The enforcement of rational chat

InterLoc (formerly AcademicTalk) is a tool for synchronous online discussion, or chat, which has been specifically designed to force participants to follow the rules of rational academic discussion.

Its creators, Andrew Ravenscroft and Simon McAlister, were responding to concerns about the low levels of online debate - not only in public chatrooms, where dialogue can often take the form of "You suck!" "No, you suck!", but even in organised student discussions, where the tendency is for students to give each other an easy time and resort to "trading" opinions ("I think this." "I think that." "Okay, shall we go for a drink now?")

The InterLoc interface forces participants to start each message with one of a number of prescribed openers, not only to state a position ("I think...", "Let me explain...") but to ask questions ("Why do you think that...?" "Can you give an example...?") and make challenges ("I disagree because...", "An alternative view is...", "How reliable is that evidence...?) Student discussions with InterLoc are found to stay more on topic and go deeper than synchronous discussions conducted without it; in particular, students seem to be more willing to question and challenge each other when socially protected by the formal structure of the system.

Of course this goes directly against the cultural assumptions of freedom and spontaneity associated with online discussion and chat in particular, and some students reported resenting the restrictive openers. But as the authors comment: "It is only by being restrictive in some degree that they will have a positive benefit for the student, by forcing them to reformulate intuitive, reactive thoughts into a more well crafted and, hopefully, thoughtful contribution" (Final report, p. 37)

The InterLoc project's website includes details of publications as well as the latest version of the tool and links to other users. The list of message openers used in the original AcademicTalk is published as an appendix to McAlister, Ravenscroft and Scanlon (2004), "Combining interaction and context design to support collaborative argumentation using a tool for synchronous CMC", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, pp 194-204.

Techno-fear

People who have to manage information in their job are often worried about the loss of control entailed by new technologies - in particular social media, Web 2.0 etc.

"New technology: the threat to our information" is a wickedly satirical slidecast on this by Norman Lamont. I can't say much about it without spoiling the joke; you'll have to watch it for yourself. (It won't take you more than a couple of minutes.) I'll just say that it's a reflection of how quickly we adapt our expectations and our organisations with the arrival of new technology, and how quickly we forget that we've done so.

The "presenter" of the slidecast is a corporate manager, but the same joke could be done for academics too. My wife recalls a meeting, not so long ago, where the library staff's proposals to make more resources available to students over the internet was met with horror by lecturers, because that would mean that students might read things which they had not read themselves.

Benefits of e-learning: ROI or R&D?

Here's a nice graph, which I found in a JISC report with the compelling title Tangible benefits of e-learning (p.15). The authors used it to categorise their 37 case studies of e-learning in UK universities, and it's very useful to keep the different kinds of potential benefits clear in one's mind.

Here's how they explain the graph:

X Axis – Nature of issue. The x axis of the graph in Figure 1 shows the type of tangible benefit demonstrated and the sort of metrics that can be used to evaluate such benefits…. A well-defined problem such as how to assess large cohorts of students within a tight time-frame can be measured against a very specific and readily quantifiable set of metrics and that it is relatively easy to put accurate figures on time and cost savings. …Towards the middle of the scale we find activities where the intended benefit is to improve learners‟ understanding of a particular subject – in other words a pedagogically-driven change where the tangible benefits can be measured in terms of course or module pass rates or other direct measures of achievement. At the
far end of the scale, we encounter approaches intended to address far ‘softer’ and more complex issues of student engagement. …

Y Axis – e-Approach. The y axis shows how the ‘e-approaches’ differ in nature from those that seek to automate existing practices through those that add increased value by the application of information to those that ultimately seek to transform the learning process. The term ‘informate’ is taken from Zuboff (1988)…. Schein (1989) makes the further distinction between ‘informating down’ whereby control type information is passed downwards and ‘informating up’ whereby those closest to the issues pass information up the chain (in our case upwards from the student to the lecturer). It can thus be seen that the approaches clustered in the bottom left quadrant are those that represent the clearest return on investment (ROI) and it is easily possible to assess their scalability and the value for money represented by further investment. Those in the top right quadrant however are more research and development (R&D) in nature and in their present form may represent overheads without any immediately obvious return.

When you're talking to people about the use of technology in teaching, it can be helpful to clarify whether you're looking at ROI (saving time, effort and money, eg in development, production, revision, administration), R&D (eg virtual worlds, mobile interactivity, "blue skies" technologies), or most likely somewhere in between: improving learning and teaching by making it more engaging, more penetrating and more effective.

Assessment: oh no not another essay

A survey of written assignments in British higher education, for an ESRC project, helpfully lists 12 "genres" of student writing - useful for broadening your ideas if you're trying to design an assessment task:

• Case study: A description of a particular case with suggestions for future action, to understand professional practice (eg in business, medicine, or engineering).
• Critique: A description, explanation and evaluation to show understanding of the object of study and to show ability to assess its importance.
• Design specification: An explanation of the design of an item, including its purpose, parts, development and any testing of parts and procedures.
• Empathy writing: A letter, newspaper article or similar non-academic genre showing understanding and appreciation of the relevance of academic ideas by adapting them for a non-specialist readership.
• Essay: A piece of writing showing writer's ability to argue coherently and develop thinking and critical skills.
• Exercise: Data analysis or a series of responses to questions, to provide practice in key skills and to show knowledge of key concepts.
• Explanation: A descriptive account and explanation to show understanding of the object of study and ability to describe and/or assess its significance.
• Literature survey: A summary to show familiarity with literature relevant to the focus of study and ability to assess its place in literature generally.
• Methodology recount: A description of procedures undertaken by the writer, possibly including Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion, written to develop familiarity with disciplinary methods, and to record experimental findings.
• Narrative recount: A fictional or factual recount of events to develop awareness of motives and/or the behaviour of organisations or individuals (including oneself).
• Problem question: A text presenting relevant arguments around a problem, written to practise application of specific methods in response to simulated professional scenarios.
• Proposal: A text including an expression of purpose, a detailed plan, and a persuasive argument to demonstrate ability to make a case for future action.
• Research report: A text often including Literature Review, Methods, Findings, and Discussion, or several 'chapters' relating to the same theme, written to demonstrate ability to undertake a complete piece of research, including research design, and to appreciate its significance in the field.

More details, with examples from a variety of subjects, are in Table 4 (pp 23-26) of the full report (accessible from the link above).

Don't you wish your professor was cool like mine

Here's a great video of a 20 minute talk by Ken Robinson, former Professor of Arts Education at the University of Warwick, on how schools kill creativity.

Reasons why this is worth seeing:
(1) It's LOL funny. (I had dealings with Ken Robinson nearly 20 years ago, and I knew he spoke very well, but never dreamed he'd be so good at stand-up!)
(2) There's an interesting and provocative message: that creativity should be as important as literacy and numeracy in the curriculum
(3) The parent website TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) is a useful source of videos of inspiring talks on a range of subjects
(4) It's a reminder of how good a good lecture can be - useful to remember when people cite "the lecture" as the archetype of a passive-receptive transmission-of-knowledge pedagogy which has no place in the Web 2.0 world.