1. 7/12/2010
Incorporating Web2.0, Pedagogy
2.0 and Moodle 2.0 into your
learning and teaching agenda:
But just wait one sec...
Dr Michael Sankey
Some key cultural shifts
Conceptual shift to collective intelligence & user participation
Web is not just about communication, but also education
But
B t we mostly use it for communication
tl f i ti
Moved from the Desktop to the Web
From the computer platform to the network platform
From the personal to the shared
From hardware to d
F h d data
From fixity to remixability
So what this all mean? We need to realign our pedagogy
1
2. 7/12/2010
Pedagogy 2.0
‘Pedagogy 2 0 integrates Web 2 0 tools that support
2.0 2.0
knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer networking, and
peer-to-
access to a global audience with socioconstructivist
learning approaches to facilitate greater learning
autonomy,
autonomy agency and personalisation’
personalisation
McLoughlin & Lee (2008)
Pedagogy 2.0 cont...
They identify the main challenge as enabling ‘self-
‘self-
direction, k
di ti knowledge b ildi
l d building, and ld learner control
t l
by offering flexible options for students to engage
in learning that is authentic and relevant to their
needs and to those of the networked society while
still providing necessary structure and scaffolding’
till idi t t d ff ldi ’
McLoughlin & Lee (2008)
2
3. 7/12/2010
So we are left to ask...
Do we make it all open or keep it all walled?
Outside or i id ?
O t id inside?
But sometimes we need to be able to close
the door – as teaching is about trust
So how has USQ done this?
And where are we going
Moodle Land USQ
USQ My USQ
Moodle
Moodle
Moodle
StudyDesk StaffDesk Community
Test environments
Developers Community of Practice (CoP)
(CoP)
3
4. 7/12/2010
USQ – minimum standard
Every
course we
offer has
an online
presence
Heaps of resources
http://www.usq.edu.au/learnteach/topics/tel
4
5. 7/12/2010
The systems
Integrated Content Wimba collaboration
Environment (ICE) suite
PeopleSoft
Moodle: Student System
Other 3rdparty open StudyDesk
source modules MyStaffDesk EQUELLA
Community eReserve
Then
EASE assignment came Mahara
submission ePortfolio
Web 2.0
Well over 130
social
networking sites
&
Over 3000
Web2.0 apps
5
6. 7/12/2010
For example
How many of these have you visited?
Just out of interest…
Fark is a news aggregator and an
edited social networking news site.
6
8. 7/12/2010
10 things to be careful of
1. Technical problems 6. Loss of history
2. Clashing cultures 7. Assessment woes
3. Technophobia 8. Overwhelming choice
4. Loss of monitoring
L f it i 9. Loss of trust
L ft t
5. Loss of control 10. Inequalities Skip to 26
Dron & Bhattacharya (2007)
Technical problems
Students accessing voice/video needing plug-ins
plug-
with downloads quotas greater than students have.
ith d l d t t th t d t h
Most Uni’s have computing standards, but once
outside the Uni there is little or no control over this.
Security issues for staff/students accessing sites
y g
that use improper protocols for the infrastructure.
8
9. 7/12/2010
Clashing cultures
Traditional ways of teaching exist in many courses,
tensions arise if a ‘whole of program approach’ is
p g pp
not adopted for new technologies.
With a strong DE focus, staff come to USQ but only
taught face-to-face. Students become dissatisfied
face-to-
and staff being frustrated.
Moving to a common web friendly platform for
producing teaching environments is essential.
Technophobia
Technophobia looms large for students/staff, a
natural resistance to change. Some staff don’t even
g
use online discussions, tricky when 76% study DE.
A high % non-traditional students, adopting too
non-
many new things too quickly (particularly with Web
2.0 technologies) can be off-putting
20 off-putting.
If tools are integrated in ‘the walled garden’ then
some monitoring and support can be provided.
9
10. 7/12/2010
Loss of monitoring
Web 2.0 tools by-passes traditional ways of
by-
teaching, students operating outside the gaze.
Same as students gathering in a café.
If strong DE, this becomes problematic, as tools
used for assessment, housed in the public domain
cannot be monitored
This is addressed by the design, by limiting the
dependence on this aspect for assessment.
Loss of control
Similar to lack of monitoring, using tools outside
the Uni domain who says those tools will endure.
important data could be lost affecting student
outcomes.
If Web 2.0 type tools can be employed in the uni
environment, th
i t there i a reasonable compromise,
is bl i
as will be demonstrated.
10
11. 7/12/2010
Loss of history
The main benefit of an LMS (Moodle) to house
(Moodle)
and mediate Web 2.0 app’s is there is always a
pp y
record of practice that can be called upon.
Systems are usually backed up daily and less risk
of outsiders corrupting important data.
Although not important to some staff there are
staff,
legislative responsibilities for uni’s in Oz, requiring
environments to be maintained for two years.
Assessment woes
Staff need to assess the veracity of student work.
Yes problems exist within ‘the wall’, but at least
p ,
there a track of who has been there.
A level of security for student too track submissions.
PLEs allow RSS of external sources, partly bridging
the divide monitoring based on disclaimers
divide, disclaimers.
We design assessment to minimize identity fraud
but take full advantage of Web 2.0 affordances.
11
12. 7/12/2010
Overwhelming choice
There are so many environments that could be
used, it is impractical to be conversant with the lot.
, p
One uses Facebook, another MySpace, another
Facebook, MySpace,
wants the uni PLE.
When so much choice is offered the additional
cognitive load can be overwhelming
overwhelming.
If the Uni provides syndication to a select number,
the potential to reduce confusion is highly reduced.
Loss of trust
Trust is a two-way street; students & staff need to
two-
be able to trust the environments they work inin.
Web 2.0 tools mediated through the PLE, or
housed within the LMS, there is more trust.
Also a sense that the teacher, or uni, can monitor
uni,
the space, protecting students (& staff) from
misuse, hackers and unreliable transient spaces.
12
13. 7/12/2010
Inequalities
Large diversity of experience within the non-
non-
traditional student base, it can be inequitable to
, q
use a wide variety of Web 2.0 tools that may
simply be used for their novelty value.
Solid pedagogical advantage should be found first.
So a Pedagogy 2 0 approach is preferred
2.0 preferred,
including sufficient scaffolding to prevent
advantaging one set of skills over another.
Management or Facilitation
What we have had What is emerging
Traditional LMS LMS
Activity
Activity1
4
EdCom/OER
Activity1
Activity2
etc.
PLE
Activity3 Activity2
R
Activity
A
3
Activity4
13
14. 7/12/2010
The dream ☺
Moodle 2 Mahara
Repository Repository
MIT
(LMS) (PLE) OCC
Activity 3
iTunes
Activity 4 USQOpen U
(OERs)
Media repository
The walled garden The big bad world
PLE
Personal learning environment
Outside Artefact 1
environments
Artefact 2
View 1
For course assessments Group 1
Twitter
Artefact 3
Flickr Skill 1 Group 2
View 2
For potential employers
Artefact 5
YouTube Individual 1
Artefact
A t f t6
Facebook Skill 2 View 3
For parents or friends Individual 2
Artefact 8
14
17. 7/12/2010
Second Life and Legal Education on the USQ Island -
Eola Barnett (aka Azalee)
Azalee)
Moot court
Advocacy assessment (role play)
Student consultation and student
directed study groups. Included
disability student.
I-Phone/Pad Vs e-Book Readers
e-
VS.
17
18. 7/12/2010
The advantages are roughly two-fold:
two-
1. A staggered institution wide approach can provide
adequate support & PD along with safeguards
q pp g g
against ad hoc, inconsistent practices, thus
providing a benefit to both student & staff.
2. Professionally most students will need to be comfy
with Web 2.0 upon graduation & have an ability to
quickly adapt to changing opportunities
18
