Published on

FSI 2009 Why Higher Education Should Care About Web 2.0 Learning Team.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Participants:Anna F. BrownPamela CollinsKelly CunninghamDianne NelsonRussell PearsonAria RazfarJohn StrykerJeffrey SudduthAudrey TurnerLori WendtCharity Anne CaldwellGroup facilitator:Scott Johnson
  • Change is here. But to be successful, there are some things to consider while transitioning. Not least, the concerns of various constituents must be acknowledged and considered.Out-of-hand dismissal won’t work. But many of these concerns can be assuaged.
  • Change is here. But to be successful, there are some things to consider while transitioning. Not least, the concerns of various constituents must be acknowledged and considered.Out-of-hand dismissal won’t work. But many of these concerns can be assuaged.
  • ‘Nuff said.
  • This is a serious point. Different student populations (by campus, by department, by age perhaps) will have different levels of tech-access and tech-savvy and this needs to be considered - or better yet, assessed - before introducing radically new or different things to an existing course or department.Be careful of incorporating unsupported or beta versions of Web 2.0 software because it's \"cool\" or \"cutting edge\" without first confirming its reliability and considering its likely life expectancy.Both faculty and students could be faced with these issues - are there technological accommodations and/or training available for both groups?
  • You cannot “recreate” a face-to-face course in the online environment. Moreover, why would you want to? There are so many different opportunities presented with expansion into even older technologies. The affective filter is so low for many of these create-outside-the-classroom, largely ungraded, often interactive projects that students get a chance to grapple extensively with the subject matter and have an opportunity for greater uptake as they encounter diverse activities, some of which will mesh well with each person’s learning modality.And remember, not everything needs to have a grade fixed to it. Peer evaluation can be valuable. Peer editing with general instructor oversight can be sufficient for interim steps. For instance, students might be blogging about the process of creating a video - brainstorming the storyline, fine-tuning the editing, etc. The grade might only be issued for the final project with participation points tied to a minimum # of words per minimum # of blog entries.Not every new (or old) technology is highly relevant to every discipline or course. But look and see what is available. Think creatively - what brings value to or enriches your course?
  • Students may be reluctant to incorporate their “real-life” or personal social networks with school-related ones. Friending their instructor, or allowing an instructor to “follow” them on Twitter is a no-go for many students. A balance must be struck between finding relatable technologies that students will actively and willingly participate in, without weirding out those students.On the flip side - the golden age is not here for everyone. Some students may not have reliable, fast internet at home. They may not be able to use campus labs due to a conflicting work schedule. Your course technologies must work for the students you have in real life (even if it is an online course).
  • Of course…. Burying heads in the sand will get an institution on the “obsolete” list, as well. That tricky balance again…
  • Web20concerns2

    1. 1. Some areas of caution…
    2. 2. Web 2.0 eliminated the need to have a presenter appear in front of the audience? Or the need to have a teacher in front of the classroom?
    3. 3. psssst…. why not tweet your own responses to the various cautions we present? #fsi09 :)
    4. 4. Good collaborative learning takes a skilled trained leader and giving someone a flashy technology tool does not make them a better group leader.
    5. 5.  Participants (instructors, students) need access to equipment, bandwidth, etc.  Systems/programs that are reliable and cross-platform  Accessibility issues with regard to disability services (are we obligated to provide the technology?)
    6. 6.  Recreating face-to-face course to accommodate online students  Time management to read and grade new sorts of student work  Discipline/department/course not adaptable to online environment  Adequate training programs for developing online courses and/or teaching online
    7. 7.  Support of students, faculty and staff for online programs in addition to “bricks and mortar” support  Infrastructure to support heavy technology use in courses (including face-to-face courses)  Keeping online programs separate from face-to-face, or integrated
    8. 8.  We are assuming that ALL students will react positively to social- networking-like aspects in education  We think we need to quot;be where our students arequot;....what about the students who aren't “there” (lack tech access or awareness)
    9. 9. Web 2.0 quot;companiesquot; have come and gone in a short period of time - institutions need to make sure they are not on the “obsolete” list 2006 2009
    10. 10. Web 2.0 “matters” and higher education should pay attention…