Interactive Work space

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/sep/17/itforschools.elearning

Can have many uses which allow for student participation in lectures; collaborative work and simulations of the real world - no more squinting at the screen from the top of the lecture theatre! there is lots of potential for this - the customised expense... hmm
Having these in school, make sure the kids master the art of writing first before they move things around by finger! actually encouraging writing through using the finger and having the letter talk back to you once its correct can be great fun so I'm all for it! Those into gaming and pushing buttons do have a more engaging experience as they 'believe' they are doing powerful things and are in control so I can see its appeal...I think it can work well in the learning environment users being interactive rather than passive, making the learning activity more meaningful and therefore more likely to be retained (this has been said before!)

Studies in Digital Technology

News just in from Andrew Clay in Media Production...

TECH2002 Studies in Digital Technology 2007-2008

‘Studies in Digital Technology’ is a contextual studies module for media students in the Division of Technology in the Faculty of Computing Sciences and Engineering. The module aims to apply critical concepts to the study of digital media texts, services and products. In recent years, this has meant an increasing focus on the technologies associated with the concept of ‘Web 2.0’.

Students took part in a group project that was assessed through an individual coursework portfolio. The project involved making and/or using media technologies combined with the insight of critical reflection. The groups had to choose one of six technological areas (identified by the 2007 Horizon Report) associated with network media such as the web and mobile phones identified as a focus:

1. user-generated content
2. social networking
3. mobile phones
4. virtual worlds
5. new modes of electronic publishing
6. massively multiplayer online gaming.

The most popular topics were social networking, mobile phones and virtual worlds.

Students used a number of Web 2.0 tools. A group blog and wiki in Blackboard was used to plan and prepare group assessments, and to analyse current developments in digital technology. Individual notebooks were also kept using Tiddlywiki to log and reflect upon their personal progress through the project. I used my own blog and wiki in Blackboard to feed ideas and good practice to the students.

It was suggested that the student blogs could be used as communication tools to think aloud and write about their research, sharing it with others, but the blogs tended to be used more like email than reflective journals. The wikis were set up to be information storehouses for publishing the group’s research. The wikis were very slow in developing and the students had to be prompted to work on the presentation, content and navigation of the wikis to make them more effective in time for assessment, and this got a good response.

Students were encouraged to think about two critical frameworks – Critical Technical Practice (CTP), the hands-on analysis of the values that are designed into technologies and how they might be altered, and Experience Centred Design (XcD), or a concern for user experience in technology with an emphasis on felt experience. However, most groups found it difficult to apply these methodologies with any confidence. But there was some good reflection on experience and primary research. One group compared living with and without mobile phones and social networks, another group held a party in Second Life. Overall, traditional weaknesses were exposed. Poor organizational, critical and writing skills were in evidence. Some were empowered by the use of social technologies, but others were as challenged as they would have been by more traditional forms of learning and assessment. Just as with traditional reading and writing, we cannot assume that students will be comfortable with the literacy of read/write web tools, especially where use is prescribed. It will be interesting to see how students will respond to a greater freedom to choose appropriate tools as a framework of assessment as the module develops next year. Is it going to be possible to foster critical literacies and informed decision making about the use of appropriate social tools in response to providing evidence for assessment purposes?

Tag – you’re it!

Childs play, remember those days well and were still playing it! In a sense this describes how some new piece of technology can be the flavour of the month (actually we should say week, looking at the rate I get email updates on new tools!) or seen to be the ‘tool’ that we can make the best use of in the educational context – and why not? Open up your tool box (your PC!) and see what is available for you to use, a tool may be viewed as of great use to one and be used more in their ‘trade’ in comparison to another. To choose the appropriate tool you will need to have knowledge about how the tool works so you know as to how and where it can be applied (learning task).
My thoughts trailed this way as we are looking into SMS technologies and possible Facebook integration. Maybe this can be raised as part of discussion of informal/formal learning spaces, we can be seen as tagging on ‘spaces’ ‘devices’ as students happen to be using them – mobile phones– tag, social network space – tag, ipod – tag! I’d be interested to hear from students how and which ‘space/device they prefer to be tagged on the most by us! I guess it’s a matter of which learning activity or notifications works best in using these tools. I hope we can elicit this type of data when we make use of such technologies available. We really need to hear the student voice on this e.g. would they want to be texted about every assignment deadlines? I guess with our scale of audience and practitioners the onus has to be left to the tutor to decide. I would hate to think that we would impose (and I don’t think we will) a rule at any level. Issues – Evaluating the effectiveness of these technological tools that surface in our context, which tools are applicable and can be used for which learning tasks? And dare I say processes (contacting students) – through participation and collaborating together this has lead to a number of pathways and opportunities and great developments. For some staff the current technology that they are using for their teaching if not used for some time gets forgotten and thus need refreshing (its human nature, we all forget). We need to be wary and understanding that the array of what’s available does not become a blur. ‘Students happen to be using them’ – this says something about our cultural change in this technological age. We need to be clear on what our role is in this so that we are not ‘gate crashing’! So the process of having pilots, student focus groups are essential to see the viability and usability of applying any ‘e tool’ for learning and its great that we are listening to what students are saying about these tools (i.e. Malcolm Andrew’s Podcast student evaluations – they provide the key as to where the tool can be best applied i.e. revision, lecture synopsis for which we can make recommendations. Alas, let’s not forget the ‘academic’ they too will have to know about the applicability and suitability of the tool and have their say after all it’s their ‘trade’…