My new blog can be found at : http://drandrewoliver.blogspot.com/

Among my favourite suggestions are:

* Create a subject-specific repository – students are made responsible for their own pages.
* Ask for student to respond on projects, classwork, class discussions, visiting experts.
* Allow Students to create pages:for fun, to communicate, to relieve stress, to organize for presentations.
* Sharing teaching techniques among staff – build up a library of techniques.
* Use the discussion elements as a forum for students to air issues relevant to them,e.g. they could create separate wiki pages relating to certain issues, (stress, useful resources etc.). I like this because it emphasises the fact that each wiki page has its own discussion forum which allow students to talk around the issue.

(just realised I’ve listed nearly all the uses! – still have a look at the presentation as this has more detail).

Anyway have a look yourself (Web Link). If you’re new to Google Docs there’s some really interesting features. For instance in the bottom right corner is a ‘view together’ option which allows you to see anyway else who is view the presentation and exchange ideas via a text box.

Great article via Campus Technology (Web Link)

Instead of the usual tips for using blogs in education the author presents a list of the most common mistakes. As one commentator states this can be extended to other uses of learning technology, particularly wikis.

1. Ineffective Contextualization
One of the more effective uses of blogging is for reflection. As such the student needs to be provided with concepts, topics to think through and to construct ideas from. So initial content needs to be covered beforehand and, if blogging is desired to be sustained over a period of time, new content needs to be introduced at regular intervals. Simply asking the students to blog wont work. As Reynard states the placing of the blog use must be based on the instructional flow.

2. Unclear Learning Outcomes
So once you ‘ve outlined the placing of the blog within the course it’s time to look at the learning outcomes achieved from their use.

Reynard outlines the potential benefits using categories from Bloom’s Taxonomy as the learning outcomes:

Analysis: relating to the construction of the blog post in which the students must gather together information (i.e. course content) and present their own summary for others read. To quote the author “That is, if two ideas are presented together in support of one concept, self-reflective students must learn to a) distinguish the ideas, b) understand the differences between and similarities between, c) understand where the connection points are if any, d) decide, based on analysis, which one (if any) they will include and build upon in their own learning process.”

Synthesis: Naturally following on from analysis (and also evaluation if Anderson and Krathwohl 2002 updating of Bloom would have it) the creation of new material from old – new ideas from old ones. This is potentially very powerful – empowering since it moves the student away from, what Reynard notes as ‘the information-exchange stage with students’.

And I’ve seen this. Students are indeed given topics to blog about but the ideas which they ultimately generate tend to be left – stranded. Ideally the curriculum should generate a ‘second wave’ of blogging.

Application: the application of knowledge and understanding to new and concrete situations – and gaining a higher level of understanding as a result. As Reynard notes ‘Without application, new ideas are not “owned” by students in their learning’. And there’s not enough ‘owning’ in my view.

3. Misuse of the environment
Basically think about why you wish your students to blog. As Reynard notes blogs are not discussion forums or wikis. They serve different purposes. Because the blog is ‘owned’ by a single person they retain natural authority in terms of frequency and, more importantly, content of posting. All subsequent comments are in response to that initial post. As such they are very empowering. “When using blogs to encourage students to articulate their thoughts students can become empowered and feel that they are developing their own voice in the learning process. Instructors can also “glimpse” students’ thought processes and become much more aware of their learning journey.”

4. Illusive grading practices
And of course construct an appropriate rubric and clearly outline it to the students. Reynard has some very good suggestions:

•“Reflection statements (self positioning within the course concepts);
•Commentary statements (effective use of the course content in discussion and analysis);
•New idea statements (synthesis of ideas to a higher level); and
•Application statements (direct use of the new ideas in a real life setting).”

The above relates to the composition of the original blog post but could easily be extended to the composition of the comments left by other students.

5. Inadequate time allocation
There’s never enough time and as we all know students have to assign priorities to their learning. Blogging needs to be seen as a serious priority if it is part of the course objectives. As such time needs to be given over for students to gather and digest information for their own post, to reflect and respond to comments left by others and to eave thoughtful comments on their classmates’ blog.

6. I decided to add a 6th mistake – Letting the conversation die.
Aside from journalistic reflective practice one of the ultimate goals of blogging is the actual conversation between the blogger and their readers – the community. As such the blog itself should be seen as only a part of the process. Other elements of the curriculum need to be brought into play if the conversation is going to be sustained. For example Clarence Fisher (Web Link) talks about how he re designed his classroom along the lines of a coffee lounge in order to sustain conversation outside of the blog. And also return to the blog. Starting the session off with one in-class exercise and then leaving students to blog outside of class will only get you so far. Instead greater emphasis needs to be paid to in-class activity which relates to the blog.

The full article can be found here.

I would be happy to hear from students who are currently engaged in blogging as a learning activity? Do you agree? Are there any other considerations?

Short paper which briefly looks at the opportunities offered by web 2.0 technology (wikis, blogging etc.) in terms of enabling students to become content creators. Consideration is given the notion of ‘pedagogy 2.0’ which is essentially a learner centred environment founded on constructivist principles.

“Pedagogy 2.0 is defined by:

• Content: Microunits that augment thinking and cognition by offering diverse perspectives and representations to learners and learner-generated resources that accrue from students creating, sharing, and revising ideas;
• Curriculum: Syllabi that are not fixed but dynamic, open to negotiation and learner input, consisting of bite-sized modules that are interdisciplinary in focus and that blend formal and informal learning;
• Communication: Open, peer-to-peer, multifaceted communication using multiple media types to achieve relevance and clarity;
• Process: Situated, reflective, integrated thinking processes that are iterative, dynamic, and performance and inquiry based;
• Resources: Multiple informal and formal sources that are rich in media and global in reach;
• Scaffolds: Support for students from a network of peers, teachers, experts, and communities; and
• Learning tasks: Authentic, personalized, learner-driven and learner-designed, experiential tasks that enable learners to create content.”

And the outcome is: “With this learner-based, communal, media-rich, flexible approach, Pedagogy 2.0 uses social software tools to enable the development of dynamic communities of learning through connectivity, communication, and participation. “
It is brief but does a good job of raising the possibilities of such environments. A good staring point for discussion.

First off it’s good example of how a teacher is using the blog to set assignments / deliver a course (in this case to Grade 8 students, 13 – 14 year old).

And second note the assignment:

“Welcome to Math. Tonight you have an assignment. You have to use a digital camera or a cellphone to take a picture of the number I have given you in class. The steps are

* Take a picture of the given number.

* Email it to the address in class.

* Make a note to yourself about how you found the number.

* Be creative.”

What’s interesting is the assumption that the students each own a device which can easily capture an image and that they have the technical know how to extract the image and place it within a centrally online area.

Our future students perhaps?

We could do something similar on StudyNet modules. The main wiki for each module website now has a resource library into which students can add their own images. We could direct them to capture images and add them to a central resource on the wiki for sharing.

Full blog post here Notice the second image. How asks the students a question and provided the answer using the insert comments feature on Flickr.

The question was posed : how do you assess contribution in a networked classroom?

A number of interesting answers including this one by a student:

“Certainly you have to look at how that one word contributes to the end result rather than quantifying it as just one word. Being in school at the moment myself, one thing that bothers me is when instructors only take into account the final product and do not consider the contributions made to the group’s thinking along the way. One comment early in the process can affect the whole direction of the group but how instructors keep this in mind I’m not sure. “. Interesting. Of course this exists in many aspects of * group work including F2F activity.

Carolyn Foote added the notion of assessing the networking element in addition to the content of what was added: “we have to be sure that our assessments reward the networked contributions. I’ve heard students at our own campus express concern that sometimes grading rubrics are almost penalizing them for group work if one member of the group isn’t contributing strongly. So I think in network assessments, it’s important to account for the contributions in a way that assesses both the networking but also the contributions of the individual to the whole. But a method that also rewards or recognizes the value of networking is important too. How does one “measure” the contributions that happen in a networked environment? Is it quantity? quality? effort? value-added?”

Sylvia Martinez rightly points out that it all depends on whether the assessment is on “process” or “product”. This can be crucial and needs to be accommodated in the assessment since critical changes may not reflected in the final product. She gives an example “…could you assess a student who contributed zero words to the poem, but asked such important questions that it affected the whole group’s thinking and therefore significantly improved the final product?”. Likewise there is a sensible recognition that collaboration takes place both on and offline: “… a student who looked over another student’s shoulder and said, “hey, you have a mistake there” would not be considered to have made a significant contribution because the interaction occurred outside of the electronic process. If that weren’t considered, I think you would force students to not collaborate in the real world because they wouldn’t get credit for it, but rather wait until someone posts something wrong, and then go to the wiki to fix it and get credit. Seems like that would unintentionally discourage peer to peer collaborative and teachable moments.”. The obvious remedy as she points out is to mix in F2F peer review along with teacher observation. The conversations and the interactions need to be taken into account.

Cathy Nelson had some interesting things to say about group dynamics particularly with regards to group support and motivation towards achieving higher standards: “… the beauty is my network (or most of them anyway) are very forgiving and always encourage me to keep trying, to continue learning. Yes, some turn their backs and have little patience with me, but that’s okay, I’ll just have to learn from other more generous people in my network. What’s different? We are allowed to play, fail, try again, play some more, have successes, and then try for even more complexity. IN our failures we are not made to feel like we cannot succeed or that we’ve failed others. Instead we are motivated to continue striving for success. “

Carolyn also added the notion of ‘comfort’, in terms of the students ability and willingness to embrace the technology, as a factor which needs to be accommodated within the evaluation process: “And I wonder how the group dynamic changes with the use of the technology–I tend to find it brings out contributions from some of the quieter students or students who need more reflection time than the typical class period allows, but sometimes it may stifle or limit some students who are more uncomfortable with the technology. .. Some students liked being able to go back and reflect, and others felt like they couldn’t adequately defend their ideas the same way that they could in class, because they “weren’t there” when someone made a comment. “.

Reggie Ryan assesses student contributions using two methods. First the student assesses the postings themselves through a rating system. And second a assessment based on criteria which attempts to measure contributions within regard to what others are contributing. The four types of contributions are:

* Triggering: Recognizing the problem; Sense of puzzlement

* Exploration: Divergence within online community; Divergence within single message; Information exchange; Suggestions for consideration; Brainstorming; Leaps to conclusions

* Integration: Convergence among group members; Convergence within a single message; Connecting ideas, synthesis; Creating solutions

* Solution: Vicarious application to real world; Testing solutions; Defending solutions

These four areas are derived from Randy Garrison’s “Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education” (2004, Web Link).

As an aside this is very good example as to how blogging can be used to generate discussions through the comments facility. It has often been said, and to be honest I’ve seen this myself, that comments left by others ten to focus on the initial blog post ignoring those comments left by others. In other words the comments do not form a threaded conversation but are essentially a series of monologues. In this case however we see a mixture of comments directly responding to the initial post however as more comments are added they are clearly responding to the views of each other and taking ideas forward – a real conversation is happening.

Contact Martina at m.a.doolan@herts.ac.uk

A ‘knol’ is essentially a single unit of knowledge and so is similar to a learning object. Stephen Downes points out that Wikipedia articles can also be regarded as learning objects. However the similarity between the two systems ends here as Google Knols attributes the article to a specific author (similar to Citizendium – here) unlike Wikipedia which cites no particular person and in doing so emphases many voiced collaboration over the single expert. As Downes states this seems to be a backward step for Google since the system was built on the recommendations by many in the first place.

Here’s the link to Google’s outline (Web Link) with a picture here (Web Link). Worth reading if you’re into social software. The final article has no wiki-type collaboration element, so unlike a wiki there’s no multi authorship. Usually wikis are cited as being capable of producing reliable and balanced articles through the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ argument in that the views of many will provide greater insight than the views of the few. It could be argued that this cannot occur within a Google Knol article as only one single person is involved. So there is a question of article reliability, bias and integrity. Interestingly Google have gone some way to solve this by allowing readers to submit questions, new content and suggested edits. But the article author does have the final say in terms of how new content is added. What ‘saves’ the situation is that readers can also rate the article similar to that of YouTube videos and even write reviews.

So I guess the higher the rating the more reliable the article? No doubt this will be reflected in Google search results.
Worth keeping tabs on to find out if this will be the case.

So over the next few days I’ll be posting some examples here.

First off is a set of wiki rules which I found at this school wiki (Mr. Armstrong’s U.S. History Wiki, click here).

The rules can be found here.

Initially the rules relate to blogging but can be adapted to include wikis. They are also meant for school use but again could easily be used in a HE context particularly those which cover copyright, appropriate use and contentious topics. The latter is interesting as there is also an addendum set of rules which cover the process by which a student can post blog/wiki entries on controversial topics through prior permission of the tutor.

Basically using a wiki to facilitate an international online collaborative project on the environment from a Catholic perspective between two religious education classes: one in the UK and the other in Canada.

As per the recent examples the wiki is used to support student based collaborative projects. Each group consist of students from the Holy Trinity Catholic Secondary School (UK) and students from Richard Challoner Secondary School (Canada). There’s some very good project examples here.

Check out the project for Group 1 Climate Change (here). Rather than just used one wiki page to display the whole project they have made the first wiki page into an index listing and have created separate wiki pages relating to specific aspects of the project. Each page has a strong mix of video, image and text. For example The Kyoto Protocol (here).

Again it’s worth remembering that these project pages were constructed through collaboration between students from two different schools and separated physical in 2 different countries and time zones.