Archive for June, 2006

Web Me 2.0

Monday, June 12th, 2006

As we prepare to launch our own Web 2.0 offering OnlineGroups.Net, I am constantly looking around to get a feel for the space that we are entering. I won’t try to define Web 2.0, but I can point to a couple of the lists that I look at, and imagine being on.

The one I have most fun with is the The Museum of Modern Betas because it keeps changing, blog-style and has such a cool name. Dion Hinchcliffe’s list is a classic (and has logos) and he has now added more. The eConsultant Web 2.0 directory is huge. I’d like to see some Aotearoa (NZ) links pop up on Innovation Map. The listible list (where you can add and rate items) is Web 2.0 itself. And the Web 2.0 Awards illustrate some of the criteria for success. And LOGO2.0 provides a retinally overloading graphical representation.

There is no shortage of lists of Web 2.0 sites. There are even lists of lists.

Now, to see if we can get ourselves added to some of these.

Enquiry Learning Online at Ultraversity

Monday, June 12th, 2006

This morning I attended a CORE session presented by Gina Revill of Ultraversity. Ultraversity provides what they think is the world’s only degree course that is 100% online and 100% research-based. It is a BA (hons) in Learning, Technology and Research targeted towards people who would otherwise not typically participate in tertiary education.

The course has literally zero content and zero face to face. The first cohort are completing their final requirements at present. Amazingly, only 40% of enrollees dropped out, the staff have not burned out, and Ultraversity hasn’t run out of money.

The “researchers” (students), typically mid-career in jobs like Teaching Assistant, participate in communities of practice along with “learning facilitators” and guest subject matter experts. Their “action inquiry” and “critical reflection” processes typically involve activities relating to their work contexts, and peer review in small groups.

It’s pretty cool that this kind of thing is succeeding. While I am excited about enquiry learning, and how similar it is to the learning taking place in organisations, the questions that jumped out for me were about online participation in general.

Firstly, this course has genuinely created engaging social contexts with no face to face. Of course it doesn’t work for all but those who stayed seem to have had a rich experience. The 100% online approach does not seem to have been an impediment to this. In fact, Gina actually suggested that, in some ways, the online environment creates a more intense social experience than face to face. Everything you “say” is recorded, including if you do not respond. You may have more time to respond but the readers have all the time in the world to evaluate your reply.

Secondly, Gina suggests from her experience that the key to successful online participation is facilitation. Now, I know the value of facilitation. We try to make sure that each online group has a Participation Coach and that that person is trained and supported. We also provide an eCampus where 700 post-graduate learners collaborate actively online with no facilitation whatsoever. And I know that, with all the facilitation in the world, an online group with a bad design will not succeed. Where I wonder are the research and conversations about the relative impact of design and facilitation on the participation that takes place? And, under what conditions is it possible to do without (expensive and difficult-to-scale) facilitation? Is it possible, in fact to embed the social principles that underpin facilitation and design in the very software?