Posted 7:17 PM by George Siemens
I'm fortunate to teach in a laptop program. Yesterday, I conducted an orientation session (classroom) to introduce a group of students to online learning. The course will be taught online over the next 12 weeks. These are year 2 students...I was surprised at how technologically illiterate some were (forget all that nonsense about students exceeding instructors in technology...must be a rumor started by students to make a mockery of teachers :)...students and teachers can be equally illiterate). Half a dozen students didn't know how to send me an email (seriously)...What have you been doing for two years with a laptop?!? As one student put it (hear this often) "I hate computers" (also popular "I hate technology").

End result: Technology is terribly under utilized in education. I don't think we need a computer for every student - we need a use for every piece of technology. Why is technology so poorly used? Two potential explanations:

1. Technology is too advanced for what is needed
   
2. Instructors do not know how to integrate technology with curriculum (and, as a result, make learning with technology attractive to students
   

Bit of each? That answer seems unsatisfying. Do we have more technology than we need? Or do we have less experience with technology than we need?Thoughts??

Posted 7:06 PM by George Siemens
Here is a great example of elearning that doesn't require proprietary courseware (Blackboard/WebCT):Writing About Digital Culture. The course is maintained by Charles Lowe site administrator for Kairosnews. Take a few minutes...explore some possibilities. The site is done with PostNuke

Interesting to note that most technology used in learning is for the benefit of instructors or administrators...not students. The greatest strength of course management systems is to track and manage students and course enrollments. How does that help with learning? No wonder elearning has high attrition rates...the current model is built on tools that help manage students (whatever that means). We need something that assists learning...oh, wait, we have it - it's simple - blogging, email, discussion questions, collaborative software (like Groove), programs like PostNuke, instant messaging - basically anything that enhances (and opens) communication. After all, isn't learning really only choreographed communication?

Posted 6:39 PM by George Siemens
Knowledge tools need to be personal, not personalized
Quote: "Vendors are always trying to use personalization to brand their technologies with the word "my." But personalized is not the same as personal. We have no sense of ownership or stewardship for the technology. If a tool is useful, it’s "my tool." Otherwise we think of them as ‘the system’ imposed on us by management."
Comment: Excellent point made: tools, not technology, should be the basis for selecting appropriate items needed to complete our work - "While the information and communication tools that we use are vital to maintain our productivity, they also have a lot to do with maintaining our passion.
Have we gone too far distinguishing knowledge work from manual labor, so that we disconnect knowledge workers from the tools of their trade—and in doing so disrupt their sense of identity?"
Think of this in an online course - use tools that work for what students need. Perhaps an expensive LMS isn't the tool needed...email may be just fine. In fact, large, well-funded, complex elearning initiatives may fail simply because they are focused on technology...not tools. Elearning should achieve learner/organizational objectives...technology plays a utilitarian role.

Posted 1:53 PM by George Siemens
Not a good day for the file swapping world - Music's finally over for Napster, Record companies win injunction against Madster...or for eBay: Patent suit could sting eBay. What does all that mean to educators? Not much now...but the developments in the copyright field may blindside educators. It seems that there is an overwhelming march (unabated) to restrict and control information/content. Educators need to discuss the impact of this.

Random questions: Why does the word "copyright" conjurs up negative images of restriction...instead of proper protection of content creators? Educators are probably the largest group of "content" users...yet the most silent - why? Why are organizations (like RIAAthe most vocal supporters of increased copyright protection...and not the individual artists/producers? Has copyright moved out of the realm of protecting a creator's rights...and into the realm of business interests? Does that last question even need to be asked?