The Amazing Web 2.0 Projects Book!

"The Amazing Web 2.0 Projects Book" is a collaborative initiative (coordinated and edited by Terry Freedman) that brings together ideas and experiences from 94 contributors around the world. The hands-on practical aspect of the eBook means that, rather than just talking about Web 2.0 tools, there are how-to suggestions and guidelines, as well as reference to benefits and pitfalls and challenges to be prepared for, and how to handle them. The resource is free, and can be downloaded by clicking here (it's a 2.09 MB .pdf file).

Some of the comments that Terry has received about his book include:

David Kapuler: "This is one of the best collaborative resources I've seen on Web 2.0. It covers everything from wikis, blogs, to digital storytelling and podcasting. Terry Freedman...does a masterful job of organizing the content which has been included from such high esteemed educators from around the world, such as: Kim Cofino, Silvia Tolisano, and Shelly Terrell".

Paul Hamilton: "Any teacher with an interest in effectively reaching every learner in his or her classroom–with meaningful, accessible, and engaging learning activities–would do well to take a look. The book is well organized, with activities categorized according to the general age range of the learners involved".

Stephen Downes: "It's pretty light and breezy, but the information is well-structured (using a template that identifies things like age ranges, applications used, reactions and outcomes) and the content is clearly and well written throughout".

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

Teaching in virtual space: An interactive session demonstrating Second Life simulation for haemorrhage management (Ascilite, 2009)

Image source

This was a presentation given at the Ascilite conference in 2009, hosted in Auckland, NZ.

Michelle Honey, Scott Diener, Kelley Connor, Max Veltman, and David Bodily began by introducing the ‘virtual’ presenters who were present in Second Life, and then gave an overview of what they were planning to present. It was interesting that while they were using cutting edge virtual world technology, they had the plan on a piece of paper which was placed under a document camera, and which was almost impossible to read! What does this suggest about the use of technologies here…?

Beginning with learning outcomes, the presenters then articulated some of the strategies they applied (such as ethics – the subject was not an exam subject, just in case it was not effective).

Once something is built in Second Life (SL) it is pretty easy to modify and add to it. This particular project was an international, collaborative effort and is an open environment where people are invited to come in, and can ‘take away’ the simulation to install it on another island should they wish to.

It was interesting to bring in presenters through SL although there were issues with feedback to begin with, and obvious relief that the technology was working ☺. The time lag was a little difficult to begin with, but was fine once the presenter got going, although the sound broke up a little bit. It was odd to listen to someone presenting and watch the avatars on the screen, shuffling around, looking ‘awkward’ apparently with nothing to do. It’s almost as if the visual was beside the point, and brought home again how much we rely on visual cues, or meaningful visual input while listening.

There was some discussion about the issues of collaborating internationally, where it is not possible to bump into each other in the hallway for a quick chat. However, they did use the Second Life environment to meet, and get a sense of each other. Several of the developers have not met except through SL.

It was fascinating to hear about some of the limitations, or specific requirements of the environment such as requiring a lot of space in the ‘patient room’ so that the avatars had plenty of space to move around without “jumping all over each other”, and enough room to move the ‘cameras’ around. In the future, they are also going to ask students to set up an avatar with their first name and middle initial rather than pseudonyms to avoid confusion etc..

In NZ there were broadband issues, and it was not easy for students at home even if they had broadband. Scaffolding was provided for students to set up via multimedia. Also, they had a ‘sandpit’ room for students to go an try out the environment so that once they got involved in the simulation it was about the learning, rather than trying to figure out SL.

The highlight of the session was a demonstration of the simulation, although the sound was awful with a lot of feedback, mainly because of the strange set up of ‘presenting’ the simulation. It was strangely compelling to watch the simulation, which was set up as a role play with the new mother, father, and nurse played by the presenters. It was almost as if the drama of the simulation drew us in, although the fact that when, for example, a couple of the physical checks were underway, the avatars do not actually ‘touch’. The debrief at the end (‘attended’ by other members of the ASCILITE conference) was a great way of showing the guided reflection process that learners would experience having been part of the role play. After the debrief, if things need to be reinforced, the students can go through the scenario again.

In the situation with real students, students worked in threes, as it was hoped that there would be some teamwork. Students’ feedback to the simulations resulted in, for example, the development of the sandpit room where they could work out what they could and couldn’t do in the SL environment. The students were overwhelmingly positive about the simulations. Being able to participate from home was seen as a real benefit. Also, students really like the microphone rather than the text chat facility, which they found frustrating, and it also interfered with the feeling of realism – which was vital for the simulation to work. I wonder also if it because learners were having to use dual channel processing (visual input as well as written and spoken words) which interfered with the problem solving capability? Students were really enthusiastic, and often would not want to leave, and would want to stay in SL to discuss things further, and came up with ideas for other simulations.

Another take on this presentation written by the SLENZ team can be accessed by clicking HERE.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Learning to teach in Second Life (slideshare.net)
• Going to the office . . . in Second Life (cnn.com)
• Second Life Virtual Meetings (ecombizcenter.blogspot.com)

Karen Day and Stewart Wells - Adapting social media as a scaffolding tool for teaching health informatics (Ascilite 2009)

Image source

This presentation was given at the Ascilite conference 2009 hosted in Auckland, NZ. The full paper can be accessed by clicking HERE.

This presentation focussed on the principles of how information is managed in health care, and included a very brief overview of the necessity for scaffolded learning. The presenter discussed the ‘digitally minded’ nature of students entering the programme, but the difficulty of getting students to talk.

A survey indicated that 100% of students owned a mobile phone, 81% used all their fingers to type, and only 29% had done a basic course in computer science.

One of the strategies they used was discussion forums with very specific instructions, and expectations. A group activity involved selecting an article; one student had to summarise the article, another to review the article positively, the final negatively. The students had a marking rubric to access. They then had to comment on other postings. Average grade was between 3 and 5. The students fed back that “Discussion were really good prep 4 exams. 1) made sure that I started early, didn’t procrastinate, 2) helped to know that you were (or weren’t) on the right track. Tutors made ongoing formative feedback throughout the process. One risk was cheating: “Online discussions became sort of an easy way to put together assignments. Many would copy and paste under heading from discussion and not sure if this is a good or bad thing.” Tutors used Turnitin, and copy/pasted discussions to see if students were copying someone else’s, or their own, work.

The following year the group decided to use http://www.hive.org.nz/content/telemedicine-unseating-tyrannies-time-and-distance, and opened the discussion up in the global world. Students were asked to contribute to the forum, with a max of 150 words, and have a reference. The forum was open to all comers, and included responses from, for example, a CIO. It was a dynamic, interactive discussion. One drawback of the software was that they could not comment directly to any response.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How social media can make physicians better doctors (kevinmd.com)

ICTs in the daily lives of Australian students – Matthew Riddle (ASCILITE); 9th Dec 2009

Image Source

This presentation was given at the Ascilite conference 2009 hosted in Auckland, NZ.

Matt Riddle started by giving a bit of background to the study (which was funded by Blackboard). He advised he used the ‘day experience method’, which followed the use of technology in students’ daily lives. Students were given a kit which they used via their own mobile phones. The idea was to build up a picture of students’ lives – a day in the life of…as opposed to the institution expectations of what a student’s life actually comprises. Data included photos, notebooks, videos etc.

To the question ‘what are you using?’ – the use of technologies and techniques was very broad – pen and paper (53%), and face-to-face (38%) – only 17% mentioned laptops, but 100% said that they had their mobile phones with them at all times. One example…a student using a laptop in the bookshop to search for an item. Power points were mentioned as an issue where people wanted to use their laptops but could not as their battery would run out, and this could be a reason that they didn’t use as much technology as they might otherwise do so. Comfort (e.g. people smoking in non-smoking zones where there is wireless, meaning that students would go home to study). Some students were reluctant to bring laptops on campus, in part because the wireless coverage was too restricted – in coverage, and they could only access the intranet rather than the internet. The policy has since changed, and students can access the wider internet, but the physical coverage has remained the same.

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

Feelings were mainly positive with ICTs (64%), with only 14% feeling frustrated. In summary, students are using technologies throughout their day and everywhere, on campus, in transit, at work at home. Institutions need to a better job in providing comfortable spaces – with power - in which to study.

Not really surprising results…and perhaps suggesting that the reason tertiary education institutions are not seeing more ubiquitous wireless mobile device use around campus is practical rather than philosophical.

Teaching for excellence: Excellence in teaching

Image source

Earlier this year at the eFest meets Teaching and Learning Conference (hosted at UCOL), I was privileged to take part in the conference wrap up led by Lisa Emerson (Ako Aotearoa) - "Teaching for excellence: Excellence in teaching".

Lisa began by discussing the quote: “The classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility" (Bell Hooks, 1994, p. 207), and then went on by looking at the notion of excellence in tertiary teaching, referring back to the main theme of the conference. She asked how we can bring student evaluation of teaching into our teaching institutions, and teaching practice. We have clear empirical methods to research outputs; the push for this empirical data then moves to the evaluation of tertiary teaching. How do we measure excellence in teaching. Lisa listed 1) retention, 2) success rates, 3) student evaluation, 4) compliance measures, 5) willingness to engage with new technologies, 6) willingness to show commitment to teaching by engaging in PD, and 6) by willingness to disseminate good practice (e.g. by publishing in academic journals). She then went on to discuss who wants to measure excellent, including the teacher (especially for career development), the institution, political bodies (to measure value for money), and others such as Ako Aotearoa (for example there may be a desire to raise the profile of teaching within the tertiary sector).

Emerson reflected on some experiences she had working with award winning teachers, who were incredibly humble about their teaching practice. She then went on to unpack the following: “It is crucial that we challenge any feeling of shame or embarrassment that teachers who do their job well….For when we hide our light we collude in the overall cultural devaluation of our teaching vocation” (Bell Hooks).

Image source

The session included an interactive exercise that involved participation from the audience. As we went in we were given a pen and a piece of A4 paper with the words Why?, How?, A moment, and A model/metaphor on them as headings at equal intervals down the page. At the appropriate moment, Lisa asked the audience to look at the first question, gave some background behind it (why do you teach and what do you hope your learners will be able to do), and then each person wrote down their response to the question. The top of the paper was then turned over, and the audience had to swap papers with someone close by. This process was completed for the rest of the sections, swapping papers with people around the room after each one was completed. It was a really effective exercise as not only were the audience engaged and active, but it personalised the topic and the issues for them. To complete the exercise, 50% of the audience (in groups of 3) considered question 1 and selected 1 response that they felt resonated with them; 50% of the audience (in groups of 3) did the same for question 4. The microphone was finally circulated, with a nominated speaker reading out each group’s selection.

Examples of answers (all anonymous) on the sheet that I came away with were 1) Why? “I want my student to have the ability to survive the future”; 2) How? “One thing I do well is detailed instructions”; 3) A moment (of success) “Working with a group of Maori nursing students and having them tell me about the concept of Waiora, mindmapping what they shared on the board and offering it back to them as a structure for their presentation. Tutor as learner/learner as tutor.”; 4) A model/metaphor (for learning and teaching) “Reciprocal learners about life”.

I felt it was a shared reflective activity that appeared to work well. Each person had a ‘voice’ and had the opportunity to contribute to the discussion (although some people chose to opt out). Judging from the responses, people invested time and effort to respond meaningfully. The activity is one I will certainly use in Professional Development sessions with academic faculty, as well as at conferences when I present in the future!

Lisa summed up the exercise by revisiting the questions Why?, How?, A moment, and A model/metaphor. The second and third questions were designed to help celebrate who we are – to help us revalue our profession. At the heart of teaching is the relationship between a student, a teacher and a subject and this is where the models and metaphors are so useful. She suggests that metaphors do not describe reality, but that they create it. The image of the learner as consumer places the learner as passive, as a receiver…also, as a customer, the learner knows what they want, and that they are always right. Also, the metaphor suggests that the institution is the ‘shop’, and the person who sells the product rarely evaluates how the customer uses their purchase.

Other models that Lisa has collected from her other meetings, included co-learner, facilitator, mediators, mentors, guides, colleagues with a serious duty to care, and a co-traveller who sees things that otherwise the learner may miss. She argued that the whole dynamic between teachers and learners would change if the metaphor of consumer were abandoned and replaced with an alternative. The challenge is how this can be opened up for discussion in institutions, and unpicked with students, so that the customer model is left behind.

One analogy that a group of us discussed after Lisa’s session was that of a greenhouse (extending something that someone had written in the session about a teacher as gardener). We felt that the greenhouse idea included the notion of planting seeds, growth happening within each individual seedling, and the learning environment being safe (protecting from frosts), nurturing (the right balance of warmth and moisture, that is constantly monitored). It also allowed for differences (tomatoes not being the same as melons), and the notion that the seedling will eventually be transplanted to the outside world. Could be maybe stretching an analogy to breaking point and beyond, but it does focus on the fact that the teacher cannot do the growing for the learner, and that the learner has to be actively involved in the process.

ePortfolios: Recognition of Prior Learning and Communities of Practice

Image source

At the recent ePortfolio Symposium hosted in Melbourne and organised by Allison Miller of the Flexible Learning Framework, there was a great range of practical tips, and thought provoking presentations.

The blurb from the site advises: "More than 140 teachers, trainers, managers and ICT professionals attended the inaugural VET E-portfolios Showcase 09 (VES09) in Melbourne on Friday 16 October, either at the actual event or by participating in free online sessions, to learn from some of the most highly regarded e-portfolio researchers and leaders. Click here to view the full program."

I went to several presentations, and the notes were taken at two that I attended.


Annelieske Noteboom & Christine Cooper, (Challenger TAFE) - The ePortfolio Landscape.

A presentation about Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), it was interesting that the presenters commented that more creative, flexible approaches to ePortfolios would be like having a cardboard box full of paperwork – as an RPL assessor you would never be able to sort through all the paperwork. She said that it was “all very nice to allow students to be creative, but it is not good to have students with an electronic ‘wheelbarrow’ full of stuff”, it needs to be organised". I certainly agree that every ePortfolio should have an element of organisation, and learners should be able to create different views from the collected and developed artefacts, planning, reflections etc. - one of which could be in line with RPL requirements, and easy for an RPL assessor to assess. The creativity is encouraged in the underlying learning and development, rather than, necessarily, in final ‘views’.

The presenters made another point around file consistency – but if the files are hosted online (and shared with only the assessor if privacy is an issue), then the files will stream, and this reduces problems with being able to view/listen to files.

Some initial reticence of participants to actually wear the camera glasses and talk their way through the processes they are undertaking. The camera glasses empower the learners though, as there is no-one there videoing them, but rather they take the video themselves, and if they are not happy with the result they can make another version…until they are happy with the result. Also have the ability to edit the video if they wish to…although I wonder if there are issues with verifiability if students are able to edit RPL videos? Does it matter? Would it not instead make it easier for learners to make sure, according to detailed rubrics that they are meeting requirements?


Gillian Hallan (Queensland University of Technology) - ePortfolio communities of practice: Local, national, global

This presentation (which can be listened to in full by clicking HERE) included highlights of the work that is required around sustainable practice and ePortfolios. Gillian also wanted to examine what was making existing CoPs work, and what stakeholders required to continue to make it successful.

The project started in December 2008 started with a literature review, and two AeP2 symposia and showcases. As part of this, ALTC was set up to as a group site, which includes an ePortfolio section. From March to July 2009 several research activities were undertaken along with a report around the research. Gillian made reference to Wenger’s definition of CoPs, before moving on to describing the CoP lifecycle, which goes through stages of inquire, design, prototype, launch grow and sustain, but many CoPs die just as they are emerging. The research Gillian was undertaking was around why some CoPs are successful, whereas others are not.

Some initial research findings suggested tat there was a 74% interest in a regional CoP, whereas there was a stronger (86%) interest in a national CoP, and reasonable interest in an international CoP (76%). Gillian mentioned that there are a number of communities formed around various aspects of ePortfolios, for example, there are some that are formed around supported learners through PDP (Personal Development Plans), and others that are formed around specific ePortfolio platforms.

The contexts for ePortfolio CoPs were: 1) pedagogy – 75%; 2) discipline based – 60%; 3) technology – 50%. Gillian went on to discuss the scope of collaboration for CoPs, in particular opportunities to collaborate, participate in special interest groups, disseminate information, and the develop further resources. Questions were posed around around whether an ePortfolio CoP should be organic or whether it should be managed. Almost 3/4 of respondents said that they felt there should be a funded CoP manager.

Some of the key factors for success that Gillian’s research identified were: “…our experience is that it needs a lot of mediation”; “Need a leader – need a community manager, without the work I do there is not a community “…a facilitator is critical – particularly around raising awareness”. The audience were surprised by the fact that a ‘manager’ was critical and cited social networking CoPs as an example of CoPs that are often not facilitated. Gillian then mentioned that respondents from the VET sector were much more in that social networking space, whereas many of the HE respondents were not in that same space – it did not form part of their day-to-day life. The large majority of the respondents in this research were from HE as this is the sector the research project was funded to support.

Success factors also included the fact that there needs to be a range of activities, and some face-to-face meetings can be refreshing. On the other hand, too much activity can be overwhelming and exhausting, and this is perhaps were a good facilitator comes in. Some of the main challenges identified included using the technology facilitator workload and community engagement. “Keeping engagement has been the largest challenge – feedback at events s generally positive but how” to measure the amount of activity?”. In a nutshell, there needs to be a balance. To achieve sustainability there are a range of internal and external drivers, including encouraging a broader interest in ePortfolios (e.g. employers), professional accreditation, cross-sectoral engagement, building, and extending national and international relationships.

Gillian concluded by saying that the final report will be a lot more detailed and will include a number of case studies that will present a richer picture of ePortfolio communities. In the meantime, it is important to continue to stimulate interactions and attract new participants, as well as a need to maximise the opportunities to build CoPs at the local, national and international levels.

ePortfolio platforms: Pros and cons

Image source

I was recently at an ePortfolio symposium in Australia, organised by Allison Miller. The first evening a number of ePortfolio platforms were showcased, and these are the notes, reflections and thoughts I recorded during the session.

Concord - http://www.concord-usa.com/scioware.htm

• Use a lot of the 2nd/3rd year students as mentors to the freshers
• Use ePF throughout their time at the college
• One of the features of Concord, can package up different content

Assessment - some thoughts and questions

Not sure about the idea of locking down an artefact. How does that fit in with the notion of organic development? Is this a problem with the focus on assessment as an end product? Would learners still keep ePortfolios if they were not part of the assessment process? Perhaps one way to harness some of the key benefits of ePortfolios without tying them into summative assessment would be to have a ‘completion’ and/or participation grade. One of the things we found at Dubai Men’s College and at Unitec NZ is that it is not until learners have completed the first round or two of ePortfolio tasks, and have their heads around reflection and feedback, that they become aware of the learning benefits they are experiencing by completing their ePortfolios.

I would argue that once an artefact is locked down

1. the learner loses their sense of ownership;
2. they are dis-empowered; and
3. possible ongoing learning experiences may be lost. Some students, in our experience, do continue to polish their designs and extend their ideas.

Desire2Learn ePortfolio - http://www.desire2learn.com/ePortfolio/

• Focus on personalised learning
• Very little common understanding of what an ePortfolio is and can be – is that necessarily a bad thing? However, important for programmes who are going to use ePortfolios to agree on what they are looking for, why, and how it fits in with the general learning outcomes of the programme
• ‘Virtual collections’ – e.g. student studying vet science – take a photo; want to use it in 5 or 6 different contexts
• Web-based technology (can be installed on own servers, or hosted by the provider)
• Key areas: artefacts, collections, reflections, presentation
• Pages built on HTML – edited through a WYSIWYG environment
• Storage space – use the Web based storage facilities, and then link to it in the ePortfolio. Also enables external Web sites to be used as objects to be reflected on.
• Competencies tool = learning outcomes (can take snap shots of achievement)…I wonder what this means. Completion? Assessment / assignment grades? Quality of reflection? Progress in an ongoing project?

Mahara - http://mahara.org/about/eportfolios

• Multiple, tailorable views, using the same artefacts, for specific audiences
• To set up templates for assessment use a control group (closed group, open group, control group). Can put start/stop date as part of the design when the view can be accessed
• With Mahara you can release an artefact back to the student to continue working on

Assessment - some thoughts and questions

Is there the danger that artefacts for ePortfolios are only being created for assessment – glorified essays with illustrations? Do some of the tools focus on tying-down students? I wonder if there isn’t the opportunity instead, to personalise assignments (for authenticity as well as effective learning) in a way that also mimics authentic contexts, or immerses learners in situations that encourage the application of analytical, problem solving skills to authentic problems or issues.

Pebble Pad - http://www.pebblepad.co.uk/

• Assert that ePortfolios can be restrictive, and therefore, that ePortfolios are only one part of Pebble Pad
• Pebble Pad is therefore described as personal learning space