User talk:Leighblackall/An ethical framework for ubiquitous learning
- 1 To be submitted to
- 2 Ethical learning analytics
- 3 Links from Bee
- 4 Begin second draft
- 5 Network peer review
- 5.1 Feedback from Keith Lyons
- 5.2 Feedback from Joelle Vandermensbrugghe
- 5.3 Feedback from Craig Bottomley (Botts)
- 5.4 Comment from BotheredByBees
- 5.5 A productive development meeting process
- 5.6 "Its not about the technology"
- 5.7 How many Australian's own smart phones?
- 5.8 Feedback from James Neill
- 6 Notes on Outputs
- 7 Initial academic development meeting
- 8 Uberveillance
To be submitted to
I've been invited to present something to ISTAS 2013. I've decided to finish and submit this paper for it. This event and its topic draws me back to the origional intention of the paper - a critique of technological deterministic thinking in education circles. Leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Ethical learning analytics
George Seimens posted a link to a work in progress at the Learning Analytics Google Group https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bBRCyldBoS0ywDhNIgB9f4k7-hLUzviu3HUX7JBUDzQ/edit?pli=1 Leighblackall (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Links from Bee
I have been reading and learning a lot lately. Three links to material that may (or not) complement your reading.
Meier, P. (2011). A List of Completely Wrong Assumptions About Technology Use in Emerging Economies. irevolution
Fish, A. (2011). Information Imperialism?. savageminds
Lasar, M. (2011). How Robber Barons hijacked the "Victorian Internet". arstechnica tech-policy news
Barbara Dieu 7 July 2011.
- Thanks B. If they don't compliment this, then they should. I was advised to tone down the critique on tech centrism, but am having second thoughts. I think I should keep it, but find a way to be less direct. These will help, Thanks Leighblackall 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Begin second draft
I have begun a second draft. My aim is to take Botts' advice, along with Keith's, Rob's (not yet recorded here, but is verbal), and James, and dramatically reduce the 'critique' and move it to the back, and start the paper with more of a position statement, and focus on the use of a selected group of authors to establish a supporting ethical framework for that position, and set out a range of operating principles that support that framework.
ETHICS > PRINCIPLES > METHODS > OUTPUTS < PRINCIPLES
I'm using Holgrem's structure for explaining Permaculture, where he established 3 core ethics for the design concept and 12 principles for supporting that ethical position, and guiding a user's development of methods and practices. Out of those methods and practices are built-in feedback mechanisms, or Outputs, used to hold up against the principles to see if the method is sound, or if the principles need changing. This design framework has been extremely successful in making the concept and practice of Permaculture accessible the world over, and largely without the teaching support of formal educational institutions.
Author's I'm using to develop this framework include: Illich's Deschooling and Tools for Conviviality; Alexander and co's A Pattern Language; Postman's Technopoly; Lave and Wenger's Situated Learning; Bowers' Let Them Eat Data; and possibly Stallman's Free Software if technology is to feature. I also want to bring in Networked Learning, as a suggested method for achieving ubiquity in learning. It is a method for learning that may have a chance at developing a shared cultural understanding, and be useful in building social and institutional acceptance and support for such a method. But I have a problem in that there is a claim to an authoritative definition for networked learning (see talk page of the Wikipedia article for Networked learning), and it places information and communications technology central to that definition. To relate networked learning as an example method for ubiquitous learning, I must first try and establish networked learning as not being determined by technology. In many ways, the critique I had here for ubiquitous learning, equally applies to networked learning.
Additionally, at the University of Canberra I have been in conversations with Dan and others about spaces within the University that are being called Commons. There is a new and central space called The Teaching Commons, next to another larger space called The Learning Commons. These spaces are theoretically open spaces for anyone to use, without appointment or permission. I observed however, that within the Teaching Commons in particular, are spaces more like rooms, and these spaces tend to be regularly booked and used in a private manor with such frequency that in effect they are like any other room in the University, and less like the Commons being envisioned. So, it is easy to then identify what space within the larger Commons, is actually the common space. Dan is researching spacial design for learning, and I hope he will bring his work into the open so I can easily connect with it online, but I plan to use this observation of a more 'true' common space, to identify other spaces like it, and conceptually illustrate spaces that support networked learning and ubiquity, not just with learning institutions.
Leighblackall 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Network peer review
Here is a copy of the letter sent out to a range of academics, seeking their review to this essay:
The Ubiquitous Learning critique I've been working on, has reached what I consider to be a first draft, and needs review and feedback. I'm asking you for a >200 word response, because we either already have a relationship of this kind, or because I have cited your work in this essay, and/or I hope to establish such a relationship with you. After this stage of review, I aim to see this essay published in at least one academic journal.
This is part of my work towards an award of PhD, following an open and networked process, and writing a series of finished works to achieve that. I am not formally enrolled with any institution in this pursuit, in an effort to preserve academic integrity, and to demonstrate proposed new methods of pursuing such recognition.
So far, in this paper, I have sought collaboration and feedback from a wide informal network, taking their contributions and feedback into account to get it to this stage. Now, it enters a period of review from an academic network (that's you, if you're willing). I'm seeking a range of responses to this essay, that I may publish as feedback, and attempt to incorporate the suggestions into the next phase of its editing before submitting it to journals that accept work created in this fashion.
Please, if you are willing to offer me advice, challenge and correction, critique and review, I wish to be at liberty to publish this in the discussion page of its wiki, which then assumes a copyright status of Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike.
I hope some of you are attracted to this process, and to the subject of my critique, and I very much look forward to any responses you can afford.
- This paper reviews the term ubiquitous learning and its influence on educational development, including wider considerations of technology in society, and delving into problems of technological determinism. It draws attention to an absence of critique, and proposes that the phrase become less about device, platform, applications, or ideas of technologically 'enhanced' pedagogy, to something more like an ethical framework, a concept of values and principles that guide perspectives and practices in learning. Ubiquitous learning then, becomes a term more associated with situated learning, conviviality, and open access.
Kind regards and respect to your own work,
Feedback from Keith Lyons
I apologise for the delay in responding to your ubiquitous learning paper. I apologise too for locating my comments here ... if they are in the wrong space.
There is a lot to discuss! I had a look at printing out a Pdf of the article but decided against it.
- I have some comments about the text and will share these in person if that is OK.
- My big issue, as you know, is about innocence. After reading your critique I wondered what would happen if you started with the position that ubiquitous learning is an ethical position and that time had freed us from the tyranny of hegemony. I wondered too if we could sort out the historical context in which Illich wrote from the cultural universals that appear across time and space.
I think what you have written is what some people refer to as a position paper. I am keen to discover how writing this piece has moved you on in your journey towards "situated learning, conviviality, and open access".
The delightful characteristic of non-linear environments is that you can point to wherever you wish and invite a reader to discover text and ideas.
I wonder, in conclusion, if you have developed a straw argument. Are the ethical foundations you propose already in place for groups of like-minded travellers?
Keith Lyons 04:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Keith, I relocated your feedback into this section.
- Interestingly, Craig Bottomley (below) also makes the suggestion to start the paper from the ethical position. I very much like that idea, along with what I understand about the position of innocence. I think once this paper is completed and submitted to Ubiquitous Learning type journals and conferences, that I will do as Craig and you suggest, for reworking into the PhD - as a position paper, yes.
- Is it a straw argument? I don't know... to the extent to which I understand the educational development circles that have so far been lead by technological developments, and arguably without clearly defined ethics and principles, I don't think the argument is straw. I think the educational development sector should reflect on this, and consider what are its ethical framework and operating principles. For example.. with regard to software, why isn't open source software more readily used, or even made available in Australian educational settings? It is after all, true to the scientific method, and so echoes old operating principles that academia has traditionally followed. Instead, we have weasel words kreeping into the sector, such as "business ready" and "enterprise" and "support" which sometimes have different meanings, and speak to principles quite alien to the traditional ethics and principles of academia, and perhaps more to a silently emerging ideology of neo liberalism, and academic capitalism (Awbrey 2003)
- Looking forward to seeing you in person then, to discuss this at more length, and ensure I fully comprehend what you are pointing to here.
- Thanks Keith --Leighblackall 06:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Feedback from Joelle Vandermensbrugghe
Interesting reading - tried to see the research project burried in it and can see that there are a long list of possibles. E.g. Will you test theory? Will you examine how ethics, values and principles being used or envisioned in the adoption of technology and systems are being communicated? (and how - case sudy?)or not communicated? --Joelle
- Thanks Joelle.. yeah, there could be many. To be honest, such projects are still emerging and refining as I come to terms with, and come to grips with the PhD criteria, and what it means to be a qualified researcher. Currently I am involved with many projects that relate to the ideas of this paper.. such as A proposed policy for Intellectual Property at the University of Canberra where it relates to the framework and principles of openness and freedom. Also, Open academic practice and Excellence in Research Australia which is primarily a quantitative project that will attempt to determine to what degree research governance in Australia is affecting openness and freedom, as well as conviviality and even learning as situated.
- So in short, my idea is to do more work on the development of an ethical and principled approach to learning, research and educational development, and to undergo a series of research projects that aim to test and reflect on that framework. All this could change again, but I'm aware of the need to draw in a focus... :) --Leighblackall 03:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Feedback from Craig Bottomley (Botts)
not sure if you wanted this added as part of the overall talo conversation or not - so i took the more personal route. feel free to repost to talo if you want.
firstly the picky little things...
in the ubiquitous learning section, just after the link to ubilearn, forth should be fourth. in the its not about the technology, or is it? section you mention the film the net.... just after that link you talk about fred and lutz that needs to be turner and dammbeck.
and now the good stuff...
it has only been a recent discovery for me that ubiquitous learning referred to the link between technology and education. previously i had assumed that the concept was more about the idea that learning should be seen as an activity that can happen everywhere and anywhere, with or without a formal framework, and ultimately regardless of the use or otherwise of technology.
my reading of your critique suggests that you are favouring this idea as well.
i therefore wonder whether it is worthwhile making more of this in your critique. maybe take illich and his ideas and stick them up near the top. use that as your springboard into the ubiquity of learning which then lends itself to a further specialisation into the use of technology to facilitate the everywhereness of learning. to me this takes the current ubiquitous learning model which starts with technology (as you so rightly say) and ends with learning and turns it on its head. i think the critique should mirror the concept.
one of the other struggles which you touch on but perhaps warrants further deconstruction is the fact that the current educational philosophies of competency and the isolated development of skill sets really don't lend themselves easily to the idea of ubiquitous learning. your example of the en route art is a classic example. the art works because it is as much about the journey as it is about any sort of end product. the line between what is and isn't art is blurred by the participant's approach and their own self conceived ideas and ideals. on the other hand, teaching students in a tafe course is all about the end product. their is absolutely no credence given anywhere to the journey.
what we end up with is a bastardised version of something that vaguely correlates to education but in fact is actually teaching. institutionalised delivery of core facts and figures, followed up with an assessment that merely proves that students are capable of spewing back the recently ingested information. i personally struggle on a daily basis with how this approach can have anything other than negative long term effects on students.
there's a lot of good stuff to be read on the failings of training packages and certifications like the taa. i've got a thesis full of them if you're interested.
anyways - enough of my ramblings and rantings - have a great day and take or leave anything i've said.
- Thanks Botts, I've copied your valuable feedback into the discussion page of the wiki, and will send it back into TALO.
- Good spotting on the spelling, I need as much as that as possible. Fourth is fixed.. I'll hold off on the surnames however, I want to see if I can get away with first names. Only 'cause I cringe a bit using surnames...
- Bring 'true ubiquitous learning' to the top is an excellent suggestion, and one I will now work on. It will be difficult as it involves a pretty significant restructure. If you have more specific ideas how, please let me know. Many thanks on this suggestion though.. it solves a dilemma I was having!
- Regarding the problem of formal education and institutionalised learning being so far removed from these ideals, my only response to date on practical terms, is for those who work in such conditions, to go about their work so that it compliments ubiquity and conviviality. I've been pretty consistent with this over the years, rejecting education conducted in Learning Management Systems, encouraging open education using popular social media like Wikipedia and Youtube. So, perhaps I add that to the Examples section - which by the way needs more work.
- Many thanks for this feedback Botts, much appreciated. Leighblackall 07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment from BotheredByBees
botheredbybees said... 12 April 2011 Hi Leigh, hope the talk went well. I've been thinking a bit about how some converging technologies will affect the ubiquitous learning scene. It starts with the plummeting cost of personal storage (2 terrabytes for less than $100) - which means we're close to being able to record our every waking moment without breaking the bank. Couple this with something like Path (which allows for fine tuning of who sees what - a privacy enabled facebook if you like). Add social bookmarking/tagging we're set for a collection of activities that will overshadow the library of congress in a week. Want to see how to lay a course of bricks? - watch it being done in 14 different cultures... or from 3 different viewpoints (the bricky, the bricky's labouror and the builder) - add some smarts that render 3D images from video and you've got a virtual world ready learning object set up for some interaction. Want to encourage people to develop these 'real life' resources? Add an interface like Kickstart.org so that end users can vote on where the government spends it's education dollars
A productive development meeting process
Last week I met with Alex Hayes, long time educational developer in the vocational education and training sector, particularly focused on mobile and text-less learning and assessment, now in the business of wearable cameras, and video based assessment.
He and I discussed the various critiques we might bring to "ubiquitous learning", adding this to the paper in progress:
Another consideration in ubiquitous learning (as technologically determined) is Ũberveillance. Ũberveillance, and its three core attributes - sousveillance, dataveillance and surveillance, impacts on privacy, personal security, choice, freedom and other values - such as self conception, and accordant behaviours - such as 'opting in', acceptance, and participation.alexanderhayes 09:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Alex and I had what we thought was some pretty ground breaking discussion in the Commons last week, and I'm attempting to process it and add it to the wiki. Our thoughts around something like a permiable line between the practical affordances of technology - that is commonly covered in publications, and changeable dimensions of person-hood, even spiritual existence, are proving difficult to capture in text.. Alex termed it The Dermal Layer, referencing the current taboo of under-the-skin devices, to highlight the faint existance of an ethical dimension all too ignored in our futuristic era! I have attempted to build up the opening paragraphs to the paper, and will keep reshaping it, adding to it, and changing it over coming weeks.
I found it quite productive, this meeting and process with Alex. To sit for a morning and converse, white board draw, and project up key papers and other artifacts, and then to construct referenced sentences in the wiki, as discrete, isolated edit events, was quite a brainstorm. The tieing together of these disparate concepts can happen much later - remembering that the edit history and all the recorded revisions in the wiki, is a document in its own right, valued by at least some other researchers.
Perhaps, if anyone is inspired and available, we could try this process again? Just a one to one talk, taking time to pause and review references, and then construct sentences straight into the wiki.
I'm sick today, and possibly tomorrow.. some weird stomach bug, but will be hanging out in the Commons later in the week if anyone wants to give it a try.
Leighblackall 22:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"Its not about the technology"
In a discussion on the TALO email list, Michael Coghlan passes a link to his paper WHERE IS THE ‘M’ IN INTERACTIVITY, FEEDBACK AND ASSESSMENT? where he begins by referring to Leonard Low's reflections on how Mobile Learning should not be about the devices, or the technology, but more about the social affordances... I responded to this with: Leighblackall 04:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- But to say "its not about the technology" is too disingenuous, almost cliché now. I think a critique of ubiquitous learning needs to encompass a critique of the technology as well, distinguishing the problems technically, ecologically, financially (to individuals) and socially, not without acknowledging the affordances. Then we'd critique the applications in education, such as school, VET and HE, not without mentioning the furthering of corporate sponsored education (drilling them for the abandonment of social responsibility) and then going into the zone your already in when you refer to Leonard's essentially 'situated learning' argument - that this technology has enabled an always available, always connectible, opportunity to learn, and that the social phenomenon we can observe on corporate media now, has long been waiting for this opportunity. I think I'd be concluding that public education institutions are completely flat footed, unable to respond to the overwhelming nature of this media and technology, and that instead of trying to compete, embrace, or replicate, they should look for ways they can enhance and protect those opportunities people have in learning... I'm taking these notes in the discussion page of the wiki if you're up for it? Leighblackall 04:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The medium may be part of the message, but the message often needs to be communicated through more than one medium and by more than one modality. I routinely use multiple media and multiple venues, so as to send a consistent message as many ways as possible, ranging from scholarly essays to anecdotes, XtraNormal™ cartoonish dialogues, atrocious puns, political satire, stirring speeches, puckish song parodies, comic operas, and lunatic psychodrama. Once in a while, one of the alternate modalities works when everything else is utterly failing in an epic manner. —Moulton 04:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- But Moulton, to what extent do you suppose the medium is affecting your message? So many times I find, I send an email only to be misread, I write a blog post only to be misunderstood, I start a paragraph in wiki, only to be accused of bias, I watch a video on my phone, only to catch my impatience with the bandwidth, etc etc. In many ways, these mediums set the tone, the mood, and context of the message, especially in its reading. If I read you right, you mean to say that consistency of message across mediums, gets the message through despite the medium. Is that right? Leighblackall 09:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- The medium shapes what messages may be conveyed. Compare to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which postulates that our thinking is constrained by the languages we rely on. Whenever a new medium of expression becomes available, I exploit it to convey messages that didn't pass very well through earlier media. The telephone conveys more information (tone of voice) than the telegraph. Video conveys more information (facial expressions) than telephony. Stories convey more information than facts or theories. Musical comedies convey more information than oratorical speeches. Every time I am able to obtain more information bandwidth, I augment the medium to add another dimension of reinforcement to the original message. See Four-Channel Communication. Notice which of the four channels are missing here. —Moulton 11:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Moulton, this is thought provoking, and I think it can be weaved into the first section of this paper "Its not about the technology, or is it?". I'm still left wondering, how you are sure you're own message and intent are in command of the technological influences? I know that mine change, and I don't think I am ever certain how to say what, through which. This might be just down to experience I guess, I very much feel like I'm stabbing in the dark and just getting lucky sometimes. As time goes on though, I think I'm getting better at stabbing, but its all still pretty dark. Things that are coming to mind include the sense that local/real connection is disrupted by this international/specialist connection online.. glocalisation - where I see it as a dysfunction, thinking and acting "globally", no local at all. Or that the Internet embodies certain ideological perspectives, beautifully captured in a slogan I read somewhere, "on the Internet, everyone's an American". At this point I'm still only vaguely on a trail. I've posted a few blog posts as the thoughts take shape: Transparency, openness, trade and politics (June 2010), The New Colonialism in OER (August 2009) Leighblackall 10:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I dunno that one is ever sure they have fully mastered the latent power of any communication medium or channel. I am always looking for better narratives, more vivid metaphors, more lyrical or poetic modes of expression. My number one problem in communicating ideas is that a lot of the ideas I want to communicate are fundamentally grounded in mathematical reasoning. It's notoriously difficult to convey mathematical ideas in mere words. I used to do computer animations, because that was almost the only effective way to communicate mathematical ideas. One thing I have learned is that if one is among the first to exploit a new medium, more people will take a gander, because the medium is often more intriguing than any curiosity about the embedded message. —Moulton 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
How many Australian's own smart phones?
Hello - I am very NEW to this - and have just started to read the article you are working towards. Can I make a comment re the "in Australia today, every second person now carries a smart phone". Well we know that is not true when we consider who "Australians" include - I think you may have meant Australians who can afford one? Australians who can get 3G (or whetever it is) access? I am sure you are not talking about the Australians who are living under the poverty line, living in remote regions and who are illiterate and innumerate. Given I am new to this, I am hoping that my comment is an appropriate for this? Pls tell me of the etiquette here ..! Robyn
- Hi Robyn! You're in the right place, and thanks for leaving this comment. You are quite right! 1 in every two Australians do not own a smart phone, so I've to check and corrected this sentence to read: " Later, synchronisation with popular social networking web services, application markets, and of course the mega marketing campaigns, solidified uptake of these technologies to the point where in 2009 48% of phone imports to Australia were smartphones.". I'm thinking your identification of this actually helps the argument I'm trying to make. 1. that we leave out so many people in our thinking about technology uptake. 2. and that is symptomatic of our blind utopianism for this technology, and 3. the ideological influence these technologies have, is class based and disproportionate! Awesome!
- I took another look at the reference. That article by Trevor Clarke: Love affair with smartphones to deepen: Analyst. Australians are tipped to purchase more smartphones then other mobile phones in coming years. forecasts that 62% of mobile phones sold in Australia will be smarts by 2015, and that by August 2010 - 4,422,451 3G devices sold with over 600,000 in July alone, and that the total number of Australian smartphone shipments exceeded 4 million as of 2009, meaning 48.1 per cent of new mobile device shipments - and right there is my mistake.
- The Australian Bureau of Statistics has very little work on phones, I could only find: Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2009: INTERNET USE AND MOBILE PHONES which states that 31% (841,400) of children had a mobile phone in 2009.
- Thanks! Leighblackall 04:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Feedback from James Neill
Leigh - sorry, I'm a bit of a slow learner and I've started this a few times - one reason I haven't really progressed I think has been that the current version starts off at a million miles an hour - pretty much straight into a critique of ubiquitous learning. By then, I have been left behind, still pondering first of all, what is ubiquity? (that's where I am now) - and then next to try to work out what is ubiquitous learning. Then I can get on board in a more substantial way with the critique. Suggestion: Take some more time to explain and explore ubiquity and ubiqitous learning. PS Ubiquitous is a bugger of a word to spell - that should count it out alone! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just revisiting the first section on UL - do you have references/evidence/argument to support: "Ubiquitous learning became popular among commentators of education and technology around the time wireless Internet was more common in their domestic settings, and portable computing devices were developing more capabilities and popularity.". Maybe because I'm unfamiliar with the UL term, I kind of want some convincing that this phrase/concept did become, as suggested, (and still is?) popular. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- James! you got me.. I wondered if anyone would draw me on that claim. It comes from my own experience... supported in some way by footnote 3 - but I would still need to show that the time of these posts by Downes and others, was the same time Wifi etc was catching on.. and even then its a stretch, I admit. Intuitively it feels right, but .. yeah, well.
- Regarding your first comment.. I'm thinking long and hard on deleting this section and moving it all away from a critique on ubiquitous learning in computing circles, and focusing instead on the proposal to establish an ethical framework with operating principles, and then explaining how I personally came to those. Kind of an auto ethnographic path.
- This thinking comes originally from Botts' feedback, reinforced by Keith and Robert's verbal, and now yours. The first section, ie the critique, may not be needed. Its a writing and communication style I think I'd like to develop. One that does not set up something to refute, only to offer another thing in its place. This form of argumentation comes from my undergraduate years, were I was discouraged from writing in the first person, and to set up arguments this way. Instead of setting something up and arguing against it, could I begin with a proposal, and explain how I came to it - leaving the reader to form an argument if they're that way inclined. Would this work as an academic form of writing even? See Keith's blog post for an example..
- So, do you think this essay would be better without the critique? Would it help you get into the more meaningful content - the proposed scope of ethical framework for thinking about education, development, and technology adoption?
- --Leighblackall 23:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK - yes, this all makes and yes, I think it could work really well to split this into a separate critique of UL (I did a quick search and found edited books and a journal and numerous references, so you can back that claim up I think) but as you and others suggest, start here instead with laying out an argument for an ethical framework (for education?) and then some principles. I can see this fitting in to the grander scheme e.g., by laying out groundwork for an IP policy, open journals etc. as mechanisms towards openness and egalitarian/emancipatory education and knowledge development. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Notes on Outputs
I'd like to create a video that summarises the key points and arguments emergent in this paper. It should be accessible to as wider audience as possible. Inspired by Pinky's Scary School Nightmare for example.
The Wikipedia entry for ubiquitous learning is in need of work. Consider working towards making it a featured article, as a process for the necessary literature review prior to writing this paper.
- International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction
- Journal of Educational Technology & Society - special Special Issue on “Innovative technologies for the seamless integration of formal and informal learning” 10 January 2012
13th ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing 2011
13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp 2011) will be held in Beijing, China on September 17-21, 2011.
Ubicomp is the premier outlet for novel research contributions that advance the state of the art in the design, development, deployment, evaluation and understanding of ubiquitous computing systems. Ubicomp is an interdisciplinary field of research and development that utilizes and integrates pervasive, wireless, embedded, wearable and/or mobile technologies to bridge the gaps between the digital and physical worlds. The Ubicomp 2011 program features keynotes, technical paper sessions, specialized workshops, live demonstrations, posters, video presentations, panels, industrial exhibition and a Doctoral Colloquium.
This looks like an ERA "A" ranked conference but need to confirm - 44132 Ubiquitous Computing UbiComp A 0805 Distributed Computing
Ubiquitous Learning Conference 2011
University of California, 11 to 12 November 2011, in Berkeley, California.
The Ubiquitous Learning Conference investigates the uses of technologies in learning, including devices with sophisticated computing and networking capacities which are now pervasively part of our everyday lives’ from laptops to mobile phones, games, digital music players, personal digital assistants and cameras. The Conference explores the possibilities of new forms of learning using these devices not only in the classroom, but in a wider range of places and times than was conventionally the case for education. Ubiquitous Learning is made possible in part by the affordances of the new, digital media. What’s new about it? What’s not-so-new? What are the main challenges of access to these new learning opportunities? These are the key themes and scope and concerns of the Conference and its companion Journal.
International Workshop on Ubiquitous Human-Computer Interaction 2011
August 11-13, 2011 - Enshi, China
The International Workshop on Ubiquitous Human-Computer Interaction (UbiHCI 2011) will run in conjunction with the 4th International Conference on Human-centric Computing (HumanCom-11) in Enshi, China on August 11-13, 2011.
UbiHCI Workshops will bring together researchers to discuss the challenges and potential solutions for effective interaction with Ubiquitous applications. It covers the design, evaluation and application of techniques and approaches for all mobile and ubiquitous computing devices and services.
Honolulu, Hawaii: October 17-21, 2011
E-Learn--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education is an international conference organized by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) and co-sponsored by the International Journal on E-Learning.
This annual conference serves as a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of information on research, development, and applications of all topics related to e-Learning in the Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education sectors.
http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/ ED-MEDIA 2011 - Lisbon, Portugal June 27 - July 1, 2011
ED-MEDIA - World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications is an international conference, organized by the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). This annual conference serves as a multi-disciplinary forum for the discussion and exchange of information on the research, development, and applications on all topics related to multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications/distance education.
Initial academic development meeting
Rob, Greg, Leigh, and Ian met face to face in Canberra yesterday, to discuss directions. Here's notes:
Robert is going to look into which Journal and/or conference to work towards - ones with the greater return in terms of that abominable but required ERA barb.
From this we'll have clearer idea of output and timeframes.
The thinking is that we now spend time dropping in links and key paragraphs from any readings we think useful for the 6 topics so far nominated (I consolidated some this morning).
At some point I think we each adopt a topic or two, to build text around.
- What have we learnt from 30 years of using technology in education?
- History of 'ubiquitous learning'
- Its not about the technology, or is it?
- Ubiquitous learning: everywhere, everytime and everybody
- Propinquity - the missing link in ubiquitous learning?
- Ubiquitous learning, as in freedom
This list could easily produce a paper for each topic... (which is reasonable through effective collaboration techniques I believe), or we think of the paper we're writing as a first in a series, this one setting out an intro to subsequent papers/book/video/...
Personally, I believe my strength is in 3, and 6 but can offer things to all the others.
So when Rob gives us targets and timeframes over all, we each adopt topics to build up into a draft.
Leighblackall 22:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Who owns schools
Jordan and I enjoyed a viewing of Ian's 1979 film, Who Owns Schools at the National Film and Sound Archive yesterday. Many things impressed us about it. For me personally, and in no particular order:
The rapid editing and story telling for a 1970s film must have been seen as futuristic! Certainly demonstrating great skill on the part of the film editor.
The open ended moral to the story, being careful not to prescribe, even expressing self consciousness in this point, highlighted by a skit toward the end, featured 3 stereotypical teachers forecasting the future of a 15 year old girl. This scene in particular caused me to reflect on my own opinions and actions regarding education systems.
But at the very end, as is so often the case, the film finally asked children the question, who owns schools. Revealing answers too, perhaps revealing the film's intent in the first place.
An enjoyable, funny film, about an all too serious question, from a time long enough ago to give us some perspective. What perspective? That not much has changed these last 32 years! The would-be change agents have achieved so little in the face of it all. All part of the larger failure of the "Left" But why? What is this invisible force that overwhelms all attempts at change (revolution), is it as Marx would have it? False consciousness and hegemony? The fact that Queensland bureaucrats banned this film says something of the kind?
As for the wiki that might become our collaborative paper for some darker corner of the web known as an ERA ranked journal, I have made a few more edits and additions. I thought to do more consolidating of sections, down to now 4:
- History of 'ubiquitous learning'
- Its not about the technology, or is it?
- Propinquity - the missing link in ubiquitous learning?
- Ubiquitous learning - as in freedom
And I've found some research that has been ignored for years in our futuristic techno-love, reading comprehension rates are significantly reduced in screen based environments. See section 2 entry by Pam Hook. I've also added reference to a book, and a documentary film, looking at the link between 1960's counter culture and the cyber culture utopianism of today. See section 1.
This email is also copied into my blog as notes about the film and the paper we're working towards, and for future reference after it is all long lost in our respective drowning inboxes.
Leighblackall 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering what Überveillance means in the networked learning context for you alexanderhayes 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see a possible connection with learning analytics Alex, where people can self assess their learning and reflect on their directions. Leighblackall 11:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)