Weeks 21/22 A3a – The Horizon Report 2009 July 11, 2009

Image by TimboDon via Flickr

I’ve just read the executive summary and skimmed over the rest of the 2009 Horizon Report which aims to report annually on 6 emerging technologies or practices that are likely to enter education over 1-5 years, also outlines challenges and trends. The project centres on applications of emerging technologies to teaching, learning, research and creative expression.

3 horizons of adoption – 1 is 1 year, 2 is 2-3 years, 3 is 5 years.

1. Mobiles and Cloud Computing

• Mobiles
  • Another component of network
  • Multiple uses
  • Internet
• Cloud computing
  • Networked computers – where applications and data are held/stored on the network rather than on a single computer to enable users to use clouds of computers. Changes the way we store, use and access files and software. Increases opportunities for sharing, collaboration and tracking versions.

2. Geo-everying and the personal web

• Geo Everything
  • The ability for devices to log their geo location, and link these to information, data and other stuff.  Eg automatically tagging a photo with a location. Use in sciences – logging observation locations, gathering other information about that place, etc
  • Personal web
  • Ability to reorganise online content, aggregators. Widgets. A collection of technologies that are used to configure and manage the ways in which one views and uses the internet that supports ones social, professional, learning and other activities.

• 3. Semantic aware applications and smart objects

• Semantic aware application
  • The use of meaning by applications rather than just syntax. Apps that interpret what we are searching for rather than just taking keywords.
• Smart objects
  • Objects that can be tracked, that know where they are. People, devices, objects. Eg an artefact in a museum is tagged, scanners give viewer information about that artefact and provide other data about it. People in a conference to put people in touch with each other – eg who am I sitting by

Key Trends affecting the practice of T&L

• Increasing globalisation continues to affect the way we work, collaborate and communication. – increasingly those who use technology to expand their global connections are more likely to advance.
• The notion of collective intelligence is redefining how we think about ambiguity and imprecision. Collective intelligence leads to multiple answers. Redefining scholarship. Today’s learners want to be active participants in the learning process.
• Experience with and affinity for games as learning tools is an increasingly universal characteristic among those entering HE and the workforce. Games offer increased opportunity for interaction and active participation.
• Visualisation tools are making information more meaningful and insights more intuitive. Visual literacy becomes an important skills that needs to be taught.
• As more than 1 billion phones are produced each year, mobile phones are benefiting from unprecedented innovation, driven by global competition – multiple uses, indispensable tools.

Critical Challenges

• Growing need for formal instruction in new skills, information literacy, visual literacy and technology literacy.
• Students are different, but a lot of educational material is not. Adapt to students needs, identify new learning models for engaging younger generations, change assessment practices.
• Significant shifts are taking place in the ways scholarship and research are conducted, and there is a need for innovation and leadership at all levels of the academy. Academic review and rewards out of sync with practice of scholarship.
• We are expected to measure and prove through formal assessment that our students are learning.
• HE is facing a growing expectation to make use of and deliver services, content and media to mobile devices. Not just an expectation to provide content, but an opportunity for HE to reach its constituents in new and compelling ways – in addition to the anytime anywhere argument.

Weeks 21/22 A2e My PLE July 9, 2009

My attempt at depicting my PLE. I’ve used the functions identified by Conole from Activity 1 to categorise my PLE tools so some tools are repeated as they are used for more than one thing.  Purple flags indicate web 2.0 tools – I think. I wasn’t sure if web-conferencing was a web 2.0 tool or not?

1. To what extent are you using Web 2.0 technologies? I’m using a lot of different tools/functions but not very deeply. There is potential to grow.
2. How far are you using Mobile 2.0, as explored in Week 19? Very little. It’s too slow, small and  user unfriendly. A better product and I might use it more.
3. In what ways has your own practice and use of technologies changed in the last five to ten years? I’ve also been IT literate but I remember just over 10 years ago trying to work out how to use the university’s  new internal email system that was introduced when I was student. But my change has been from using the internet as a portal of information to a source of communication, interaction and a way to manage my learning/work/personal life through internet hosted services.  I’ve also found friends through shared interests.

Weeks 21/22 Act 2d – PLE v VLE a debate July 9, 2009

Listened to a podcast debate between Martin Weller (Pro PLE) and Niall Sclater (pro VLE) chaired by John Pettit (H800 chair)

Arguments set out below, but in the end they agreed that

“Gradual bluyrring of boundaries between VLE and PLE. If students can embed parts of the VLE in their PLE then that’s a good solution.” (MW)

1. What is your perspective?

I sit somewhere between the two. I didn’t realise what I was doing was utilising a PLE on my studies and yes, it is sometimes frustrating that I have to log into Firstclass to get the forum messages when all my other emails go to my gmail or work email, and to log into the university website to get this week’s readings. The perfect solution would be to embed this week’s activities into my iGoogle (maybe via RSS) and to embed FC into there too. I’ve now got everything else I need (except my work email but I do like keeping that different).

My life is not just about studying, despite what my family thinks, so I would like studying to fit into ym life.

However, I do like, sometimes that things are kept separate –eg FC messages would be a distraction at work.

2. How does what they say compare with your own experience?

Niall says about when university systems go down and assessments are effected then the university can give extensions. This happened on H808 when the eportfolio system kept playing up and the university could shut down access to other students and they offered us necessary extensions.  However, many people would have preferred to use an alternative system because the eportfolio system was slow, clunky and not personalises-able.

At work, we have to use the VLE forums etc for assessable work, like Niall said, this is a problem as Martin said, why are we making students use the less user friendly tools to communicate. It might put them off internet communication altogether.

3. Which view aligns more closely with your own view?

Martin’s to the extent of choice, Niall’s in terms of needed few methods of communication otherwise how do you monitor it (control issues) why should we monitor it…hmmm….

I like their agreement at the end.

Niall Scalter (VLEs)	Martin Weller (PLEs)
Accessibility standards – feeling that free resources won’t meet standards	Individual tools are better than a VLE provided tool could be. Shame to use substandard VLE based tools when so many good ones out there. Also user can choose the system that is best for them accessibility-wise.
Robust systems – feeling that if system goes down, they won’t care as much as an institution to bring it back up, and if the institutions’ system goes down they can give extensions.	IT argument that doesn’t stand up, not enough evidence of this. However, having a distributed approach you are spreading your risk.
Multiple websites = multiple usernames and passwords	Agree, but Open ID and an iframe like igoogle can help that. Yes you need a common approach between students.
Yes you can get more up to date tools over the internet but we can modify tools to make them less functional to make them more user friendly for your average students with the basic functions needed for educational purposes.	Making a choice for the user
Important to have a system that is tested, robust and accessibility with the basic functionality.
Assessment issues – needs to be university based if tool contributes to assessment.
Support	Why not teach people how to communicate with technology effectively instead of how to use the VLE while they are at University?
University convenience	Student convenience

Weeks 21/22 – A2c – LMS v. PLE July 8, 2009

Read:  Sclater, N. (2008b) ‘Web 2.0, Personal Learning Environments, and the Future of Learning Management Systems’, Educause Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, vol. 2008, no.13.

Gives arguments given for and against the LMS and PLEs in education.

LMS – learning management system, or virtual learning environment (VLE)

LMS’ suggested dis-empowerment – an attempt to manage and control the activities of the student by the university.

Those who believe in the benefits of elearning will need to decide whether their LMS remains an appropriate medium in which to facilitate it.

LMSs tend to restrict users to content designed for a particular course and interactions solely with those participants.

Weller believes that LMSs embody institutional practices, stifling innovation.

Personal Learning environments (PLEs) – a need to harness the power of a range of tools, services and content outside the institution that learners can use during their studies.

One argument is that the institution should no longer provide elearning facilities but instead tap into free resources – Warwick Business School is tapping into Google Applications into it’s LMS – including docs, calendar and email – which includes a gmail email address with WBS in it.

The multiple systems accessed through a web browser PLE model encourage learners to draw on the best from every environment.

BUT – students are then required to remember multiple web addresses, usernames and passwords.

The pesronal computer/laptop is starting to be seen as the personal learning environment.

Some proponents for PLEs hope that they will replace VLEs but admit that until there is a fundamental change in pedagogic proactice, given greater autonomy, diversity, openness and connectedness they are limited.

PLE is a way to reduce central control but itself is an attempt to systemise learning.

Positive arguments for the LMS – managing groups, tools and delivering content. Formal education is still demanded and supported, so still a need for an online system to manage admin, registration, payments, submissions and results etc. LMSs are good for restricting access to content and links with MIS.

LMSs also provide consistency of services for students and backup facilities. Vulnerability of learning these services to third party suppliers  – esp those with no contractual agreement. LMSs allow institutions to protect users (minors) and remove unsuitable material and institutions have moral and legal responsibilities for accessibility.  Getting rid of the LMS is a waste of the LMS expertise built up in-house too which simply won’t exist outside in terms of understanding the bigger picture.

LMSs may evolve into a MIS system working in the background with its information exportable to other systems that students wants to use.  Interoperability standards issues here. Not mentioned here, but I know the first thing raised at WBS in such a  discussion would be security of personal data on external sites and the policy to have anything that’s assessed (eg group work via forums) only on University supported systems.

LMSs also may need to develop into offline content, so people can access the latest version of the LMS offline, and just get it updated each time they log in.