order / disorder

A few days ago, Christopher Sessums posted an article about a talk he had been giving on social networking. In his post he notes

At the end of my Social Networks talk, I asked participants what they would like to see in a social networking application. A young undergraduate student promptly raised his hand and said (I am paraphrasing),

“I would like to be able to belong to a university network where each course had a socially managed website where students could upload their notes for a particular class, engage in discussions, share resources, collaborate on assignments.”

The student was not satisfied that the university’s current learning management system was adequate for such student-centered activity. He went on:

“This site would be a resource hub, provided to the students by the university, and would be accessible to all students so they can get a sense of what kind of work is associated with a particular course or instructor”

Christopher then asked his blog audience if anyone had suggestions as to how this could best be achieved, suggesting himself that some sort of wiki might be the answer. I replied, suggesting both Ning and Elgg as non-wiki solutions that could allow the level of participation suggested by the student.

I also stated that the suggestion by the student highlighted a more fundamental problem with the attitude that educational institutions can have to their learners. That is, they see themselves as providers of education rather than enablers of it. I believe that the difference is key to understanding some of the problems that educational institutions get themselves into when dealing with technology. I was about to say emerging technology but hey, blogs have been about since the mid to late 90’s and yet we can struggle to get acceptance at strategic levels by senior management and understanding by teachers of their use and power in a constructivist paradigm. I’ll look at both of these actors in reverse order …

At the moment, in tertiary education, students are likely to get their lecture notes made available online and some of them may have discussion boards. In the case of the former we are back at the transmissive model of education. The mileage with the latter varies; frequently boards are created but then not facilitated. (This fits with Charlotte Neuhauser’s Online Course Design Maturity Model at level 2.) I see discussion boards as being akin to tutorials and seminars that undergrads would have traditionally attended. Tutors didn’t get 10 students to turn up and then put them in an empty room with no instruction and no ongoing guidance yet this is what can happen in an online discussion space. The students might learn something - but that’s most likely to be that forums are a waste of time and to be avoided. I’ve been there myself as a learner.

So that gives us a baseline when we want to start suggesting to academics that they might want to use some tools that can support social construction or public reflection and peer review. Those that haven’t engaged with educational ideas of constructivism and constructionism, with andragogy and pedagogy already, will struggle to see the benefit of blogs and wikis. Start throwing Twitter and Second Life into the mix and their eyes roll back into their heads

Even those that have engaged with learning theories can still struggle with the idea of free social engagement. They can be alright with the idea of social engagement in a controlled arena but have more difficulty when students are outside that control. The common argument about shared social space is that of plagiarism. Only a couple will do the work and everyone else will copy it. This I believe, is not an argument that has been properly thought through by its proponents. Students already talk to each other and share things. Plagiarism is an issue where assessment allows it. If in fact students can share materials and interpretations and arrive at a common understanding of a topic then is that a problem?

My comments so far come down to an argument for staff development around the needs and capabilities of learners. This development probably needs to push for attitudinal change and pedagogical understanding. Empathy even! Academia can often be entrenched in attitude and significant change among wide swathes of staff will need leadership at senior levels. This takes me to the second aspect of problems that institutions have with learning in a technology rich environment.

So why does an institution as a body fail to see the strategic importance of 21st century tools? George Siemens notes that an established system is the greatest barrier to change and innovation within that system. Academia has been locked into the lectures, readings, essays, exams system for longer than any of us can remember. When new technologies appear, it attempts to use them in ways that replicate or conform with the existing system. The self-perpetuating nature of established systems therefore means that significant impetus is required from key players in an institutions hierarchy. I think that this also includes a required level of grass roots acceptance coming from the exposure of academics to learning opportunities in this technologically rich and connected society. In respect to the acceptance and utilisation of new technologies, tertiary education could therefore be likened to the Titanic: difficult to change course and oblivious to the changing environment that it sails in.