Mobile technologies and diagnostic assessment

It has been a pleasure and privilege to sit on the steering group for the Kingston University, Pathfinder project, R3. [That's R-cubed, I can't find the cubed symbol!!] Some really important outcomes have emerged, in terms of:

1. the use of mobiles in fieldwork (using ubiquitous wireless broadband technologies), with 3G cards, wireless routers and cheap PCs;
2. engagement by students with electronic voting systems in group work;
3. the focus by academic staff on using electronic voting systems, which may reflect a need to control the learning experience;
4. productive engagement with content via MP3 players;
5. the role of staff mentors in coaching inexperienced academics; and
   
6. beginning to engage academic staff with the process of student produced content and reflection via texting to a central service.

This helps develop the view of the impact of institutional and personal mobile technologies on the learning experience of both staff and students. Interestingly, the reflective journals that Kingston have collated show a clear dichotomy of staff use between using these tools for information management, and the ability of these technologies to create a buzz in the classroom.

Clearly, the next leap for us as a sector is to think about student control of these tools, and how they can be used to reconceptualising face-to-face contact. After all these tools which students are used to using, and we only get to see our students for a short period of time each week - the key is maximising that time, and maybe models for using these technologies will help. As ever, so many of the games will lie in the planning and reflection of academic staff.

I hope that we can begin to discuss and explore these issues and symposium next week, where we are very lucky to have Tim Linsey and Andreas Panayiotidis presenting.

Project meeting: 25 September 2007

So we met yesterday to let the teams catch-up on each others' work-packages. The progress reports have now all been posted on our Blackboard-based Wiki. Team members who weren't there should read the reports. We are also using the Wiki for conference reports and to flag relevant project outcomes and issues.

Work-package headlines from yesterday are as follows:
1. WP1: There are issues of maintaining momentum with PG Cert HE staff who are planning to teach and actually teaching. The assessment for the PG Cert students has been revamped to include e-learning. The June group are editing action plans and we need now to offer them follow-up sessions. [Action: HC and RH]

2. WP1/WP6: Steve Mackenzie is delivering some synchronous development sessions on pedagogical and technological issues with members of the PG Cert HE and Faculty of HLS. We will evaluate this approach to test its sustainability. Library front-desk staff may also benefit from this approach, as their shift-work impacts upon access to professional development. [Action: SM and AB]

3. WP3: There are issues of maintaining momentum with Library staff who are thinking about using Web 2.0 approaches in their work. We intend to offer developmental sessions, linked to staff development reviews. [Action: AB] We also intend to review the ISAS approach to using Wikis as knowledge bases [Action: RH] The team also intend to review the non-technical issues around the conversion of extant support and training materials for a Web 2.0 age. [Action: JT, MYK and AB]

4. WP4: the iTunes issue for catching and feeding Blackboard-hosted podcasts t users has been resolved, so that the podcast tool now works with iTunes. A key issue is the apparent reticence of users to be recorded for the production of webcasts. We have feedback to suggest that some users do not like hearing or seeing themselves on-line, or committing to this type of “publication”. This is a potential issue that will require intervention with specific teaching teams in order to build effective local, coping strategies. Initial evidence suggests that few students use or subscribe to podcasts, so there may be a cultural issue for staff teams. The third issue arising is the support we can offer staff in answering the question of streaming vs podcasting.

5. WP5: case studies will be produced for AAD, BAL, Hums and Library in the use of tools to support first-years in student-student communication. [Action: HC to talk to Jo Leese in DSU re: student reps' experiences of tools like Facebook]

6. WP6: Our Second Life Island has been purchased and activated, and staff who registered an interest have been invited in. Twelve staff are registered so far, and a user group has been formed. A building party is being held on 15 October. Subsequent staff development events will be planned and delivered by the user-group. A meeting was held with Howard Rheingold in the IOCT in September to discuss ways forward with SL. We intend to use his videos to prime some of our developments. Steve Mackenzie is delivering some synchronous development sessions. We will evaluate this approach to test its sustainability. The DMU e-Learning Pathfinder team have a Facebook group. There is no protocol for its use, but its development will be mapped as a project management and dissemination tool.

7. WP7: RH has been in contact with NIACE about the publication of the project’s findings. [Action: RH to meet with JC re: conference]

See also: http://www.pageflakes.com/dmupathfinder

Matters arising:

• headsets and webcams for all team members;
• monies to be re-charged this week with covering letters to budget holders; and
  
• access to iTunes for all team members.
  

Pathfinder Team meeting 2: sharing work-packages

We met on Friday over lunch with a good turn-out to discuss our 7 work-packages. We intended to get-to-grips with the technologies, approaches, time-scales and tasks, and then discuss the logistics of managing project capital and revenue resources. I think we came away confident that the project is taking shape.

Anyway, a synopsis of each work-package is appended herewith.

WP1: Academic staff development in use of Web 2.0 technologies

To investigate perceptions, and actual usage, of Web 2.0 technologies by new staff on the PGCert HE programme to enable new staff to consider the pedagogic implications and possibilities of using Web 2.0 technologies for teaching, learning and assessment. The aim is then to reinforce this within the faculties and monitor developments for the duration of the PGCert HE programme.

Deliverables: Web 2.0 resources for PGCert HE and curriculum delivery; Pathfinder blog and wiki; evaluation report.

WP2: Web 2.0: leaders and managers

In order to deliver the University’s new people-centred e-Learning Strategy, this work-package intends to engage leaders and managers with Web 2.0 technologies and approaches that their teams are using, or which might benefit their teams. This will be achieved though the HR leaders and managers training that is offered and will seek to help these staff innovate their practice.

Deliverables: implementation evaluation report; Pathfinder blog and wiki; process map.

WP3: Creating and using audio and video podcasts to enhance learning

The production of a guide for staff on producing and using podcasts in their module delivery, including an informed discussion of benefits and drawbacks, with examples of podcasts and their reception by students. The creation a user-group of advocates/users of this technology will be explored.

Deliverables: user guides; user group; library of podcasts; implementation evaluation; Pathfinder blog and wiki.

WP4: Web 2.0 and DMU Support Services

For academic staff to use Web 2.0 effectively it is crucial that the support departments also understand the use and appreciate Web 2.0, and furthermore, know how to maintain them. Support departments therefore have an important role to play but are generally reluctant to do so because they are not yet sufficiently capable, or moreover, simply not confident. In order to catalyse responsible adoption of Web 2.0, this work package will investigate, inform, and expose a variety of appropriate Web 2.0 technologies which can be easily harnessed and utilised by support staff.

Deliverables: Pathfinder blog and wiki; recipe-book/guide.

WP5: Retention and progression (learner support/support services)

An investigation of the extent of the gap (or perceived gap) in current provision of communication and information resources for students, focused upon on level- one students. Based on the outcomes of this investigation, we will pilot student peer-to-peer and student-staff networks. The aim is to empower students and to raise awareness and encourage the utilization of channels of communication and sources of information for students, which include Web 2.0 technologies.

Deliverables: Web 2.0 scenarios and an implementation evaluation report; Pathfinder blog and wiki; lessons-learned report.

WP6: Web 2.0 professional development

Traditionally professional development has been structured around face-to-face interventions and innovations. However, there is a range of social networking software that facilitates the sharing of content and processes, alongside interaction and discussion about approaches with subsequent adaptation. These can focus upon both formal and informal learning situations and involve multiple types of media. In evaluating these approaches this work-package will investigate:

· users’ perceptions of e-based professional development strategies and tasks to see the weaknesses and strengths of extant approaches; and

· innovations in delivery, in order to enhance retention and progression amongst users.

Deliverables: implementation evaluation report; Pathfinder blog and wiki; process map for embedding professional development; report on the impact of professional development workshops hosted in Second Life.

WP7: Dissemination and capability-building

This work-package will:

· work with the sector and the “We are D!” CAMEL community to develop shared professional development strategies and tasks, in order to evaluate the weaknesses and strengths of extant approaches; and

· map the use of dissemination strategies, in order to enhance the “stickiness” of specific solutions.

Deliverables: Pathfinder blog and wiki; recipe-book/guide.

Things you might have missed

There are some people who are great at prompting you to look at things you'd otherwise miss and Steve Mackenzie is currently [*no resting on laurels Steve!] one of those guys. Steve's blog, which supports his MA, has a few nice postings on connectivism, alongside Becta's report on emerging technologies, by Stephen Downes.

Now I tend to lose track of time and miss stuff that I shouldn't, so it's good that some emergent and contentious issues are being flagged by others in our Pathfinder team. In particular, I like this quote in the Becta report to which Steve draws our attention:

"Learning occurs in communities, where the practice of learning is the participation in the community. A learning activity is, in essence, a conversation undertaken between the learner and other members of the community. This conversation, in the web 2.0 era, consists not only of words but of images, video, multimedia and more. This conversation forms a rich tapestry of resources, dynamic and interconnected, created not only by experts but by all members of the community, including learners." (Network Pedagogy section, 6)

I also like Steve's single sentence Web 2.0 definition: "Web 2.0 is connectivity - through self expression and technological simplicity." I used that one on my old, history, special subject tutor who set up a group on Facebook and invited me in, but had no idea what Web 2.0 was. He liked the notions of self- and community-expression and loved the notion of simplicity.

Library 2.0

I had a chat with Linda Butt in Library Services yesterday about the need for updating and informing academic-related staff about academic, curricula developments. This is tied into our third Pathfinder aim and is one of the most interesting developments for me, because it is about connecting and engaging people.

Anyway, she fowarded me this blog: Stephen's Lighthouse, which includes this video of education in 2020 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7281108124087435381 The video is thought-provoking, and a wake-up call for those staff who don't want to engage with technology in the learning context.

She also highlighted this Library 2.0 report. There's some great stuff going on, if we can just capture some of it...

We're up

Okay folks, here we go. There will be cricket-based nonsense again in this blog, especially in-light of the Vaughan-Flintoff-fredalo incident and its implications for team-play/-work/-liness.

Anyway, our Pathfinder has no name. I think we need one. Email rhall1@dmu.ac.uk with suggestions based upon our 5 aims:

1. To build enhanced institutional knowledge of both Web 2.0 technologies and developmental strategies that support pedagogic and epistemological participation. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1, 3, 4 and 8; Strands 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.4]

2. To implement professional development strategies for staff in Human Resources, Information Systems and Services (ISAS), and Library Services, for the integration of institutional and non-institutional virtual spaces. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1, 6 and 8; Strands 1.1, 1.5, 3.1, 4.3 and 4.4.]

3. To deliver differentiated strategies for extending virtual spaces through social networks and user-generated content that are aligned with our e-learning networks, in order to deliver improved retention and progression. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1 and 3; Strands 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1.]

4. To scope professional development methodologies that utilise Web2.0 technologies. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measure of Success 8; Strands 1.1, 1.4 and 2.3.]

5. To create social networking links with other project teams and experts, in order to build capacity for innovative e-learning within the sector. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measure of Success 5; Strands 2.3, 4.1, 6.1 and 6.2.]

We have a Project Plan, emailed off to the HEA/Glenaffric, and our first team meeting has lead to the formation of 7 work-packages with teams assigned to th production of each: deadline 22 June @ high noon. Management-by-exception and clear reporting are key for us. Essentially this means that once we agree the criteria for the work to be done, then teams take responsibility for production of relevant work-packages. Unless there are problems with scope, quality, time-scales or resources, teams have the ability to make decisions without referring to theProject Manager [me]. We will require monthly highlight reports about progress, which should be uploaded onto the project Wiki, alongside final reports etc.. If there are problems with scope, quality, time-scales or resources, which affect the workpackage then an exception report will be needed so that we can agree a contingency with the HEA.

Our Project Board will be a sub-committee of the University Learning and Teaching Committee, who will be responsible for endorsing the project, and advising on and approving progress. This group will receive termly highlight reports from the Project Manager, and will be a key vehicle for monitoring and disseminating project outputs within and without of the institution. It will meet for the first time in the next few weeks.

Don't forget that name!