This talk by Ranjit Sidhu from Nedstat (a company specialising in Web site stats).

He is going to look at:
Benchmarking the sector against the web
Benchmarking your institution
Future Trends

The First Sector Statistics Snapsho was done of 22 institutions in March 2006. The second snapshot is going to be for the month of May 2006, and intended to then repeat every 6 months.

So – what should be measured? This is tricky in education, because the client base is so varied – prospects, existing students, alumni, staff etc.

So – now some stats – these are going to be posted on the web at some point – so I’ll just pick out some of these here:
Visitors accepting Cookies
Sector: Accept 95.93% (slight decline) – acceptance from internal IPs is slightly higher than overall, but external slighly lower.
Overall: 96.8%

How do people find my site?
Direct entry (entering URL)
Overall: 56.29%
External to the Uni only: 39.98%

External Referrer
Overall: 20.93%
External: 21.62%

Search engines
Overall: 28.66%
External 38.38%

Shows how when looking at Search Engines – for traffic from non-university computers, a large number come in from Search engines

Geographical – where are the visitors located?
Average figures usually:
UK 1st (by a long way)
US 2nd
India 3rd

Brian Kelly again on this session, thinking more about the openess of content, as opposed to software:

Creative Commons
A way of granting rights to re-use of content. I saw a really interesting talk by Lawrence Lessig who is the driving force behind this (at Hay-on-Wye a couple of weeks ago). The important thing here is that anything that (I think) anything you publish is automatically granted copyright – this makes it illegal for others to use that content (excluding fair use) without your permission.

If you are actually happy for people to reuse the content you create, you have to say so – explicitly. Creative Commons is a way of doing this, without necessarily just giving away all your Intellectual Property rights.

What about Web 2.0 and Open content? Re-usable content is a key part of Web 2.0 – for example, ‘mashups’ (combining data from disparate sources to provide a richer application) can only work if their is data available and you are free to re-use it. Google Maps is a good example. However, Amazon is perhaps a counter example of how it is possible to allow re-use in a commercial context (you can use Amazon data as long as you make it link to Amazon – to drive traffic to Amazon).

So – institutions need to give serious thought to how we relate to Intellectual Property for both Open Source software (can your software development team develop open source software and contribute back to the community – or is this not allowed by your institution?)

Brian Kelly again on this session, thinking more about the openess of content, as opposed to software:

Creative Commons
A way of granting rights to re-use of content. I saw a really interesting talk by Lawrence Lessig who is the driving force behind this (at Hay-on-Wye a couple of weeks ago). The important thing here is that anything that (I think) anything you publish is automatically granted copyright – this makes it illegal for others to use that content (excluding fair use) without your permission.

If you are actually happy for people to reuse the content you create, you have to say so – explicitly. Creative Commons is a way of doing this, without necessarily just giving away all your Intellectual Property rights.

What about Web 2.0 and Open content? Re-usable content is a key part of Web 2.0 – for example, ‘mashups’ (combining data from disparate sources to provide a richer application) can only work if their is data available and you are free to re-use it. Google Maps is a good example. However, Amazon is perhaps a counter example of how it is possible to allow re-use in a commercial context (you can use Amazon data as long as you make it link to Amazon – to drive traffic to Amazon).

So – institutions need to give serious thought to how we relate to Intellectual Property for both Open Source software (can your software development team develop open source software and contribute back to the community – or is this not allowed by your institution?)

This is being presented by Randy Metcalfe (from OSS Watch)

So – Randy’s key messages:

• open source is more than just a copyright licensing paradgm
• no one needs to tell you to use open source software (everyone in the audience showed that they use open source software)
• good policy helps embed best practice
• standards, especially open standards, are a good thing
• pragmatism is also good

OSS Watch provides unbiased advice and guidance on free and open source software for UK HE and FE. It is funded by JISC.

So – what is Open Source?

It is a copyright licensing paradigm. Either your software is released under an Open Source Initiative (OSI) certified licence or it is not open source software (there are many licenses that are certified – GPL being the best well known)

Open Source is related historically to ‘Free software‘ (as Richard Stallman said – free as in free speech, not free beer)

Open Source is also a development methodology.

In October 2003 the open source virtual learning environment Moodle did not register on OSS Watch’s initial national scoping study. By March 2006 56% of FE colleges reported they are using Moodle. An incredibly fast takeup – why? Randy suggests Market Forces.

I’m always irritated that the first thing you get at a conference is a bag – who comes to a conference without a bag? (and if you do, how do you carry your laptop!)
Anyway – IWMW 2006 wins a prize for actually giving out 2 bags – a bag within a bag – now, what is the point of that?

This question was asked by Andy Powell before lunch. So, some research, the RHUL entry was created by ‘Angela‘ – a wikipedian.

However, it’s been updated since (see the history). By the IP addresses, some of these have definitely been done by people on the RHUL network – although could be staff or student.

Interesting to note the following change:
(cur) (last) 15:45, 26 April 2006 Badgerpatrol (→Current Position – rm ‘globally’- A handful of UK universities have a global reputation, RHUL is not one of them.)

Should the University strike back?

Brian Kelley from UKOLN is now demonstrating some Web 2.0 types of applications. I’ve captured links as I can, but will add more as I have some time afterwards.

To start – try searching for ‘IWMW 2006’ in Google – the vast number of top 10 hits are ‘web 2.0’ type – blogs, wikipedia, rss feeds.

However – there are some concerns that we need to think about with Web 2.0. Web 2.0 can be useful – but need to:
Learn from mistakes
Remember it will be used by marketers
Need to remember accessibility
Need to be user-focussed

These are really no different to concerns about WWW that were around in the 1990s.

So – real life demonstrations of Web 2.0:

IMWM RSS – used for news and syndication of content from conference
OPML – Used to group RSS files, and can use software such as Grazr to browse them
Mashups – combining information from multiple sources – http://iwmw2006.superglu.com
Blogs – 3 blogs directly related to IWMW 2006 (this one, http://iwmw2006.blogspot.com and http://wib-wob-web.blogspot.com/)
Wikis
Podcasts (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/podcasts/)
Online Chat (e.g. IRC channel at this conference, http://gabbly.com)
VoIP, Access Grid (http://www.skype.com, http://www.agsc.ja.net/)
Del.icio.us

Brian is singling out Microformats as an upcoming formate. What are they?
Basically adding some very simple semantics to web content using html spans and divs around text. There is a session about this today (which I’m unfortunately not attending) – I need to have a look at this.

Some issues coming up through the Q&A:
Quality of Service – I’d be reluctant to rely on any of the prototype ‘perpetual beta’ technology to deliver a real service. Scott Wilson suggested that perhaps we can defray these issues with web 2.0 approaches – perhaps we need to stop trying to supply central services so much, and essentially outsource more. I’m not 100% convinced this is practical – but perhaps it is a matter of time – I would now consider the idea that we don’t need to provide email to all our students (although we do at the moment), and perhaps other services will develop to the extent where I feel the same about them – but give it 10 years perhaps.
Repetition of Information – we maintain our own webpage, but there is also a wikipedia entry for RHUL – how is this information kept up to date?
How do we best engage the academic community in this type of technology?

Brian Kelley from UKOLN is now demonstrating some Web 2.0 types of applications. I’ve captured links as I can, but will add more as I have some time afterwards.

To start – try searching for ‘IWMW 2006’ in Google – the vast number of top 10 hits are ‘web 2.0’ type – blogs, wikipedia, rss feeds.

However – there are some concerns that we need to think about with Web 2.0. Web 2.0 can be useful – but need to:
Learn from mistakes
Remember it will be used by marketers
Need to remember accessibility
Need to be user-focussed

These are really no different to concerns about WWW that were around in the 1990s.

So – real life demonstrations of Web 2.0:

IMWM RSS – used for news and syndication of content from conference
OPML – Used to group RSS files, and can use software such as Grazr to browse them
Mashups – combining information from multiple sources – http://iwmw2006.superglu.com
Blogs – 3 blogs directly related to IWMW 2006 (this one, http://iwmw2006.blogspot.com and http://wib-wob-web.blogspot.com/)
Wikis
Podcasts (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/podcasts/)
Online Chat (e.g. IRC channel at this conference, http://gabbly.com)
VoIP, Access Grid (http://www.skype.com, http://www.agsc.ja.net/)
Del.icio.us

Brian is singling out Microformats as an upcoming formate. What are they?
Basically adding some very simple semantics to web content using html spans and divs around text. There is a session about this today (which I’m unfortunately not attending) – I need to have a look at this.

Some issues coming up through the Q&A:
Quality of Service – I’d be reluctant to rely on any of the prototype ‘perpetual beta’ technology to deliver a real service. Scott Wilson suggested that perhaps we can defray these issues with web 2.0 approaches – perhaps we need to stop trying to supply central services so much, and essentially outsource more. I’m not 100% convinced this is practical – but perhaps it is a matter of time – I would now consider the idea that we don’t need to provide email to all our students (although we do at the moment), and perhaps other services will develop to the extent where I feel the same about them – but give it 10 years perhaps.
Repetition of Information – we maintain our own webpage, but there is also a wikipedia entry for RHUL – how is this information kept up to date?
How do we best engage the academic community in this type of technology?

This is a talk by Scott Wilson from CETIS. So Web 2.0 ideas filter into eLearning 2.0.

eLearning 2.0 is about:
Going personal and global – relating to individuals, but on a global scale.
Symmetric relationships
Mashups and reuse – combining information from disparate sources, and reusing information in different contexts.

So, what processes make up eLearning?

Firstly Discovery:
Searching
Matching – match my requirements (e.g. online dating)
Building on previous achievements
Collaborative social filtering
Collaborative social intelligence
Fining a pathway to a future goal
Seredipity

When you look at this in a ‘2.0’ context. People start to combine (mashup) formal and informal learning episodes (e.g. joining a Yahoo group for discussion and taking a formal course)
People use shared goals to forge a social identity
The Long Tail – someone else, somewhere out there, will be interested in the same thing as you!

Aggregating opportunities:
Formal learning – prospectuses in XCRI format (need to investigate what this is – apparently ‘RSS for prospectus’)
Informal learning: 43Things, LiveJournal Communities, Flickr Groups, MeCanBe.
Compare how easy it is to join a topic on 43Things to applying to a course at a University.

Learning networks:
In the future will learners already be part of a learning network before joining a course? We already have at least one course that tries to do this (Business Information Systems) where prospective students can join the community of students and alumni before they start the course.

Creating and Sharing:
Writing (and photographing, drawing, filming, recording)
Developing a professional identity
Developing competence, confidence and independence
Going global for feedback

Again (not to blow our own trumpet), but this year at RHUL we had a course that included keeping a blog as part of the student assessment process (each student had a blog kept over the period of the course).

Collecting and Remixing – Pedagogy: How does pedagogic theory apply to these new concepts?
Constructivism – attenuating and labelling a subset of the knowledge environment; re-categorising a conception of the knowledge environment into a personal schema; synthesis (dialectic)
Connectivism – forming new connections and generating networks that extend the power of the individual; however, actional knowledge (learning) resides in the network, no necessarily the individual.

Scott is indicating that traditional VLE software makes all the activity ‘teacher designed’ (e.g. teacher setup a discussion group), as opposed to Learner self-organised activity (perhaps assumed that students do this themselves anyway). I wonder if this is actually fair enough – perhaps students should make use of Web 2.0 tools to organise themselves, as they would do (possibly) by going to the bar or coffee shop for a chat.

This is a talk by Scott Wilson from CETIS. So Web 2.0 ideas filter into eLearning 2.0.

eLearning 2.0 is about:
Going personal and global – relating to individuals, but on a global scale.
Symmetric relationships
Mashups and reuse – combining information from disparate sources, and reusing information in different contexts.

So, what processes make up eLearning?

Firstly Discovery:
Searching
Matching – match my requirements (e.g. online dating)
Building on previous achievements
Collaborative social filtering
Collaborative social intelligence
Fining a pathway to a future goal
Seredipity

When you look at this in a ‘2.0’ context. People start to combine (mashup) formal and informal learning episodes (e.g. joining a Yahoo group for discussion and taking a formal course)
People use shared goals to forge a social identity
The Long Tail – someone else, somewhere out there, will be interested in the same thing as you!

Aggregating opportunities:
Formal learning – prospectuses in XCRI format (need to investigate what this is – apparently ‘RSS for prospectus’)
Informal learning: 43Things, LiveJournal Communities, Flickr Groups, MeCanBe.
Compare how easy it is to join a topic on 43Things to applying to a course at a University.

Learning networks:
In the future will learners already be part of a learning network before joining a course? We already have at least one course that tries to do this (Business Information Systems) where prospective students can join the community of students and alumni before they start the course.

Creating and Sharing:
Writing (and photographing, drawing, filming, recording)
Developing a professional identity
Developing competence, confidence and independence
Going global for feedback

Again (not to blow our own trumpet), but this year at RHUL we had a course that included keeping a blog as part of the student assessment process (each student had a blog kept over the period of the course).

Collecting and Remixing – Pedagogy: How does pedagogic theory apply to these new concepts?
Constructivism – attenuating and labelling a subset of the knowledge environment; re-categorising a conception of the knowledge environment into a personal schema; synthesis (dialectic)
Connectivism – forming new connections and generating networks that extend the power of the individual; however, actional knowledge (learning) resides in the network, no necessarily the individual.

Scott is indicating that traditional VLE software makes all the activity ‘teacher designed’ (e.g. teacher setup a discussion group), as opposed to Learner self-organised activity (perhaps assumed that students do this themselves anyway). I wonder if this is actually fair enough – perhaps students should make use of Web 2.0 tools to organise themselves, as they would do (possibly) by going to the bar or coffee shop for a chat.