Flexknowlogy – Jared Stein's ARCHIVED blog – update to jaredstein.org

After a year-long developer famine, we now have a new Web developer who is assisting us on revivifying the Moodle Open MetaMod project as part of his duties.

In a nutshell: the primary goal of the mod is to allow individual resources OR activities within a Moodle course to be “open” to either non-authenticated visitors or a custom role called “Open User”. There are a number of secondary goals related to intellectual property metadata (e.g. Creative Commons). Much of the information posted here is based on the “official” Open MetaMod page at our Meta Web site.

Project Status

• We have recently corrected errors in the 1.8x version for use in Moodle 1.84.
• The current version of the mod works only on mySQL, though Mr. Sergio Sama Villanueva at Universidad de Oviedo in Spain has added PostgreSQL support, and so adding that to our install package and testing is a high priority.
• Mr. Villanueva has added other features as well, which we plan to test and evaluate.
• We also have a short list of usability alterations and feature enhancements to implement.
• We are working on an update for 1.9 this spring. We hope to present that broadly for feedback from the Moodle community, starting at the June Moodle Moot in San Francisco.
• We plan to host a Moodle 1.9 public instance with several UVU opencourses, and providing pre-made user accounts for teachers, students, and “open users” to test the mod.

Download the Open MetaMod for Moodle 1.8x

Users interested in testing the latest released beta version of the Open MetaMod may download the following ZIP file:

Open MetaMod for Moodle 1.8x

Note that this version of the mod works only on Moodle 1.8x installations on mySQL. A PostgreSQL version is forthcoming. Additionally, unlike previous versions, this version of the mod does not have an installer, and files must be modified manually. In short: use at your own risk!

Detailed Overview of the Open MetaMod

Open MetaMod is a modification for the Moodle learning management system that provides instructors and designers with the ability to mark individual Resources or Activities within a Moodle course as “private” (only visible for registered students) or “shared” (allowing anonymous guest viewing).

A new third option for Moodle Activities, “open”, allows registered non-student users to interact with the class in Moodle activities. This is different from “shared”, as it allows authenticated users on the Moodle system who are not officially registered for the course to interact with students and instructors on the discussion board, take quizzes, complete activities, contribute to wikis, etc.

Instructors and designers can mark resources or activities as “Copyright cleared/Creative Commons” and as “shared” either individually through the normal course module/block interface, or en masse through the Open Settings in the Administration block. All Creative Commons license types are supported in the latest version of the Open MetaMod

Tagging Individual Resources/Activities’ Copyright Status

Note: The default tag of all resources and activities is copyrighted. This is done intentionally to inhibit the accidental sharing of copyrighted course materials.

1. To tag individual resources or activities with a copyright status, first enter your Moodle course and click Turn editing on.
2. Next to each resource or activity you will note either a red “C” indicating Copyrighted or a green “CC” indicating Copyright Cleared/Creative Commons:

   

   • Clicking the red “C” or the green “CC” will toggle the copyright status of this resource/activity.
   • Only resources/activities tagged as “CC” are eligible to be “shared”.

Marking Individual Resources/Activities as “Shared” or “Private”

Note: Changing the copyright status of a resource marked as “shared” from “CC” to “C” will automatically disable the shared status.

• After a resource/activity has been tagged as “CC”, the grayed-out door icon will become clickable.
• “CC” resources/activities default to “private”, indicated by a brown closed door icon.
• Clicking the door icon will toggle the private/shared status of this resource/activity.
• “Shared” resources are indicated by a glass door icon.
• An open door icon, which indicates a fully “Open” status.

Making Copyright Status and Shared Status Changes En Masse

Tagging and marking individual resources seems pretty onerous, right? Well, this is purposefully the case so that instructors/designers are forced to consider the copyright status of each and every resources or activity.

However, we’ve also accomodated the need to tag and mark multiple resources and activities simultaneously with the OCW Settings link, found in the Administration block.

• To tag a subset of resources/activities as Copyright cleared/Creative Commons, simply click the checkbox next to the resource/activity group.
• At the top or bottom of the page, click Save Changes.
• Clicking Save Changes on the Copyright Status page takes you into the Private/Shared Status page.
• Only resources/activities marked as “CC” will be eligible for “shared” or “open” status.
• To toggle a subset of resources/activities as either “private” or “shared”, simply click the appropriate radio button next to the resource/activity group.

Terminology

C

Copyright This indicates that a resources or activity is protected by copyright law, and should not be made available to the general public. For one’s own protection, one might best assume that all resources or activities are de facto copyrighted<./dd>

CC

Copyright Cleared or Creative Commons license. This refers generally to the idea that a particular resources is legally eligible to be made available to the general public. Ensuring the Copyright Cleared or Creative Commons license status of a resource and activity is solely the responsibility of the instructor or course designer.

private

Indicates that a resource or activity should only be available to registered Moodle users who are also enrolled in the course.

shared

Indicates that a resource or activity should be viewable to both registered Moodle users who are also enrolled in the course as well as anonymous Moodle guests.

open

Indicates that an activity should be fully accessible to registered Moodle users regardless of whether or not they are officially enrolled in the course. If a course allows “Guest access”, anonymous Moodle guests may view but not interact with “open” activities. Note: This feature is not available in the current version of the Open MetaMod for Moodle.

This article is an attempt to objectively define the phrase “creepy treehouse” as coined by Chris Lott, and in current usage by ed tech folks such as Scott Leslie, Marc Hugentobler, John Krutsch, and others. I plan to follow up with a post on my perspective on CTH in the field of educational technology.

creepy treehouse

see also creepy treehouse effect

n. A place, physical or virtual (e.g. online), built by adults with the intention of luring in kids.

Example: “Kids … can see a [creepy treehouse] a mile away and generally do a good job in avoiding them.” John Krutsch in Are You Building a Creepy Treehouse?”

n. Any institutionally-created, operated, or controlled environment in which participants are lured in either by mimicking pre-existing open or naturally formed environments, or by force, through a system of punishments or rewards.

Such institutional environments are often seen as more artificial in their construction and usage, and typically compete with pre-existing systems, environments, or applications. creepy treehouses also have an aspect of closed-ness, where activity within is hidden from the outside world, and may not be easily transferred from the environment by the participants.

n. Any system or environment that repulses a target user due to it’s closeness to or representation of an oppressive or overbearing institution.

n. A situation in which an authority figure or an institutional power forces those below him/her into social or quasi-social situations.

With respect to education, Utah Valley University student Tyrel Kelsey describes, “creepy treehouse is what a professor can create by requiring his students to interact with him on a medium other than the class room tools. [E.g.] requiring students to follow him/her on peer networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook.”

adj. Repulsiveness arising from institutional mimicry or emulation of pre-existing community-driven environments or systems.

Example: “Blackboard Sync is soooo creepy treehouse.” Marc Hugentobler

In the field of educational technology a creepy treehouse is an institutionally controlled technology/tool that emulates or mimics pre-existing technologies or tools that may already be in use by the learners, or by learners’ peer groups. Though such systems may be seen as innovative or problem-solving to the institution, they may repulse some users who see them as infringement on the sanctity of their peer groups, or as having the potential for institutional violations of their privacy, liberty, ownership, or creativity. Some users may simply object to the influence of the institution.

I’ve been observing this phenomena increasingly, as instructors push down hot Web 2.0 technologies, while students push back with vocal objections or passive resistance. I call this the creepy treehouse effect.

More directly, any move to integrate or aggregate new institutional tools or systems with pre-existing tools or systems already embraced by the community may be seen as creepy treehouse, in as much as it may be construed as institutional infringement upon the social or professional community of it’s participants.

For example, the Blackboard family of learning management system products are often seen as creepy treehouses, as they provide e-learning tools in a very rigid, closed environment that is institutionally controlled in an attempt to “engage” students through technological novelty or mimicry of existing Web-based tools for social engagement. Increasingly, learning management systems are incorporating what educators assess as being potentially valuable learning tools such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, instant messaging, etc., not recognizing that these tools may be seen as artificial, meaningless, tiresome, temporary, or simply another aspect of The Man by the institution’s target participant group: the students.

At the same time, other LMS tools that are more exclusively related to the traditional activity of teaching (e.g. gradebooks, online quizzing, material posting, etc) are not viewed as inherently creepy treehouse. Tyrel Kelsey suggests:

Students reject creepy treehouses for one reason: they are creepy. I think a better approach to education is the idea of a Personal Learning Environment (PLE) … which [students] can invite the professor into when they feel comfortable doing so.

In Students should build their own tree house

Creepy treehouses are not limited to the realm of education or educational technology. In the computer software environment, for instance, Microsoft Office Live is likely to be judged as creepy treehouse relative to Google Docs & Spreadsheets and Zoho, not due entirely to it’s competitiveness or the relative similarities of the products, but more to the origination of the software: Microsoft is often seen as a controlling, soulless, self-centered institution, whereas Zoho and Google are seen as not only preceding Microsoft Live, but also open, user-centered, community-driven, or alternative.

Opinions in the community as to the creepy treehouse-ness of a given system or environment may vary greatly due to the subjectiveness of individual experiences. I expect that newly introduced tools, systems, or environments are more likely to be suspect and labeled “creepy treehouse”, though over time such systems may prove to have more salient long-term value to the community than anticipated.

There is a not-too-surprising amount of buzz surrounding John Krutsch’s TweetClouds.com script. I’m proud to be playing a relatively minor role in this project, and so here are a few links to this week’s articles on TweetClouds:

• TweetClouds.com — Twitter Buzz Words on KillerStartups.com
• What does your TweetCloud say about you? Caroline McCarthy on Webware.com and CNET News
• Visualizations – BizTechTalk, Dan Kedler

This is great press, and encourages me to come up with additional funding for a stronger server.

Update: more postings and articles:

• Tweet Clouds let you know what it is you can’t shut up about – Download Squad
• Tweet Clouds – Sheila MacNeil
• Tweet Clouds – Britt Watwood, Learning in a Flat World
• Visualizing Attention; TweetCloud.com – Matt Dickman, Techno//Marketer
• My Tweet Cloud – Dave Orchard

John Krutsch posed the following 8 questions to instructional designers/technologists on his Technagogy blog; here are my responses:

1. What do you do as an instructional designer/technologist?

   In the mode of an instructional designer I either work with instructors directly or I work independently.

   When I am working with instructors, I am probing and listening. We are discussing their teaching objectives, their mode of instruction, their activities, and their assessments. I am trying to gauge their teaching philosophy, and looking for ways to replicate their teaching activities in a technology-enhanced or online environment without abusing or neglecting the realities of that environment. While I believe that online teaching should be fundamentally different than traditional classroom teaching, that belief can not be forced upon traditional classroom instructors in it’s totality.

   When I am working independently as an instructional designer, I focus on the student experience. I match desired outcomes to available tools and technologies, avoiding any significant negative impacts on usability, accessibility, or facility. Then I prototype activities, materials, assessments for one lesson and test. I reflect, considering the student’s perspective regarding the usability of the tools, courseware, and environment. I attend to completeness and clarity of the instructions, the materials, the activities, the assessments through revision. I imagine the course from the point of view of an hour, a day, a week, a semester. Then, having spent as much time as is reasonable on the first draft, when I am satisfied with a prototype, and when I am assured of the instructor’s satisfaction, I call on one or more of our student developers to assist me in replicating it to complete the course.

   In the role of instructional techologist I focus on rapid development of educational tools that are usable and enhance the teaching/learning experience. To this end I try to focus on the creation of new tools or modification of existing tools that can amplify a pedagogical principle or provide improved facility. By principle I mean an aspect of one’s teaching philosophy or the actualization of a teaching objective/learning outcome. By facility I mean simply the ability and the process: how we make this happen, and in the easiest possible way for both instructor and learner?

2. Why did you choose to become one?

   I am enthusiastic about technology, I believe in the power of learning, I am committed to improving teaching, and I want to make education accessible to folks who are at geographical or temporal disadvantages. My profession in distance education fits.

   And while “distance education” is morphing from it’s roots as primarily an “independent study” mode to one that is more centered on the idea of a “classroom community” I have, in my own life, benefited from and enjoyed independent study, and believe that the relatively small niche of learners who thrive and can excel in independent study modes of learning are important and worthy of the support of our educational institutions.

3. Where did you work as an instructional designer/technologist?

   I began as a student Web developer and technical writer for FACT at Utah State University in 1997, where I converted paper-based independent study course to a relatively new mode of delivery: The World Wide Web.

   I then moved up to a position with Distance Education program in 1999, working with faculty in the department of Special Education to develop technology for and produce live, 2-way audio/video, Internet-delivered distance education courses with online course supplements.

   After completing my Masters degree and spending some time abroad teaching, I returned to instructional technology as an instructional designer for Distance Education at Utah Valley State College in 2002. Since that time, I have created UVSC’s Technology Enhanced Teaching Center, created dozens of new online courses, and been promoted to Director of the Instructional Design Services unit, where I oversee all aspects of Distance Education course production and educational technology development.

4. What surprised you the most after actively working in the field?

   One aspect that still surprises me is faculty and student preconceptions of distance education. Instructors still want to believe distance education is only independent study and it doesn’t deserve the same attention, committment, and rigor as their on-campus classes; students still want to believe that distance education is self-paced and, unfortunately, easier or less rigorous.

   But, in general, the most positive surprise has been to witness how effective distance education can be when Done Right. With a committed instructor, sound technology choices, and some sense of adventure in the students, a fully online course can be as productive, as effective, and more engaging and fulfilling than a traditional face-to-face course.

5. What has been your most discouraging experience in the field of instructional design/technology?

   This would have to be the persistence of ignorant or just plain negative attitudes amongst some instructors and administrators toward distance education. This is not just prevelant in the handful of distance education naysayers, but also present in some of the distance education instructors, who, as I mentioned above, still maintain wrong perceptions or inadequate committment to their distance education courses and students. There are plenty of motivated, interactive, and engaging instructors involved in distance education, but I am still discouraged in the numbers of underprepared, undercommitted, or underenthused instructors as well.

6. If you could change one thing about about your job as an instructional designer/technologist what would it be?

   I wouldn’t change much about my job, though I would happily take advantage of additional human resources. In higher education, and in educational technology particularly, even if one has open positions (which itself is a rarity), skilled educational technologists, seasoned instructional designers, and creative multimedia producers are hard to find and harder to hold on to. I am lucky to have a handful of exceptional professionals working with me, but too often I notice that we don’t have enough resources to keep up with our ideas, the changing face of technology, and the needs of students and instructors.

7. What aspect of being an instructional designer/technologist has given you hope for the future?

   Making education…

   • more accessible to everyone
   • more convenient for instructors and students
   • more open to potential learners everywhere
   • more engaging and interactive
   • more authentic and sustained–carrying it beyond the classroom by capitalizing on personal learning environments
8. If you could give a piece of advice to someone considering a career as an instructional designer/technologist what would it be?
   • Learn: adventure, focus, study, interact, reflect, write, revise
   • Teach: profess, engage, assess, interact, revise
   • Build: analyze, prototype, test, observe, reflect, revise