designs for learning with vles tutors’ designs and creations in their vle areas. mira vogel,...
TRANSCRIPT
Designs for learning with VLEs
Tutors’ designs Tutors’ designs and creations in and creations in their VLE areas.their VLE areas.
Mira Vogel, Goldsmiths, University of London Martin Oliver, Institute of
Education
Peeking Out by Richard Lowkes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardlowkes/
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 2 of 49
Overview of this session
1. Definitions of design for learning2. Project background3. Putting a VLE in place4. Articulating designs5. Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs6. Selection and use of different tools7. Conclusions and implications
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 3 of 49
Definitions of design for learning
…designing, planning,
orchestrating and supporting learning
activities as part of a learning session or programme.
…plan out in systematic form;
intend or have as a purpose; execute in
an artistic or highly skilled
manner; an iterative conversation with your materials …
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 4 of 49
Background
Designing for Learning
• Effortful, involving» Creative thinking
» Investment of time in- Conceiving sequences
- Representing to learners
- Testing
• Designs rarely explicitly represented
• Design process is private» Tacit, diverse, complex
VLEs• Most institutions have a
VLE» Catalyst of open source
• Mostly used to serve files» Easy, worthwhile
» Information not education?
• Powerful, but with hurdles» Privilege text and files
» Hinder forming connections
» Design becomes more important than ever
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 5 of 49
Background: project aims and objectives
• Learning Design Tools theme of the Designing for Learning theme of the E-Learning and Pedagogy strand of JISC’s E-Learning Programme
• Aims» Understand how to support tutors’ use of VLEs
- Strategic emphasis on sharing
• Objectives» Explore how tutors use VLEs to design learning activities
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 6 of 49
Blended / f2f10 UK
institutions• HE• FE• ACL
Focus on 3 VLEs
• Moodle (6)• Blackboard (2)• WebCT (2)
Background: scope and focus
support
The institutions
learning
teaching
VLE
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 7 of 49
Background: participants
Hill College (Moodle)
Brett
Fred
LucaOlly
PeteZoe
Ozzy
Rachel Lake University (Moodle)
Downs College (Moodle)
Kurt
JedIan
IkeBen
Bart
Laurie
Bay College (Moodle)
Chris
Cliff College (Blackboard)
Ina
Tim
Rick
Lila
KathyKitty
PetraDella
Babak
Uplands University (Blackboard)
Colin
Island College (WebCT)
Luke
Paul
Forest College (Moodle)
Mike
River University (WebCT)
Bill
Valley College (Moodle)
Dave
Learner
Tutor
E-learning lead
E-learning lead & tutor
KEY
Studying with
Interview participants
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 8 of 49
Study design – mixed methods
Activity
Background
Identify and recruit Moodle users
Organise contacts
Collect preliminary data
Analyse preliminary dataObservations
Plan
Observe tutors and students
Write up fieldnotes and transcribe
Analyse
Generate focus group questionsFocus group interviews
Organise participants across roles
Plan
Carry out
Transcribe recordings
AnalyseDeliverables
Monthly reports
Interim report
Write up case studies
Final report and recommendations
Participant feedback sought
Participant feedback integrated
Float / annual leave
low level activity
high level activity
critical path
JanuaryDecemberNovemberSeptember October
Key
May June July August
1. Interview e-learning leads 2. Tutor
questionnaires
3. Generate questions
4. Site visits –interviews, focus groups
5. Report and recommendations
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 9 of 49
Findings: learning technology contacts
Putting a VLE in place
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 10 of 49
Methodology
• Exploring how VLEs are chosen, implemented and supported» Privileged insights from a group with cross-institutional perspective
• E-Learning Contacts: » VLE administrators » Involved in selecting their institution’s VLE» Many had dual roles as tutors.
• Interviews (F2F or telephone, transcribed)» Responses open coded» Anonymised individuals and institutions
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 11 of 49
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Bay College (M) None None None None None Oct JanCliff College (Bb) ? ? Intranet SummerDowns College (M) ? Intranet Intranet Intranet Intranet SummerForest College (M) ? ? ? ? WCT WCTHill College (M) ? ? ? Intranet Intranet Intranet May JanIsland College (WCT) ?M Lake University (M) ? ? ? WCT/LE/intranetWCT/LE/intranetWCT/LE/intranetJan SepRiver University (WCT) ?Upland University (Bb) ? WCTValley College (M) ? ? other VLE other VLE other VLE Summer
Pilot Adoption
WebCT
Bb
Moodle
Mid-year
Key
How long have they had their VLE?
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 12 of 49
How and why was the VLE chosen?
• Usability» Most frequently mentioned» Problematic - only really known once system in place
• Flexibility» In terms of physical resources» Fit with learners’ other commitments (family, work)» Ability to modify the system (code)
• Control» Understanding how the system works» Being able to add functionality» Giving teachers ability to shape their course (although some institutions were insisting on templates)
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 13 of 49
How and why was the VLE chosen?
• Cost» Second most frequently mentioned reason» Complex
- Low up-front cost of Open Source systems- Hidden costs (staff time, server)- Relative cost (is it more expensive than other options?)
- Direct cost (if it fits on an existing server with existing support, it’s “free”)
• Risk» Combining control and cost» Tends to focus on resource implications» Off-the-shelf “less risky” as responsibility lies elsewhere
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 14 of 49
How and why was the VLE chosen?
• Pedagogy» Discussed rarely, and mainly ‘high level’ (i.e. no details)
» Moodle’s constructivist rhetoric made an impact» Where present, focus on monitoring students/use
• Peers» Local » “Places like us”» Partnerships
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 15 of 49
Procuring the VLE
• Contrast between Moodle and commercial systems
• Commercial VLEs high-risk (costs) and so laborious to select» Examples of two-year tendering process for VLEs
• Moodle low-risk, and ‘sneaked in’» “We’d come up with some open source software and why didn’t we use it in the meantime”
» “Senior management are aware of it but happy to let us get on with it because there have been no major resource implications so far.”
» “…came out of the closet spectacularly…”
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 16 of 49
An overview of VLE adoption
Deciding on a VLE
Procurement
Replacement
Stages of adoption
FlexibilityControl
CostRisk
PedagogyPeers
UsabilityAwareness
Playtime
Piloting
Formalisation
Status quo
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 17 of 49
Threats to the VLE
• Funding» 5 Moodle users, 1 WebCT » Perhaps a licence stabilises funding concerns?
• Intertia• Continued existence of support roles• Bad precedents leading to disillusionment• Legal issues (e.g. software patents)• Other organisational, cultural concerns
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 18 of 49
Opportunities with the VLE
• New practices
• Expansion (new markets)» Distance learning
• Working with communities
• Other organisational/pedagogic achievements» “embedding”» “full use”» Etc.
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 19 of 49
Summary
• Overall, concerns focused on institutional, technical and administrative issues» Classified into two categories» 40 Organisational, 26 Educational
• Grappling with organisational issues diverts attention from designing for learning
• Slightly more than 1/3 were directly to do with designing for learning» Still unclear how organisational issues affect this process
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 20 of 49
Findings: learning technology contacts
Articulating designs
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 21 of 49
How is your course represented to your learners? (15 min)
• In pairs, explain how your course (or session or module) is represented to your learners (10 min)» May be course specification, introductory lecture, VLE course area, web pages…
» Think about what you want to get across and why you chose the ways you chose
» Summarise these to outline to the group
• Group discussion to outline examples you came up with (5 min)» To get a sense of the range of representations
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 22 of 49
Representing designs – represent or not?
• All teachers design for learning• For VLE-based learning, designs may be represented
» fully» not at all» partially or in fragments
• Enormous difference in what is represented» Depends on subject area, learner aptitude, duration, etc
• VLE designs are tutors’ own – they don’t tend to delegate» Sharing ideas and inspiration but not designs per se
• Surprisingly, a lot of design for VLE-based learning is not represented on the VLE itself» VLE as publishing medium rather than a module
representation
• Course areas are often inscrutable if viewed in isolation
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 23 of 49
Representing designs – factors in decisions about representation
• Time» To conceive, plan and create and evolve designs» To maintain the currency, completeness, accuracy and appropriateness of designs- Representing designs may actually impinge on the creative act of designing for learning
» Learner time to access the designs» Contact time or absence of it
- How VLE activities are orchestrated
• Institutional stake in representing designs» eg quality assurance, audit
• Keeping flexible and responsive» Representations can make practice rigid
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 24 of 49
Tutors tend to design straight into the VLE
• This kind of immediacy was one of the original selling points of VLEs
• It also invites an open ended design process» Incremental, evolutionary and responsive» Many instances of a “just in time” approach» Course areas “never stand still”
• Suggests that course areas do not easily lend themselves to packaging and reuse
• Minority of tutors did design holistically in advance» Eg mapping activities to specific learning outcomes
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 25 of 49
Looking at VLE course area screenshots (20 min)
• In pairs, consider the three handout VLE screenshots – from blended courses at different institutions» What can you infer about the intentions of each tutor for their students’ learning
» Summarise these to outline to the group» (10 min)
• Group discussion to explore how your impressions are consistent and how they differ» There is scope for difference» (10 min)
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 26 of 49
Findings: learning technology contacts
Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 27 of 49
Integrating designs that use VLEs and other technologies
• Explicit brief from JISC: ‘hybrid’ or ‘blended’ courses (not just fully distance courses)
• Sensible intention, but muddled» Does “blended learning” exclude any course?» Is “face to face” a recognisable, coherent thing?
• Rather blunt» Unclear what things can be “blended”» Unclear about the effects of mix, timings, styles of use, etc
• Four broad categories discussed:» VLE, face-to-face, hard copy, embodiment (acting, use of instruments, medical procedures…)
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 28 of 49
Integrating designs that use VLEs and other technologies
• A task for you:» In pairs (3-4 minutes each) discuss what technologies for teaching you use
» Could include VLE, lectures, tutorials, books, etc
• Questions to consider» What are you “blending”?» How are your pedagogic intentions represented within each of these?
» How are your pedagogic intentions co-ordinated across each of these?
» How flexible and adaptive are these designs?
• 5 minutes discussion reporting back to the group
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 29 of 49
Location of VLE-based activities
Do you anticipate learners doing most of their VLE-based activities in the classroom or a
distance learning location?
Classroom, 1
Distance, 8
Both, 7
Almost all use the VLE between contact sessions.
Half use it during contact sessions – where the design may be harder to identify
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 30 of 49
Integrating practices within the study
• A definitive point of reference» Handbook, VLE, initial lecture…
• VLE often used for orchestration (instructions, descriptions)» Flexibility that handbook lacks» Particularly if out-of-class activities (e.g. work placement) or preparations for forthcoming class
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 31 of 49
Integrating practices within the study
• Some very creative manoeuvring» Deliberately incomplete information(e.g. hiding what will happen next week)
» Required access to VLE, participation in sessions etc to complete the picture
• Design adapted ‘on the fly’» Staying one step ahead - flexibility» …and working incrementally, using students’ materials for discussion and analysis
» …and certainly adapted year on year - “constant evolution”
• So what is “the” design we should be studying?» A process, not a single artefact
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 32 of 49
Integrating practices within the study
• Technocentricity v. learner centricity» Should a new tool suggest new ways to teach? (innovation)
» …or should an expert teacher select the tools needed to meet learners’ requirements?
• Phenomenon of ‘design blindness’ » Tutors talked about running designs, not about designs or the process of designing
» Couldn’t think how to preserve their new practices if this specific tool were taken away; VLE seen as ‘unique’ (even though easily re-created with modular technologies)
» Changes in practice associated with the tool itself rather than a new way of doing things(Integration a strength, but pedagogy ‘hidden’ by VLE)
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 33 of 49
Findings: learning technology contacts
Selection and use of
different VLE tools
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 34 of 49
JISC emphasises 3 broad learning ‘types’
• Identified by Mayes and DeFreitas in their e-Learning Models Desk Study for JISC» Associative – emphasises cumulative information or skill components
» Constructivist (individual or social) – emphasises activity
» Situative – emphasises social and cultural setting
• How can a VLE support these?
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 35 of 49
Associative: Moodle Lesson (BA Music)
• ‘Lessons’ are for instruction, ie not very social constructivist – considered unfashionable by some
• Rachel developed one on Referencing – simple and linear, chunks of content each followed by a MCQ
“…it was immediately and overwhelmingly apparent who had done it and who hadn’t … what they’d do is hand in their essay topic with a short provisional bibliography. Those immediately gave away who had and hadn’t done the lesson, and we double-checked [in the logs]”
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 36 of 49
Constructivist: moving activity online (AS Computing)
• Certain circumstances need to be in place: » Self-study time» Motivation (assessment)» Ways of scaffolding (tutor or peers)
I think that’s probably one reason I haven’t gone into it, because when I want to do it, I want to do it properly… Which will need I think quite a lot of extra time initially, because if a student posts something on a forum, they, even if it’s only subconsciously, expect to get some kind of reaction fairly quickly…
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 37 of 49
Situative: reflecting (MA Acting)
• VLE hosts a growing multimedia record of learners’ development over time, used with a forum
• Learners view these, reflect and feed back as a community
... I think having a record … makes you appreciate it, makes you kind of take note of what you were doing, what you are doing better, what you should be doing, and I think all those things make you reflect on it in a much more profound and … complex way than if you didn’t have it.
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 38 of 49
Tutors’ aims for the VLE (2nd questionnaire)
• Checkbox question • Most prevalent:
1.Repository 2.Motivate or engage
2.Individualisation
4.Collaboration
• (Free-text field yielded nothing specific)
For what purpose(s) have you chosen to use the VLE to support this particular module / course?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Mot
ivate
/ en
gage
Partic
ipat
e in
disc
ussio
n
Collab
orat
e
Differ
ent a
bilitie
s
Help
mor
e stu
dent
s
Distan
ce le
arnin
g
Part-t
ime
learn
ers
Repos
itory
Form
ative
ass
essm
ent
Purpose
Num
ber
of m
entio
ns
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 39 of 49
VLE features used by tutors (2nd questionnaire)
High take-up of•Content presentation
•Forums•Groups•Self-test•Selective release
Distinctively(social)constructivisttools less used
Oz Lu Ina T4 T5 Br R T8 T9 Bar La F BaFile uploadLinkingTutor elements*Learner elements*Chat L-to-LForum L-to-LChat L-to-TForum L-to-TSelf testAssignmentsGroupsSelective release* eg wikis, web pages, glossaries, blogsNamed tutors were also interviewed
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 40 of 49
Why are some Moodle’s most distinctive tools underused?
• E.g.Wiki, Glossary, Workshop• There is little time available for innovation
» Tutors have little protected time to design, police, scaffold and assess online activities
» Diverting learners’ self-study time into highly interactive online learning has implications
• Institutions are built round traditional learning» No frameworks exist for assessing new forms, » Participation is notoriously low for unassessed activities
• Complexity of the tools can put people off• The tools emphasise process but blended courses offer ample f2f opportunities to acquire these skills
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 41 of 49
Approaches to choosing tools
Agile adoption• Tutors
» Interested in emerging T&L practice
» Review existing practice in the light of innovations
» Able and prepared to experiment radically
• Institutions» Foster awareness of
innovations in T&L» Discern and invest
wisely in valuable innovations
» Accommodate changing work patterns
Cautious adoption• Tutors
» Alive to new ways to achieve existing approaches
» Unprepared for experimenting radically
• Institutions» Maintain status quo» Bandwagon approach to
innovations» Underinvest in them» Entrench inflexible
work patterns
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 42 of 49
Conclusions and
implications
Case studies
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 43 of 49
Overview of design for learning in VLEs
Tutors design but may not make
that design
explicit
straight i
nto VLE (a representation)
Content & activities
Relationships
eg sequence,order, explanationbecause
of context
and maybe
as
eg time, maintenance, complexity, keeping flexible, infrastructure, simply no need
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 44 of 49
Conclusions
• Designs for learning» Only observable as relationships between different elements – eg order, sequence, explanation
» Usefully represented when - Tutor not present to orchestrate or scaffold activity- Activity is complex or process is important
» Otherwise representations are rare or partial» Evolve continuously, incrementally
- ‘design process’ is hard to comprehend
• Tutors» Have little time - opportunistic about what and when» Don’t delegate design, aren’t sharing designs » Evolve their designs in response to feedback » Are concerned with quality, which may hinder experiments
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 45 of 49
Conclusions (cont’d)
• Learners» Have to negotiate two designs on the VLE – the VLE’s
and their tutor’s – as well as designs represented elsewhere
» Are not all digital natives (kit or skills)» Aren’t necessarily prepared for online interactivity
• Different VLEs» Are used fairly similarly to serve files, bulletins and
for communication» Moodle’s constructivist tools generally underused» Commercial VLEs have v. different procurement processes
• Institutions» Have a more top-down approach where VLE is commercial» Aren’t yet prepared for online social-constructivism
- Currently rely on enthusiasts’ extra effort» May not understand that VLEs cost more than a license
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 46 of 49
Implications
• Institutions should aim for » a good climate for sharing practice
- Within and between institutions- Via networks chosen by tutors
» protected time for tutors to learn skills and think» opportunities for experimentation
• Institutions and government bodies should» Continue to regard tutors as designers » Offer and advance tools for authoring as well as sharing
• Tutors » Commit to keeping aware of innovations (practice & tools)- Counteract ‘design blindness’
» Allow innovations to inspire practice and vice versa- Aim to be agile adopters
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 47 of 49
Implications for sharing
• Sharing can be perceived in different ways:» Saving (by institutions)» Gaining, and giving (by tutors)
• Sharing designs more complex than content- Designs are less granular, more context dependent- Depends on understanding the rationale and design process
• Different ways to share designs» Inspiration and ideas are likely to work best
- Case studies? Talking heads? Skype usernames? Workshops?» OTS (eg LAMS, whole course areas) - change of culture
- depends on meticulous representation - depends on tutors’ expertise to repurpose them
• Some wheel reinvention is fine» A very good way to learn and reflect
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 48 of 49
Acknowledgements
• For their inspiration, direction and feedback» Helen Beetham, JISC (strand consultant)» Liz Masterman, University of Oxford (researcher on project in same strand)
» All the participants.
Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 49 of 49
More about the project
• A report will be available from JISC soon• Email Martin or me in the meantime: