You are browsing the archive for Pedagogy.

Avatar of Paul Left

by Paul Left

Wikis in Moodle and the read-write matrix

April 30, 2008 in Pedagogy, Tools

I’ve been asked how wikis in Moodle relate to the read-write matrix I published recently. There is significant correlation, because the standard wiki module installed with Moodle offers various settings to control who has read access and who has write access.

When creating a new wiki, it’s best to check out the help file for the wiki type setting. This is a screenshot of the help file, with labels added for reference. The matrix of 3 rows and 3 columns provides 9 options for who can read and who can write to the wiki.

Moodle wiki types

I’m not concerned here with the first row (options 1 to 3) since these are teacher wikis and cannot be edited by learners. Types 1 to 3 are useful for teachers to publish materials they don’t want learners to be able to edit: eg administrative information or course details.

The types I find most useful for read-write learning are types 4 (for a fully collaborative class wiki) and type 9. But a class incorporating small group activities might use other types such as 5 and 6.

I’ve mapped some of these Moodle wiki types against the read-write matrix below:

The read-write matrix and Moodle wikis

While the Moodle wiki has quite a few limitations, the ability to control access and the ways that learners can collaborate can be very useful. But my advice is to plan the teaching and learning strategies carefully before setting up a wiki in Moodle – once the wiki is in use it’s not always easy to change the type!

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , 1 Comment »

Avatar of Paul Left

by Paul Left

The read-write matrix of web 2.0 tools for learning

April 16, 2008 in Pedagogy, Tools

A few years ago, Scott Leslie published his matrix of some uses of blogs in education, which provides a very useful analysis of potential applications for teachers and learners.

For my professional development workshops, I wanted something similar but which was focused solely on learning applications. In addition, I wanted to reflect some of the additional options that learning management systems such as Moodle and Blackboard provide. In particular, wikis and blogs within an LMS tend to provide greater granularity and control of who can access learner-created documents.

To reflect these needs, I’ve developed the read-write matrix of web 2.0 tools for learning which maps various uses of blogs and wikis onto a similar two-dimensional matrix to Leslie’s. The matrix is intended to apply also to other Web 2.0 tools for writing, such as Google Docs.

The purpose of the read-write matrix

I’m hoping the matrix will be helpful to teachers in planning the educational use of Web 2.0 tools. Careful planning is needed because:

  • While blogs and wikis within learning management systems typically are less sophisticated functionally than stand-alone software tools, they provide more complex options for controlling who reads and who writes.
  • For varying combinations of read and write access, there are both risks and opportunities for learners and effective learning. It’s important to consider these and how they will be best managed.

Presentation: the read-write matrix


The presentation should be reasonably self-explanatory, or you may prefer to read about the matrix first.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , 4 Comments »

Avatar of Paul Left

by Paul Left

Wikis, collaboration and the role of the teacher

April 6, 2008 in Pedagogy, Professional development

I’m a fan of using wikis as a tool for collaborative learning – in my context, I’ve used it as a professional development activity for tertiary educators. I’ve briefly outlined some of the benefits I’ve perceived in an earlier post: Read-write learning in professional development

Wiki pegboard by Luigi ChiesaIn an recent Educause conference paper entitled Within the Wiki: Best Practices for Educators, Barbara Schroeder describes 10 ‘instructional strategies for successful learning with wikis.’ This is a really useful list of guidelines for teachers planning to incorporate the use of wikis into courses.

The teacher’s role

One of Schroeder’s guidelines is ‘define and identify roles for collaborative activities.’ From my own experience, I’d add that it’s important to be clear about your own role as teacher/facilitator. For example, what will you do when a student contributes information which you can see is clearly wrong or misinformed? You could:

  • Ignore it
  • Correct it
  • Point out privately or publicly that it’s incorrect
  • Hope that another student corrects it
  • Give someone the role of responding

Each of these has advantages and drawbacks!

The truly collaborative wiki has the potential to change the power balance between teachers and learners and their respective roles: no longer is the teacher the sole source of authoritative knowledge. On the other hand, ‘wrong’ information can be detrimental and even dangerous, in vocational or academic education. It’s important to be clear about your own role in relation to the shared knowledge and communicate this to learners beforehand.

Photo: wiki pegboard by Luigi Chiesa.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , 2 Comments »

Avatar of Paul Left

by Paul Left

Flexible learning planning guide

March 12, 2008 in Learning technology, Pedagogy

For a large institution, selecting a flexible learning software platform is a major undertaking, requiring careful consideration of many factors. Such a process can seem like overkill, however, when a smaller-scale development is planned. For example, one or more teachers in an institution might decide to pilot an online learning component as an action-research project. Or a small provider might decide to ‘put their toe in the water’ with flexible learning. From my experience, the people involved in such projects need some guidance but are not prepared to undertake a full needs analysis and evaluation process.

I started putting together the Flexible Learning Planning Guide for just these sorts of situations. It’s informed by my own work and also by research such as Chickering and Gamson’s 7 Principles, which I’ve found very useful as a framework for developing teaching and learning.

I believe there’s a need for something like this to complement the sorts of rigorous development processes called for in models such as the eLearning Maturity Model: not because they are not valid but because small-scale projects sometimes just need a bit of guidance to get started.

The guide is based around pedagogical processes rather than software features. And I deliberately left out many aspects of good practice because I wanted to keep the list short – it currently comprises just ten practices and I’ve had to resist the temptation to add to this. For example, I’ve deliberately left out any practices relating to assessment as that is often excluded from such ‘first steps’ projects because it’s such a high stakes component.

The guide reflects my interest in constructivist approaches to learning and the use of tools such as blogs and wikis. It also avoids providing a simple checklist of features – because good practice doesn’t arise automatically from software features, but from how effectively they are used.

Download the guide

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , 1 Comment »

Avatar of Paul Left

by Paul Left

Can computers replace musical instruments?

February 11, 2008 in Learning technology, Pedagogy

It’s important to temper our enthusiasm for new technology with a deep understanding of its full effect on learning.

In a recent post, Stephen Downes claimed that ‘in comparison with what they replace – everything from books to musical instruments to art supplies – computers are more cost effective.‘

Music software couldn't replicate the complete experience of this musician.Now I don’t believe that computers replace books – yet, anyway. And I certainly don’t believe that they should replace art supplies or musical instruments. Both of these provide direct sensory experiences which are qualitatively different from using a computer, and result in creative work which is qualitatively different.

Real vs virtual

Music tools on a personal computer can provide more effective and convenient tools for things such as composition and recording. But they can’t replace the tactile experience of playing a real instrument. Furthermore, group improvisation may involve a sort of ‘social construction’ of music, and individual performance may involve a deeply reflective solitary experience. Using computers would fundamentally change the nature of either of these modes of musical creativity.

Certain high schools here in Auckland attract talented students because they provide intensive music education using real instruments in ‘big band’ and other live performance modes. Playing real instruments in a group setting is clearly a big attraction for many young people. That’s not to say that composing via a computer isn’t also very attractive – it’s just different, both as a process and in its ‘products’.

The closest analogy I can think of is this: the motor car hasn’t ‘replaced’ the bicycle despite being more ‘effective and efficient’ in various ways. Too many people value the bicycle for its low cost or its looks, the health benefits, or the feeling of the wind in their hair…

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , , No Comments »