Where are we now?
The session starts with the above question. It seems that HE, or at least that represented here, that Web 2.0 is still sparsely used but there are islands of enthusiasm in quite diverse areas. Cloud is still very among the least used aspects of Web 2.0. Social networking seems to be a key, if under-exploited area. Web 2.0 style communication tools seems to be seeping into more traditional systems such as library, student records etc.
Visibility is low where Web 2.0 tools are not linked to existing institutional toolsets. Not many people, and none represented, have Web 2.0 strategies at their institution. A more common scenario is to enfold Web 2.0 strategy into eLearning strategy although, even there, take-up is sparse.
It seems common that enthusiastic academics are leading the field using Web 2.0 tools they are fond of. This leads to a massive diversity of systems with issues of single sign-on, support etc.
What expectation do student have of Web 2.0? Are the academics (and other staff) capable of delivering on those expectations? What aspects of Web 2.0 should the institution support – social as well as professional/educational? And – what is cost effective?
Dad in the disco scenario suggests that students want separate social and academic spaces. So- is there any point having institutional social spaces? Some success has been had with ’seeding’ spaces with students.
Dissonance between take-up of Web 2.0 from one academic to another can lead to dissatisfaction from students with complaints that academics are not engaging enough.
Huddersfield University are incorporating ideas from Amazon into their Library system: “people who borrowed this book also borrowed” . Others use wikis for collaboration amongst administrative teams.
It seems that the profile of administrative / support departments is to wait for central approval from senior management. Can senior management be encouraged to use Web 2.0 tools and set an example? Senior managers blogging is still something that really sticks prior to making its way into my mind. But it seems like a big win in terms of both communication and empathy-building if it can be achieved.
Session 2
Everywhere seems to be patchy in takeup of web 2.0 with work being carried out in absence of strategy rather than guided by it. Where there is strategy it seems to be vague and nebulous. Local champions seem to occupy all spaces in the institutions but cluster in IT, library and academic areas.
Of interest – it’s easier to control/police when Web 2.0 provided by the institution.
One option – a set of preferred external services. An interesting dissonance emerging between control and limited toolsets and consistency vs diversity, freedom and lack of control.
If we don’t provide, the cloud will and we will lose control and consistency anyway… Student experience must be one of the big driving factors… Single identity, if not single sign-on is a big driving factor for consistency.
Will Web 2.0 do away with the VLE? How do we control the bits that matter – for instance with work completed online in Web 2.0 apps. Can we mitigate risk without that control? For instance, assessed blog posts and liability as owners of blogs. The cloud is never going to submit to such controls as the userbase move to freer systems…
JANET are enthusiastic to let institutions decide what is and isn’t appropriate as educationally useful rather than to centralise some idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ content.
Strategic ambitions seem to be to catch up, embracing some aspects of Web 2.0 technologies and limiting the field somewhat to provide consistency and supportability – adding formally supported (preferred?) systems. A framework for security would be useful – defining some aspect of response to legal action and the like with the big suppliers. Is this something that UCISA should look into? Can JISC Legal tell us where we stand with the various major web 2.0 providers currently?