Can I borrow your online conversation? | Ethics online

Is it ok to walk into someone’s garden and take a photo? How about take a plant? What about walking up to their front door, standing in their porch and listen to the conversation through the keyhole? Would it be ok if you were listening to a conversation standing on the pavement?

Where does the ‘privacy’ begin and the ‘public’ end?

I’ve been exploring the ethical implications of researching in a community space online – and the waters are pretty murky. My thesis will be exploring a social network, one in which I am already a member, an active participant. So already, I have more than one role, access to a range of other people’s information and have different relationships with people who are there for learning (not for the pleasure of my research;-).

But there is no denying that social sciences research in online spaces presents some interesting issues, simply due to

• the greater accessibility to data,
• looser management of privacy and confidentiality,
• difficulties with identity and informed consent,
• multiple cultures across global settings, and
• the range of ‘venues‘ that present different challenges (Ess, 2004).

I like the idea that online research is essentially participatory – focused on doing good for a community, a collaborative act (Denzin, 2004), and I strongly believe that a community (online or otherwise) has a set of values and culture that existed long before the research begins, and therefore must be acknowledged and assimilated into the research.

There are clear overlaps with feminist research and critical theory (Cohen et al, 2007). In other words, if I am going to research in an online space, I should be all about goodwill, democratic rights with a clear sense of producing something that will somehow point towards a way to improve or enhance what is already there, working alongside participants.

The ethical issues, then, are beginning to emerge clearly for me:

• tension between the power relationships inherent in my roles of researcher, paid facilitator and community member
• notions of public vs private? – Posts made by others in a public forum for a specific purpose are not ‘fair game’, nor were they intended for a research purposes.
• The way that others’ posts might be analysed and interpreted – the importance of the context.
• Copyright and fair use issues
• Informed consent

I’ve now submitted my ethics application, so fingers crossed.

[Image source:  Some rights reserved by DCRC-UWE]

If you think it’s too difficult, you’re right.

This is cross-posted from a guest piece I recently wrote for CORE Education:

Feel the fear – and do it anyway

If Hilary had concentrated only on glacial ravines, would he have ‘knocked the bastard off’? Would Armstrong have taken his great leap if he had worried his oxygen failing?

And can schools embrace the learning opportunities presented by the web, by ultra-fast broadband, if they focus only on cybersafety?

We’re only a few weeks into the new school year, but there has been a slew of stories in the media about cybersafety – sexting, Facebook bullying and the like  – and we see the inevitable banning of technological access as a result.  A recent talk I gave at a local college to launch their e-learning professional learning for the year, saw excitement among staff but also concern about student safety and online bullying. A 2010 report, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, reminded us that “Preventing access in schools to mobile technologies or firewalling some sites does not teach effective and critical uses of these technologies that students have ready access to outside of school” (Wright, 2010)

Despite all the potential and promise that technology might offer to educators, to what extent do we still have a deficit model of technology?

The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) advocates for e-learning as a way to “open up new and different ways of learning” (e-learning and pedagogy, NZC). And yet, for many schools, it is the very ‘opening up’ that is so challenging. School leaders understandably have to balance the opportunities for learners presented by, for example, ‘web 2.0 technology, with managing parental expectation and the duty to keep students safe.

Perhaps a marriage of the Key Competencies and digital citizenship might offer a potential pathway through the minefield. The NZC is littered with phrases that clearly align to the potential of e-learning; for example, the “active seekers, users, and creators of knowledge” (Vision statement, NZC) should arguably be “confident and capable user[s] of ICT” (myLGP: Learn, Guide, Protect – Netsafe) in order to create and seek knowledge for themselves.

Most importantly, the Key Competencies of managing self, relating to others, and participating and contributing clearly align to the importance of students becoming confident in the way they manage challenges online, in the way to they relate to, and communicate with, others in cyberspace.

Embracing the teachable moment, managing risk rather than banning access, and looking to the opportunities rather than the dangers are approaches far more likely to foster students’ integrity and responsibility. Especially when they will inevitably have to face cyber challenges without adult supervision.

Like Hilary and Armstrong, perhaps those schools that interpret the NZC through the lens of digital citizenship have found a way to navigate the possible risks and dangers while maintaining their focus on a greater goal – that of students being able to fully participate in the digital world.

[Image source]

 

5 ways to make the most of online meetings (for newbies)

I took part in a professional learning session with CORE this morning via Elluminate. Great fun and very interesting (lots of clever heads in the virtual room) – but it highlighted a few thoughts for me that might be worth sharing, if you are to make the most of online meet-ups:

1. Get there early: you can scope the room, check out who’s doing what, and have a play with all the toys before the real business starts. Often the random chat that happens to those who get in early sets up friendships for the session and gives you enough confidence to participate later on.

What is it like to learn online?

Starved of human contact. Isolated. Lonely.

I’ve heard people say that distance learning online – alone, in their pyjamas, talking aloud to their cat – made them feel cut off from their peers and not really part of the class. Having just finished two online papers, I thought I’d try and re-capture the experience, which may be particularly useful for anyone designing online learning; we know that the needs of keen beans like me need to be taken into account by someone at the planning stage.

As a working mum with two children under six and household to run, working online was ideal. The flexibility, in terms of time and place, suited me perfectly. Asynchronous forums were the main discussion space, so logging in once a day worked well. I could take time to reflect and mull over connections between work and study. If child was sick, I could move my study to later in the week – and, yes, I could do all this in my pjs. I was pretty motivated, intriniscally (love that learning!), and extrinsically (yes, I’d like a Masters, please).

But, if you are choosing distance online learning, you may need to be ready to embrace the isolation, and understand that the social connections with your peers is one of the strongest motivators for your involvement. Students: reach out and get to know who’s on the course with you. eEducators: design so this kind of ‘reaching out’ is easy.

For me, the moments of face-to-face contact were so enlightening and broke down barriers so quickly that I realised, for the first time, the huge store we set by body language and voice/facial expression. Podcasts, online seminars, people’s photos, swapping news, the use of real names, and the liberal, and, frankly, wanton use of emoticons all helped bridge that transactional distance (see Moore, 2007) between  me, the tutor, and my peers. And, most crucially, bridging the distance between me and the ideas with which I was grappling.

Anyone designing a course, in these days of Facebook, and socio-constructivism, will be looking as much to the socialisation of the experience, as to the instructional design.

If you too are a keen bean, I have reflected on this at length (you have been warned) in a paper on the role of the eEducator, particularly on the ways we can help break down those barriers at the start [Melhuish, K. (2010). The role of the eEducator: A reflection on practice. Unpublished assignment.]

Just make sure you put on clean pjs before that online seminar. Or sit real close to the camera;-)

Image: cw3283 via Flickr

Review of Reading Eggs: beware the addiction!

It was when my 3 year old earned her first ‘critter’ for her animal collection – Marshmallow Mouse for the learning about the letter ‘M’ – and begged for more time on the computer that I began to see why this tool has been so successful.

Reading Eggs is a (subscription-only, although there is a trial) Australian tool for 4-7 year olds that sets out to engage children in readings, from playing games in the online playroom to moving through phonics to phrases and sentences. Children, led by an engaging wee ant called Sam, move their self-designed avatar around a map, completing lessons on the way, earning prizes and animals.

My then 4 year old collected eggs that she can exchange for prizes, read 22 books and collected nearly 100 golden eggs before she lost interest last year. The game clearly engages children immediately – it’s bright, colourful and they can see their animal collections building with every lesson. At times, the activities seemed a little similar (perhaps that’s why she lost interest?), and the busy dashboard requires a parent to work through activities with younger children, but I am intrigued to see if the second child hangs in there.

After all, who’s next, after Marshmallow Mouse? Lesson 2 is the letter ‘S’ so her new ‘critter’ might be a Super Spider, a Singing Snake, or even a Silly Sausage;-)

Tips for Skyping with the kids: they’re not performing monkeys

This morning, I was part of a Skype session between grandparents in the UK and two children under six in New Zealand. This was not the first time we had undertaken this type of conversation – but each time it often takes more organising than a school play.

We want everyone to be able to see and hear, we want it to be enjoyable for everyone, to be natural…in other words, we are trying (and yearning?) to replicate a face-to-face chat.

And, most importantly, we are trying to help the children build loving bonds with their grandparents, whom they hardly ever get to visit. And, of course, vice versa.

So, here are a few tips – so you can learn where we have sometimes struggled:

1. Pick your moment: Kids don’t like to engage if they are hungry, tired or otherwise engaged, and time zone differences will be something to consider here. Watching TV or eating breakfast is far more important that family ties, y’know;-)
2. Prep them: Get them excited and build the moment. And prep the grandparents, too. Explain that the children may not sit and talk like adults, make sure they listen as well as talk, so they don’t drown out little voices. Set all the equipment up first and do a trial run just before to check it’s all working. Pre-schoolers have no patience with tech that doesn’t just work.
3. Involve them in planning: little kids will be much more likely to engage if they are talking about something that is important to them that day/week (a picture they have drawn, new shoes they got for school) and especially if they have chosen the topic themselves.
4. Keep it short, sweet and often: Better to chat for five or ten minutes a week, than try to have looong conversation for half an hour.
5. Show them how it all works: point out where the camera is, set up the mic, even put a photo of the grandparents (or Mickey Mouse, or their favourite toy) above / around the camera so they talk to that and make eye contact, rather than at the screen.
6. Keep ‘em busy: If they aren’t ready to talk directly to the camera, set it all up so they are busy playing or drawing at the table, and let the grandparents watch them do that. This takes the pressure of them to ‘talk…now’.

And if all else fails – and it so often does – send video clips instead, capturing them at their most chattiest and excited.

Image source: blogs.skype.com

Get the party started on your community page

Have you got the sound of tumbleweed blowing across your online community? Too many lurkers and too few livewires? In short, just because you’ve built that online community space doesn’t mean they will come (even if it looks beautiful).

Why won’t they talk to me?

It’s a real challenge when people feel exposed online. People perceive that there is a risk in displaying and committing to one’s thinking if they are not sure of something.  In many ways, it is scarier than commenting on an issue in a meeting because it is more permanent and requires time to frame and express thinking concisely and accurately. For you, the online facilitator, it requires a re-doubling of the kind of efforts and supports you put in place when facilitating face-to-face discussion:-)

8 ideas to get started

So, how can we bridge these issues and create a safe place to chat? You have an advantage if you can leverage face-to-face contact that you have.

1. Discuss a relevant, timely issue that has already been discussed face-to-face. If you don’t see people face-to-face, contact them, send out a survey, bribe them, do whatever you can to find out their burning issues. Work from evidence if you can.

2. Co-construct a question with them to consider between posts or workshops so that they have a vested interest in it. Build the discussion into their work or interests. Target their need and build from there..

3. Give each thread a clear value: i.e. I am more likely to participate if it is a co-operative, sharing exercise (e.g. ideas/resource sharing and we all benefit from adding a comment). The most active forums I have been involved in have been the ones based on exchange of information and ideas. Marketplace rules. Supply and demand.

4. Provide online guidance for contributors: i.e. brief comments (100 words-ish), they can build on what the previous person said, they could add a useful link with a comment. And remember the all-important protocols for the ne’er-do-wells.

5. Put up something for them to critique (e.g. what’s wrong or right with this picture?)

6. If you have a captive audience, or a large group fo people already in a face-to-face community, start several threads, one for each small group of supportive peers, rather than having one thread for a large group of people. Smaller numbers = less risk for them.

7. As ‘the voice’, keep getting in there (on or off line and PRAISE, encourage, keep the positive vibes flowing, keep working on adding and reaching for the value comments and creating a safe place for people to be.)

8. Send email reminders and show them how to set up forum notifications. This slow steady stuff is an investment for further down the line.

And if in doubt, free ice-cream and party hats might just break the ice;-)

Image source: http://stengel99.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/party-hats1.jpg