Not just one tool but configurations of tools – these need to be accounted for along with their associated practices.
Sheer time they spend in digital environments has affected their learning patterns. Even suggests that our brains now function differently. They are accomplished at anything that involves digital tools.
How do students use digital tools to communicate and work across personal and study boundaries? What kinds of collaborative and communicative practices using digital tools took place in the online special interest groups
Showed grounding in setting up the blog an d this shows evidence of collaboration BUT However only 5 comments in al land most of the blog posts were information oriented – this one was unusual
Sue Timmis University of Bristol, UK The tensions between expected and actual engagement in digitally–mediated communication and collaborative learning
“ Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach .”
“ It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. “
“ Native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.” ( Prenksy, 2001, p1)
“ The goal of Digital Literacy is to teach and assess basic computer concepts and skills so that people can use computer technology in everyday life to develop new social and economic opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities.” (Microsoft, 2010)
‘ Reading‘ the digital
“ Multimodal ways of making meaning where the written word is increasingly part and parcel of visual, audio, and spatial patterns ” (New London Group, 1996)
“ This ‘critical technological literacy’ […] makes explicit all the values underlying discursive and communicative acts that are carried out in digital environments and sought to bring the literacies approach out of the writing [..] and place it at the heart of all teaching and learning with technology” (Goodfellow & Lea, 2007 ,p5)
Constantly changing practices
“ The constantly changing practices through which people make traceable meanings using digital technologies.” (Gillen & Barton, 2010, p9)
Review of the major themes of work within the CSCL field, studies categorised as either systemic or dialogic . (Arnseth & Ludvigsen, 2006)
A systemic research approach is characterised as:-
“ [an] attempt to generate models of how specific features of technological systems affect collaboration, reasoning, functions, contents, and structures of discourse” (Arnseth & Ludvigsen, 2006, p. 170)
System refers to the technological system - approach takes little account of the institutional and social context.
By contrast in dialogic approaches:-
“… the focus is on how the meanings and functions of discourse, tools, and knowledge are constituted in social practices” (Arnseth & Ludvigsen, 2006, p. 171)
Strong contrast between use of institutional tools (VLE, email) and personal tools (IM, blogs, texts, email)
Tools in informal settings chosen because of friendship groups, home circumstances
Students reported these digital tools were ‘always on’, embedded in everyday life
Frequent instant messaging conversations (MSN and Skype) between peers
Long conversations – dropping in and out over many hours, picking up again later - constancy
Conversations involve quick exchange of turns - reciprocal
Intimate and mutually supportive – the communicative space was private but participants acted as if co-present
Examples of IM conversations Conversation between Sean and Lewis, 4 th March 2006, 12:02 :D Sean Lewis 12:03:14 04/03/2006 10 yea you did lol Lewis Sean 12:03:08 04/03/2006 9 yeah I have Sean Lewis 12:03:07 04/03/2006 8 have u read all the info posted on the forum? Lewis Sean 12:03:01 04/03/2006 7 think I added you because of it Sean Lewis 12:03:01 04/03/2006 6 I guessed you were Sean Lewis 12:02:54 04/03/2006 5 cool Sean Lewis 12:02:47 04/03/2006 4 Im Sean from the RFID group Lewis Sean 12:02:42 04/03/2006 3 Hi Sean Lewis 12:02:36 04/03/2006 2 hello Lewis Sean 12:02:29 04/03/2006 1 Message To From Time Date
Examples of IM conversations Conversation between Brian & Phil on 16 th March 2007, at 05:42 Activity diagrams are perfect BRIAN PHIL 06:01:38 16/03/2007 14 thats great BRIAN PHIL 06:01:26 16/03/2007 13 yeah, maybe should keep that statement in there PHIL BRIAN 05:59:24 16/03/2007 12 haha, can see someone definatly wasnt BRIAN PHIL 05:58:16 16/03/2007 11 • we are happy BRIAN PHIL 05:58:05 16/03/2007 10 latest version BRIAN PHIL 05:57:10 16/03/2007 8 Phil sends D:ComputingComponent basedIntroduction.doc 05:57:04 16/03/2007 7 You have successfully received C:Documents and SettingspMy DocumentsMy Received FilesTest Cases(1).doc from Brian. 05:56:16 16/03/2007 6 ok check how this is PHIL BRIAN 05:56:11 16/03/2007 5 Brian sends Test Cases.doc 05:55:52 16/03/2007 4 ok BRIAN PHIL 05:43:48 16/03/2007 3 just taking time to update the cases for [unknown student]’s much self-loved basket bean PHIL BRIAN 05:43:24 16/03/2007 2 Need help with anything or are you just about there? BRIAN PHIL 05:42:10 16/03/2007 1 Message To From Time Date
Other communications: emails, blog BUT particularly, the VLE discussion board:
Digital tools were asynchronous, lacked co-presence
Less dialogic - many questions unanswered
Email seen as formal mechanism for tutors
Lack of engagement – due to many factors:
Confusion between co-operative and collaborative nature of task and division of labour
Lack of shared goals – individual assignment
No induction – assumed they knew how to use
Getting to know who was in your group - constraints of time, institutional rules and modular framework
Lack of intimacy, common ground and shared understanding
Forum: ITA Piracy Week 6 Discussion Date: Fri Mar 03 2006 11:31 Author: Mark <Mark@bigcity.ac.uk> Subject: Suggestions Hi All, How is everyone getting on with ideas for the SIG topic? I propose something along the lines of “A discussion of the technologies available that digital industries can use to help prevent piracy” From this we can pick out individual topics which will be ideal to put together at the end in preparation for the exam. Any ideas? Do you think mine is a bit off? Forum: ITA Piracy Week 6 Discussion Date: Fri Mar 03 2006 13:12 Author: Lewis < [email_address] > Subject: Re: Suggestions Yes that sounds like a broad area of work. How are we supposed to submit this to Graham [tutor] through the discussion board or via email? Forum: ITA Piracy Week 6 Discussion Date: Fri Mar 03 2006 14:31 Author: Mark < [email_address] > Subject: Re: Suggestions Hey, I have been asking the same question. I have no idea. waiting for Graham [tutor] to reply. I really dont have a clue. If you would use e-mail would you mind communicating through that for a short while?? I been thinking about doing DRM (Digital Rights Management). Think I will probably go with that. What other ideas does everyone have? Mark VLE conversation between Mark and Lewis, 3 rd March 2006
Blog posting: Web 2.0 Sig, 23 February 2007 - Kai at 15:44 Possible Sig topic choice Hi everyone, Will, Ewan and I have recently had a discussion regarding the Sig title that we have to submit to Graham by Tuesday. After considering all the posts and ideas suggested so far we believe the following should allow each individual to focus on something they have suggested: "What opportunities do web 2.0 technologies present to organisations or businesses?" Although the above may seem quite broad we believe Graham will like it as can be "spun" to fit each persons preference, e.g. marketing/advertising/social impacts within organisations/ways to make money/possible business propositions etc What do you guys think? Kai, Will & Ewan 2 comments: a) Seth said... Sounds good to me. 26 February 2007 23:10 b) Dan said... Looks alright to me. 23 February 2007 16:15
Variations in transactions, reciprocity and addressivity 58 220 96 87 150 336 Totals 0 16 3 5 15 23 eBusiness Blog posts 5 29 54 0 0 54 Total 4 27 52 0 0 52 eBusiness 1 2 2 0 0 2 IT Audit MSN/ Skype 0 4 4 0 1 5 IT Audit Texts 2 12 10 2 1 13 Total 1 7 8 0 0 8 eBusiness 1 5 2 2 1 5 IT Audit Email 51 159 25 80 133 238 Total 32 122 18 46 101 165 eBusiness 19 37 7 34 32 73 IT Audit VLE Hanging questions Sign off Name ALL No-one Transactions Module Tool Addressed to:
Ali: Ah ha ha I haven’t even had that (pause) I don’t even know who’s in my group, they’ve just pure ignored me. It’s been harsh (laughter) Ali: Ignore… I sent emails, put the stuff on (…) Eddie: Yeah, from BigCityonline - all I’ve used that for, the discussion board, is just basically posting stuff I find – not really communicating back and forth. (…) Mark: At the beginning of the sig, err I think there was an attempt made to discuss on our (pause) discuss y’know with our group members. But umm I don’t know if maybe I just speak for myself but I think most people find it really boring, y’know the uni stuff, the BigCityonline etc. Um so easier communication methods like, text messaging? (laughter) or messenger or whatever. Beth: Yeah but would you really want to text - like a load of random people in your sig you don’t know? (Ali, Bill ,Eddie, Mark and Beth, IT Audit, 23/3/06
Harry: (quiet laughter throughout) As I said earlier – my group never discussed anything. Even the title was never discussed. A couple people posted links to stuff they were interested in, some people said that they were slightly interested in that and then the discussion died. Phil: Yeah that’s what happened with ours apart from me, you (looking at Lawrence) and Chris eventually deciding on one. Lawrence: oh yeah. Simon: yeah with our title, there wasn’t too much collaboration it was literally a couple of us putting a couple of points in and one person said “right we’ll do this” and emailed Graham. There was no... Most of the group didn’t put their points forward so there was no real collaboration. (Harry, Phil Lawrence and Simon, e-Business, 16/3/07, p15 -16)
Arnseth, H.C & Ludvigsen, S. (2006) Approaching institutional contexts: systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL . International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Volume 1, Number 2 / June, 2006 DOI10.1007/s11412-006-8874-3
Bannon, L.J (1991)From Human Factors to Human Actors: The Role of Psychology and Human-Computer Interaction Studies in Systems Design. in Greenbaum, J. & Kyng,M. (Eds.) (1991) Design at work.: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 25-44
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. B. L. Resnick, J. M.; Teasley, J. S. D., (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Crook, C.K. (2000) Motivation and the ecology of collaborative learning. In R. Joiner, K. Littleton, D. Faulkner, and D. Miell (Eds.) Rethinking collaborative learning. London: Free Association Press. 161-178
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'collaborative learning'? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Frand, J. (2000). The Information Age Mindset: Changes in students and implications for higher education. Educause Review, September/October 2000, 15 - 24.
Gillen, J ( Barton D. (2010) Digital literacies. A Research Briefing. TLRP. http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalLiteracies.pdf
Goodfellow R & Lea , M (2007) Challenging e-Learning in the University: A literacies perspective. SRHE/OUP, Maidenhead
Howard-Jones, PJ. (2007)Neurosce: London ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Progamme. Neuroscience and education: Issues and opportunities. http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/Neuroscience%20Commentary%20FINAL.pdf
Jones, C; Ramanau, R; Cross, S and Healing, G (2010). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education , 54(3), pp. 722–732.
London Group (1996) A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review. Volume 66 Number 1 at: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm
Microsoft (2010) Digital literacy. http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/citizenship/giving/programs/up/digitalliteracy/default.mspxNew
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants On the Horizon , 9(5), 1 - 6
Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23 (2), 83 - 94.
Timmis, S., Joubert, M., Manuel, A. & Barnes, S. (Sept 2010 forthcoming) Transmission, transformation and ritual: an investigation of students’ and researchers’ digitally mediated communications and collaborative work. Learning Media & Technology .
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., Smith, N & Smith, J.D. (2009) Digital Habitats:Technology stewarding for communities.Portland Cpsquare.