{"id":546,"date":"2018-04-19T09:52:31","date_gmt":"2018-04-19T09:52:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/module13.ca\/?p=546"},"modified":"2018-04-19T09:52:31","modified_gmt":"2018-04-19T09:52:31","slug":"oer18-lightning-talks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jrdingwall.ca\/blogwall\/oer18-lightning-talks\/","title":{"rendered":"OER18 Lightning Talks"},"content":{"rendered":"

Layne Lawson<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

This might be the first, true to form, lightning talks segment I’ve been to at a conference. I have to say that all of the presenters and the time keeper were quite respectful of one another. Other times I see this format play out at conferences there is always at least one person who obviously has planned their usual 15 minute speel. It was fast and furious, so here we go.<\/p>\n

Can open educators use social media safely?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our presenter opened with a question from Mariana Funes. Is open online education in fact inclusive? Does it need a counternarrative? When we ask our students to engage in activities in the open web either on Twitter, Facebook, or even something as innocuous as blogging what dangers do we open them up to? The danger of being open on the internet is opening yourself up to harassment, doxing etc. Not only that, but we’re often also asking students to agree to terms of service that are not clearly laid out or understood.<\/p>\n

The site we were provided was Netsafety.wordpress.com for the conversation, but it looks like it’s currently down.<\/p>\n

Considering your own open practice and assignments or activities you ask your students to partake in, which of those are outside of the walled garden LMS? Why are they in the open? What potential dangers are there in including these activities? Do students have a choice to not participate?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s changed my life. Online volunteering<\/strong><\/p>\n

The next presenter spoke about online translation communities. The participants in the study were to work on translating TED videos. Many of these participants explained on the open survey questions about how doing these translations helped them to achieve their goals. Some were aiming to become professional translators, others used the experience on their applications to higher education. Others were exploring translation itself as an activity.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After working with Designers For Learning<\/a>‘s Instructional Design Service MOOC and Evaluation MOOC I really connected with this presentation. Not only has volunteering with these projects had an impact on my professional life, but I see the benefits is had for other participants who have completed the projects. The translations idea is something I’ve considered before for language courses, and one that I would pitch to instructors in the future. Have you had your students do a translation project? What was your experience?<\/p>\n

From VLE to NGDLE; but what\u2019s in between? Curating technologies to widen digital practice – Keele University<\/strong><\/p>\n

This presentation started with a fact that IDs are all too familiar with: VLEs are a jack of all trades…and master of none. With that in mind, the presenters proceeded to outlie how they intended to capture and share the interesting and useful designs and activities instructors are using in their courses across the university. They found hundreds of apps being used. This surprised me. Maybe because I tend to fall back on less than 10 tools that I find work well for most situations I encounter. Another potential difference could be how “different” tools are identified. For example, I would lump all the H5P interactives as “one tool”, but perhaps in their survey each content type was a separate tool.<\/p>\n

Overall they found a gap between use and potential for many of the tools, that knowledge was often siloed, and there was limited institutional knowledge about the tools being used, and how to use new tools to their full potential.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

After identifying they apps, they created the “Seven C\u2019s” (only as I am reading this am I wondering if there is a joke in here about the 7 seas) classifying apps for learning and teaching:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Create (Creating)<\/li>\n
  2. Connect (Connecting)<\/li>\n
  3. Collaborate (Collaborating)<\/li>\n
  4. Curate (Curating)<\/li>\n
  5. Capture (Capturing) [recording]<\/li>\n
  6. Captivate (Captivating) [engaging]<\/li>\n
  7. Check (Checking)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    After that a series of cards is being created using a series of templates. The initial idea is to have single cards for reference and eventually a card wall which can be searched and filtered. I love the idea of cards. A couple of years ago a colleague told me about the Learning Battle Cards<\/a>, and I had to get my own deck. I use them occasionally during course and activity design, but the trouble I have with them is their training and workplace focused so many of the cards do not really translate to a 13 week higher education course. The cards being created at Keele University by Matthew Street and Daniel Harding might just be that higher ed version. Wonder if they have plans to create a print deck too.<\/p>\n

    Right now the cards are being created by the presenters but eventually contributions will be available where practicitioners can make cards themselves.<\/p>\n

    Assets for the cards are available at https:\/\/github.com\/humsstel\/tel_cards<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Critical debates in open ed<\/strong><\/p>\n

    @louisedrumm Louisedrumm.com<\/a> took us through a quick and highlevel overview of a number of critical debates that seem to be popping up in the Open Ed Movement:<\/p>\n