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 Cohort UsedFeelings of Ownership FE Students (Feedback from PO) 39%44%-Me 52%- University Undergraduate Nurses (Feedback from tutor) 86%50%-Me PRHO’s88%14%-Me 71%-Deanery

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 16-19 BME students Junior Windsor Fellowship Programme  Independent learning Progression ModuleProgression Module  Assessed E-portfolio used to provide evidence of learningE-portfolio  Once monthly face to face sessionsface 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?