Jon Bishop - Youth Justice, E-Politics, and Fourth Way Public Policy

Archive for Speeches

Gamification and E-Learning 2.0 – Lessons from the UK Criminal Justice System

30 November 2011 Jonathan Bishop No comments

Firstly I would like to thank the organisers for inviting me to speak today. I always enjoy speaking in this slot, as delegates generally are hungry for information – not food or sleep!

When I was younger I used to come to Olympia with my brother to attend a lot of video game exhibitions, so it is quite appropriate I’m talking to you about gamification, in my first speech at this fine venue. This is what I looked like at one of the exhibitions we went to.

Research recently found that those who play video games have worse education and employment outcomes. How many of you are actually convinced by this? My brothers and I aren’t’ either.

Both my brothers and I have all had good outcomes, gaining degrees and high responsibility jobs. Even one of my brother’s fathers-in-law plays video games regularly and, he has an MBE.

So there must be something in the benefits of video games for enhancing performance at tasks in environments where gaming isn’t usually used, which is a simple definition of gamification.

The first big speech I made, before this one of course, was at a college business competition – business being the game of all games. Our presentation won applause with the catchy music, ‘simply the best, better than all the rest’. But our report did not impress the judges; we didn’t seem to deliver all that was needed beyond the presentation stage. Sound familiar?

These slogans of New Labour, uttered by Tony Blair, were the new props that change the game of British Politics into a media driven one, where getting the best sound-bites and not being off message was the strategy. Despite not living up to most people’s expectations, including mine, the previous government was reasonably successful in realising these slogans. Including increasing university numbers and reducing youth crime. Yet only a year after they left office, we had the UK riots, higher youth crime and higher youth unemployment. So what went wrong? And what do we do about it?

The answer to the first is clear to me – the game has changed, again, and we need to change. The new game is called Network Politics. I am going to consider the case studies of three persons during the rest of the speech and will be asking for your experiences to be shared.

Considering the UK riots, some of you may have heard of the heart-breaking plight of Carla Rees, a 34 year-old musician whose flat and property was burned to destruction in London. She lost at least 10 flutes, which she had based her international contemporary music career on.

Considering the case of Trolling; one of the most high profile was that of Natasha MacBryde, who was bullied by a person called Sean Duffy. The inquest into her death heard that 15-year-old Natasha had also been teased by members of an all-girl clique at her £10,000-a-year school in the weeks leading up to her death.

Considering Information Poverty. An average man that lives on the Gurnos estate in Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales, can expect to enjoy good health for just 58.8 years. This is a socially deprived area. Goetre Junior School is not the best place for a pupil with autism, who I shall call Dafydd Young, lack access help to improve their social skills. He and his peers have poor diet, families who are heavy smokers, and severe unemployment. The Internet is sometimes seen as a luxury here, except to those with mobile phones.

You’re probably all wondering what these stories have got to do with gamification and e-learning 2.0. So let me explain both terms to you in detail on the next two slides.

Firstly let us look at Gamification.

As you can see from this slide, gamification is using elements of gameplay typically seen in video games to encourage participation in websites such as online communities.

Gamification pioneer Amy Jo Kim says that the key ingredients that make games fun, compelling, and even addictive are collecting, points, feedback, exchanges, and customisation.

This image you can see on the slide is of a website from the mobile phone provider GiffGaff which uses gamification to keep and gain customers. The service cuts staffing costs by encouraging customers to support those ones with problems. It does this by offering those persons points for each piece of support they offer in the forums and signing up friends. GiffGaff’s model contrasts with those ‘freemium’ ones which are free to use when one signs up, but charges a premium for services .

If you look through the eyes of Dafydd Young who we mentioned earlier you can see that their social environment could benefit from gamification. Humans are naturally competitive. However in Dafydd Young’s community all too often it is a race to the bottom, to see who can be the poorest for instance. They are traditionally persuaded with short-term games like CyberMonday, which where the online retail companies have hyped-up sales on masse to encourage people to shop online for Christmas – the Monday just gone as it happens.

However those like Dafyddd Young could benefit from gamification being used to increase their repertoire of behavioural responses for use in games that look beyond the short-term. Take one game – hypermiling – where people compete with themselves about how much less fuel their use in their car. People like Daffydd, who need clear rules with their autism, could benefit from e-learning 2.0 systems that allow them to interact with their peers while learning essential social skills – two such systems, called PARLE and Vois, are described in reasearch papers on a free USB stick you can collect.

Does anyone have any opinions and experiences on how you think using games could encourage or discourage certain behaviours, or increase others’ repertoire of behavioural response?

Now turning to E-Learning 2.0.

E-Learning 2.0 is a type of e-learning programme where learners from any school or household can access lessons via their computers and mobile devices and have the instruction tailed to them, including ability and interests.

It is not a term I particularly like, as the collaborative aspect of it is something I have argued for over a number of years. But the 2.0 part serves to emphasise the role of social networking more effectively than the original term for this; Computer Supportive Collaborative Learning (CSCL).

This image you can see on the slide is of an E-Learning 2.0 system I devised, back in 2004 when CSCL was a type of E-Learning. The features of the system included the circle of friends that can be found on Facebook where one can add a friend for them to provide social support and peer-based marking.

Now, turning to the main aim of this speech – to show how the UK Criminal law system can further the role of gamification in E-learning 2.0 systems.

As you can see from this slide, I have on the left put legal instruments currently available and to the right the equivalents which through gamification can enhance learning online, specifically with E-Learning 2.0. I will briefly explain them, and then put these into context of the next two slides asking for your input at different stages.

A fixed penalty notice is an on-the-spot fine given for a minor crime. In an E-learning 2.0 systems this could include docking people points, as I showed possible in my degree thesis in 2002.

ASBOs are court orders which restrict someone actions by saying if they perform a prohibited set of actions named in that order then they can go to jail for 2 years. These have been used on many people in Merthyr Tydfil like Dafydd Young. The equivalent instrument in an E-learning 2.0 system is the behaviour contract as I highlighted in my 3rd Masters thesis last year.

Other instruments like dispersal orders to break up gangs could be reflected by temporarily banning people who get into arguments, or in the case of detention for breach of the peace people could be required to express their frustration in a safe ‘sin bin’ which I call the displacement room.

A concept I devised in 2002 was The Digital Classroom of Tomorrow and this is an ideal system on which to implement these. This is based on the premise that the large class-sizes in state schools are not a problem in themselves, as technology can transform learning by removing the ‘sage on the stage’ teacher from the education system. Students do not want to be lectured at these days, as they have their own worldview that is all too often different from the teachers’. I call this ‘Classroom 2.0′, as it mixes the collaborative software associated with E-Learning 2.0 with the traditional classroom setting rather than replace that setting with 100% distance learning.

DCOT could be realised to allow mixed ability students in a class of 30 to assemble around tables of 6, interacting with an E-Learning 2.0 multi-user virtual learning environment on their laptops so as to create Classroom 2.0. This ‘one-laptop-six-at-a-table’ policy would not work without customisation as Amy Jo Kim points out.

Using customization in e-learning systems, particularly using gamification concepts, can mean interest is maintained in the environment, without the over-dependence on the teacher from the broadcasted approach to education, still found in most schools today.

If you look at this next slide you can see there are different types of platform for e-learning 2.0 systems, which can use the customisation in the Digital Classroom of Tomorrow.

Adjusting content based on learner interests. For instance if Carla was at school, she might find English lessons more interesting if she was asked to ‘Describe five adjectives that describe your favourite music instrument the flute. Weblogs which are updatable can do this well, and can be revised and commented on by other learners but not edited by them.

Wikis and hypertext fiction can allow a user to modify content to improve skills such as with regards to use of English. This can involve adjusting the content on grounds of ability. Someone at a basic level of understanding could be asked to ‘List’ five adjectives, someone with moderate abilities could be asked to ‘Describe’ five adjectives, and the most advanced toto ‘synthesise five adjectives’.

Chatroom and message boards could be improved through docking people points if they perform a behaviour that is banned on the basis of a ‘behaviour contract’, which sets of the rules of the game, in order to build consensus among the students. This could involve automatic detection and deduction.

Also possible is having a system where the status of the user can be changed so that they are no longer able to access the main part of the system if they treat others unfavorably for instance.

Does anyone else have any examples of things they have found useful for engaging people online and managing behaviour?

Finally, before opening up to the floor, I want to talk briefly about Trollers, and the role they can play in gamified e-learning 2.0 systems.

Many of you will have heard about trolling in the press and probably associate it with people who want to harm others. This was true in the case of Natasha MacBryde. However I argue that trolling, which is simply posting a humorous message to provoke a reaction in others, or his own sick fun in Sean Duffy who bullied Natasha.

If you look at the different types of Troller on this slide. The Flirts troll by posting reflections of funny things that have happened in their lives. Snerts on the other hand post to harm others, for their own sick entertainment. Trolls post more inflammatory messages that go against the grain of someone in order to entertain the community at large, such as by mocking the Snerts. Their less constructive equivalent, the Big Man, troll by saying things others disagree with but they strongly hold to, knowing others will react with consternation so they can have fun proving them wrong.

The My heart bleeds for you Jennies do trolling by posting messages that make light of a current situation in order to put another at ease. Their opposite, the E-Venger, posts hurtful messages in order for them to feel happier for something they felt wronged by.

The Ripper posts self-deprecating messages that make them feel happier, even though they are not looking for solutions as such. Their opposite, the Chatroom Bob, posts entertain messages in order to gain the trust of the other person, who they then exploit for their own ends.

And lastly, the Wizard will troll to be creative, such as posting a joke they made up. The Iconoclasts on the other hand will either remove content or post messages that challenge the legitimate world views of others.

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Speeches Chatrooms, Classroom 2.0, Education Reform, forums and social networking, Gamification, Internet Trolling, Natasha MacBryde

Legal issues affecting e-learning firms in the European Union: To merge or not to merge

31 October 2011 Jonathan Bishop One comment

What do you think the European Union is? Is it an entity that exists solely to pass laws regulating the shape and size of fruit, or burden employers with endless legislation? Or is it a collection of governments, working to find areas they have in common, and improve standards across the trading block?

One area where the last of these has happened is with regards to E-learning. E-learning can be defined as any educational activity that has an electronic dimension to it, encompassing a primary school class delivered using a PowerPoint presentation teaching learners how to use desktop computer applications, like what is done at Broadclyst Primary School, to a programme delivered completely online to update workers’ skills.

According to the International Data Corporation the corporate training segment of the e-learning industry is estimated to have to increased from 234 million euros in 2000 to 11.4 billion euros in 2003, although in the European Union only about 20 percent of e-learning products are produced within the common market. In 2000 the European educational multimedia industry was undercapitalised as links between education and training systems and the industry were not strong enough to generate viable services that cater for education and training requirements.

It has been argued by the European Commission that another reason for this undercapitalisation is because much of the development of e-learning systems comes from a high number of small firms within the industry. Critics would argue that this is only a problem because of how small businesses have been burdened with increased legislation originating from the European Union, which now legislates in an increasing number of areas affecting small to medium-sized undertakings. Indeed, some now estimate that European Union Law accounts for about half of the legislation in Member States, with countries wishing to join the European Union facing around 80,000 pages of EU law to incorporate into their national legislation.

Despite the legislative burden placed on small e-learning firms, the attitude of the European Commission towards e-learning is very positive. According to one estimate, in 2001 around 50 million euros from the budget for education and training was spent on projects which could be considered as promoting e-learning, but the largest amounts have been channelled to the Structural Funds and the framework research programme.

Developments in Internet and multimedia technologies are the basic enabler of e-learning, with content, technologies and services being the three key segments of the e-learning industry, although it could be argued that there are two additional sectors, which are the consulting and support sectors.

The e-learning industry can be seen to consist of companies that provide content and technology such as Microsoft, services, such as those offered by the University of Cambridge or Brighton University, as well as undertakings that support the industry, such as marketing firms like Magicomm. These undertakings include small to medium-sized e-learning firms that produce the content and software, large software companies that provide the platform on which to run the software, manufacturing firms and their supply-chain that provide the hardware and media, telecommunications companies that provide the network infrastructure, educational establishments and training firms that provide the services as well as content, self-employed consultants who contribute to the consulting sector and technical and administrative enterprises that contribute to the support sector. These companies may offer services such as direct-to-customer marketing communications solutions, personalisation and cross media implementation and document and communications workflow consulting, such web enabled information production automation.

It has been argued that the present e-learning industry of a high number of small to medium-sized undertakings is slowing the growth of the industry and that as few e-learning companies can truly do it all they will form strategic alliances to diversify and strengthen offerings, with form such alliances will take are limited by competition law, in particular Articles 81 and 82 of the European Union treaties, soon to be Articles 101 and 102 respectively. These firms may consist of technical media specialists, digital artists, content developers and in some cases social networking analysts. The concept of free competition is a fundamental element in the EU treaties, which embraces the premise that any restriction on free competition is intrinsically reprehensible.

It could be argued that the restrictions placed on undertakings in the e-learning industry by Article (101) is forcing small to medium-sized enterprises to enter into more substantial agreements to form what are known as concentrations, through either taking over or merging with other undertakings. Some might argue that this is a good thing, as in a time of increased globalisation undertakings within the European Union need not just compete with enterprises within the union, but also compete on a global scale with undertakings in the USA, and the emerging markets in India and China for example. It could also be argued that small to medium-sized undertakings allow for a flexible and dynamic market, and that mergers impede innovation and creativity. Whichever position is right, it is certain that the e-learning industry will have to deal with mergers more often as the market develops if undertakings are to overcome the restrictions placed on them by Article (101).

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Speeches Chatrooms, E-Learning, E-Learning in the EU, European Cyberlaw, forums and social networking, Polnetics

Transforming Lurkers into Posters – The role of the participation continuum

7 September 2011 Jonathan Bishop No comments

Firstly, I would like to thank the organisers for inviting me to speak today. This is my third time attending this series of conferences, and I am glad to be back.

Delegates may or may not know, but this week is part of Co-operatives Fortnight. If you take a look at this next slide, you’ll see the different types of values that all co-operatives must meet.

Many people think the terms ‘co-operative’ and a’ workers co-operative’ as the same thing. But so long as they meet these criteria any model of company can be a co-operative. So an online community could be a co-operative with only the need for a simple contract between members, providing they follow these principles.

One of these particularly relevant for an online community is ‘concern for community’. In such electronic environments people know as lurkers often don’t feel such concern.

When I say this word, ‘lurker’ to you, of what do you think?

Perhaps a dangerous being that stalks others, like this tiger in a painting by Rosa Bonheur in the 19^th century?

Or maybe someone innocent and shy…

who is afraid to post a message because they fear what might happen, like this kitten in this early 20^th century painting by Bessie Bamber …

The field of online communities is very interdisciplinary, like these conferences. In economics a lurker may be thought of as a free-rider – that is, people who have the benefits of a market economy but don’t contribute towards it. It may also include those who are economically inactive – that is, someone who is not producing any content.

In sociology they may be seen as peripheral participators – that is someone on the boundaries of the community who is looking for the opportunity to join.

In the political arena they could be those who are considered apathetic – in other words those who feel the system does not represent them so they feel no point in engaging with it.

They may also, in the field of education, be seen as someone who is disengaged with their learning environment. And in religion they could be seen as Agnostic – that is, someone who has not made their mind up and is waiting until the time they have.

But instead of trying to think what they are – let us think why they are.

According to Online Community expert, Jenny Preece, there are five main reasons why lurkers don’t post. These are that they don’t need to post, mainly because they think just reading and browsing is enough – like the free-riders in economics.

Another is that they need to find out more about the group before joining – like the peripheral participators in sociology.

Another is that they think they were being helpful by not posting, like the person disengaged in the classroom because everyone else is jumping in before them.

It may be that like the political ones they are too busy to get to know the system.

Or it could be that like the Agnostics they don’t like the group as it stands, as it may not be compatible with what they believe.

However, there is one group of people who Jenny Preece left out – those who are not online because of the digital divide. Unlike these other causes, which could be based on personal choice, those who are economically inactive may not even be able to get online.

This may be because of the wide gap between the rich and the poor. My co-operative social enterprise, Glamorgan Blended Learning Ltd, is trying to something about it. If you’d like to help I have petition cards from Co-operatives UK as part of Co-operatives Fortnight. They call on the government to narrow the gap between rich and poor through supporting co-operatives like ours.

But as you can see from this slide, in the current time there are a lot of opportunities for lurkers to become posters for good reasons.

Many people have heard of the public sphere. It is places like pubs and newspaper letters where we can say pretty much what we want providing we comply with the policies of the place where we wish to express it. On the Web these consist of comments to others blogs, replies to Tweets, and forum posts.

The term, ‘public square’, was only recently introduced by Internet researcher Don Tapscott. It refers to personal online communities, such as our Facebook profiles or blogs, where we make the rules. It can also mean any printed newsletter we create in the real-world, such as for a local club.

In essence, the public square refers to those websites where ordinary people have the editorial control usually found in mass media like televisions or newspapers. It comparison with the public sphere you can see that it means we not only control the content we provide, but what others do also. So the question is; how do we get lurkers to realise these benefits and become posters?

As you can see from this slide, I have devised a conceptual model called the Participation Continuum. One can use this model to determine where someone is in their participation within an online community.

On the left hand side, is a position called ‘Repression’, which is a person’s defence after experiencing ignorance. This is from where the lurkers start. Whether it is because they don’t want to be reciprocal or have fears about participating, they are preserving their status quo of non-participation.

The next step – suppression – is where the lurker goes when they have decided they want to participate but still have reservations, which is cause by temperance. After this they experience depression as a result of reticence, which means whether they do or don’t participate they feel they have made the wrong decision.

Some of us heard a lot yesterday about Nostalgia. This is something I am exploring in depth on my doctorate as it is a new addition to my psychological framework that I once thought complete.

Our Nostalgias, whether of a lover in our past, or a family member we can no longer be with, can either act as barriers to what we want. Freud called these ‘Phantasies’, spelt with a P-h rather than f.

We often try to deny the negative ones exist. This is done through a process called rationalisation, which takes us into the part of the continuum you can see called ‘Stagnation’. Far from the definition of rational we hear in economics as being something we do before an event, in this framework rationalising is something we do after the event, often to kid ourselves about what has really happened.

At this point we will be bouncing back and for between compression where our ideal doesn’t match the reality we perceive, and compression where it does.

The only way out of this dilemma cycle is to intellectualise a solution, so we return to the main continuum.

Once we are out of this, we can go on to experience rigidepression, so named after our biological ancestors who developed rigid brains for better decision making. It is at this stage that even though we have doubts we still participate. It is only when we experience deference that we participate without doubt. This stage is called empression, named after a female primate, as it was at this stage our ancient ancestors had little control over their actions.

This next model, called the Transitional Flow of Persuasion Model, depicts the stages necessary to transform a lurker into a poster with some precision.

You can see labelled ‘equ1’ that part called equilibrium 1. This is where the lurker is happy not participating with little involvement and high flow.

In order to break them out of this, there needs to be a disruption to this equilibrium. This could come from members who post something so abhorrent that the lurker feels so aggrieved that they want to post.

Depending on the strength of this force, which I call a ‘seduction mechanism’, they may be propelled through the participation continuum to equilibrium 2, or yes still need some persuasion.

If the latter is the case, then they need to firmly severe themselves from their beliefs before going on to the contrience stage. This could be finding those five reasons we identified earlier to be false, or not important enough for participation to be desirable.

This stage of contrience is the stage where they are in no-mans-land, where the only place to go is forward to enhancement or back to preservation.

If they decide to go forward, they jump to the new equilibrium, a process that is so great that it would take a seduction mechanism of the same strength in reverse to return to their original state of non-participation. This might take the form of posting a message in response to the one that made them want to post.

In order that lurkers be encouraged to post for reasons other than a dislike for what was posted there are a number of steps that can be taken.

The online community managers, also called systems operators (or sysops), need to be more proactive in their communities. More often than not, those people who set up forums are against censorship and believe people should be able to say whatever they want. However, all too often this means that lurkers are discouraged from posting because they are afraid they may be a target.

Another way is that there is greater involvement from the elders in an online community – that is, the people who have been there a long time but aren’t as active as they used be.

These people are well respected in the community, and if they were to put right those members known as Snerts, who are the members who post offensive messages, known as ‘flames’, then the lurkers who would otherwise not want to participate may do so.

Also, the regular members, who may be more interested in themselves than the newcomers, need to realise that by not involving the recently converted lurkers, those new members may return to being on the periphery or worse still, not be in the community at all.

Are there any questions?

Speeches Lurking

Tranformations in Online Communities – From lurker to poster

8 July 2011 Jonathan Bishop No comments