1 / 20

How Far Has Web 2.0 Enabled Personalisation? A Tale of Two Projects

How Far Has Web 2.0 Enabled Personalisation? A Tale of Two Projects. Neil Currant, University of Bradford and Leeds Metropolitan & Christopher Murray, University of Leeds. Aims .

tolla
Télécharger la présentation

How Far Has Web 2.0 Enabled Personalisation? A Tale of Two Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How Far Has Web 2.0 Enabled Personalisation? A Tale of Two Projects Neil Currant, University of Bradford and Leeds Metropolitan & Christopher Murray, University of Leeds

  2. Aims • Considered the impact of personalised learning and ownership through a comparison of institutional and non-institutional tools • Explored issues of implementation • Experienced how web 2.0 can be used to personalised learning

  3. What Is Personalisation? • Learner Control? • Different Materials? • Location and Time? • To Collaborate or Not? • Learner Choice?

  4. Institutional Tools • In ELP project 3 groups used institutional tools • Creation of e-portfolios to assist transition, for assessment and for professional development • Implemented in colleges, schools, university and the workplace

  5. Features • Private reflective area • Share work and reflection with FP or other students • Message board facility • Single sign-in

  6. Ownership

  7. Comments on Ownership • Design-“Because when you log in the logo is Leeds University” • Feedback-“You do what you want on it but the university still has input” • Work-”It’s personal to me and most useful to me” • Assessment impacted on ownership!

  8. Discussion • How do you encourage ownership/personalisation?

  9. Non –Institutional tools Lesson learnt

  10. Background • 16-19 BME students from Leeds who were previously involved in Junior Windsor Fellowship Programme • Independent learning Progression Module • Assessed E-portfolio used to provide evidence of learning • Once monthly face to face sessions

  11. Tools – outside direct institutional control & ‘personalisable’ • PebblePAD e-portfolio • Evidence of learning • assessed • Google group • Peer communication • Tutor communication • Messenger (MSN / Yahoo) • 1to1 learner / tutor communication

  12. Getting started • Setting up accounts • E-portfolio • Google group • Adding friends to Messenger • Issues • Student email addresses (all tools need an email account to set-up) • Self registration v. Tutor registration • Multiple usernames needed

  13. Keeping Going 1 • Google group did not ‘take off’ • username / password issue • Some students came from same school • Number of messages posted after training session: 2 • Content of messages: password / login issues

  14. Keeping Going 2 • Messenger • ‘private space?’ • Age issue • Users who I was able to add: 11 (out of 20) • Users who added me: 7 • Conversations held: 2 • Content of conversations: 1) a general hello, 2) encouragement to carry on the module after student had missed some face to face sessions.

  15. Keeping Going 3 • Independent learning • Not used to setting own deadlines and working in this way.

  16. Experience of certain tools

  17. Contribute content online

  18. Communication tools used

  19. Lessons learnt • Students prefer mobile for communication and real time (e.g MSN) over delayed (email) • Mainly consumers of content rather than creators • Independent learning needs to be developed and encouraged more • Not as familiar with internet tools as expected • Issues of being outside the institution

  20. Discussion • Is using non-institutional tools: • Sustainable? • Too risky? • More flexible? • More personlised? • Can we „piggy-back“ on learners personal tools? • Do we need to create formal personal learning tools?

More Related