Since I last wrote I've looked at BluWiki, which is far better and more user-friendly than Writeboard. I found it easier to look at the history of the wiki and compare changes and am not really concerned about the increased threat of vandalism (BluWiki is open to all; Writeboard is only open to those who know a password).
I also discovered that material posted on a wiki is considered 'published' and is governed by copyright law: I suppose in theory I could be prosecuted for submitting copyrighted text, sounds or images to it. This is something to consider when letting students loose on a wiki - they need to know what they can and can't submit.
As far as using a wiki in my teaching goes, I had the idea that I could create a basic reading list for a lecture or module and then ask students to edit and contribute to it as a wiki. They could add other books and articles they found interesting, comment on availability in the library (sorry, 'learning centre' - yuck, how I hate that term!), and also comment on which sections/chapters/passages they found useful. Creating a wiki reading list might also enable me to keep a crafty eye on who actually appears to be doing any reading (a rare event, in my experience)!
I'm sure there are many more potential uses for wikis in my teaching, but I particularly like the idea that students can use it as a central pool for sharing ideas and resources.
TTFN
Simon.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Writeboard
Hi again!
This time I've been looking at 'Writeboard' - a package that allows you to create a wiki that can only be accessed by people you've given a password to.
As concepts go, it's fairly simple: effectively just a whiteboard that you or colleagues can add to as and when. I have to say, though, it's a bit TOO simple. There are no buttons or icons equivalent to those in MS Word, so that when you want to change to italic or bold script, you have to type in something along the lines of '!bold!' to make it do what you want. I thought this aspect was a bit naff: why they can't simply make a 'bold' icon, goodness only knows!
I'll now look at the alternative (BluWiki, I think it's called) and will see if it's any better!
Simon.
This time I've been looking at 'Writeboard' - a package that allows you to create a wiki that can only be accessed by people you've given a password to.
As concepts go, it's fairly simple: effectively just a whiteboard that you or colleagues can add to as and when. I have to say, though, it's a bit TOO simple. There are no buttons or icons equivalent to those in MS Word, so that when you want to change to italic or bold script, you have to type in something along the lines of '!bold!' to make it do what you want. I thought this aspect was a bit naff: why they can't simply make a 'bold' icon, goodness only knows!
I'll now look at the alternative (BluWiki, I think it's called) and will see if it's any better!
Simon.
Wikipedia
I've chosen to examine wikis and I've learnt some interesting things from 20 mins of browsing: for example, it seems I've visited Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond's home in Gloucestershire for my work purposes (looking at roof timbers and working out how old they are - answer: late medieval) and had a long chat with his wife without even realising who her husband was!
As for the merits of wikipedia: on the positive side, it's great that there is such a vast resource available free to everyone, and everyone can have their say. It means that there is likely to be an article on pretty much anything you type in, and the fact that so many people can contribute means that, as a project, it can achieve an awful lot in a short space of time: many hands make light work!
On the negative side, I'm a historian and it's my job to make judgements about the relative reliablity and accuracy of available sources. Because nothing on wikipedia is guaranteed to be accurate, it can never be fully trusted or relied upon and I could never cite it in a footnote to my histories. For the same reason, I wish that undergarduates would stop relying on it so much in their essays!! I've lost count of the number of assignments I've seen where the bibliography consists of nothing but wikipedia citations. Let's face it, wikipedia is NOT a trustworthy source and students in particular shouldn't learn to rely on it. How I see wikipedia is a GATEWAY to learning: i.e. it flags up particular areas of knowledge that you should then follow up with your own research and verification process.
The anonimity issue is also a bit of a tricky point. On the one hand, it gives you the confidence and freedom to contribute and make changes without fear of being hunted down, but does give a minority the licence to misinform with impunity and perhaps even cause mailcious vandalism.
Anyway, that's enough from me for now!
Simon.
As for the merits of wikipedia: on the positive side, it's great that there is such a vast resource available free to everyone, and everyone can have their say. It means that there is likely to be an article on pretty much anything you type in, and the fact that so many people can contribute means that, as a project, it can achieve an awful lot in a short space of time: many hands make light work!
On the negative side, I'm a historian and it's my job to make judgements about the relative reliablity and accuracy of available sources. Because nothing on wikipedia is guaranteed to be accurate, it can never be fully trusted or relied upon and I could never cite it in a footnote to my histories. For the same reason, I wish that undergarduates would stop relying on it so much in their essays!! I've lost count of the number of assignments I've seen where the bibliography consists of nothing but wikipedia citations. Let's face it, wikipedia is NOT a trustworthy source and students in particular shouldn't learn to rely on it. How I see wikipedia is a GATEWAY to learning: i.e. it flags up particular areas of knowledge that you should then follow up with your own research and verification process.
The anonimity issue is also a bit of a tricky point. On the one hand, it gives you the confidence and freedom to contribute and make changes without fear of being hunted down, but does give a minority the licence to misinform with impunity and perhaps even cause mailcious vandalism.
Anyway, that's enough from me for now!
Simon.
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
My first blog!
Hi everyone!
As a newcomer to the world of blogging, I found it reassuringly simple to set up my blogspot. Whether I'll have anything even remotely interesting to say on it, however, is a completely different matter: who wants to read about Simon Draper or what I've been doing?
Anyway, it's created now so if anything thrilling happens to me, I'll keep you posted ...
As a newcomer to the world of blogging, I found it reassuringly simple to set up my blogspot. Whether I'll have anything even remotely interesting to say on it, however, is a completely different matter: who wants to read about Simon Draper or what I've been doing?
Anyway, it's created now so if anything thrilling happens to me, I'll keep you posted ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)