eCollaboration SIG, 4th Meeting - 18th April 2011

Begin: 09:30 am

Participants:

Cindy Eggs (CE, facilitator), Willi Bernhard (WB), Marco Bettoni (MB) Urs Ingold (UI), Andreas Ninck (AN), Nathalie Roth (NR), Philipp Stalder (PS)

Link Recording: http://collab.switch.ch/p66703135/

• eCollaboration-scenarios (in order to contribute to the e-learning scenarios on eduhub.ch); discussion and enlargement of the identified scenarios
• Presentation “The Faculty's Fear of Openness” Urs Ingold (PHZ) and discussion and exchange about your experiences and good practices

CE: Introduction & overview of the meeting

CE: Scenarios will be integrated in the e-learning scenarios on eduhub.ch

NR: short overview with screensharing

• New not yet published.
• Old version: no order.
• New version: various keywords (search criteria) for a search.
• Will discard some old e-learning scenarios and substitute with new ones.
• Link to collection of ZHAW and collection of HWZ.
• Will publish page and the invite eduhub-community to contribute.
• How to contribute? a) Send by mail? b) Publish in a mask on the website?
• Publication planned within the next 2 months.

CE: Could you tell us, where our scenarios will be integrated? NR: We have tags, when you want to publish or send a scenario, you must select the tags. CE: Has this something to do with ELBA2? They have also scenarios. NR: Not directly, but we could link to the ELBA2 project. CE: Hansjörg has a meeting now with this group. I have asked him to share the results with us.

CE: Presentation of the scenarios we have developed at FFHS (screensharing)

• Focus on eCollaboration (working at a distance with web support)
• Sc. 1, 3, 4 - Department Meeting, Project Meeting, SIG meeting
• People spread all over CH, tools: skype, mikogo, adobe
• Sc. 2 special kind of meeting, share ideas and have detailed meeting minutes
• Sc. 5 & 6: supporting in the use of LMS

CE: HBZ scenario by Philipp Stalder PS:

• Course at HTW, 15 stud, 4 groups, me in ZH, students in Chur
• Google docs for storage, Google Wave for communication
• Students had problems with technology, refused to use Google Docs
• Wanted to use only their tool at HTW

CE: How did you deal with this? PS: Enforced to use Google wave for communication, allowed to user their tool for doc. storage, got myself an account.

CE: How long? PS: Work assignment lasted 3 months, tools used intensively 2 months

CE: Scenario from Katrin Lindemann “Interactive Conversation Analysis”

• Groups of 4 students, synchrounous meeting, virtual room
• Very nice scenario, don't know which tools were used

CE: Scenarios Uni Bern / Hansjörg Lauener

• Filesharing / documemt sharing: personal storage / ILIAS-group: substitute server storage / file storage for administration or projects
• Project planning / collaboration: share documents with project partners in research groups / in project groups with members from different departments / in student groups
• Teaching scenarios (ILIAS group): students prepare exams, teachers develop lessons together
• Communication scenario (1 way): store meeting minutes / provide access to conference materials / access to news, agenda, contratcs, regulations, registration for events

MB: Would be useful to have a general model of a scenario, define components of a scenario description (basic components, optional components)

WB: Had the same idea, for every scenario I have to make my model; would be nice to have a graphical representation, be able to see the differences at a glance; for example use spider net; better not tables

CE: Great idea, will continue discussion in forum on our Moodle plattform; Nathalie, has eduhub planned something in that direction? NR: We do not want to categorize scenarios, before they come together; not easy to categorize; would be nice to elaborate more scenarios and then see how to categorize.

MB: It is good to collect scenarios, but we could also look for existing “scenario models” and select one, adapt it to our purposes, for example as Willi said, with a graphical representation.

CE: Andreas Ninck suggests in the chat the structure used in the book “101 e-learning Seminarmethoden”: Kurzbeschreibung, Ziele, Werkzeuge, Gruppengrösse, Dauer, Ablauf, etc.

AN: Useful book, really helpful to have some structure, can compare scenarios according to these items.

CE: We will buy this book and look at it.

AN: Can you explain the tools Titanpad and Mikogo? WB:

• Titanpad: Many people can edit same document at same time, during a meeting; after the meeting you can work asynchronously, very easy to use, a few seconds
• Mikogo: desktop sharing, easy to join, do not need to register, just send a code to participants, see what you do on your desktop, max. 10 people for free
• Moderator invites people, want see what a participants does, hand over moderator rights to other person, very easy; can also invite someone to work on your computer, do not know how to use a software, invite people who know; everybody in the meeting can do that; all participants can click on screen and other see the arrow with your name; cannot do audio & video; need Skype for this.

CE: Comment by PS in chat PS: We have talked about scenarios use, but: How much used? Only some test or used for half a year, what good, what bad, how changed the experiences, what is possible, what works, etc.

NR: Idea of scenarios on eduhub: publish only scenarios proved in practice, not from a book, tried by the community; maybe make ratings in scenarios, comment function for descriptions, some lines; will see how to integrate it in the mask.

CE: Important that it has been used, yes, but for how long used? NR: Scenarios come from the community, then better not to put time limit, what do you think? WB: Useful to know if tested longer or short, parameter “how long used”, have more info about that. PS: I'd say a scenario should be used at least for three weeks. AN: Important is not only the description, but also a discussion thread to each scenario where experiences are discussed. CE: My opinion: There should be criteria for usefulness and one is duration.

AN: Titanpad: Is the tool comparable to the whiteboard in Adobe Connect? WB: Adobe is not a text tool, moderator can show something, but in Titanpad all participants can write; Adobe is not for working on text together, Titanpad very fast; in Adobe when you scroll then it scrolls for all; Titanpad has the same source as Edupad, same functions.

CE: Summary: In the coming weeks look for concepts for structuring scenarios, so that we can produce structured descriptions (by which scenarios can be compared more easily).

UI: welcome, use same slides as at eduhub days 2011

• At PHZH developing learning objects, presence reduced by 50%
• 50% of time students learn in groups or alone
• Provide learning materials for this part = LO
• Some lecturers not comfortable with LO as OER
• So far only open to PH, but even that causes some fear (Angst)
• 20% of faculty works with LO

Identified 5 fears, concerns

1. Damage my reputation (“lousy handouts”)
2. Obstacle to my teaching (“videos already seen”); novelty factor loss
3. Endanger academic career (“publish in journals gives credits, LO not”)
4. Legal difficulties (“use of copyrighted material”): use in class is ok in CH, not if open to the world; do not want to waste time for this; many lecturers not aware of copyright issues, assemble bits from everywhere
5. Financial losses (“no one buys the book if in LO”)

• How to respond, how to react to these fears?

CE: Which fear is the one you consider as the most prevalent? UI:

• Number 2; interviews with 11 lecturers, 50% do not want to loose control of own material, who uses it, when, stop use if not fit in their plans, etc.
• Other fears: more hidden, do not admit
• Everyone talks about sharing, but in practice…
• Fears are justified, deal with psychological factors

CE: Importance of human aspect MB: Yes, but also institutional side (management) is important; similar to problems in Knowledge Management

UI: Agree, brings us to next part of presentation

1. Who wants to use LO must comply with defined “terms of use” (“Nutzungsbedingungen”)
2. Try to get support from top management (Prorektorats-Leitung, Schulleitung)
3. Give time and money for LO-development

CE: Paid extra? UI: Lecturers apply for hours for a semester, and finally get paid for that; but the interest is more in having hours, not additional money. CE: How to motivate to deliver the LO within the planned time? UI: If they do not deliver they break the contract, to finish is in their own interest; some LO still unfinished after two years; some superior can put pressure; in most cases no bad intention.

UI: Quality criteria to evaluate the open materials; LO are really new way to look at teaching materials, no more only between students & teacher, open to reviewers. We want to establish quality; quality control by experts: good for publication?

PS: Have any adapted to the idea of cc-licenses? UI: Creative commons licenses: try to spread the idea, not well known, encourage to publish under CC, often not possible, if pictures are not freely available.

UI: Some teachers consider ILIAS too closed, they publish on YouTube.

UI: To summarize: We try to minimize fears and try to invite cooperation, but we don't force people.

CE: Experiences of others? Questions? Suggestions?

WB: Very interesting issues of fears; approach in another way? Why don't do both things; example: publish in a journal & on oer; use every possibility to share.

UI: Dilemma is that some LO are not scientific in a way that would be good enough for publication. Question of where to invest time: into LO or into journal publication? In some case you cannot do both.

CE: Share stories of fears? PS: Story of fear in a project some years ago: people afraid to have their presentation used. CE: Solutions now? PS: Still a problem, has to do with personality. How to convince people?

NR: Do not have stories, never worked as a teacher.

MB: Story of CoRe (Community of Research), presented in many publications;

  openness needs more freedom, top management must accept network structures 
  complementary to hierarchy structures; network is better for knowledge sharing.
  Hierarchy is an obstacle to sharing, good for other things.

CE: If there are no more quesions / contributions we can close the meeting.

Next meeting: 25th of August at 10 am in Zurich at SWITCH NR: Next meeting how long? CE: At least 4h, include lunch break (2h morning session - lunch - 2h afternoon session) NR: Will set up agenda NR: Please Cindy send recording-link, so that I can put it on the website. how was it in November? WB: no recording; CE: Minutes are in the Moodle platform.

End of meeting: 11h10

Urs Ingold: Hallo zusammen Cindy Eggs: Hallo zusammen Cindy Eggs: Could you tell us, where our scenarios will be integrated? Cindy Eggs: Has this something to do with ELBA2 Urs Ingold: No question, just applause! Philipp Stalder: OK Andreas Ninck: Can you explain the tools Titanpad and Mikogo? Marco Bettoni: General model of a scenario Andreas Ninck: Nützlich finde ich die Struktur in “101 e-learning Seminarmethoden”: Kurzbeschreibung, Ziele, Werkzeuge, Gruppengrösse, Dauer, Ablauf, etc. Philipp Stalder: Mich würde das Outcome der Szenarien interessieren. Haben die wirklich funktioniert? Nach meiner Ansicht besteht eine grosse Kluft zwischen Theorie und Praxis. Nathalie Roth: Wir wollen eigentlich nur erprobte Szenarien auf eduhub.ch veröffentlichen. Nathalie Roth: I will buy this book. Philipp Stalder: Ja, aber heisst erprobt auch das die Szenarios wirklich gut funktionierten? Nathalie Roth: Maybe we could also introduce a rating for the scenarios. Philipp Stalder: But where you can see what was Ok and was bad (different aspects)? Nathalie Roth: We could add a comment-option, where you can describe your experiences with the scenario. Nathalie Roth: What do you think? Philipp Stalder: Yes, this sounds interesting, perhaps we could have a prototype in a xls.sheet. Nathalie Roth: We already have a prototype on eduhub.ch, but I will try to complete it with the suggestions given today in this meeting. Cindy Eggs: For how long? Andreas Ninck: Titanpad: Is the tool comparable to the whiteboard in Adobe Connect? Andreas Ninck: Scenarios: Important is not only the description, but also a discussion thread to each scenario where experiences are discussed. Philipp Stalder: I'd say a scenario should be used for at least 3 weeks Nathalie Roth: Titanpad similar to eduPad? Nathalie Roth: Thank you. Andreas Ninck: Willi, thank you for the very clear explanations. :) Philipp Stalder: OK Cindy Eggs: Yes Cindy Eggs: Which fear is the one you consider as the most prevalent? Andreas Ninck: I'm sorry that I have to leave for another meeting. Thank you for the interesting contributions! Cindy Eggs: Bye Andreas, see you in Zurich at the next meeting (or in the Moodle-forum). Philipp Stalder: Have any adapted to the idea of cc-licenses? Philipp Stalder: OK, thanks. Nathalie Roth: Bye Urs, thank you for the great presentation. Willi Bernhard (presenters): Bye everybody. Philipp Stalder: Bye to everyone. Cindy Eggs: Bye thanks to all. Marco Bettoni: Bye, bye, thank you Cindy for your hosting.