sign in sign up
<<
Home , Pageflakes

Emerging Technologies Grant Scheme

2010 Project Final Report

1. Title of Project

Customisable portals: Evaluating web integration tools for collaboration and accessing and sharing information.

2. Project Leader and contact details

Ms Lee Mowbray Building C3B Room 318, Learning & Teaching Centre Macquarie University [email protected]

3. Completion date

December 2010

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 1

1. The technology This project focused on comparing and evaluating three customisable portals or personalised start pages: PageFlakes (www.pageflakes.com), iGoogle (www.google.com/ig) and (www.netvibes.com). There is a proliferation of Web 2.0 services and applications, which enable people to share information, work collaboratively, access content and media, engage in discussion, keep in contact with colleagues and reach new audiences. A subset of these is termed customisable portals, also known as Personalised Start Pages and metagators. These web pages allow you to include multiple blocks of web content into one web page. In general, they have two main components: i. feeds which allow you to view content from different websites on one page by subscribing to the sites through RSS, and ii. widgets that are interactive apps that do everything from monitoring the weather radar to displaying an embedded webpage. These tools are designed to be easy to use, with flexibility and functionality for creating customized appearance and functionality but retaining the same basic structure. This project explored the functionality and collaborative features of PageFlakes, iGoogle and NetVibes, particularly in relation to encouraging student engagement, collaboration, accessing relevant learning resources and motivating higher order thinking and learning. The three portals were compared using criteria including ability to share, advertising, number of available widgets, ease of navigation, interface, flexibility i.e. for configuring components to own specifications, authoring options (notes, to do lists), information options (RSS feeds), research (searches, filtering), collaboration and networking (shared gadgets), communications (email, Skype) and personalization.

2. The Teaching and Learning Context By aggregating multiple widgets and information on to a single web page, the portal can provide an excellent starting point and scaffolded pathway to the wider Internet and relevant resources. Each widget or block of information supplies a summary and links to the actual webpage (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 A widget from Netvibes: feed of contents of an educational journal Each of the three portals can be used by learners to create a Personal Learning Environment (PLE). Learners can individualize their webpage to meet his or her specific needs and provide rich possibilities for self-organized learning environments (Gillet, Law Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 2

and Chatterjee, 2010). This has the potential to add value to online content, especially by making it more personalised, attractive and engaging for students. Additionally, teaching staff can potentially save time by publishing and sharing these portals of RSS feeds with students. These portals have the potential to provide tools to support learner’s cognitive processing, including:  searching widgets to locate and filter relevant resources e.g. feed from social bookmarking with search tag, blog search widget, feed with search tag  collecting gadgets to gather resources, e.g. web links and bookmarks, feed from social bookmarking sites, embedded images, video and podcasts,  communicating widgets e.g. email, status widget, twitter feed  authoring tools to create new items to think with e.g. text box, sticky notes, To do list The project looked at a range of examples of customisable portals in education. Table 1 shows two of these portals. Components and contents were examined and compared. Of note, an iGoogle example is not included below as shared iGoogle pages are not public and therefore cannot be accessed unless by email invitation.

Page details Components on the portal 590 e-Innovations Portal  Text box (Pageflakes) e.g. ‘About Me’ http://www.pageflakes.com/  Web links (Pageflakes) e.g. Higher Education Technology edutech/27350107/ Websites  Blog posts e.g. Sakai Learning Capabilities Brainstorming  Pageflakes  RSS news feed from journal e.g. Educause News  iGoogle  RSS feed from journal e.g. eLearn Magazine  Netvibes  Podcasts e.g. The Teachers’ Podcast  Video e.g. Generational Diversity movie  Text box with web links and text e.g. announcements  Feed from links Mediated Cultures: Digital  Multiple tabs Ethnography at Kansas State  Feed from student blog posts (and student’s research blogs) University – Michael Wesch  Feed from KSU blog http://www.netvibes.com/w  Feed from student blog comments esch#Digital_Ethnography  Wiki updates feed  Pageflakes  List of updated wiki pages  iGoogle  Group’s recently tagged links (Diigo)  Netvibes  YouTube video  Wall * private page / password  Specialised resource page of feeds e.g. Social Media Research accessible Resources  Themed or topic pages e.g. Zeitgeist – feeds from blogs, wikis, delicious, etc  Video communication from teacher (via seismic, which allows a reply)  feed  A group blog feed

Table 1 Example of customisable portals used in Higher Education

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 3

3. The Capability of the Technology -– to assess the effectiveness of the technology

Learning and teaching processes Customisable portals, such as PageFlakes, iGoogle and NetVibes can be used as an effective and beneficial tool for improving and enhancing communication, collaboration and resource sharing, for students. Possibilities include: • teachers creating a portal and sharing with students in their unit. Contents could include a reading list, feeds from relevant journals, Diigo/Delicious feeds of relevant tagged bookmarks, feeds from collaborative spaces like blogs or wikis, etc. • students create a portal for the unit and invite peers to share. This could provide a focus for discussion and collaboration. • groups of students create a portal page for a particular topic or project. Contents could form part of the process i.e. planning, collaboration or reflection. • forms part of a student’s eportfolio as a reference point or collection of relevant web resources for future units or studies. Customisable portals can also be utilised by staff for personal research and sourcing relevant resources and information.

Strengths o The strength of components like RSS feeds are that the user can subscribe to a site and as soon as new content is updated on the site, it is automatically inputted to your feed. In other words, the latest information is automatically ‘sucked’ in to one place for the student to access. o The layout, user interface and style are easily personalised. As new sources or gadgets become available, it is a simple matter to incorporate into the portal. Each portal has a tabbed interface that allows the user to toggle between tabs for different purposes i.e. units of work, references, topics, etc. o The addition of new widgets or moving current ones around the pages is quick and easy so students can use the page to support thinking and to prioritise workflow. o Pages are easily shared. Just click on the Community or Share button on the page you wish to share and enter the email address of the recipient. Pageflakes has the advantage as user content, for instance notes on a message board, are dynamic so every person who is sharing a particular page can see messages from other users as they are added.

Weaknesses o Advertising – PageFlakes, in particular, introduced a Sponsored Content advertisement, which is displayed on each page and is a Flash movie. This means it has colour, movement and hence, creates a huge distraction for the user. See Figure 2.

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 4

Figure 2 Pageflakes

o Cluttered appearance – it is easy to make a page cluttered with too many widgets and artwork. Some of the portals also have extra columns and frames that can make the content difficult to navigate or read e.g. Figure 3. o

Figure 3. iGoogle

o Some portals do not allow shared pages to be collaborative once shared. The shared page is interactive and editable by the user but becomes their personal page and therefore not dynamic to all i.e. updated user content does not upload to other users who have access to this page. Netvibes is an example of this - see webnote in Figure 4.

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 5

Figure 4 Netvibes

Issues or potential issues o Customisable portals are currently all free and all content resides on the web, in their servers. Gadgets or widgets that are RSS feeds or other content aggregators, import content from other sources and are therefore not created by individual users, so storing or saving data is not required. If gadgets contain data or content created by the user personally, then backing up or archiving needs to be considered. o As shown in Appendix 1 and 2, the public’s use of the portals has changed over the previous two-year period (2009 – 2010), with iGoogle losing popularity and plunging below both other portals. Netvibes has also lost users and unique visitors to the site have varied widely across the year. This variation could be the result of changes in technology, including the introduction of apps for mobile technology like iPad and iPhone, high and sustained use of social networking sites like and changes to the portals themselves. This study did not extend to analysing these trends however the fact that change is inherent in technology solutions raises the potential issue of installing a solution which may not be sustainable. o Widgets and gadgets are freely available and editable, which necessitates a level of any technical understanding by the user. Tutorials, online ‘How to’ resources or workshops would possibly need to be developed to satisfy this need.

Staff Acceptance /usability o A small trial was carried out within the LTC. A LTC EDG page was created and shared with the participants. When sharing a portal page, the link is sent to participants who then had to sign in or sign up to the portal to access the page. The majority of participants generally found this process to be a little time-consuming although the link and installation process of the customisable portal was quite trouble-free. o A number of the participants expressed interest in the portals but as yet, none have embraced the technology as one of great benefit to themselves personally. Nevertheless, as there was not a mandated purpose or an inherent need addressed, this lack of uptake is understandable.

Hardware / software o There are no special or additional requirements to run any of the portals. All will run in any web browser (, or Chrome) and on any operating system (Mac or Windows). Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 6

4. Organisational impact o Copyright and licensing on RSS feeds is complicated and not clear-cut. Consultation with MQ Library and Matt Connors, Copyright Coordinator about specific feeds is suggested before adding a portal to an online unit. An overview of issues to be checked for current licensing includes: o RSS feeds from Sydney Morning Herald and other sites that have advertising may present issues related to rights and permission, if the content is fed into the portal without ads. o and other sharing sites may claim copyright over all contributed files i.e. users assign their photo to Flickr. o certain websites like Edna and Bureau of Meteorology are Commonwealth sites and therefore have crown copyright o media and news feeds e.g. ABC breaking news should not be included in a customisable portal. o There are specific student and staff security aspects to be considered i.e. if a widget is an RSS feed of email, twitter or other communication tools, then usernames and passwords have to be entered. If this page is then shared, user information issues obviously need to be considered. o Privacy and confidentiality of content (apart from those introduced within the context of course content) needs to be addressed, particularly in relation to Web 2.0 tools which may have personal content. o To use any customisable portal effectively would require an increase in information management skills and practices, including electronic file management and organisation/design of course content.

5. Sustainability and Cost o Utilising a customisable portal in an online unit currently incurs no additional costs to students or staff. As all three portals are Web 2.0 technology, there is a chance they will incur a cost in the future, although there has been no announcement of this as yet. o By their very nature, Web 2.0 tools can be changed at any time so there is a possibility of incorporating their use into an online unit, and the tool becoming inaccessible. Again there has been no announcement about impending cancellation of any of the three portals.

6. Overall assessment of the technology In this project, the functionality and collaborative features of PageFlakes, iGoogle and NetVibes, particularly in relation to encouraging student engagement, collaboration, accessing relevant learning resources and motivating higher order thinking and learning were examined. No one portal was clearly the best option and each had strengths and weaknesses. Conclusions made indicated the customisable portal as an option for educators has merit and could be offered as a possible inclusion into an online unit. As to which portal was the best choice, their similarities were many and their weaknesses varied, therefore further discussion with the academic would be recommended to find the best fit for their unit.

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 7

A number of examples of these portals currently being utilised in Higher Education were viewed. This indicated the likely users of the customisable portals might be staff who are involved in learning and teaching at Macquarie University, with particular relevance for academics, teaching assistants and other staff who produce course content and online activities for courses. The portals could provide an easy method to share resources and encourage students to engage in researching relevant resources and websites and sharing with their peers. Within the small LTC trial group, the enthusiasm and interest in the use of this technology appeared to be quite low, which is surprising considering most participants value RSS feeds and automatic import of web content. On a wider view, many educators worldwide integrate a customisable portal into their teaching, with evident success. This indicates an obvious potential for Macquarie University, especially integrated into the LMS and online units.

References Gillet, D., Law, E., and Chatterjee, A. Personal Learning Environments in a Global Higher Engineering Education Web 2.0 Realm. IEEE EDUCON Education Engineering 2010 Conference, April 14 - 16, 2009, Madrid, SPAIN. 2010 Lubensky, R. The present and future of Personal Learning Environments (PLE) Posted 2006, accessed October 2010. http://www.deliberations.com.au/2006/12/present-and-future-of-personal- learning.html

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 8

Appendix 1: Comparison of PageFlakes, NetVibes and iGoogle http://siteanalytics.compete.com/netvibes.com+pageflakes.com+igoogle.com/?metric=uv 2009: as on Jan 11, 2010

Appendix 2: Comparison of PageFlakes, NetVibes and iGoogle http://siteanalytics.compete.com/netvibes.com+pageflakes.com+igoogle.com/?metric=uv 2009: as on Feb 19, 2011

Report author: Lee Mowbray, Educational Development Group, Learning & Teaching Centre Page 9