First I would like to begin with my expectations of the course - as the name suggests, I expected to get acquainted with new environments throughout the Internet that we hadn't used before, and the theory behind them. I also expected the course to have the usual pattern - each task (or set of tasks) would take one week, as we are used to.
The reality outcome was too much theory and a few environments (including PiratePad, Flashmeeting, PLENK 2010), which seemed familiar from other courses. Course tasks had to be planned quickly to your daily schedule, since deadlines and tasks appeared quite vaguely and if missed, you lost points. As an average Estonian MA student, I work and this makes such schedule very difficult to manage.
All in all I would not trash the whole course - I think the group got new theoretical knowledge which can help them in many fields and tasks later. The course should have had a backbone in order to plan the activities and studies. I am sure that a student nowadays learns better from doing things than from reading and reflecting, so a few practical tasks would have come in handy with this course as well. The most memorable courses for me have been practical ones with certain tasks. Although I liked the thought of having the course in my computer, not being physically present in Tallinn.
And what puzzled me was that one lecturer disappeared at the beginning and the other one was left all alone with all the tasks to read. At least it seemed so after the group started "rioting" on the deadlines. Thanks to the understanding nature of Terje, the group got a smoother schedule.
About my contribution - since this year has had many changes, I was not able to work as thoroughly as in the last two semesters, and I disregarded a few tasks from the plan. Regarding my personal schedule, I did my best to pass the course. If the course would have taken place the next semester, I would have done better.
19.12.10
Task 13. Re-designing and re-instrumentalising activities.
The task was to think about an activity and (how it) can be amended with the help of digital technology.
Let's take watching television, an everyday activity.
Television in Estonia has been available since the year 1955, but it made its way to public already in 1928. The first television sets became available in the UK, US, and Soviet Union. In 1956 first television sets could be bought in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia.
TV transmission was first black and white, but now it is colourful, digital and can be easily viewed from any corner of the world. Estonia got its colourful picture inside the TV set already in 1975, but the world could view colourful images already in 1940.
I was born in the 1980's and as far as I can remember, we have always had a television set, a colourful one, and we fought over using rights of the TV with my two brothers. Television watching was possible only through one TV set and it was controlled manually, you had to stand up, go to the television set and push or turn the buttons.
The 1990's became the turning point in our family, where the remote control came and also virtual console games could be played through the television screen with the help of remote control joysticks and guns. Super Mario was my personal favourite.
When I first started to learn about the computers in 1996, it was not so thrilling with computers having only DOS systems and graphics were minimal, but in 1998 when our family got its first personal computer, my world changed - I got hooked with the "thing", later accompanied with Internet, and my interest in digital technology rose.
Nowadays these two gadgets can easily be mixed, since one can view computer images through a TV screen or vice versa, digital technology has helped us a lot. You do not necessarily have to have a TV set at home to view television.
I would describe my TV viewing habits then and now:
In the 1980s when I wanted to watch TV, I turned it on manually and sat on the couch watching children's programmes. If necessary, I stood up from the couch and turned up the volume or changed the channel manually. In the next decade it was possible to watch satellite TV in our family, and channels like MTV, VIVA and the like became popular for me. I also liked Cartoon Network. In the middle of the decade it was possible to change channels with a remote control without standing up. Occasionally there were mishaps in transmission.
The 2000s did not bring much change until the impossible happened - my TV set fell down and I lost the possibility of watching TV. I chose another alternative and downloaded illegaly all the serials that I was watching at that time and spent night hours watching them. When the hard disc broke, I did not care and am not a fan of TV anymore.
But there are some films and shows I enjoy watching via my computer, which has different TV archives and can be watched legally. Since television became digital on the 1st of July in 2010 in Estonia, the official Estonian channels can be viewed through your computer screen. If you cannot watch your favourite shows it is easier to record them and watch later straight from your computer. No need for a TV set anymore (if you are comfortable without one). But still, TV watching is a lot different - there are digital television boxes which allow you to watch different channels all over the world. There are usually two remotes on people's couches - one for the TV set, another for the digibox. When you push the buttons, you can choose between channels, read teletext and information about the programmes, and much much more.
I think TV history has changed throughout the years and will become even better. For example controlling the channels with your mind (a built-in chip that controls your emotions and thoughts) and projecting them onto your wall, no need of many gadgets at all. I believe that this is a very utopian perspective of things, but I think that watching TV will become even simpler than it is now.
Literature:
History of Estonian Television
Television, wikipedia article
Let's take watching television, an everyday activity.
Television in Estonia has been available since the year 1955, but it made its way to public already in 1928. The first television sets became available in the UK, US, and Soviet Union. In 1956 first television sets could be bought in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia.
TV transmission was first black and white, but now it is colourful, digital and can be easily viewed from any corner of the world. Estonia got its colourful picture inside the TV set already in 1975, but the world could view colourful images already in 1940.
I was born in the 1980's and as far as I can remember, we have always had a television set, a colourful one, and we fought over using rights of the TV with my two brothers. Television watching was possible only through one TV set and it was controlled manually, you had to stand up, go to the television set and push or turn the buttons.
The 1990's became the turning point in our family, where the remote control came and also virtual console games could be played through the television screen with the help of remote control joysticks and guns. Super Mario was my personal favourite.
When I first started to learn about the computers in 1996, it was not so thrilling with computers having only DOS systems and graphics were minimal, but in 1998 when our family got its first personal computer, my world changed - I got hooked with the "thing", later accompanied with Internet, and my interest in digital technology rose.
Nowadays these two gadgets can easily be mixed, since one can view computer images through a TV screen or vice versa, digital technology has helped us a lot. You do not necessarily have to have a TV set at home to view television.
I would describe my TV viewing habits then and now:
In the 1980s when I wanted to watch TV, I turned it on manually and sat on the couch watching children's programmes. If necessary, I stood up from the couch and turned up the volume or changed the channel manually. In the next decade it was possible to watch satellite TV in our family, and channels like MTV, VIVA and the like became popular for me. I also liked Cartoon Network. In the middle of the decade it was possible to change channels with a remote control without standing up. Occasionally there were mishaps in transmission.
The 2000s did not bring much change until the impossible happened - my TV set fell down and I lost the possibility of watching TV. I chose another alternative and downloaded illegaly all the serials that I was watching at that time and spent night hours watching them. When the hard disc broke, I did not care and am not a fan of TV anymore.
But there are some films and shows I enjoy watching via my computer, which has different TV archives and can be watched legally. Since television became digital on the 1st of July in 2010 in Estonia, the official Estonian channels can be viewed through your computer screen. If you cannot watch your favourite shows it is easier to record them and watch later straight from your computer. No need for a TV set anymore (if you are comfortable without one). But still, TV watching is a lot different - there are digital television boxes which allow you to watch different channels all over the world. There are usually two remotes on people's couches - one for the TV set, another for the digibox. When you push the buttons, you can choose between channels, read teletext and information about the programmes, and much much more.
I think TV history has changed throughout the years and will become even better. For example controlling the channels with your mind (a built-in chip that controls your emotions and thoughts) and projecting them onto your wall, no need of many gadgets at all. I believe that this is a very utopian perspective of things, but I think that watching TV will become even simpler than it is now.
Literature:
History of Estonian Television
Television, wikipedia article
11.12.10
Reflektsioon kursusele Õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud
Kursuse lõpureflektsioon hõlmab endas küsimustele ausalt vastamist ja enda sisse vaatamist kursuse lõpuks.
Kommenteeriks oma õpilepingut kursust läbides - kindlasti sain ma lisateadmisi õpikeskkondade osas, kuid ma arvan, et pärast kursust tuleks materjalid veelkord süvenenult läbi lugeda, et kogu info talletada ja seda edaspidi vajadusel kasutada. Kursuse jooksul sain palju uut informatsiooni, samuti kinnistusid kontseptuaalse disaini oskused, mida eelmisel aastal just õppisin.
Eesmärke ma ei saavutanud kahjuks täielikult, kuna töö- ja ajaplaneerimine ebaõnnestus. Tutvusin kursuse blogiga ning uute õppematerjalidega, kuid ei suutnud hakkama saada kõikide koduste ülesannete õigeaegse postitamisega. Tagasisidest olin huvitatud, kuid seda jagus napilt.
Kursusekaaslaste blogide kommenteerimise olen vaid "vajadusel" enda jaoks märkinud ja ilmselt ei teinud ma sellest vajadust, mistõttu jäid minu poolt blogid kommenteerimata.
Olen õpilepingus tsiteerinud: " Oma saavutusi hindan eelkõige enesetunde järgi - kui tunnen ennast hästi, siis on järelikult kõik õnnestunud. Kui südametunnistus piinab, on midagi tegemata jäänud. Ehk siis praktilisemalt olen rahul oma blogipostituste ja sellele eelnenud ning järgnenud tegevustega ning täitnud need õigeaegselt." - nimelt võin käe südamele pannes öelda, et hansu läbiviidud e-kursustest on see esimene, milles ma lõpuni vastu olen pidanud, kuid südametunnistus jäi mõne postituse puudumise pärast (samas lugesin üle, oli 7 postitust olemas, järelikult kriteeriumid täidetud) kripeldama.
Ma usun, et minu jaoks töötavad ühest küljest reeglid, kuna siis sunnin ennast tööle, kuid vahenädalad ja natuke kergem "režiim" minu enda jaoks ei toiminud hästi, kuna sellega unustasin antud aine tööd tegemata ning seadsin tööelu esiplaanile. Tugevad küljed on südametunnistus, mis sunnib mind tööle, kuid nõrgad küljed on kindlasti aja planeerimine ning töö jaotamine. Paraku ei ole ma endale kindlat graafikut suutnud teha, et oma asjadega võrdväärselt tegeleda.
Järgmisena peaksin läbima ajaplaneerimise kursuse.
Üldiselt kursusega jäin rahule, kuigi viimane osa jäi osadele gruppidele veidi arusaamatuks. Saan aru, et meie grupil oli eelis mõne teise grupi ees, kuna kaks grupi liiget olid eelmisel aastal läbinud kontseptuaalse disaini kursuse. Vaba ajaplaneerimine võimaldas ka "kummi venitada", et õpingud stressirohketeks ei kujuneks.
Kommenteeriks oma õpilepingut kursust läbides - kindlasti sain ma lisateadmisi õpikeskkondade osas, kuid ma arvan, et pärast kursust tuleks materjalid veelkord süvenenult läbi lugeda, et kogu info talletada ja seda edaspidi vajadusel kasutada. Kursuse jooksul sain palju uut informatsiooni, samuti kinnistusid kontseptuaalse disaini oskused, mida eelmisel aastal just õppisin.
Eesmärke ma ei saavutanud kahjuks täielikult, kuna töö- ja ajaplaneerimine ebaõnnestus. Tutvusin kursuse blogiga ning uute õppematerjalidega, kuid ei suutnud hakkama saada kõikide koduste ülesannete õigeaegse postitamisega. Tagasisidest olin huvitatud, kuid seda jagus napilt.
Kursusekaaslaste blogide kommenteerimise olen vaid "vajadusel" enda jaoks märkinud ja ilmselt ei teinud ma sellest vajadust, mistõttu jäid minu poolt blogid kommenteerimata.
Olen õpilepingus tsiteerinud: " Oma saavutusi hindan eelkõige enesetunde järgi - kui tunnen ennast hästi, siis on järelikult kõik õnnestunud. Kui südametunnistus piinab, on midagi tegemata jäänud. Ehk siis praktilisemalt olen rahul oma blogipostituste ja sellele eelnenud ning järgnenud tegevustega ning täitnud need õigeaegselt." - nimelt võin käe südamele pannes öelda, et hansu läbiviidud e-kursustest on see esimene, milles ma lõpuni vastu olen pidanud, kuid südametunnistus jäi mõne postituse puudumise pärast (samas lugesin üle, oli 7 postitust olemas, järelikult kriteeriumid täidetud) kripeldama.
Ma usun, et minu jaoks töötavad ühest küljest reeglid, kuna siis sunnin ennast tööle, kuid vahenädalad ja natuke kergem "režiim" minu enda jaoks ei toiminud hästi, kuna sellega unustasin antud aine tööd tegemata ning seadsin tööelu esiplaanile. Tugevad küljed on südametunnistus, mis sunnib mind tööle, kuid nõrgad küljed on kindlasti aja planeerimine ning töö jaotamine. Paraku ei ole ma endale kindlat graafikut suutnud teha, et oma asjadega võrdväärselt tegeleda.
Järgmisena peaksin läbima ajaplaneerimise kursuse.
Üldiselt kursusega jäin rahule, kuigi viimane osa jäi osadele gruppidele veidi arusaamatuks. Saan aru, et meie grupil oli eelis mõne teise grupi ees, kuna kaks grupi liiget olid eelmisel aastal läbinud kontseptuaalse disaini kursuse. Vaba ajaplaneerimine võimaldas ka "kummi venitada", et õpingud stressirohketeks ei kujuneks.
10.12.10
Task 12. New Interactive Environments. Tool or medium?
Today I will concentrate on the question whether digital world makes people different or not? Is computer technology a tool or medium?
While reading the text I had lots of other thoughts going through my mind concerning the people mentioned in the article, and the times when these texts were written by Leont'ev and Vygotski. The whole text seemed a little difficult to read, but it had a nice conclusion in the end so that one could finally gather his or her thoughts.
So - according to the article computer technology is both a tool and medium, more important is the person's view to the question. I think today some of us can actually live without computers and communicate the same way as in the olden days, but most of the people need computers in their work, leisure time, for communication, etc. - in this way to me it seems that digital world is a means for people to create an alternative means.
The author concentrates on digital world as a means for people to shape it according to their views and integrate every communication medium into it thus creating a "dominating medium".
I agree, digital media is a means to communicate and feel free to do almost anything with it, but does it make people different? While the author of the text seems to imply that it is not the computers or media that make people evil, but people themselves, then I have to disagree a little. I think that some of the "crazy" ideas still come from the media or social media. Perhaps the fact that people themselves are behind digital media and thus implicitly connected with creating the media, we might say it is true that people themselves have created the evil that comes from the medium, but it is the medium that brings quite a lot of emotions and thrill to people, and some of them take advantage of the great source like the Internet, and perform bad deeds.
In conclusion my answer to the question is that digital media is a medium with the help of which one can communicate and find out about things in a quicker way than one used to find before. It has definitely changed the behaviour of human kind, but if one wants to, he or she can live without digital technology and survive.
Source: Rückriem, G. Tool or Medium? The Meaning of Information and Telecommunication Technology to Human Practice. A Quest for Systemic Understanding of Activity Theory. Helsinki, 2. 12. 2003.
While reading the text I had lots of other thoughts going through my mind concerning the people mentioned in the article, and the times when these texts were written by Leont'ev and Vygotski. The whole text seemed a little difficult to read, but it had a nice conclusion in the end so that one could finally gather his or her thoughts.
So - according to the article computer technology is both a tool and medium, more important is the person's view to the question. I think today some of us can actually live without computers and communicate the same way as in the olden days, but most of the people need computers in their work, leisure time, for communication, etc. - in this way to me it seems that digital world is a means for people to create an alternative means.
The author concentrates on digital world as a means for people to shape it according to their views and integrate every communication medium into it thus creating a "dominating medium".
I agree, digital media is a means to communicate and feel free to do almost anything with it, but does it make people different? While the author of the text seems to imply that it is not the computers or media that make people evil, but people themselves, then I have to disagree a little. I think that some of the "crazy" ideas still come from the media or social media. Perhaps the fact that people themselves are behind digital media and thus implicitly connected with creating the media, we might say it is true that people themselves have created the evil that comes from the medium, but it is the medium that brings quite a lot of emotions and thrill to people, and some of them take advantage of the great source like the Internet, and perform bad deeds.
In conclusion my answer to the question is that digital media is a medium with the help of which one can communicate and find out about things in a quicker way than one used to find before. It has definitely changed the behaviour of human kind, but if one wants to, he or she can live without digital technology and survive.
Source: Rückriem, G. Tool or Medium? The Meaning of Information and Telecommunication Technology to Human Practice. A Quest for Systemic Understanding of Activity Theory. Helsinki, 2. 12. 2003.
5.12.10
Task 11. New Interactive Environments
This task focusses on analyzing the Piratepad list what our group created during the live session on the topic "activity management". No doubt this was a preliminary task to introduce Activity Theory when you take a retrospect on the previous activities.
The list concentrates on different activities and processes which where bundled together during a live session of NIE course. The group created a wide list of different components what constitutes the activity management.
Considering the questions given by the facilitator and looking at the list thoroughly, I think that according to my understanding quite an impressive list is made up by the whole team, and while thinking about it I came up with the fact that all the necessary (and some extra) components were listed.
It seems that some components of the list covered the others, for example relations - actors, roles, participants could be grouped together into a smaller chunk. I tried my best to see irrelevant components, but perhaps while being very thorough myself, I agree on the pieces that make up the list. One thing that could have been different would perhaps be giving names to different components - e.g. project manager / facilitator, etc.
As I mentioned before, the list could be shortened, thus I would take all similar chunks and group them under one summarizing term. For example start, end, timeframe could be grouped under the name "task time management", or participants, role, actor, etc. could be named solely "participants". Perhaps this is due to my profession, but I would definitely shorten the list into smaller chunks and then explain them thoroughly mentioning the wider range of components.
Considering the Activity Theory framework, I think that without even knowing amything about the Activity Theory, our group's list has an object (a course/tasks) and a subject (actors/participants). There are different artefacts, like schedule, process, methodology, software, and other things mentioned. Rules are also pointed out (restrictions, limitations, evaluation criteria, etc).
I think according to AT the list is lacking terms for division of effort and community. Some terms may hint the presence of the terms (timeframe, time management, interrelatedness, feedback), but there is no specific term for the previously mentioned chunks.
At the beginning I did not come up with any of the irrelevant or missing components, but by the end of the task, using Activity Theory, I managed to come up with a few missing components.
Literature used:
Activity Theory http://www.learning-theories.com/activity-theory.html
The list concentrates on different activities and processes which where bundled together during a live session of NIE course. The group created a wide list of different components what constitutes the activity management.
Considering the questions given by the facilitator and looking at the list thoroughly, I think that according to my understanding quite an impressive list is made up by the whole team, and while thinking about it I came up with the fact that all the necessary (and some extra) components were listed.
It seems that some components of the list covered the others, for example relations - actors, roles, participants could be grouped together into a smaller chunk. I tried my best to see irrelevant components, but perhaps while being very thorough myself, I agree on the pieces that make up the list. One thing that could have been different would perhaps be giving names to different components - e.g. project manager / facilitator, etc.
As I mentioned before, the list could be shortened, thus I would take all similar chunks and group them under one summarizing term. For example start, end, timeframe could be grouped under the name "task time management", or participants, role, actor, etc. could be named solely "participants". Perhaps this is due to my profession, but I would definitely shorten the list into smaller chunks and then explain them thoroughly mentioning the wider range of components.
Considering the Activity Theory framework, I think that without even knowing amything about the Activity Theory, our group's list has an object (a course/tasks) and a subject (actors/participants). There are different artefacts, like schedule, process, methodology, software, and other things mentioned. Rules are also pointed out (restrictions, limitations, evaluation criteria, etc).
I think according to AT the list is lacking terms for division of effort and community. Some terms may hint the presence of the terms (timeframe, time management, interrelatedness, feedback), but there is no specific term for the previously mentioned chunks.
At the beginning I did not come up with any of the irrelevant or missing components, but by the end of the task, using Activity Theory, I managed to come up with a few missing components.
Literature used:
Activity Theory http://www.learning-theories.com/activity-theory.html
29.11.10
Task 10. New Interactive Environments - Putting Activity Theory Into Practice
PLENK2010 and NIE compared with the help of activity theory.
PLENK2010 is a course which provides the learner a variety of tools to choose from in order to create their own content and define the content of the course rather than use materials provided by the facilitators. The course operates online and meetings between the students and facilitators take place via Elluminate live sessions. The course aims at creating a joined knowledge base on personal learning environments without forcing the students to take part in every single task that is not relevant to the learners - the latter have to select appropriate content for themselves.
Activity Theory in this case is applied the following way:
The subject of the course is the student or the student base, which is quite numerous. The subjects come from different countries and do not have to be necessarily university students.
The object of the course is the knowledge base that both the students and the facilitators provide.
The tools provided by the facilitators and the students are the following:
The rules are set up by the facilitators and do not bound the subjects to the course very strictly, although they are assumed to participate with their own knowledge base. There are also dates provided for online meetings and feedback.
The community is set up by 4 facilitators, the learner base (different countries/age groups/interests, etc), and the online environment with its various tools and help.
Division of labour is divided between different parties and can be understood clearly from the website.
NIE is a course which provides the learner a lesser variety of tools from the previous course, and gives certain tasks in order to get feedback from the students. The course operates online through the course blog and the facilitators' tasks, and also a few live sessions which take place via Flashmeeting. The course aims at providing knowledge to students who in turn raise questions and analyze/criticize the topics provided by the facilitators. This is also a fully online course, similarly to the previous course.
Activity Theory in this case is applied the following way:
The subject of the course is the student or the student base, which is less numerous than the previous course's. The subjects are the students from TLU, and can be also other interested people.
The object of the course is the knowledge base that both the students and the facilitators provide.
The tools provided by the facilitators and the students are the following:
The rules are set up by the facilitators and do bound the subjects to the course very strictly, a few mishaps are allowed. This is quite different from PLENK.
The community is set up by 2 facilitators, the learner base (different countries/age groups/interests, etc), and the online environment with its various tools and help.
Division of labour is divided between different parties and can be understood clearly.
Main differences between the two courses are:
Drawbacks concerning the activity theory applied to the two courses
First it was difficult to understand how to position the courses into activity systems, but digging into the article helped me since my previous task was left undone. I think the clear system was a great help for understanding how to classify the course information into the components of the theory. I used Figure 4: Activity System for e-commerce, which was provided in the article "An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements" by Uden, L., Valderas, P. & Pastor, O. (2008).
PLENK2010 is a course which provides the learner a variety of tools to choose from in order to create their own content and define the content of the course rather than use materials provided by the facilitators. The course operates online and meetings between the students and facilitators take place via Elluminate live sessions. The course aims at creating a joined knowledge base on personal learning environments without forcing the students to take part in every single task that is not relevant to the learners - the latter have to select appropriate content for themselves.
Activity Theory in this case is applied the following way:
The subject of the course is the student or the student base, which is quite numerous. The subjects come from different countries and do not have to be necessarily university students.
The object of the course is the knowledge base that both the students and the facilitators provide.
The tools provided by the facilitators and the students are the following:
- course forum on Moodle
- Daily Newsletter
- RSS-feed
- Elluminate Live Chat (for discussion and weekly review)
- course wiki
- course blog
- students' blogs
- students' twitter accounts
- delicious bookmarks
- video
- etc.
The rules are set up by the facilitators and do not bound the subjects to the course very strictly, although they are assumed to participate with their own knowledge base. There are also dates provided for online meetings and feedback.
The community is set up by 4 facilitators, the learner base (different countries/age groups/interests, etc), and the online environment with its various tools and help.
Division of labour is divided between different parties and can be understood clearly from the website.
NIE is a course which provides the learner a lesser variety of tools from the previous course, and gives certain tasks in order to get feedback from the students. The course operates online through the course blog and the facilitators' tasks, and also a few live sessions which take place via Flashmeeting. The course aims at providing knowledge to students who in turn raise questions and analyze/criticize the topics provided by the facilitators. This is also a fully online course, similarly to the previous course.
Activity Theory in this case is applied the following way:
The subject of the course is the student or the student base, which is less numerous than the previous course's. The subjects are the students from TLU, and can be also other interested people.
The object of the course is the knowledge base that both the students and the facilitators provide.
The tools provided by the facilitators and the students are the following:
- course blog
- student's blogs
- Wikiversity page
- Doodle for scheduling
- Flashmeeting online chat
- EduFeedr for monitoring
- etc.
The rules are set up by the facilitators and do bound the subjects to the course very strictly, a few mishaps are allowed. This is quite different from PLENK.
The community is set up by 2 facilitators, the learner base (different countries/age groups/interests, etc), and the online environment with its various tools and help.
Division of labour is divided between different parties and can be understood clearly.
Main differences between the two courses are:
- the number of subjects
- the number of facilitators
- the number of tools
- rules differ in the sense of strictness
Drawbacks concerning the activity theory applied to the two courses
First it was difficult to understand how to position the courses into activity systems, but digging into the article helped me since my previous task was left undone. I think the clear system was a great help for understanding how to classify the course information into the components of the theory. I used Figure 4: Activity System for e-commerce, which was provided in the article "An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements" by Uden, L., Valderas, P. & Pastor, O. (2008).
21.11.10
Õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud. Tehnoloogiad ja standardid.
Selge on see, et standardeid on vaja igasuguste seadmete ja rakenduste toimimiseks mitmetes keskkondades, mistõttu neid aretataksegi.
Meelde jäi tõetera, et tihtipeale kestab standardite arendamine kauem kui arvatakse, kuid neist on ka kasu. Mulle tuli SCORM tuttava sisupaketina ette, kuid lähemalt ma seda uurinud ei olnud.
Nii palju kui mina aru sain, sobivad mulle kõige lihtsamad standardid, mis on avatud õpiobjektide puhul kasutatavad (metaandmed, voogedastus jne).
Meelde jäi tõetera, et tihtipeale kestab standardite arendamine kauem kui arvatakse, kuid neist on ka kasu. Mulle tuli SCORM tuttava sisupaketina ette, kuid lähemalt ma seda uurinud ei olnud.
Nii palju kui mina aru sain, sobivad mulle kõige lihtsamad standardid, mis on avatud õpiobjektide puhul kasutatavad (metaandmed, voogedastus jne).
Õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud. Õpivõrgustik
- Koosta enda jaoks raamistik, mille põhjal erinevaid õpivõrgustikke saaks võrrelda (s.t. näitajad, mille alusel kahte võrgustikku võrrelda)
- Uuri natuke lähemalt seda “õpivõrgustikku” ja võrdle seda meie kursusega kui ühte võimalikku õpivõrgustikku.
Nagu paljud kaasõpilased on arutlenud, arvan ka mina, et õpivõrgustik on omamoodi sotsiaalne võrgustik, mis keskendub ühe eriala/aine/huvitava teema õppimisele.
Minu kriteeriumid õpivõrgustikule on järgnevad:
Juht (õppejõud, mentor, õpetaja) - võib olla, aga ei pea olema. Tema roll pigem sekundaarne, tegevuste suunamine.
Inimressurss, kes moodustab õpivõrgustiku. Minu nägemuse järgi on see õpilased või üliõpilased, kes õpivad samal kursusel või sama ainet, nemad moodustavad omaette võrgustiku. Sinna võrgustikku kuulub kindlasti ka mentor.
Keskkond, milles õppetöö toimub. Selleks võib olla ükskõik milline paik, ei pea tingimata klassiruumidesse surutud olema. Abiks interaktiivsed vahendid, mis hõlbustavad erinevates paikades elavate (üli)õpilaste õppimisvõimalusi.
Veebikeskkonnad - suletud/avatud. Õppetöö toimub veebikeskkonnas, mida on võimalik jälgida. Selleks võib olla suletud keskkond, nagu WebCT, Elgg, IVA vms, aga ka avatud, õpilase enda valitud keskkonnad (blogid, wikid, veebilehed). Avatud veebikeskkonna eeliseks on kasutatavus ka väljaspool (üli)kooli, mis toob uusi huvilisi ja uusi ideid. Keskkonnas alustab tööd kõigepealt mentor, kes annab õpilastele ülesandeid ning tagasisidet. Õpilased reflekteerivad või koostavad ise õppematerjale kursuse tulemusena.
Taoline veebipõhine keskkond peaks olema arenemisvõimeline ning sisaldama uuendatud informatsiooni.
PLENK 2010 ja Õpikeskkonnad ja Õpivõrgustikud võrdlus.
Teema - mõlemal kursusel sarnane temaatika.
Inimressurss - PLENK 2010 hõlmab suuremat seltskonda kui opikeskkonnad.
Kättesaadavus - mõlemad keskkonnad on veebipõhised, võimalik ligipääs erinevatest maailma paikadest. Eestikeelse kursuse osaks on ka ülikoolis kohal käimise.
Veebikeskkond - mõlemal juhul avatud keskkond, esimese kursuse puhul võimalik sisselogimine.
Ressursid - Esimesel juhul erineb kursus selle poolest, et osalejad suhtlevad iganädalaselt veebis ning üldjuhul kirjutatakse foorumisse. Teisel kursusel on oluline ka inimeste nägemine vähemalt kord kuus ning blogide pidamine.
15.11.10
Generative Content Creation. Critical Review - Geoffrey Rockwell and Andrew Mactavish "A Companion to Digital Humanities", paragraph 10 - "Multimedia"
The paragraphs go through the definition of multimedia from different points of view in order to reach some kind of a conclusion what multimedia really is. As the conclusion defines, there are two ways of considering multimedia:
The authors explain that the term new media stresses works that are different from the existing forms of entertainment, or works that are not necessarily digital, but are new to the 20th century.
Hypermedia refers to the labyrinth of information that is accessible through hypertext, which links and makes a connection between different texts (but is not used within some types of games). All of the names refer to a different cluster of multimedia, but seems that the authors agree that the most important term integrating all the above-mentioned names is still multimedia.
The authors have taken several definitions from different sources, which they divide into different categories in order to analyze the term "multimedia":
As it seems that the authors like classifying, the next one would be types of multimedia:
They also browse the development of the term through different categories like:
The last category researched by the authors is theoretical approaches considering multimedia, which involves best practices, game criticism and interactivity, and theories and histories of multimedia. The above-mentioned issues are necessary to study the base for multimedia including other sciences in order to think about different concepts forming multimedia.
Finally the authors suggest that scholars of multimedia should take seriously the challenge of creating multimedia as a way of thinking about multimedia and attempt to create exemplary works of multimedia in the traditions.
- to think about multimedia through definitions, histories, examples, and theoretical problems;
- to use multimedia to think and to communicate thought.
The authors explain that the term new media stresses works that are different from the existing forms of entertainment, or works that are not necessarily digital, but are new to the 20th century.
Hypermedia refers to the labyrinth of information that is accessible through hypertext, which links and makes a connection between different texts (but is not used within some types of games). All of the names refer to a different cluster of multimedia, but seems that the authors agree that the most important term integrating all the above-mentioned names is still multimedia.
The authors have taken several definitions from different sources, which they divide into different categories in order to analyze the term "multimedia":
- Computer-based - a multimedia work is a digital work that is accessed or created through a computer;
- Rhetorical artifact - multimedia work is a work of human expression, designed to convince, delight, or instruct the classical sense of rhetoric;
- Multiple media - combnes different media and different traditions of production and distribution;
- Integrated ... artistic whole - we treat multimedia as unified works that are intended by their creator to be experienced as a whole;
- Interactive - interactivity becomes a defining feature that helps weave multiplicity into a whole.
As it seems that the authors like classifying, the next one would be types of multimedia:
- Web hypermedia
- Computer games
- Digital art
- Multimedia encyclopedia
They also browse the development of the term through different categories like:
- Numbers and text - the first IBM's "word processor" was launched in 1964, and by the end of 1970s personal computers already had primitive word processing programs that allowed printing and editing;
- Images - Apple Macintosh (released in 1984) was designed to handle graphics, that is why it came with programs such as "MacPaint", a mouse for painting, and a graphical user interface. These images soon had capabilities to be pasted into other documents, etc;
- Desktop publishing - together with printing and page making low-end publishing was made possible. These features evolved and soon Adobe PhotoShop enabled designers to publish more detailed publications. The authors say that this category is the precursor to multimedia;
- Authoring environments - having practised with desktop publishing tools, designers were already familiar with implementing these environments into their work. 1987 HyperCard was released by Apple, people were able to create simple animations with simple interactivity. This program based on hypertext, but also had a more difficult programming language which enabled to control other devices (audio-, CD-, videodisk players);
- Sound - during 1980s - 1990s simple sound capabilities were developed;
- Digital video - as it put a great stress on computers, some great works were still made, like the Aspen Movie Map (1978), which combined pictures in order to make the user to wonder through Aspen. The release of different video standards made it possible to manage video in digital form;
- Virtual space and beyond - In 1990s cyberspace was mentioned, which seemed as a new frontier for multimedia computing. This involved a person and technology through which it would have been possible to enter digital reality.
The last category researched by the authors is theoretical approaches considering multimedia, which involves best practices, game criticism and interactivity, and theories and histories of multimedia. The above-mentioned issues are necessary to study the base for multimedia including other sciences in order to think about different concepts forming multimedia.
Finally the authors suggest that scholars of multimedia should take seriously the challenge of creating multimedia as a way of thinking about multimedia and attempt to create exemplary works of multimedia in the traditions.
7.11.10
Task seven. My Understanding of Interactivity.
Introduction
To begin with, my naïve assumption was that interactivity is something that moves around things - for example, when a person communicates with someone (or something), or when a computer program reacts to a person's touch or voice, it interacts. But as the previous articles clearly pointed out, there are more dimensions to the term than anyone could expect. What I gather from the papers, interactivity is a term that is in constant motion and improvement, so that it could be rephrased in every 5-10 years. As Kiousis quoted Jensen, it means that the two authors have already proved that it is possible to modify the term and as it is in constant alteration. The best blog I found about the question in mind is probably this one - "What is Interactivity anyway?" which perhaps unintentionally or intentionally is left blank - to everyone's own imagination (it could also be the name of the blog which seems like a post without words).
In Search of My Own Term for Interactivity
According to different sources mostly the definition of interactivity comes down to the notion of a person and computer interacting together. As communication between people has become less popular with new media's rise it is quite obvious why interactivity as a term cannot find its rest and is in constant self-search, because new media as a term is in continuous change since we do not know when.
The technology used back when the above-mentioned authors wrote their articles, was quite old and in the state of improvement, like CD-s, DVD-s, VHS cassettes, even tapes which are annoying to use nowadays. Media presentation has moved to web and there is almost no need to carry any artefacts (just in case when the Internet would not work there is a need for backup). The Internet was discovered and put into use, constantly being improved and updated. Html has changed to different programming languages, which now enables us to store our files anywhere in the "cloud" (also more available storage space and cheaper Internet connections have helped) and present them from there.
Interactivity has changed from animated gif-s to touch screens and hyperlinks to pop-up picture galleries and interactive text. People carry their interactive devices with them throughout the day and it is possible to interact with the help of machines all day long.
As I pondered on in my thoughts, I came up with the fact Google Image Search is full of static images which can turn interactive while looking at them because of people's eye traits, which means that even a non-interactive image can be transformed into an interactive one with the help of a person himself. Thus it is necessary to have at least one person and his/her imagination to be able to create interactivity, and Kiousis was correct to have added the psychological part into the discussion.
Conclusion
I do not mean to be trivial, but as far as new media is concerned, it is possible to say that interactivity is in search of its definition since peoples' imagination can come up with different solutions to improve the interactive experience of a person with the help of technology. The dimensions can grow in various directions since even Web 2.0 is changing into Web 3.0 - a semantic web. We do not exactly know what is happening in 10 or 30 years' time, so it is interesting to see what can happen to the term of interactivity in the sense of computer interaction with a person.
Sources
1. Wikipedia definitions on Interactivity
2. Whatis.com definition of Interactivity
3. Svanaes, D. (2000). Understanding interactivity - steps to a phenomenology of human-computer interaction.
4. Nathan Sheldroff's World - What is Interactivity anyway?
To begin with, my naïve assumption was that interactivity is something that moves around things - for example, when a person communicates with someone (or something), or when a computer program reacts to a person's touch or voice, it interacts. But as the previous articles clearly pointed out, there are more dimensions to the term than anyone could expect. What I gather from the papers, interactivity is a term that is in constant motion and improvement, so that it could be rephrased in every 5-10 years. As Kiousis quoted Jensen, it means that the two authors have already proved that it is possible to modify the term and as it is in constant alteration. The best blog I found about the question in mind is probably this one - "What is Interactivity anyway?" which perhaps unintentionally or intentionally is left blank - to everyone's own imagination (it could also be the name of the blog which seems like a post without words).
In Search of My Own Term for Interactivity
According to different sources mostly the definition of interactivity comes down to the notion of a person and computer interacting together. As communication between people has become less popular with new media's rise it is quite obvious why interactivity as a term cannot find its rest and is in constant self-search, because new media as a term is in continuous change since we do not know when.
The technology used back when the above-mentioned authors wrote their articles, was quite old and in the state of improvement, like CD-s, DVD-s, VHS cassettes, even tapes which are annoying to use nowadays. Media presentation has moved to web and there is almost no need to carry any artefacts (just in case when the Internet would not work there is a need for backup). The Internet was discovered and put into use, constantly being improved and updated. Html has changed to different programming languages, which now enables us to store our files anywhere in the "cloud" (also more available storage space and cheaper Internet connections have helped) and present them from there.
Interactivity has changed from animated gif-s to touch screens and hyperlinks to pop-up picture galleries and interactive text. People carry their interactive devices with them throughout the day and it is possible to interact with the help of machines all day long.
As I pondered on in my thoughts, I came up with the fact Google Image Search is full of static images which can turn interactive while looking at them because of people's eye traits, which means that even a non-interactive image can be transformed into an interactive one with the help of a person himself. Thus it is necessary to have at least one person and his/her imagination to be able to create interactivity, and Kiousis was correct to have added the psychological part into the discussion.
Conclusion
I do not mean to be trivial, but as far as new media is concerned, it is possible to say that interactivity is in search of its definition since peoples' imagination can come up with different solutions to improve the interactive experience of a person with the help of technology. The dimensions can grow in various directions since even Web 2.0 is changing into Web 3.0 - a semantic web. We do not exactly know what is happening in 10 or 30 years' time, so it is interesting to see what can happen to the term of interactivity in the sense of computer interaction with a person.
Sources
1. Wikipedia definitions on Interactivity
2. Whatis.com definition of Interactivity
3. Svanaes, D. (2000). Understanding interactivity - steps to a phenomenology of human-computer interaction.
4. Nathan Sheldroff's World - What is Interactivity anyway?
1.11.10
Õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud. Personaalne õpikeskkond.
Magistriõpingute alguses meeldis mulle väga, et enamus õppejõude opereerib avatud õpikeskkonnas. Tõele au andes ei ole ma vajanud väga sisselogimist, et oma õppematerjale presenteerida. Mulle tundub, et enamus sisselogimisi on siiski htk projektide raames valminud keskkondade testimisega seoses ning ka neid oleks saanud läbi viia avatud õpikeskkondades.
Sotsiaalse meedia roll minu õppetöös on märkimisväärne, kuid kogu kupatust ei ole ma kokku võtnud mitte sotsiaalsesse järjehoidjasse ega ka vooagregaatorisse, pigem eelistan seda oma läptopist brauseri tööriistaribalt jälgida. On olemas küll Google'i vooagregaator, kuid seda ma unustan jälgida.
Põhiosa õppetööst toimub minu õpiblogis blogspot.com-i abil. Blogidel on üldse suur roll IMKE magistriõpingus, kuna rühmatööd on samuti koondatud blogidesse (kas wordpress või blogger, eelistatakse kahte varianti). Samuti kasutavad õppejõud oma blogisid õppeülesannete edastamiseks või tagasiside andmiseks.
Teine variant õppejõudude poolt on olnud wikiversity beta versioon, mis on samuti avatud õpikeskkond ning kuhu saavad liituda ka väljaspoolt tulnud õpilased, kes on huvitatud teadmiste saamisest.
Otsingusüsteeminan kasutan Google Scholarit ja tavalist Googlet, samuti erinevaid veebiallikaid, sh. materjale (pdf, doc, html, jne). Samuti ei saa mööda vaadata Youtubest Vimeost ja muudest video vaatamise allikatest, mis sisaldavad erinevaid häid õpetusi. Neid vahendeid saab vistutada ühtlasi ka blogisse.
Vistutamisega seoses tuleb meelde ka esitluste "pilv" SlideShare ja dokumendi"pilv" Scribd, kuhu on nii mõnigi vajalik materjal salvestatud või mida on õppejõu poolt soovitatud. Ühisdokumentide tegemiseks oleme eelistanud grupitööna Google docs keskkonda, samuti erinevate vormide koostamiseks. Need kõik on sotsiaalsed vahendid, mis võimaldavad kasutajatevahelist kommunikatsiooni.
Kommunikatsioonile edasi minnes on kaks põhilist vahendit skype ja msn, mida kursuse raames kasutatakse kas koolikaaslastega suhtlemiseks või probleemide lahendamiseks. Samuti eelistan vajadusel kasutada veebipõhist meebo.com suhtluskeskkonda, kuhu saab integreerida nii msni, skype kui ka facebooki ja muude keskkondade suhtlusvidinad. Otse loomulikult on kasutusse läinud ka tavaline mobiiltelefon, kui arvutit ei ole läheduses.
IMKE kusustesiseseks keskkonnaks on oma loodud wiki pbworksis, mille haldamine lükkub ideaalis põlvest-põlve edasi. See sisaldab vajalikke lugemismaterjale ning erinevat kursuste infot, sh. keskkondi, viiteid ja muud olulist. Ei või unustada ka kursusekaaslaste andmeid (nimi, meiliaadress jm). Keskkond on kinnine, et andmed lihtsalt ei lekiks ning sissepääs ainult administraatori loaga. Kursuse suhtlus toimub skypes, wiki foorumi vidin Nabble'st ei toiminud nii hästi kui oleks lootnud.
Ainete planeerimise kalender on Google Calendari hallata, mis toob mugavalt kogu toimuva info arvutiekraanile.
Samuti on kasutuses Facebooki IMKE kommuun, kuhu saab erinevaid teateid postitada ja vestlusi pidada ning ei või ka unustada twitterit, milles erinevad kursusekaaslased olulisi uudiseid postitavad.
Kui lisada inimfaktor ja esemed personaalsele õpikeskkonnale juurde, siis Kehrwiederi kohvikus toimuvad koosolekud ja vestlused annavad õppetööle palju juurde nagu ka loengutes toimuv infovahetus, kuid sel aastal on antud faktorit veidi väheseks jäänud. Samuti käivad õppetöö juude raamatud, mida aeg-ajalt erinevalt e-materjalidest füüsiliselt raamatukokku kohale minnes laenutada tuleb.
Kokkuvõtteks peaks ütlema, et minu personaalne õpikeskkond on üsna interaktiivne, välja arvatud vooagregaator või ühisjärjehoidja. Õppetöös sees olles olen valmis katsetama erinevaid keskkondi, kuid päris mitmed on aja jooksul jäänud tähelepanuta. Põhiline toimiv õppevahend on minu peamine õpiblogi blogspotis, kuigi erinevate ainete raames oleme pidanud ka teistesse blogidesse kirjutama (grupiblogi, lepress jne).
Üldjoontes on see õpikeskkond avatud, kui välja arvata iCampus, mis nõudis sisselogimist ja oli kinnine välissilma jaoks. Ma olen enda loodud õpikeskkonnaga rahul, kuigi seda võiks koondada vooagregaatoriga, et oleks ülevaade asjadest olemas. Samas on mul võrreldes esimese aastaga vähem kursuseid, mis võimaldab kõigel silma peal hoida.
Sotsiaalse meedia roll minu õppetöös on märkimisväärne, kuid kogu kupatust ei ole ma kokku võtnud mitte sotsiaalsesse järjehoidjasse ega ka vooagregaatorisse, pigem eelistan seda oma läptopist brauseri tööriistaribalt jälgida. On olemas küll Google'i vooagregaator, kuid seda ma unustan jälgida.
Põhiosa õppetööst toimub minu õpiblogis blogspot.com-i abil. Blogidel on üldse suur roll IMKE magistriõpingus, kuna rühmatööd on samuti koondatud blogidesse (kas wordpress või blogger, eelistatakse kahte varianti). Samuti kasutavad õppejõud oma blogisid õppeülesannete edastamiseks või tagasiside andmiseks.
Teine variant õppejõudude poolt on olnud wikiversity beta versioon, mis on samuti avatud õpikeskkond ning kuhu saavad liituda ka väljaspoolt tulnud õpilased, kes on huvitatud teadmiste saamisest.
Otsingusüsteeminan kasutan Google Scholarit ja tavalist Googlet, samuti erinevaid veebiallikaid, sh. materjale (pdf, doc, html, jne). Samuti ei saa mööda vaadata Youtubest Vimeost ja muudest video vaatamise allikatest, mis sisaldavad erinevaid häid õpetusi. Neid vahendeid saab vistutada ühtlasi ka blogisse.
Vistutamisega seoses tuleb meelde ka esitluste "pilv" SlideShare ja dokumendi"pilv" Scribd, kuhu on nii mõnigi vajalik materjal salvestatud või mida on õppejõu poolt soovitatud. Ühisdokumentide tegemiseks oleme eelistanud grupitööna Google docs keskkonda, samuti erinevate vormide koostamiseks. Need kõik on sotsiaalsed vahendid, mis võimaldavad kasutajatevahelist kommunikatsiooni.
Kommunikatsioonile edasi minnes on kaks põhilist vahendit skype ja msn, mida kursuse raames kasutatakse kas koolikaaslastega suhtlemiseks või probleemide lahendamiseks. Samuti eelistan vajadusel kasutada veebipõhist meebo.com suhtluskeskkonda, kuhu saab integreerida nii msni, skype kui ka facebooki ja muude keskkondade suhtlusvidinad. Otse loomulikult on kasutusse läinud ka tavaline mobiiltelefon, kui arvutit ei ole läheduses.
IMKE kusustesiseseks keskkonnaks on oma loodud wiki pbworksis, mille haldamine lükkub ideaalis põlvest-põlve edasi. See sisaldab vajalikke lugemismaterjale ning erinevat kursuste infot, sh. keskkondi, viiteid ja muud olulist. Ei või unustada ka kursusekaaslaste andmeid (nimi, meiliaadress jm). Keskkond on kinnine, et andmed lihtsalt ei lekiks ning sissepääs ainult administraatori loaga. Kursuse suhtlus toimub skypes, wiki foorumi vidin Nabble'st ei toiminud nii hästi kui oleks lootnud.
Ainete planeerimise kalender on Google Calendari hallata, mis toob mugavalt kogu toimuva info arvutiekraanile.
Samuti on kasutuses Facebooki IMKE kommuun, kuhu saab erinevaid teateid postitada ja vestlusi pidada ning ei või ka unustada twitterit, milles erinevad kursusekaaslased olulisi uudiseid postitavad.
Kui lisada inimfaktor ja esemed personaalsele õpikeskkonnale juurde, siis Kehrwiederi kohvikus toimuvad koosolekud ja vestlused annavad õppetööle palju juurde nagu ka loengutes toimuv infovahetus, kuid sel aastal on antud faktorit veidi väheseks jäänud. Samuti käivad õppetöö juude raamatud, mida aeg-ajalt erinevalt e-materjalidest füüsiliselt raamatukokku kohale minnes laenutada tuleb.
Kokkuvõtteks peaks ütlema, et minu personaalne õpikeskkond on üsna interaktiivne, välja arvatud vooagregaator või ühisjärjehoidja. Õppetöös sees olles olen valmis katsetama erinevaid keskkondi, kuid päris mitmed on aja jooksul jäänud tähelepanuta. Põhiline toimiv õppevahend on minu peamine õpiblogi blogspotis, kuigi erinevate ainete raames oleme pidanud ka teistesse blogidesse kirjutama (grupiblogi, lepress jne).
Üldjoontes on see õpikeskkond avatud, kui välja arvata iCampus, mis nõudis sisselogimist ja oli kinnine välissilma jaoks. Ma olen enda loodud õpikeskkonnaga rahul, kuigi seda võiks koondada vooagregaatoriga, et oleks ülevaade asjadest olemas. Samas on mul võrreldes esimese aastaga vähem kursuseid, mis võimaldab kõigel silma peal hoida.
31.10.10
Task 6. New Interactive Environments.
This week's task was to analyze Kiousis' piece- Interactivity: a concept explication. He bulges through a lot of literature to make his point clear, and in the end he manages to give his own definition of the term.
First he begins with reviewing what others have written about the term itself. He notes that in order to get the concept, one needs to "dig through" a lot of points in order to get the main message. He begins with others' thoughts of what interactivity really meant to them. First it was associated with communication technologies, being an independent variable as a medium and a dependant variable as peoples' perceptions, but often the multi-dimensionality is disregarded while talking about interactivity.
He goes on with quite comprehensive literature review which he has chosen from the fields of psychology, sociology and computer science/design. The third field which wasn't used in the previous text is psychology. The author implies that mostly the literature handled the term as a technological and communication aspect, there are still studies that see it as perception, and adopt a psychological variable into it. He browses through various categories as communication definitions which primarily focus on computer-mediated communication, and non-communication definitions which take the psychological role in the term.
The fact is that even if the term is connected with technology, one cannot overlook medium structure and human characteristics. Schneiderman, for example, balances technological criteria (system functionality and reliability) with user criteria (time to learn, speed, rate of user error, etc.). (p. 365) The term is mostly described as perceiver-based more than technology-based, although it originally evolves from the latter. Interactivity originates from the machines which the user has to perceive later in order to understand what is going on in the technological base.
As the author goes through a list of definitions, he understands that the major problem is that the term is weakly explained. He then points out various mistakes, mainly concerned with peoples' perceptions with ever-growing technological opportunities. He also suggests that the term itself should be hybrid, because there is no single possibility of creating a term for the word interactivity, because it is perceived from different angles and the fact that technology is constantly changing, the term will change with the new concepts in the studied fields.
In the conclusion he gives a solid definition: "interactivity is the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many to-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency).", and goes on with the three factors that interactivity is established by: technological structure of the media used (e.g. speed, range, timing flexibility, and sensory complexity), characteristics of communication settings (e.g. third-orderdependency and social presence), and individuals’ perceptions (e.g. proximity, perceived speed, sensory activation, and telepresence) . (p. 379)
The author hopes that more literature will appear concerning the term, but he has done a lot of work in order to get a clear view to the reader about the current status of the term in the year of 2002, which by now has undoubtedly changed due to vast changes in technology and its users.
First he begins with reviewing what others have written about the term itself. He notes that in order to get the concept, one needs to "dig through" a lot of points in order to get the main message. He begins with others' thoughts of what interactivity really meant to them. First it was associated with communication technologies, being an independent variable as a medium and a dependant variable as peoples' perceptions, but often the multi-dimensionality is disregarded while talking about interactivity.
He goes on with quite comprehensive literature review which he has chosen from the fields of psychology, sociology and computer science/design. The third field which wasn't used in the previous text is psychology. The author implies that mostly the literature handled the term as a technological and communication aspect, there are still studies that see it as perception, and adopt a psychological variable into it. He browses through various categories as communication definitions which primarily focus on computer-mediated communication, and non-communication definitions which take the psychological role in the term.
The fact is that even if the term is connected with technology, one cannot overlook medium structure and human characteristics. Schneiderman, for example, balances technological criteria (system functionality and reliability) with user criteria (time to learn, speed, rate of user error, etc.). (p. 365) The term is mostly described as perceiver-based more than technology-based, although it originally evolves from the latter. Interactivity originates from the machines which the user has to perceive later in order to understand what is going on in the technological base.
As the author goes through a list of definitions, he understands that the major problem is that the term is weakly explained. He then points out various mistakes, mainly concerned with peoples' perceptions with ever-growing technological opportunities. He also suggests that the term itself should be hybrid, because there is no single possibility of creating a term for the word interactivity, because it is perceived from different angles and the fact that technology is constantly changing, the term will change with the new concepts in the studied fields.
In the conclusion he gives a solid definition: "interactivity is the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate (one-to-one, one-to-many, and many to-many) both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in reciprocal message exchanges (third-order dependency).", and goes on with the three factors that interactivity is established by: technological structure of the media used (e.g. speed, range, timing flexibility, and sensory complexity), characteristics of communication settings (e.g. third-orderdependency and social presence), and individuals’ perceptions (e.g. proximity, perceived speed, sensory activation, and telepresence) . (p. 379)
The author hopes that more literature will appear concerning the term, but he has done a lot of work in order to get a clear view to the reader about the current status of the term in the year of 2002, which by now has undoubtedly changed due to vast changes in technology and its users.
27.10.10
New Interactive Environments. Task five.
Concept of Interactivity.
To me interactivity is the action which takes place in "communication" between various people/things, for example, as we are mostly connected with computers, interactivity in this sense would be the environments we go and things we do in the Internet that respond to us either by showing something, going to another place, answering (voice or text or pictures), etc., and the exchange of this "communication" varies in a rapid way.
The article I read about the concept of interactivity would show us how the term has been handled throughout the years, since it is by now a background to history of interactivity.
The author, Jensen, contemplates about the notion of interactivity, which in many cases may vary its definition depending on the context. Initially one can find the meaning of this notion in very many fields, thus there is no clear-cut meaning of the term. The author contemplates about the various fields throughout the text in order to get the meaning of interactivity, but in the very end he does not find a single explanation for it.
Goetz and Jäckel establish three fields in which the term ’interactivity’ should be understood in order to establish the concept, and gives explanation of the term considering the fields:
I think this was a good trail of thought to sum up the concept which even the author considered not the final and the very best discussion of the term, but I think he suggests that there should be more done to explain the concept of interactivity.
To me interactivity is the action which takes place in "communication" between various people/things, for example, as we are mostly connected with computers, interactivity in this sense would be the environments we go and things we do in the Internet that respond to us either by showing something, going to another place, answering (voice or text or pictures), etc., and the exchange of this "communication" varies in a rapid way.
The article I read about the concept of interactivity would show us how the term has been handled throughout the years, since it is by now a background to history of interactivity.
The author, Jensen, contemplates about the notion of interactivity, which in many cases may vary its definition depending on the context. Initially one can find the meaning of this notion in very many fields, thus there is no clear-cut meaning of the term. The author contemplates about the various fields throughout the text in order to get the meaning of interactivity, but in the very end he does not find a single explanation for it.
Goetz and Jäckel establish three fields in which the term ’interactivity’ should be understood in order to establish the concept, and gives explanation of the term considering the fields:
- sociology - two people need to be present and "exchange and negotiation regading meaning takes place between those people who find themselves in the same social context";
- communication studies - any action between a person and the media is called interaction;
- informatics - the author suggests that it is the "relationship between people and machines".
I think this was a good trail of thought to sum up the concept which even the author considered not the final and the very best discussion of the term, but I think he suggests that there should be more done to explain the concept of interactivity.
24.10.10
E- portfoolio. Viies nädal.
Lähtudes viiendas nädala kodutööst hakkasin mõtlema, milline võiks minu e-portfoolio olla ja mis eesmärgil ma seda koostaks.
Tiigrihüppe poolt korraldatud Digitiigri koolitusel koostasin esimest korda e-portfooliot, kuid kahjuks ei suuda ma meenutada tarkvara nimetust. See oli spetsiaalselt õpetajatele (kui ma õigesti nüüd mäletan) koostatud tarkvara CV koostamiseks.
Ma keskendun oma portfoolio loomisele, kuna hetkel mul teadlikult koostatud e-portfooliot ei eksisteeri. Õpiportfoolioks võiks tinglikult nimetada seda blogi, kuna siia on koondatud postitused erinevatest ainetest ning mõni üksik aine on jäänud väljapoole antud blogi.
Kuna ma töötan õpetajana ning õpetaja ametis on tähtis osa enesearendamisel, mis on omakorda kasulik kategooria tõstmisel, siis kavandan ma oma e-portfoolio just selle mõttega, et kokku koguda materjal, mis oleks vajalik minu karjääriredelil edasi liikumiseks ning oleks ka CV-le täiendavaks materjaliks.
Materjalid, mis on vajalikud e-portfooliosse sisestamiseks.
Riigi teatajas on kehtestatud õpetajate atesteerimiseks vajalikud nõuded, millest ma oma järgnevas analüüsis ka lähtun:
Keskkond, kuhu ma oma portfoolio loon peab olema lihtsalt kasutatav ning visuaalselt nauditav. Kindlasti saab seda lihtsalt muuta ja see võib seetõttu olla ka lihtne veebilehekülg, mis on kergesti navigeeritav.
Mulle endale meeldib Weebly kodulehe süsteem, kus on mul olemas ka nii-öelda CV-laadne leht (lähemal meeldetuletamisel üsna mahukas), kuid ma olen selle olemasolu veidi unarusse jätnud. Samuti sobib selleks ka näiteks lihtne kodulehe formaat nagu Wix.com (vt. Ingrid Maadvere portfooliot).
Weebly lehele lisasin oma cv, SlideShare ettekanded, mille olin teinud kooli mitteametliku haridustehnoloogina töötamisega seoses, ning samuti väikese ülevaate sellest, mida pean enda elus oluliseks.
Tiigrihüppe poolt korraldatud Digitiigri koolitusel koostasin esimest korda e-portfooliot, kuid kahjuks ei suuda ma meenutada tarkvara nimetust. See oli spetsiaalselt õpetajatele (kui ma õigesti nüüd mäletan) koostatud tarkvara CV koostamiseks.
Ma keskendun oma portfoolio loomisele, kuna hetkel mul teadlikult koostatud e-portfooliot ei eksisteeri. Õpiportfoolioks võiks tinglikult nimetada seda blogi, kuna siia on koondatud postitused erinevatest ainetest ning mõni üksik aine on jäänud väljapoole antud blogi.
Kuna ma töötan õpetajana ning õpetaja ametis on tähtis osa enesearendamisel, mis on omakorda kasulik kategooria tõstmisel, siis kavandan ma oma e-portfoolio just selle mõttega, et kokku koguda materjal, mis oleks vajalik minu karjääriredelil edasi liikumiseks ning oleks ka CV-le täiendavaks materjaliks.
Materjalid, mis on vajalikud e-portfooliosse sisestamiseks.
Riigi teatajas on kehtestatud õpetajate atesteerimiseks vajalikud nõuded, millest ma oma järgnevas analüüsis ka lähtun:
- tõendid koolituste kohta, mille ma läbinud olen (koolitusel ülestähendatud märkmed, mõtted, ideed ja muud materjalid); koolitusi tuleb läbida 160 tunni ulatuses 5a jooksul,
- tõendid/kogemused koolis/vabariigis toimunud olümpiaadide korraldamisest või neis osalemisest; õpilaste juhendamisega seotud kogemus,
- pedagoogilise praktika juhendamisel saadud kogemuste ülestähendamine; võimalusel ka praktikandi kogemus,
- uurimistöö retsenseerimise/juhendamise kogemus,
- konverentsidel ja muudel taolistel üritustel esinemised (teema, sihtgrupp, rahulolu jne)
- loodud publitseeritud õppevara avaldamine,
Keskkond, kuhu ma oma portfoolio loon peab olema lihtsalt kasutatav ning visuaalselt nauditav. Kindlasti saab seda lihtsalt muuta ja see võib seetõttu olla ka lihtne veebilehekülg, mis on kergesti navigeeritav.
Mulle endale meeldib Weebly kodulehe süsteem, kus on mul olemas ka nii-öelda CV-laadne leht (lähemal meeldetuletamisel üsna mahukas), kuid ma olen selle olemasolu veidi unarusse jätnud. Samuti sobib selleks ka näiteks lihtne kodulehe formaat nagu Wix.com (vt. Ingrid Maadvere portfooliot).
Weebly lehele lisasin oma cv, SlideShare ettekanded, mille olin teinud kooli mitteametliku haridustehnoloogina töötamisega seoses, ning samuti väikese ülevaate sellest, mida pean enda elus oluliseks.
Õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud. Kolmas nädal.
Jäin küll rongist maha, aga järjepidevuse mõttes teen siiski oma selle nädala ülesande ka ära.
1. Baseerudes oma eelmisel nädalal defineeritud õpikeskkonna definitsioonile mõtiskle sotsiaalse meedia vahendi(te) üle kui potentsiaalse õpikeskkonna võimalik(ud) koostisosa(d). Millised on sotsiaalse meedia eelised õpihaldussüsteemide ees ning millised on sinu arvates peamised probleemid nii õppija kui ka õpetaja/õppejõu vaatenurgast?
Sotsiaalse meedia vahendite eelised:
Kindlasti avatus ja tihti väike või üldse puuduv haldustasu. Õpilastel on võimalik keskkondadele hõlpsalt ligi pääseda ning oma õpikeskkonda mugavalt täiendada vastavalt nõutud töödele. Väga hõlpsalt leiab keskkondi, mis ei nõua mingit haldustasu ning kuhu saab lihtsalt uusi postitusi lisada.
Sotsiaalne meedia lubab piire laiendada, mis lahti seletatuna minu mõistes tähendab seda, et lisaks õpilastele/üliõpilastele saavad loodud kursuse materjale kasutada ka väljaspoolt kooli huvitatud inimesed õppematerjale kasutada ja huvilised loodud ideid kommenteerida. Blogipõhine õppegrupp moodustab homogeense blogosfääri, mis hakkabki postituste ja kommentaaride harmoonial põhinevalt toimima.
Andmed asuvad veebis, st. mujal kui enda arvutis. Neid ei pea salvestama lisakettale, vaid keegi teeb salvestamise töö Sinu eest juba ära. Inimesel on võimalus salvestada oma digitaalset materjali erinevatele "pilvedele", mis säilitatakse tema eest.
Sotsiaalse meedia vahendite puudused:
Privaatsuse puudumine. Sellistest keskkondadest on hõlbus leida inimeste personaalset infot (enesetutvustus, e-post jne) ning seda kurjasti ära kasutada.
Kindlasti on neid inimesi, kellele ei meeldi avalikkusele oma mõtteid kajastada, mistõttu neid võib segada avatud õpikeskkonna loomus ning nad võivad keelduda oma loodud sisu publitseerimast. On kogemus ühe üliõpilasega, kes avalikkuse ees postitamise vastu võitlemiseks saatis oma kodutööd õppejõule meili kaudu. Siit tuleneb ka autoriõiguse probleem. Näitest tulenevalt võime oletada, et üliõpilane kartis oma ideede vargust, mida on üsna lihtne avatud õpisüsteemide kaudu teostada.
Kõige maalähedasem probleem on vast internetiühendusega tekkinud probleemid, mis takistavad koolitööd tegemast, kuid need takistavad ka kinnistes keskkondades tegevuse toimumist.
Minu jaoks on sotsiaalmeedia vahendites siiski rohkem positiivseid külgi, sest kui tihti ja kui kauaks see internet ikka ära kaob. Pigem on sotsiaalmeedia abil ikkagi võimalus uurida vajalikku infot (seda eelnevalt sõelast läbi lastes, mis on adekvaatne või mitte) ning teada saada erinevate inimeste käekäigust, kuid leidub ka neid inimesi, kes teevad teiste üle nalja, et nad omavad näiteks Facebooki kontot või peavad blogi.
1. Baseerudes oma eelmisel nädalal defineeritud õpikeskkonna definitsioonile mõtiskle sotsiaalse meedia vahendi(te) üle kui potentsiaalse õpikeskkonna võimalik(ud) koostisosa(d). Millised on sotsiaalse meedia eelised õpihaldussüsteemide ees ning millised on sinu arvates peamised probleemid nii õppija kui ka õpetaja/õppejõu vaatenurgast?
Sotsiaalse meedia vahendite eelised:
Kindlasti avatus ja tihti väike või üldse puuduv haldustasu. Õpilastel on võimalik keskkondadele hõlpsalt ligi pääseda ning oma õpikeskkonda mugavalt täiendada vastavalt nõutud töödele. Väga hõlpsalt leiab keskkondi, mis ei nõua mingit haldustasu ning kuhu saab lihtsalt uusi postitusi lisada.
Sotsiaalne meedia lubab piire laiendada, mis lahti seletatuna minu mõistes tähendab seda, et lisaks õpilastele/üliõpilastele saavad loodud kursuse materjale kasutada ka väljaspoolt kooli huvitatud inimesed õppematerjale kasutada ja huvilised loodud ideid kommenteerida. Blogipõhine õppegrupp moodustab homogeense blogosfääri, mis hakkabki postituste ja kommentaaride harmoonial põhinevalt toimima.
Andmed asuvad veebis, st. mujal kui enda arvutis. Neid ei pea salvestama lisakettale, vaid keegi teeb salvestamise töö Sinu eest juba ära. Inimesel on võimalus salvestada oma digitaalset materjali erinevatele "pilvedele", mis säilitatakse tema eest.
Sotsiaalse meedia vahendite puudused:
Privaatsuse puudumine. Sellistest keskkondadest on hõlbus leida inimeste personaalset infot (enesetutvustus, e-post jne) ning seda kurjasti ära kasutada.
Kindlasti on neid inimesi, kellele ei meeldi avalikkusele oma mõtteid kajastada, mistõttu neid võib segada avatud õpikeskkonna loomus ning nad võivad keelduda oma loodud sisu publitseerimast. On kogemus ühe üliõpilasega, kes avalikkuse ees postitamise vastu võitlemiseks saatis oma kodutööd õppejõule meili kaudu. Siit tuleneb ka autoriõiguse probleem. Näitest tulenevalt võime oletada, et üliõpilane kartis oma ideede vargust, mida on üsna lihtne avatud õpisüsteemide kaudu teostada.
Kõige maalähedasem probleem on vast internetiühendusega tekkinud probleemid, mis takistavad koolitööd tegemast, kuid need takistavad ka kinnistes keskkondades tegevuse toimumist.
Minu jaoks on sotsiaalmeedia vahendites siiski rohkem positiivseid külgi, sest kui tihti ja kui kauaks see internet ikka ära kaob. Pigem on sotsiaalmeedia abil ikkagi võimalus uurida vajalikku infot (seda eelnevalt sõelast läbi lastes, mis on adekvaatne või mitte) ning teada saada erinevate inimeste käekäigust, kuid leidub ka neid inimesi, kes teevad teiste üle nalja, et nad omavad näiteks Facebooki kontot või peavad blogi.
14.10.10
New Interactive Environments. Task Three
Today I am concentrating on different students' study plans as task 3.
I studied Maarja, Jakob, Katri, Mehrnoosh, and Valeria.
1. What elements, components, etc. have been used by others to describe their activity?
All the students named above used a kind of graph to describe their activities during the process. Most of them added written information to graphical illustrations, but Jakob was the only one to get away with only graphic devices. I also noticed that he had added some extra information in the comments section, so it was useful to read.
2. What level of detail?
The most detailed descripition was Maarja's, and the precision caught my eye at once. Jakob, Mehrnoosh, and Valeria seemed the only ones to present their tasks in a graphic form with some explanation of the graph (the latter was a bit longer than the first one).
3. What structural aspects are showing up in their descriptions/visualisations?
Most of the students had used a graph and a short explanation of the graph. Everyone began from deciding on the courses based on the available curriculum and moved on towards different decisions like timing, will to learn, etc. Every single plan had a different approach, but one could find similar clusters. Maarja's and Valeria's graphs were similar in the sense that they involved questions and paths to the final decision, but at the same time I found Mehrnoosh's and Valeria's graphs similar from the meaning of thoughts and decisions.
4. What is missing?
Most of the graphs were missing a thorough explanation.
5. What are pros and cons of the different approaches?
I think a graph is a great tool for visual learners, as it can be presented in various ways (more boring or less boring). Jakob's graph was a great example for an interesting, youthfully grasping graph, and the others were quite classical. In another blog I also found a hand-drawn graph, I assume, which caught my eye at once, but I did not choose the blog for analysis. I would have liked to see a longer description of the choices, because for me it is more interesting to read than to search the words for the author's connotations. Connotations come from our own minds, thus the real explanations from the authors remain hidden.
Pros are definitely the amount of time for creating a graph versus adding an explanation to it as well, the first variant takes up less time for sure.
I also peeked in other blogs and found out that quite a lot of people had chosen the graph approach, this is why I liked Maarja's approach the most, because it was deeply thorough. Jakob gets extra points for his creativeness, and I must say he does have an explanation in the comments.
I studied Maarja, Jakob, Katri, Mehrnoosh, and Valeria.
1. What elements, components, etc. have been used by others to describe their activity?
All the students named above used a kind of graph to describe their activities during the process. Most of them added written information to graphical illustrations, but Jakob was the only one to get away with only graphic devices. I also noticed that he had added some extra information in the comments section, so it was useful to read.
2. What level of detail?
The most detailed descripition was Maarja's, and the precision caught my eye at once. Jakob, Mehrnoosh, and Valeria seemed the only ones to present their tasks in a graphic form with some explanation of the graph (the latter was a bit longer than the first one).
3. What structural aspects are showing up in their descriptions/visualisations?
Most of the students had used a graph and a short explanation of the graph. Everyone began from deciding on the courses based on the available curriculum and moved on towards different decisions like timing, will to learn, etc. Every single plan had a different approach, but one could find similar clusters. Maarja's and Valeria's graphs were similar in the sense that they involved questions and paths to the final decision, but at the same time I found Mehrnoosh's and Valeria's graphs similar from the meaning of thoughts and decisions.
4. What is missing?
Most of the graphs were missing a thorough explanation.
5. What are pros and cons of the different approaches?
I think a graph is a great tool for visual learners, as it can be presented in various ways (more boring or less boring). Jakob's graph was a great example for an interesting, youthfully grasping graph, and the others were quite classical. In another blog I also found a hand-drawn graph, I assume, which caught my eye at once, but I did not choose the blog for analysis. I would have liked to see a longer description of the choices, because for me it is more interesting to read than to search the words for the author's connotations. Connotations come from our own minds, thus the real explanations from the authors remain hidden.
Pros are definitely the amount of time for creating a graph versus adding an explanation to it as well, the first variant takes up less time for sure.
I also peeked in other blogs and found out that quite a lot of people had chosen the graph approach, this is why I liked Maarja's approach the most, because it was deeply thorough. Jakob gets extra points for his creativeness, and I must say he does have an explanation in the comments.
10.10.10
New Interactive Environments. Task Two.
I started thinking about my semester's choices, and first ended up with a short mind map to sum my thoughts up:
In case you cannot see the object properly, I will provide you with a simpler HTML page.
I will start analyzing the background information.
Work
This year I considered work more important than last year, because I missed so many days because of the learning cycles that IMKE curriculum has. Since there were very many interesting courses, I decided to participate in most of them to concentrate more on the Master's Thesis on the second year.
During school there is no replacement for me at work, so my tasks are not completed. This year my chosen lecture decisions based on the following:
Family
As the last year was crowded with homework there was almost no time for my family. All my child heard was "Mom's learning now, be a good kid and play with your Legos." Or something the like. Quite a lot of my evenings were filled with homework and work tasks. I also spent a few nights studying in order not to miss deadlines. I was not there for my family at all.
I also spent a lot of time in Tallinn during learning cycles, thus my child missed me a lot. This influenced deeply my this year's decisions not to spend too little time with my son and leave a little mind rest for myself.
This means I have weekday evenings free for my family and my own relaxation, and I can go to sleep early in the evening. I wake up more alert and willing to work. My child is happier, and I do schoolwork more eagerly.
Courses
Previous year's choices showed that during study cycles it was possible to interact with coursemates and it was much more fun to study in that way, you had help and teams available at all times. Collaboration was great!
Since there were many new courses I got quite a lot of new ideas and bright thoughts, but as I mentioned previously, my work and family life suffered greatly from studying.
This year there are a few courses left on my compulsory courses list, thus it is easier to choose between the courses that do not disturb my private life and work.
Since I have more time, I also have more options, and thus I chose some optional courses from another curriculum, because I think these courses might come in handy for my future career. This way I ended up choosing some lectures from Educational Technology curriculum.
First I read through the information in order to see if the course fitted my needs and registered online.
The study system allows you to register online without attending the Tallinn University building. This year my choice was between e-courses and weekend lectures. With e-courses it was also necessary to observe the lecturers' weblogs and wikiversity entries in order not to miss the beginning of the courses.
Last year I ended up with passing 72.5% of the curriculum, this year I will try to do the rest.
I am seriously wondering how I could manage this much last year.
This year it seems that noone is bothered at work that I am missing very often, and my family is also happy. I have weekends for studying, because then I am fresh and fully able to concentrate on schoolwork.
In case you cannot see the object properly, I will provide you with a simpler HTML page.
I will start analyzing the background information.
Work
This year I considered work more important than last year, because I missed so many days because of the learning cycles that IMKE curriculum has. Since there were very many interesting courses, I decided to participate in most of them to concentrate more on the Master's Thesis on the second year.
During school there is no replacement for me at work, so my tasks are not completed. This year my chosen lecture decisions based on the following:
- More time for work
- More time for Master's Thesis
- More time for rest and my family
Family
As the last year was crowded with homework there was almost no time for my family. All my child heard was "Mom's learning now, be a good kid and play with your Legos." Or something the like. Quite a lot of my evenings were filled with homework and work tasks. I also spent a few nights studying in order not to miss deadlines. I was not there for my family at all.
I also spent a lot of time in Tallinn during learning cycles, thus my child missed me a lot. This influenced deeply my this year's decisions not to spend too little time with my son and leave a little mind rest for myself.
This means I have weekday evenings free for my family and my own relaxation, and I can go to sleep early in the evening. I wake up more alert and willing to work. My child is happier, and I do schoolwork more eagerly.
Courses
Previous year's choices showed that during study cycles it was possible to interact with coursemates and it was much more fun to study in that way, you had help and teams available at all times. Collaboration was great!
Since there were many new courses I got quite a lot of new ideas and bright thoughts, but as I mentioned previously, my work and family life suffered greatly from studying.
This year there are a few courses left on my compulsory courses list, thus it is easier to choose between the courses that do not disturb my private life and work.
Since I have more time, I also have more options, and thus I chose some optional courses from another curriculum, because I think these courses might come in handy for my future career. This way I ended up choosing some lectures from Educational Technology curriculum.
First I read through the information in order to see if the course fitted my needs and registered online.
The study system allows you to register online without attending the Tallinn University building. This year my choice was between e-courses and weekend lectures. With e-courses it was also necessary to observe the lecturers' weblogs and wikiversity entries in order not to miss the beginning of the courses.
Last year I ended up with passing 72.5% of the curriculum, this year I will try to do the rest.
I am seriously wondering how I could manage this much last year.
This year it seems that noone is bothered at work that I am missing very often, and my family is also happy. I have weekends for studying, because then I am fresh and fully able to concentrate on schoolwork.
3.10.10
Õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud. Õpikeskkonna definitsioon.
1) Õpikeskkond on koht, kus tegeletakse õppetegevusega. See võib olla ükskõik, milline koht või internetikeskkond, milles olles omandatakse uusi teadmisi. Õpikeskkonad võmaludavad õpilastel end mugavalt tundes (aga ka vahest teadmatult õppides) õppida.
Selles aines käsitleme kindlasti veebikeskkondi, mis on mugavalt struktureeritud ning võimaldavad nii õppida, õpitut peegeldada kui ka tagasisidet saada.
2) Õpihaldussüsteemidest olen põgusalt kokku puutunud Moodle'iga, IVA-ga, VIKO-ga ja iCampusega või eestikeelse eCampusega (ega neil kahel peale keelelise erinevuse muud vahet ei olegi).
Ma analüüsiks neid viimaseid, kuna need on uusimad.
Positiivne taoliste õpihaldussüsteemide puhul on sotsiaalvõrgustiku mudel, mis võimaldab inimestel saada automaatset tagasisidet nii antud keskkonnas kui ka meili teel. Lisaks on seal võimalus faile lisada ja õppejõuga otse vestelda, samuti muude lisavidinate (kommuunid, grupid jms) lisamise võimalused. Kuna tegemist on ELGG-iga, siis olen enne selle süsteemi "maigu" suhu saanud just Koolielu portaalist, milles on võimalusi vaat et rohkemgi kui antud õpihaldussüsteemides.
Negatiivse poole pealt jäävad taolise keskkonna võimalused siiski kasinaks, ning sinna ei ole integreeritud automaatse tulemuse genereerimise võimalust, samuti paigutuvad sinna asetatud failid väga ebamugavalt järjestusse. Tundub, et antud keskkonda on vaja põhjalikult tuunida, et sellest asjalik õpihaldussüsteem saada.
Mulle meeldib kõige rohkem ehk IVA, mida sai Tiigrihüppe koolituse ajal proovida, see tundus väga loogiline ja mõnus hallata, kui Moodle jäi tiba keeruliseks, aga see võib tuleneda asjaolust, et mul oli seda väga vähe aega õppida. VIKO on väga suurte puudujääkidega algeline õpihaldussüsteem ning vajab massiivset täiendamist nagu iCampuski. WebCT-ga ei ole mul isiklikke kokkupuuteid olnud.
Selles aines käsitleme kindlasti veebikeskkondi, mis on mugavalt struktureeritud ning võimaldavad nii õppida, õpitut peegeldada kui ka tagasisidet saada.
2) Õpihaldussüsteemidest olen põgusalt kokku puutunud Moodle'iga, IVA-ga, VIKO-ga ja iCampusega või eestikeelse eCampusega (ega neil kahel peale keelelise erinevuse muud vahet ei olegi).
Ma analüüsiks neid viimaseid, kuna need on uusimad.
Positiivne taoliste õpihaldussüsteemide puhul on sotsiaalvõrgustiku mudel, mis võimaldab inimestel saada automaatset tagasisidet nii antud keskkonnas kui ka meili teel. Lisaks on seal võimalus faile lisada ja õppejõuga otse vestelda, samuti muude lisavidinate (kommuunid, grupid jms) lisamise võimalused. Kuna tegemist on ELGG-iga, siis olen enne selle süsteemi "maigu" suhu saanud just Koolielu portaalist, milles on võimalusi vaat et rohkemgi kui antud õpihaldussüsteemides.
Negatiivse poole pealt jäävad taolise keskkonna võimalused siiski kasinaks, ning sinna ei ole integreeritud automaatse tulemuse genereerimise võimalust, samuti paigutuvad sinna asetatud failid väga ebamugavalt järjestusse. Tundub, et antud keskkonda on vaja põhjalikult tuunida, et sellest asjalik õpihaldussüsteem saada.
Mulle meeldib kõige rohkem ehk IVA, mida sai Tiigrihüppe koolituse ajal proovida, see tundus väga loogiline ja mõnus hallata, kui Moodle jäi tiba keeruliseks, aga see võib tuleneda asjaolust, et mul oli seda väga vähe aega õppida. VIKO on väga suurte puudujääkidega algeline õpihaldussüsteem ning vajab massiivset täiendamist nagu iCampuski. WebCT-ga ei ole mul isiklikke kokkupuuteid olnud.
26.9.10
Õpikeskkonnad ja Õpivõrgustikud. Õpileping.
Minu personaalne õpileping:
Ma soovin lisateadmisi õpikeskkondade osas, et oma teadmisi eelkõige töös rakendada ning teistega jagada. Õpivõrgustikud kaasnevad õpikeskkondade loomisega ning nende tööle rakendamisega, seega on osa õpikeskkondadest ja samuti minu huviorbiidist.
Õpiprojekti eesmärkideks on antud teemavaldkonnas pädevamaks muutuda, et teisi juhendada antud temaatikas just haridustehnoloogilises valdkonnas. Usun, et saan antud kursusest juurde nii mõndagi uut ja kasulikku.
Eesmärgid saavutan õppematerjali tutvumisega ning selle läbitöötamisega. Tegevused järjestaksin nii:
1) Kursuse blogiga tutvumine
2) Uue õppematerjaliga tutvumine, selle läbitöötamine
3) Koduse ülesande õigeaegne postitamine ajaveebi
4) Tagasiside lugemine, teiste kursusekaaslaste blogipostitustega tutvumine, et saada uusi ideid.
5) Vajadusel kursusekaaslaste blogide kommenteerimine
Vahenditeks on õppejõudude poolt pakutud materjal, lisamaterjal veebist (raamatutest), samuti kursusekaaslaste blogid. Kindlasti leidub ka päriselust näiteid, mis illustreerivad pakutud materjali.
Oma saavutusi hindan eelkõige enesetunde järgi - kui tunnen ennast hästi, siis on järelikult kõik õnnestunud. Kui südametunnistus piinab, on midagi tegemata jäänud. Ehk siis praktilisemalt olen rahul oma blogipostituste ja sellele eelnenud ning järgnenud tegevustega ning täitnud need õigeaegselt.
Tulevikuks märgin ära:
Reflektsioon (kursuse lõpus) – Mis minu jaoks töötas ja mis mitte? Miks? Mis on need aspektid, mille kallal pean veel vaeva nägema? Mis on minu tugevad ja nõrgad küljed? Mis ma peaksin järgmisena tegema?
Ma soovin lisateadmisi õpikeskkondade osas, et oma teadmisi eelkõige töös rakendada ning teistega jagada. Õpivõrgustikud kaasnevad õpikeskkondade loomisega ning nende tööle rakendamisega, seega on osa õpikeskkondadest ja samuti minu huviorbiidist.
Õpiprojekti eesmärkideks on antud teemavaldkonnas pädevamaks muutuda, et teisi juhendada antud temaatikas just haridustehnoloogilises valdkonnas. Usun, et saan antud kursusest juurde nii mõndagi uut ja kasulikku.
Eesmärgid saavutan õppematerjali tutvumisega ning selle läbitöötamisega. Tegevused järjestaksin nii:
1) Kursuse blogiga tutvumine
2) Uue õppematerjaliga tutvumine, selle läbitöötamine
3) Koduse ülesande õigeaegne postitamine ajaveebi
4) Tagasiside lugemine, teiste kursusekaaslaste blogipostitustega tutvumine, et saada uusi ideid.
5) Vajadusel kursusekaaslaste blogide kommenteerimine
Vahenditeks on õppejõudude poolt pakutud materjal, lisamaterjal veebist (raamatutest), samuti kursusekaaslaste blogid. Kindlasti leidub ka päriselust näiteid, mis illustreerivad pakutud materjali.
Oma saavutusi hindan eelkõige enesetunde järgi - kui tunnen ennast hästi, siis on järelikult kõik õnnestunud. Kui südametunnistus piinab, on midagi tegemata jäänud. Ehk siis praktilisemalt olen rahul oma blogipostituste ja sellele eelnenud ning järgnenud tegevustega ning täitnud need õigeaegselt.
Tulevikuks märgin ära:
Reflektsioon (kursuse lõpus) – Mis minu jaoks töötas ja mis mitte? Miks? Mis on need aspektid, mille kallal pean veel vaeva nägema? Mis on minu tugevad ja nõrgad küljed? Mis ma peaksin järgmisena tegema?
Õpikeskkonnad ja Õpivõrgustikud. Enesetutvustus.
Tutvustan ennast õpingukaaslastele.
Eestikeelse tutvustuse lisan siia teist korda, sest esimese modifitseerisin inglisekeelseks ja duubeldasin seda kevadise kursuse jaoks. See tutvustus on kursuse nimega õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud tarbeks.
Niisiis, minu nimi on Maibritt ja õpin Tallinna Ülikoolis teise aasta magistrandina interaktiivset meediat ja teadmuskeskkondi. Töötan Pärnu Ühisgümnaasiumis võõrkeeleõpetajana alates 2001. aastast ning hobi korras aitan kolleege haridustehnoloogilistes küsimustes.
Minu koolitee on enamasti kulgenud koolis, kus ma töötan. Vahepeal põikasin Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikooli inglise ja prantsuse keelt õppima ning sekka ka tilgakese informaatikat, kuna vaba aega oli jalaga segada. Sellest tekkis ka hilisem magistriõpingute huvi just arvutitega seotud valdkonnas.
Eraelus kasvatan peaaegu 6-aastast poega ja naudin elu!
Eestikeelse tutvustuse lisan siia teist korda, sest esimese modifitseerisin inglisekeelseks ja duubeldasin seda kevadise kursuse jaoks. See tutvustus on kursuse nimega õpikeskkonnad ja õpivõrgustikud tarbeks.Niisiis, minu nimi on Maibritt ja õpin Tallinna Ülikoolis teise aasta magistrandina interaktiivset meediat ja teadmuskeskkondi. Töötan Pärnu Ühisgümnaasiumis võõrkeeleõpetajana alates 2001. aastast ning hobi korras aitan kolleege haridustehnoloogilistes küsimustes.
Minu koolitee on enamasti kulgenud koolis, kus ma töötan. Vahepeal põikasin Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikooli inglise ja prantsuse keelt õppima ning sekka ka tilgakese informaatikat, kuna vaba aega oli jalaga segada. Sellest tekkis ka hilisem magistriõpingute huvi just arvutitega seotud valdkonnas.
Eraelus kasvatan peaaegu 6-aastast poega ja naudin elu!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)