MSc Web Science - Week 6

Hearsay: A New Way to Acquire Categories/Cangelosi & Harnad, 2002

On Wednesday Cognitive Scientist Professor Stevan Harnad, a major thinker and strategist of the Open Access (OA) movement (Harnad, 1995) spoke to us about the potential impact of the Web on Scholarly Research in the form of “Open Access" and the twists and turns of OA progress caused by commercial and political lobbying. I met him earlier in the day and recorded a video interview with him, which I hope to get online soon (time permitting!).

Stevan also had some potential dissertation projects for current MSc students. My initial interest was caught by his citation analysis project, but I was intrigued by his work on language analysis and categorisation. His description of "a foraging creature that depends on finding and eating mushrooms to survive" (Tijsseling, A., Pevtzow, R., & Harnad, no date) and a scenario where these mushrooms can be either edible/markable/returnable to, or the opposite indicated the possibility of designing a system that "forages" the web for educationally useful video.

I have no idea if this would work, but it may be worth investigating further.

Quantitative Research Methods

The theme for this week is "falling behind" (my excuse - having to work as well as do a full time course).

We had a test this week and I realised that I needed to develop a means of linking the language used in a question with the appropriate statistical analysis method (e.g. the word "change" would indicate a two-sided test).  I have a lot of revision to do on this subject.

Computational Thinking

One of our Public Engagement Lecture and 6th form student computing teaching activity team drop out of the course this week, but we have decided to stay with network security as the theme for our teaching activity. I have some work to do on finding ways to explain how public and private key encryption works. 

Hypertext and Web Text for Masters

This week: early Open Hypermedia systems, including the influential NIST standardising hypertext systems agreement, 1990 which introduced the Dexter Hypertext Reference Model. This has 3 components:

1. Run time layer - presentation; user interaction; dynamics
2. Storage layer - database of nodes and links (Dexter Model mainly interested in this)
3. Within-component layer - content/structure inside nodes

But, because all links resolve (link integrity) in this model there is no 404 error.

We also looked at Hyper-G and the University of Southampton's own Microcosm hypermedia system.

Foundations of Web Science

This week was Actor Network Theory (ANT) week. This theory was developed as a response to the belief that social determinism had simply replaced technological determinism as the dominate way of exploring the development of science and technology. As established by Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law, the essential ANT principles are:
1. Materialist perspective (neither technical nor social)
‘We are with chains which are associations of humans.. and non-humans’ - Latour
2. Heterogeneous networks
The world is put together by combination of human and non-human actions.
3. Radical symmetry
Human and non-human actors are equally important (one side may gain greater importance - but no pre-existing hierarchy).
4. Network evolution is a process of translation
Aims and intentions > identifying actors > getting actors on board > mobilising the network.
5. There is no action at a distance (everything results from local actions).
6. Nothing inevitable about networks
Entities in a network have relational ontologies - what we are comes about through our relationship with other human and non-human actors.

Criticisms of ANT
1. Practices and Cultures. P&C provide the context and structure for technoscientific opportunism. To account for even rational choices we need to invoke P&C - yet ANT is culturally flat.
2. Problems of Agency. To treat humans and non-humans symmetrically, ANT has to deny intentionality is necessary for action. In practice ANT downplays non-human agency.
3. Problems of Realism. ANT says what is, is constructed by networks of actors. Yet realists would argue that things have real and intrinsic properties beyond their location in networks.
4. Problems of the Stability of Objects and Actions.ANT "glides over" the provisional and challenging nature of laboratory work, and obscures "layers of expert judgement".

References

Cangelosi, A.& Harnad, S., 2001. The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. [Journal (Paginated)] Available at: http://cogprints.org/2036/ (Accessed 10 November 2013).

Harnad, S., 1995. A Subversive Proposal. In, Okerson, A. and O'Donnell, J. (eds.) Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. Association of Research Libraries. Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253351/ (Accessed 10 November 2013).

Tijsseling, A., Pevtzow, R., & Harnad, S., no date. Dimensional Attention Effects in Humans and Neural Networks. Availble at: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/adriaan1.pdf (Accessed 10 November 2013).

MSc Web Science - Week 5

Day 305/ Emmadukew © 2013/  CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

This week there was a strike.

Quantitative Research Methods

We looked at the chi-square test, which is used with used with categorical variables. The chi-square test is unreliable with small samples and can only test for an association, not its direction. As a rule of thumb: don’t use if > 20% of cells have expected counts < 5.

A chi-square test is undertaken to find association between variables:
1. Set hypothesis and define population
2. Assume null hypothesis 
3. Large discrepancy between observed and expected counts would indicate rejection of null hypothesis
4. Find mean pass percentages for all variables
5. Look at expected count in SPSS
6. Number of rows - 1 x number of columns - 1 = Degrees of freedom
Once we know the number of expected counts based on degrees of freedom all the others are fixed.
7. Use Chi - square table to work out critical value for 5% and 1%

Computational Thinking

Having been assigned groups at the end of last week we (Anna, Jessica, Conrad, Andrew and I) had chose a subject for our public engagement lecture ('What makes the Web the Web?') and submitted an abstract outlining what we have in mind. We also started work on lesson planning for the 6th form student computing teaching activity.

Hypertext and Web Text for Masters

Telling Tales: Hypertext as non-sequential writing which offers readers a choice of readings. Bathes – the reader fixes the text, not author. Concept of ‘ergodic’ literature – the reader must expend some non-trivial effort in creating meaning.

Non-linearity can be introduced into:
story (fabula), narrative (plot), and text/image

Interesting hypertext literature:
The electronic labyrinth
Afternoon - a story
253 or Tube Theatre

Narrative game types:
Ludus – structured, Paidia – unstructured, Aleatory – random

Foundations of Web Science

Quote of the week from Sergio Sismondo:

Science's networks are heterogeneous in the sense that they combine isolated parts of the material world, laboratory equipment, established knowledge, patrons, money, institutions, etc. These actors together create the successes of technoscience, and no one piece of a network can wholly determine the shape of the whole. (Sismondo, 2003).

Our seminar discussions have prompted me to explore how science is carried out and how results are published - which ultimately affects how findings become accepted in society. Essentially there were two main threads in my thinking. Firstly, peer reviewing doesn't appear to be working as well as may have done in the past, and an excellent briefing in the Economist entitled, Trouble at the lab: Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not (which is based on a meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours by Daniele Fanelli and published in PLOSone). As a result of many interrelated factors, the briefing asserts that "There are errors in a lot more of the scientific papers being published, written about and acted on than anyone would normally suppose, or like to think."

The second thread of my thinking relates to how scientific research is strongly affected by institutionally and commercially induced bias. This position was reinforced by some video editing work that came my way this week via the National Institute for Health Research. They held a conference early last month to celebrate 25 years since the establishment of the Health Technology Assessment Programme and needed eleven presentation videos edited and encoded for their YouTube channel. From a number of impressive presentations the one by health services researcher, Sir Iain Chalmers, one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration, and coordinator of the James Lind Initiative, stood out. 

Sir Iain's contention is that there is a 'stacked deck' in research activity which results in biased under-reporting of research. He says: 

Over 50% of studies are never published in full and those that do get published are an unrepresentative sample...the ones that report positive or statistically significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes for statistically significant studies have higher odds of being fully reported. (Chalmers, 2013) 

In addition to the propensity of institutions to adopt technology before it has been shown to be useful, this state of affairs results in the application of poor and potentially life-threatening practice. 

An antidote to this is outlined in the Testing Treatments web site:

• Fair tests of treatments are needed because we will otherwise sometimes conclude that treatments are useful when they are not, and vice versa
• Comparisons are fundamental to all fair tests of treatments
• When treatments are compared (or a treatment is compared with no treatment) the principle of comparing ‘like with like’ is essential
• Attempts must be made to limit bias in assessing treatment outcomes.

In the Web Science context, for 'treatments' read 'web interventions'. I believe that this approach is exteremely relevant to the conduct of research in Web Science.

Digital Literacies Student Champions

I published a new post on the Digichamps blog site: Getting Started with WordPress.

Also, I am working with Lisa Harris, Ellie and Meryl on a short presentation for the Biological Studies Careers Fair later this month. Essentially I have agreed to talk for 10 minutes on digital identity management with a focus on the reppler online reputation app.

References

Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

NIHR, 2012. Iain Chalmers, INVOLVE 2012 Conference. Video [Online] Available at: http://youtu.be/R9dke0t1QuU

Sismondo, S., 2003. “The social construction of scientific and technical realities”, from An introduction to science and technology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp.51-64. 

MSc Web Science - Week 4

Careers Fair/Tim O'Riordan ©2013/CC-by-3.0

A big event this week was the University IT, Science and Engineering Careers Fair. As well as picking up more free pens than I'll ever need and explaining to reps what Web Science is (variations on 'making the web better for future generations'), I had a very interesting chat with someone on the Sagentia stall. The stall featured a data collection device for use in the oil exploration industry that handled 15TB of data per 24 hours using the SEGD format. These devices are regularly collected from rigs by helicopter and are delivered to an oil industry organisation. The data is analysed for sale to the oil industry, and is stored in underground silos.

The collection process is called Permanent Reservoir Monitoring (see also ORC site), is directly related to exploring Life of Field issues, and is vital in the development of new methods of extracting oil from 'exhausted' fields (only 30% of oil is currently extracted - gaining an additional 1% is extremely profitable). This may be useful for my Independent Disciplinary Review project, which is looking at methods of approaching the open sharing or data by industry.

Quantitative Research Methods

We explored hypothesis testing in more detail this week. I'm still trying to get to grips with the link between theory and the practical use of SPSS software. My main insights this week are: that the null hypothesis means there's no difference in variance in the sample, and the alternative hypothesis means that the variance is different.

There are 4 basic steps to testing the hypothesis:
1. Specify Hypothesis test and level of significance (‘different’ = 2 sided, more or less = 1 sided)
2. Select random sample (mean, standard deviation, sample size)
3. Calculate test statistic using random sample
4. Make a decision - based on significance level, comparison with z-value and/or p-value.

If the p-value is less than significance level (alpha), reject the null hypothesis.

I also checked out the open source program PSPP to see if I could use it to replace the licensed SPSS program we're currently using. PSPP is pretty good, and the results are the same (to two decimal places instead of 3), but PSPP does not do graphing (yet) - so I'll stick with SPSS for the time being.

Computational Thinking

This week we looked at programming languages from the early days (including PDP11 among many others) and were put into groups for the assessed teaching and public presentation projects. 

Independent Interdisciplinary Review

I'm continuing to read up on anthropology for the assessed project and have been particularly interested in theory related to reciprocity and self-regulated systems (cybernetics).

Hypertext and Web Text for Masters

We had a packed programme of study this week - exploring the historical antecedents for and different approaches to hypertext, This including Paul Otlet's development of the Mundaneum. His masterwork, Traite de Documentation (Otlet, 1934) is not yet available in English, but translations of some of his work have been published. There were also brief overviews of the work of Wilhelm Ostwald, who developed the concept of linking literature to small units of recorded knowledge (‘monos’) that could be arranged and linked with other units and was instrumental in establishing the Die Brucke Institute in Munich - place to find all knowledge (and invented a paper size system - A4 etc).

Also under consideration were American contributions to hypertext including Vannevar Bush (human thought works on links between concepts), Doug Englebart's first computer mouse (developed at the Augmentation Research Center and demonstrated at the Mother of All Demo's in 1968) and Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu (and his Dream Machines).

We also looked at hypertext systems: HES/Fress (1967), ZOG (1975), Knowledge Management System (KMS, 1983), Hyperties (1983), Intermedia (1985), NoteCards (1985) and Hypercard (bundled with Apple Mac, 1987).

Useful links:
Akscyn's Law
Jeff Conklin, 1987. ‘Hypertext: An introduction and survey’. IEEE Computer, 20(9), pp.17-41 Available at: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~andre/informatics223s2007/conklin.pdf
Cal Lee, 1999. Where Have all the Gophers Gone? Why the Web beat Gopher in the Battle for Protocol Mind Share. University of Michigan, School of Information. Available at: http://www.ils.unc.edu/callee/gopherpaper.htm

Types of hypertext systems include:

• Macro Literary Systems - large online libraries
• Problem Exploration Tools - problem solving, early authoring and outlining, ‘mind mapping on steroids’
• Structured Browsing Systems - single machine front-end
• General Hypertext Technology - platforms that allow experimentation

Foundations of Web Science

For the rest of the semester we will be reading (in great detail), talking and writing about the social construction of science.

MSc Web Science - Week 3

Kitten Baby Steps/RSPCA WOAW ©2006/CC BY-NC 2.0

"Catch up, cats and kittens. Don't get left behind..." (Monkberry Moon Delight, Paul McCartney, 1971)

This line from a song has been going through my head all week - an annoying 'earworm' but also an important note to myself to get the balance of home, study and work right. So this weeks' post is brief and to the point - no prevaricating around the bush.

Quantitative Research Methods
This week I found out about hypothesis testing and t-testing (for small samples). I dislike Powerpoint-driven lectures, but in this module the tutors use them to build a narrative about using different approaches to analysing datasets, and (for me) it works reasonably well.

Computational Thinking
This week we moved into the self-study phase and I spent much of the time working out the deadlines and requirements for the assessed work. Something that is not easy to do, as module information is presented in different ways in different locations, and it isn't always clear if it's up to date.

Independent Interdisciplinary Review
I will be looking at corporate policy on open data via the disciplines of Anthropology and Economics - for more details see my blog post.

Hypertext and Web Text for Masters
More talk and Powerpoint. I am very much looking forward to working either individually or in groups on this topic.

Foundations of Web Science
We had a very brief group-centred debate on "Do Artifacts Have Politics". I took notes and acted as rapporteur for our group, and uploaded our outcomes to the class wiki (we're 'Team Alpha').
I've also been thinking about pop culture representations of the technological-determinism, social-determinism debate, sparked by watching the 2009 film, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs during the week. The film neatly rehearses some of the arguments and presents some well-drawn popular stereotypes involved in technological development, as well as playing out myths about the unforeseen consequences of technology. Another film on the topic -The Man in the White Suit, also comes to mind, so this could be a useful theme to follow.

Digital Literacy Student Champions
I produced an online resource and ran 3 x 30 minute Wordpress Workshop sessions with third years taking the 'Arab World'  Curriculum Innovation Programme module.

MSc Web Science: Week 2

Firing up the 'Pi's/Tim O'Riordan 2013/CC BY 2.0 UK

The highlight of the week was definitely the Raspberry Pi session; an hour long workshop that was added to the end of classes on Thursday. The Raspberry Pi is a tiny and cheap computer that has been developed to provide a budget platform for practicing programming. Because it's cheap (about £30), it can be used to run dedicated processes, like controlling a pyrotechnic display, or carrying out passive surveillance.

The workshop provided an excellent adjunct to the introduction to writing Python script earlier in the day, as the task involved writing a few lines of code that enabled a Raspberry Pi module to interact with an external object (a jelly baby) via two wire probes. Essentially, the jelly baby completed a circuit which triggered the playing of an audio file of someone singing. Charming, and slightly weird. 

The team behind the Erica the Rhino project were also on hand to provide some inspiration for projects that we have been asked to undertake later in the year. At the moment I'm trying to come up with a project that involves recording video in public places, but which doesn't compromise privacy.

Quantitative Research Methods (QRM) 

This week I had my first experience of using SPSS software to explore datasets, and in class we moved on to consideration of two of the basic concepts covered by this module: Confidence Intervals (CI) and the Central Limit Theorum (CLT). CI is the range of values within which it is expected the true value of a population will lie (within a degree of confidence, e.g 95%). Because the mean varies depending on each sample that's taken from a given population, we need to construct a range of values to provide confidence. This is done by taking sample means from the population many times (e.g. 1000). The CLT states that regardless of distribution of the variable in the population, the results of these multiple samples will be normally distributed.
There is no truly object way of defining confidence, but using this method we can show that the true value lies between two values. Confidence is based on the sample size - essentially the bigger the sample the better the confidence. However there are diminishing returns beyond sample sizes of around 1400 - at least I think so.

Computational Thinking 

In the lab we undertook some basic programming using the Python GUI. This is a very popular, informal, flexible, dynamical language used by Google, and others, to control their internal systems. It's also a useful stepping stone to Java programming.
The programming exercise involved developing, in stages, a 'Hangman' program.

Independent Interdisciplinary Review

A further discussion on what is required for this module included a recent MSc Web Science student, taking us through his experience of writing for this module. His IIR explored changes in how Intellectual Property is understood on the Web via the disciplines of Economics and Law.
The task for this week was to choose a topic and disciplines, and add a blog post to the COMP6044 blog site - providing an outline, justification and bibliography. I have decided to look at corporate data sharing through Anthropology and Economics lenses.

Hypertext and Web Text for Masters 

This week we were introduced to HyperText Markup Language (HTML), Extensible Markup Language (XML), Cascading Stylesheets (CSS) and Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations (XSLT) - all of which originate from Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). XML adds flexibility to HTML and contains elements (in hierarchy), attributes (label elements), entities (contain document fragments), and DTD (document type definitions).
We also touched on the latest version of HTML, HTML5, which includes new more appropriate tags and recognises new structures that are useful for search engines and usability. Browser adoption of HTML5 is patchy, but it is gaining ground.
Stylesheet languages (e.g. CSS and XSL) ‘separate concerns’ and allows users to concentrate on content, as layout and design are defined elsewhere. CSS attaches ‘missing’ semantics, complexity and processing instructions in XML. CSS decorates, but does not build - XSLT does both.
From past exam papers it looks like there will be a question that requires a reasonably thorough understanding of XML.

Foundations of Web Science 

This week we discussed the development of the Web from a social shaping perspective (as opposed to a technological determinist viewpoint). We were presented with a list of technology and social developments - from the discovery of electricity, wireless telegraphy, the Cold War, to the development of the social web - and asked to discuss them, and how we shape our technology, in small groups. A number of areas that have been overlooked so far include the failure of Soviet attempts at networking, the importance of Federal funding of the National Science Foundation to the development of the early Web, and the enduring fascination with celebrity which drives much of the social web. However, and possibly significantly, an early attempt to classify all the world's knowledge, the Mundaneum, was mentioned.
We also continued to explore our personal use of the Web. Most of the class use mobile devices for traversing the Web, and start browsing early in the day.
We were asked to examine our individual Web use and communicate our understanding of it via a diagram - and add this to the class wiki. Many in our class produced interesting 'infographics' (some using the infogr.am online infographic tool) which classified their Web use by actvity (e.g. 'work', 'leisure', 'diy'). I found that my attempts to classify my own activity beyond family communication or personal interests seemed to be arbitrary and unhelpful. Does adding complexity to this area help? Probably not. Can my simplified Dial-e framework (stimulate, analyse, investigate, create)  be used to categorise Web activity? I think so - but I need to explore this further.

Digital Literacy Student Champions

I met with Lisa Bernasek and arranged to run short 'Wordpress 101' sessions during three of her "The Arab World (in and) Beyond the Headlines" classes. The purpose is to get her 60 students publishing within days and with confidence. My aim is to run these sessions so that all participants will have started a draft of their first post by the end, and would have gained a clear appreciation of what they can do as authors within Wordpress.

MSc Web Science: Week 1

First day of Web Science/Tim O'Riordan 2013/CC BY 2.0 UK

Some notes on my first week on the MSc Web Science course at Southampton.

Quantitative Research Methods (QRM) 

The tutor, Nikolaos Tzavidis, posted the notes and slides for the first two lectures on Blackboard and emailed the class 4 days ahead to let us know. I like Nikos!
As a dyed in the wool qualitative researcher I am a little suspicious of quantitative methods, but this module is very much geared towards the absolute beginner - and I am being won over.
In the first class we were introduced to mean, modes and median scores; categorical (nominal and ordinal) and continuous sampling and the concepts of whole population and sample-based research (I may have got some of the terminology wrong there).
The good news is that, although we are doing some maths at the start (exploring Normal Distribution Curves), we don't have to memorise it all. The bad news is that we have to learn a new program - SPSS - which will help us find the answer to everything.
There are some problems in getting hold of the readings for this module. The text book on SPSS (Discovering Statistics using SPSS) is reference only and can't leave the library. We've been told to read chapters 1 to 4, but I haven't had time to spend in the library. I can photocopy one chapter to take away and have a whopping £26 on my photocopy credit - but my card has been locked out of the system! Also need to read chapters 1-7 of Diamond and Jefferies' Beginning Statistics: an Introduction for Social Scientists. Fortunately one of the readings (Quantitative Data Analysis in Education) is available online.
I'm also reading up on some old school research methods as described in Martin Mayers' 1958 publication: Madison Avenue U.S.A.. The book gives a very thorough account of the problems of selecting true samples, and of getting truthful responses from interviewees.

Computational Thinking 

This module is run by Les Carr and Hugh Davis, and the early message is that they hope to stimulate our interest by teaching basic computer architecture, and through introducing us to Python programming using Raspberry Pi's. The assessed components are two group projects ( a presentation and a 6th Form teaching activity), and a blog-style article
This module, along with the rest of the Electronics and Computer Science (ECS) modules is not supported by Blackboard - but by the ECS's own intranet.
On Friday Hugh took us through 'computers 101' - on which we will not be assessed. He covered lots of useful stuff: transistors, logic gates, bit comparators, 1 bit algebraic logic units and memory.
One of the readings for this module is Broadshears' Computer Science Overview, which is available online in pdf format (yay!).
At the moment I'm considering using Compenium L D as a tool for designing the learning activity.

Independent Interdisciplinary Review

The title is self explanatory. In this module I am required to study two disciplines that I have no previous experience of but which are relevant to my interests, and produce a 12 page report with accompanying poster that demonstrates my understanding of the primary concepts underlying both disciplines (the ontologies, basic theories and methodologies) and draw them together to tackle a problem. The idea is to use this exercise to "pilot interdisciplinary engagement".
Starting with a description of the question (e.g. "How might corporations be encouraged to open their data?"), I will explain why I have chosen the two disciplines (e.g. Anthropology and Economics), describe each discipline and how they might approach the problem and conclude with a suggestion of how the two approaches could be brought together.
I need to decide what my approach is by week 3, and a weekly blog outlining my study of each discipline is also required.

Hypertext and Web Text for Masters 

This is the biggest class (about 120 students) containing some undergrads. Les undertook a straw poll on online usage, only 3 owned up blogging regularly, and 4 to uploading videos to YouTube.
I learned that:

• The host address 86.2.3.1 is better known under its Domain Name System (DNS) name: www.google.com.
• The meaning of status codes (e.g. 200 = OK)
• Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) should be persistent.
• There are 5 stars of linked data.
• Web architecture is made up of 3 key parts: identification, interaction, and formats.
• Les sang us a song about this, to the tune of Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary...

TimBL, TimBL, very nimble,
How does your linked Web grow?
With URLs and HTMLs,
And GET and POSTS all in a row.

Nice.

Foundations of Web Science 

This is about the social impact of the web. In the first two classes we looked at the how we use the web, looked at categories of behaviour and interconnectedness (including an exploration of the World Trend Map).

3 months personal browsing (produced by ECS History Visualiser)

In the last class on Friday Les asked us to consider what sites we visit a lot, what we value, and what is significant, and to use the History Visualiser to present out browsing activity over the previous 7 days. Grabbing browsing history in Chrome isn't straightforward and requires a third party application - Chrome History View - to export a list that's usable in History Visualiser.
Unsurprisingly my visualisation shows a lot of activity on Google (I use Drive and search a lot), Facebook (I have two channels and use it to communicate with family, friends - and my new WS buddies), YouTube (I post a lot of videos), and the University site.
What I value is the ability to find out things very quickly, and test validity through 'informal triangulation'. For example, on Friday I received a message from client with a problem DVD who needed a quick response from me. Using Google search, I was able to find other people who had the same problem, gauge the issues' importance and check - and double check - the solution, before getting back to my client within 30 minutes. This would not have been impossible without the web.
There's quite a large reading list for this module, but I've started with a book from my collection: Ed Krol's 1992 ground-breaking, The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog. This book was published on the cusp of the development of the Web as we know it today, it does not mention HTTP or HTML, and refers to the Web as "the newest arrival from the Internet's toolshop" and "probably the most flexible tool for prowling around the Internet".
While this has much arcane interest, the chapters on the development of the Internet, ownership and management are fascinating.
The central argument presented in this module is that the Webs' success is based firmly on academic freedom and the willingness of the academics involved in the project to freely share their ideas. While this is undoubtedly true, my interest in finding ways to enhance sharing on the Web tells me that this altruistic motivation is not universally shared by all of academia.
My thesis is that the central motivations for the Web's development stem from a particularly American attitude to the rights of government, a belief in the efficacy of free trade, and a freedom of capital which encouraged venture investors to give early support to current Web mainstays. The prevalent attitude to government in the US is one of "we've paid for it - we own it", which leads to the Federal government sharing data and artefacts that have been created through the application of taxpayers money. This is not a universally shared attitude - on the photo sharing site Flickr, compare US military's sharing of images with the British MOD, or the Library of Congress' attitude to its collections with the UK's National Archive. The position to government ownership exemplified by Crown Copyright in the UK does not exist in the US, and the attitude that sees a large amount of Federal government stuff "go back to the people" was I believe vital to the early stages of the Web's development. Although proposed and developed by Tim Berners-Lee, a Brit working on a European science project (CERN), the Web as we know it today could not have existed without this very American liberal mindset.
I admit that I may have overstated my case here, but I'll see if it takes me somewhere useful over the next few weeks.

Digital Literacy Student Champions:

I've registered to run workshops about using online media to support teaching and learning, and have one booking already! To run a Wordpress blogging workshop in two weeks time.

MSc Web Science: Week 0

FPSE Faculty Welcome 2013/Tim O'Riordan ©2013/CC BY 2.0 UK

Monday, 23 September

Faculty Welcome

• Electronics and Computer Science (Prof Neil White - Head of ECS) - "we're research-focused"
• The Optical Research Centre (Prof Rob Eason - Deputy Head of ORC) - "we're dedicated to Photonics", "there's going to be an Internet 'capacity crunch' in 2020"
• Jumpstart 2013  (Joyce Lewis) - "I will contact you by email"
• Health and Safety  (Mike Bartlett) - "the Mountbatten Building burned down in 2005 - and they're still talking about it"
• Jumpstart Challenge (Trishia Poplawska) - "an opportunity to get to know each other"

Tuesday, 24 September

MSc Welcome

• Prof Kees De Groot, Prog Director
• Practice past exams (available on sussed)
• Use mentors.

• Andy 'Biscuits' Newton
• STACS (Student Teaching & Computing Support)
• x24494 59/3207
• Free software/hardware loans
• Help with coursework, programming help, coding support, projects
• They want to be given complicated programming questions
• Free virtual machines for projects
• "Learn Linux"
• See: https://secure.ecs.soton.ac.uk

• Academic Integrity
• Mark Zwolinski,  Deputy Head ECS Education
• 2 students were ejected for plagiarism in 2012/13
• See: www.academicintegrity.soton.ac.uk

• Faculty student office team
• B59 reception.
• fpse-student@soton.ac.uk, X22909

• Eric Cooke, ECS Senior Tutors
• email stutor (ask at zepler reception)
• 12 modules, 6 per semester = 120 credits
• pass mark 40%, must average 50% to progress to dissertation

• Fiona Nichols, Library
• see: library.soton.ac.uk
• subject guide>ecs>info skills>taught msc> 
• 10 October - searching for pg’s
• ECS books are on level 3 Hartley
• Delphis - single search incls. journal articles

MSc Web Science Welcome

• Met: Dr Sepi Chakaveh (ex Fraunhofer Society - "reading data files changes the arrangement of bits in the file") and Manuel León, a  researcher who is starting first year of PhD exploring the use and reception of MOOCs by academics.
• Ice breaker:
  Circle - toss ball of string around and give name, subject and 'fun fact' about yourself (my fun fact: I have no 'fun facts' - then immediately thought of several).
• Team building:
  - Support a tennis ball as close to the ceiling as possible using items measuring no more than 30cms.
  - What extra curricula activities can WS do?

  

  Team 4 ideas
• Les Carr: Don't have to attend all lectures (these will be pointed out); Claire Wyatt is the fount of all knowledge; "Conferences are work - not 'holidays'"
• Not all WS MSc's are on Facebook

Thursday, 26 September

Registration

Introduction to Digital Literacies Champions

• Lisa Harris
• Voluntary but some paid project work
• Curation of archive for uni events
• Media creation competition - winner goes to Digital Media Europe 2014
• 'Literacies’ viewed from marketing/business perspective. Reputation?
• It should be more about reputation building - so use rss feeds, google scholar updates, scoop.it, twitter, facebook, linkedin, wordpress blog (week notes), google apps (video not.es, rss, screen capture). Think of it as building a portfolio...
• Mozilla is collaborating with the world to develop an open badge ecosystem that makes it possible to recognize skills, literacies, and interests across the web. 
• Looking for project ideas that DCs can help with.
• Volunteers to revamp website.
• Meeting: 30 September. Practicalities of being a DC - with Fiona Harvey.
• Workshop: 2 October. Use phones to create video - with Simon Morice.
• Creative Digifest: 19 November at Grand Harbour Hotel

Vint Cerf: "What's happening on the Internet?"

A few weeks ago I attended the launch of the Zepler Institute at the University of Southampton, where Google Vice President and Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf gave a talk on his contribution to, and the future of the 'net. I had my trusty little Kodak Zi8 camera with me and recorded his presentation from my seat near the front of the lecture theatre. I've uploaded the first 10 minutes of the video in two parts. 

In the first part Cerf talks about his initial experiments with ARPANET with his colleague, Bob Kahn and the team at Stanford University in the early 70s - including sending video and audio over the network.

 

In part 2, Cerf talks about Internet connectivity, the significance of mobile devices, and current developments of the 'net - including security, scale and the 'smart grid'.



Please let me know if you would like to see some more of this talk.

A workflow to evaluate online tools for learning

Web 2.0 Expo Hall/TopRank Online Marketing © 2008/CC-BY 2.0

Web-based technologies are changing the way we live, work and learn at an unprecedented rate and in many unpredictable ways. YouTube, Facebook, Scoop.it, Pinterest and many other tools, all seem to hold out quick, easy and inexpensive solutions – solutions that don’t appear to require an army of IT specialists to support, and which promise much in the way of improved and relevant interactions.

As an individual, trying out a new online tool is reasonably straightforward, but, as educators, what should we be looking for? How should we start to evaluate these tools to see if they will work for us and our students? There are very many permutations to look at here. We all have our own approaches to teaching, and there are some areas of technology we may feel happier with than others. I think it’s fair to say that we are, each of us, unique in our approach to teaching and learning - and how we use these tools will reflect that uniqueness. 

However there are some key principles we can apply to evaluation that can help us begin to choose what’s best for us and our students, and in this blog post I propose a workflow as a guide to how we can go about this. I suggest that there are two key questions we need to ask ourselves when exploring a platform or tool for use in teaching and learning. First and foremost is “Will it work?” – for our institution, ourselves as educators and our learners - and secondly within what learning context can we place this tool? I suggest three main considerations: 

1. A technical test – including a pragmatic and a usability review
2. A pedagogy test – based on Chickering and Gamson’s '7 Principles of Good Practice'.
3. A learning design review – based on a modified Dial-e framework.

The technical test has two aspects - a usability review (which looks at how well the interface works), and a pragmatic review.

Pragmatic review

The pragmatic review includes consideration of 5 interrelated areas:

1. Does the service work equally well in the different browsers and mobile devices that you and your students use?
This is important as we want the opportunities for learning to be available in a timely manner and this means supporting the variety of devices that we and our students use on a daily basis.

2. Are the outputs re-usable? This includes the ability to download videos, slideshows, essays, notes and other outputs – so that they can be used in other environments.

• Can the data that you and your students upload to a platform be downloaded for storage on your own servers? 
• What the implications are for using an online tool for assessment and students records (e.g. the Higher Education Achievement Report or the Individualised Learner Record in Further Education)?

3. Many online tools can accommodate different ways of learning – for example using video to record achievement instead of or in addition to reflective writing. However not all tools allow access to learners with disabilities. So you should consider:

• Can you use it with a screen reader? 
• Can you easily add closed captions or transcripts to audio and video?

Consult your institutions' Disability Support Team or contact the experts at JISC TechDis when considering new tools to support learning.

4. How reliable is the service, including:

• Robustness of the service. Does the tool have a record of going off line? There have been instances of cloud services losing data – something that could be disastrous if you’re at the end of a module and have no fallback position.
• Some free third party services have also been known to change to costly subscription services with little notice to users .
• Many tools are in a continual state of development and may change the way they work to a lesser or greater degree without notice. When running a busy module, this type of change will add to your and your learners work, and could have a demoralising effect.

5. What are the terms of service?

• You and your institution need to be aware of your obligations under data protection legislation.
• You need to make your learners aware of the implications of sharing private data online and the risks associated with it. 

This is an important area that is best dealt with by experts. I recommend JISC Legal’s advice on this.

Usability review

Alongside these 'pragmatic' considerations it’s important to look at how the tool actually works in practice. Although learning how to use online tools is important for developing digital literacy – some tools are easier to use than others and, when confronted with a new interface it’s worth spending some time exploring how easy it is to use.

The key questions you need to ask are: 

• Does the interface support all the tasks expected by the user? That’s in terms of help and support documentation, as well as the underlying functionality.
• Are there conflicts in the functionality of interface? Although most tool developers engage in beta testing, not all wrinkles are necessarily ironed out before a tool goes live. You should robustly test the tool to ensure that it does what you want it to do.
• Does functionality change the nature of the underlying task? If your students have to spend a significant amount of time learning the interface, are they going to have enough time on task? What can you do to reduce the cognitive load of learning how to use the tool?

Pedagogy test

I think Chickering and Gamson’s '7 Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education' provide a sound basis for evaluating the usefulness of a tool to support teaching and learning. The principles highlight the importance of:

• Good communication channels between learners, and between learners and staff
• Opportunities for cooperation among students. 
• Time on task - ensuring that technology is employed to focus on tasks not on wrangling difficult and poorly designed tools. 
• Supporting diverse methods and means of learning. Online tools present opportunities to use digital media, video, images, sound, mapping and reflective activities that can enable a more diverse and richer approach to learning than has hitherto been possible
• Setting high expectations. The facility of online tools and web 2.0 technologies to readily share practice and reflection has the potential to improve learners' performance. The web affords access the best the world has to offer online and this can be used as a springboard for learning. But it’s equally true that digital technologies can be used for superficial activities that undermine academic standards. In Rethinking University Education, Diane Laurillard warns that:

  “...new technology easily supports a fragmented, informational view of knowledge…and is in danger of promulgating only that.” (Laurillard, 2002, p227).

  We need to ensure that the elements that distinguish academic learning (the ability to analyse, evaluate, articulate and represent experience effectively) are made explicit when designing and delivering programmes of learning that incorporate these tools.

While evaluating an online tool to ensure that it will work the way you want (and demonstrate a real benefit to your learners) you may also assess what type of learning can take place and explore approaches to learning design.

Learning Design

In this area I would like put forward the Dial-e Framework as a good starting point for modeling your approach. This framework was developed by Simon Atkinson and Kevin Burden to support the use of digitized archive films held by the Newsfilm Online collection – now part of JISC MediaHub. They identified 10 discrete learning designs, which I have simplified to 4 main categories:

• Stimulus
  The use of tools and content to stimulate interest and engagement – something that quickly engages learners to consider a new concept or approach.
• Investigation
  Which would typically involve using digital technology to research, understand and apply processes or concepts – for example watching and engaging with an online ‘how-to’ video.
• Analysis
  Exploring textual qualities in, for example, film or media studies, where learners analyse editing, framing, lighting, sound design etc - as well as alternative perspectives, where tools and content are used to understand and empathise with others.
• Creation
  Which involves the evaluation and application of tools, content and methods to create a project – either using original content or from re-usable sources or both.

New technologies call for new approaches to pedagogy – and I think that this modified approach to the Dial-e framework provides a good starting point for considering the uses to which we can put both digital tools and content.

What's your approach?

In this post I've attempted to provide a workflow which I hope you will find useful. This is important and evolving subject and I am very interested to hear how you approach evaluation. 

References:

Diana Laurillard (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, 2nd edition. Routledge, London.

Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. In American Association of Higher Education Bulletin vol.39 no.7 pp.3-7

Further reading:

The Centre for Learning and Performance Teachnologies: The Social Learning Handbook
Edudemic: Facebook Guidelines for Educators
JISC Legal: Facing up to Facebook
Terms of Service; Didn't Read - A user rights initiative to rate and label website terms & privacy policies, from very good Class A to very bad Class E.
We-Share - an infrastructure that collects descriptions of ICT tools available at the Web of Data and adapts them to be used for educational purposes.

Why am I doing Web Science?

Day 1 - 079/DIVERSE2012 ©2012/All rights reserved (permission granted)

Last week I posted the "What is Web Science?" statement I submitted as part of my application to join the IPhD Web Science course at the University of Southampton. Along with this statement I was asked to provide a statement about my specific research interests - to indicate why I wanted to do Web Science.
My interests are primarily in finding ways to make it easier for teachers and learners to find useful video on the web to support their teaching and learning. This came about through 3 main influences: my experience of running a documentary film production module for Film Studies at the University of Southampton, the research I carried out for my Masters, and meeting researchers at the DIVERSE 2011 Conference in Dublin. Essentially, not only did I find it difficult to discover useful content to share with my students, I also found out (through carrying out a case study) that learners had similar discovery issues, and that actually it appeared to be a universal problem.

This eventually led to my developing a prototype web platform (www.edmediashare.org) to try out a means of enabling teachers and learners to share the web-based video they found useful. Running this project gave me some insight into the issues around knowledge sharing and developing communities of practice, and has led to my interest in pursuing studies in Web Science.
Which brings us back to the research proposal I provided to support my application to join the Web Science IPhD course. This is what I said:

The Evaluation of Knowledge Sharing Practices to Enhance Web-based Video Learning Resource Discovery

Web-based video is a valuable resource in supporting teaching, learning and research. However, due to the large and growing amount of video available on the Web, searching for and finding useful content is extremely difficult and is restraining the use of these resources. The following aspects have crucial roles in aiding the discovery of relevant and useful content. 

Metadata: 

Initiatives led by the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI, 2013) and Schema.org (Schema.org, 2013) to extend metadata vocabularies that include educational terms are aimed at facilitating the discovery of learning resources via search engines and other services. Specifically, a newly adopted vocabulary includes the opportunity to align resources with an 'established educational framework'. This is a critical development that has the potential to significantly improve discovery by allowing users to refine searches based on how they intend to use the resource in teaching and learning. However, despite initiatives to develop frameworks that elucidate the pedagogical use web-based video (e.g. Burden and Atkinson, 2008 and Young and Moos, 2012), an ‘established’ means of describing this activity has yet to emerge. 

A more user-focussed approach may provide a better means of describing the pedagogic use of web-based video. Studies show that taxonomies developed from the collection, analysis and evaluation of vocabularies used in the social annotation of learning resources (referred to as ‘folksonomies’) have been shown to have the potential to improve resource discovery (Pirmann, 2012).

Knowledge sharing: 

Although extremely useful in providing the means to facilitate the discovery of relevant digital content, creating useful metadata requires community involvement on a large scale in order to have a significant impact on improving learning resource discovery. In this context, the engagement of the academic community in using, rating, recommending, commenting on, and tagging relevant digital content is vital. 

Studies of Web-based knowledge sharing within the academic community are rare (Ismail and Ashmiza, 2012), but those that have explored this area find that knowledge sharing is intrinsic within this group (Fullwood, Rowley, Delbridge, 2013) and that altruism, identification, and reciprocity have a significant and positive effect on knowledge sharing (Chang and Chuang, 2011), all of which present opportunities for motivating engagement. However, initiatives that attempt to build online communities to encourage educators to share their knowledge have not achieved the widespread adoption that would ensure long-term usefulness, and this is hindering the potential of the Web to effectively support learning, teaching and research. 

My thesis is that online knowledge sharing practice related to the use of web-based video in academia is poorly understood. Because this engagement is crucial to the improvement of learning resource discovery, finding out what works in this area is vital to the future development of the Web for the benefit of education. Developing taxonomies that facilitate effective web-based learning resource discovery are dependent on the motivation of educational practitioners to share their knowledge and contribute to the trustworthiness and reliability of these resources. Further research in these areas can aid the development of effective and appropriate measures to enhance learning resource discovery. 

The aim of this project is to design and implement a research strategy to find out the barriers and enablers that influence academics when engaging with online knowledge sharing communities, and to explore and evaluate the usefulness of emerging folksonomies in facilitating the discovery of web-based video learning resources.I anticipate spending part of the taught stage of the IPhD programme in exploring the potential for combining qualitative and quantitative research methodologies in this study. One area I am particularly interested in exploring is the use of paradata collection and other ‘data mining’ tools as a means of gaining insight into behaviour in online knowledge sharing environments. 

References: 

Burden, K, and Atkinson, S (2008). Beyond Content: Developing Transferable Learning Designs with Digital Video Archives. University of Hull, UK. [pdf] Available at: http://www.sijen.com/reproduce/resource/beyond_content.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2013].  

Chang, H and Chuang, S (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48 (1), pp 9–18. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001 [Accessed 22 May 2013]. 

Fullwood, R, Rowley, J, and Delbridge, R (2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17 (1), pp.123 – 136. [Online] Available at: 10.1108/13673271311300831 [Accessed 22 May 2013]. 

Ismail, M and Ashmiza, N (2012) Key determinants of research-knowledge sharing in UK higher education institutions. PhD thesis, University of Portsmouth. [Online] Available at: http://eprints.port.ac.uk/8492/ [Accessed 20 May 2013]. 

Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (2013). The Specification. [Online] Available at: http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification [Accessed 22 May 2013]. 

Pirmann, C (2012). Tags in the Catalogue: Insights From a Usability Study of LibraryThing for Libraries. Library Trends 61(1), 234-247. The Johns Hopkins University Press.[Online] Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/v061/61.1.pirmann.html [Accessed 20 May 2013]. 

Schema.org (2013). Thing > Intangible > Alignment Object. [Online] Available at: http://schema.org/AlignmentObject [Accessed 22 May 2013]. 

Young, C and Moes, S (2012). How to move beyond lecture capture: Pedagogy guide (Draft), Rec:all Partnership, University College London. [pdf] Available at: http://www.rec-all.info/profiles/blogs/rec-all-guides-draft-versions-ready-for-review [Accessed 22 May 2013]. 

This is what I hope to work on over the next 4 years. It will evolve as I find out more about the subject, and gain a more thorough grounding in Web Science. I'll keep you posted...