought attention to the idea of resonance. One of the definitions of this word is “a quality of evoking response“. What resonates with a student? This is a question instructional designers should respond to more often when working with development teams, especially ones that include teaching faculty. I often ask the question: how should a learner be different after completing the course? Perhaps this question should be tweaked to further delve into resonance. What has meaning to the learner? What will have meaning to the learner? Motivation is part of this. Context is a part of this. Engagement is a part of this.

Capturing that opportunity to engage a student is related to resonance. Identifying that opportunity is another thing. More careful evaluation techniques might help. End-of-course surveys are fairly common, but maybe adding interviews or focus groups with students throughout a course, especially in its first run, would be helpful. Certainly not all students are motivated by the same things, and not all students find resonance in the same things within a course.  What about including students in the course design process? Not instructional design students, but students from the department to which the course being designed belongs. Analysis (learner) and Evaluation seem to be the two areas most likely to be abbreviated or left behind completely in course design. Why?  Time and budget constraints, I suppose, but think about the lost opportunity there.

What about lurkers? Which is what I suppose I am, in the eci831 course where I find these presentations. What resonates with them and how are they engaged? What is their motivation for being in the course and for lurking? George suggests that being a lurker may not be a good thing. Not a bad thing, mind you, but a lost opportunity. There is an assumption that those who lurk are 1) less knowledgeable and 2) less confident members of the group. The idea is that these beginners could be helpful to the overall learning process of both their fellow learners and their instructors, if, they allow themselves and their own learning processes to be transparent to the others. In doing so, they offer a new and different perspective from that of their expert instructors and add to the experience of the rest of the class.

Designers should consider lurkers as part of the audience, finding ways to pull these people into the conversation and making it more appealing for them to want to choose to be transparent to the other participants and their instructors. Alternative assignments might be a way, particularly in F2F or blended situations that easily lend themselves to this – students could choose to participate in synchronous discussion or asynchronous discussion but experience both. I once worked with a faculty member who taught one of those undergraduate, auditorium courses with little class participation, except when he opened up a space in the courses companion LMS site. There he saw not only active participation, but also small study groups forming. This kind of thing could be designed into a course.

Where do we turn for guidance?

George pointed out that the youth culture of today is making up its own rules about how these technologies should be used, how to participate in networks, etc. Their parents and teachers aren’t modeling these things, showing them the ropes. They didn’t have these kinds of technologies and networks. It’s a similar situation in higher education. We need to turn to those who are actively using these technologies and networks. Encouraging these individuals, groups, and institutions to talk openly about what they are doing, to document what works and doesn’t work in their context(s) is enormously important. Disseminating this information should be more instant than publishing books and in journals. It just takes too long to get the word out. This will mean changing the mindset of higher ed at-large regarding what is appropriate and scholarly work. While many people, like George Siemens, are actively blogging, can you get tenure this way? Maybe not.

Other stuff to pass along…

Photo credit: Faith Goble, Fickr

Community, Engagement, Audience – and the stuff between the bricks

After watching the presentation given by Dr. Richard Schwier (yes, the recording again – my night owl days are over) I was left with moments of “a-ha” and “hmmm”. Here’s my attempt to make some sense of it all.

A-ha!

The stuff growing between the bricks — A great analogy: Dr. Schwier talked of learning in terms of formal, non-formal, and informal – formal learning can be thought of as taking place within a fence: a structure that sets up what is inside and outside, a perimeter existing around what is learning and what is not learning in a specific context, such as a class. Non-formal (and informal?) learning can then be thought of as the stuff growing between the bricks that make up the fence: the weeds, flowers, moss that make the fence that much more interesting. They are similar and different in terms of those things that make the learning happen (catalysts); the ideas, places, and relationships around which learning is focused (emphases); and the actions and conditions that encourage or discourage the learning process (elements). My apologies to Dr. Schwier for my superficial treatment of this work – explore the research around Virtual Learning Environments.

Interaction/Engagement — The definitions of these two terms in the context of learning and education are becoming more distinct. Interacting is not necessarily engaging… but is engaging a form of interaction? In my mind there is a continuum of action here, levels of participation, of doing something. A simple example might be my review of the recorded presentation in Elluminate. My interaction included clicking the link to start the recording, taking notes on the speaker’s lecture…but then something in the chat caught my attention (a related conversation on the importance of trust among participants in these environments) and I was off exploring URLs that were presented in the chat, reading other students’ blog posts about this issue. As I read I began to relate all of this to my own past experience in online courses and in deciding how much information I wanted to include about myself in online profiles, accounts, etc.  That to me is engagement.

Hmmm…

“Does the audience matter” … in your online social networks and interaction? — I am inclined to say that the audience does matter. When I post to my blog, tweet, or send an old fashioned email, I am very likely to edit and censor. It’s all representative of me, personally and professionally, and public. Since I am making the choice to put myself out there in these ways, every post is a choice I make about how I will be perceived. (Whether or not these things are read is another issue.) I am creating an online identity. Dr. Schwier’s work involves the importance of trustworthiness, empathy, forgiveness, intimacy… in online learning communities. Trusting a large group of people that you haven’t met, with information about yourself and your thoughts can be daunting – especially for someone who is more inclined to be introverted or private. I’ve been watching a couple of exchanges on Twitter this week about whether or not to use a real name or create a “handle” of some sort. You have to make choices about privacy and transparency – what is suitable for work, home, friends, school….what is suitable for public consumption. Is it possible to be carefully adventurous? I think that is how I would describe my own efforts over the last couple of years.

Two related items found recently on Twitter:

“Community is a tired but useful metaphor” — I admit to never having liked the word community in the context of learning and education. Perhaps it just seemed too formal, too structured, too limiting, requiring too much effort to be a member…hmmm…requires membership. In Hawaii the word of choice might be hui meaning “club, association, firm; to join, unite, introduce, meet; a plus sign +”. There must be other ways to express a group of people gathered together to learn about something they are all interested in – without crossing the line into what might be too personal, too intimate. Tribe? Team?…

Other stuff to pass along…

Dunbar’s number – Applying this to online communities, online courses, social networking.

MOOC – Massive online open course There are more!

CIDER – Canadian Institute of Distance Education Research

Introductions – Social Media and Open Education

As it turns out, I am two hours ahead of the University of Regina, so I chose to view the Elluminate session recording the following morning, instead of attending the live session. My first impressions were related to how well organized the whole course is, even for non-credit students. I saw announcements on Twitter and then was able to review a page in the course’s wikispace that included the slides, a written agenda/outline for the meeting, links to some of the tools that were mentioned, and assignments for the coming week.

How did it go?

I thought the instructor did a great job of addressing a pretty large group mot of whom were non-credit students. (There was a “for-credit only” student session the previous week.) Since I am not taking the course for credit, and there are no expectations for me, other than I should get what I can from the experience and share what I can along the way, it seems only right that the for-credit students have their own thing going on.

The session itself was well-run on Elluminate. There was another moderator, besides the instructor, there to continuously react to student questions in the chat and to provide all of us with URLs throughout as references for the many topics covered. A pretty great “intro session” as they go – no going down the list to ask where everyone was from, etc. (thank you). The course was outlined as far as the tools go and Alec provided his rationale for the course and vision for where we are going.

What did I learn?

There were some nifty things going on:

  • Tweetdeck – I had heard of it but not used it…. until putting my name on the roster for this course. Now I am truly addicted.
  • “The Back Channel” – all of the chatter, passing notes, off line (and maybe online) discussion going on behind the formal instruction.
  • The thought of a “Network Sherpa” leading the way (I like this eversomuch more than the digital native lingo).
  • Greasemonkey – what is this? It was mentioned several times. I need to investigate.
  • And…Wordle was used to display where everyone was from (thanks, again). Over 200 participants overall and 50 or so in the Elluminate session.

Why stick around?

There are a lot of talented, creative, passionate, and curious people in this group. I tend to lurk more than actually engage in this sort of thing, but perhaps I’ll be motivated to jump in a little deeper. The idea that Knowledge is a river, as opposed to a reservoir, was included in this presentation. It’s moving. We can’t take it all in at once. We are going to miss a lot, but we’ll find a lot, too – if we jump in.

I have some reading to do for next week…