Learnin' and Bloggin'

The discussion prompt in class was simple enough - While the internet, social media sites, and various learning tools are boundless in terms of geographic reach, instantly bringing us in contact with individuals thousands of miles away, one question remains..."Are we really international when using this technology?" Meaning, are we truly coming together as one group, eliminating the miles and cultural differences between us when we connect via this technology? Or, are we simply using a tool, and communicating, carrying with us our own cultural norms and expectations? It's an interesting point to consider, and perhaps not one many take the time to think about when participating in exchanges with those from other countries. Take into consideration - When you have a conversation online with someone who speaks a completely different language than you, who might be using some type of translation tool to assist them in having the conversation, how might the translation too affe

It's something I asked my wife not too long ago when we were thinking about planning a trip to Italy. Me, being the self-involved American I am, assumed (uh oh) that, "Of course they speak English in Italy. If/when we go I'll be fine." Well, good thing I'm not going to Italy anytime soon, because I'm sure with this viewpoint I'd find myself soon in trouble. Obviously no, I don't really believe that. When I take a moment to really think about it I couldn't assume I could get by just speaking English if I went to Italy. I'd likely need to brush up on common phrases. Or, at the very least, know how to use my Google app to help me translate (hooray, technology!). But here's the thing - I really did have that thought. And herein lies a problem... I think there's perhaps an assumption, at least here in America, that most people around the world can speak English. And if they don't, then they should . "If I travel to Italy I should be

It was an interesting week thinking more deeply about several topics. A couple of which were of particular interest to me - our role in promoting digital citizenship, and the assessment of learning in Web 2.0 environments.  One of the nice things about the ISLT program here at FSU is that I feel the students have been evaluated on both process and end result when using Web 2.0 methods of collaboration. Early on in the program we were exposed to methods in which we used various web tools to source/share information, and the assignments always seemed to (at the very least) weight the process in which the group collaborated just as much as the end products we were working towards.  As noted by myself, as well as my classmates in this week's discussion, process when using these tools is so important because that's where the true, deeper learning and connection to the content comes into play. While there likely must be some type of end product to evaluate (a report, or something pro

The question was recently presented to our class - when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of produsage is it more about the process, or the final result? But wait, let's back up a second...what do we mean by this? If you're unfamiliar with the term "produsage" you're maybe not alone. After all, it's sort of a term that's industry specific. In the learning/training community it's a concept which explains how people interact with the web. The word itself combines two terms - "producer" and "user" and helps explain how people in Web 2.0 environments both act as producers and consumers of content.  For example, on a Facebook post about some event in your community you can read the comment (user) and supply your own feedback to the discussion (producer). In a broader learning context produsers might be a group of high school students who work on a group project, sourcing/sharing material with one another. The main idea is that the

As instructional designers involved with adult learning the concept of "digital citizenship" - the promotion of ethical behavior while using technology - is an interesting concept. Over the past few years this concept has more or less evolved from direct observations of our experiences in our connected worlds. As children began branching out into these shared online spaces parents became concerned about how to both keep their children safe in these environments, and ensure they're also acting appropriately (the same expectations as someone in a physical environment). No bullying. Not sharing personal information with strangers. Making sure that they're reporting any instances of misuse or anything inappropriate. Again,  the same types of concerns parents have had going back for decades, albeit now also spilled over into a digital environment. Obviously, the concept applies to adults as well. In the sense of "one can never stop learning," practicing good digi

There are a multitude of interesting and helpful tools available to instructional designers who wish to encourage social web based learning. The trick, it seems, is being able to match the selected tool to the audience. For example, some tools might have higher adoption rates if the audience is predisposed to behaviors which are supported by the piece of technology. For instance, it seems to reason that there would be a higher rate of acceptance and use of social media based for those who are both active, and have a desire to post/respond to content as produsers. In the end, there needs to be a coordinated effort by the key stakeholders to support the implementation of the tool, and provide alternative methods for those who are not comfortable utilizing the technology. As evidenced in the ISLT program at FSU, social engagement has frequently been used to promote learning and discussion among the students in the program. However, these activities have sometimes been supplementary in nat