if you take a longer-term perspective – say looking back at educational institutions twenty years ago and now today – the impact of technologies is more evident. And that when you critique this more closely, that there have been quite profound shifts in practice. (Conole 2011)
Tonight’s task to have a gander at practices that could be deemed Learning 2.0 and to have a little blog about it. First of all Learning 2.0 -some very nice pictures and plain English in Jeff Cobb’s Learning 2.0 for Associations (pdf)
Loads of this, collagues complain of student activity disappearing from the VLE as study groups are documented on Facebook. WebPA is an interesting tool which allows groups to in effect vote on each other’s performace to the group task so that the tutor can assign a mark for the task and moderate this for individual marks. “Students reacted more postively than tutors” (Loddington et al 2009)
Dynamic Learning Maps
This is really clevers stuff from colleagues in Newcastle University’s School of Medical Sciences Education Development:
The project aims to enhance understanding and navigation of the curriculum and provide a means for students to actively map, contextualise, reflect on, and evidence their learning. The maps will also support collaboration, including sharing, rating and discussion of learning resources linked to specific topics in the maps. https://learning-maps.ncl.ac.uk/about/
There’s a nice overview on YouTube. I admire the potential for students to add their own resources and rate these. The curriculum, the VLE, eportfolio and your equivalent of social bookmarks (Diigo links) are joined up.
Daniella introduced this a while back, so I had a read Luxton-Reilly and Denny (2010). In this paper Computing Science students were asked to contribute 2 MCQs to a question bank (this contribution made up 1% of the assessment). Discussion took place in lectures about what made a good MCQ, and students were asked to write questions that matched the course’s learning objectives. Students could then run through the collaborative question bank and make comments on the questions. Although some of the questions were wrong (11%) mistakes were picked up in the comments, nor were the explanations as good at those that would have been written by the tutors. None-the-less a “low cost pedagogy of high value”
I’ve started with Conole’s quote, practices are changing and 2012 will undoubtedly shine part of the student experience spotlight on the appropriate use of technology and Web 2.0. We have some excellent practice which are less dramatic e.g. translation students upload audio recordings and good ones are shared. The 2011/2012 session brings a major update to the good ship Blackboard with the promise of VLE hosted Wiki’s and Blogs, now whether this will encourage more use of these tools (or whether the VLE is skipped over to more agile alternatives) is yet to be seen.
Conole, G. (2011) ‘Stepping over the edge: the implications of new technologies for education’ in Lee, M.J.W. and McLoughlin, C. (eds) Web 2.0-based E-learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching, Hershey
Loddington, S., Pond, K., Wilkinson, N. and Willmot, P. (2009), A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer-moderated marking tool. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40: 329–341
Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Paul Denny Constructive evaluation: a pedagogy of student-contributed assessment Computer Science Education Vol. 20, Iss. 2, 2010