Neo-Academic E-Learn Vancouver Coverage: Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Final
So, this whole write-after-the-day’s-presentations plan obviously didn’t work, but I did want to keep updating. Day 4 was a little light on content that I’d think relevant to the topics we usually discuss here, so I will probably just post overall impressions and conclusions tomorrow. For now, my report on Day 3:
Marvin LeNoue discussed the use of social networks in classrooms, highlighting ning. For uninitiated, ning is an online “Web 2.0” program that allows any group to create their own social network. It was the first discussion I heard at eLearn about how to actually use social networking in a real classroom, rather than general, non-specific descriptions like, “I implemented a social network and it was great!” He also pointed to several resources for educators using social networks, including an educator social network about using ning, another called Classroom 2.0, and another called College 2.0. The question from this observer is, “What happens when he hit Web 3?”
Anita Boudreau discussed the use of Second Life as an instructional platform from the instructor perspective, conducting a qualitative study of educator perceptions when using the virtual world. Apparently, there are in fact educators who think they have used SL successfully. But of course, as a qualitative study, it doesn’t really tell us any more than that.
Stephanie Henderson-Begg gave a much more interesting take on Second Life, describing the University of East London’s Second Life laboratory for a lab-based science course (I believe chemistry). The course is quite large (~200 students), and laboratories are quite expensive (she estimated roughly US$10 per student, for some labs), so a virtual laboratory was seen as a cost-saving measure. The online laboratory itself is quite complex – students must enter the lab, don a lab coat, wash their hands, and put on protective eyewear before moving to a stage to mix chemicals, with realistic interactions and reactions as they progress.
A quasi-experiment was also conducted: students using the online laboratory were compared to students receiving a basic lecture before both completed a regular laboratory. Learning outcomes were compared. In both conditions, there was an increase from pre-test to post-test, but there was no difference by condition. I wouldn’t expect one though – in both conditions, students received the full laboratory, which contained all of the test content. She also compared the number of questions asked (it was lower for SL students) and the amount of time taken in the lab (it was also lower for SL students). Unfortunately, there was also a confound – the students selected for SL were the first thirty or so to arrive for the day, who may have been, simply, better students.
But despite the poor design, this was the only quantitative research of virtual worlds that I saw at the conference. And on top of that, it was the only example of a virtual world being implemented where it really provided an instructional or cost advantage, rather than using it for the sake of using it. This is, I think, the challenge of using virtual worlds in real organizations – there must be a demonstrated need where a virtual world is preferable to in-person or even basic web-based training. I think my lab has such a situation – but we’ll see what the research says.
Finally, I presented my own paper software I am developing that combines computerized adaptive testing (item response theory) and online social networks for the purposes of establishing mentoring relationships between students. It relies on a long view of training and educational programs, and is set up to support a pre-existing set of courses without much involvement from the instructors themselves. This would be valuable as a cost-saving measure to a corporation, but might have been a little too scary for instructors feeling their control slip away. Reception was good, with interesting questions, but small – it was after 5PM on the 3rd day of the conference, so I did not expect much!
Neo-Academic E-Learn Vancouver Coverage: Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Final
ast night was a little too busy to find time to post, but I thought I’d take a few minutes between sessions today to do so. This is a continuation of my thoughts from yesterday.
Invited speaker Norm Vaughn gave a very interesting take on the current expressions of blended courses. Too often, he said, an instructor wants to move from face-to-face to blended learning and simply adds an optional online discussion component. This is not integration, and it doesn’t take advantage of the medium. He even gave a very simple example of a way to integrate online discussions: talk about the online discussion topics in class! So simple, but it had just never occurred to me before.
He also pointed us to a concept called peer instruction, a specific technique being used in physics classrooms at Harvard. The basic idea is that students are given conceptual questions and then work in teams to come up with answers. I’ve used a few activities similar to this, usually around the concepts of affirmative action and intelligence. It does work remarkably well.
Invited speaker Zoraini Abas discussed the current and future use of mobile learning (m-learning) in Malaysia. The idea mobile learning platform to her is basically a personal tutor – it “reminds, recommends, provides snippets of content, tips, motivates, [and] guides.” Delivering instruction solely via mobiles is probably not the best plan; instead, using it as a support tool seems like a better idea.
Lauri Lahti introduced a new way to data mine Wikipedia for concept relationships in order to build a conceptual database for artificial intelligences. Thousands of people have spent thousands of hours putting together an online encyclopedia with articles that are linked together conceptually. And though there might be some errors, why not take that massive amount of effort and use it for research purposes? This really reminds me of the vast quantities of data that could be used to conduct original, interesting research just sitting on the web. It just takes a little creativity to figure out how to access and take advantage of that data.
Brenda Stutsky talked about her dissertation, which involved the use of an online learning community of nurses studying leadership. Particularly interesting was the finding that even people who do not actively take part in an online community may still benefit from it – one participant wrote of the great impact that the training had on her life despite the fact that she only posted one time.
And finally, Anu Chatterjee discussed the use of Second Life for an assignment in a course discussing ethnicity and identity. Students were told to develop a new identity in Second Life, with total freedom over appearance. They could be any race, shape, size, and so on. But most chose to create a version of themselves and furthermore felt uncomfortable pretending to be someone else.
That’s all for Day 2. Day 3’s report will probably be a little light, as I need to spend some time preparing for my presentation this evening, “Using Social Networking and Learner-Centered Measurement in Automated Social Mentoring Systems” (highly recommended!) at 5:15PM in Junior Ballroom C. Hope to see you there!
Neo-Academic E-Learn Vancouver Coverage: Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Final
I am dead tired from 16 hours of presentations and socializing (and I still have a paper to revise tonight!), but I wanted to post overall feelings and reactions from the first day of the conference – partly to share these feelings and partly so that I will myself remember them. If you haven’t been following #elearn on twitter, I recommend you do – it’s been quite lively.
At 8AM, the keynote speaker, Sir John Daniel of Commonwealth talked about the use of e-learning in open access universities and in the third world. Of particular interest was his discussion of the “iron triangle of access,” a feature of e-learning initiatives. Access, quality and cost are the three sides of the triangle, and traditionally, improving one by necessity meant cutting the other two. Modern e-learning technology, he argued, is providing ways around this – to improve quality and access while still lowering costs. I think this is the value of it in the training domain as well – traditionally, moving training onto videos or other distance technologies would result in lower quality. With modern web technologies, this is no longer the case.
Peter Serdyuko and Robyn Hill presented “Patterns of Participation in Online Asynchronous Discussion.” They identified several student segments and included a lot of interesting metrics for quantifying success in online asynchronous discussions. We’re using these discussions in two current studies at TNTLab, so I’m thinking these metrics might be worth looking into.
Paul Roberts presented “Treatment Plan Skills Development with Student Driven Interactive Powerpoint.” It was a simple examination of the success of a Powerpoint-based interactive lesson plan. The statistics were a little weak, but I think it showcased the ease with which one can create online training programs – spending thousands on a vendor-provided training program isn’t necessary with a little creativity.
Josef Froschauer presented “New Directions in Science Communication: A Virtual Research & Experience Landscape.” He discussed a new island in Second Life used for science communication – informing the public about science. It looked promising, but it wasn’t quite complete, and hadn’t seem much traffic yet. I am optimistic though. Check it out at itchy-feet.org.
I didn’t get to see Daniel, Harrap & Power present “Getting Into Position: Serious Gaming in Geomatics,” but @alexismac was quite enthusastic – I will have to take a look at the proceedings file, but it seemed that a lot of interesting, new technology was being used for classroom purposes, including augmented reality and geotagging.
Shoba Bandi-Rao presented “A Comparative Study of Synchronous Online and Face-to-Face Writing Tutorials,” which described a writing tutoring system built for NYU to get live writing assistance online. She presented evidence suggesting that students that might not seek writing assistance in-person might do so online. Sounds like a disposition-treatment interaction to me (one of TNTLab’s current projects!).
Henderson-Begg and colleagues presented “Using Mobile Phones to Increase Classroom Interaction.” It was a relatively straightforward quasi-experiment examining the use of text messaging to communicate between the instructor and a 200-person lecture hall. Text messages were used to ask questions to the instructor during lecture. She did not find an effect of the use of texts on performance, but I think she may have left something out of her analysis… I need to e-mail her at some point to follow up.
Finally, Eddie Gose presented “I Am a Gam3r, H3ar M3 Roar!” where he shattered the audience’s stereotypes about gamers while simultaneously offering them Hawaiian chocolates. And I was the only one to recognize a screenshot of Team Fortress II! His research study was qualitative, and though interesting, I don’t think contributes a whole lot to the scientific research literature – but the gaming research is itself quite young and incomplete. The more voices we have, the better. I will definitely keep an eye on how his research goes.
So that’s it – my snapshot of Day 1. Day 2’s schedule is actually even fuller! How exciting!