Thursday, October 16, 2008
General Q&A:
Q: Retention policy?
A. Tufts doesn't delete content so far.
Q: Social open source tools?
A: PBWiki as an alternative to Blackboard. Allows collaborations, announcements, etc.
EDmodo Microblogging site for education. Allows class accounts, social networks, etc. Ended up not using it, but because students had too many places to look (Blackboard for course materials, wiki for other stuff, blogger.com for their made things too baffling.
Another suggestion: Google sites.
VUE -- mindmapping. MIT used it to create their sitemap!
Needs to be a reason to go to the site. "Social networking by stealth."
Q: Best way to get folks excited about virtual worlds or any tech?
A: "Show them. Show them that it works." "Find early adopters." Instructors make the best examples.
Q: With so many tools, how does on support them all?
A: MIT folks work in office of "Educational innovation," and thus don't do direct support. :-) Tufts notes that group training, as well as controlling the number of tools supported, are both nice.
Camptasia.
Mention of need for platform for student organizations. Bentley went with Wordpress because it was common, easy to use, met basic needs, and could be supported.
Q: Competition from third-party sites (Google, wordpress). Faculty bypassing IT, not asking for support. Should we worry about it?
A: Tell instructors to use what meets their needs. On-campus tools can provide support, and a guarantee that the data won't be bought out, etc. That said, students will still go elsewhere, and we can't (and probably shouldn't) compete. SPARK 2.0 will look to tag third party content (Flickr) as Tufts, and pull it in. Hooray for RSS and tagging! The key is to show the value that the campus tools can provide.
Q: Assessment of impact on student learning.
A: E-Portfolios have a pretty obvious outcome. As to web2.0 sites, not many being used for education, not a long enough time to really track. Things to measure are engagement, but otherwise, it's all stuff based on old models (tests, etc). Model needs serious rebuilding. If someone is comfortable with a tool and it fits into their teaching style, it's likely to work, but if people use the tool because they feel they have to, improved outcomes will likely be reduced.
Q: Hi, I'm restating the answer and agreeing with it, because I'm the sort of person who feels the need to say something, even if it's redundant.
A: Yes, it's still correct.
(Yes, that was bitchy. Sorry. But it's a pet peeve of mine).
MIT will be using an ethnographer to evaluate some of their online tools.
Audience notes: Offer something that other sites can't. Yale will keep track of all reading lists with links to library, links to local restaurants, etc. Notes legal issues regarding FERPA, proprietary content, etc. Also notes the need for momentum, etc.
Note about the Harvard use of clickers. More effective once students were broken into smaller groups (and not just listening to a lecturer droning).
Lunch now!
Q: Retention policy?
A. Tufts doesn't delete content so far.
Q: Social open source tools?
A: PBWiki as an alternative to Blackboard. Allows collaborations, announcements, etc.
EDmodo Microblogging site for education. Allows class accounts, social networks, etc. Ended up not using it, but because students had too many places to look (Blackboard for course materials, wiki for other stuff, blogger.com for their made things too baffling.
Another suggestion: Google sites.
VUE -- mindmapping. MIT used it to create their sitemap!
Needs to be a reason to go to the site. "Social networking by stealth."
Q: Best way to get folks excited about virtual worlds or any tech?
A: "Show them. Show them that it works." "Find early adopters." Instructors make the best examples.
Q: With so many tools, how does on support them all?
A: MIT folks work in office of "Educational innovation," and thus don't do direct support. :-) Tufts notes that group training, as well as controlling the number of tools supported, are both nice.
Camptasia.
Mention of need for platform for student organizations. Bentley went with Wordpress because it was common, easy to use, met basic needs, and could be supported.
Q: Competition from third-party sites (Google, wordpress). Faculty bypassing IT, not asking for support. Should we worry about it?
A: Tell instructors to use what meets their needs. On-campus tools can provide support, and a guarantee that the data won't be bought out, etc. That said, students will still go elsewhere, and we can't (and probably shouldn't) compete. SPARK 2.0 will look to tag third party content (Flickr) as Tufts, and pull it in. Hooray for RSS and tagging! The key is to show the value that the campus tools can provide.
Q: Assessment of impact on student learning.
A: E-Portfolios have a pretty obvious outcome. As to web2.0 sites, not many being used for education, not a long enough time to really track. Things to measure are engagement, but otherwise, it's all stuff based on old models (tests, etc). Model needs serious rebuilding. If someone is comfortable with a tool and it fits into their teaching style, it's likely to work, but if people use the tool because they feel they have to, improved outcomes will likely be reduced.
Q: Hi, I'm restating the answer and agreeing with it, because I'm the sort of person who feels the need to say something, even if it's redundant.
A: Yes, it's still correct.
(Yes, that was bitchy. Sorry. But it's a pet peeve of mine).
MIT will be using an ethnographer to evaluate some of their online tools.
Audience notes: Offer something that other sites can't. Yale will keep track of all reading lists with links to library, links to local restaurants, etc. Notes legal issues regarding FERPA, proprietary content, etc. Also notes the need for momentum, etc.
Note about the Harvard use of clickers. More effective once students were broken into smaller groups (and not just listening to a lecturer droning).
Lunch now!
Labels: Nercomp
# posted by Adam Smith @ 8:33 AM 
