Research – NTUVPA

OSS—Refocusing Learning on Pedagogy (Rather than Technology) in a Networked World

Cynics unaware of We are Now[here], OSS TV & Touch, may ask how much if at all, the new OSS pedagogy/technology/process will change learning outcomes. The criticism that OSS merely combines Word Press and Web Conferencing, overlooks how OSS pedagogy culminated in We are Now[here], OSS TV & Touch—game changers in e-learning, through their ability to go beyond learning about art to learning by DIWO—thus evincing its ability to expand artistic thinking and performative practice in ways that Blackboard, Facebook, Word Press and Skype currently can’t because they merely create new learning environments (through new technology), whereas the OSS method additionally creates new learning experiences (via new pedagogy).

In short, I hope faculty members understand that the OSS demonstrates how pedagogical wisdom with respect to technology is what counts, for we seek to change restrictive conceptions of online teaching that constrain educators to viewing our mission in terms of providing instruction and access to electronic content.

The Getting Started for Faculty Tutorial hit the nail on the head in stating “OSS is not just another e-learning system”, for the OSS is also a new e-learning experience—one that no other Learning Management System currently available at NTU offers, because of the new pedagogy as well as technologies like aggregation and the tag cloud.

While new technologies can wonderfully create new opportunities and affordances for educational use, on their own if used purely for instructional purposes and content transmission, technologies merely increase the efficiency of ineffective teaching practice. Bad use of OSS technologies misses the opportunities inherent in them (as unimaginative use of Kadenze and Blackboard by faculty members have clearly demonstrated).

Qualities of Engagement of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning in the Media Arts: A Case Study in Higher Education (draft-in-progress)

ABSTRACT

In seeking to improve our understanding of the nexus between Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and learner engagement, the central focus of this study concerns the processes through which a group collaborates in a prototypical CSCL environment unprecedented in its design and curricular enactment in undergraduate education at the time of writing. Representing a unique case in CSCL research, the purpose of this case study is to describe and elucidate the nature of academic engagement with the media arts in an intensely networked CSCL environment, which could potentially herald a paradigm shift in the implementation of CSCL in higher education. Drawing on a qualitative single case analysis, I intend to gather details about learners’ ways of entering into and sustaining their involvement with the media arts in a CSCL environment. The problem to be investigated is the influence of a sociable CSCL environment on learner engagement in the teaching and learning of studio-based media art in undergraduate education.

Overview of Study

Situated at the School of Art, Design and Media (ADM), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, this study seeks to fill the gap in CSCL research about how intensely networked interactive CSCL environments, can heighten collaborative engagement, and open new potentialities for collaborative research and peer-to-peer artistic praxis in the media arts. This study is an in-depth qualitative single case analysis that will describe and interpret learners’, faculty members’ and professional artists’ responses to a cutting edge CSCL approach — known as the Open Source Studio (OSS) project — to teach studio-based media art through the liminality of the Third Space. In illuminating the conceptual and pragmatic understandings of how this CSCL platform is used to engender and amplify collective processes of learning and creative activity in the liminal space, this inquiry could potentially yield new insights into the nature of learner engagement, and the mediating role it plays in the CSCL of the media arts. This empirical study attempts to contribute to our understanding of how CSCL environments can be designed and implemented, to catalyze and syncretize the creative and social-emotional processes (vitally important to learner engagement, as well as artistic expression and representation) unfolding within the Third Space. Essentially, this case study will try to illuminate the set of decisions that guided the development of the OSS project: why they were made, how they were implemented, and with what result. These decisions are of particular interest and significance to CSCL research, because they allow us to trace emergent norms and elusive micro practices in authentic class activities unfolding within a unique social space afforded by the OSS project.

The following taxonomy will guide my analysis:

The sociable CSCL environment as the platform
The liminal space as the conceptual space for creative expression
Interactivity as strategy to enhance learner engagement
Learner engagement is evinced by interaction/interactivity

Student Engagement

Student engagement is increasingly becoming a cornerstone in the coercive lexicon of neo-liberal reform in higher education. Referring to the “time, energy, and resources students devote to activities designed to enhance learning” (Krause, 2005c, p. 3), student engagement describes, inter alia, a compendium of student attitudes, behaviours and social interactions undergirding undergraduate learning. Major universities worldwide are keenly aware of the importance of student engagement, and its ramifications on student satisfaction and student experience (Cluett & Skene, 2011, p. 248) in the marketplace of higher education. Used as a benchmark by international league tables such as the Centre for Higher Education University Ranking (DAAD, 2015a, 2015b), ameliorating student satisfaction, inter alia, is a key priority in enhancing student experience in an increasingly competitive higher education market (Marginson, 2007). High student satisfaction indicators can therefore give universities continuously in pursuit of improving their performance in the league tables, a marketing edge in the highly competitive global arena where major universities vie for top talent. Driving the accountability regime, are quality assurance mandates, compelling universities to constantly monitor, scrutinize, and evaluate learner engagement often perceived by their “customers” to be a reliable measure of undergraduate learning experience. Student engagement and its concomitant impact on student satisfaction, are aspects of the undergraduate experience that include, inter alia, the quality of teaching, and the information and communication technologies (ICT) supporting enacted curricula — commonly deemed the core business of successful universities (Krause, 2005a, 2005b).

The Need for Sociable CSCL Environments in the Media Arts

“People on the net are not only solitary information processors but also social beings. They are not only looking for information; they are also looking for affiliation, support and affirmation. Thinking of people on the net as social actors evokes a metaphor of a gathering. Behaviours appropriate at the gathering include chatting, discussing, arguing, and confiding. People go to a gathering to find others with common interests and talk with or listen to them. When they find a gathering like, they return to it again and again.”

(Sproull & Faraj, 1997, p. 38)

Media art is an art form that utilizes new communication technologies, computing, and electronic or digital equipment comprising computers, fax machines, and satellites, to exploit new technologies and processes in creative ways to create works of art, that encompass wired art, copy art, computer graphics, holography, video, experimental cinema, multimedia and interactive installations, avant-garde radio and television, as well as, musical compositions, concerts, and recordings (Poissant, 2000, p. 138).

Media art is differentiated from the deterministic artistic canons of the previous era, by interactivity and creative participation. The nexus between media arts learning and CSCL thus involves the use of communication technologies and computers to facilitate the social interaction, and hence social space, vitally important in media art and CSCL. It is therefore surprising that the media arts have been largely ignored within the burgeoning field of CSCL, for the highly interactive and creative practice of the media arts presents untapped opportunities for CSCL pedagogies. CSCL pedagogies within distributed virtual online environments largely neglect the social and socio-emotional complexities that undergird the group dynamics of working and learning in a CSCL group (Kirschner, 2015, p. 59), as well as, the intensely visceral and peer-to-peer nature of networked media art.

R E F E R E N C E S

Cluett, L., & Skene, J. (2011). Using web 2.0 tools to enhance the student experience in non-teaching areas of the university. In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning : applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 247-266). Hershey Pa.: Information Science Reference.

DAAD. (2015a). CHE university ranking 2015/16 catalogue of criteria. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/deutschland/studienangebote/ranking/en/?a=info&t=catalogue-of-criteria

DAAD. (2015b). CHE university ranking 2015/16 FAQ. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/deutschland/studienangebote/ranking/en/?a=info&t=faq

Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 59-77.

Krause, K. (2005a). The changing face of the first year: Challenges for policy and practice in research-led universities. Paper presented at the University of Queensland first year experience workshop 2005, Townsville, Cairns, Queensland,.

Krause, K. (2005b). The changing student experience: Who’s driving it and where is it going? . Paper presented at the Student Experience Conference: Good Practice in Practice, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW.

Krause, K. (2005c). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper presented at the James Cook University symposium 2005, sharing scholarship in learning and teaching: Engaging students, Townsville, Cairns, Queensland,.

Marginson, S. (2007). Rankings: Marketing mana or menace? Paper presented at the ‘The big oicture’ 16th annual New Zealand international education conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Poissant, L. (2000). New media dictionary. Leonardo, 33(2), 137-140. doi:10.1162/002409401750287047

Sproull, L., & Faraj, S. (1997). Atheism, sex and databases: The net as a social technology. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the internet (pp. 35-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2015). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 479-500). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dissertation Seminar Proposal-in-Progress

Qualities of Engagement of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning in the Media Arts: A Case Study in Higher Education

ABSTRACT

This study seeks to explore the nexus between CSCL and learner engagement in studio-based media art. The purpose of this study is to describe and elucidate the nature of undergraduate learner engagement with studio-based media art in a networked CSCL environment. Drawing on a qualitative single case analysis, I intend to gather details and interpret how undergraduate learners enter and sustain their involvement with studio-based media art — beyond the physical confines of an onsite studio — through CSCL. The problem to be investigated is the influence of CSCL on learner engagement in the teaching and learning of studio-based media art in higher education. (102 words)

An Overview of the Study

Situated at the School of Art, Design and Media (ADM), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), this study seeks to bridge the gap in CSCL research about how intensely networked interactive learning environments, can heighten collaborative engagement, and open new potentialities for collaborative research and peer-to-peer artistic praxis in the media arts.

The study proposed in this paper is an in-depth qualitative single case analysis that will describe and interpret learners’ response to a novel CSCL approach to teaching studio-based media art — the Open Source Studio (OSS). By exploring the context of an undergraduate studio-based media art course, the study can illuminate conceptual and pragmatic understandings of how sociable CSCL platforms can be used to engender and amplify collective processes of learning and creative activity. This inquiry could potentially yield new insights into the nature of undergraduate learner engagement, and the mediating role it plays in the CSCL of the media arts. This study aims to contribute to our understanding of how CSCL catalyzes and syncretizes the range of creative processes that unfold during artistic expression and representation within an intensely networked practice of the media arts.

To frame this research proposal, I shall commence with an account of its genesis, and the inception of the key exploratory research questions that ensued, guiding its development.

INTRODUCTION

Learner Engagement

Learner engagement is increasingly becoming a cornerstone in the coercive lexicon of neo-liberal reform in higher education. Referring to the “time, energy, and resources students devote to activities designed to enhance learning” (Krause, 2005c, p. 3), learner engagement describes, inter alia, a compendium of student attitudes, behaviours and social interactions undergirding collaborative learning. Major universities worldwide are keenly aware of the importance of learner engagement, and its ramifications on student satisfaction and student experience (Cluett & Skene, 2011, p. 248) in the marketplace of higher education. Used as a benchmark by international league tables such as the Centre for Higher Education University Ranking (DAAD, 2015a, 2015b), ameliorating student satisfaction, inter alia, is a key priority in enhancing student experience in an increasingly competitive higher education market (Marginson, 2007). High student satisfaction indicators can therefore give universities continuously in pursuit of improving their performance in the league tables, a marketing edge in the highly competitive global arena where major universities vie for top talent. Driving the accountability regime, are quality assurance mandates, compelling universities to constantly monitor, scrutinize, and evaluate learner engagement often perceived by their “customers” to be a reliable measure of undergraduate learning experience. Learner engagement and its concomitant impact on student satisfaction, are aspects of the undergraduate experience that include, inter alia, the quality of teaching, and the information and communication technologies (ICT) supporting enacted curricula — commonly deemed the core business of successful universities (Krause, 2005a, 2005b).

CSCL and the Media Arts

The creative arts is an understudied area within the field of CSCL, where the dominant focus has been on the high status subjects in the Sciences and Mathematics, and to a lesser degree, the Language Arts and Social Studies (Downton, Peppler, & Bamberger, 2011; Peppler & Kafai, 2007). There is a dearth of empirical data about how CSCL can be implemented in the media arts, despite the tremendous potential of CSCL platforms in bringing learners together and in offering “creative activities of intellectual exploration and social interaction” (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2015, p. 480).

With the exception of four American studies in the creative arts — specifically in the visual (Kafai & Peppler, 2011; Peppler & Kafai, 2007, 2009) and performing arts (Downton et al., 2011) at the primary and secondary school levels — the corpus of CSCL research in the media arts is limited. This is surprising, given that the creative practice of the media arts is in the digital medium itself (Packer, 2015, personal communication), and that CSCL is, as Stahl et al. (2015) contend, premised on the “vision of software and applications that bring learners together and that can offer creative activities of intellectual exploration and social interaction” (p. 480).

Defining the Media Arts

The professional field of the media arts entails “all forms of creative practice involving or referring to art” using new communication technologies, electronic equipment and computation (Peppler, 2010, p. 2119; Poissant, 2000, p. 138) — not unlike CSCL. According to Peppler (2010), the emergent field of the media arts (which is synonymous with digital art or new media) “encourages designing, creating, and critiquing genres that connect to youth culture and engage youth in the process of learning more actively that what is traditionally offered” at schools (p. 2119).

In the media arts, technology and its various processes are used in unusual ways to produce works of art. Media artists work in, inter alia, experimental cinema, video, holography, computer graphics, copy art, wired art, creating multimedia and interactive installations using computers, fax machines, and satellites (Poissant, 2000, p. 138). Poissant (2000) adds that this genre encompasses avant-garde radio and television productions, as well as musicians whose compositions, recordings or concerts involve electronic or digital equipment.

[To be continued]

R E F E R E N C E S

DAAD. (2015a). CHE university ranking 2015/16 catalogue of criteria. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/deutschland/studienangebote/ranking/en/?a=info&t=catalogue-of-criteria

DAAD. (2015b). CHE university ranking 2015/16 FAQ. Retrieved from https://www.daad.de/deutschland/studienangebote/ranking/en/?a=info&t=faq

Downton, M., Peppler, K., & Bamberger, J. (2011). Talking like a composer: Negotiating shared musical compositions using Impromptu. Paper presented at the 2011 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference, Hong Kong.

Marginson, S. (2007). Rankings: Marketing mana or menace? Paper presented at the ‘The big oicture’ 16th annual New Zealand international education conference, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. (2007). Collaboration, computation, and creativity: media arts practices in urban youth culture. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Open Source vs Proprietary Thinking in Neoliberal Times

In Open Source Studio: Studio of Now: The argument that “… copyright laws… can be the enemy of the common good when they stifle creativity and collective modes of production”, compels me to think of proprietary tools like iMacs and Adobe Connect that have been used at ADM and major universities to foster creativity, and collaborative learning and production.

Owing to the richness of creative expression through the ubiquitous use of proprietary tools (even in the case of unlicensed use of software) today, I wonder if in an alternate universe where the way of open source replaced the commodification of technology, whether creativity and collective modes of production would be radically advanced.

I ask this because of the increasing commodification of art and education (and educational technologies) in neoliberal societies such as Singapore.

Would the accountability regime within the performative paradigm undergirding neoliberalism, still compel self-serving programmers and creatives, manoeuvring the micro-politics of organizational power and control, to develop open source technology to same level that Adobe, Microsoft & Apple have, and magnanimously share this technology for free, as one would hope? Would competition make open source, ontologically and epistemologically tenable for both the programmers and non-expert end-users?

Perhaps only in a utopian (or dystopian) society, where homo economicus (or the rational economic man in Economic theory) renounces the pursuit of wealth for self-interest (much like the proverbial irrational struggling independent artist), and where collaboration rather than competition is the predominant modus operandi of organizations, and in which learners and teachers are collectively evaluated and appraised, would the way of open source vanquish proprietary thinking.

Adobe Connect Session 2, Sept 17: Reflective Notes

In the previous week, I marvelled at how novel an experience it was, to be able to instantaneously and simultaneously view the facial expressions of all the learners, at once onscreen, as they were reacting to the speaker, and media shown.

In this lesson, the emotions of the tutor and guest speaker, were similarly optically and acoustically amplified through my 24 inch monitor and amplifier, with paralinguistic markers and facial expressions more visible, than they would have been onsite — most noticeably, tone of voice, nostril flare, lip-compression, contraction of the orbital muscles narrowing the eyelids ending in a gaze cut-off (to the keyboard or area beyond the computer monitor perhaps), movement of the muscle groups lowering the brows, constriction of the facial orifices such as the oral cavity, suggesting unpleasant stimuli.

I wonder if the learners had picked up the preceding paralinguistic cues as well. Were the learners less vocal and less fidgety in the second half of the lesson that I observed, compared to the first Adobe Connect lesson? Were learners’ postures more erect, less relaxed, with their gaze more focussed?

If the technology makes paralinguistic and non-verbal cues more explicit onscreen than onsite, it would be pertinent to examine how the speaker’s level of preparedness and expressions or actions influence the learning process and outcomes, especially in learning motivation and attitude (affective domains).

Kadenze: Learning About or Learning by Doing?

Kadenze is an online learning platform “developed to benefit students and faculty members of the creative arts“.

A preliminary analysis of the course syllabus for “Introduction to Generative Arts and Computational Creativity“, suggests that learning is framed by structures of learning about, rather than learning through doing or performance, as there is no indication of how Kadenze itself can be used to evince learning by Doing it With Others (DIWO).

Course DESCRIPTION

There is mention of the course providing “an in-depth introduction and overview of the history and practice of generative arts.”

It “offers an ontology of the various degrees of interactivity and generativity found in current art practices”, and “surveys the current production in the field of generative art across creative practices”, to “introduce the various algorithmic approaches, software, and hardware tools being used in the field”, and finally address “relevant philosophical and societal debates issues associated with the field”.

Assessment:

Projects 60%

Quizzes 30%

Assignments 10%

Quizzes suggest that learning is framed by the acquisition metaphor, where Kadenze’s primary function appears to be facilitating content transmission by the “course instructor” (didactically “instructing” learners, rather than dialogically and reflexively guiding, facilitating and discussing), who aims to test learners’ recall ability of delivered syllabus content.

As if learning in the creative arts can be engendered mechanically transmitted or digitally transferred and hence acquired by learners via the metaphorical Nurnberg funnel, illustrated below.

Delivered content does not engender learning, just as learning about swimming differs from learning swimming. Learning Generative Arts and Computational Creativity by doing, requires learners to generate art and compute creatively, through Kadenze, as the the mediating technology or online medium.

Like OSS, the Kadenze course designer could go beyond learning by doing, by facilitating learning by Doing It With Others (DIWO) as a Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) technology.

The Course Designer’s Philosophy of Human Learning

It is abundantly clear that like OSS, Kandenze has the potential for CSCL-facilitated learning by DIWO, but this technological affordance, cannot be fully exploited, if the course designer stubbornly clings onto Cartesian and empiricist epistemologies of learning that are oriented towards outcomes (rather than process) and advocate instructing, training and conditioning, for knowledge acquisition, retention and recall (rather than learning by doing).

It is thus imperative that course designers reframe their notions of learning, in order for the full range of potentialities afforded by technologies such as OSS and Kadenze, to be more widely accepted and realized.

Observations: Adobe Connect Session 1, September 10

Descriptive Notes (followed by reflective notes)

4 out of 6 learners were eating and drinking on camera. Chewing was amplified online. L1e only started eating after seeing the rest eating online. L1e did not eat onsite in previous weeks. (Computer mediation appears to lower inhibition to engage in extra-curricular activities)
Learner 5b (L5b)—dressed in a high contrast black and white striped long sleeve blouse—participated in Adobe Connect sessions in the previous semester, and slouched against her chair (appears the most relaxed, possibly because of her prior knowledge and experience with web conferencing with the tutor)
The 6 learners demonstrated an internal script that required them to click on a new tab, to play video prescribed by tutor. (When the first video was launched by tutor, I was waiting for the video to pop up on my screen, and was unaware that it was already open in another tab. Only after some time, did I realize that I had to play it. This is unlike onsite learning, where the tutor controls the video and plays and stops it. One advantage is that the learner can continue playing the video, even when the tutor assumes learners have completed viewing the video, and continues with the lesson)
L4j suggested that learners “try it out”, by attempting to kiss telematically. L4j aborted the attempt to “kiss” L5b. (Computer mediation paradoxically inhibits and disinhibits experimentation)
The chat and private chat features were used throughout the session. (Social aspect of CSCL was amplified with banter that would have been impossible onsite, but continued unabated throughout the session. This playfulness and directness in peer to peer communication facilitates questioning by reticent learners, and peer to peer exchange and clarification without any need for intervention by the tutor, who permitted the boisterous discourse.)
Learners are positioned on screen, according to the order in which they share their webcams. Learners pointed at one another on multiple occasions with a grin, when tutor asked who read what. (Learners never pointed at one other onsite, where they remained in the same seats throughout all 4 weeks. Learners’ position onscreen changes every session, and even during the session, every time they turn off the camera and rejoin the session. The ability to stare directly at learners’ faces is new. It would be impossible for learners to see all faces (including their own) simultaneously onsite. Facial expressions and movements are amplified onscreen. L2a noticed L3p eating a second sandwich—something she did not notice the previous week, when they were seated side by side onsite. What was invisible, is now visible to learners and tutor, with computer mediation. Implications on the affective dimensions of teaching and learning are profound.)

OSS: Facilitating the Sharing of Failures & Successes

Failed research studies that have found blind alleys account for only 14% of published papers, according to this article by The Economist.

In the teaching and learning of visual representation and expression, knowing what has failed, is just as important as knowing what has succeeded, because without access to these unsuccessful attempts, we inadvertently waste limited resources exploring these same blind alleys already explored by other artists.

It is imperative that I explore how OSS provides teachers and learners with access to a repository of successes and failures in curriculum planning, curriculum enactment, and evaluation, as teachers and learners work on their individual and group projects.

How does this openness afforded by OSS and vulnerability online bear on teaching and learning? Do learners and teachers self-censor their work, and manufacture identities that differ markedly from their onsite or online behaviour? Will the openness make learners and teachers more of less inhibited? Will they be more guarded, or more impulsive in their discourse? Does this openness facilitate collaborative learning?

Did You Know? (Forward: Geeks & Artboys by William Gibson)

I’ll be extracting interesting quotes and information from the book for my literature review, and share them here, so that you can decide if they are relevant to your undergraduate work.

On being an “artboy”:

Gibson felt it was imperative that he not know what he was speaking about, in order to be known “for some subrational”, “shamanistic function” that he believed he served. To qualify as an artboy meant one must not know what he is doing. (p. xii)

2. On Cinema, and its Hollywood origins:

“… (and perhaps Hollywood was where the two impulses first fused, cinema having been the brilliant bastard offspring of a union once unthinkable to anyone but a frothing Italian futurist).”

(in Packer and Jordan, 2002, p. xiii)

3. Geeks vs Artboys

President Roosevelt was advised by “geek”, Vannavar Bush, not the “Big Three” science fiction “artboys”, Isaac Asimov, Arthur Clark, and Robert Heinlein (p. xiii).

4. Gibson describes his own work as “a sort of voluntary autism” (p. xiv).

5. Poet Jorge Luis Borges, “regarded the universe itself as a library, infinitely recombinant, infinitely recursive, in which a single text might exist in variorum editions beyond number” (p. xiv).

6. Multimedia “is not an invention but an ongoing discovery of how the mind and the universes it imagines… fit together and interact” (p. xiv).

7. Gibson describes the book chapters as “an interleaving of histories intended to open inter-textual doors, some of which, given the right reader, have never before been opened” (p. xiv).

Reflective Note:

How do Gibson’s views support my claim that the media arts requires a Learning Management System (LMS) that can better facilitate teaching and learning of the media arts, beyond the limited affordances of NTUlearn or Blackboard. How do I then justify the use of OSS, to address the curriculum gap engendered by the restrictive LMS?

Reference

Packer, R., & Jordan, K. (2002). Multimedia : from Wagner to virtual reality (Expanded ed.). New York: Norton.

Observations: Internet Art & Culture Posts by Learner 1e (L1e)

L1e’s authorial voice is clear in his posts, and his brutally honest approach is irresistibly endearing.

In one post, L1e reveals his personal follies. The raw honesty makes L1e that much more human and relateable. The online discourse reveals a side of him that is rarely evinced onsite, where he strikes the observer as the quintissential or consummate artboy and undergrad.

It was observed that L1e was just as comfortable as L2a and L5j in sharing potentially incriminating information about their youthful exploits.

It would be reasonable to assume that learners who have read the same modules in previous semesters, are less inhibited onsite. I ask this because the trust that such learners have, contrasts with the guardedness evinced by L3e, L4k, and L5k.

Computer supported collaborative learning, is facilitated when learners feel safe within the online and onsite learning environments, undergirded by the affective socio-emotional dimensions of interpersonal engagement.

In L2e’s subsequent post, he pointed out how Torrent provides users with unfettered access at the expense of the artists’ intellectual (or creative) property.

It is imperative that the learners see themselves as contemporary Open Source Studio Netartizens who “empower the spectator and deepen his or her experience” (Packer and Jordan, 2002, p. 96) as they were taught in the previous session, rather than seek to jealously guard it from potential torrent pirates amongst their passive, disengaged spectators. I argue that artists should conceive their audience as “spectactors” — a term borrowed from Drama-in-Education (DIE) literature.

Ascott (cited in Packer and Jordan, 2002, p. 96) advocated the “spirit of cybernetics” to achieve a dialogue between artwork and audience.

Artists who persist in adopting a “nineteenth-century structure of operations” (Ascott, 2002, p. 98), thus fail to include the viewers as active participants in the creative process, inadvertently encourage their “viewers” to pilfer their work, which they view a commodity that is to be transmitted by the artist and received or downloaded by the audience.

Like L3p, L1e has yet to form the habit of embedding hyperlinks into the text. L1e pasting the entire URL after the quotes. This is odd, given that the tutor emphasized this during the previous onsite session. I ascertain why this was so, when I meet L1e this Thursday.

Reference
Ascott, R. (2002). Behaviourist Art and the Cybernetic Vision. In R. Packer & K. Jordan (Eds.), Multimedia : from Wagner to virtual reality (Expanded ed., pp. 333-344). New York: Norton.