Collaborative Software Tools and Web 2.0 CSC/2006.09.07/Paper 2
Initial responses from School
Moray House School of Education comments (conflation of views from
individual areas of the School)
Initial response to Collaborative Software Tools and Web 2.0 paper
Conflation of comments received from two MH depts: H&CE; and CRD, and from support colleagues.
• The positive tone of this paper and the opportunity to comment on it is welcome. We
recognise that the need to address Web 2.0 technologies in terms of policy, strategy
and operations across the University comes at a time when EUCS in its established
form has been replaced by a new form within the University’s new structure for
integrated Information Services and this presents a fairly considerable challenge. We
also believe however that it presents a significant opportunity.
• In order to make the best of this opportunity and embed the best of the new
technologies in the University’s various activities, including in teaching and learning
in particular, we feel that a shared ‘vision’ of what these technologies can contribute
to teaching and learning needs to be articulated in order to create the conditions within
which an appropriate strategy can be brought forward to enable them to be rolled-out
to more users and ‘grass roots take-up’ fostered.
• How the University supports this spirit of innovation will determine how it can adapt
as an institution to the rapidly changing learning technology landscape.
• It may be that, in some respects, at the institutional or corporate level the University is
lagging behind what is going on in individual courses, programmes or support service
units.
• In H&CE, for example, a number of colleagues have been using these
technologies/services for some time and, more widely, many of these technologies
have had fairly extensive usage.
• Despite this, the current approach to security concerns will, if not subject to change,
make it difficult to put in place the kinds of wikis and weblogs (for example) that staff
and students might expect to be able to use. For example, a wiki without images isn't
really much use. It should be possible for IS to solve the security problems.
• The pilots for the MSc in E-learning have been using Web 2.0 technologies for 2
years now - implementation of Web 2.0 technologies across the University as a whole
is overdue.
• There will be future similarly paradigmatic shifts in learning and communication
technology - in the medium term, structures/resources should be in place to better
enable us stay in advance of these rather than lagging behind as we now do; the MSc
in E-learning will be in a good position to function as a 'test-bed' for the University in
this respect.
• In terms of current projects at Edinburgh, mention might also be made of the Higher
Education Academy-funded project 'Putting web 2.0 to work: new pedagogies for new
CSC/2006.09.07/Paper 2
learning spaces' - based in HCE in partnership with Strathclyde and aiming to conduct
research on the impact of these new technologies on learning and teaching in HE.
• Re 4.6.1 point c., any wiki service implemented has to be fully functional - the
present, limited service is hosted on holyrood, the structure of which server means
that it is impossible to upload images or multimedia - this is a service which only half
works and is severely limited in terms its usefulness for learning and teaching.
• A minor correction - on page 12 reference to the School of Education’s 'Distance
Learning MSc' should be to the MSc in E-learning.
• The paper appears to be suggesting the adoption of a single system that can provide
the technologies discussed (Wikis, Blogs, podcasts, Instant Messaging etc) at an
institutional level – there is sense in this and it would certainly make it very easy for
the user (either student or lecturer) to access a single system, especially if integrated
within EASE. However there are concerns about this with respect to it falling into the
trap of being managed to a point that it is no longer effective for teaching and learning
in a range of contexts. Different systems used in various schools should also be
acknowledged. For example the use of Macs in Moray House and the applications
available on these machines that make Podcasting and blogging very easy (e.g. i-
movie, garageband, iWeb etc).
• There are concerns that there is no direct mention of FirstClass (the MH school’s
email system) in the paper. Instant messaging functionality has been available to
students and staff through FirstClass for the past few years. Although infrequently
used by users in the past, recent development by FirstClass suggests a broader use is
possible in the virtual classroom. While chatting, participants can exchange instant
documents through attachments, so active users can access and discuss the same
information. If monitored in a classroom conference, the moderator can save and
review instant messaging that has been exchanged between the students. Alert
messages can be broadcast to students that they are in a monitored environment. The
ability to embed Images and sound recordings is also possible. At present FirstClass
can offer a variety of tools that can be used for collaborative computer mediated
communications. These are not very well used at present and the memory allocation
offered to staff and students also would not support extensive use. However with the
new FirstClass Ed there are facilities to create a virtual classroom, web space etc
Perhaps further exploration of this may be worthwhile?
• Currently Moray House and SITC are using a number of Web 2.0 classed
collaborative tools. Mainly Podcasting, Blogs and Wikis linked to RSS feeds. RSS
feeds offer access to a number of public conferences on FirstClass, accessing
documents and conferencing messages, and Podcasting using iTunes. FirstClass users
can, through a desktop Web publishing folder, publish personal podcasts, Blogs and
Wikis. On Mac computers using Safari, bookmarks of RSS linked conferences can be
displayed using RSS Visualizer. Using this method, all RSS listed conferences and
websites can be automatically listed for access. All access can be controlled through
standard authentication procedures.
• SITC are running a number of Podcast demos using iTunes as the desktop software,
and are anticipating future possible trends of Web 2.0 technology.
Page 2 of 6
CSC/2006.09.07/Paper 2
• Once our overseas students discovered that Skype functionality was accessible
through Open Access computers, it initially proved a noisy irritation in Moray House
Public Labs. As a very cheap alternative, overseas students can dial home at pre-
arranged times and talk to family members. To foster good relations, it was agreed to
set some time aside in our School Access Labs to allow overseas students to use
Skype. In this context, Skype has proved a useful application, but the experience has
shown that the use of Skype should be closely monitored.
• FirstClass and SITC in Moray House offer important test beds of what is possible in a
live academic environment, and should be encouraged to continue to expand the
broad uses of University based learning systems.
• The paper outlines some interesting ways that these technologies could be integrated
into university teaching and it would be worthwhile to keep focusing on the
collaborative aspect – i.e. not just lecturer led and a ‘new way’ of transmitting info to
students. It is certainly something that if used well could supplement and support
teaching and learning at the university level.
• It would be beneficial to organise a ‘show and tell’ session at Moray House so those
here already using the Web 2 tools could share their experience with others. Equally
there are colleagues who know very little about such technologies and staff
development will be a real issue which must be budgeted for.
• The success of these tools will depend on the quality of the information shared, and
how regularly the information is updated and/or monitored. Although these tools
could be used to advantage they may put an additional (initial) burden on academic
staff to adapt their existing material into a format that makes sense for this type of
information sharing. Then there is the burden of maintaining and updating which may
well fall to course secretaries etc. Training will be crucial. Although this is
mentioned in the report emphasis needs to be put on training the ‘support staff’.
• To allow these tools to be used effectively there will be an additional need for server
space. Will the College, School or Dept using the tools meet the cost of additional
space?
• Although the report states that an increasing number of students come with the
technology to use the tools, not all do. Would students who do not have access to the
required technology be disadvantaged? Would this mean a necessary increase in the
amount we allocate in the budget to providing technology to students (and staff)?
Dr Jim O’Brien
28th August 2006
Page 3 of 6
CSC/2006.09.07/Paper 2
School of History and Classics comments (copy of response to EUCS
via Head of School)
Dear Douglas,
Re: Collaborative Software Tools & Web 2.0
I’ve gone through the document closely and below are my thoughts. I’ve simply pooled them
under two headings: Positive & Negative. I hope you find them useful.
POSITIVE
• This is a carefully thought out enterprise, supported by evidence gathered from other
university systems.
• The document has been very informative, alerting me to teaching and learning
possibilities I did not know existed.
• Wikis – this could be a very valuable teaching tool affording students the opportunity
to upload web pages related to courses. I can envisage a class being divided into small
groups and set tasks to create a web page to be used by the rest of the course on a
specific topic. The tutor is able to keep track of the development and who is
responsible for each addition to a page, since all this material is electronically
recorded. This means that any web work can be easily assessed. Moreover, it is easy
to return a page to any of its previous states if the material placed on it is erroneous,
misplaced or misguided. The reports emphasis on using Wikis to collect data from a
class (or small groups, or even individuals), for project work, and for peer review is
appropriate. I would encourage the School to look into this.
• Blogs – a familiar concept for students. As the team suggests, following perhaps the
Warwick model, there should be an Edinburgh Uni specific Blog site; I do not like the
idea of all students logging onto some major international blog site. Moreover, I
would strongly encourage the team to re-examine the idea of course-specific blog
sites enabling students to interact about course materials etc in a much more focused
capacity.
• Podcasting – the availability of multi-media files for sharing is good. Already the
Humanities Resource Centre’s WIDCAT programme is proving useful to some
members of the school. Certainly the ability to play back recorded lectures has major
positive implications for Teachability and disability concerns (as well as for foreign
language students). However, I have some major problems here (see below).
NEGATIVE
• Skype – “free” phone calls over the internet – has little to recommend itself as far
as the needs of our School are concerned.
• Podcasting lectures – the team informs us that several US universities now
podcast lectures which can be downloaded and saved to disk or iPods. There is an
attractive side to this, but it diminishes in a very serious way the learning process.
The discipline of attending lectures and the skills inherent in the process (let alone
the social and communicative value of attending lectures) cannot be brushed
aside. If podcasting lectures was to go ahead, then they should be made available
only through student request – via the Disability Office or through negotiation
with a DOS.
Page 4 of 6
CSC/2006.09.07/Paper 2
• User demand and support – many of these IT innovations are attractive and I can
anticipate a high student demand for them. But major questions have not been
addressed by the team: who will support and serve these applications? Our School
does not have any individual professional IT support, so how will these
applications run on a daily basis? MALTS appears to be stretched to breaking
point as it is. The issue of storage is also a problem: all of these programmes will
take up a lot of server space. We are currently being told by Computing Services
that we must conserve space. This report flies in the face of that. Finally, there is
the question of security. Who has access to this material? Will it be for on-campus
use only? Will there be passwords etc?
SUMMARY
I like much of what I read in this report and I find aspects of it very exciting in terms of on-
line teaching and learning, as well as the skills students could acquire from web experience.
The Wiki and blog ideas have great potential, but only when harnessed to serve teaching
methods on specific courses. A general open blog space is unnecessary; a focused course-
specific series of blogs could be invaluable. I would encourage the School to look at the
potentials of using Wiki and blogs, but I am wary of the consequences of some of the
capabilities of podcasting.
The School should also emphasise concerns over server space, technical supports (in terms of
getting projects started, instructing staff & students, maintenance, etc), and security.
LL-J
15th August 2006.
Page 5 of 6
CSC/2006.09.07/Paper 2
School of Divinity comments (copy of response sent to EUCS)
Chris,
Thanks for this very thorough report.
My own personal interest is very much along the use of web 2.0 technologies within the field
of teaching and learning so my comments are very much geared to that side of things. I think
that these technologies offer interesting opportunities in this area (novel use of the tools that
have yet to be thought of) and indeed we in the School of Divinity have a number of projects
on board looking at this - we currently have a Higher Education grant looking at blogs in
teaching (we are half way through this work); we are working with Physics as the report says
on podcasts (we have nearly completed the first podcast), developing a set of podcasts
geared mainly towards learning skills and introductory materials (not lectures); we also hope
to work with the School of Education on their Higher Education funded project looking at
pedagogy and blogs. We also have been looking at wiki's use in teaching but to date have
not implemented this in any of our courses. For blogs we are using the MALTS developed
blogging tool that is embedded within webct and we have found this ideal for our purposes. I
or my colleagues working in these areas would be happy to discuss any of these areas.
I do think that this is a growing area and one that offers loads of interesting opportunities and
I certainly would welcome a more central University lead in this area although I do feel that
its very nature means that its take up will depend on the interest (and seen benefits) of the
groups concerned and is likely to be sporadic.
I hope this is of some use and as I said earlier I or my colleagues working in this area would
be happy to discuss further.
Jessie Paterson
School of Divinity
Page 6 of 6