SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez nos Conditions d’utilisation et notre Politique de confidentialité.
SlideShare utilise les cookies pour améliorer les fonctionnalités et les performances, et également pour vous montrer des publicités pertinentes. Si vous continuez à naviguer sur ce site, vous acceptez l’utilisation de cookies. Consultez notre Politique de confidentialité et nos Conditions d’utilisation pour en savoir plus.
Small Multi-Disciplinary Facultyon satellite campus in Saldanha Campus is the domain of theDepartment of Defence All students serving members ofthe DoD Half the student body composedof distance learners. Limited resources and outdatedinfrastructure. Full integration with StellenboschUniversity’s ICT system.
Challenge wrt staff and studentreadiness for e-learning Student group diverse with highlydisparate competencies Faculty members also diverse itowillingness to utilise technology inteaching – resistance can be achallenge Current online learning is toostatic and not sufficientlyinteractive
Enhance staff digital literacy Particularly within the Web 2.0 space Intervention will assist staff in improvingtheir online profiles Create platforms for staff to share theirresearch and teaching online Improved collaboration with otherscholars Create a safe space for staff to exploreand develop Improved digital literacy should carryover into teaching practice Increased visibility of scholars and theirwork
The Faculty of Military Science isgeographically and intellectually isolated The online sharing ethos clashes withthe military culture of securinginformation Collaboration in terms of research andteaching practice between scholars inthe FMS and other institutions is lessthan half the national norm Many staff members lack confidence wrtutilizing new technologies Lecturers are responsible for the uptakeof new tech in their courses Training and support effort is oftendirected to the student level and not thestaff level
Staff training has taken the form of scheduledbut limited workshops or lunchtime sessionsoften focusing on using the LMS In 2012 we were more innovative andintroduced a weekly session on a specificemerging tech Not enough hands on training and followthrough in terms of introducing new tech Most staff currently have limited web profiles Only one of approx 65 faculty is currentlyactively curating his research online Almost no research dissemination effort afterpublication No active sharing of ideas etc viablogging, Twitter etc
Tools were selected based upon variousaffordances highlighted in the literature Tools selected were:◦ Academia.Edu◦ LinkedIn◦ Slideshare◦ Twitter◦ Google Sites Academia.Edu◦ Collaboration◦ Research streams and updates◦ Curatorship◦ Networking◦ Tracking tools◦ SEO
LinkedIn◦ Widely used in the Faculty◦ Can embed Slideshare presentations◦ Great SEO Slideshare◦ Media Sharing Service so encouragesextended literacy with regards to othersites such as YouTube and Flickr◦ Great platform to share teaching ideas◦ Promotes Open Education◦ Provides Information on who accessedyour presentations
Twitter◦ Micro Blogging◦ Aggregator of latest information◦ Dissemination Tool to ensure researchgains traction Google Sites◦ Ready platform for e-portfolio◦ Robust echo system including many appsand tools◦ Track citation impact◦ Offers research and teaching tools◦ One common online identity
Description of Intervention This is a teacher to teacher type intervention The aim is to utilise the 5 selected tools,introducing one a month over six months in orderto develop the digital literacy skills of the selectedparticipants. In doing so they will create,enhance and improve their online profiles andcollaborative efforts. Links to their researchpapers will be uploaded as well as their bestpresentations being housed in Slideshare.Finally participants will be encouraged to createe-portfolios for life long and life wide learningand curatorship. The Project Group◦ 5 Faculty members selected◦ Demographically diverse◦ Middle of the road tech users
Description of Intervention Survey used to indicate their uses of onlineprofiles Followed by project briefing andintroduction of first tool Outcomes were constructed in order toensure buy-in and listed as◦ Improved digital literacy◦ Free online digital makeover◦ Curatorship competencies◦ Expansion of networks and collaborationopportunities◦ The ability to assess how often online presence/workis being viewed or utilised◦ Participation in the growing open access environment
Maintaining enthusiasm and “buy-in”from staff Strong selling points are required toensure continued participation Ensure that some of the tools are notreplicating the functions offered byother and that management of toomany streams becomes difficult Find a balance between maintainingmomentum in the project and creatinga pressure situation for participants
Provide rapid training for each toolwith best practice guidelines Provide ongoing feedback and support It is crucial not to lose sight of the factthat that the primary aim of developingdigital literacies remains the end goalof this venture, with the developmentof the online identities being asecondary goal.
How did I go about exploring what Ineeded to do? Started by searching a few blogs andSlideshare I discussed my idea with my edutechcolleagues I searched the online profiles of numerousfaculty members and decided there wasdefinitely a need for such an intervention I researched and evaluated a number oftools I conducted a small survey of the groupmembers
How did I design my learning activity? The main point of departure was to ensure that thetools selected complemented each other The 6 month timeframe was chosen in order toprovide a month to master each tool as well as toensure the activity fitted into one semester The decision to hold rapid group training sessionsof one hour per tool was made in order to fittraining into a lunch break and make it accessibleto all faculty members Each tool is therefore presented as an independententity with a “clip-on” type of approach The personalised support model is designed toensure one on one support and contact in order toensure the continued commitment of eachparticipant.
How did I formatively evaluate myprototype learning activity? evaluated the comments on my blog discussed various strategies andideas with my colleagues participated in the online meetings ofthe digital literacies group noted the facilitators comments As I learnt more and read more Imade adjustments to my initial plan
The project is still formative to an extent and adjustmentswill probably still be made One recommendation is to design an online course forthis intervention which could be accessed across differentinstitutions The intervention creates safe spaces for scholars toexplore a number of Web 2.0 tools in a manner which isdirectly relevant to them It would be possible to conduct some interesting researchin terms of how these scholars developed and if theybecame more engaged with other scholars as a result ofparticipating in this intervention One recommendation by our web manager is to do awaywith static online profiles on the Faculty website andinstead create link through buttons for each members totheir various platforms. Should this become policy it willalmost make the maintenance of online academic profilesmandatory. The intervention is therefore timely A final recommendation is make the training/briefingsaccessible to all interested staff members. The initialgroup will continue as planned however for purposes ofevaluation and development
The building blocks of the networked scholar (LauraCzerniewicz,Academics’ online visibility, Slideshare)
Two excellent guides http://openuct.uct.ac.za/article/academics-online-presence-guidelines http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2011/09/29/twitter-guide/
References Bower, M. (2008). “Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks withlearning technologies Educational Media International.” Vol. 45, No. 1, March2008, 3–15. Conole, G. and Alevizou, P. “A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools inHigher Education.” A report commissioned by the Higher EducationAcademy, The Open University, August 2010. Czerniewicz, L., & Brown, C. (2005). “Access to ICTs for teaching andlearning: From single artefact to inter-related resources.” InternationalJournal of Education and Development using ICT [Online], 1(2). Dunlap, J. and Lowenthal, P (2012). “Intentional Web Presence: 10 SEOStrategies Every Academic Needs to Know.” Boise State University, 2012. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004) “Digital Literacy: A Concept Framework for SurvivalSkills in the Digital Era.” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia.13(1), 93-106. Goodfellow, R. (2011) “Literacy, literacies and the digital in highereducation.” Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, 131144. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B. an Hughes, J. (2009) “Learning, Teaching, andScholarship in a Digital Age Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What PathShould We Take Now.” EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER, 38: 246. Hanson, J. (2009) “Displaced but not replaced: the impact of e-learning onacademic identities in higher education.” Teaching in HigherEducation, Volume 14, Issue 5, pages 553 – 564. Henderson, M. and Bradey, S. “Shaping online teaching practices Theinfluence of professional and academic identities.” Campus-WideInformation Systems, Vol. 25 No. 2, 2008, pp. 85-92.
References cont… Herrick, D.(2009 ) “Google This! Using Google Apps for Collaboration andProductivity.” SIGUCCS’09, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Hiradhar, P. and Gray, J. (2008) “From a social digital identity to an academicdigital identity: Introducing ePortfolios in English language enhancementcourses.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, V34(3) Fall. Kelly, B. and Delasalle, J. (2012) “Can LinkedIn and Academia.edu EnhanceAccess to Open Repositories?” In: OR2012: the 7th International Conferenceon Open Repositories, Edinburgh, Scotland. Kemp, B., & Jones, C. (2007). “Academic Use of Digital Resources:Disciplinary Differences and the Issue of Progression revisited.” EducationalTechnology & Society, 10 (1), 52-60. Kirkup, Gill (2010). “Academic blogging, academic practice and academicidentity.” London Review of Education, 8(1), pp. 75–84. Priem, J and Costello, K.L. “How and why scholars cite on Twitter.” ASIST2010, October 22–27, 2010, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Ross, J. (2011) “Traces of self: online reflective practices and performancesin higher education.” Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, 113126. Veletsianos, G. (2011) “Higher education scholars’ participation and practiceson Twitter.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Veletsianos, G. and Kimmons, R. “Networked Participatory Scholarship:Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship inonline networks.” Computers & Education 58 (2012) 766–774.