Multimedia oppimisprojektina 2 (Finnish only)

Keskustelimme luennoilla muun muassa tekijänoikeuksista, ja tarkennettuna tekijänoikeuksista oppimateriaaleissa. Luennolla eniten ajatuksia herätti väite, että oppimateriaalien jakaminen netissä ilmaisesti ja avoimesti on varastamista. Väite perustuu siihen, että oppimateriaalien jakaminen ilmaiseksi on pois oppimateriaaleja työkseen työstäviltä ja heidän palkkakukkarostaan. Tottahan se on, että se on heiltä pois. Varastamistahan se ei kuitenkaan ole.

Samalla, kun oppimateriaaleja ja tieteellisiä artikkeleita löytyy Internetistä ilmaiseksi, täytyy kehittää erittäin hyvää medialukutaitoa ja kriittistä suhtautumista niihin. Sama koskee myös toki kirjallisia, kustannettuja oppimateriaaleja – ne myös vanhenevat nopeasti. Taitava opettaja onkin perillä opetussuunnitelmasta ja sen vaatimasta sisällöstä ja ajankäytöstä, ja osaa käyttää materiaaleja sen vaatimusten rajoissa.

Olen samaa mieltä siitä, että Optiman kaltaiset, suljetut oppimisympäristöt eivät saisi olla ainoita paikkoja, joissa oppimateriaaleja jaetaan. Avoimet oppimateriaalit kehittävät opetusalan ammattilaisten keskistä ammattiosaamista – samalla, kun jaetaan materiaaleja, jaetaan rivien välissä uusia ja innovatiivisia tai tuttuja, turvallisia ja hyväksi koettuja tapoja opettaa ja oppia.

Toisaalta ymmärrän hyvin, jos joku kokee nähneensä paljon vaivaa tiettyjen materiaalien luomiseen ja tahtoo pitää ne omassa käytössään. Eiväthän kaikki valokuvaajatkaan jaa mestariteoksiaan ilmaiseksi käytettäviksi netissä. Samalla tavoin opettaja voi ansaita leipänsä ja työpaikkansa olemalla erityisen hyvä ja tuottelias ja pitämällä tuotoksensa, eli oppimateriaalinsa, omana valttikorttinaan työmarkkinoilla.

Advertisements
Posted in Misc | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Multimedia oppimisprojektina 1 (Finnish only)

Multimedia on sanana monelle tuttu lähinnä multimediaviesteistä, jotka ovat tänä päivänä jo liki historiaa. Todellisuudessa multimedialla tarkoitetaan usean eri median yhdistelmää. Tällä tarkoitetaan sitä, että samassa mediassa yhdistetään esimerkiksi kuvaa, ääntä, tekstiä, liikettä jne. Oma suhteeni multimediaa on vaihteleva, sillä olen tehnyt multimediatuotoksia lähinnä koulusuorituksina peruskoulussa. Teimme videoita ja animaatioita mm. kuvaamataidossa ja atk-tunneilla. Sen enempää en ole itse multimediaa luonut. Multimediatuotoksiin kuitenkin itse törmään jatkuvasti, enimmäkseen television ja netin välityksellä.

Multimedian itse yhdistän helposti mainontaan, sillä mainonnassa käytetään usein aikatehokkaasti useita medioita yhtäaikaisesti. Esimerkiksi kaikki ne lukuisat televisiosta tulevat automainokset kestävät joitain kymmeniä sekunteja, mutta niihin on usein yhdistetty liikkuva videokuva, musiikkia, ääniä ja tekstiä.

Mainos välittää samanaikaisesti monenlaisia viestejä: faktoja, tunnetiloja, mielikuvia. Kuluttajalle kerrotaan, mikä tuote on,: auton malli, erityisominaisuudet ja hinta joko äänen tai tekstin avulla. Samanaikaisesti väläytellään autoa liikkeessä, videolla, ja mässäillään sillä kuinka nopea, mutta turvallinen, tehokas, mutta sulavalinjainen tämä tuote onkaan. Taustalla soiva musiikki korostaa haluttua mielikuvaa: perheystävällinen, nuorekas, luksus ja/tai turvallinen.

Mielestäni multimedia soveltuukin parhaiten sellaiseen käyttötarkoitukseen, jossa tahdotaan välittää tietoa tai mielikuvia mahdollisimman nopeasti ja tehokkaasti. Nyt kun tarkemmin ajattelee, voisinkin päätellä olevani jonkinlainen multimedian uhri. Kaukosäätimeen on niin paljon helpompi tarttua kuin kirjaan. Dokumentti on houkuttelevampi kuin historialliset artikkelit. Monipuolinen on mielenkiintoisempi kuin yksipuolinen.

Posted in Misc | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reflecting my learning, part II

As it is almost the end of November, it’s time for the second reflection part of the Learning theory course. I’ll start from my expectations for the online working on the chapters.

I hoped that the second part would provide us collaborative working in action. In the end it became more cooperative than collaborative. I was eager to work with our new colleagues from Estonia and Norway, but I knew that since our studies differed quite a bit, we would have to negotiate a lot. This turned out to be true. We all had different viewpoints, which provided us with a wide range of ideas, but also challenged decision-making. As expected, our group dynamics were versatile: some were “louder” participants and others were more quiet and reserved. Therefore our viewpoints were dominated by the louder participants, as expected.

The chapter, our product, became diverse. Maybe not as whole as I hoped, but it’s still something to be proud of. I didn’t expect our multinational teamwork to go smoothly, and it didn’t, the biggest challenges being timetabling and dividing work. Our course’s online implementation goes to show why even technology-enrichened learning – especially collaborative, goal-set learning – requires mentoring. Then again, even without mentors, we had people taking certain roles on their own: leadership and active participation, but also as a downside passive participation.

The hardest question when reflecting the second part is probably “What are the most important things you have learned during the second part of the course?”. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve learned anything completely new and mindblowing this month relating to this project, but moreover the project build up bit by bit on top of my previous knowledge and experience. Overall for the course in future I would recommend  smaller group sizes (we had 11 participants) and more concrete timetabling.

Posted in Learning Theory and Pedagogical Use of Technology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Reflecting my learning, part I

October has arrived, rainy weathers take over and it slowly starts to get colder day by day. The first part of my LET studies is almost over. This means that it’s time to look back at what we’ve learned.

The main two things that come to my mind about our studies so far are the presentations and study circles. The presentations were nicely put together, every group put a lot of effort in them. It was interesting to follow through the differences between the countries. The other main thing that comes to my mind, the theory studying and the study circles, were a lot of work. The articles were not all so easy to follow and I found myself confused by many things in them. Later, reflecting back on the study circle working, I find it very helpful. The visualization of our thinking made the big picture clearer. I could also put forth the questions I had and the overall confusion I had about the articles.

I found the study circles helpful myself and I bet they were helpful for the rest of our group as well. We talked about the topics, not only about the article, but also about the theories and history of the research behind it. We also took the study findings and adapted them to real-life situations we’ve had or theoretical circumstances.
The study circles not only made us summarize and discuss the articles, they also elucidated collaborative working in action. I noticed that collaborative studying is easier when you somewhat know where everybody’s coming from: what kind of theoretical background they have and in what kind of perspectives do they see when discussing the article. We had a heterogeneous group, people with different educational backgrounds with the combining factor of our LET studies.

Overall I liked our working methods in the intro and learning theory courses: first the theory, then the application. It’s very effective and gives the student opportunities to put the theories in to practice, rather than just read through the materials, try to memorize them and then have the exam (although we did have this as well). The implementation of the theories made it easier to understand and easier to remember in the future.

My expectations for the second part are not that clear to me, since I don’t feel that I really have expectations for it for the one way or the other. What I mean by it is that I assume that we’ll have lots of different opinions and we’re going to have to do a lot of consent on many things, since we’re going to work with people we don’t know and won’t be able to see and thus it’s harder to get to know each other. Nevertheless, I’m going for the second part with an open mind.

Posted in Learning Theory and Pedagogical Use of Technology | Tagged | Leave a comment

Affordances with Wikis

The last portfolio assignment for the Introduction course was to choose one of the technological tools we’ve used in ICT workshops and then to evaluate the affordances when using the tool. I chose Wikis for my evaluation. There was no special reason for my choice other than that I’m familiar with Wikis, I feel like I can use them efficiently for learning purposes and I understand the concept well.

I wasn’t familiar with affordances, though. Not before the lecture by Pirkko Hyvönen. According to her, affordances are action possibilities: reciprocal relation between people and their environment.

“Affordances of the environment are what it offers to animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementarity of the animal and the environment”
– Gibson, 1979, 127.

 

1. Social affordances in Wiki environments
Wiki environments offer their users possibility to work together, either cooperatively or collaboratively. You are granted the opportunity to add your own knowledge and ideas, but on the other hand all the content you’ve added is freely edited and assessed by others. This is a good affordance if you want your contribution to be further unraveled, but it can be also a bad affordance if you wish your contribution to have “immunity”.

 

2. Cognitive affordances in Wiki environments
Wiki environments offer the user flexibility in building an article or project: you can work whenever you want, wherever you want and whatever you want. Your own ideas are further processed or criticized which may end up giving you socio-cognitive conflicts!

 

3. Emotional affordances in Wiki environments
Wiki environments offer the sense of communality, the opportunity to be involved in something bigger than just your own work. Wikis may also grant negative emotional affordances; your contribution is under evaluation and critique. You can either use it as a motivator to further develop the ideas/contribution or as a judgment of your expertise, it might slam you down to earth.

Posted in Introduction to Learning and Educational Technology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Brainstorm about PLEs

Hello blog!

I wanted to share this brainstorming mindmap we did for our PLE presentation. Here it is.

Click on it or click here!

Image

Posted in Misc | Tagged | Leave a comment

My Personal Learning Environment

In the Introduction to Leaning and Educational Technology course we’ve been playing around with many web-based tools like blogs, wikis and more specifically Adobe Connect, Google docs/+/hangouts, WordPress, Slideshare, Mindmeister etc. Well, to be fair, we haven’t played around with these tools just for fun. There was a hidden meaning to these exercises.

The master idea behind these exercises with the tools is… drumroll, please… Personal Learning Environments that are also known as PLEs.

What on earth is a PLE and why would I need one?

Wikipedia describes PLEs as “systems that help learners take control of and manage their own learning“. Basically all the tools we’ve been exploring can be used for this purpose. We were encouraged to utilize these tools for educational purposes – mostly for working collaboratively.

“My personal experience in PLEs extends to having two blogs which worked as portfolios and also as learning diaries. I had one in ICT course and now I have another one in LET. I’ve also participated in a wiki environment in Didactics course where we made a wiki article collaboratively as an exam answer.”

What I wrote about my previous experiences about PLES on our own Wiki page about PLEs.

In my opinion PLEs serve multiple purposes: they are learning diaries, expertise portfolios, schedulers and places for sharing ideas, thoughts and questions. At their very best PLEs are public and social, enabling students within the same topic to interact and share knowledge.

What could my PLE be like?

I already have a PLE. It’s this blog. I also had a previous blog in a previous ICT (TVT in Finnish) course. I’m not so sure if this blog serves me best as a PLE, since it was a given task to establish a blog. My ideal PLE could be something like Symbaloo, as it is more visual and clear. Although my blog might still be a part of my Symbaloo, since I need a place to reflect my learning. Symbaloo would collect all my learning environments in to a one, simple, working thumbnail collection. I think I’ll get on with it and create my own Symbaloo right about at the time I finish writing this. I’ll make one for entertainment purposes first, though.

Posted in Introduction to Learning and Educational Technology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment