2. LD at the OU and the web 2.0 headache Martin Weller

3. A talk backwards OU LD project CompendiumLDCloudworks Social objects The web 2.0 headache Institutional needLD experience

4. OU LD project Andrew Brasher, Paul Clark, Simon Cross, Martin Weller, Juliette White 44 case studies 8 faculty workshops 15 design interviews & 2 in-depth course evaluation Workshops & focus groups Fact finding & user requirements Phase 1: User consultation, case studies, LD workshops Phase 2: Interviews, course evaluation, focus groups/workshops Tool and resource development Phase 1: Compendium, external resources Phase 2: CompendiumLD, Cloudworks Tool development: Compendium Resource identification: tools, methods, case studies

5. What do we want to do? Scaffold and support the design process Capture practice Bridge between pedagogy and technology Share designs/promote reusability

6. CompendiumLD

7. Cloudworks

8. LD as social object Jyri Engestrom: “the term 'social networking' makes little sense if we leave out the objects that mediate the ties between people. Think about the object as the reason why people affiliate with each specific other and not just anyone… The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people. They're not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object.” (http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_soc ial.html) 1.You should be able to define the social object your service is built around. 2.Define your verbs that your users perform on the objects. For instance, eBay has buy and sell buttons. It's clear what the site is for. 3.How can people share the objects? 4.Turn invitations into gifts. 5.Charge the publishers, not the spectators.

9. A continuum Object only e.g. LORs Social only e.g. LinkedIn Social objects? E.g. Flickr Are designs the social object for education?

10. Web 2.0 characteristics Technology User generated content Informal learning  Democracy  Bottom-up  Socially oriented  Web as platform  Harness collective intelligence  Perpetual beta

11. Higher education characteristics  Controlled technology  Us generated content  Accredited learning  We know best  Top down  Individual achievement  Review before release  Filtered intelligence  Aim for perfection

12. The threat to HE

13. ?

14. Structure and Meno’s paradox how can I know anything about X if I do not know what X is? Or: how can you search for knowledge of X? If you know what it is, then you have already got knowledge of it and cannot search for it Usually a teacher does it – what about in the web 2.0 world?

15. The granularity of education

16. "For decades we've been buying albums. We thought it was for artistic reasons, but it was really because the economics of the physical world required it: Bundling songs into long-playing albums lowered the production, marketing, and distribution costs... As soon as music went digital, we learned that the natural unit of music is the track." (Weinberger)

17. The topography of formality

19. Culture clash?

21. Quality “We have entire industries built on the fact that the paper order severely limits how things can be organised. Museums, educational curricula, newspapers, the travel industry, and television schedules are all based on the assumption that in the 2 nd order world we need experts to go through information, ideas, and knowledge and put them neatly away”

22. Personalisation

23. What’s OU LD got to do with it? Culture clash CompendiumLD Cloudworks Granularity Formalisation QualityPersonalisation Meno’s paradox Find ‘courses’ you want in style you want Wrap up different size chunks Still provide structure and guidance Allows new metrics Can be varying lengths