Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘insidious

One of the reading methods I adopted from my days as a graduate student and then an academic were to read the synopsis, introduction, and conclusion of an article first.

I practice this particularly with opinion pieces in the press. I modify the method by examining who wrote the article and I try to unpack why. Take this “commentary” that proclaims that “It is time to rethink how we do online education”.

You need only to scroll to the end of the article to find that the author is the regional director of a learning management system (LMS) provider. Scroll to the middle and the largest chunk of the article is about (surprise, surprise) the the virtues of adopting an LMS.

An institutional LMS has its uses. But it also has its abuses, so I counter some claims (copied from the article and pasted in italics). At this point, I should mention that I am making some assumptions based on my professional experience of working with such vendors. I need to make assumptions because the statements in the article are either so general as to be vague or are claims without cited and linked evidence.

LMSs are used to create and deliver curriculums that students can follow both online and offline.

Offline? An LMS is online. The whole point is to access it anywhere you have a reliable Internet connection. Some tools have an offline mode, but you need to periodically go online to get updates.

An offline service that delivers material might look like the postal service. But even that has online components, e.g., tracking packages. So I do not know how an “offline” LMS is supposed to create and deliver curricula without strategically going online.

It is secure, easily accessible and allows for student-teacher interaction.

Claims of security should always be questioned. An LMS is only as “secure” as the log-in system of an institution and the user behaviours.

The ease of accessibility might rest on the platform each user has. Internet access being equal, LMS tend to be more “accessible” on laptops and desktops than on smaller mobile devices, e.g., phones. The latter typically require specific apps because LMS tend to not be built with mobile-first principles. Such apps are lite versions of full LMS, so users can forget about, say, submitting essays for plagiarism checks before revising and resubmitting on mobile.

As for “student-teacher” interaction, don’t get me started. Correspondence courses of old were secure as the postal service, accessible to anyone with an address, and allowed student-teacher interaction.

For starters, all users are authenticated before they are granted access.

Yes, with a standard username and password combo, preferably linked to a school’s or university’s single sign-on (SSO) system. I do not know of any SSO that requires two-factor authentication that is tied to a person’s identity. This means that a student can share log-in information with someone else to access materials or to take a quiz.

Authentication is not the same as identity confirmation. The latter is what is required for strict access to materials or the taking of critical tests or exams. Is our PSLE or GCE assessments online? No, because while authentication is possible, identity confirmation is not.

A reliable LMS uses cryptographic protocols and encryption to ensure the confidentiality and security of user data.

Good news, right? At no point did the author say where the data is stored (the company’s servers) or what happens to that data (it should be in Terms and Conditions; data could be anonymised and repackaged for the company or third parties to use).

With standard compliance regulations for data integrity and confidentiality in place, institutions can opt for certified LMS service providers for maximum security.

See my comment on anonymisation of data. Providers use student and teacher data. There are legitimate uses like improving services, but there are less clear cut uses too.

Data integrity, confidentiality, and security are important, but they should not be conflated. For example, if data is kept purely intact, it cannot be anonymised for confidentiality. If it cannot be anonymised, it should be used for other purposes.

Some LMSs integrate live streaming capability in a seamless manner.

As do other platforms, mobile or desktop. YouTube and Twitch can also do this more efficiently and effectively than university lecture capture systems. But such systems are not in walled gardens like LMS (which could be a plus) and such capture systems tend to be fire-and-forget for lecturers (another plus).

All that said, the seamlessness might be convenient, but this also means that teachers and lecturers do not learn the skills of how to do such work themselves. This has been and continues to be evident whenever e-learning days or a lockdown like the current one places pressure on content delivery.

The LMS market is already booming.

So is the market for fast foods. This does not mean that they have products that are good for their consumers/users, or processes that are good for the environment/education system.

The regional market here might be “booming”, but that does not mean the same is happening elsewhere. Anyone thinking of buying into an LMS should investigate why it might be waning elsewhere before subscribing to a service that creates dependence.

According to a report by Market Research, the Asia-Pacific region is expected to be the fastest-growing LMS market in the coming years…

This might be true depending on your sources. It is a trend that might last a while. Why? Decisions to buy into LMS are made my policymakers and administrators, not educators and students. The latter groups are rarely consulted, if at all. If they were, I bet on the trend bucking.

Increasing computing power and rich features on these devices make for a dynamic and holistic learning experience.

This was in reference to mobile devices like phones. Despite their increased power, they still deliver subpar experiences compared to devices with larger screens and multitasking.

The one size fits all approach that has dominated education for so long does not work anymore.

How ironic. An LMS is designed to fit many tools into one container.

The diversification of tools and platforms based on context and need should drive adoption and innovation. When you buy into an LMS, you get a walled-off area but you trade it with practices that are constrained by tools that might not suit your needs.

Consider the oft dreaded threaded discussion forum. It is the go-to tool for interaction because thoughts are externalised, captured, and sometimes graded. Discussion threads can get so long and confusing that they put off discussion to all but the most persistent.

Users need to be taught new and more disciplined ways to discuss online. This is not a bad thing, but the structure can be off-putting or unnatural. Instead, users might prefer to share their thoughts on Twitter, Instragram, or some other social platform. However, an LMS cannot integrate every possible tool, be it designed for education or for general use.

I called the article an insidious LMS advertisement (and titled my reflection so) because a respectable news agency saw it fit to pass a long advertisement off as an article. It was a piece that was not challenged for evidence or subject to critique. Caveat emptor.

Tags: , , ,

Today I highlight two videos that provide insights into current issues.

Video source

The first is about what some workers are worried about — robots taking over their jobs. This is an issue made real by what people can already see happening around them.

It seems to be a relatively immediate threat, so policymakers and workers alike spread and share the worry.

Video source

The second is about the harm that Facebook has brought. Facebook ostensibly wanted to do good, but in reaching almost everyone on this planet, did not regulate its own ambition.

This issue is less obvious to most people than the previous one. However, I think that it is as big a threat, if not bigger, than robots taking over jobs. Robotisation is a result of many agencies and stakeholders that are subject to rules and standards; Facebook is one mega corporation that makes its own rules and standards.

The irony is that laypeople has little say in robotisation. But we make Facebook what it is and we empower — and possibly embolden — it by using it indiscriminately or not objecting to its poor practices.

How more myopic can we get?

When something is insidious, it is not obvious when examined casually.

The “digital divide” is often viewed from the obvious technology access lens. For example, if teachers or students do not have devices and Internet access, how are they to curate or create content? While that perspective is important, it should not be the only argument against integrating technology into education.

In the context of post-industrialized countries, that point is moot. There are ways of putting technologies in the hands of learners. Every learner. The technologies get better and cheaper. Financially there are sponsors, donors, assistance schemes, etc. Schools need to think outside the box they create for themselves.

Video source

There is another more insidious box that divides the haves and have-nots. I have reflected on this before. There is the nature and quality of technology use once you have access to educational technology. The video above articulates this nicely.

The video describes a techno-pedagogical divide. I can think of many examples but will illustrate with just three.

A teacher might have access to an Interactive White Board in her classroom. But all she does is focus on didactic teaching and perhaps entertaining her students with slick animations, eye-candy transitions, and funny YouTube videos. She might do something similar by telling a riveting story with an oversized book, so her strategy for using the book and IWB are essentially the same. She is on the wrong side of the divide even if she has the IWB.

Another teacher can have access to a cart of iPads and reliable Internet access. But he allows access to the cart only when he asks his students to search for definitions, images, or videos to shed light on a concept. He does not leverage on what his students already carry in their pockets or bags, nor the spontaneity of search. He is unlikely to model information search skills and ethical use of what he finds. That teacher is also on the wrong side of the divide.

Now consider a group of teachers attempting to innovate by using a Edmodo or Facebook in their lessons. They transfer only what they experienced in the learning management system during their university days to the social media platform. They post content-only questions and expect students to answer them. They upload PowerPoint presentations and PDF readings. They wrap socialization around content instead of the other way around.

All those teachers are using new technologies with old methods. That is like moving to another country and refusing to learn the language and culture of the place. Both you and the residents may initially be wowed by the novelty. But soon both will tire of it and eventually resent it.

The insidious divide is a pedagogical one and it is far more harmful than the technological one. In a technological divide, the have-nots do not know what they are missing out on, but over time eventually might gain access to the tools.

In a pedagogical divide, the technology is present but its use is mismanaged and this sends the wrong message. This leads both the learner and instructor to question its validity and subsequent reliability.

[image source, used under CC licence]

I have mixed thoughts on this article, Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems impact teaching by Lisa Lane.

The article is based on the premise that course management systems (CMS) like Blackboard have an inherent pedagogy, which is limited to traditional forms of teaching, and this in turn impacts instructors. I do not agree fully with the premise, but I agree with much of the rest of the article even though it is built on that premise. It is an insidious article!

I think that the premise is technologically deterministic, that is, the outcomes of using a tool are defined by its design. But as I wrote earlier, there are technological, social and pedagogical affordances of modern technologies. Affordances are not guarantees of use. The pedagogical affordances of a CMS are but one aspect that influence its use. How they are used socially can make a difference.

Technology is largely neutral even if it is designed to harm. Let us take an ammunition round for example. It is designed to kill. It can be used in a mindless mall shooting. It can also be used to hunt in order to feed a family.

There are limits to a CMS but it is still neutral. It allows the pedagogy of the instructor to take centre stage. If you only know a delivery-oriented model, you will use a CMS that way. If you have constructivist leanings, you will use a CMS to that end. So while I agree with Lane that a CMS limits users, I think it does not determine how they teach.

I agree with her that novice instructors may know no other way of teaching than to attempt to deliver content. I also agree that CMS tend to support that model of teaching and that learning how to use a CMS might be a barrier to developing your own teaching style. So I agree with her advice to novices to ask themselves what they want to do first, rather than do what a CMS demands of them.

[image source, used under CC licence]

If you do, you might abandon an institute-sanctioned CMS like me. The CMS is Blackboard here in NIE. I stopped using it after one semester in 2006 and have been using blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0 tools in my courses since 2007. Why? I started blogging and using wikis in 2004 and began to see their potential for learning.

BlackBoard did include some of these tools as add-ons (in a desperate bid to stay relevant I might add), but they are closed off to the rest of the world. Worse still, my trainees would not have indefinite access to them. Worst of all, my trainees would be put only in the shoes of students, unable to administer, customize and add to the tool itself. I did not realize it then, but I was trying to get them to use what all of us already have access to: Get your own blog, your own wiki, your own online mindmap, your own VoiceThread, your own Google Docs, etc.

A technology learning curve is expected of any tool. It would help if the curve was shallow and short and if pedagogy took centre stage. Bringing in tools that students or teachers-to-be are already using is logical and necessary. (Think about Facebook as an example.) First, the tools are relatively easy to learn. Second, the learning and tinkering is already done outside of class. Third, you can focus on formal learning processes and content with your students or trainees. Finally, the learners expect to be able to use them at work and at play. This way learning becomes naturally seamless instead of just constrained to a time and place.

It’s about killing a few birds with one stone. A stone that has an expected use, but if used innovatively, might redefine how we teach.


Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: