Mobilizing Learning.

  • 291 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
291
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Worked for over 5 years on web 2.0 projects and most recently in Mobile web 2.0
  • http://thomcochrane.wordpress.com/
  • I’m just going to talk a little about the one of the projects contained within a published journal papers ‘Mobilizing Learning: Mobile Web 2.0 Scenarios in Tertiary Education’To try and answer some of the research questions posed in the earlier slide, Show next slide and then return we ran a collaborative live project that involved 4 courses from 2 facultiesProduct DesignLandscape ArchBuilt EnvironCommunication.Studio project 5 is a first semester 3rdyear project. Here we have written into the project assessment criteria a number of assessed tasks:
  • We used a national competition to set the background to the project:The Sustainable Habitat Challenge (SHaC09) is a national competition in the form of a collaborative project for teams around New Zealand to design, develop, and build sustainable housing in their local communityThroughout the SHaC09 project, data sharing has been enabled through a range of software applications. Staff and students have made project work and resources available to the rest of the world online, via blogs, wikis and other web 2.0 applications. The following diagram illustrates the range of web 2.0 tools used and the types of interaction between the project members facilitated by these tools.
  • Product Design and ShaC09Design Project 5 gave students the opportunity to work with different departments at Unitec. Each department had their own tasks and deliverables with their own unique characteristics and requirements. Regular communication between parties was required and formed a key aspect of the project.Product Design students were asked to work in one of 5 groups each of which focused on a specific SHaC09 design challenge such as: Interior and exterior lighting designInterior and exterior furniture designExterior fencing and screening designKitchen designBathroom designLandscape students were required to: to design a garden for the sustainable house.Built environment students were required to design and build the houseCommunication students were required to design and implement a communication campaign for the Duration of the projectThe common criteria for the project were: Energy efficiencyWater efficiencyMaterials efficiencyWaste reductionIndoor Environmental QualityAffordable and Suitable for PurposeSupporting a Sustainable CommunityThe staff used Web 2.0 tools including Vox, Ning and Flickr to develop the briefs and supplement in person meetings during the entire project.Students were required to carry out aspects of research in their group, sharing information via group meetings and web 2.0 tools. Traditional modes of communication (in person) were augmented with the use of mobile web 2.0 technology to enable real-time updating of project progress and issues.
  • The social network NING was used along with BB and the previously mentioned COP’s
  • 57 members across the 4 departments and 2 faculties
  • Here we see a group page (the fencing and screening group) discussing in this case washing lines
  • A different group discussing decking
  • Some of the discussions going on during the proejct
  • My own page on NING
  • My VOXblog which was linked to the NING page – all staff and students were required to link their blogs to the NING page
  • Here you can see some of my neighbors

Transcript

  • 1. Mobilized Learning: Mobile Web 2.0 Scenarios in Tertiary Education
    http://ctliwiki.unitec.ac.nz/index.php/MobilisingLearning
    T. Cochrane, R. Bateman, P. Cliffin, J. Gardner, I. Henderson, S. Holloway.
    EDULEARN, Barcelona, Spain.
    1
  • 2. ResearchQuestions
    2
    Research Questions
    What are the key factors in integrating Wireless Mobile Devices (WMDs) within tertiary education courses?
    What challenges/advantages to established pedagogies do these disruptive technologies present?
    To what extent can these WMDs be utilized to support learner interactivity, collaboration, communication, reflection and interest, and thus provide pedagogically rich learning environments that engage and motivate the learner?
    To what extent can WMDs be used to harness the potential of current and emerging social constructivist e-learning tools?
     
    Data gathering consisted of:
    Pre-trial surveys of lecturers and students, to establish current practice and expertise
    Post-trial surveys and focus groups, to measure the impact of the wireless mobile computing environment, and the implementation of the guidelines.
    Lecturer and student reflections via their own blogs during the trial.
  • 3. 3
    Pedagogy
    An explicit social constructivist pedagogy underpins this project. Mobile Web 2.0 tools are used to facilitate this.
    Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2005), or ‘social software’ tools, share many synergies with social constructivist learning pedagogies. Some educators have harnessed web 2.0 tools for creating engaging student-centred learning environments. This appropriation of web 2.0 tools within a social constructivist pedagogy facilitates what has been termed “pedagogy 2.0” (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008).
    This research project is interested in appropriating the benefits of web 2.0 and pedagogy 2.0 anywhere anytime using mobile web 2.0 and wireless mobile devices, in particular WiFi and 3G enabled smartphones, and 3G enabled netbooks.
  • 4. Introduction
    4
    Thoms Wordpress
  • 5. 5
    Project Deliverables for Product Design studentsDesign Project 5:
    An online report summarising all research undertaken and the key findings and insights.
    All forms of prototype and test modelling i.e. 3D sketch models / ergonomic models / interface design / proof-of-concept working models, etc.
    All drawings, sketches and CAD models.
    A blog/eportfolio that runs throughout this project and the rest of the year. You should post to your Blog at least every few days (preferably daily).
    Use your VOX blog/eportfolio to collate the above, and reflect on your design process. Also regularly comment on each other’s VOX blog posts – providing critique, feedback, and links to appropriate resources. Your VOX blog/eportfolio should include the following elements:
    • Audio Podcasts, Video VODCasts
    • 6. Uploaded images (include geotags – i.e. Google Maps links of image locations)
    • 7. Text posts (Reflection, critique, process, summary, comments…)
    • 8. Links to Web2 multimedia site original content (e.g. YouTube, Flickr, Google Docs, Slide.com etc…)
    • 9. Evidence of Google Calendars for events/dates.
    • 10. Evidence of electronic communication via GMail, MSN Messenger and RSS feeds (e.g. via Google Reader or Newsgator).
  • ResearchQuestions
    6
    Research Questions
    What are the key factors in integrating Wireless Mobile Devices (WMDs) within tertiary education courses?
    What challenges/advantages to established pedagogies do these disruptive technologies present?
    To what extent can these WMDs be utilized to support learner interactivity, collaboration, communication, reflection and interest, and thus provide pedagogically rich learning environments that engage and motivate the learner?
    To what extent can WMDs be used to harness the potential of current and emerging social constructivist e-learning tools?
     
    Data gathering consisted of:
    Pre-trial surveys of lecturers and students, to establish current practice and expertise
    Post-trial surveys and focus groups, to measure the impact of the wireless mobile computing environment, and the implementation of the guidelines.
    Lecturer and student reflections via their own blogs during the trial.
  • 11. 7
    Weekly COP
    The projects are guided and supported by weekly “technology sessions” (Communities of Practice, or COP) facilitated by a ‘technology steward’ (Wenger et al., 2005) investigating the potential of mobile web 2.0 technologies for integration within each course. The COPs are a collaborative partnership between the researcher (as the 'technology steward'), the course lecturers, and their students.  The mlearning projects prior to 2009 had comprised small groups of students from select courses that volunteered to participate in the projects.
  • 12. 8
    SHaC09
    The Sustainable Habitat Challenge (SHaC09) is a national competition in the form of a collaborative project for teams around New Zealand to design, develop, and build sustainable housing in their local community (http://www.shac.org.nz ). Throughout the SHaC09 project, data sharing has been enabled through a range of software applications. Staff and students have made project work and resources available to the rest of the world online, via blogs, wikis and other web 2.0 applications. The following diagram illustrates the range of web 2.0 tools used and the types of interaction between the project members facilitated by these tools.
  • 13. 9
  • 14. 10
    Due to the breadth of the Shac09 challenges it was identified early on that good project management, collaborative working and cross departmental communicationwould be vital to the success of the project.
    Overall responsibility and project management for the construction of the house lies with staff in the Unitec Applied Trades Institute and Unitec's Research Office. Subject specific academic briefs have been developed collaboratively by Department lecturers in the Departments of Design, Landscape and UATI. Web 2.0 tools including Vox, Ning and Flickr were used to develop the briefs and supplement in person meetings during the writing stage. As an example, a Shac09 building site introduction is available at: http://www.flixwagon.com/watch/1537511.
    Designing successful products requires both extensive research and a high degree of communication and dialogue. To this end Product design students participating in ShaC09 needed to manage their internal (with Design staff) and external (with other Departments and external stakeholders) communications rigorously. Traditional modes of communication (in person) were augmented with the use of mobile web 2.0 technology to enable real-time updating of project progress and issues.
  • 15. 11
    Students were required to carry out aspects of research in their group, sharing information via group meetings and web 2.0 tools.
    Collaboration between multiple student teams was an important aspect of the SHaC09 project, particularly so in the preliminary research phase. Collaboration was achieved through group work in specialism, and via online communication with project participants in the other departments.
    Web 2.0 was employed to permit real-time updating of research data and progress and to enable speedy acquisition and build-up of relevant information. Effective collaboration and the use of the communication technology for on-line journaling contributed to student grades. Academic staff surveyed the class at the beginning of the project to gauge an appropriate level of engagement in Web 2.0 tools and technology.
  • 16. 12
    Ning
    Teach-in
  • 17. 13
  • 18. 14
  • 19. 15
  • 20. 16
  • 21. 17
  • 22. 18
  • 23. 19
  • 24. 20
    Reflections:
    The progressive integration of mobile web 2.0 has facilitated a shift away from the default Atelier studio model of instruction to a new more fluid and dynamic pedagogical method.
    This project has deliberately disrupted the timetabled instructivist studio learning that is frequently used and placed the student group in a social constructivist framework.
    The use of Web 2.0 technologies has literally become an everyday occurrence in the Bachelor of Product Design: At present all three years of the programme are engaged in a different project using different types of WMDs.
    Some students have not willingly taken part in the bloggingaspect of their project and we have noted that some of those who do not wish to participate make this decision because of a general lack of interest.
    We have found that by providing a regular COP run by a technology steward, finding an appropriate ‘hook’, such as showing how the technology can further a particular interest, or make a particular task easier, invariably breaks down any barriers.
  • 25. 21
    ResearchConclusions
    MLearning projects within the Bachelor of Product Design highlighted several key issues:
    The projects have illustrated the potential to create increased student engagement via an MLearning environment.
    Higher levels of student reflection and critique were achieved compared to that previously seen with more traditional assessment procedures.
    Anywhere, anytime learning (context independent and context bridging) has been facilitated and made use of in unforeseen scenarios.
    Tutor engagement with the technology is essential for students to value its use and to gain an understanding of its pedagogical usefulness beyond social activities.
    The integration of the mobile web 2.0 technologies into the assessment (Both formative and summative) is critical for student motivation.
    Access issues must be considered carefully when planning to integrate the use of mobile web 2.0 technologies. The sustainable provision of hardware, software and connectivity (3G data plans and wifi availability) must be thought through. Various models for achieving this sustainability are being brainstormed for the future of this project.
    The integration of mobile web 2.0 facilitated a change in pedagogical approach that needed significant scaffolding for both students and Lecturers. This made supporting the project via a Community of Practice, and sound pedagogical design essential.
  • 26. http://ctliwiki.unitec.ac.nz/index.php/MobilisingLearning
    T. Cochrane, R. Bateman, P. Cliffin, J. Gardner, I. Henderson, S. Holloway.
    EDULEARN, Barcelona, Spain.
    22