Interesting article about why "low-end media works better".
It is probably applicable to virtual learning environments as well.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030421.html
Hello Gunther,
It is an interesting article and Jakob Nielsen does have strong views and some knowledge of usability issues. Some agree with him always, some agree with him only sometimes. I think with the increased availability of broadband presentation options like the flash tutorial of Moodle become useful to a number of users. If this presentation is an option to those who have the ability to view it this must be viewed as a positive step forward. I think it would be a mistake if this was the only way that this introduction was available. Fortunately there are currently several tutorials being developed for Moodle most of which will be acceptable to traditional "dial-up" users. This presentation adds a little "Flash" for those who choose to view it. I see the flash presentation being used by the same group who would take the time to download large file sizes of all types anyway.
I think this flash presentation would be great as part of a collection of introductory materials that would, for example, be on a CD-ROM that is mailed or delivered to someone interested in distance learning but who would never take the time to hang around the Moodle community long enough to understand the potential in this application. Suddenly this "high-end media" is valuable to anyone with a computer. I think sometimes Mr. Nielsen forgets that ARPA is now the WWW and technology is not always comprised of a 486 & 14.4 modem with a floppy drive to save the good stuff on.
I have a fairly quick broadband connection but sometimes don't want, or need, the jazz that's used for no reason except to show off the skills of the web designer/builder. "Low-end media" is good and "high-end media" options are good, even for Jakob Nielsen.
I personally NEVER use FLASH or high resolution graphics on entry points to my own sites as I do not want to discourage users from using them or returning to them. However making "high-end media" available and warning viewers that the file sizes are large gives them an option that they may, or may not, want. Catch 22 I think. No "high-end media" no need for broadband. No demand for broadband no point in building broadband networks. No widespread use of broadband we don't get to find out what the WWW could have become. I hope this doesn't sound like a rant and I'm sorry if it does.
John
It is an interesting article and Jakob Nielsen does have strong views and some knowledge of usability issues. Some agree with him always, some agree with him only sometimes. I think with the increased availability of broadband presentation options like the flash tutorial of Moodle become useful to a number of users. If this presentation is an option to those who have the ability to view it this must be viewed as a positive step forward. I think it would be a mistake if this was the only way that this introduction was available. Fortunately there are currently several tutorials being developed for Moodle most of which will be acceptable to traditional "dial-up" users. This presentation adds a little "Flash" for those who choose to view it. I see the flash presentation being used by the same group who would take the time to download large file sizes of all types anyway.
I think this flash presentation would be great as part of a collection of introductory materials that would, for example, be on a CD-ROM that is mailed or delivered to someone interested in distance learning but who would never take the time to hang around the Moodle community long enough to understand the potential in this application. Suddenly this "high-end media" is valuable to anyone with a computer. I think sometimes Mr. Nielsen forgets that ARPA is now the WWW and technology is not always comprised of a 486 & 14.4 modem with a floppy drive to save the good stuff on.
I have a fairly quick broadband connection but sometimes don't want, or need, the jazz that's used for no reason except to show off the skills of the web designer/builder. "Low-end media" is good and "high-end media" options are good, even for Jakob Nielsen.
I personally NEVER use FLASH or high resolution graphics on entry points to my own sites as I do not want to discourage users from using them or returning to them. However making "high-end media" available and warning viewers that the file sizes are large gives them an option that they may, or may not, want. Catch 22 I think. No "high-end media" no need for broadband. No demand for broadband no point in building broadband networks. No widespread use of broadband we don't get to find out what the WWW could have become. I hope this doesn't sound like a rant and I'm sorry if it does.
John
I agree totally with the low-end media point of view. I teach design and HTML at the high school level. It is essentially a design issue. People don't realize that the web is just another method of publishing. The issues are just about the same as print when it comes to customer satisfaction. People appreciate clear concise communication.
Most of us wouldn't consider publishing a monthly magazine. Just considering creating that amount of meaningful content makes me shiver.
The result of having nothing to say is generally the urge to over-decorate the piece. *major euphemism*
On the other hand, commercial artists who create big flash animations are just going with their client's typically misguided understanding of their target audience.
Advertising fails for three major reasons. Bandwidth hogging animations are merely a symptom of a failure of one kind or another.
Flash will never be a standard anyway. Adobe open-sourced SVG and it is being incorporated into the standards.
BTW, is anybody going to Siggraph in August?
Most of us wouldn't consider publishing a monthly magazine. Just considering creating that amount of meaningful content makes me shiver.
The result of having nothing to say is generally the urge to over-decorate the piece. *major euphemism*
On the other hand, commercial artists who create big flash animations are just going with their client's typically misguided understanding of their target audience.
Advertising fails for three major reasons. Bandwidth hogging animations are merely a symptom of a failure of one kind or another.
Flash will never be a standard anyway. Adobe open-sourced SVG and it is being incorporated into the standards.
BTW, is anybody going to Siggraph in August?
This is quite an interesting thread and article. I wonder about the validity of aiming at the low-end media side of online course delivery. I agree that there are some very valid reasons for doing so (as the article states, but after being involved with online course delivery for the last 7 / 8 years I have notice that a lot of what we present online is an electronic copy of the paper based type of course. I have read several articles and points of view that question why we should go the expense of presenting information / courses electronically if paper can do it as well and is already established. Granted that this is the comfort level for most learners but I think that we should be taking advantage of the capabilities of an electronic environment to deliver our course / information in a new way. That is one of the concepts of Moodle that excites me that most is that it allows us to take advantage of interaction over a distance and present a dynamic course. I think that Flash, Shockwave, synchronous and asynchronous interaction and a dynamic source of information (the Internet) are things we should take advantage of in our course design and delivery. Yes, there will be those that can't access that level of technology, but in the long run I think copying the traditional methods of delivering information won't allow us to establish online education as something to be sought after. And technology will catch up, especially if there is a real demand for something better. I think that we are in a time of transition currently and while the article makes some very valid points that hold true for the present, I think we should look down that proverbial road and aim to make something better. In order to accomplish that, we need to allow ourselves the opportunity to learn how and to accept the mistakes that will be make along the way.
Sorry about the ramble and I hope that I am on topic here, but ... my point of view.
Sorry about the ramble and I hope that I am on topic here, but ... my point of view.
Isn't the problem how we think about the medium rather than the medium itself and what can be accomplished with it?
And if one wants to take advantage of the possibilities of e.g. Moodle, shouldn't it be with the focus on what content should be delivered rather than finding new ways of delivery?
The content might of course lead us to deliver it in new ways if the medium permits it.
Maybe the above is selfevident for teachers but here in Sweden there has been a lot of discussion about organisation, teacher work teams, IT in schools but almost nothing about what pupils and students are supposed to learn and why.
And if one wants to take advantage of the possibilities of e.g. Moodle, shouldn't it be with the focus on what content should be delivered rather than finding new ways of delivery?
The content might of course lead us to deliver it in new ways if the medium permits it.
Maybe the above is selfevident for teachers but here in Sweden there has been a lot of discussion about organisation, teacher work teams, IT in schools but almost nothing about what pupils and students are supposed to learn and why.
Hello Gunther. I appreciate the points you make very much and I do agree that we should not use the medium just to use the medium. We should use the medium because it better serves student learning.
The point I was making through was that if we are going to make use of this medium we should not use it as we would a paper medium. ICT is a different world we should not force the square peg of our old way of doing things into the round hole of a new approach,
In a more philosophical vein, I think we should look at using technology and the ICT infrastructure in a completely new approach. Ursula Franklin from the University of Toronto - in her book - The Real World of Technology - talks about using technology redemptively. Currently technology use falls into two veins she says - Holistic - where we use technology to allow one of us to complete the whole task - and Prescriptively - where we are one part of an assembly line process and where technology dictates our one repetitive task. Redemptive technology takes the approach that we should use technology to focus on the needs of the individual or the society. In education, this translates into using technology to deliver an education catered to the learning needs of each individual student. Considering the power our technology has, it could allow us to conceivable manage the complexity of providing and Individual Education Plan for each of our students, based on their current point of learning and catered to the way they learn. I think that this would go a long way to make learning more relevant for everyone all the time. But, in order to realize this type of a learning environment we would have to retool most or all of our educational resources. Instead of writing courses, we would have to create a library of learning objects that cover all the learning outcomes at different levels of ability / reading, focusing on different learning styles, ... It is a huge change in our approach to learning and the infrastructure needed to support it. But why cant we dream
Sorry - that was a bit of a ramble. And I am getting of the topic of this thread. I agree whole-heartedly with you Gunther. Our efforts should focus on learners needs, not using technology just because we can.
The point I was making through was that if we are going to make use of this medium we should not use it as we would a paper medium. ICT is a different world we should not force the square peg of our old way of doing things into the round hole of a new approach,
In a more philosophical vein, I think we should look at using technology and the ICT infrastructure in a completely new approach. Ursula Franklin from the University of Toronto - in her book - The Real World of Technology - talks about using technology redemptively. Currently technology use falls into two veins she says - Holistic - where we use technology to allow one of us to complete the whole task - and Prescriptively - where we are one part of an assembly line process and where technology dictates our one repetitive task. Redemptive technology takes the approach that we should use technology to focus on the needs of the individual or the society. In education, this translates into using technology to deliver an education catered to the learning needs of each individual student. Considering the power our technology has, it could allow us to conceivable manage the complexity of providing and Individual Education Plan for each of our students, based on their current point of learning and catered to the way they learn. I think that this would go a long way to make learning more relevant for everyone all the time. But, in order to realize this type of a learning environment we would have to retool most or all of our educational resources. Instead of writing courses, we would have to create a library of learning objects that cover all the learning outcomes at different levels of ability / reading, focusing on different learning styles, ... It is a huge change in our approach to learning and the infrastructure needed to support it. But why cant we dream
Sorry - that was a bit of a ramble. And I am getting of the topic of this thread. I agree whole-heartedly with you Gunther. Our efforts should focus on learners needs, not using technology just because we can.
Hi Norbert,
Interesting but I would like to problematise the concept of individualisation not because I disagree with you but rather to find out what you and others think about it (if the writing below is worth commenting).
What is individualisation? Does individualisation make individuals socially capable individuals? Are the needs of the individual more important than the needs of a (small) group? What are the needs of the society, the private sector and the social environment where the student live. Does it sufficiently prepare the student for an "adult life"?
In Japan teachers have an interesting idea about what circumstances are needed to be able to individualise (on-campus teaching). There shouldn't be fewer than 40 pupils in a class in order to be able to individualise! I always wondered how do they think and reason until I was told that only then it is possible for the teacher to create large enough groups so that no pupil would end up alone. Then they use "rich problems" (I'm referring to math) which pupils can work with for a week or more and starting at their own level of knowledge. The group as well as the teacher are there to support the individual (I don't know any more about the details unfortunately.).
From a teachers' point of view individualisation presents some interesting challenges which also are applicable to the use of VLE's.
1. I must know my students enough as persons to be able to individualise.
2. I must know the knowledge level of each student.
3. I must know how well students are able to work together or at least if I'll be able to make the groups work with my support.
4. Choose problems which challenge less knowledgeable as well as more knowledgeable students.
5. What else?
The idea of individualisation could be a terrible work trap for teachers if we don't define what we mean by it and also explain the consequences of implementing it. I'm afraid that it otherwise will degrade teaching to hand out (or deliver digitally) ready made fill out forms albeit "individualised". Quality of teaching will then be degraded to quantity of teaching and the pedagogics of choice will be "parrot pedagogics" ("repeat, please").
Interesting
What is individualisation? Does individualisation make individuals socially capable individuals? Are the needs of the individual more important than the needs of a (small) group? What are the needs of the society, the private sector and the social environment where the student live. Does it sufficiently prepare the student for an "adult life"?
In Japan teachers have an interesting idea about what circumstances are needed to be able to individualise (on-campus teaching). There shouldn't be fewer than 40 pupils in a class in order to be able to individualise! I always wondered how do they think and reason until I was told that only then it is possible for the teacher to create large enough groups so that no pupil would end up alone. Then they use "rich problems" (I'm referring to math) which pupils can work with for a week or more and starting at their own level of knowledge. The group as well as the teacher are there to support the individual (I don't know any more about the details unfortunately.).
From a teachers' point of view individualisation presents some interesting challenges which also are applicable to the use of VLE's.
1. I must know my students enough as persons to be able to individualise.
2. I must know the knowledge level of each student.
3. I must know how well students are able to work together or at least if I'll be able to make the groups work with my support.
4. Choose problems which challenge less knowledgeable as well as more knowledgeable students.
5. What else?
The idea of individualisation could be a terrible work trap for teachers if we don't define what we mean by it and also explain the consequences of implementing it. I'm afraid that it otherwise will degrade teaching to hand out (or deliver digitally) ready made fill out forms albeit "individualised". Quality of teaching will then be degraded to quantity of teaching and the pedagogics of choice will be "parrot pedagogics" ("repeat, please").
I think the key sentence in the article is "So why do so many websites use inappropriately ornate media?".
Wisely used a "3D" rotateable image of e.g. a rare piece of ceramics can give students an enhanced learning experience compared to a 2D picture (used in a real distance education situation).
If the student knows that the teacher always posts valuable information then s/he can probably endure a couple of minutes of downloading.
Nielsen article(-s) made me think and rethink as John's and Bob's replies also did
Wisely used a "3D" rotateable image of e.g. a rare piece of ceramics can give students an enhanced learning experience compared to a 2D picture (used in a real distance education situation).
If the student knows that the teacher always posts valuable information then s/he can probably endure a couple of minutes of downloading.
Nielsen article(-s) made me think and rethink as John's and Bob's replies also did
Hello Moodlers
Very interesting discussion. I'd like to invite Mr. Nielsen. I agree with much of what he says as it applies to roughly 93% of the networked computers out there. But, the other 7% of users, and many of the patient 93% as well, choose to use the web for much more than "just another method of publishing". Many users view the web, I'm sure, as a "content delivery pipeline". Books, education, music, movies, greetings, correspondence , designs, photographs, ideas, liberty, independance, fuel savings, time savings, truth, lies, medical information, etc. all flow freely through this pipeline. Some of these things take a little longer to make it through to the end user, that's all.
I agree somewhat with the statement "The result of having nothing to say is generally the urge to over-decorate the piece". Take modern television, please. 57 channels and nuthin' on. On the other hand our world has changed immensely since we went "online". Thank goodness we've occasionaly stumbled onto a site where the publisher had nothing to say so instead gave in to "the urge to over-decorate the piece". This capitulation has exposed us to "3D rotateable image of e.g. a rare piece of ceramics" and the like. Much of what we're now seeing, learning, listening to and thinking about is because we have the ability to put these things in a pipeline and "publish" them. Many publishers don't care if anyone receives the content. They only place it in the pipeline because they can. And, just like conventional media, sometimes we have to select a different book or newspaper or just change the channel.
To paraphrase Norbert Kaspar, "Why race backwards at the speed of the internet"? Education, I believe, will establish the real benchmark as to the usefulness of this new technology. But this technology must deliver an enhanced version of what's currently available. It won't, of course, replace the classroom. It does have the potential to assist the teacher in their attempt to stimulate or, hopefully, occasionally, overstimulate, the imagination of those lucky enough to find themselves in a classroom.
John
Very interesting discussion. I'd like to invite Mr. Nielsen. I agree with much of what he says as it applies to roughly 93% of the networked computers out there. But, the other 7% of users, and many of the patient 93% as well, choose to use the web for much more than "just another method of publishing". Many users view the web, I'm sure, as a "content delivery pipeline". Books, education, music, movies, greetings, correspondence , designs, photographs, ideas, liberty, independance, fuel savings, time savings, truth, lies, medical information, etc. all flow freely through this pipeline. Some of these things take a little longer to make it through to the end user, that's all.
I agree somewhat with the statement "The result of having nothing to say is generally the urge to over-decorate the piece". Take modern television, please. 57 channels and nuthin' on. On the other hand our world has changed immensely since we went "online". Thank goodness we've occasionaly stumbled onto a site where the publisher had nothing to say so instead gave in to "the urge to over-decorate the piece". This capitulation has exposed us to "3D rotateable image of e.g. a rare piece of ceramics" and the like. Much of what we're now seeing, learning, listening to and thinking about is because we have the ability to put these things in a pipeline and "publish" them. Many publishers don't care if anyone receives the content. They only place it in the pipeline because they can. And, just like conventional media, sometimes we have to select a different book or newspaper or just change the channel.
To paraphrase Norbert Kaspar, "Why race backwards at the speed of the internet"? Education, I believe, will establish the real benchmark as to the usefulness of this new technology. But this technology must deliver an enhanced version of what's currently available. It won't, of course, replace the classroom. It does have the potential to assist the teacher in their attempt to stimulate or, hopefully, occasionally, overstimulate, the imagination of those lucky enough to find themselves in a classroom.
John
An optional content delivery system is here and this should encourage us to explore the possibilities shouldn't it? The article you mention in your earlier post is informative and still relevant in many ways but it was published in 1998. Much of what it states still applies, but how often does it apply in 2003? We don't have to abandon all of the old ways of learning or dispose of all of the traditional materials. We should use technology to present the information in different and interesting ways to individuals. Why bother using technology to present that information again as black text on a white page. An animation, whether Flash or something else, used to help introduce, explain or sell a new idea or technology could make that information available to a whole new group of learners. Suppose you have an individual in a class or training course that doesnt respond well to traditional teaching methods but has a desire to learn the material. Suppose you have millions of people connected to a vast global network and they can access this network at will with a relatively affordable machine. Suppose the majority of these people, this includes students, have grown up watching television and now require a rich learning experience or they switch the channel or fall asleep. This group likely includes many who are actively seeking the information they know they should have learned in school, on the job, at college or university because much of this old information, still very valuable, is now being presented in new and interesting ways and making it possible for this group to learn what they couldnt in the first place. To place in front of these people the same material and present it in the same way but this time delivered electronically seems odd to me.
I guess as a layperson, one with very little formal education behind me, I see this discussion from a different point of view than many educators. If there is to be a successful adaptation of technology to the art of teaching I believe a new, more imaginative, approach will be required. This may include presenting the same material in several ways simultaneously. Occasionally the material may even be presented in an animation, just because you can. Eventually there will probably be vast collections of these new interesting and dynamic resources available and at our disposal. We will probably use them much the same way that books and papers are used today. Maybe, some day, much of the knowledge that exists today will exist as an electronic file and be available to almost anyone with the click of a button or a voice command. Maybe this discussion will amuse readers a few years from now. But, weve got to start somewhere and we may as well start now.
I have a feeling that most of the thousands of students that dropped out, or will drop out, of school this year dont care that this discussion took place here. If even one of those students could have been better served by using animations, sound, video or interactive distance learning to keep them interested or make it possible for them to learn then that is the best use for this technology. Maybe the act of individualizing the content will convey the message that the teacher feels the material is very important. So important that even if it takes a new approach to presentation and much time to deliver it the effort is worth it. Maybe its time we started doing more just because we can. This applies to the ways we communicate in general. Education as well as business and personal interaction can all benefit from the new ways available to us to get our message to convey the meaning we want it to.
"So why do so many websites use inappropriately ornate media? I think its because they can and sometimes because they dont have a real message, just dazzle. But that has always been the case regardless of the media. I also think that the quality of web publishing will improve as time goes on and we gain experience. For now we are still becoming familiar with this technology and exploring its possibilities. In the meantime I know Ill be publishing much useless content just because I can. Im hoping that much of what I do now will gain me the experience I will need to survive to the point when the technology has matured enough to where the user demands nothing but perfection, the same as what they get from TV.
John
I guess as a layperson, one with very little formal education behind me, I see this discussion from a different point of view than many educators. If there is to be a successful adaptation of technology to the art of teaching I believe a new, more imaginative, approach will be required. This may include presenting the same material in several ways simultaneously. Occasionally the material may even be presented in an animation, just because you can. Eventually there will probably be vast collections of these new interesting and dynamic resources available and at our disposal. We will probably use them much the same way that books and papers are used today. Maybe, some day, much of the knowledge that exists today will exist as an electronic file and be available to almost anyone with the click of a button or a voice command. Maybe this discussion will amuse readers a few years from now. But, weve got to start somewhere and we may as well start now.
I have a feeling that most of the thousands of students that dropped out, or will drop out, of school this year dont care that this discussion took place here. If even one of those students could have been better served by using animations, sound, video or interactive distance learning to keep them interested or make it possible for them to learn then that is the best use for this technology. Maybe the act of individualizing the content will convey the message that the teacher feels the material is very important. So important that even if it takes a new approach to presentation and much time to deliver it the effort is worth it. Maybe its time we started doing more just because we can. This applies to the ways we communicate in general. Education as well as business and personal interaction can all benefit from the new ways available to us to get our message to convey the meaning we want it to.
"So why do so many websites use inappropriately ornate media? I think its because they can and sometimes because they dont have a real message, just dazzle. But that has always been the case regardless of the media. I also think that the quality of web publishing will improve as time goes on and we gain experience. For now we are still becoming familiar with this technology and exploring its possibilities. In the meantime I know Ill be publishing much useless content just because I can. Im hoping that much of what I do now will gain me the experience I will need to survive to the point when the technology has matured enough to where the user demands nothing but perfection, the same as what they get from TV.
John
You're pointing out the importance of knowing the target group. A crucial aspect of a teachers' job indeed.
A pedagogy called "variation pedagogics" seems to be cathing some interest at the university where I work. I haven't looked into its history and it may be the rebirth of something that has been around for a long time (we tend to re-invent the weel), but more important is what it is trying to tell us.
Simply put: "Variation of teaching is important for the learning outcome" and this is also something you point out.
I also like your focus on the student who sometimes seems to disappear when discussing technology.
The farmer organization here in Sweden calls a cow a "production unit". I'm a bit old fashioned and still insist on calling this gentle animal a cow. I hope we'll never end up calling a student, a learning subject.
A pedagogy called "variation pedagogics" seems to be cathing some interest at the university where I work. I haven't looked into its history and it may be the rebirth of something that has been around for a long time (we tend to re-invent the weel), but more important is what it is trying to tell us.
Simply put: "Variation of teaching is important for the learning outcome" and this is also something you point out.
I also like your focus on the student who sometimes seems to disappear when discussing technology.
The farmer organization here in Sweden calls a cow a "production unit". I'm a bit old fashioned and still insist on calling this gentle animal a cow. I hope we'll never end up calling a student, a learning subject.
Great comments.
We are building courses that use ideas from constructionism. I prefer the low end media. We also have some parts that are more high end.
Perhaps the original article and the follow up posts are saying go as high as you need and no higher?
(Form over substance tends to teach fluff?)
Here is an example (from MIT) of what we want with some of our material.
Active Essays
http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/summaries/emergence.shtml
(I could not get in just now - link was ok Friday)
Active Essays are an example of providing a rich environment to learn with. Much of the content can be 'low end' with parts that are 'active'.
We are finding that we can add the 'active' parts with lower end technology, things like DHTML and SVG. That puts less of a load on connections that are slow.
We are building courses that use ideas from constructionism. I prefer the low end media. We also have some parts that are more high end.
Perhaps the original article and the follow up posts are saying go as high as you need and no higher?
(Form over substance tends to teach fluff?)
Here is an example (from MIT) of what we want with some of our material.
Active Essays
http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/summaries/emergence.shtml
(I could not get in just now - link was ok Friday)
Active Essays are an example of providing a rich environment to learn with. Much of the content can be 'low end' with parts that are 'active'.
We are finding that we can add the 'active' parts with lower end technology, things like DHTML and SVG. That puts less of a load on connections that are slow.
I guess only when we find out whats required to include the biggest possible group of learners will we have an idea of what kinds of content we should deliver. I think the recipient will determine this, though.
>Perhaps the original article and the follow up posts are saying go as high as you need and no higher? (Form over substance tends to teach fluff?)
Currently we cant know what is too high. In this case site use analysis and other indicators will help to determine whats getting used, and re-used. If an individual that traditionally hasnt participated starts to participate then the new content is valuable. Im saying that if f l u f f is what some people want or need then use f l u f f to deliver the substance. Im not a teacher but Ive used some fluff over the years to deliver some important substance to my kids. Many times Im sure they didnt realize there was a lesson inside all that fluff, but the lesson was learned. Thats good because they didnt develop an allergy to the method; it was just a funny or interesting story.
Ive been working on different ways to introduce Moodle and when I saw that Flash presentation (read: SVG, DHTML or whatever emerges as the most efficient) I knew that was a good choice for a certain segment of the group that I hope to encourage to use Moodle as one tool in their collection. These teachers, administrators and students are very busy and if they want to passively watch an animation that delivers the message thats fine.
John
>Perhaps the original article and the follow up posts are saying go as high as you need and no higher? (Form over substance tends to teach fluff?)
Currently we cant know what is too high. In this case site use analysis and other indicators will help to determine whats getting used, and re-used. If an individual that traditionally hasnt participated starts to participate then the new content is valuable. Im saying that if f l u f f is what some people want or need then use f l u f f to deliver the substance. Im not a teacher but Ive used some fluff over the years to deliver some important substance to my kids. Many times Im sure they didnt realize there was a lesson inside all that fluff, but the lesson was learned. Thats good because they didnt develop an allergy to the method; it was just a funny or interesting story.
Ive been working on different ways to introduce Moodle and when I saw that Flash presentation (read: SVG, DHTML or whatever emerges as the most efficient) I knew that was a good choice for a certain segment of the group that I hope to encourage to use Moodle as one tool in their collection. These teachers, administrators and students are very busy and if they want to passively watch an animation that delivers the message thats fine.
John