Tuesday, 17 March 2009

I've moved my blog

I've moved my blog to http://emmanugent.wordpress.com/

I've been testing differnt blog suppliers and prefer this one. If you are following me, please change your link.

Week 5 Activty 1 - Definition of Learning

Week 4
This week we were looking at the social dimensions of learning as another contiuum (individual-social) to look at alongside the AM and PM continuum. Not instead of.

A1. Defining Learning Summary
We were all asked to (without doing any research) define learning. My definition was

"Learning is the means or process by which people consciously and subconsciously acquire knowledge either formal or informally, consciously or subconsciously, individually or collaboratively, through experience or observation, trial and error, pushed by formal learning outcomes or pulled by personal desire.

The learning process results in changes to behaviour, feelings, opinions, abilities and often other peoples’ views of the individual who is showing a change as a result of their learning. The way that formal learning is applied/used will differ depending on the motivation to learn but the way that informal learning (ie learning from just being) may be applied subconsciously."

I found it really hard not to focus to much on the role of acquisition in learning , although I have used the term in the first paragraph showing that I feel that learning has 2-parts (at least) - the acqusition and then the results of that acquisition - ie how the learning is used, experimented with and then reformed. (IE the Kolb learning cycle must have influenced my definition).

Others included phrases such as:

Anthony's definition was short and sweet:
Learning:
the acquisition of facts or concepts;
individually or collectively;
intentionally or unconsciously;
which can be used either alone or in combination;
to create knowledge;
that satisfies a particular need;
cognitive or practical;
in either a personal or professional context. (Berry, A. (2009) H800 les6 09 W4 A1 3rd March 2009 09.35

Eddy suggested that this was too much focused on the Acquistion metaphor.

Anthony explains this further: "As a language teacher I am influenced by Krashen's differentiation between learning (instruction) and acquisition (learning by experience). I think that Krashen spoke about apprenticeship as acquisition - that combination of knowing and doing, which from a language perspective is evidenced by the 'professions' developing their own genres which either include or exclude depending on the level of eculturation". (Berry, A. (2009) H800 les6 09 W4 A1 6th March 2009 10.36)

Paul Kenney offered a very brief definition "Learning is to develop understanding of a task or discipline" (Kenny, P. (2009) H800 les6 09 W4 A1 1st March 2009 09/31) But others in the group questioned that understanding often comes before ability to do something, the example used was children learning to speak. They often understand what they hear but are unable to speak it themselves, in fact understanding comes before ability. (See Silver, K. 2nd March 2009, 22.55 and Stoermer, E. 2nd March 2009 16.12)

Mike introduced the idea of learning in isolation, some people questioned in terms of understanding it as learning from books - so it's not completely isolated as there is an author there too. In support of Mike's suggestion, examples were given of a naturalist exploring insects without any prior reasrach or information, another example given by Sharon was if you put your hand in a fire, you'll soon learn that it's hot without anyone/thing having to teach you this. But then the question of this being research and not learning arose. (See thread starting with Gilbert, M. (2009) 2nd March 2009, 17.22)

Roxine used the term "accumulative" to show that we are learning all the time, which also reflects the cyclical nature or process nature of learning that many of us identified. Beaumont-Sempill, R. (2009) H800 les6 09 W4 A1 3rd March 2009 11:36


Simon C offered this definition "So my definition would be: "Learning is the radiation of knowledge. Some are too thick skinned to be effected while others are illuminated." Cowan, S. (H800 les6 09 W4 A1 5th March 2009 20.50)


We were then instructed to look up some definitions of learning.

Sharon suggested these two, among others:
"This definition comes from the free online dictionary - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/learning

1. The act, process, or experience of gaining knowledge or skill.
2. Knowledge or skill gained through schooling or study. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. Psychology Behavioral modification especially through experience or conditioning.
....

This third definition is taken from the Open University Open Learn site - http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=160207

Learning is an interactive process between people and their social and physical environment which results in changes to people's knowledge, attitudes and practices." Clark, S. (2009) H800 les6 09 W4 A1 3rd March 2009 08.24

As Simon A pointed out, and as I found, many definitions were either written from the acquiusition metaphor view but some referred to learning as a process, as did many of us in our own definitions. Simon introdced the difference between learning and cognition, ie what is learning and how do we learn.

"Learning:
The acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, practice, or study, or by being taught.

Cognition:
The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience and the senses." (Allan, S. (2009) H800 les6 09 W4 A1 3rd March 2009 09.57)

Monday, 16 March 2009

H808 Results

I just opened my course record for H808 - my first module on this Masters to see if by any chance the results were there - and they were.

There was a big fat PASS on the screen.

Delving deeper I found I had averaged 82% - only 3% of a distinction - I'm never happy am I! At Warwick that would have been a distinction, comfortably - do the OU mark to hard or do Warwick mark to easy?

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Web 2.0 - more info

Taken from Kevin Hickey's Blog entry 13 March 2009

Here are a few quotes comparing web 0.1 and web 2.0
http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/

Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing
Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities
Web 1.0 was about taxonomy, Web 2.0 is about tags
Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing

and from http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2006/05/web-10-vs-web-20.html

Web 1.0 was about lectures, Web 2.0 is about conversation
Web 1.0 was about advertising, Web 2.0 is about word of mouth
Web 1.0 was about services sold over the web, Web 2.0 is about web services

Activity 6 The way ideas are produced and spread using social networks

We then watched a presentation made by Wesch to the "library of congress" about web 2.0 and he talks about what happened with the "is the machine us/ing us" video we watched earlier.

He states that because of all the web 2.0 tools such as You Tube, Delicious, Digg it, etc, the viral spread of the word to watch his video was exponential.

He highlights the issues of
web 2.0 building community - people emulating each other and sharing experiences
People wanting to share something with others - not caring what they think - being oneself
A celebration of a new form of empowerment, a new form of community and types of community not seen before, global connections, transcending space and time.

About the Machine video he says
I started with text on paper and thinking about what it meant to move to digital text and what that move really means
what I was trying to get at was when you unpack the impacts of the – digital text and you think about the separation of form and content blogs, Wiki’s, tagging; all of these things leads to a necessity to really think what the web is all about.
it is actually about linking people and it's about linking people in ways that we've never been linked before

User control (link to McLuhan perhaps)
This is like user generated filtering where the users can get together and they can they can give it the thumbs up if they like it.
is user-generated organisation eg Delicious and Digg It
user-generated distribution eg RSS
user-generated commentary eg blogging

really interesting integrated mediascape that we now live in. And at the centre of this mediascape is us.

Basically he was saying that through the web 2.0 tools of organisation, distribution and commentary, people (us) are controlling the sharing of knowledge around the networked world.

What Wesch was intending to do when he made the video, was not to see what people learned from the video, but to see what social action took place after it was published on You Tube.

You can watch Wesch's presntation here on You Tube.

Week 5 Activity 5 - Comparing Video and Text for the same message

Week 5 Activity 5 - Comparing Video and Text for the same message

Now that you have read O’Reilly’s article explaining Web 2.0 and viewed Wesch’s video, we would like you to compare your reactions to these two different ‘texts’ – the written text and the video text – and how the two different media forms affect the way you as the audience receive the messages encoded in them.
How do you think what you have learned is affected by the form of media in which the ideas are represented?
I think what I have learned is significantly effected by how the ideas are represented. For me, reading the printed text was harder than watching the video. This reflects what Saloman found when he did research with children, in the watching a video is less challenging. But he did also state that you don’t use the brain as much as you would with the printed word so perhaps you don’t learn as much or as deeply.
I liked how Wesch used the medium he was telling us about to represent the knowledge, it does seem a bit conflictual to use print to talk about non-print concepts as O’Reilly’s article did.

However, because I read O’Reilly’s article first, you could say that Wesch’s video was being watching with the knowledge from O’Reilly already acquired and that the video was simply reinforcing or helping me to conceptualise the information in O’Reilly. It’s evident from our discussions that Saloman is correct that in what ever media you are practised in interpreting, you will learn the most from (your capacity to interpret) and for me, I know that I have become lazy at reading and do it rarely and the TV and internet take my focus most of the time when I’m not being a mum and housewife! I need things to be short and to the point.

What elements of the video are not present in the written text? The elements in the written text that were in the video including being able to move the text around and edit the text to really reinforce the message to people who are used to viewing and using computer based word processers. Using the HTML background for some of the text narration was useful as it helped you understand what HTML was. Whereas O’Reilly’s article assumed a lot of prior technical knowledge of computer technology which you had to try and comprehend yourself or through other research/ discussions as Frauke did with her husband for Activity 3.
The video not only narrated a message, but showed you what each statement meant too.

Are there aspects of the written text not available in the video? What are they?

The aspects from the written text that were missing in the video were the detail about –
· the comparisons between old web and web 2.0;
· the concept of web 2.0 being about companies with Web 2.0 characteristics;
· the concept of being a service provider and not just a “web site”;
· The strategy a company must adopt to be considered Web 2.0.

Kathy Doncastor writes: -

the video gave an experience of Web 2.0 technologies, while the O'Reilly article discussed them, ie the first *was* the message, was an exemplar of Web 2.0 technologies, and the second was *about* the message of what Web 2.0 is.

I wrote:

Me too, I have reflected on how I wonder if the message would have been different if I had not read O'Reilly first, and just watching the video and how if I'd not seen the video with the sound first, how different I would have really felt about it without the sound. Your point about how O'Reilly gives us the message and Wesch gives us the about is, you could say, the Acquisition metaphor in practice. O'Reilly - the AM and Wesch - developing our understanding of what we have acquired - the conceptualisation metaphor perhaps

. Kathy Doncastor writes

in contrast, the article used text to build a linear argument through the flow and sequentiality of one thing following another that text's linearity allows. It backgounded text itself and foregrounded *content*.

I wrote:

I thought the video was quite linear and sequential as well. It painted a very interesting picture and linked each narration well giving the viewed a good understanding of the message by the end. But you're right in that the print gave us more context and background.

Doncaster, K. (2009) H800 les6 09 Week 5 9 March 2009 12.94

Week 5 Activity 4 - Video about Web 2.0

This activity was to watch a animation/video explaining what WEb 2.0 is. The idea being to compare in the next activity our responses to the written word from Activity 3 (O'Reilly's article on web 2) and the video communication later in Activity 6.

The video is on You Tube here. It's by Michael Wesch, who works at Kansas State University heading up a group which is dedicated to exploring and extending the possibilities of digital ethnography.

It's interesting to see in the forums that there is a variety of responses to the video. Interestingly I think I was the only one who preferred the video with the sound on. It was just background music, no narration, but for me it helped me to focus my senses on the video. When I turned the music off I found I couldn't concentrate as easily - 1. because I'd already watched it so maybe if I was watching it for the first time I'd have felt differently and 2. there was back ground noise around me so that distracted my audio senses.

The discussions just show how many different preferences there are out there.
We also talked about accessibility issues surrounding the video and came up with obvious ones just as problems for visually impaired and people without broadband internet.

Taking the quote from McLuhan that the "message is the medium" - what this video did was use the medium web 2.0 to explain what web 2.0 is. The video used images of the internet really cleverly to explain what we were being told so people could relate what they use on the internet with the definition of web2.0.

He concluded the video by saying that we are web 2.0, without individual input there would be no web 2.0.