Pay for Research Results

The emerging business model of today in the Internet appears to be “free”. When designing for example social media services, the easy access and the basic free model get the people in. Or at least it won’t scare them away so easily. Think about your actions, if you have an interesting site, service or product what happens to your interests when the tick mark of “Pay 9,95 € / month” appears?

What about research articles online? I was searching for some articles about heuristics in instructional design and technology and also found a couple of interesting ones. I won’t be reading them, as I won’t be paying for them.

I just wonder how many situations like this are out there, where a lot of good research gets forgotten and hidden away because of poor usability of the web sites that distribute them and because of stupid business models which prevent people of even skimming them through.

At the same time we get to read comments on how often articles get read merely by their journal reviewers and maybe the author’s mother. Unfortunate, maybe, but I guess with models like this, they are asking for it.

Google+ – A Big Buzz About Nothing?

I don’t usually write those kinds of “social media posts” where I ponder what some services might or might not do for us, but now that I’ve been using Google+ in a couple of authentic e-learning cases, I have to reflect it a little bit.

Everyone is currently discussing and writing about what happens between Google+ and Facebook, often going to the level of which one is better, who will dominate and yadda yadda yadda. This isn’t one of those posts.

When I started to experiment with Google+, still that time in its beta, I also thought a bit “So are they trying to swallow the market share from Facebook, or what is this?”

Now I don’t actually care too much about that. Through the eyes of authentic e-learning theory supported by open social media technologies, Google is really building something potentially remarkable with affordance we are just beginning to undersand, and also, at least I, is beginning to adore. And for me, that is way more interesting than just mere commercial dominance for the digital consumer souls. Here’s why.

I’ve been experimenting with Google+ & other Google Apps in my Master of Instructional Design & Technology studies and in an online collaborative teacher training programme. These both programmes have their backgrounds in authentic e-learning and social learning theories, and are using open social media services instead of just services clearly defined as VLEs (Virtual learning environments) e.g. Moodle or Blackboard Learning System. Although these are also in use, still have their place and are not totally forgotten.

I’m not sure if I can be explicit enough to describe what potential, or like I already stated affordance, lies in Google+ and using it in the authentic learning context, but there indeed is a huge one. But we also need to better understand and internalize the pedagogy needed for these service to live up to their potential.

As without people and the right kind of learning process to guide their way, these tools achieve nothing or at least much less. Using some of the older models of teaching, where teacher is the center of excellence, cripples the use of these tools and using them becomes just something cosmetic, not something revolutionizing.

Here’s some of the affordances of Google+, Google Apps & their integration that I feel are really worth mentioning after using them in learning.

You have the so called social layer, people interacting more informally, in this case supported by Google+. I feel many people don’t truly understand how important the informal interaction layer actually is. It helps the people to become a group, or a team. This is crucial in social learning process to start to happen.

Creating Circles of specific people, like your learning group or class, helps you easily post topics that may interest just them, or ask for help from those in your team. In a way these are very simple things, but psychologically, very important. It shifts the learning and the responsibility more to the learners, perfects their collaboration and stimulates their creativity when they are working together.

Hangout with extras, more advanced version of Hangout feature in Google+ which is still a bit under construction, is finally something you can use for collaborative video conferencing, to share your screen & write documents together in or from Google Docs (you can even start new ones straight from the Hangout). So everything’s in the same place. The usability of Hangout is simple enough and overall works quite well. If this feature evolves further, it could be a good alternative to challenge Adobe Connect and others.

These are just a couple of interesting features I feel are worth mentioning in this time when Google+ has been publicly open only a short period of time. Of course there are still gaps with Google’s attempt to integrate, well, just about everything. For example Blogger is a bit stiff and I’ve had to deal with many frustrated people trying to get its registration process to work seamlessly. But clearly, they are building an interesting ecosystem of services which can definitely be used together with suitable learning process.

And this what is happening is very important: When we have something where we have the social layer to easily interact and communicate with other people, the ease to create, collaborate and share, streamlined usability and learner centered approach from the get-go (as these are our own profiles through which we do things), we are a huge step forwards of a true 21st century learning environment, to use globally.

The learning environment isn’t just some class or the organizational VLE anymore, but everywhere you can find something to learn. The mental learning environment isn’t “on” only when you sleep in the class or interact with a learning management system. It’s where you create it.

Vuorovaikutuksesta ja kommunikoinnista teknologiassa

ICT: infromation and communication technology. Informaatio- ja kommunikaatioteknologia. Miksi suomen kielessä puhutaan usein vain IT:stä? Minne kommunikaatio tai viestintä on jäänyt? Sitä perustasolla sosiaalinen media on, vain eri sanoin.

Olen seurannut 2000-luvulla sosiaalisen median kehittymistä useasta eri näkökulmasta mm. mainosalalla, opetussektorilla, vapaa-ajassa, mahdollisesti syrjäytymisvaarassa olevien nuorten tukemisessa, kansainvälisissä konferensseissa ja myös urheilussa, aina ollen aktiivisesti mukana joko erilaisten “sosiaalisten” alustojen kehittäjänä kouluttajana, puhujana tai konsulttina.

Olen taustaltani vuorovaikutteisuuden suunnittelija, mutta termi tai mitä se pitää sisällään ei tunnu olevan monellekaan tuttu. Ihmettelenkin miksi sana vuorovaikutus on monille niin outo?

Kaiken tämän koetun jälkeen olen varma siitä, että nykyisten erilaisten sosiaalisten työkalujen hyödyntämisen paradoksi tai ongelma liittyy juuri näihin termeihin kommunikaatio ja vuorovaikutus. Teknouskovaiset, teknologiatrendien perässä juoksevat ja muuten vaan teknologiakeskeiset ihmiset ovat usein vastuussa teknologiasta touhottamisesta tai sen kehittämisestä. Ihmiset, joilla ei usein ole perusymmärrystä siitä miten ihminen toimii, millainen rooli ryhmädynamiikalla tai erilaisilla rooleilla ja johtajuudella voi eri konteksteissa olla. Samaan aikaan asiakkaat tilaavat alustoja, mutta eivät näe että ihmisiä, jotka käyttävät alustoja, pitäisi myös kouluttaa.

En halua sinänsä kritisoida ketään, mutta nämä asiat ovat väistämättä ongelma. Pelkkä teknologian esitteleminen vanhoihin toimintamalleihin ei ratkaise mitään. En suostu enää sanomaan edes sitä, että se vähän auttaa.

Jos me ihmisinä edelleen jatkamme huonoina kommunikoijina, emmekä saa toistemme välille oikeanlaisia vuorovaikutussuhteita ja ymmärryksen tasoa, ei (sosiaalinen) teknologia tule meitä auttamaan, ei oppimisessa, paremman organisaatiokulttuurin rakentamisessa, tiimityössä saatika innovoinnissa (toisin sanoen jonkin uuden luomisessa).

Mutta onhan se vaikeaa, luoda yhteisiä uusia merkityksiä, usein tekstuaalisesti, varsinkin kun se vaatii, että pyritään ymmärtämään mitä toinen ihminen yrittää sanoa, kysytään jos ei ymmärretä, tarkennetaan ja pyritään itsekin selkokielisyyteen omassa kommunikoinnissa.

Ihmisen suurimpia ongelmia on nähdä asiat ensisijaisesti omasta näkökulmastaan luullen tulkintansa olevan totta, olla ylipäätään ennakkoasenteellinen ja tulkita muuten vain väärin. Näiden asioiden kehittämiseen tarvitaan empatiakykyä, joka tulee vain pitkällisen itsekurin ja harjoittelun avulla. Toivon, että näitä asioita alettaisiin opettaa kouluissakin systemaattisemmin. Myös opettajien kouluissa.

Aiheesta “intuitio ja empatia” mm. Asta Raamin ja Samu Mielosen Hesarin kirjoituksessa “Kouluissa tulisi opettaa intuition käyttöä“.