Porto's presentation at the Annual EDEN conference in Lisbon, 2008. Covers the adoption of web 2.0 tools and applications in higher-education, its consequences, and the challenges given institutional ownership and adoption of more rigid LMS environments.

1. Stella C. Porto
University of Maryland University College

2. Focus
Faculty grassroots web 2.0
activity…
How should institutions react in
terms of support and ownership
issues?

3. Overview
 Context: UMUC
 Web 2.0 uses
 Tradeoffs and challenges: institutional vs.
faculty perspective

6. Context and landscape
UMUC
State institution
Only 7% of support from the state
Tuition driven >> distinct culture

7. Context and landscape
some quantitative data
Head count > 86,000
Enrollment > 272,000 Online enrollment >
177,000

8. Context and landscape
UMUC quick facts
2nd largest state
institution in the US
Growth stateside of
74% over last 10
years
> 100 degree programs fully online
Expect growth of 51%
over the next 10 years

9. Context and landscape
faculty support
> 2,500 faculty:
• Initial training for
online learning
• Continuous support

11. Context and landscape:
proprietary platform ‐ WebTycho

12. Personal context within this
landscape:
 Master of Distance Education
 Administrator
 Faculty
 Student

13. Meanwhile… Web 2.0
term coined by Tim O’Reilly as an
evolution of the web (coined then
1.0)

14. Web 2.0
explosion of apps and services:
social/sharing & media rich

15. Web 2.0
current tools changed (ex: 2.0
friendly browser)

16. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
class blog ‐ Foundations of IT

17. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
class blog ‐ doctoral dissertation
cohort

18. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
class blog ‐ capstone MDE class

19. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
e‐portfolio (blog)

20. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
e‐portfolio app

21. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
community building ‐ blog

22. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
community building/resources ‐ wiki

23. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
community building ‐ groups ‐
faculty

24. Web 2.0 use in online
learning
community building ‐ groups ‐
students

25. Tradeoffs and challenges
scalability
How do we provide training and
support to faculty and students in
the use of such tools?
And there is the learning curve,
technophobia, etc…

26. Tradeoffs and challenges
cost efficiency
What tools should the institution
support? How extensively?

27. Tradeoffs and challenges
ownership
How much ownership is at risk
under the institutional umbrella?
How do we differentiate support
from ownership?

28. Tradeoffs and challenges
innovation
Web 2.0 tools are all about beta
versions…
How can institutions keep up,
should they keep up?
If you build it will they come?

29. Tradeoffs and challenges
support
We want institutions to support…
How much, how far?
Awareness of limitations of the
underlying business models

30. Tradeoffs and challenges
interoperability/compatibility
How should these tools connect
with existing platforms?
Enclosure?
Decentralized tools?

31. Tradeoffs and challenges
sustainability and robustness
Should institutions offer such tools
to whom, for how long?
Who is accountable?

32. Tradeoffs and challenges
quality control
How do institutions guarantee
quality?
How much control should they
have?
What kind of policies and
guidelines should be put in place?

33. Final remarks
 Complex process of decision‐making
 Grass roots movement that cannot be
contained
 Need for a vision and greater flexibility
 What is in fact the future of LMS’s?
 More and more encapsulated functions?
 Customized configuration of personal tools?
 Strategic plan and balance

34. Thank you…
Contact: sporto@umuc.edu
US-China Forum in Distance
Education
June 29 - July 2nd
http://www.umuc.edu/uschina/