Always look in gift horse’s mouth

/0 Comments/in , /by

12Apps of Christmas graphicI’m really looking forward to exploring new apps during the #12appsBC event (coming up F-A-S-T-!). I have the enviable position this year of being able to “peek behind the curtain” and see the apps that our enthusiastic, experienced edtechs and educator teams are preparing for you. I see a few I’ve tried, I see a few I’ve read about but haven’t tested, and a few I’ve never heard of before. I’m looking forward to seeing what a wide range of educators comes up with – a scenario ripe with possibilities and potential.

But I’ve also been reviewing my awareness and knowledge around some of the risks inherent in using any cloud-based “free” apps – partly because of this event but also cuz I’m developing an online design work for educators and I want to make sure I am aware of current issues, particularly in regards to any institutional initiatives or guidelines for faculty. For those in BC, you’re aware of the requirements of the BC FoIPPA legislation for higher education – but are you comfortable with how to protect your students’ privacy while still creating engaging and useful learning activities or resources? Does your institution have practical advice or assistance that you can tap into?

Twitter conversation JHengstlerI had a brief (and informative) Twitter exchange with VIU’s @jhengstler to try and understand a tweet she posted recently with question about how much teachers do when they assess the risks of using online edtech. Although I’ve been reading terms of use and privacy policies of hundreds of Web2.0 tools and cloud-based apps since I got involved in supporting instructors in utilizing the “new” free technologies in 2004 (;-), I would not be able to say that I read every line as Julia says she does. She’s a great resource if you want to learn more about the issues (maybe start with her 2014 blog post  The Compliance Continuum ? or follow her Twitter feed.

Other places to look for information about cloud-based tools and their use in BC-based schools is to:

  • follow the BC Edtech Privacy Group (my 12Apps colleague, BCcampus’ Clint Lalonde is a member);
  • check out one institution’s approach to supporting the safe use of cloud-based tools (that I know of), Royal Roads University’s Cloud-based Learning Tools Notification
  • and read about the reality of that approach for many faculty (Privacy in BC…)
  • or try out UBC’s Digital Tattoo site to learn more about your own digital presence and the important elements of digital identity.

look in horse's mouthAnd a few things to leave you with…

Even if you can’t read every line of the ever-changing, densely worded, mind-numbing terms of reference and privacy agreements for every cloud-based app you use, keep in mind the adage “always look a gift horse in the mouth” – read for the essentials – who has ownership of what you post – where is the transition between “free” and “paid services” – what are the cancellation policies – what happens if there’s a conflict between you and the app provider – can you backup your own work in a readable format.

Keep developing your digital literacy skills – one of the better descriptions of what that entails (IMHO) is Digital Literacy Fundamental from Mediasmarts

Don’t be afraid to take risks – most powerful learning experiences involve risk. But be aware, plan to mitigate risks and, have fun exploring!

You better watch out…12Apps is coming to town

/1 Comment/in , , , /by
12Apps of Christmas graphic

http://12appsofchristmas.ca/

I made a wish last year, just before Christmas (see the end of my Dec 20th, 2015 blog post http://educomm.ca/appy-holiday-fun), and it looks like it’s coming true!

BC is going to throw it’s own 12Apps of Christmas event (#12AppsBC)- yay!!!

Thanks to my ETUG (and BCcampus) colleagues, Leva Lee and Clint Lalonde,  and the rapidly assembling teams of “techies and teachers” from various higher-ed institutions, it looks as though BC is going to host a 12 Apps of Christmas event modelled on the Creative Commons licensed event developed by Regents University of London‘s Chris Rowell. And if you like the look of the event WordPress site, we had graphic design assistance from Robyn Humphreys (BCcampus). We’re gaining momentum and working out the things we still need to get done to make sure we can keep it fun but useful. Our UK colleagues have “set the bar high!”

Part of what made the 2015 UK-based events (six of them and I followed four!) so fun was the light-hearted approach and clean, straightforward design. Two of the institutions posted daily jokes or puns (I’ve added that to my list as it’s a feature that often made me smile.) I found the consistent structure developed by Regents University London made it easy to get involved in each day’s app and challenge activity. Some of the institutions played with the design but only to add a strong pedagogical focus or a particular insight (e.g., looking at how the app could be used to engage learners with different learning preferences).

As Clint mentioned in his recent post about the event, http://clintlalonde.net/2016/11/14/12-apps-of-christmas, there are literally thousands of apps targeted at education, and we all (educational technologists, faculty, administrators, students) need to become more conversant with ways to sort out the ones that have the greatest value for learning. Of course, evaluating apps seems like a Sisyphean task (IMHO) but exploring their potential uses in teaching and learning seems like a good beginning.

Although I recognize that not every educator will want to use apps in their teaching (for lots of reasons) I think part of the value of participating in an event like 12Apps of Christmas is to get more comfortable with creating – experimenting with the “maker movement”, hands-on, DIY kind of thinking that helps engage learners and strengthen learning.  I know I tend to “overthink” apps, looking for examples of how others used it, reviewing the terms of use, checking for tutorial videos or annotated, illustrated explanations of all the features, before I get to creating anything. The playfulness of the 12Apps event approach encourages everyone to just do something. It would be nice to build some of that freedom to try (and fail, and try again) into the way we design and deliver parts of our courses or the options we offer students to engage in learning. Of course we have to be mindful of the ephemeral nature of some apps and the potential privacy issues (under BC’s FIPPA), but should that  stop us from extracting maximum value for minimum investment?

Our BC-based 12Apps of Christmas endeavour will be a little different than the UK events I participated in last year as we’ve asked that each day’s app be free to experiment with, available on both iOS and Android operating systems, and to have some potential usefulness in education – and that can be anything from communication to content creation. We’re planning on focusing on fun, reflecting on learning and pedagogical possibilities, and getting inspired by participants’ creations, comments, ideas, suggestions.

Hoping that many of you will join in and try the challenge activities each day. Stay tuned for more about #12AppsBC in the coming weeks!

Sylvia

 

Fail tales and scarey stories at 2016 Fall ETUG event

/0 Comments/in , /by

Bravo to all who shared their “fail tales” and embraced and faced the edtecLittle (work)shop of Horrors - ETUG Fall Workshoph horrors we’ve created or participated in, over the past few years.  The theme for this year’s ETUG Fall Workshop was:  “Little (work)Shop of Horrors” and the juxtaposition with Halloween resulted in lots of colourful (?) language, metaphors, decorations and costumes.

It was hWelcome sign ETUG Fall workshopeld at Vancouver’s Centre for Digital Media – in the Hangar at the side (an appropriate place for a spookey session with it’s endless black, grey and metal, high ceiling and cold, blue lighting.) Kudos to SCETUG and the others involved in hosting this event – I appreciated the diversity of options and your thoughtfulness in providing time for listening, time for talking, time for learning and time to play.

Audrey Watters’ spooky keynote (“(not) a morphology and (not) a rumpus”) reviewed the recent past of educational technology and explored the question “How do you turn a craft, a practice, into a discipline?” Her answers were redolent with references to ghosts, demons, trolls, vampires, and zombies and links to the workshop theme of “fail tales” by encouraging us NOT to abandon our edtech creations “…lest they become monsters.”

She argued for greater awareness of the dragons, the giants and mad scientists of educational technology; the ones who “experiment on students…on public education…” They’re building machines and designing a world that “they alone can control.” And she ended with some thought-provoking messages about the future we are approaching that results from the inflammatory messages, the disruptions, the tsunamis of change and the dismantling of public education. The vision of a globalized networked society is populated partly by our monsters – can you see them?

Some highlights (for me) from the lightning stories of failure (and some successes) were:

  1.  The funny, sometimes acerbic short stories that MC Mike Minions used to fill gaps and set the tone of the Lightning sessions. A gifted storyteller with a deft touch.
  2. The memories of the recent past shared by Brian Lamb and Irwin DeVries in their hilarious role play augmented by emotionally wrenching groans and squeals from the theremin apps (introduced by Irwin and quickly picked up by several in the audience).  I remember the somewhat naive early days of blogs, wikis and the eventual (and inexorable?) domination by the LMS (also noted by Audrey as she described the Blob). A similar, somewhat despairing, but humorous tale danced and told by RRU’s Vivian Forssman related the impossibility of escaping the needs of institutionalized education.
  3. CDM’s Patrick Pennefather’s closing activity:  This “designer of interactive experiences” was a whirlwind of energy and inspired a tiring group to put away tables and chairs before engaging us in a really interesting and energizing activity using Toobees (something I plan to check out for future live activities!).  Patrick divided us into small groups, asked us to build the tallest, free-standing structure we could within a set amount of time. After allowing us to relax, enjoy each others’ creations and instill some healthy competition, he got us to do it again and then debriefed the experiences with the group. Lots of interesting insights about how we teach and learn – and a great way to end the day.

12 Apps for Christmas event posterA new thing for me this year was hosting a table in the afternoon to awaken interest and participation in an upcoming event that Leva Lee and I have been working on. Inspired by the UK event “12 Apps of Christmas”), we’ve been trying to sign people up for teams (starting with an educational technologist and an educator who uses technology in teaching or who is curious about the impact of technology) to host a BC-centred event this December. If it sounds like fun (cuz it was even as a participant as I was last year) then contact Leva or myself (Sylvia) soon!

A full and enlightening day!

(Sidenote from Audrey’s blog post: Apparently sociologist Bruno Latour wrote, of Frankenstein and his creator, it “was not that he invented a creature through some combination of hubris and high technology, but rather that he abandoned the creature to itself.”)

 

 

Exploring feedback for FLO

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

What exactly do we mean by “constructive” feedback? Do we actually model the behaviours we ask students to demonstrate? Do we provide clear explanations of what we expect? Do we provide constructive feedback when the students’ feedback is weak, superficial, slapdash? Do we scaffold our learners so they can consciously build and flex their critical thinking and collaborative or team-work skills?

My reflections on constructive feedback were inspired by a random Twitter post fimage 4 steps constructive commentsrom Howard Rheingold who shared a Diigo collection of links related to online facilitation. When I took a quick look a DS106 post on Constructive Comments caught my eye and, while scanning the article, I found an image tweet from @deedegs (Danielle Degelman 25 Nov 2014) Her visual list of the “3Cs and a Q” made me think about how I present, scaffold, model, promote constructive comments in my online facilitation.

As the Facilitating Learning Online workshop has evolved, I’ve had the pleasure of co-facilitating with several dedicated, passionate faciliators who strive to explain, demonstrate and facilitate the importance of constructive feedback or comments. When I began facilitating FLO, the workshop had built in weekly opportunities for peer-to-peer group feedback (i.e., each week a team of participants would facilitate a learning activities for the other members of the workshop). At the end of each weekly “mini-session” or “short learning activity”, the facilitators would encourage feedbackparticipants (to share constructive feedback on their experiences with the team of facilitators). We explored a number of different starter posts in a shared discussion forum to clarify what we were looking for in terms of “constructive”. The participant feedback, and any responses from the facilitation team members is open to the class.

During 2016, at the suggestion of FLO Facilitator, Beth Cougler Blom, we explored different ways of structuring the weekly learning activity team feedback. We asked the participants to share their feedback using these questions / prompts :

  1. _____________ (fill in the blank) really helped/supported my learning.
    My learning might have been better if ______________ (fill in the blank).
  2. I like….  (what you liked about the facilitation and why)
    I wish…  (something that you wish the facilitators would have done/encouraged)
    What if… (something that describes another alternative or option rather than what the facilitators did)
  3. What did the faciitators do that you really liked?
    What did the facilitators do that were challenging for you?
    What other kinds of facilitation strategies could the facilitators have tried, either as alternatives or add-ons?

And when I review our structures and approach in light of Danielle’s 4-step feedback, I think I might reframe it this way:

  1.  Appreciate  (identify something you valued or appreciated in the learning experience)
  2.  React (What did you think of the experience? What did you learn? Be specific but not judgemental – use “I” sentences.
  3. Suggest (What might you suggest be done differently – why? How would this change improve the experience from your perspective?)
  4. Connect (Can you relate something that was said or read or viewed with other discussions or activities? Have you any relevant personal/professional experiences that may be useful to share?)
  5. Questions (What questions do you still have – about the topic or about the strategies or choices the facilitation team made)

During the upcoming BCcampus FLO workshop that I’m co-facilitating with Leonne Beebe, I hope to explore different ways to emphasize the importance and critical thinking that is involved in providing truly “constructive” feedback – both through the use of different feedback structures, and by asking good questions to stimulate our participants to embed this approach in their learning and practice.

So, when you think about how you encourage your learners to provide “constructive” comments or feedback – what are the essential elements you emphasize?

Sylvia

Losing the personal touch in online teaching?

/0 Comments/in , /by

One of the best things (IMHO) about the Facilitating Learning Online workshop (offered regularly by BCcampus and Royal Roads University) is the emphasis we place on building a sense of community for learners and a sense of being “seen” by the instructor and other participants. Previous studies of the experiences of learners online highlighted the sense of isolation that they felt and the importance they placed on receiving timely feedback on their actions and assignments from instructors.

Personalized Learning DesignerI just finished tracking down a tweet that mentioned a webinar on the potential value of using a Personalized Learning Designer in Moodle. I was curious how Moodle would “personalize” learning. I reviewed some back-and-forth discussion about what it was and why it wasn’t available in current versions of Moodle (https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=224834) and found the actual description of how it works. If I’m understanding it correctly, you (the instructor) devise a series of “rules” that states something you want to do or respond to a student doing (events, conditions or actions); the rules automate the instructor-student communication process so you never miss a beat, particularly during the crazy-busy times at the beginning of courses when you’re teaching several courses with large cohorts. You can find some examples of rules in this article from Moodleroom: “Three rules you can’t live without”

While I can see the benefit to some instructors, I have experienced the “fussy-ness” of rules – if you don’t set them properly they end up causing confusion, miscommunication and additional work to correct. If you have a team of learning designers or instructional technologists, this may not be an issue (or if you’re good at writing rules and setting consistent conditions). But I wonder how much of the “personal touch” would be lost and how the development of a sense of “instructor presence” might be hampered by using a tool that intends to “automate facilitation” and make your course run like “a well-oiled machine.”

I guess my concern is that so many of the new apps and tools are intended to take away the need to focus on our learners; to get to know them and to develop a relationship that is mutually respectful and provides support and encouragement at times and in ways that best suit each student. By automating that relationship we may ensure that we never miss responding to something that we pre-identify as expected and important but we may lose the unexpected opportunities to emphasize “learning moments” or suggest alternatives or simply acknowledge and praise our learners when they may need it most.

I’ll be curious to hear what intructors find when they use this new tool (and to hear what participants think) although I understand it’s only available to a limited group for now (“the Personalized Learning Designer is a feature of joule, the Moodlerooms distribution of Moodle available only to Moodlerooms hosted customers“)