Moodle moot 7_10

765 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
765
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Moodle moot 7_10

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  7. 7. 7/12/2010 7
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  15. 15. 7/12/2010 ePortfolio example https://eportfolio.usq.edu.au/view/view.php?id=1 Virtual classrooms 5000 concurrent seats. U d f t t Used for: • Staff ◄► Student • Student ◄► Student • Staff ◄► Staff 15
  16. 16. 7/12/2010 Some basics stats 16
  17. 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. 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

×