Wiggio and Lifelong Learning

When considering Wiggio’s usefulness in learning, I now want to consider it’s usefulness from a ‘lifelong learning’ perspective. Lifelong learning is underpinned by the notion that individuals are responsible for their own learning as they progress through life. It is often framed within an employment or workplace relevance context (see Attwell 2007); that is, we need to keep learning to keep ourselves relevant and upskilled for future employment.

Attwell (2007) links lifelong learning and personal learning environments (PLE) conceptually, and I’ll do this as well. A PLE is, Atwell argues, a collection of tools we use on a daily basis for learning. According to Kompen, Edirisingha and Mobbs (2008), one of the goals of developing PLEs is to help students develop “a personal learning, research and networking space, they will be able to access and up-date their learning material regardless of their geographical location, and stage in their life and career” (p.3).

Further, Atwell (2003) suggests: “The promise of Personal Learning Environments could be to extend access to educational technology to everyone who wishes to organize their own learning. Furthermore the idea of the PLE purports to include and bring together all learning, including informal learning, workplace learning, learning from the home, learning driven by problem solving and learning motivated by personal interest as well as learning through engagement in formal educational programmes” (p.2).

In analyzing Wiggio, we can refer specifically to these ideas:

PLE – Benefits	Wiggio
Collection of tools	Chat, video notes, ability to create group areas, share and edit documents, text, conduct virtual meetings, e-mail, converse via forum.
A personal learning and networking space	Individual users can establish as many ‘group’ sites as they wish, for a range of different purposes.
Able to access material regardless of geographical location, stage of life, career	Web-based, free, supported by smart-phone application that allows remote access
Brings together learning from workplace, home, formal, informal	Group spaces can be based on employment, education, social, and other requirements

Kompen, Edirisingha and Mobbs (2008) discuss obstacles to PLEs, and it’s also useful to consider Wiggio within that framework:

PLE – Obstacles	Wiggio
Support, and complexity if everyone has different applications. Needs to be intuitive.	A free web-based space, so all users share the same tools. Intuitive.
Suitability and technological complexity.	Doesn’t add anything ‘new’ to communication; rather, it brings together platforms that most would be familiar with even at a basic level, such as chat, forum posts, and sms.
Interconnectivity, whereby tools and applications aren’t designed to share data.	The ability to share information is fundamental to Wiggio’s development and existence.
Brings together learning from workplace, home, formal, informal	Group spaces can be based on employment, education, social, and other requirements
Privacy and the ‘creepy treehouse’ effect (whereby the space is accessed by others)	It’s very easy in Wiggio to simply create another group so the user could still access original material. For example, a class group is created, but three people get on well. One of those three could simply create another group that included only those three. All three would still be able to access the original class group.

Using Wiggio is, in Kompen, Edirisingha and Mobbs’ (2008) view, using a PLE as an ‘object’ rather than as a ‘framework’ (2008), and they argue that a range of problems arise when using a PLE as an ‘object’:

Which platform to use? Will it be available in the long term or could it disappear in time? How many application programme interfaces (API) will be required to connect all these tools and applications? What if the applications and tools change somehow and that requires an update of the links between them and the PLE? Could users easily customise or change the PLE structure?

However, all of the questions raised are at this stage not problems when using Wiggio. These reflections are based on my own use of Wiggio, which has been to create different groups for different networks. At any given moment, I can access information from one group and easily transfer it to another.

A simple example relates to a course I’m studying in the Grad Cert of Tertiary Education. We have created a group site for a specific course and assignment we are completing at the moment. My colleague and I have uploaded readings and have actively communicated with one another via Wiggio. There may be a chance that we continue to communicate and collaborate once we’ve finished, because the space doesn’t have to close down, and it isn’t constrained by the ‘end of term/end of being a student’ boundaries associated with course-related learning management systems or, to use more jargon, ‘virtual learning environments’ (VLEs).

Because Wiggio is a collection of tools we used on a daily basis for communicating, it can be used within a learning context; however, its inability to provide ‘output’ for the group is possibly its weakness, as I’ve discussed previously. Links to a blog or e-portfolio would address this.

However, just because it doesn’t provide an output for learning ‘products’ doesn’t mean it isn’t useful for lifelong learning. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Flickr allows a group of photographers, for example, to create ‘product’, but whether it facilitates learning and collaboration easily is another question. In fact, I feel that because it’s a closed space, there is a sense of safety for learners. That is, they can explore and discuss within the group. While Wikis can be private, as can blogs, the ability to interact and respond quickly is well-developed in Wiggio, particularly due to its smart phone application that allows users to log in and track discussions ‘on the run’.

Therefore, my discussion returns to earlier posts about learning engagement and e-learning. If we know that engaged learning is collaborative, and we have a space in which we can easily collaborate with friends, peers, work-colleagues, then we can also use that space to learn.

As an educator, this is what I’m proposing will happen. I will set a group task, and suggest students use Wiggio to communicate with one another. They will then ‘produce’ whatever is required. In our case, our assessment requirements are often events or products for real clients, so there is an ‘output’. I could suggest that they create a Final Submission folder, and then they add me as a group member at the end of their course, so I can access the pieces required for assessment.

Most importantly, all members of the group would (if they remembered their password) would be able to access the submission as they then progressed through their careers. With permission of other members of the group, future employers could be granted access to the group to see evidence of group collaboration (and ability to work in a team) [noting that this raises all sorts of issues that I don’t intend covering here]. A group of classmates could become lifelong peers and collaborators. We don’t really know whether this will happen, but I suspect it might.

A number of Web 2.0 technologies have been and gone (Flock being one of the most notable). So the risk when adopting and promoting a single ‘object’ as a PLE to promote lifelong learning, there’s going to be a risk that in another year or two, Wiggio won’t exist.

I hope not. At this stage, my learning life sits in its hands and I’m loving it.

References

Attwell, Graham (2007). The Personal Learning Environments – the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers, vol. 2 no. 1. ISSN 1887-1542. Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11561.pdf 

Kompen, R., Edirisingha, P., & Mobbs, R. (2008). Building Web 2.0-Based Personal Learning Environments – A Conceptual Framework. Presented at the EDEN Research Workshop in Paris, 20-22 October 2008. Retrieved from https://lra.le.ac.uk/handle/2381/4398

Wiggio and Learner ‘Engagement’

Wiggio and ‘Engagement ‘

In my previous post, I considered the use of Wiggio as an eLearning application, and here I will devote my attention to it as a tool that supports ‘engagement’.

What are the characteristics/ features that are relevant to promoting engagement?

Engagement requires students to have cognitive investment, active participation, and emotional engagement (Chapman 2003) in learning. Engaged and active learning involves exploration and evaluation of involvement; rather than receiving information, students are ‘doing’ and receiving prompt feedback (Williams & Chinn 2009).

Wiggio’s features are relevant to promoting engagement with a community. The community members are able, therefore, to provide prompt feedback. However, whether this promotes engagement with an idea will depend on how the group is established and managed, and the learning design behind the specific project on which a student group is being formed.

Wiggio could therefore be used as a tool to facilitate engagement, but the learning design of the particular task in which Wiggio might be used would be the driver as to how it, as a tool to facilitate learning, might be used. Engagement theory posits that learners in an information communication technology learning environment need to relate to a real-world authentic problem, they need to create solutions to that problem, and they need to be able to donate their solution back to the real world (Kearsley & Shneidermann 1998).

As it stands, users of Wiggio can work together to relate and create, but they can’t donate easily back to the real world from within Wiggio. As mentioned in my last post, an e-portfolio or blogging feature would perhaps allow this to happen, and thus, ideas generated from within a group environment could be consolidated and presented as recommendations, firm ideas, or solutions.

One of the advantages of Wiggio is that it is well enough designed that it allows users to establish, to use a bit of online ed jargon, a ‘PLE’ (personalised learning environment). A PLE allows learners to:

manage their own learning by selecting, integrating and using various software tools and services. It provides contextually appropriate toolsets by enabling individuals to adjust and choose options based on their needs and circumstances, resulting in (ideally) a model where learner needs, rather than technology, drive the learning process. (McLoughlin & Lee 2007, p. 668)

Wiggio is, for the user, a ‘space’. Within this space, they can liaise with multiple groups in multiple roles. A student can be a leader in one group, a basic participant in another, and a collaborative peer in another. Students would be able to select from a range of tools that would allow communication within this space, and it is this ability to interact in a way that suits the individual needs of a learner that has the most potential.  A visual learner, for example, may request a video note from another member to help explain a concept; others may rely on readings or written texts, and so on.

McLoughin and Lee (2007, 2010) have argued that many course management systems and virtual learning environments do not support social connectivity, and my experience concurs with this. I set up student groups in Moodle, to watch students disappear from that space trying to find better ways to communicate. Until now, I haven’t been confident in providing them with an alternative to the ‘skype, chat, swap e-mails and phone numbers’ method of group-work. Students have used Google Docs to share and edit files, but Google Groups hasn’t really offered too much more for them that Moodle can’t.

There are no current examples of Wiggio to which I can refer that demonstrate it’s use or limitations from an engagement sense, but I have wondered whether I could use it as an alternative to Moodle, and how it could work. For example, could I set up the structure and basic content of the course in Moodle, but then set up a Wiggio group that comprises the course students for assessment, discussion, and collaboration? I suspect, actually, that I could run a whole course in Wiggio, and I also suspect that by the end of the course, students would feel a sense of being a ‘collective’ rather than a class, but that would depend upon the type of assessment tasks set, and the way in which content was ‘delivered’.

For all the reasons addressed above, I would therefore, recommend adopting Wiggio in higher education to facilitate engagement. As an academic in public relations and journalism, it is crucial that our students are able to work effectively in teams. It’s also crucial that they are familiar and comfortable with technology that facilitates communication. However, ultimately its going to be the quality of the assessment tasks that drive the enthusiasm to connect and communication within Wiggio.

My final post on the usability of this tool will be in relation in to its applicability for lifelong learning.

References

Chapman, Elaine (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(13). Retrieved April 9, 2012 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=13

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20. Retrieved from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html

Williams, J. & Chinn, S. J. (2009). Using Web 2.0 to Support the Active Learning Experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 165-174. http://literacyachievementgap.pbworks.com/f/7su.pdf

Exploring Wiggio for Online Groupwork

I am currently enrolled in a Graduate Certificate of Tertiary Education, and exploring learning and teaching technology.

My current task is to explore the best option for group communication in an online setting. I was given the tip to use Wiggio by a colleague who had used it as an online platform while completing postgraduate studies. So the question to explore is: What is Wiggio, and what are its features that best suit group communication in an online learning environment?

Wiggio is a online platform that’s free, and unbelievably easy to use for group communication. It was launched in September 2008, but is arguably still under-used in tertiary settings, so my considerations here will be specific to the usefulness of the application in higher education.

Apparently, the name derives from ‘working in groups’, so that’s its specific focus.

Wiggio allows you to create a group, schedule and run meetings, create to-do lists for group members, upload files which can be edited and viewed by other group members, create video notes, chat, and group e-mail. And that’s just the beginning.

My analysis here is going to be based on some requirements that I have to consider for a course I’m doing as part of a Graduate Certificate of Tertiary Education offered at CQUniversity. The course is called Learning and Technology in Education.  We’ve been asked to consider the features of a Web 2.0 application or environment that are relevant to eLearning, engagement, and lifelong learning. This post will specifically consider eLearning.

Wiggio and eLearning

eLearning is a term that refers to learning that is supported by technology. There is often reference to eLearning as being online learning. I have issues with the term, because I think it redirects our attention away from what’s really important, which is the learning outcome. How the learning is done and what facilitates it are important, but technology should be embedded rather than the focus of the learning task, unless the learning outcome is is specifically related to the need for the user to become proficient in a particular technology.

So, the question I would like to respond to is: how are the features of Wiggio relevant to ‘learning’?

The principle behind Wiggio is in its orientation to group communication. Thus, its features are geared to enabling members of a group who are not co-located geographically, to communicate with one another and share information. This is because Wiggio allows participants to share files, e-mail one another, conduct virtual meetings and conferences, schedule events, and chat. Other features include polls/surveys, document and spreadsheet creation, and messaging functions.

These characteristics/features are relevant to elearning (thus, learning) because they are tools that facilitate “active participation, peer critique, collective intelligence though social aggregation of resources” (Conole 2010, p. 142), and as such, align well with “what is the perceived wisdom on ‘good pedagogy’ (inquiry-based or problem-based learning, dialogic and collaborative learning, constructivism and active engagement)” (De Freitas and Conole in Canole 2010, p.142).  Wiggio’s features do allow this active participation, peer critique, and aggregation of resources.

One of the criticisms of Web 2.0 applications being considered within an elearning framework has also been that they tend to be oriented toward social communication, and not professional dialogue (Conole 2010). As a result, navigation around sites can be difficult, resulting in a lack of clarity as to what to post where. Wiggio addresses these issues, and aligns more with a ‘professional dialogue’ model than a ‘social communication’ model. There are no restrictions on word limits for posts, for example, and the use of tabs to delineate ‘Feed’, ‘Folders’, and ‘Calendar’ is useful for navigation. It’s ultimately very intuitive, and requires little orientation for new users.

What are some current examples in use for eLearning?

It’s difficult to assess how widespread the use of Wiggio is within higher education. For example, as of today there are only 800 views of its how to videos in YouTube, indicating that it’s perhaps only just emerging as a prospective tool. There is some discussion of its use online by bloggers referring to their own personal use of the application. Indeed, I was given the tip by a colleague who had used it while studying at another university, when we were talking about how we could use a group site to discuss issues around a topic.

I now use Wiggio to collectively and progressively build knowledge on particular topics. It’s allowed me to move away from storing knowledge in ‘bits and pieces’ through e-mail, or journals; rather, as I move into a new area of thinking, I start up a new Wiggio group with those I’m interested in working with, and knowledge starts to build. Where some of this will go, I have no idea. One of my colleagues has asked about limits to files. So far we haven’t hit any or been warned of any, so it may come.

It’s going to be easiest to demonstrate by video, so here’s an overview of how I use Wiggio.

I would therefore highly recommend Wiggio within a higher education environment from a learning perspective. If it had an e-portfolio option, or a capacity to blog from within Wiggio, neither of which are currently available, it would be perfect, because these would allow for reflection and evaluation of learning experiences to be captured and recorded.

Using Wiggio as an embedded tool to support group work in courses does actually address the following statement by Williams and Chinn (2009):

Specifically, faculty must address the impact of student preferences relating to digital literacy, experiential and engaged learning, interactivity and collaboration, and immediacy and connectivity in their interactions. For example, by embedding Web-based interactions, tools and applications within a course, net generation preferences are supported and relevant engagements and connections may occur. (p. 166)

While many argue that the net generation are a generation of digital natives, my personal experience (supported by the research of others (see Selwyn 2008) continues to reinforce that students engage with social media on an ‘as needs’ basis. That is, they may use Facebook and know how to use their phone, but they are by no means naturally ‘tech-savvy’; nor do they appear to seek to be as such. Therefore, it’s incredibly important to immerse students in technologies they may find useful over the term of their professional working lives. Bisoux (2008) suggests students should be:

encouraged to learning that their prior experiences with social networking can contribute in a classroom setting but also in their future professional lives. These powerful technologies have the potential to impact learning outcomes and provide relevant skills and increased markability in the workplace. (Bisoux in Williams and Chinn 2009, p.167)

It is this feature that is perhaps most appealing, because Wiggio can be used in a range of contexts, and networks created while studying may perhaps continue once the student has completed their education.

My next post will consider Wiggio from an ‘engagement’ perspective. I expect that I may start to repeat myself, but viewing the application from different viewpoints may perhaps reveal weakness of strengths that aren’t apparent when simply looking at it from a learning perspective.

References

Bisoux, T 2008 ‘Teaching Business in a Web 2.0 World’, BizEd, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 28 – 35.

Conole, G 2010, ‘Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: harnessing the power of Web 2.0 practices’, Open Learning: the Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, vol. 25, iss. 2, pp. 141 – 151.

Selwyn, N 2008, ‘An Investigation of Differences in Undergraduates’ Academic Use of the Internet’, Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 11-22.

Williams, J & Chinn, S 2009, ‘Using Web 2.0 to Support the Active Learning Experience’, Journal of Information Systems Education, vol. 20, iss. 2, pp. 165 – 174.