Andrew Griffiths EduBlog

The internet has enabled individuals, despite being geographically isolated to easily communicate, however the text based modes have lacked the non verbal cues that are generally available through interacting face-to-face or through a video medium.  This is further exacabated when communication is asynchronous text modes of communication, where there us a lack of immediacy with feedback or acknowledgement (Tu and McIsaac 2002). Walther (1996) suggests however that this preconception may be inaccurate and that effective interpersonal relationships through asynchronous text communication may develop as is does through face-to-face, however requires a much longer time frame, as demonstrated in  his longitudanal research.

Walther (1996) also highlights the other benifits that asynchronous text interaction may also hold, is that discourse is generally directed specifically at the task at hand, and avoids the unneccessary pleasantries and discussions that occurs when people meet face to face in meetings.

Hallowell (1999) however identifies that there is a psychological benifit in making contact and having that ‘human moment’, regardless of the techno internet dependant, email the person sitting metres away from you, environment that we work and live in.

What we need is a happy medium. With the development of web streaming, podcasting, web cams etc, we may soon develop those missing links between face to face and asynchrony.

References

 Tu, C-H and McIssac, M 2002, The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes, The American Journal of Distance Education, vol.16, no. 3, pp. 131-150.

Walther, J 1996, Computer-mediated communication:Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal interaction, Communication Research, vol.23, no. 1, pp. 3-43.

One of the things tht I have notices with using blog sites and other forums, is that you are often bound by limitations of the allegedly user-friendly applications.

Layout, image placement and other formatting never quite work how you want them, but are certainly available, however you spend most of your time trying to overcome the automatic encoding. The ability to write your own html coding seems a lot easier, and is what I have had to resort to on some instances when I get stuck trying to represent things the way I want to. Sometimes even this seems to be altered by internal mechanisms.

Maybe I just like to be incontrol of my own destiny, or long for artistic liberties and freedom, but for the moment I remain in the confines of my captor. 

One of the issues that I have experienced in online community sites, is the lack of hard evidence supplied for great claims. Gray (2004) emphasises that social interaction is the basis of learning, which is reinforced by Lazar and Preece’s (2003) comments regarding, the effects of too much influence from moderation inhibits expression and interaction. However, for an individual with an academic background, I still struggle with the lack of scientific proof.

I was recently drawn to the [citation needed] tag by a friend which is utilised in wikipedia. When readers believe that verification of a point is required, or just plain disbelief, the tag may be placed. Several other blog sites; http://biphenyl.org, http://www.boingboing.net, have also commented on the [citation needed] tag.

Where does the fine line between freedom of speech and the hinderance caused by the need for justification exist in elearning communities. I appreciate that there are lessons that can be learnt from anectdotes, with the experiences at the coal face representing how things work in the real world. But sometimes you get nervous at what alleged knowledge is be espoused to the readers.

References

Gray, B 2004, Informal learning in an online community of practice, Journal of Distance Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp 20-35.

Lazar, J and Preece, J 2003, ‘Social considerations in online communities: usability, sociability and success factors’, in Herre van Oostendorp, Cognition in a Digital World, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 127-153.

Gray (2004) describes ‘Communities of Practice’, as a “self-organising systems of informal learning“, and require  three elements; 1) focus on a domain of shared interest with members having a level of competence and knowledge within that interest, 2) learn through interaction, building a relationship around the domain, and 3) develop a shared collection of experiences, stories, best practices and problem solving.

The concept of community is very important in regards to the idealisation of relationships in which learning occurs. Both Bruckman (2002) and Gray (2003) emphasise the importance of socialisation in learning. In a community of practice, it could be described as ‘Peer Assisted learning’ which occurs similarly online as it does face to face (McLuckie and Topping 2004). Tu and Corry (2003) go as far as to say (citing Gunawardena 1995) that where there is no interaction,  learning does not occurs either.

The above comments support the statement by Wenger(1999). “Learning cannot be designed: it can only be designed for….” An online community provides a structure, and within these confines individuals are able to evolve their own environment so that learning can occur for them. Designers of communities need to negotiate  between the user interface and the network sevices (Wenger 1999).  Wenger likens this to ‘aesthetics and functionality’ of structural design, and identifys four facets of negotiation; participation/reification, designed/emergent, local/global, identifiaction/negotiability.

Therefore when we are designing/building our communities, we need to take into account, not only the demographics and function of the members that it encompasses, but also the limitations of the building restrictions and guidelines.

References

Bruckman, A 2002, The future of e-learning communities, Communications of the ACM, vol.45, no. 4, pp. 60-63.

Gray, B 2004, Informal learning in an online community of practice, Journal of Distance Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp 20-35.

McLuckie, J and Topping, K 2004, Transferable skills for online peer learning, Assessment And Evaluation in Higher Learning, vol.29, no. 5, pp. 563-584.

Tu, C-H and Corry, M 2003, Building active online interaction via a collaborative learning community, in Michael Corry an Chih-Hsiung Tu, Distance Education: What works Well, Haworth Press, Canada, pp. 51-59.

Wenger, E 1999, Communities of Practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp. 225-229.

Like alcohol, ‘moderation is good’, but too much can have adverse effects.

Moderation serves several functions in online communities. The table below represents aspects of the roles as identified in some literature.

The role obviously contains administrative function, policing of local nettiquette, but possibly most importantly facilitating and prompting discussions and then weaving the information from inside forums and coexisting discussions. The affirmation of contributions plays an important aspect in sociability but also encouraging further discussion or enticing lurkers to participate (Preece, Nonneck and Andrews 2004).

Lazar and Preece (2003) and Winograd (2003) suggest that the too much involvement or control by the moderator can inhibit discussion, through the loss of ‘Freedom of speech’ and lack of privacy.

References

Gray, B 2004, Informal learning in an online community of practice, Journal of Distance Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp 20-35.

Lazar, J and Preece, J 2003, ‘Social considerations in online communities: usability, sociability and success factors’, in Herre van Oostendorp, Cognition in a Digital World, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 127-153.

McLuckie, J and Topping, K 2004, Transferable skills for online peer learning, Assessment And Evaluation in Higher Learning, vol.29, no. 5, pp. 563-584.

Preece, J, Nonnecke, B and Andrews, D 2004, The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 20, pp 201-223.

Winograd, D 2003, The roles, functions and skills of moderators of online educational computer conferences for distance education, in Michael Corry and Chih-Hsiung Tu, Distance Eduction: What Works Well, The Haworth Press, Canada, pp. 61-72.

The evolution of Emoticons (or Emotion Icons) into the computer world is believed to have occured in 1979, however there seems to be some contention regarding the founder; Kevin MacKenzie or Scott Fahlma. The original punctuation symbols representing a smile or downward tuned mouth;:-)and:-( (Wikipedia 2008, emoticons and smiley page 2008, Lowe and Arevalo-Lowe 2003 and A brief history of emoticons 2006)

The purpose of the emoticon (or smiley) is used to represent the non verbal cues which are not available in the asynchronous text environment (Tu and McIsaac 2002). Even the use of verbal communication via such mediums as telephone, had the advantage of inflections and tone of voice that are missing in the asynchronous text environment (Walther 1996). The use of these symbols allows the addition of some cues to enhance potentially ambiguous text. The author can identify that the the intention of the posting is meant with a humorous (or other) motive.

It is in recognition that communication is not purely a unidirection course, but an interaction between two individuals (Clark 1997). Not only does information need to be transmitted, but also recieved and interpretted. The addition of cues, can clarify intent, and decrease the risk of mis-interpretation.

Care should also be taken, that these signs of emotion are used correctly, especially in relation to local culture, as certain gestures may be interpreted as something else, just like on the physcial world; a kiss – frends or lovers?

References

a brief histor of emoticons, 2006. Retrieved May 4, 2008, from http://news.deviantart.com/article/23591/ 

Clark, D 1997, Communication and Leadership. Retrieved May 13, 2008, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcom.html

Emoticon 2008, retrieved May 4, 2008, from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon 

history of emoticons, 2008. Retrieved may 4, 2008, from http://www.muller-godschalk.com/history.html 

Tu, C-H and McIssac, M 2002, The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes, The American Journal of Distance Education, vol.16, no. 3, pp. 131-150.

Walther, J 1996, Computer-mediated communication:Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal interaction, Communication Research, vol.23, no. 1, pp. 3-43.

Humans are inately social beings,  not only due to a physiological need for physical contact, which was demonstrated in previous observations of babies having a failure to thrive in institutions when they were not handled, but also as a key factor in  development. This impact of interaction on learning is not restricted to childhood,  but throughout the lifespan.

Harre (2006) referring to Vygotsky’s theory of development states that “language is the mediating tool of all higher cognitive functions, and it is the conversations in the family circle and amongst peers that psychological development occurs“.  This would suggest the importance of social networks of ‘significant’ individuals. ’Significant’, because the person must have enough influence on the person for the learner to model behaviours and be influence by their direction and discipline. (Minsky 2006)

Despite the benifits of these networks, for development to occur, the dialogue must not be tainted by the influence of others within the group, but be free to express their perspective. (Cranton 2006) Crawford (1999) discusses how individuals may shift away from thier beliefs to conform to a majority opinion, despite identifying descrepance in beliefs. 

Generationally, the places that socialisations is occuring is changing, with the move to online network pages (Crawford 1999).  Stewart (2006) describes the Generation ’Y’ (aka NetGeneration) as being technosavvy, and through the schooling environment of their time they would be accustommed to collaboration through group projects. It could be seen that the following generation, ‘Z’, which has been introduced to a digital world (wikipedia 2008). This generation are lableled as being “the most technologically and socially empowered generation ever” (wikipedia 2008) . Generation ‘Z’ will not only have the online socialisation skills, but are also being raised with the technology cabilities promoting collaborative intelligence. Interaction and challenge between individuals perspectives, opinions, values and beliefs are now happening online, with a global perspective and a range of interlectual capacity and expertise.

Online social networks are the new playground, school, and community for learning and development to take place.

References

Cranton, P 2006, Transformative learning theory,  in Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning, A Guide for Adult Educators, 2nd ed.,  Josey-Bass, San Fransisco, pp 19-39.

Crawford, I 1999, Social Learning,  in  Adult Education Psychology, Sydney Social Press, Katoomba, pp. 74-96.

Harre, R 2006, The developmentalists, in Key Thinkers in Psychology, Sage, London, pp. 25-44.

Minsky, M 2006, Attachment and goals, in The Emotion Machine, Simon and Shuster, pp. 37-64.

Stewart, D 2006, Generational mentoring, The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 113-120.

Generation Z, 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Z&oldid=203109312

John  Seely (1999), in his transcript of ‘Working and Playing in the Digital Age’,  his preamble describes the etymology of the words ‘document’; educate and communicate, and  ‘text’; to weave together. Etymolgy being the origin and historical development of a linguistic form… This was an artistic parallel with the ancestry and development of the internet.

Seely identified that the internet was at an early stage of its evolution, and was on the verge of an exponential intergration into society, as did the cable provider Comcast, mentioned by Seely, seeing “the capability of transferring the web and internet into a fundamentally new broadband medium”. The following statement, “what that medium will evolve into, none of us really know.” is almost amusing in retrospect with the knowledge of the capabilits of Web 2.0.

Seely (1999) mentions the benifits of utilising the internet as a medium for social interaction, communication and compiling intellegence for the benifit of those within a community, and his metaphor of the social ‘ecology’ is once again layered, as it is also suggestive of the evolving nature of the environment. Seely and Alder (2008) speek of the current capabilies of the internet, with focus on social networks and learning and collective intelligence. The development of Web 2.0 has brought the opportunity for not only individuals to experience and to contribute to areas of knowledge. Seely and Alder identify the beinfits of Social Learning Theory, where people learn from observation and involvement.

In the realms of nursing this has benifits and challenges. Like the internet genres in health care practices may change at alarming rates, therefore a medium with equally high dynamics would be useful for the conveying of education and information. However, one area which was lacking on the papers by Seely, were taking into account older generations; nursing demographics incoporate a large proprtion of ‘baby boomers’ in comparison to ‘X’ an ‘Y’s, and how they will adopt the new technologies.

References

Seely Brown, J. & Duguid, O. 1999, Learning, Working and playing in the digital age.
Transcript from a conference on Higher Education of the American Association for Higher Education

Seely Brown, J. & Adler, Richard P. 2008, Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0, Educause Review, January/February

The 2008 Horizon Report discusses several of the evolving technologies with their potential relationship to learning. Two of these have definite prospects with nursing; ‘Mobile Broadband’ and ‘Collective Intelligence’.

The introduction of such devices as Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) has been discussed on several occassions, for the promotion of digital documentation, data recording, such as observations, and mediactions. Medication having a uniquie focus of not only accurate documentation but automatic ordering from pharmacy departments, not to mention an online pharmacy text such as eMIMs. Other clinical resources would also be readily available.

Lu et al (2006) , despite the vast limitations to the study, discuss the barriers and faciliation to nurses adopting such devices. One of the big barriers obviously in hospital infrasctructure to support such devices. A resurgence is taking place with the use of these devices, utilising software rather than mobile broadband technology, but hopefully the door maybe opening.

The second technology with introduction of web 2.0 would be the utilisation of Collective Intelligence. Previously local policy were static documents, inconsistent with ‘best practice’ in the rhealms of health care with continuous developments and introduction of new devices and pharmaceuticals. Health systems are also evolving which makes new policies obsolete tomorrow. The use of wiki style, collaborative contributions to hospital documents, would ensure that they would remain dynamic and hopefully proceed with the times. However as Seely and Alder (2008) suggest, that this requires moderation to ensure that the information is true and accurate.

Health care educators and administrators should not only be scrutinizing clinical practice, but also the technology that is evolving, to decide what will enhance delivery of care.