Digital identity and presence in the social milieuGráinne Conole, University of Leicester

Pelicon conference, 2013, 10-12th April, PlymouthDigital landscapes: meeting future challenges

AbstractThe keynote will critique the affordances (Gibson 1979) social and participatory media offer in terms of promoting different forms of interaction and communication. It will explore in particular the nature of digital identity and presence. It will argue that there is a complex interconnection between us and the digital environment we inhabit and that this relationship is constantly changing and adapting. In terms of harnessing this for learning, teachers need to develop a complex set of digital literacies and need to adopt new approaches to design that go beyond content to the activities that learners engage with. It will conclude with a description of the 7Cs of Learning Design framework, which aims to help teachers make more informed design decisions that are pedagogically effective and make innovative uses of new technologies.

It will describe a set of theoretical constructs that can be used to describe and understand our interactions online: the notion of digital identity and presence and digital performance, our evolving rhizomatic digital network, harnessing the affordances and new media and the associated digital social milieu, and the nature of our digital traces and the associated digital panoptican.

IntroductionSocial and participatory media have a number of key characteristics that make them distinctive from the so-called web 1.0 technologies. These include: open practices, distributed cognition, networking and interconnection, complex and evolving interactions, and the development of a personalised digital landscape. These characteristics enable us to interact with others on an unprecedented global scale.

Developing the digital literacy (Jenkins 2009) skills needed to be part of this ‘participatory culture’ is a key challenge facing education today. These skills are way beyond simple notions of ICT literacies and are more about harnessing the affordances of social and participatory media. Skills like: play, transmedia navigation, judgement, and distributed cognition. The extent to which an individual has these skills will impact on how they interact with others through these media. Rheingold1 argues that social media enable people to socialise, organise, learn, play, and engage in commerce. The part that makes social media social is that technical skills need to be exercised in concert with others: encoding, decoding, and community. He identifies five social media literacies:

1 http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/attention-and-other-21st-century-social-media-literacies

attention, participation, collaboration, network awareness and critical consumption.

Today’s digital landscape

Figure 1: The E-learning timeline

Figure 1 shows the key technological developments that have emerged over the last thirty years. Starting with multimedia authoring tools like Tookbook and Authorware in the late eighties, which enabled users to create rich and interactive multimedia resources. The Internet emerged in 1993 and was initially a very static interface, unable to handle large amounts of images or multimedia because of poor bandwidth. In the mid-nineties, practitioners started to talk about the notion of learning objects and the aspiration to create and share learning materials in a vibrant educational marketplace.

As about the same time Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) /Learning Management Systems (LMSs) started to appear. These were significant in two respects. Firstly, institutions started to realise that technologies were core for their learner and established committees to evaluation different VLEs/LMSs and to instigate VLE/LMS policies. Secondly, they mimicked established teaching practice and hence provided a safe nursery slope for practitioners to experiment. Practitioners could upload content, make announcements, set up discussion forums and provide mechanisms for their students to upload assignments. The first generation of mobile devices emerged in around 1998; although they had very limited capacity and it was hard to see what they could offer for learning. Learning Design as a research field emerged as a counteraction to the long

established field of Instructional Design. The focus was on the creation of tools and resources to help practitioners make more informed design decisions.

Around 2000 gamification emerged and in particular how games could be used in a learning context. The Open Educational Resource (OER) movement took the ideas around Learning Objects a stage further in 2001. Promoted by organisations like UNESCO and the Flora and William Foundation, a core principle was that educational is a fundamental human right and that educational materials should be freely available. UNESCO estimate that there are more than 100 million people who cannot afford formal education; OER offer them a means of getting an education.

O’Reilly defined the term Web 2.0 to distinguish the emerging tools and practices associated with the web, which were more participatory, social and participatory (O'Reilly 2004; O'Reilly 2005). This term morphed into the term ‘social and participatory’ media, which is the central focus of this talk.

Virtual worlds, such as Secondlife, gained popularity in around 2005; many believed they offered immersive and authentic 3D environments, which could promote pedagogies such as role play, Problem-Based learning and situated learning. This was followed by a second generation of mobile devices; in particular e-books, tablets and smart phones. These made the mantra of ‘learning anywhere, anytime’ a reality. Finally, the next phase in the continium of Learning Objects, Open Educational Resources (OER) was the emergence of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), with thousands of people signing up to participate. Two distinct types of MOOCs have now evolved: i) cMOOCs promoting connectivist learning (Siemens 2005) and ii) xMOOCs, which are more linear and didactic, such as those offered by Coursera.

The social milieuThe social environment, social context, sociocultural context, or milieu, refers to ‘the immediate physical and social setting in which people live or in which something happens or develops. It includes the culture that the individual was educated or lives in, and the people and institutions with whom they interact’.So the digital milieu is a combination of the affordances of new media and an individual’s personal competences and preferences; each person has to find their own ‘digital voice’ and personal digital environment. They need to be able to navigate across the digital landscape; being clear about how different media are used. So interactions in facebook will differ from those in Twitter or Virtual Worlds. We each create our own ecological niche, we connect with different people for different reasons; each of us has an inner core of ‘friends’ and an outer set of acquaintances forming three different types of interactions, what Dron and Anderson refer to as Groups, Networks and Collectives (Dron and Anderson 2007). Goffman (1972) in particular stressing the deeply social nature of the individual environment.[3] He talks about the concept of ‘performance’, the way in which we interact and communicate with others online is a form of performance and relates to how we are perceived by others; each of us has an

individual digital identity, which is the culmination of our interactions across different media.

We leave visible digital trails as we interact online; a digital equivalent of Foucault’s concept of the ‘Panopticon’ , which refers to the concept of a design which allows a watchman to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether or not they are being watched. In the digital landscape our identity is fragmented across different media, we are connected in a complex set of social interactions with others, ranging from loosely connected to tightly bound communities.

Digital identity and presenceDigital identity is about how you present yourself online and how others perceive you. It emerges from the way you interact and communicate with others. Our professional identity has changed as a result of our interactions online. In the past a research paper published in a closed journal might only have a handful of readers. Articles published online can be access by hundreds, if not thousands of people. And there is a blurring of our personal and professional identity, particularly in sites like facebook. Weller (2011) argues that:

A key element to realising a strong online identity is an attitude of openness. This involved sharing aspects of personal life on social network sites, blogging ideas rather than completing articles and engaging in experiments with new media.

He goes on to argue (2011: 99) that digital identity is both distributed across multiple channels as well as usually having a central place (such as a blog). And he argues (2011: 136) that there are a number of facets associated with your digital identity: reputation, impact, influence and productivity.

Rhizomatic learning and connectivismThe nature of our personalised digital landscape or network is not static; it changes over time; we are constantly adapting and co-evolving with the technologies and through our network of peers. And as a result we develop, we learn, we adapt. Two key concepts in relation to our interactions online for me are the concepts of Rhizomatic learning (Cormier 2011) and Connectivism (Siemens 2005). In terms of Rhizomatic learning, Cormier argues that:

A rhizome is a stem of a plant that sends out roots and shoots as it spreads. This is analogous to how we interact online and in particular the way that ideas are multiple, interconnected and self-replicating. A rhizome has no beginning or end… like the learning process.

So we develop connections with people, who’s ideas are of interest to us. This might be through including them on a blogroll, facebook chatting ideas, liking or commenting on posts, or retweeting in Twitter. We build up connections with those that we have most in common with.

Connectivism is a useful analytic framework for understanding our interactions across this digital landscape. Siemens outlines 8 key principles of Connectivism, how these apply to our interactions online are emphasised in italics:1. Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. Online we interact and

connect with others through a variety of channels, co-constructing knowledge.2. Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

We connect both with people and with resources. Appropriating them for our own individual needs.

3. Learning may reside in non-human appliances. So in addition to others, an important part of our network are the tools and resources we use.

4. Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. So it is recognising that we learn and develop through our network.

5. Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. Being part of a social network is about reciprocity; contributing to the network as well as using it.

6. Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. And as such we need to develop the types of digital literacy skills Jenkins talks about, to harness the affordances of the media.

7. Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. The net offers a powerful mechanism for developing skills and keeping up to date.

8. Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. Which is about developing our own personal learning environment and critically reflecting on its development.

So what is presence? Dictionary definitions include: i) The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence or ii) Immediate proximity in time or space. Neither of these really captures what I understand by presence. I think it is something more than this. This definition comes closer: ‘the bearing, carriage or air of a person; especially stately or distinguished bearing’.

I am interested in the difference between presence face-to-face and online. In a face-to-face context presence is related to a number of factors. It’s about someone’s aura, their stance. It might be that someone has presence because they are tall, attractive, have a deep voice or it might be related to their intellect. We have all experienced the feeling of being effected by someone, being very aware of them, feeling a connection with them on a sub-conscious level.In the digital world presence is very different, it is conveyed primarily through text. Presence is channelled through your words and associated emoticons, etc. I often wonder how I am perceived online. What people make of the things I say, the pictures I post. What is my digital personality and how is it different from the way I interact face-to-face. I find online interactions liberating and different to the interactions I have with people face to face.

Of course technology plays a part. The affordances of different media enable or disenable certain types of interaction. So facebook is a good medium for sharing multimedia, Twitter requires you to speak in a certain way, with its limit of 140 characters. Virtual worlds provide a bridge to face-to-face interaction, via your

avatar. The avatar you choose says something about you. Our digital presence is fragmented across these different media. The collective self is a culmination of these individual utterances. The way I speak on my blog is different to the postings I put on facebook or Twitter. They have different purposes and audiences. So what does ‘presence’ mean in a digital context? I think it is about how you are perceived by others through your interaction with them. Presence only has meaning in relation to others. It’s a social construct. For some people you will have presence, for others you won’t. It is all to do with whether your interactions have meaning for others.

The Community Indicators FrameworkIn order to better understand interactions in social networks we developed a Community Indicators Framework (CIF) (Figure 2) (Galley, Conole et al. 2011). The CIF is built around four key aspects of community experience: participation – the ways in which individuals engage in activity; cohesion – the ties between individuals and the community as a whole; identity – how individuals perceive the community and their place within it; and creative capability – the ability of the community to create shared artefacts, and shared knowledge and understanding. Each of these aspects is interrelated and the whole reflects the multifaceted complexity of what we experience as community. We have argued that these aspects have a multiplicative effect on each other, in that the absence of one is likely to significantly impact on the presence of the others.

Figure 2 The Community Indicators Framework

In the paper we concluded that:

The notion of ‘community’ is complex and nebulous, especially in relation to online, open and transient communities.

And go on to state that:Finally, we believe the CIF may also prove effective as a framework for supporting and guiding developing communities, as it expresses the tensions and challenges, which can emerge as communities evolve. A critical approach to these tensions and challenges may help to manage and limit risk to the community as people debate, discuss and work to create new knowledge together openly and online. For example a community may reflect on its progression and development using a series of facilitative prompts, activities and tasks informed by the CIF..

The 7Cs of Learning Design frameworkThis talk has described the ways in which we can interact online and the benefits of social and participatory media for learning and professional development. Clearly these media offer a rich set of ways in which learners can interact, however in reality teachers are not using social and participatory media extensively for learning. They need guidance and support to make informed design decisions that are pedagogically effective and make innovative use of technologies to support interaction, communicate and collaboration.

The 7Cs of Learning Design framework illustrates the key stages involved in the design process, from initial conceptualisation of a learning intervention through to trialing and evaluating it in a real learning context (Figure 3). The framework consists of the following stages:

1. Conceptualise: What is the vision for the learning intervention, who is it being designed for, what is the essence of the intervention, what pedagogical approaches are used?

2. Capture: What Open Educational Resources are being used and what other resources need to be developed?

3. Create: What is the nature of the learning intervention the learners will engage with? What kinds of learning activities will the learners engage with?

4. Communicate: What types of communication will the learners be using?5. Collaboration: What types of collaboration will be learners be doing?6. Consider: What forms of reflection and demonstration of learning are

includes? Are the learning outcomes mapped to the activities and assessment elements of the learning intervention?

7. Consolidate: How effective is the design? Do the different elements of the design work together?

Figure 3: The 7Cs of learning design framework

For each of the seven stages we have developed a series of conceptual designs, building on our work and that of others2 in the field. Three of these are described here: the course features view, the course map view and the pedagogy profile view. The first is the course features view, which is associated with the conceptualise element of the 7Cs framework. This enables teachers to think about the overall essence of the learning intervention and how it will be delivered and supported. Participants interact with a pack of cards around the following elements:

1. Principles (Figure 4): What is the essence of the course, what are the core principles? So for example cultural or aesthetic aspects may be important, the intervention may have a practical focus or be about applying theory to practice, it may be based on a professional community of peers or it might be important that the intervention includes elements of serendipity.

2. Pedagogical approaches: What pedagogies are involved? For example is the intervention based on constructivist principles, is it problem or inquiry-based?

3. Guidance and support (Figure 5): What guidance and support are provided? For example in terms of a website or module handout, or access to study materials.

4. Content and activities: What kinds of activities are included and what content will the learners be using?

2 See larnacadeclaration.org for an up to date overview of Learning Design

5. Reflection and demonstration: Are the learners actively encourage to reflect at key points? How are they demonstrating their learning? What forms of diagnostic, formative and summative assessment are included?

6. Communication and collaboration: How are the learners interacting with each other and their tutors? Are there any elements of collaboration included?

Figure 4" The principles associated with the learning intervention

Figure 5: Guidance and support

Once the course features view has been completed, teachers can fill in the course views map, which considers what Guidance and Support is provided, what Content and Activities the learners will engage with, what forms of Communication and Collaboration are included, and the types of Reflection and Demonstration. This includes details of which tools and resources are associated with each of the elements and any notes such as details of prerequisites required or description of the philosophy underpinning the learning intervention, for example it might be that peer interaction is deemed important or that learners are expected to generate their own materials.

The third example is the pedagogy or activity profile view (Figure 6). This enables teachers to map the types of activities the learners will engage with. There are six types: assimilative activities (reading, viewing, listening), information handling, communicative, productive, experiential (such as drill and practice exercises) and adaptive (such as modeling or simulation). The profile also indicates the amount of time spent on assessment activities. The profile is available as an online flash widget.3

Figure 6: An example of a completed pedagogy profile

Storyboarding is a well-established approach to visually representing a temporal sequence of activities. For example, it is used in the film industry to represent the key sequences involved in a plot. Storyboarding is used in our Learning Design work, as a means of representing to overall design. It enables the teacher/designer to see how the different elements of the design process fit together. It consists of a timeline, with the activities included in the design along the middle. Learning outcomes are mapped to the assessment elements. Above the activities any inputs to the individual activities are include: for example reading materials or podcasts. Below the activities outputs are listed, for example contribution to a discussion forum or creation of a blog post.

Evaluation of the framework and the associated resources indicates that it is welcomed and that the conceptual designs enable teachers to rethink their design practice to create more engaging learning interventions for their learners. The conceptual views can also be used with learners, to give them an indication of the nature of the courses they are undertaking. The activity profile is particularly useful as it enables learners to see the mix of different types of learning activities they will engage with.

3 http://www.rjid.com/open/pedagogy/html/pedagogy_profile_1_2.html

ConclusionReturning to the theme of this year’s Pelicon conference ‘Digital landscapes: meeting future challenges’, I would like to argue that we need to move beyond the notion of space and time when describing our interactions online; the theoretical constructs described in this talk provide a richer means of representing and understanding how we interact online. Key challenges face education and indeed society more generally. Education needs to prepare individuals for a constantly changing environment. Individuals will need to develop new digital literacy skills and in particular skills that enable them to be able to adapt, to retrain, as most will have more than one career change. Social and participatory media have an important role to play; providing individuals with a rich, distributed ecology of resources and expertise that they can draw on. We now truly have what Salomon described as ‘distributed cognition’, between our minds and our digital network.

ReferencesCormier, D. (2011). Rhizomatic learning - why we teach? Dave's education blog: education, post-structuralism and the rise of the machines. http://davecormier.com/edblog/2011/11/05/rhizomatic-learning-why-learn/.

Dron, J. and T. Anderson (2007). Collectives, networks and groups in social software for e-Learning. Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education Quebec. Retrieved Feb. 16: 2008.

Galley, R., G. Conole, et al. (2011). "Community Indicators: A framework for building and evaluating communiyt activity on Cloudworks." Interactive Learning Environments.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century, Mit Pr.

O'Reilly, T. (2004). The architecture of particaption.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0 - Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software.

Siemens, G. (2005). "Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age." International journal of instructional technology and distance learning 2(1): 3–10.

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar - how technology is changing academic practice. London, Bloomsbury Academic.