Making IT Personal e-learning@greenwich/conference

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

www.gre.ac.uk/e-conference

Edited with an introduction by Simon Walker, Malcolm Ryan and Robert Teed

Edited with an introduction by Simon Walker, Malcolm Ryan and Robert Teed

Making IT Personal e-learning@greenwich/conference

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of the publisher.

© University of Greenwich 2010

First published in 2010 by the University of Greenwich

Education Development Unit

University of Greenwich

Greenwich Campus

Old Royal Naval College

London SE10 9LS

United Kingdom

University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee, registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered Office: Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS

Opening keynoteThe Good, the Bad and the UglyJonathan Drori

Morning sessionsCreating Induction for the LearnersRyan Flynn

Does your Computer Listen?Abigail Mann and Chris Tilley

E-learning and Social InclusionAlan Clarke

Learning, Teaching and Social NetworkingCheryl Reynolds

Me and My Learning JourneyKim Neve and Sophie Richards

Representations and Realities in SLCaroline Ukoumunne

Academic Portfolios and PersonalisationSadie Hafford, Susan Myers and Linda Thorne

Blogging to Develop Reflective LearnersAlex Jones

DEBUT: Personalised Staff DevelopmentWayne Barry

LAMS and PersonalisationLorna Burns

Personalisation versus SocialisationMary Kiernan

UltraversityKevin Thompson

Afternoon sessionsCoP and the School PlacementBruce Nightingale

Do Students want Personalised Learning?Shalni Gulati

Personalisation of Learning FrameworkPhilip Butler

Personalised Learning: Familiar Concept?Dominique Verpoorten

Tag Clouds and Skill ConversationsCarol Shergold and John Davies

What does PDP Mean to You?Monica Or, Darren Garwood and Rebecca Fong

Closing keynoteMaking Learning PersonalSerge Ravet

Conference Programme 2009

5

Making IT Personal

Contents

Editors’ Introduction 7

Articles

e-Learning and Social Inclusion 11 Alan Clarke

National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)

The Danger of Impersonalisation in Mass Personalised Learning 19 Mary Kiernan and Ray Stoneham

University of Greenwich

DEBUT: Personalised Staff Development 25 Wayne Barry

Canterbury Christ Church University

How Far Does LAMS Aid Personalisation? 33 Lorna Burns

Barnet College

Let’s Get Personal: Does Your Computer Listen to What You Say? 39 Abigail Mann and Chris Tilley

University of Hertfordshire

PDP – Personal, Professional or Painful Development Planning? 47 Monica Or, Darren Garwood and Rebecca Fong

Westminster Kingsway College

Personalisation of Learning Framework 53 James Ballard & Philip Butler

Academic Portfolios: Facilitating Personalised Learning for 55

Health and Social Care Professionals Linda Thorne, Anne Gill and Julie Bowden

Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup

Personalised Learning: A Familiar Concept to Secondary Teachers? 61 Dominique Verpoorten, Jean-Marie Renson, Wim Westera and Marcus Specht

Open University of the Netherlands and University of Liège (Belgium)

Appendix 69

7

Introduction

Simon Walker, Malcolm Ryan and Robert TeedUniversity of Greenwich

We are delighted to publish a set of post-conference papers from our 2009 e-learning@greenwich conference, Making IT Personal. In 2007, we felt there could be considerable value in not only capturing the process that our presenters go through in writing a proposal, presenting their work and engaging the audience in a discussion of the issues, but then analyzing these discussions and writing this up as an act of scholarship. The following chapters from this year’s 2009 conference, then, are much more than a mere set of dry academic conference proceedings papers – they are the result of reflections with peers on their research into teaching and learning.

Our seventh e-learning@greenwich conference provided opportunities to examine and debate the personalisation of learning. A number of definitions of personalisation exist. We chose to be guided by the work of Leadbeater and Underwood, who approach the challenges of personalisation in complementary ways.

Charles Leadbeater’s overview (2004) suggests that personalised learning is fundamentally about learners being actively and continually engaged in setting their own targets, devising learning plans, self-regulating their learning and choosing from a range of different learning pathways and contexts. Joan Underwood’s 2007 Becta report examines the role of ICT more specifically, noting that ‘personalising learning does not require ICT, but where the personalising learning agenda and well-established e-maturity occur together, there is a synergy which has beneficial effects’ (2007: 54).

We believe that the papers presented here give a good sense of the way that listening to learners and responding appropriately can empower stakeholders and lead to the re-shaping of current provision, the re-casting of traditional roles and responsibilities, and the exploiting of suitable environments and technologies - in short, that appropriate and selective use of a range of learning technologies can contribute significantly to the personalised learning agenda. These papers represent the breadth and diversity of work that is being carried out in the education sector on personalisation and e-learning and address such questions as:

●● In what ways do e-enabled organisations facilitate personalisation?

●● Are personalisation technologies an enabling or disruptive influence on learning and teaching?

●● What learning environments are best at promoting/supporting personalisation?

●● How desirable or achievable is personalisation and might it lead to greater inequality amongst students?

●● Is there a relationship between technology, communities of practice and personalisation?

●● To what extent do learning technologies deepen the relationship between learners and teachers?

●● What digital literacies do learners and teachers need to effect personalisation?

8

e-learning@greenwich/conference

In his opening keynote, Jonathan Drori, Director of Changing Media Ltd, addressed the fundamental question of what is meant by the term ‘personalisation’. He sought to distinguish between ‘good, bad and ugly’ examples of learning being personalised. Borrowing concepts from the marketing and advertising industries, Drori argued that good learning environments are ones that create ‘compelling experiences’. For an experience to be compelling it needs to be:

●● Definable – the learner must be able to name and describe it

●● Fresh – it must have an element of newness to it

●● Accessible – the learner should be able to find it easily

●● Immersive – learners should be able to lose themselves

●● Significant – it should matter to the learner: they should want to share it with others

●● Transformative – the experience should leave a learner changed.

Good examples of personalised learning have the potential to deliver compelling learning experiences – technologies can help to find better ways to stimulate, engage and connect learners. The challenge for institutions is not to roll out programmes of mass personalisation as a way of cutting costs or exercising control.

In ‘E-Learning and Social Exclusion’, Alan Clarke lays out how over the last decade the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) has undertaken extensive research and development projects into how digital technologies can be harnessed by socially excluded adults. He reports that increasing ICT opportunities had a positive impact on people’s motivation, self-confidence and self esteem. NIACE’s findings prove that technologies often help to bridge the gap into learning for those returning to education whose first experiences were negative or limited, or for those learners who are ‘hard to reach’. However, it is important to note that access to technologies or online learning needs to be combined with development of learners’ study skills to generate full benefit.

Mary Kiernan and Ray Stoneham from the University of Greenwich argue that personalisation brings with it paradoxical dangers of impersonalisation, when scaled up for large cohorts of students. In The Danger of Impersonalisation in Mass Personalized Learning, the authors demonstrate the dichotomy between socialization and personalisation, concluding that institutions become ‘proactive’ in their approach, and should avoid careless programmes of mass personalisation that can lead to students becoming isolated and demotivated.

In DEBUT: Personalised Staff Development, Wayne Barry describes how Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU) has developed a personalised and contextualised approach to increasing digital literacy in staff. By offering a range of handpicked digital tools and tailored support approaches, CCCU have succeeded in fostering a community of digitally confident staff, who now feel empowered to make use of the varied technologies available. Interestingly, one of the key success factors of the DEBUT programme noted by CCCU staff was the opportunity to share practice, knowledge and ideas with participants from different disciplines, in essence developing an unofficial community of practice.

In her paper, Lorna Burns outlines how Barnet College’s ESOL department has been exploring the extent that the Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) can help deliver personalised lessons to all levels of ESOL learners. In partnership with the University of Greenwich, Barnet College devised a LAMS pilot

9

Making IT Personal

that targeted 93 students with a wide range of language and ICT skills. Key findings indicate that LAMS motivates students, encourages flexible and independent learning and leads to greater collaboration amongst both students and staff. Although there was limited evidence in the pilot of ‘branching’, Burns believes this significant addition to LAMS v2.1 has the potential to further support students of different abilities and to enhance personalisation.

Abigail Mann and Chris Tilley from the University of Hertfordshire have devised innovative audio software for use in Legal Practice assessments. In Let’s Get Personal, they detail how their ‘interactive podcasting’ technology has helped to engage students and to enhance the learning experience. Mann and Tilley also believe that interactive audio technology has been widely underused in the HE sector, and they stake a claim for it to benefit learning, teaching and assessment practices on a national scale.

At Westminster Kingsway College, Monica Or has been using technology to make Personal Development Plans less onerous for students. In ‘PDP – personal, professional or Painful Development Planning?’ she describes how PDPs have been integrated into the tutorial process and now incorporate the use of reflective student blogs that effectively last for the duration of the students’ course. The inclusion of feedback and interaction within the blogs from tutors has enabled students to focus on issues within their PDP and to further develop their reflective writing and analytic skills.

One of e-learning’s key issues is the pressure placed on institutional structures and staff development by the rapidity of technological change. In their brief paper, James Ballard and Philip Butler, from the University of London Computer Centre, lay out how ULCC’s response to this challenge is the development of their Personalisation of Learning Framework, which is being pioneered by Barnsley College.

Linda Thorne, Anne Gill and Julie Bowden, from Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup, use an online learning environment to facilitate personalised learning for health and social care professionals. They have designed a course that enables students to compose academic portfolios that are rigorous, credible and accurately reflect students’ experience and skills. This process-based, blended learning approach has resulted in excellent examples of individualised adult learning, as well as helping to develop a wide-ranging and mutually supportive community of learners.

In the Netherlands, Dominique Verpoorten, Jean-Marie Renson, Wim Westera and Marcus Specht have led research into personalised learning in secondary schools. They used questionnaires to analyse teachers’ perceptions and awareness of personalised learning. The authors’ findings indicate amongst other things a surprising lack of familiarity with the concept of personalisation – surprising given the context of the data collection was a Belgian international school.

In all, the presentations at conference covered a dynamic range of contexts in which personalisation is being researched, developed and acted upon. The personalising of learning is a journey towards full learner customisation and autonomy. Fundamentally, it is as much about attitudes to and perceptions of the learner and the changing role of the teacher as it is about the policies, processes, and practices that contribute to institutional change. For many institutions, a first step towards personalisation is achieved by ‘adapting’ existing teaching, learning and assessment services. Ultimately, they will need to be prepared to work in partnership with learners to generate new forms of learning, teaching and assessment in which student-derived goals, flexibility and choice leading to greater self-regulation and the co-creation of knowledge.

10

e-learning@greenwich/conference

ReferencesLeadbeater, C. (2004). ‘Personalisation through participation: A new script for public services’. [Online] http://www.demos.co.uk/files/PersonalisationThroughParticipation.pdf (accessed 21 November 2009)

Underwood, J. et al. (2007). Impact 2007 [Online] http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/impact_July2007.pdf (accessed 21 November 2009)

11

E-Learning and Social Inclusion

Alan ClarkeNational Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)

BackgroundNIACE is the membership organisation for adult and community learning in England and Wales. Over the last decade it has undertaken a range of research and development projects investigating the potential of technology to engage socially disadvantaged adults. This paper aims to provide a synthesis of the experience that NIACE has gained from its ten years of activity. The scale of the issues is illustrated by the Government’s Digital Inclusion Action Plan (HMG, 2008) which identified that there are six million adults who are socially disadvantaged and who lack digital skills.

Many socially and economically disadvantaged adults have had poor educational experiences and are often reluctant to participate in what they see as formal learning. However, many of them were engaged in education prior to the wide-spread use of technology and so do not associate it with their previous experience. Many adults are, however, interested in learning about technology so it has been increasingly used as a method to attract learners to subjects such as literacy and numeracy.

NIACE has undertaken a range of different developments including:

●● Research into how online learning can overcome some of the barriers that socially disadvantaged adults face

●● The application of e-learning in communities, adult education, work-based learning and offender learning and skills

●● The implementation of ICT skills for life

●● The integration of information and communication technologies with literacy and numeracy

●● The distribution of ICT equipment to voluntary and community organisations to encourage the use of technology in their work

●● The management of e-learning development funds on behalf of government agencies.

NIACE activities have covered publicly funded programmes, voluntary organisations’ efforts, offender learning, vocational courses and online learning.

Article

12

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Context The context for NIACE’s research and development projects is quite varied and it is often different from formal educational settings. The environment may not be designed for learning but must be adapted to meet the needs of the learners. Equipment is brought into the location for each session and used with whatever furniture and facilities are locally available. This can often mean that equipment and/or connectivity are limited or even non-existent, and that computers need to depend on battery power or several extension leads. The settings will often require compromise and a flexible approach. The success that has been achieved with these limitations demonstrates the power of motivation and that of appropriate tutor support.

Education centres in prisons are often limited in different ways from community locations because security, rather than learning, is the prime factor. There are often severe restrictions on the types of technologies that offenders can have access to and this reduces learning opportunities. However, progress is being made to find ways of employing technology without compromising security, such as providing access to specific websites and other resources in a closed environment. Tutors who work in secure offender learning are also limited since there are tight restrictions on what can be brought into a prison. This tends to reduce spontaneous activities because many items or materials will need to be cleared by security staff and this requires time and planning. A critical issue has been identified by the inquiry into the Future of Lifelong Learning (NIACE 2009) which states that there is clear evidence that in-prison educational and vocational interventions reduce offending, compared with prison alone. This provides strong motivation, if one is needed, to realise the potential of technology to enhance learning.

Socially disadvantaged learners may study a wide range of subjects but large numbers take part in ICT, literacy, numeracy and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). Although it may seem a stereotype, learners will often have had poor experiences of education, lack self-confidence, have low self-esteem and frequently limited basic skills. Their motivation is quite varied and covers both vocational and social reasons for learning. It is a significant step for them simply to enter the classroom so a key factor in encouraging them to participate is that the event is taking place in a community location with which they are familiar and that is close to their homes. Learning with and about ICT is attractive to many of these learners who are curious about technology to which they often do not have access. It is a major challenge for many learners to take part after long periods, perhaps decades, of absence from education and training.

Socially disadvantaged learners often have little or no experience of using technology, apart from television and mobile phones. They are often more at ease with single-function devices than with technology that offers many functions (Communities and Local Government, 2008). They may also have misconceptions about technology, often feeling it is too difficult for them to master, and may judge that it is too expensive for them whilst remaining unclear about the benefits it will bring them (Communities and Local Government, 2008; Government’s Digital Inclusion Action Plan, 2008). However, it is widely reported that if the benefits of technology can be demonstrated to socially disadvantaged people they will be motivated to learn.

Community-based provision is often inadequately resourced, with public funding centred on institution-based provision. This tendency to focus on colleges and other purpose-built locations means that policy can be biased against community-based learning. A simple example is the tendency to judge the

13

Making IT Personal

provision of computers by the simple ratio of computers to learners. This works well for colleges with fixed assets and large numbers of full-time students, but in community education with entirely part-time students and an emphasis on portable equipment, it can be very misleading. There have been efforts made to provide public access to technology through UK Online Centres which offer a very valuable service. However, access to technology for a student in a college is almost always better than that available to learners in community settings.

Synthesis The results of the wide range of NIACE activities, projects, developments and research over the last ten years provide a large resource of experience about the use of technology with socially disadvantaged people.

MotivationProbably the most important factor in learning is the motivation of the learners. This is especially true with groups who have had poor experiences of education and have considerable doubts about their abilities. The quote below is from a fifty-two year old woman who was participating in her first ICT course (Essom, 2004; Donovan, Essom and Sheldrake, 2008):

“At first, I was extremely nervous. It is difficult to explain or understand the feeling of dread, but it was there.”

The quote is typical of many new ICT learners and demonstrates that we should not underestimate the distance that returning learners need to travel. It is essential to provide the means to encourage participation, including the provision of courses in locations near to home, at a time that fits in with people’s family commitments.

Early success with technology can have a significant impact on motivation and this is illustrated with the quote below from the Wireless Outreach Network Programme. It comes from a mother with small children after she had attended a few sessions (Essom, 2004; Donovan, Essom and Sheldrake, 2008):

“I feel liberated and free, my imagination can run wild.”

The Wireless Outreach Network Programme was a large scale initiative over several years, involving 269 voluntary and community organisations who targeted 84,000 people in 2003 to 2004. The organisations reached a very wide spectrum of people such as carers, disabled people, isolated people, those with learning difficulties, the economically deprived, older people, homeless people, lone parents, the unemployed and refugees.

The two quotes below illustrate the growth in motivation that success with technology can bring to learners, in these cases, male ex-offenders:

“The course has given me an appetite to learn more, and find out what more the computer can do for me.”

“The things I am doing make me want to learn. There’s so much I thought had passed me by.”

14

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Self-confidence and self-esteemThe Wireless Outreach Network Initiative was based on the earlier Adult and Community Learning (ACL) Laptop Initiative (Clarke et al, 2003). This provided some of the first modern computer equipment for ACL and had a significant effect on both tutors and learners. About 300 organisations took part in the initiative and reached approximately 37,000 learners. Many of these could be described as returners to learning who lacked self-confidence and self-belief in their learning abilities. Participating organisations reported many examples of learners developing their confidence and esteem. Some examples are:

“A greater opportunity to engage and empower our clients to work on their future through learning and discovering” (working with homeless people)

“Fantastic outreach tool for attracting new learners” (local authority adult education service)

NIACE undertook two surveys of offenders’ attitudes to using technology for learning. One covered women and the other men. Both showed similar patterns in that responders (i.e. 140 women and 500 men) had poor self-confidence in themselves and their skills. However, they were positive towards learning through and about technology and could identify the benefits.

The following quotes from learners show the impact of learning with technology:

“I felt a part of something which was important and productive which helped to boost my self esteem. I was able to represent others in my situation.” (homeless man)

“By the end of my first lesson I was quite proud of myself.”

Online learningOnline learning offers the potential to overcome some of the barriers that socially disadvantaged adults encounter when trying to participate in education and training (Clarke, 2002). The barriers can be summarised as place, time and pace: that is, learning at a location that is acceptable to the learners, at a time that fits their lifestyle and at their own pace. NIACE, in partnership with the Open University, researched the potential of online learning to overcome social exclusion.

Some of the key findings show that realising the potential of online learning requires learners who have access to the required technology, are confident users of ICT and have the necessary learning/study skills. The latter is a key issue because individuals returning to learning after several years with poor experiences of education are likely to have very limited learning skills. It is important to develop the learning skills needed for online learning, such as time management and reflection. Clarke (2008) provided an approach to the development of e-learning skills for learners.

Interviews with disabled students undertaking online courses showed their attitudes and experiences. They recognised the importance of the tutors’ role, appreciated quick feedback and enjoyed the multimedia approach. They found the online conferencing technology useful for learning and easy to use. However, they were often disappointed by the quality and quantity of online interactions. Some quotes from the students illustrate their views:

15

Making IT Personal

“A lot of the conferencing was asking a lot of silly questions and nothing to do with me or I wasn’t interested in the comments.”

“You’re at home on your own, and a big disadvantage is you are not in a contemporary (sic) situation with your colleagues where you can actually discuss things and use them on a day to day basis”.

“I did a lot more reading of the conference and I think I only wrote to the conference twice.”

”… because people are either reserved and maybe a little shy and possibly people have not done it before …. I tried to be slightly controversial on at least two occasions to try and provoke an argument and I didn’t get any.”

“I never read a book in my life but I do read stuff on the Internet … I would prefer to read stuff on the Internet than read a book…I wouldn’t be interested in a course where the material was posted out in books.”

Teaching ICT user skillsICT courses tend to have poor retention and achievement rates compared to other subjects. NIACE with other partners has considered the approach to the teaching of ICT in a variety of investigations and studies. These have included surveys of practice, action research and consultations (Clarke, 2006 and 2007; Luger, E. 2005 & 2007; Cummins et al, 2008; Robinson, 2005). This work has shown that ICT should not just be considered as learning about applications and techniques but should rather be linked to the learners’ purposeful use, helping them to identify their transferable skills, developing them as independent users who are able to cope with future changes in technology. Some of these approaches are developed for tutors and learners in ICT skills for life (Clarke, 2007) and teaching adults ICT skills (Clarke, 2006). One surprising conclusion of NIACE’s work is the curious lack of research into the teaching of ICT user skills compared to other subjects such as literacy and numeracy.

E-LearningNIACE lead the Learning and Skills Council’s programme to develop the use of e-learning in Adult and Community Learning and Offender Learning and Skills. This programme has undertaken a wide range of actions including training over 2000 e-guides. These are tutors who will cascade their new skills and understanding to colleagues and peers. It is estimated that through the cascade process around 20,000 tutors have had e-learning support. This has brought e-learning to many adults in the community. The overall approach has been to blend technology with traditional good practice in face-to-face sessions. Online methods are still developing and are less common but growing.

Digital cameras have been used extensively not least because they are cheap and easy to transport. They have been used as a focus for learners’ projects, as a means of capturing learners’ achievements for assessment and in order to create examples for future groups. The video camera has been widely employed to give feedback in subjects such as dancing, keep fit and yoga. Video is also a powerful motivator for ESOL, literacy and numeracy groups to carry out projects. Hand held devices are often identified by learners as high status and will motivate them if they are given the opportunity to use them.

16

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Education and training providers in a survey undertaken by NIACE in 2006 gave a variety of reasons for wanting to employ e-learning. These included that it provided flexibility and more choice in reaching communities with a culture that did not support participation. It was effective in engaging ‘hard to reach’ learners by taking the learning to them. E-learning offered the chance for families to learn at home together. Overall it provided ways of gaining access to communities that normally could not be reached.

NIACE administered several funds for adult and community learning providers to explore new approaches to learning through technology. Two such programmes were TrEACL and CACL which were centred around the development of e-learning materials. The evaluation of both initiatives (Atwere, 2006) reported that learners reacted positively to changes in the learning environment and the offer of alternative learning styles. Learners improved both their confidence and ICT skills. This was shown by a willingness to use ICT outside of the classroom. The following quote from a tutor illustrates this point:

“Learners are transferring their new technology skills to home and family … seeing the wider benefits of technology, not just to that specific learning activity.”

ConclusionsNIACE’s activities over the last decade have clearly demonstrated the potential of technology to overcome social disadvantage through motivating people to participate in learning programmes, improving their self-confidence and self-esteem and providing new learning experiences. The potential of technology has not yet been fully realised and the possibilities are extensive. However, they will not be realised without a substantial and coherent effort to fund basic ICT programmes, providing support for the application of e-learning and particularly online approaches that target socially disadvantaged people.

Although government agencies have continued to support the development of e-learning, this is often limited by the need for them to link its development to specific priorities. This reduces the opportunities to explore new approaches or access funds for adequate infrastructure development. Publicly funded basic ICT user programmes have declined and although Government has now realised the importance of addressing the digital divide, it is not clear if it will provide sufficient resources. Adult and Community learning has never had access to sufficient resources to realise many of the possibilities of technology. A lot has been achieved with a little.

17

Making IT Personal

ReferencesAtwere, H. (2006). Technology to Enhance Adult Community Learning (TrEACL) and Content for Adult and Community Learning (CACL). NIACE.

Clarke, A. (2002). Online Learning and Social Exclusion. NIACE.

Clarke, A., Reeve, A., Essom, J., Scott, J., Aldridge, F. and Lindsay, K. (2003). Adult and Community Learning Laptop Initiative Evaluation. DfES, NIACE.

Clarke, A. (2006). Why ICT is a Skill for Life: a personal view. In ICT Skills for Life Briefing: An independent professional update, Issue 2. Simon Boyd Publishing Ltd.

Clarke, A. (2006). Teaching Adults ICT Skills. Learning Matters.

Clarke, A. (2007). ICT Skill for Life, Hodder Arnold

Clarke, A. (2008). E-learning Skills, 2nd Edition. Palgrave McMillan.

Communities and Local Government. (2008). Community Perspectives on Digital Inclusion. Office for Public Management Ltd, Department for Communities and Local Government.

Cummins, P., Nance, B. and Betts, S. (2008). DIUS ICT Skill for Life Final 0708 Project Report, NIACE ICT Skill for Life Mapping, Content and Dissemination. NIACE.

Donovan, K., Essom, J. and Sheldrake, S. (2008). Learning with Laptops – The impact of the Wireless Outreach Network Initiative on the community. NIACE.

Englebright, L. (2004). Offenders’ views and experiences of learning: A survey of information and communication technologies and online learning. NIACE.

Essom, J. (2004). Widening the world with wireless laptops. NIACE

H M Government. (2008). Delivering Digital Inclusion: An Action Plan for Consultation, Communities and Local Government. [Online]. Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/deliveringdigitalinclusion (accessed 15 August 2009)

Luger, E. (2005). The potential of e-learning in ACL. NIACE.

Luger, E. (2007). ICT Skill for Life Investigation. Unpublished report for the DfES by NIACE.

NIACE. (2006). E-nhancing voluntary and community sector learning: Exploring the potential of VCS training providers to engage with e-learning. LSC.

NIACE. (2009). Inquiry into the future of lifelong learning. Lifelong Learning and Crime: An Analysis of the Cost-effectiveness of In-prison Educational and Vocational Interventions. IFLL Public Value Paper 2.

Robinson, P. (2005). ICT Skill for Life: Action Research Project Report for DfES. NIACE.

19

The Danger of Impersonalisation in Mass Personalised Learning

Mary Kiernan and Ray StonehamUniversity of Greenwich

AbstractThis paper discusses the dichotomy between socialisation and personalisation, and questions whether the two can coexist. It presents evidence that socialisation does lead to improved student achievement and that there is a significant issue with personalisation, in that it limits social discovery because it does not cater for the development of an energetic learning community to share and exchange information. This is particularly relevant in the context of mass personalisation and must be a key consideration when developing personalised learning environments.

Introduction‘Personalised learning for all’ has many possible benefits but there are also drawbacks, particularly when scaled up to large cohorts of learners. Mass personalisation needs to go hand-in-hand with socialisation of learning to enable effective learning to take place, because a significant issue with mass personalisation is that it limits social discovery by learners. It restricts the development of an energetic learning community that is needed for the sharing and exchanging of information. The development of technology (particularly Web 2.0) enables both online personalisation and socialisation of learning to develop in ways not previously possible.

It is important that teachers and facilitators of learning remain proactive in ensuring that interactive features are used by all students for socialisation. The authors believe that personalised learning where there is no shared experience amongst learners leads to impersonal learning environments and will not provide the well balanced employees and entrepreneurs that industry and society needs.

The study To investigate the importance of socialisation over 3,500 messages from six online groups were analysed using content analysis, an established methodology for studying the content of communication (Neuendorf, 2002). This technique was chosen because of its reliance on coding and categorisation of data, which makes it a particularly rich and meaningful method to use. As Krippendorff (1980) noted, ‘…much content analysis research is motivated by the search for techniques to infer from symbolic data what would be too costly, no longer possible, or too obtrusive by the use of other techniques’.

The technique of a priori coding was adopted as the categories were established prior to the analysis based on the e-moderator role, activity, stage (eMRAS) framework (Kiernan, 2004). To make the analysis

Article

20

e-learning@greenwich/conference

manageable, a critical set of activities at each stage of course evolution was determined (table 1) using the rankings given by experienced e-moderators at each stage of a course life cycle (Kiernan, 2008).

Key Activities for High Performing Distributed Self-Led Groups

5 Stages of an online course E-Moderation activity

1. Access and motivationSend welcoming message

Identification that all have contributed

2. Online socialisation

Encouragement of contributions

Provision of good social environment for learning

Allocate and implement group roles and responsibilities

3. Information exchange

Declaration of the discussion objectives

Use of meta comments to clarify issues and reduce information overload

Provide effective file management

4. Knowledge constructionSupporting/shaping/guiding the discussion

Constructive use of conflicting opinion

5. Development

Reflective postings

Constructive feedback on how the conference impacted on their learning

Table 1: eMRAS Critical Set of Activities

The findings provided evidence that high-ranking groups were proactive in the early stages of the course and quickly socialised with each other, as evidenced by messages welcoming people to the conference, encouraging contributions, and posting detailed information about them including when they would be available to work on the course. As they moved further into the socialisation phase there was evidence of the ‘storming process’ for group development. For example, one member of a group posted work in advance of the agreed date and another group member responded:

“I must admit that I do begin to feel stressed when people post pieces of work some weeks in advance of the due date. The course is structured and timed so that we all have the chance to remain ‘in sync’.”

The person who posted the work early refuted this and said that it was only just over a week early but that they sent their response with respect. A further e-mail revealed that the concern over posting work too early was in response to his reflection on a previous course where this had happened to the detriment of the final result but noted he was

21

Making IT Personal

“…certain that any carefully and sensitively expressed concerns would receive the attention deserved.”

The successful transition through storming process moved the group from just socialising to effective socialisation that engendered trust. In one group there was a Progress Chaser - when they were sending messages in this capacity, they called themselves ‘The Time Police’ although they remained very friendly. The group also acknowledged important personal issues and accommodated them into their strategy but they never deviated from their aim - success in the assessment. For example:

“I’d prefer not to do this for this assignment, because I have two other assignments due in the same week.”

The middle ranking groups took longer to achieve the socialisation stage. One group did socialise but never acknowledged, or factored into their work schedule, personal issues that a group member may be experiencing. One instance was when no one responded to a member who posted a message to say that they were struggling to come to terms with a close bereavement. Their lack of effective socialisation meant they did not display empathy in this or other personal situations and arguably they did not achieve maximum effectiveness within the group.

The low ranking groups had a very friendly conference environment. For example, one member started their message:

“Keong Hee Fatt Choy. I am not swearing at anybody. The four words mean Happy Chinese New Year. I am celebrating with friends tonight with a big party at my flat. We will have Chinese music and show a Chinese DVD. It will be crowded with 26 people coming to a medium size 2 bedroom flat…”

However, they socialised too much and never really stormed in their development process until late in the course. As one student observed:

“Our messages have been polite and gentle. Perhaps it is time for us to progress to messages that are more vigorous and effective.”

They did not achieve true socialisation until towards the end of the course where they did significantly improved their grade mark for that phase. The results from this study provided evidence that socialisation is an essential aspect in helping people to achieve their maximum learning potential.

Personalisation of learning Mass personalisation of learning is not just a phenomenon of the internet age. Schemes like SMP Maths11–16 were personalising learning for large classes using paper-based technology in the 1980s. However, personalisation of all forms of information is now becoming commonplace. Not so long ago ‘My BBC’ meant something we all owned; now it means a customised BBC home page and an iPlayer so we do not ‘miss the unmissable’. The development of technologies such as RSS and the growth of customisable portals (e.g. iGoogle) means we can filter our online experience in whatever way we want, thereby isolating us in our own pool of interests.

22

e-learning@greenwich/conference

A key issue is how we personalise a learning environment. One way is to ask the user to complete set tasks and for the system then to produce relevant content. This presents the danger that we stereotype the user which can often lead to mistakes. Another potential danger is that of privacy. To effectively generate the personalised learning environment one needs to collect and store sensitive data such as preferred learning styles, exam/test scores and possibly conversations in forums. Therefore it is important to ensure that the user has trust in the system. Another way to personalise the learning environment is to allow the user to choose their content. This has the inherent danger that they may forget there were other options they could have taken.

The author’s research into developing an e-moderation framework for tutor-led courses and courses based on self-led groups supports the concept that socialisation is central to the academic progress of the overwhelming majority of students (Kiernan, 2009). The use of forums in personalised learning environments does help students to socialise; however, although this is needed for socialisation, it does not necessarily lead to socialisation (Kiernan, 2008). Mass personalisation may lead to reduced socialisation and the effect of this for most students will be reduced motivation and may lead to a negative impact on their learning.

Opportunities for socialisation Web 2 (O’Reilly, 2005) refers to a perceived second generation of web-based communities and hosted services that bring with it a new range of asynchronous computer communications. These include weblogs (blogs), wikis and blikis. Mash-ups and virtual worlds also make use of asynchronous communication via e-mail and kiosks for asynchronous communication.

Blogs can help to engender a community of practice for individuals who are interested in co-constructing knowledge around a common topic. For example, students could use a blog for inputting comments on their work progress during a common project, and this would be a useful tool when producing their individual evaluations. The ‘Flatplanet’ course (O’Carroll and D’Aguiar, 2007) utilised a wiki involving digital natives rather than the digital migrants; however, there was still evidence that the students who gained the highest grades quickly achieved socialisation, even though they were based in two continents, and reinforced the results from the study mentioned above. Virtual worlds still require students to gain the social skills that will enable them to interact successfully with other students – exchanging information, constructing knowledge, reflecting on and evaluating their performance.

ConclusionsPersonalisation of learning is often seen as a way of delivering efficient and effective learning to large cohorts of students. Advances in communications and the development of well designed software can make this seem a straightforward path, particularly if driven by financial constraints. This can lead to isolated and de-motivated students. What is appropriate for skills-based training may need to be re-evaluated for broad-based educational delivery.

When considering mass personalisation of learning institutions should take care to build in features such as moderated forums and a range of social networking (web 2.0) applications where ideas can be shared and students can interact with one another. Most importantly, providers should be proactive in making sure these interactive features are used by all students for socialisation, and not just for socialising, creating a shared experience amongst all the learners.

23

Making IT Personal

ReferencesKiernan, M. (2008). Effective e-Moderation in e-Courses. Higher Education Academy e-Learning Conference, Greenwich.

Kiernan, M. (2009). A normative eMRAS framework for effective team working within an asynchronous environment. Open University.

Kiernan, M., Thomas, P. and Woodroffe, M. (2004). Open 24-7. The Journey from e-user to e-learner. Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

O’Carroll and D’Aguiar. (2007). FlatPlanetProject available at http://flatplanetproject.com (Last accessed 17 June 2008).

O’Reilly, T. (2005). [Online] Available at: http://tim.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (last accessed 20 November 2009).

25

DEBUT: Personalised Staff Development

Wayne BarryCanterbury Christ Church University (CCCU)

BackgroundIn September 2006, CCCU was given the opportunity to take part in the first phase of the E-Learning Benchmarking Exercise, a joint development between the Higher Education Academy (HEA) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). The aims of the exercise were to assist Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to make sense of their current e-learning provision and processes as well as helping the HEA and JISC (along with other funding bodies and agencies) to identify areas of interest and relevance for further research and study.

The benchmarking exercise allowed CCCU to embark upon an institution wide review and to focus upon a number of key themes: quality, the student experience, the staff experience and the strategic use of e-learning. A pattern of activity and behaviour was beginning to emerge that highlighted how academic staff were engaging with technology to enhance learning. There was widespread use of the institutional Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), yet only limited ‘pockets’ of good practice where a range of technologies was being explored and exploited in a variety of creative ways. It was apparent that the traditional ‘conveyor belt’ approach to training staff to use the different institutional ICT and learning technologies was not resulting in incremental gains in their confidence in using other digital tools.

The exercise highlighted the fact that academic staff were generally not aware of the different digital tools and web services that were available nor, indeed, if their students were using them to support their own learning. We were concerned that with the rapid growth of different and diverse digital technologies and web services, our students would need support to critically use and evaluate them to support their learning, and our staff would need to be at the forefront in providing the students with the skills that they need to make such judgements.

As Su Westerman, Project Manager, and Lynne Graham-Matheson, Project Researcher, pointed out:

The direction was clear: to further develop our use of learning technologies in a more sustainable way the institution needed to explore new staff development approaches that would address and increase the overall digital literacy of staff. (2008:1)

Article

26

e-learning@greenwich/conference

The ‘digitally literate’ pathfinderIn May 2007, after a successful bid, CCCU embarked upon the first phase of the HEA and JISC’s Pathfinder Programme to pilot a new approach towards ICT staff development which we called DEBUT (Digital Experience Building in University Teaching). The aspirations of the DEBUT project were to empower the project participants to be more aware and confident in exploring and exploiting a wide range of current and emergent technologies and to incorporate these into their current learning and teaching practice – in essence, to become ‘digitally literate’.

Our interest in the concept of digital literacy was derived from the work by Allan Martin (formerly of the University of Glasgow) and his colleagues on the DigEULit project who ‘formulated’ a brief definition of digital literacy (Martin 2005:135). This highlighted a range of attributes and characteristics that an individual must possess, such as ‘awareness, attitude and ability’, to be able to use digital tools, services and technologies in a way that is both critical and reflective. With digital literacy there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach: it is a dynamic and organic process where the needs of the individual will change as their situation and environment changes.

Martin goes on to suggest that for the individuals to be ‘digitally literate’, they will need to be in possession of what he describes as ‘five elements of e-literacy’ (Martin 2003):

1. Awareness of the ICT and information environment

2. Confidence in using generic ICT and information tools

3. Evaluation of information-handling operations and products

4. Reflection on one’s own e-literacy development

5. Adaptability and willingness to meet e-literacy challenges.

Since Martin and the DigEULit project, the concept of ‘digital literacy’ has become something of a hotly contested term within the higher education community, who are seeking to fully understand its various constituent parts or, indeed, if it actually exists at all.

Influenced by Martin’s concepts, we wanted to formulate a staff development programme that adopted a personalised and contextualised approach to developing and delivering digital literacy in staff, based upon the individual context and needs of the project participants.

DEBUT: year one (2007)In ‘Year One’ of DEBUT, we sought expressions of interest from staff across the university – which, being made up of five faculties and five campuses across Kent, would in itself bring a series of interesting challenges that needed to be resolved. We received 70-plus applications and accepted 25 staff to take part in the pilot. The selection criteria reflected the academic and demographic profile of CCCU and a range of levels on the digital literacy spectrum – from those who perceived themselves as being a complete novice and lacking in technological confidence to those who perceived themselves expert and very confident with technology.

We assembled a suite of digital tools and web services that we felt our participants would like to try, including: Creative PowerPoint, RefWorks, Digital camera and Flickr, Blackboard Wiki, Blackboard Blog, Netvibes and Podcasting (for a complete list, please see Westerman and Graham-Matheson, 2008).

27

Making IT Personal

Associated with each tool, we devised a range of staff development approaches, such as one-to-one, self-directed, peer support, paper-based guides and group workshops, to see which were the most efficient, sustainable and effective for delivering and supporting staff development.

Participants were asked from the outset to rate themselves before and after their DEBUT experience using Martin’s ‘five elements of e-literacy’ on a 5 point Likert scale (where 1 equated to ‘complete beginner’ and 5 denoted ‘expert’) to see how they had progressed over that time and whether they had become ‘digitally literate’.

A ‘tools event day’ was organised for the participants, where each of the tool developers demonstrated the tools on offer for no more than 5 minutes. The participants also had a booklet that listed and described all these tools in some detail. Each participant, with assistance from the developers, devised a personal development plan that listed a minimum of six digital tools/experiences of their choosing that they would like to undertake within DEBUT – they selected tools that had meaning for them and suited their individual contexts and needs. It was stressed to the participants that they could choose tools that held a personal interest to them as much as a professional one. It was also emphasised that they were not expected to immediately apply what they learnt into their learning and teaching practice. We believed that it was important for our participants to feel that they were in a ‘safe environment’ and that they were not under pressure or threatened in anyway whatsoever. Finally, depending upon the popularity of the tools, sessions were offered between once and 3 times over the 10 month duration of the DEBUT project.

DEBUT: lessons learntThe key indicator of the DEBUT project’s success was highlighted by the marked increase in the digital literacy levels of the participants based upon their ‘before’ and ‘after’ self-assessment of the ‘five elements of e-literacy’ scale. What was clear from this evaluation data was that all, bar the most experienced participants, had made some kind of progress on their digital journey – in some cases their progress had been quite significant and profound. This is borne out by some of the typical comments made by the participants:

“I feel much more confident … if I just fiddle around then something will come up and at the end I can just get rid of it and unfiddle it. Before I was so petrified about … I don’t know … it not working out”.

During the post-project interview and the evaluation questionnaires that were distributed a month after each staff development session, the participants commented upon the increase in their ability and overall confidence, not just in using the tools that were available within DEBUT, but digital tools and web services generally. This resulted in our participants being enthused and motivated to immediately integrate what they had learnt from their chosen tools into their existing learning and teaching practice. Our participants suggested that, for them, the key success factors were:

●● The ‘tools event day’ that helped to raise awareness at the outset of the project;

●● A more contextualised and personalised approach to staff development;

●● The opportunity to explore a range of digital tools and web services within a ‘safe environment’;

●● Exploring these digital tools and web services intensely within a short time frame – a kind of ‘just in time’ style of learning;

28

e-learning@greenwich/conference

●● The support that was provided by the tool developers or another participant within the project was highly regarded and appreciated;

●● The opportunity to share practice, knowledge, and ideas with the other participants (from very

different disciplines) on the project that fostered a form of specialised ‘community of practice’.

The general consensus amongst the participants was that they favoured a staff development approach that comprised group sessions where ‘homework’ (i.e. a mini task or activity to complete based around a particular tool) was given along with a follow-up session that would enable them to have the opportunity to learn from and share practice with other members within their group.

However, there were a number of fundamental issues that arose from the project that were highlighted by both the project participants and the project team:

1. Where there were mixed ability groups (i.e. participants who sat at the extreme ends of the digital literacy spectrum) it proved to be challenging in terms of keeping them either engaged or on track, and in some cases trying to ensure that the most experienced and confident participants didn’t overwhelm the least experienced ones to the point that they felt ‘inferior and insecure’.

2. As a consequence of the above, it became quite clear to the tool developers that they needed to build into their training programmes more, and sometimes substantive, differentiation to try and meet the needs of all of the participants, so that the staff development sessions felt more inclusive.

3. Relationships between the tool developers and the project participants were built on expertise and trust, which were important to foster and maintain in providing and protecting the ‘safe environment’ in which the participants were immersed. (Over the years, the faculty learning technologists have built strong relationships with academic staff which eased this process).

4. Unsurprisingly, the key stumbling block was time, or rather a lack of it, which prohibited many participants from fully developing their digital literacy skills and getting to know their chosen tools better – participants felt that they would have done better if they had more time set aside for their development.

5. Lack of easy or appropriate access to technologies could also easily deter staff from using them. This was particularly pertinent for mobile working staff who not only wanted to use technology ‘on campus’, but would have liked to have been able to use it from home, on the road or from partner organisations.

6. Closely allied to the above issue, is how to deliver staff development sessions to those who work on a different campus. The university’s geographical spread (up to 50 miles) and associated transport and parking limitations clearly make it desirable to find a cost effective and sustainable alternative to physical classroom presence at sessions.

DEBUT: moving forwardAs a result of the success of the DEBUT pilot, the institution committed to embedding it as an annual staff development programme.

29

Making IT Personal

DEBUT: year two (2008)In year two of DEBUT, we continued along the same vein as year one with this cohort but with some notable differences. In year one’, we had a ‘project mentor’ who spent time with the project participants to discuss their learning and teaching values and principles as well as their attitude towards technology. As DEBUT is no longer a ‘project’ but a ‘programme’, this meant that there was no need for a mentor. We also made some small changes to the tool choices in terms of a couple of replacements and a couple of additions - such as Mind42, the online mind-mapping application.

In addition to the lack of time preventing DEBUT participants from fully enjoying the programme, we also experienced a number of ‘non attendances’ from the participants which meant that in some cases the session had to be cancelled or rescheduled thus placing unnecessary burden upon resources and time. Despite this, the cohort still placed a high value in working as a group and sharing practice and ideas.

DEBUT: year three (2009)In year three, we opened up the expressions of interest to include more academic-related and support staff whose role directly impacts upon the student experience, and in many ways provides valuable technical support and assistance to their academic colleagues.

Given the attendance issue with year two, the DEBUT team scheduled a number of fixed whole days (8 in total) spread out across the year during ‘off peak’ periods to maximise attendance. This was in stark contrast to year one and year twowhere each tool developer set out their timetable in an ad hoc fashion. Built into these whole days, where staff could dip in and out according to their availability and their interest with a particular tool, was the opportunity to come to lunch to meet fellow participants within the programme, as well as to attend organised ‘follow up’ sessions where they worked with the tool developer on a more personal level to better their understanding and use of a particular tool or technology.

Another major change to the programme was to utilise the five Faculty Learning Technologists (FLTs) to act as a guide for members of their faculty so that there was a ‘presence’ from someone the cohort knew and trusted. The FLTs were able to discuss issues around the technologies, or how to integrate those technologies within the participants’ current learning and teaching practice, as well as issues to do with the programme itself. The aim of this approach was to provide participants with more support as well as to help the participants ‘gel’ as a group.

Other DEBUT experiencesIn terms of pushing forward the digital literacy agenda, it was felt that we wanted to see DEBUT having a much greater reach within the institution and being used strategically by all academic programmes. We thought that the DEBUT approach could be transferable and adaptable to a number of contexts and situations.

Whilst DEBUT runs across 10 months in the academic year, the ‘mini’ DEBUT experience offers academic programmes a one-day ‘taster’ of what it offers, as well as helping them to become more familiar with the different digital tools and web services that are currently out there. Taking a small selection of tools that are available on the DEBUT programme, programme staff can choose what

30

e-learning@greenwich/conference

they would like to learn on a specially arranged day. We would then take their top three tool choices and work with them to fully realise and exploit the tool’s potential for learning and teaching. There is a caveat, however, as there needs to be a good balance between easy, intuitive tools and the more labour intensive ones.

Furthermore, we shall be exploring how we can blend DEBUT with the carpe diem approach for module design, in which academic staff along with their FLTs will explore and develop a range of learning tasks and activities, and how some of these could be supported and enhanced with different technologies.

ConclusionWe are continuing to work with the year one and yYear two cohorts to enable us to build a longitudinal study of the impact on the student experience resulting from the first year of DEBUT. Furthermore, we would like to see the DEBUT programme and its many incarnations being used strategically by all departments to help build institutional e-capacity and to foster a community of digitally literate and confident staff who are empowered to exploit different and varied technologies for themselves and to provide the appropriate support for their students, thus enabling them to go on and become more critical and reflective users of the technology of the future.

31

Making IT Personal

ReferencesFerman, T. (2002). ‘Academic Professional Development practice: What lecturers find valuable’. International Journal for Academic Development, 7(2), pp. 146-158. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1360%2d144X&volume=7&issue=2&spage=146 [Accessed: 7 October 2009].

HEA (2008). e-Learning Benchmarking + Pathfinder Programme 2005-08: An Overview. York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/Benchmarking/Benchmarking_FINAL.pdf [Accessed: 7 October 2009].

Martin, A. (2005). ‘DigEuLit – a European Framework for Digital Literacy: a Progress Report’. Journal of e-Literacy, 2(2), pp. 130-136. Available at: http://www.jelit.org/65/01/JeLit_Paper_31.pdf [Accessed: 7 October 2009].

Martin, A. (2003). ‘Towards e-Literacy’, in Martin, A. and Rader, R. (eds.) Information and IT Literacy: Enabling Learning in the 21st Century. London: Facet.

Westerman, S. and Graham-Matheson, L. (2008). DEBUT Project: Pathfinder Journey Report (May 2008). Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University. Available at: http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/Support/learning-teaching-enhancement-unit/Documents/DEBUT/PathfinderJourneyReport.pdf [Accessed: 7 October 2009].

33

How Far Does LAMS Aid Personalisation?

Lorna BurnsBarnet College

This case study examines whether the Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) can enhance the planning and delivery of student-centred, personalised English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) lessons with all levels of ESOL learners at Barnet College in North West London.

LAMS has been used in the ESOL Department at Barnet College owing to the college’s involvement in two JISC funded projects: the eLISA1 and eLIDA CAMEL2 projects. LAMS was very well received by ESOL students and staff but it had only been used on a very small scale. To see whether the positive results from the JISC projects could be replicated, it was considered necessary to carry out a wider and bigger project within the ESOL Department.

What is LAMS?LAMS is an open source learning design software which, with some training, can be used by teachers to create studentcentred activity-based lessons in any subject. It was created in Australia by James Dalziel in 2002. He wanted to ensure that e-learning went beyond content-based learning and ensure groups of learners interact, ‘within a structured set of collaborative environments’ (Dalziel 2003:593). LAMS has three main modes:

1. The authoring mode: where teachers can create sequences which include content or collaborative activities by dropping and dragging a variety of templates onto the authoring environment, populating them and joining them together using the ‘transition tool’

2. The student mode: where students can access the activities

3. The monitoring mode: where teachers can observe how the whole group and individual students are performing, either in the classroom or remotely.

LAMS provides tools which give opportunities for personalisation and also differentiation. Having taken on board comments made by practitioners and students about LAMS since its inception, Dalziel has made dramatic improvements and resolved the issues that they were concerned about, such as the linearity of LAMS in the earlier versions. LAMS V2.1 provides ‘branching’, which enables students to follow different paths according to their abilities. As Dalziel (2008) states: ‘Branching provides new opportunities for personalised learning.’ He claims that branching is teacher or system driven, but a

1 e-Learning Independent Study Award (eLISA)2 e-Learning Independent Design Activities for Collaborative Approaches to the Management of

e-Learning

Article

34

e-learning@greenwich/conference

related feature called optional sequences is equivalent to student choice branches, allowing students to choose to complete one or more sequences. By using a related tool named ‘optional activities’ students can also select activities that are the most useful for them.

Alexander (2008) has written a comprehensive introduction to LAMS and its tools. There are also details of how to use each of the tools including branching and optional activities online (LAMS Foundation 2009).

The LAMS pilotFollowing the success of the JISC-funded eLISA and eLIDA CAMEL projects, Barnet College financed a further pilot of LAMS in the ESOL Department to establish whether the positive results would be replicated when a larger number of students and staff used LAMS. The project included two external partners: the University of Greenwich, who provided initial training, and LAMS International, who hosted LAMS on their server. Although LAMS is free to download as it is open source software, it needs to be hosted. Eight teachers and 93 students were involved in the pilot which ran from February to July 2008. The aims of this case study are to examine:

1. How LAMS can enhance the planning and delivery of student-centred, personalised ESOL lessons

2. How LAMS can support all levels of ESOL learners

3. How learning designs may be shared and repurposed by other teachers in the ESOL department.

The teachers involved agreed to:

●● Complete two, three-hour face-to-face accredited workshops created by the University of Greenwich entitled Introduction to Learning Design and Authoring with Learning Design

●● Create and deliver at least one LAMS sequence with a class of learners

●● Evaluate their experience of LAMS by the completion of a paper-based questionnaire

●● Facilitate their students’ evaluation of the experience of using LAMS by completing a paper-based

questionnaire.

The student experienceThe students in the pilot come from a huge number of European and non-European countries, and have experienced an array of cultures and educational backgrounds. Their ages are from 16 to over 60 and they have an assortment of computer skills from beginner to advanced. The students who used LAMS also have differing language levels from E1 beginners to L1/L2 upperintermediate/advanced. The pilot therefore covered a large variety of students who had a range of computing and English language skills.

The students came from 10 classes and included a number of teachers who had been trained overseas. 47 (51 per cent) of the students said that they had enjoyed the LAMS lesson more than lessons without LAMS. In addition, 64 students (including all 9 beginners) definitely wanted to use it

35

Making IT Personal

again and 19 would quite like to, totaling 83 students (89 per cent) who wanted to use LAMS again. 30 students (32 per cent) reported that of all the LAMS activities they liked using chat the best, and they also stated they liked working independently and at their own pace.

The teacher experienceThree of the eight teachers definitely want to use LAMS again and the remaining five would quite like to. Similarly, four of the eight teachers thought that LAMS was effective for teaching and learning, whereas the remaining four felt it was quite effective.

There was a discrepancy between the experience of the learners and the practitioners. The practitioners were less enthusiastic as they had encountered considerable technical issues, and had found LAMS more challenging than they had anticipated, especially those teachers with weaker IT skills.

The key findings from the teachers are that:

1. LAMS changes the way teachers plan their lessons

2. Students enjoy the range of activities and worked more independently and at their own pace

3. LAMS motivates students and encourages collaborative work

4. LAMS allows the flexibility of working at college and at home

5. Teachers are keen to develop new, and reuse other teachers’ sequences

6. Teachers want to trial branching available in LAMS 2.1 to see if this new tool supports differentiation and enhances personalisation.

PersonalisationAfter the pilot had been completed, LAMS V2.1 was launched which incorporated two new tools, namely:

a. Optional activities/sequences

b. Branching.

Optional activities allows the students to decide which activities they want to do and therefore supports the personalisation agenda allowing student choice. It was used twice with a group of E2 (elementary) ESOL students during the summer term 2009. The second time students could either use ‘chat’ or a forum to complete a revision activity. After the LAMS session students were asked to complete a general questionnaire about using LAMS which had two questions about being given a choice of activities. 10 out of 11 students enjoyed having a choice of activities and all 11 agreed that having a choice helped them learn better. The sample of students is too small to make any generalisations but the indications are that personalisation in LAMS enhances students’ learning.

Branching was also used with a different class of E2 (elementary) students. In this case the teacher decided which branches the students were allocated to. The other options available are to give students

36

e-learning@greenwich/conference

a LAMS based quiz and the branches are selected according to students’ scores or to use the grouping tool to select students to do different activities.

In this instance the teacher selection mode was deemed to be apposite. The stronger students were given a free writing task, whereas the weaker students had a gap fill exercise first, which they could then use as an exemplar for the same free writing task that their stronger counterparts had been given. The weaker students therefore had more support and scaffolding activities than their stronger counterparts. Unfortunately, the students were not able to complete the tasks so there are not any results of using branching. However, the author considers that branching in LAMS has the potential to support students of different abilities. This appears to be easier to achieve than in a face-to-face classroom context, where differentiation may take the form of an extension task for stronger students as weaker students resent being given easier worksheets and only want to complete the harder one even if they find it too difficult. This is work in progress and further research needs to be done to see if branching fulfils the claims highlighted by Dalziel.

Results and conclusions LAMS is generally liked by the teachers and students who have used it. All the teachers involved with the LAMS pilot managed to create, deliver and evaluate their designs. They considered that LAMS makes learning enjoyable, motivates students and supports self-paced independent learning.

Conclusions:1. LAMS helps improve teachers’ ICT skills, although they need time and support to get to grips

with the learning design software

2. LAMS fits in with the way ESOL is taught. It works well when there is a community of teachers who share materials

3. Students of all language levels enjoy using LAMS

4. Students really enjoy having a choice of activities and the optional activities tool supports personalisation

5. Branching, which creates differentiated activities, has only been used on one occasion but indicates that LAMS has the potential to support differentiation

6. Students need minimal IT skills to use LAMS but they must be able to use a mouse and follow instructions

7. LAMS could be used with higher level ESOL students outside the classroom but not with lower level students, as they need support with IT and language skills

8. LAMS works well when it is local and contextualised and where a community of teachers exists who support each other and who readily share materials.

37

Making IT Personal

ReferencesAlexander, C. (2008) An overview of LAMS (Learning Activity Management System) Teaching English with Technology. A Journal for Teachers of English, Vol. 8, Issue 3 (July 2008), [Online] Available at: http://www.iatefl.org.pl/call/download/j_web32.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2009)

Dalziel, J. (2003) Implementing Learning Design: System (LAMS). Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). [Online.] Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/593.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2009) pp:593-596

Dalziel, J. (2008) ‘Using LAMS Branching for Personalisation’, Presentation to the IMS Summit on Global Learning Industry Challenges, Austin, Texas, (Virtual Presentation), [Online] Available at: http://www.lamscommunity.org/dotlrn/clubs/educationalcommunity/lamsresearchdevelopment/forums/attach/download/IMS+Learning+Impact+2008?object_id=674121&attachment_id=674123

LAMS Foundation (2009) LAMS Tutorials: An introduction to LAMS V2. [Online] Available at: http://wiki.lamsfoundation.org/display/lamsdocs/LAMS+Tutorials;jsessionid=8490F78E9742CE1A819089E66779F4FD (accessed on 28 July 2009)

39

Let’s Get Personal: Does Your Computer Listen to What You Say?

Interactive Audio Podcasting for Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education

Abigail Mann and Chris TilleyUniversity of Hertfordshire

“Podcasting can promise a unique approach to improving foundational pedagogical approaches to information processing and conceptual learning.” (Hargis and Wilson, 2005: 6)

Consecutive National Student Surveys have consistently criticised current methods of providing assessment and feedback in Higher Education. Complaints range from the continual use of the same structure of assessment to the quality of feedback received by students. This highlights the restrictive nature of traditional methods of assessment which do not allow for new trends in technology.

Taking the University of Hertfordshire as an example, an internal survey conducted in 2007 revealed that by the end of the second semester of that year, over 650 written, summative end-of-module exam papers had been issued. The introduction of more regular, formative assessment activities that use audio technology would redress this balance by providing the students and tutors with feedback on student performance whilst simultaneously reducing paper resources.

The aim of the JISC-funded Audio Supported Enhanced Learning project (ASEL) (Stewart, 2009), was to investigate the ways in which audio can offer an accessible and viable alternative to the existing assessment and feedback paradigm. As part of the ASEL project, we designed software which was used to create interactive podcasts for student assessment on the Legal Practice Course, which is the professional qualification to become a Solicitor. In this paper we will discuss the accessibility and benefits of using this new form of audio technology which we have called ‘pseudo-interaction’, or, more simply, ‘Interactive Podcasting’ (Mann and Tilley 2009).

Article

40

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Developing our softwareAs part of our research we looked into audio from two perspectives. First, based upon the research data from ASEL, and that of established audio projects such as Sounds Good (Rotherham, 2009) and the Podcasting for Pedagogic Purposes (PPSIG, 2009), we looked at how new software could be developed to improve the use of audio in higher education, including the simplification of creating, delivering and receiving audio.

Second, the project also had a more unique and advanced set of requirements that would need to be brought into the process in order to make interactive podcasting - and its two-way, real-time approach to audio - a viable tool in the classroom.

Over the course of a two and a half month period we developed software for use by both staff and students, allowing us to understand not only generic audio tool requirements but also the more intricate issues associated with the application of interactive podcasting. Our interactive podcasts simulated a series of situations in which a Solicitor would find themselves during their professional practice. They immersed students in an audio environment representing these situations, and provided them with the opportunity to interact with the recordings. The podcasts contained pauses in which the students were able to respond verbally and the software automatically recorded the students’ responses. The software then resumed playing the podcast once it recognized that the student had stopped speaking, allowing the students to engage in a two-way dialogue with the software. The beauty of our software is that, once the student has completed the exercise and their responses have been recorded, it automatically sends these responses electronically to the Tutor for their review.

While developing the software we were able to implement improvements based on feedback from our students. For example, students found that as they became immersed in the simulated scenario conversations, it was not expressly obvious to them when and where they were required to speak. If we look at communications models, such as the Shannon and Weavers (1967) SMCR model, the reason for this becomes apparent. While the program is directly emulating the delivery of the message to the listener, and similarly the learner is able to respond, the often critical yet very subtle ‘feedback’ or ‘back-chanelling’ process – usually represented in the form of body-language – is missing from the activity.

We therefore inserted beeps into the recording to alert the students as to when they are required to speak. By adding the ‘beeps’ to the playback, the students found that the tone adequately, if simplistically, substituted for the missing feedback, thus maintaining the intended interactivity to a large degree.

Our research project focused on the implementation of interactive podcasting from both the classroom perspective as well as from a technical perspective. It was important to understand whether the use of our software added any empirical value to the use of audio in this context. To assess this, the study included a comparative experiment to assess the students’ responses towards delivery of similar audio activities but using conventional digital voice recorders. We also tested our software with students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.

We gained extensive audio feedback from our students via an interactive podcast questionnaire. Almost all of the students felt that they engaged more deeply with our audio technology and many of the students stated that they prepared for their recordings to a much greater extent than they would have

41

Making IT Personal

done for a paper based exercise. Feedback we received suggested this was because they found the exercise more challenging and exciting than traditional learning methods.

It became apparent that this software was easier to use and required considerably less staff intervention than the use of the traditional voice recorders such as MP3 players. From our perspective, downloading, accessing and marking the voice files was also much easier and more efficient.

Simulating the conversation processOne of our aims, whilst creating the software, was to develop technology where users require very little technological expertise and minimal supervision. To achieve this, we inserted a short tutorial at the start of each podcast which taught the students how to interact with the software whilst it simultaneously configured the session.

The configuration exercise ensures that the software knows the difference between when the student is speaking and when not. It also allows the software to accommodate any background noise such as air conditioning that could otherwise interfere with the recording process.

The software starts by playing the podcast to the student: in most, they hear one side of a two-way dialogue between either a client and a solicitor, or between two solicitors. In each scenario, the student plays the part of a solicitor and is required to verbally respond to the podcast as they would in an ordinary conversation.

If the student says nothing, then nothing happens and the system continues to wait for input. When the student begins speaking their voice is recorded and they are free to say as much or as little as they feel necessary. When the student stops speaking, the system interprets the silence as a cue to automatically progress to the next part of the scenario or to the next question. However, the system can accommodate students whose trait is to pause whilst they are thinking by virtue of its interrupt feature. This uses mathematical algorithms to ensure that if the student pauses and has not finished, then the scenario playback will stop and the software will continue to listen to the student. This ensures that none of the submission is lost and when the student pauses at the natural end of their speaking, the software will proceed to the next part of the recording.

Best practice: Quality and ContentA novice podcast listener can tell the difference between poor sound and sound that reflects even a small amount of attention to detail and quality (Windham, 2007). We felt that to make the podcasts as realistic as possible it was necessary to make the recordings in a professional studio. Feedback received from the students confirmed that the quality of the recordings made it easier for them to put what they had learnt into context and, in turn, provided them with a better understanding of the law and procedure.

Our scripts had to set the scene and convey technical legal information to the students in such a realistic and descriptive way that they could picture the scenario as they heard it. In addition, the scripts had to make it easy for the students to adopt the role of the Solicitor. Adding humour, sound effects and having different voices play different characters meant that the students could immerse themselves in the scenarios.

42

e-learning@greenwich/conference

We used our podcasts to test students’ practical and legal knowledge in three different areas of legal practice: interviewing, criminal litigation and conveyancing. During initial tests, we encountered problems during the interviewing podcast, because the software merely listens for the students’ pauses without understanding what the students are saying.

As a result, the student playing the role of a Solicitor did not necessarily ask the correct questions in the order in which the podcast had been recorded. Therefore, in turn, the podcast did not supply the correct responses to the students’ questions. This confused the students – although it was quite humorous for tutors to listen to.

This initial exercise demonstrated that the software was best suited to interactive podcasts that adopt a linear structure. It needed to be clear to the students what the correct response required was, and we took this into account when scripting our next interactive podcasts. The next two exercises which we created concentrated on recordings which placed the students in situations where there was a set formula to their responses.

For example, in a telephonic exchange of contracts, in conveyancing, there is a specific procedure that a Solicitor must follow. From listening to the recordings it was clear to the student as to how they should respond. This showed us that, although our interactive podcasts lend themselves to a more linear structure, it does not restrict students to a simple yes or no answer. Instead, interactive podcasting demands that students engage deeply with the subject matter by placing them in situations in which there is a specific answer that can only be arrived at through an analytical process.

We left the students to process the information they heard in any way that they liked. It was interesting to see that the majority of them made notes as they listened to the recordings, which allowed them to provide a quick response to the podcast. Interestingly enough, this is not dissimilar to the analytical and reflective way in which a Solicitor would work in practice, either during a telephone conversation, in Court or with a client.

Benefits to other stakeholders: academic staffWhat are some of the benefits of using interactive podcasting and using audio in general?

1. EngagementThe use of audio offers the ability to interpret the response, quality and engagement of students. However, unlike written feedback, audio offers additional dimensions with which to assess a student’s engagement with the exercise. From a qualitative perspective, listening to the audio and marking the content of the student’s responses enables the tutor to analyse the level of understanding that students have of a topic. Their descriptive and analytical ability in the articulation of class concepts, and their similar ability to apply subject theory to a practical situation, allows the student to be involved in problem based learning exercises that will demonstrate an understanding beyond the written.

Our interactive podcasts encourage engagement from all students regardless of their learning preferences. It has been noted that ‘…dyslexic students or those with other reading problems will benefit from the added auditory reinforcement…’ provided by audio technology (only podcasting.com, 2008). Therefore our interactive podcasts can be effective in enhancing the learning experience of all students by increasing inclusivity.

43

Making IT Personal

2. Content controlUnlike traditional role play exercises in which groups of students play each side of the scenario, interactive podcasting ensures that 50per cent of the material involved in the activity is correct and to a standard that is required for the module - fully accommodating all of the learning outcomes of the assessment.

There is the additional benefit of being able to record a model answer podcast, containing both sides of the two way conversation, which can be made available to the students after the exercise.

3. Voice file management With digital voice recorders (DVRs), one of the limiting factors is the logistical issue of delivery and receipt of equipment, particularly with large student cohorts. When the DVRs are returned, tutors can be faced with a stack of anonymous, identical recorders with little idea of what they contain or who has used the device.

In contrast, because our software automatically digitally tags and sends each student’s recordings to the Tutor electronically, the process of reviewing and listening to the recordings is far easier. The software requests from the student either a name, student number or, for anonymous exams, a candidate number. All output is structured to make the most of this labeling and unlike digital voice recorders there are no unidentifiable files.

4. TimeTime spent in the initial preparation and creation of an interactive podcasting activity has benefits for future classes. The lessons and materials gained from the original exercise become a lasting legacy that can be reused with little additional effort. The material is portable and can be used departmentally for different purposes, adding justification for the costs involved in the recording process – costs that can be significantly lower than using digital voice recording techniques which involve extensive voice file management.

5. Comparative markingThe software allows tutors to mark comparatively for situations that may benefit from such methods. In a non-scientific straw poll of computer science faculty members, a substantial proportion stated that when marking assessments, particularly summative in nature, they will often mark responses to questions in batch form – all of question one, then all of question 2 – so as to gain an appreciation for the general strength of a group of students and to better understand the overall level of student engagement. This is not easy to undertake with traditional audio methods. However, with our software, assessors are presented with neatly organised and labelled output files that can be easily compared.

44

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Benefits to other stakeholders: Exam boards and external markersJust as there are benefits for tutors and their students, there are advantages for other stakeholders. The ASEL project (Stewart, 2009) and its results proved that audio is seen as an acceptable method of submission with external markers, moderators and even exam boards.

The adoption of audio methods must of course be as part of a dialogue between assessors and their respective authorities; however, there is precedence for it already within higher education institutions across the country.

For specialist subject areas that already practise audio assessment, such as in law schools where interviewing assessment has been common practice for many years, the benefits of interactive podcasting and structured audio assessment are important in reducing staffing levels. In some cases, the switch to interactive podcasting could negate the need to have a member of staff present at all.

Enhancing the learning experienceThe ASEL project was designed to maximize student engagement through the use of audio technology. According to Schank and Cleary, ‘there really is no learning without doing’ (Schank & Cleary, 1995: 23), and this is the first time that students have been given the opportunity to take part in a two way dialogue with a podcast. Therefore, by allowing the students to respond to our podcast, we are providing them with an opportunity for immediate reflection on their own knowledge and understanding, and thus enhancing their learning experience.

Traditionally, legal practice has been taught through paper-based exercises, with students occasionally engaging in role-play with each other in class. Whilst this develops auditory skills, it is often procedurally and factually inaccurate, as the students do not have the practical knowledge to make the role play effective. With no supervision necessary, our podcasts are factually accurate and place the students within an audio environment that resembles the one in which they will find themselves during professional practice.

Whilst some students have knowledge of the general role of a Solicitor, few have directly experienced the intricacies of being in practice. Our interactive podcasts help students to develop their listening skills and improve their ability to process verbal information quickly, and respond to it appropriately. The interactive podcasts provide the students with a safe environment in which to rehearse their knowledge of various legal processes and consolidate law, procedure and advocacy.

After undertaking the criminal litigation exercise, one UH Law Student commented on the learning benefits of using audio:

“… we’ve read transcripts of [police station] interview[s] … but it’s different when you’re sitting there and there’s no indication of when the beep’s going to come, so you’ve got to be on your toes the whole time.(February 2009)

The software can be used on any computer, anywhere, and the only additional pieces of equipment that are required are a headset with a microphone attached to it and an Internet connection to access

45

Making IT Personal

the podcast and upload the students’ responses to the tutor. The student has the freedom to use the software in a way that suits them best. They are in control; not only as to when they want to use the software but also as to whether they want to use it for consolidation purposes, or repeat it for revision.

ConclusionThe use of audio techniques in practice can have significant benefits for all those involved in the process of delivering learning to the next generation.

Green et al. (2005) define the essence of personalisation thus:

“The logic of education systems should be reversed so that it is the system that conforms to the learner, rather than the learner to the system.” (Personalisation and Digital Technologies 2005)

There is an established desire within higher education to step-up teaching practice to meet the needs and expectations of learners in the 21st century. Consecutive National Student Surveys (HEFCE, 2006, 2007, 2008) have compelled institutions to focus on this issue and consider ways to enhance their feedback and assessment practices. Audio technology remains under-utilised in higher education; however, we believe this imbalance can be addressed by introducing interactive podcasting to learning, teaching and assessment practice on a national scale.

46

e-learning@greenwich/conference

ReferencesDabs Group. (2009). Portable Audio/Video Products. [Online] www.dabs.com [Accessed 12 May 2009]

Green, H., Facer, K. and Rudd, T. with Dillon, P., and Humphreys, P. (2005). Personalisation and Digital Technologies. [Online.] Available at: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Personalisation_report.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2009]

Hargis, J. and Wilson. D. (2005). Fishing for Learning with a Podcast Net. University of North Florida. [Online.] Available from: http://www.unf.edu/dept/cirt/tech/podcast/HargisPodcastArticle.pdf

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2007, 2008, 2009). National Student Survey, Unistats. [Online.] Available at: www.unistats.com [Accessed 23 June 2009]

Mann and Tilley. (2009). Interactive Podcasting. University of Hertfordshire. [Online.] Available at: http://www.interactivepodcasting.co.uk/

Only podcasting.com (2008). Podcasting Education – It could provoke your brains to action. [Online] Available at: http://www.onlypodcasting.com/podcasting-articles/podcast-technology-education.php [Accessed 20 February 2009]

Rotherham, B. (2009). Sounds Good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback. Joint Information Systems Committee. JISC. [Online] Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/soundsgood.aspx [Accessed 24 September 2009]

Stewart, W. (2009). Audio Supported Enhanced Learning. Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). [Online] Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/usersandinnovation/asel.aspx [Accessed 24 September 2009]

Schank, R.C. and Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for Education. New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Windham, C. (2007). Confessions of a Podcast Junkie. EDUCAUSE Review. [Online] Available at: http://connect.educause.edu/library/eli/confessionsofapodcastjunk/39405

47

PDP – Personal, Professional or Painful Development Planning?

Monica Or, Darren Garwood and Rebecca FongWestminster Kingsway College

Development plans – whether personal or professional – are often viewed by students as a painful process. So how can the curriculum be designed to ensure that students understand and appreciate the long term benefits of PDPs?

At Westminster Kingsway College, the PDP comprises two core modules as part of the Foundation Degree in Hospitality Management. This year it has also been incorporated into the tutorial process: this crossover between PDP and the importance of tutorials successfully demonstrates the integration of key concepts such as students taking ownership for their learning.

Fig.1: How PDP modules are linked into tutorials.

Throughout the PDP modules and the tutorial process, students are actively encouraged to reflect on their learning through the use of online blogs. To put this into context, below is a brief overview of the modules and the PDP process:

●● Module 1 – Personal Development Planning – taken by all students. Focus is on personal, career and study skills. Students set five short-term and five long-term SMART objectives which are monitored and assessed at the end of the semester with a viva voca

Personal Development Planning and Study Skills

Professional Development

(full-time)

Tutorials

Online blogs

Learning From Work

(day release/distance learning)

Article

48

e-learning@greenwich/conference

●● Module 2a – Professional Development – for the full-time students. This focuses on development of employability skills and professionalism. Students are required to undertake a work placement which demonstrates how they are developing these skills and critically reflect on their career objectives from this experience

●● Module 2b – Learning From Work – for the day release and distance learning students. As these students are in full-time employment, they focus on developing their leadership skills, which are monitored and assessed at the end of the semester with a viva voca.

The tutorial process for all students encompasses a weekly tutorial covering study skills, university rules and regulations, progression, and the use of blogs for reflection. This links back to the above modules which the students are studying.

The introduction of reflective blogs is a new concept that is being used by our full time, day release and distance learning students. All students have teaching content and resources available for them to use online through Blackboard, the college’s virtual learning environment. The main difference is that our full time and day release students also have face-to-face contact with their tutors, whereas our distance learning students will only get this via webcam.

In order for this to work, all materials have to be set up in advance prior to students starting on the course, to ensure there is integration of the tutorial topics and the PDP module content. Individual student blogs can be set up in advance, and once students have enrolled they can then be allocated. An example blog can be set up so students can see what sorts of entries can be made. Tutors have also set up their own blogs for students to read, which can help with group dynamics.

Students need to be made aware of how the process works and what tools are in place to help them monitor their own learning and progression from the beginning. For distance learning students in particular, the set up of instant messaging and webcams is needed so they can have online access to their tutors. Group and individual chat sessions should be established to enable students to become familiar with using the technology.

It is important that the tutor regularly comments on the student blogs so that they are aware that they are being read. Communication is key whether it is face-to-face, via web cam, instant messaging, email or commenting on blogs. It is important that your students know you are there for them as their personal tutor.

How does the use of technology enable learners to take ownership for their own development?The reason for introducing the tutorial blog was to encourage students to reflect on their learning experiences throughout their time on the programme. It has been combined with the tutorial process to enable students to monitor and track their development and progression, rather than students using it just as an assessment exercise for a particular module. In this way students can look back and clearly see from semester to semester how they are doing, and what changes they may need to make to continually improve.

49

Making IT Personal

It encourages students to take ownership of their own learning, so for example they can take into account feedback from assignments and consider how that can be used in other assessments to gain better marks next time.

As part of our IQER process, an online survey of students’ experience of Personal Development Planning was carried out with a 60 per cent completion rate.

On the hospitality programme, 76 per cent agreed that they review their PDP on their own, and their plans included academic objectives, personal objectives, career development and employability objectives, grade targets, study skills, language / writing skills, professional skills and personal skills.

With regards to finding out about their progress, 86 per cent got this from their actual grades, mainly from written feedback from their module tutors which is received electronically. Only 49per cent said they received this from transcripts from the university. Other ways they receive information on this is from updates and advice from their tutors via emails and voice chats. 78per cent felt they had an accurate picture of how they are progressing on the course.

As far as the impact and value of the PDP is concerned, 80 per cent agreed that it helped them focus on what they needed to do to improve performance, and 82 per centper cent said they would continue with PDP after finishing their course.

Following this survey, two students were interviewed – one full time (Becki) and one distance learning (Darren) – to elaborate specifically on how technology has assisted them with their PDPs. During the conference a video of their interview was shown which highlighted the students’ experiences.

Interview questionsQ: Have you had any experience of using an online virtual learning environment such as

Blackboard prior to starting this course?

A: Neither student had used Blackboard prior to the start of the course.

Q: What tools have you used within Blackboard which have helped you to reflect on your learning?

A: Becki: Use of blogs and wikis, to reflect back on my learning and accessing materials needed.

A: Darren: Going through the exercises set up in the course for individual and group use such as the wikis, blogs and referencing exercises [online quizzes].

Q: Have you used a blog before starting this course?

A: Neither student had used a blog or knew what it was before starting the course.

Q: When was the blog for PDP introduced to you?

A: Becki: In the first lesson.A: Darren: At the start of the course – it laid down the foundation for the rest of the course.

Q: What were your initial thoughts when it was introduced to you?

A: Becki: It was pretty exciting, blogs are everywhere and it is always something that has interested me but I have been apprehensive to approach before.

50

e-learning@greenwich/conference

A: Darren: I came on the course fairly open-minded about what we would be doing, so throwing down your thoughts for someone else to read initially was a bit of a shock. I had to think of what would be appropriate to write, but it gets easier as you go through, and getting the feedback helps to make it an easier process.

Q: How have you used your blog?

A: Becki: To reflect back on significant events that have happened during college, and outside which is related to the degree, so my career, and things that help me to improve.

A: Darren: I tend to save things up and then write about them, I know some students pour their heart out on it and are on it nearly every day. I write more about the highs and lows such as getting results which can be a high, or if midway through a module I get stuck I can ask for help. It’s good.

Q: What sorts of things have you written in your blog?

A: Becki: What I have learnt, what I have found exciting, and various issues I may have had – it allows me to get points across.

A: Darren: Definitely for the grades I’ve had and if I am not sure of anything, asking for clarification, all sorts really. Some of the PDP exercises, such as updating my objectives.

Q: What areas of progress do you monitor through your blog?

A: Becki: Yes, it’s useful to look back at things that have happened in the past, like semester 1. At times I have been quite emotional – happy or sad, and it’s interesting to look back and see it in a more objective point of view. Also to see the stages I went through in completing assignments, so looking at the grades I got and how I can improve on it. Along with that you have the feedback online which helps – as it is all online it is easy access and I can then use that for future assignments.

A: Darren: I can see my progress by looking back from the start and so looking at grades and seeing it from there.

Q: How has the Personal Development Planning process helped with this?

A: Becki: It teaches you a more professional way of executing projects – there is the time management aspect which is very important, and the SWOT analysis for self analysis and this all helps in the way you look at things and being more objective.

A: Darren: It helps you focus on lots of areas which are not just personal, so you can set yourself more study type objectives as well as ones that will help you in the workplace.

Q: Have you seen an impact on your grades and general improvement in areas such as study skills?

A: Becki: Yes, when I first started college my ability to write reports and essays was probably not great, but as we go through these classes and learn more about study skills, and seeing what are our weaknesses and working on those, it helps you to become more of a complete person and it enables you to complete projects a lot more easily.

A: Darren: Certainly in things such as Harvard referencing and the things that don’t come naturally, so it helps to focus you in on those areas.

51

Making IT Personal

Q: Have you used wikis as an online activity? If so, how?

A: Becki: That was one of the first things we were taught to do, and it was made fun. So the first thing we had to do was to use a wiki and create a profile of ourselves and upload a photo, and it was a great way to find out a little more about our classmates. They have also been used to peer review other students work, when we have had tasks to complete, which we’ve done in the form of wikis, and it helps in that you can share ideas and look at each other’s work. It also gives you the chance to comment on other students’ work too, so there’s that definite interactive feeling going on. You learn a lot more and a lot quicker that way.

A: Darren: Yes several times, we’ve used them as groups and as individuals. We’ve gone in and put up pictures and video clips on to there, and we have the peer review process where we can comment on each other’s wikis. It is good to see other people’s wikis, as you can see different perspectives from your own work.

Q: How has this helped you?

A: Becki: It’s opened my eyes to other people’s views. It’s good to have reinforcement or to have someone else challenge your ideas, and it’s another way of learning, as that’s what happens in life anyway.

A: Darren: It gives you another angle to look at things from. You may have attacked it from one angle and someone else has looked at it from another, so you are able to pull in your work, their work, and comments from the tutor, feedback, and use those comments for next time.

Q: What other tools have you used within Blackboard which have helped you to monitor your progress, and helped you to personalise your learning?

A: Becki: I think the whole thing with Blackboard with the fact you have your own login – that in itself makes it very personalised. The idea of submitting all your work online is very good as you don’t have to carry hard copies around with you, and as long as you have internet access you’re fine. You also get online feedback again as well, so you could be working on an assignment away from home on another task and if you want to look back at some of the general points on what you need to improve on from that previous assignment you can, as you have easy access to it.

A: Darren: Mainly the feedback from the tutors, with other work that is on there you can dip in and out of, and go back into the lesson materials. It is useful to go back and forth and it is easy to flick in and out of different areas. So if you are doing some work on a particular assignment you can go back into the lessons, go back to some of the referencing materials from earlier lessons and then go back to your work.

Q: How do you communicate with your personal tutor?

A: Becki: Through Blackboard with the blogs, by email, mobile phones with text messages we get from the tutors and also the tutorials where there are a lot of one-on-one appointments.

A: Darren: Phone, text messages, email, webcams, through feedback with grades from submitting work – there’s been every means really.

52

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Q: Do you feel face-to-face input is a necessity to help you monitor your progression and update your PDP?

A: Becki: I think you can’t under estimate the feedback you get from through body language – when it’s face-to-face it’s very personal and the feedback given feels more real, so you have to take action on that, whatever it is they tell you to do.

A: Darren: It’s not a necessity but I think the webcam and the odd visit just helps you to have a friendly face where you can talk things through, but it’s not a necessity.

Q: How do you plan to continue using the PDP process after completion of this course?

A: Becki: What I have learnt is that the process is making me more of a complete person; it has helped me to understand myself, in more of a professional light. It is helping me to improve my day to day life really, so if I neglected that I think you’d end up walking around lost without a direction of where you want to go. So I think it is important that I carry on using these skills, so I have those goals, and a target to reach. It makes it a lot easier to stay on track.

A: Darren: I would use it not with the formal PDP document as in the assignments, but I would use parts of it, to structure what I am going to do next, so I would use PDP but in a different format. By writing it down it does help you to focus, as you have thought about it more, so for example for some of the further away objectives, once I had written them down and broken them down into smaller steps I actually managed to get them done. So I would definitely use the process, certainly writing them down, printing them off and looking at them to help me complete my goals.

After the video, the audience was invited to ask the students questions directly about this which then generated a discussion on the use of technology in Making IT Personal. One of the recurring questions asked centred on how students learn to write reflectively in their blogs. It transpired that this was through having an example blog for students to look at and through the feedback and comments given by tutors, so that students are continually learning and updating their skills. Also, as the students mentioned in their interview, the process of peer review through use of wikis helps them to develop their study skills in areas such as reflective writing.

Further developments●● After the conference a representative from JISC asked for a copy of the student interviews to be put

on their website as part of their infoNET infoKIT on e-portfolios.

●● Westminster Kingsway College has recently won Development Project funding from Linking London in

order to fund our project ‘Developing Interactive PDP for the VLE’.

53

Personalisation of Learning Framework

James Ballard and Philip ButlerUniversity of London Computer Centre

Personalisation emerged as a key strategy in the Harnessing Technology e-strategy (DfES 2006), and is central to the 2020 Vision for education (DfES 2006b). While this is a strategic and pedagogic approach, rather than a technological issue, the affordances of new technologies present new opportunities to provide personalised learning environments where systems adapt to the needs of the learner rather than learners to systems (Green et al. 2006). As learner use of the internet becomes more ubiquitous, e-learning solutions must meet higher expectations both from learners (Green and Hannon, 2007) and from pedagogical approaches (Laurillard, 2002).

For learning providers this provides a cultural challenge where rapid technological innovation places pressure on existing structures and staff development. The range of tools available to tutors and learners is growing exponentially and boundaries between formal and informal learning are blurring, as are those between personal and institutional spaces. E-Learning generally exists in this context as a means of bridging personal learning with institutional objectives and vice versa. As the range of tools available increases, so do the potential costs of licenses and integration, thus placing further financial constraints on possibilities.

In 2007, ULCC saw the opportunities presented in these new strategies and working with partner providers began to explore Open Source solutions to meet the changing needs of the sector. Open Source afforded two key advantages: free access to the code base has made complex system integration possible across a range of systems; and license free cost-models have reduced the cost-of-ownership for learning providers. An open source model has also allowed other providers to benefit from developments and a genuinely effective community of practice has emerged. Out of this ULCC have developed their nationally recognised Personalisation of Learning Framework, which was to be presented at this conference.

The framework uses an ownership of process concept to distinguish key elements supported by e-learning tools, and is particular in highlighting two alternative models for e-portfolio delivery: the assessment portfolio and the lifelong learning space portfolio. Integration between the elements is crucial and the Individual Learning Plan (ILP) is in many ways seen as the glue that holds everything together, providing a dialogue between learner and tutor with regular progress reviews and opportunities for approaching meta-cognitive ideas and practices.

Barnsley College was to present a case study of their experiences implementing the e-ILP and integrated system model as part of their personalisation strategy. The key focus was to improve the consistency of tutorial support across the college, recognised in their subsequent OFSTED inspection as

Article

54

e-learning@greenwich/conference

having seen significant progress, with over 75 per cent of learners reporting positive feedback of use in the 1st year (08/09). The initial focus of the e-ILP at Barnsley included live attendance display, alongside long-term goals, target setting, progress reviews and disciplinary reports. After learner feedback to ensure the focus becomes more learner orientated the 2nd year (09/10) will also see initial assessments, qualifications on entry, enrichment activities, and achievements incorporated alongside revised versions of the original layout. It is now expected that all students should have an e-ILP as part of their access to the college’s VLE (Moodle).

The Personalisation of Learning Framework provides learning providers with an opportunity to begin implementing key elements of personalisation strategies, even suggesting that e-learning and IT strategies should be subsumed into a wider personalisation strategy, which we see in some providers already. This changes the focus of ICT from the technological (‘what technology can we provide?’) to one of learner entitlement (‘a learner at my institution should be entitled to...’) in line with the 2020 Vision recommendations. The initial success of this approach can be seen in the work at Barnsley College, among others, and we look forward to continued innovations planned in this area and facilitated by the framework.

ReferencesDfES (2006), Harnessing Technology. [online] http://publications.dcsf.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-1296-2005 (retrieved 24 November 2009)

DfES (2006b), 2020 Vision: Report of the Teaching and Learning in 2020 Review Group. [online] http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productdetails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DFES-04255-2006 (retrieved 24 November 2009)

Green H, Facer K, Rudd T, Dillon P and Humphreys P (2006). Personalisation and Digital Technologies. (Futurelab.) http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/personalisation.htm (retrieved 24 November 2009)

Green H and Hannon C (2007). Their Space - Education for a digital generation. (Demos.) http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/theirspace (last accessed 24 November 2009)

Laurillard D (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2nd edn.)

OFSTED. Reports for Barnsley College. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_providers/full/%28urn%29/130524 (retrieved 24 November 2009)

ULCC. Personalisation of Learning Framework. [online] http://moodle.ulcc.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=139 (retrieved 24 November 2009)

55

Academic Portfolios: Facilitating Personalised Learning for Health and Social Care Professionals

Linda Thorne, Anne Gill and Julie Bowdenwith Sadie Hafford and Susan Myers

IntroductionOur approach in the portfolio courses enables work-based learning for health and social care professionals to be recognised in an academic context. The online learning environment enables learners from different professional backgrounds and different academic levels to mix in a democratic community of learners, sharing experiences and supporting each other through the process of developing an academic portfolio.

This paper will discuss the background to the development of the portfolio and its current application, and will incorporate reflections about presenting at the e-learning conference including both lecturer and student experiences.

We will also consider: the student experience and the use and contribution of e-learning processes; the academic credibility of the portfolio; evaluation and observations of students and staff; lessons learned; and implications for future development.

ContextLife long learning became an important part of the national agenda in the late 1980s, particularly amongst business, industry and the professions. This coincided with the expansion of higher education institutions and the incorporation of polytechnics; credit frameworks and Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) emerged and many professional groups, including health care, linked to higher education in the quest to become a graduate profession.

It was against this background that new health care awards were developed and a credit tariff of previous qualifications drawn up. In hindsight, nursing fared poorly in this new system of awarding credit: the vocational nature of their training was seen to lack academic rigour. Nurses found themselves playing catch-up in the system, having to prove themselves worthy – and accreditation of prior experiential learning began to be used to facilitate this process.

Article

56

e-learning@greenwich/conference

Traditional APEL is a complex process, requiring expansive portfolios of evidence and onerous written accounts of learning, and although many professionals have impressive evidence of work based learning at a high level, they were awarded credit for the portfolio work but did not get a grade that contributed to their degree classification.

This system served the health professions well for almost two decades. However, the emphasis on adult learning styles (Rogers, 1994; Knowles, 1984), and the focus on the way professionals learn (Schon, 1983) – in addition to the growth in recent years of work based learning – means it has become evident that we need to be more confident and flexible in the way we recognise the experiential learning of health care professionals, particularly nurses.

Academic portfolioThe portfolio was designed with its audience in mind: the majority of our students are full time workers in the health and social care sectors, including nurses, social workers and the professions allied to medicine, e.g. physiotherapists. Their expressed needs include flexibility and acknowledgement of their existing learning. Online learning does meet the requirement for flexibility, but face-to-face contact is very important for this group. We have designed an approach to learning that is able to achieve both.

The initial online content enables them to come to grips with the process of portfolio development (described below) but they are also attached to individual tutors within the first few weeks. Some students are distance learners, living and working in Canada and the Channel Islands to cite some recent examples, but the one-to-one contact can be successfully maintained using Skype, or the ordinary telephone. The process-based learning approach enables individualised learning par excellence – every portfolio is different and each learning experience also needs to be different.

The course was initially designed to be delivered in the classroom using a workshop approach, including an initial explanation of portfolio development followed by individual tutorial sessions. When we transferred the course to the online environment we had to consider how we could do this without losing the quality of the experience and the individual contact. We opted from the beginning for a blended learning approach, with the aim of creating a learning community online and maintaining the individual contact by various methods using a variety of communication strategies. The chosen platform WEB CT does enable this approach: the online classroom contains both instructions for each stage of the portfolio and access to discussion areas for activities. Students do form a true community of learning very quickly and spontaneously help each other out and share ideas (Palloff and Pratt, 1999).

We felt it important to build the course around the needs of the student and requirements of the portfolio. Each week, learning activities are posted that take the student through the process of developing the portfolio. Content generated, whilst unique to that student, is shared with colleagues online to assist others in thinking about their own experiences in different ways.

The intention was to focus on the individual student from the start, and the student is encouraged to reflect on and discuss with a lecturer their previous continuing professional development and what they hope to achieve within the programme of study, in order to gauge the number and level of credit that might be achieved.

57

Making IT Personal

The portfolio enables students to gain credit towards awards from level 4 to level 7 in the national curriculum framework. Students must be registered on an award and currently can gain between 15 and 60 credits, depending on the level of portfolio they undertake.

Initially students are encouraged to complete a comprehensive CV detailing roles and responsibilities and education, particularly over the past ten years. This forms the basis for sharing and group discussion in order to cluster together the activities that are similar or relate to each other. These often, although not exclusively, fall into the categories of leadership, management and teaching, as well as clinical developments and skills.

Students vary considerably in the amount and nature of the support they require to do this. Some students have a keen sense of where and how their strengths and learning have developed; others feel they have little to bring from ‘just doing their job’. A key teaching and learning process used is to develop a dialogue with the student to help them to locate examples of their expertise in practice. This is quite intensive and involves a structured conversation using open ended and probing questions that elicit information from the student which the teacher can then use to point out associations and links.

This is a most interesting phase for the teachers, for as students begin to see the learning that has resulted from their areas of practice merging to become themes, the students gain momentum and generate further associations themselves. The next stage is to assist the student to turn the themes into learning statements that clearly reflect the student’s level of ability and that can be measured through a written commentary and collection of evidence.

In order to maintain the academic credibility of the portfolio it is important that the students understand the nature of evidence and are able to reflect on their practice and the learning they derive from practice. This process starts once the learning statement has been developed.

Each statement must be supported by appropriate evidence. Therefore the students have to understand the difference between primary and secondary evidence – quite a new endeavour for some, particularly at level 5. Tutorial guidance is particularly critical at this point as the approach is different to a professional portfolio: certificates that do not relate to the learning statement should be excluded, as should evidence that the student did not have some hand in creating. A process of negotiation is often needed, as there is a tendency for students to want to include everything that appears to relate to their practice.

The reflective commentary is the final part of the process and is the main vehicle for the student to establish academic validity. The requirement is for the student to reflect on their learning as supported by their evidence; they also need to establish that where appropriate there is theoretical and research based support for their practice. Reflection is particularly appropriate since the basis of the portfolio is experiential learning, and the most successful students are able to identify changes in themselves that indicate learning (Kolb, 1984).

Since its inception the portfolio course has been evaluated by the students in accordance with the School’s quality assurance procedures. Students have consistently evaluated the course as a positive learning experience. Schon (1983) described professional education as having a tendency to place the greatest importance on the acquisition of knowledge rather than its application to practice. The

58

e-learning@greenwich/conference

academic portfolio is potentially a bridge that links the ‘knowing how’ of practice with the ‘knowing why’ of education, and this has been highlighted in the course evaluations.

One theme that has emerged from the evaluations is that the process of developing an academic portfolio enhances the students’ confidence. Many former students have described the process of developing the portfolio as an opportunity to step back from their demanding daily roles and consider, perhaps for the first time, in a structured manner what expertise they have developed and what contribution they make to their workplace.

As well as giving the students increased confidence; evaluations have also shown that the portfolio course validates the students’ practice experience. Many of the students who undertake the portfolio course are experienced, senior practitioners who attained their nursing qualifications prior to nurse education being part of the higher education framework, thus they have experience and expertise but little academic credit. The combination of increasing confidence and a greater sense of validation for their work means that students gain personal and professional satisfaction from undertaking the portfolio course. This in turn leads to greater motivation both to pursue their studies and further enhance their practice.

Conference testimonialsIn order to further demonstrate how the academic portfolio has enhanced the learning of those that have undertaken it, the team invited two former students to address the conference. Although every student who undertakes the portfolio has a unique professional and educational profile, the students who were invited to share their vignettes are very typical of the students who undertake the portfolio course.

One student, a midwife of 17 years’ experience, described needing to acquire a substantial amount of undergraduate (level 5) credit towards a professional practice degree. In her role she had developed two new services, and led practice in her trust for both diabetes and HIV care for pregnant women. The other student, a sexual health nurse, had undertaken a portfolio to obtain level 6 credits towards a sexual health degree. She currently leads the sexual health service for a Primary Care Trust and had initiated award winning sexual health outreach services for young people in her area. Both students reported a growing sense of achievement as they worked through the stages of the portfolio; one said ‘[the portfolio] has given me confidence to reappraise what level I can work at’; the other described the process as ‘uplifting, as I realise how much I have achieved’ and added that previously she had been modest about her achievements and thought she was ‘only doing her job’.

The teaching team’s evaluation of the portfolio course has highlighted that learners keenly engage with the process of portfolio development. When discussing qualified nurses as learners, Griscti and Jacono (2006) noted participatory activities enthused them more than didactic lectures. The academic portfolio is focused on the student’s practice and thus the content of each portfolio is unique, and the process of developing the portfolio is highly participative.

Whilst the unique nature of each portfolio produced is a recognised strength of the course and testifies to the personalised learning that is taking place, the teaching team has to be mindful that some students can feel isolated. The course web platform is the forum where students can join in discussions and share experiences, but not all students engage with the activities to the same extent. As adult learners the students face many challenges such as work and family commitments that mean they cannot always

59

Making IT Personal

be online at the allotted time to participate in the discussions. Unlike with face-to-face teaching it is not always possible for the learners to secure ring-fenced time to ‘attend’ the course. Consequently the teaching team has to be flexible about when and how individual feedback is given, which enhances the personalised nature of the student experience, but can be resource intensive.

Despite the challenges described above the teaching team has observed high levels of participation in the course and acknowledges the substantial amounts of reading and investigating the students undertake to produce their portfolios. It is therefore very satisfying for both the teachers and the students to see the award of academic credit for their efforts. This credit is not described as ‘comparable with’ or ‘equivalent to’ other credit (as with APEL systems); it is quantifiable credit awarded with a grade attached. This verifies the student’s learning from experience in a tangible, measurable form. In addition, stakeholders such as health and social care employers who support the portfolio course can be confident that the students have achieved their goal and ultimately that their money has been spent appropriately.

ConclusionThe portfolio was intended to be a flexible learning approach that suited the needs of an adult professional workforce, which recognised the legitimacy of their work-based learning and took account of work and family demands. Key requirements were to ensure that the students received credit and grades to complete degree awards. Feedback from student evaluations, external examiner reports and pass rates indicate that the venture has been a success story. Contributing to this success has been a consistent effort from all concerned.

As teachers we have responded consistently to student feedback and kept the portfolio under continuing review. Many changes have been made over the years, including the development of the online courses, whilst keeping the personal contact with the students and maintaining the individual approach.

As part of the conference preparation we had to identify the lessons learnt from the experience. Our consensus was that constant review was imperative, as was responding to students’ needs, but of equal importance was to maintain the process based approach and resist the temptation to add content and substitute our combined knowledge and experience for the students’ knowledge and experience.

Our final slide for the conference stated ‘the portfolio course has reinforced for us the complexities of process led education and personalised learning’ and ‘the outcome for students makes it worth the effort’. With due consideration we would not alter a word of that final sentence.

60

e-learning@greenwich/conference

ReferencesGriscti , O. and Jacono, J. (2006). Effectiveness of continuing education programmes in nursing: literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 55 (4): 449 – 456.

Knowles, M. (1984). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species (3rd Ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall.

Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for the online classroom. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Rogers, C.R. and Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to Learn. (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Temple Smith.

61

Personalised Learning: A Familiar Concept to Secondary Teachers? And Which Teachers?

Dominique Verpoorten, Jean-Marie Renson*, Wim Westera and Marcus SpechtOpen University of the Netherlands

*University of Liège (Belgium)

This paper presents the main results of a questionnaire survey that sought to evaluate secondary school teachers’ familiarity with the notion of personalised learning and to relate it to personal, sociological and professional characteristics. The outcomes of this work are both an exploratory study aimed at defining more focused questions about the theme of personalisation, and the first try-out of the questionnaire designed to gather data. Although this was thus a preliminary study which did not lay claim to any more general scope, it still enables some hypotheses to be framed and examined in the light of the answers of 43 practitioners.

RationalePersonalised learning has been the subject of considerable attention at the following levels:

●● Educational policy (Bonal and Rambla, 1999; DfES, 2004; Leadbeater, 2004)

●● School management (Lambert andLowry, 2004; West-Burnham and Coates, 2005)

●● Classroom practice (Martinez, 2002; Polhemus, Danchak and Swan, 2004; Tomlinson, 1999).

Surveys have been conducted on specific personalisation strategies based on learning styles (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone, 2004; O’Connor, 1999), level of learner control (Czarkowski and Kay, 2003), type of feedback (Economides, 2006), meta-cognitive awareness (Gama, 2004), etc. However, we could not find any study of how the general issue of personalisation is perceived by teachers, as opposed to how it is perceived by pupils (Waldeck, 2007). The research endeavour was therefore to explore the degree of awareness of the concept of personalised learning on the part of the teaching staff at a particular school. The study also aims to relate the expressed familiarity (in terms of knowledge and practice) to various personal, social and professional characteristics of the respondents.

Context and methodologyTo investigate teachers’ familiarity with the concept of personalised learning, we collected and processed 43 questionnaires filled in by secondary teachers of the European School Mol (Belgium)

Article

62

e-learning@greenwich/conference

during a staff training day dedicated to different aspects of personalisation. The literature did not bring about any existing instrument fitted to our purpose. The questionnaire (Verpoorten, Logan, and Aviram, 2006) was therefore designed for the present survey (see appendix). 19 distinct hypotheses underlie the questionnaire. The paper presents the results with regard to seven of them only - those we consider as less affected by methodological defaults (see ‘Lessons learnt’ section) and the most useful as input for reflection about personalisation.

ResultsOutcomes are twofold:

●● The survey enabled the questionnaire to be tested in terms of overall relevance and requirements for additional or reformulated questions

●● The survey allowed a few interesting observations to be made. These should be regarded not as confirmations of the underpinning hypotheses in the strict sense of the word, but rather as empirical indications about the dimensions of the object of investigation: the familiarity of teachers with the notion of personalised learning and the association of this level of familiarity with respondents’ characteristics. At best, the results help to identify some trends with regards to differences between

familiar and non familiar practitioners.

Observation 1 (hypothesis 1): the concept of personalised learning is not familiar to teachers, with less than 50 per cent of those questioned claiming to be familiar with it, and the definitions ascribed to it remaining relatively variable.

Observation 2 (hypothesis 6): familiarity with the concept is linked to earlier experience of personalised learning as a learner. Although only 28 per cent of the teachers assert they had earlier experience of personalised learning, 67 per cent of that group were familiar with the concept (see figure 1).

Figure 1: The more a teacher experienced personalised learning as a student, the more familiar s/he claims to be with the concept of personalisation

63

Making IT Personal

Observation 3 (hypothesis 10): familiarity with the concept is closely connected with the degree of urgency attributed to it, which seems fairly logical. For +/- 30per cent of teachers, problems of structure (number of pupils, heterogeneous classrooms) take priority over personalised learning. Other competing concerns mentioned are: lack of pupils’ autonomy, inappropriateness of pupils’ attitude to learning, administrative burden, lack of interdisciplinary approach, rhythm of educational reforms.

Observation 4 (hypotheses 9 and 11): claims to practise personalisation are linked to familiarity with the concept, which also makes sense. Assiduity to personalised learning appears to be related to people rather than to the perception they have of their primary function as a teacher.

Observation 5 (hypothesis 15): most teachers think that personalised learning is desirable for all pupils, but the justifications given are fairly variable. In open comments, individualisation is cited most often, followed by effectiveness and improved results and, finally, motivation. In any case, 56per cent of the teachers declared that the practice of personalisation is possible in all teaching fields. Others said that it is often linked to particular conditions (time, physical layout, etc.) and to class management (size, discipline, etc.).

Observation 6 (hypothesis 17): 85 per cent of teachers think it is possible to increase personalised learning in their classes, under certain conditions: firstly, the availability of extra time; secondly, receiving more training in the concept; thirdly, obtaining practical assistance on how to introduce it in class; and finally, obtaining resources in terms of equipment (computers, suitable classrooms).

Observation 7 (hypothesis 18): intentions to practise personalisation are linked to class size. In the sample, the majority of classes were smaller than 15 pupils (+/- 57per cent of answers), and 55 per cent of teachers of classes of this size practise personalisation, compared with 60 per cent of teachers for the 21 to 25 pupils category, which itself accounted for 8 per cent of the answers given. Thus it can be seen that the degree of practice of personalisation, while linked to class size, is not necessarily proportionate to it. In classes of more than 30 pupils, the practice of personalisation could not be observed any further.

Lessons learnt

Lesson 1 – The questionnaire must be revisedEach of the 19 hypotheses was formulated and accompanied with a reason for putting it forward. At the end of our research, we consider that most of those rationales are still valid and deserve further investigation. Nevertheless, this first version of the questionnaire was not able to capture proper data for each hypothesis. After pre-treatment, we decided to thoroughly treat only seven of them. Flaws and biases generally observed come either from an inadequate formulation of questions or from a dispersal (see lesson 2) of the sample in too many groups (for instance, when the taught subject matter is concerned).

Lesson 2 – The sample must be expanded The answer to the key question ‘Is the concept of personalised learning familiar to you?’ divided

64

e-learning@greenwich/conference

the group of 43 teachers into two, creating two groups of roughly 20 people each. This is valid as a discriminating variable in an exploratory survey, and justifies a series of analyses of relationships between this dichotomic variable (familiar versus non familiar) and others. Classifications producing smaller groups do not provide sufficiently reliable discriminating variables. We made occasional mention of results relating to restricted numbers, but only as input for the process of refining the approach.

Lesson 3 – The two main discriminating variables must receive more attentionThe study is based from start to finish on the comparison of various items of data in pairs. In most cases, the tables compare the answers given by the teachers who stated that they were familiar with the notion (part one of the questionnaire) or with the practice (part two of the questionnaire) of personalised learning with those given by the teachers who said that they were not. However, those very influential classifications bears only on two questions, which is too scarce.

Lesson 4 – A confrontation with objective data would be welcomeThe research is based exclusively on the statements made by the participants. No reality check was performed here and discrepancies between what is expressed and real actions of personalisation in the classrooms are very likely.

Lesson 5 – Perceived impact of personalisationThe questionnaire omitted to question the familiarity of teachers in association with its perceived efficacy. A further version could incorporate this dimension. In the literature, personalisation has found its supporters and its critics, with some even questioning the effectiveness of personalising learning in the first place (Hattie, 1993; Marzano, Pickering and Pollock, 2001), while others have recommended personalisation with caution (Ferguson, Schmoller and Smith, 2004; Ronen, 2006). The same split could take place amongst teachers.

Possible implications for practiceIn the field of technology-enhanced learning, millions of euros have been and still are – spent on European projects dealing with personalised learning (the most often envisioned as performed automatically). In a European school which participated in such a European project and which, additionally, can be expected to be open to a variety of educational influences and has a reputation for openness towards innovation, the teaching staff, according to its own claims, do not seem as aware of the notion and the practice of personalised learning as it might be expected. If this observation is not fully imputable to flaws in the survey, it points to a basic level of initiative needed for further enhancement in personalisation: taking into account practitioners’ representation of and familiarity with the topic.

65

Making IT Personal

Responses to the sessionSome of the key questions and observations that came out from the discussion at the end were:

1. Are the European or Belgian schools pushing personalisation as much as their British counterparts?

A: Not really, or not in these terms, according to the presenter (who was the only non-English person present). In Belgium, educational policy puts emphasis on the word ‘remediation’ or ‘social diversity of schools’ populations’. In European schools, personalisation is approached through the phrase ‘learning support’, for which there are specific budgets. As a Belgian, the presenter got acquainted to the word ‘personalisation’ because it was one salient key aspects of the iClass project that funded the survey. A participant notes that, even in the United Kingdom, personalisation can be more of a political term than a reality discussed or practised at the classroom level.

2. Should not the discussion around personalisation be centred upon a personalisation by individuals rather than a personalisation for individuals?

A: The presenter fully agrees. However, he observes that, in the context of European projects, personalisation is (too) much coupled with technically-driven lines of inquiry: adaptive systems, artificial intelligence, knowledge ontologies, etc. (Keenoy, Levene and de Freitas, 2007). Approaches that make much room to self-regulated personalisation or to supporting tools helping tutors and students to tailor personalised instruction are very much needed (Maragliano, 2004; Verpoorten, 2009). In this respect, participants to the discussion converge in saying that the sources for having an opinion on a student, and on subsequent personalisation or guidance, are currently too scarce. A common situation in the educational system is that most decisions of the actors are taken on the narrow basis of exam grades. Experiences of class councils quite often show that the same remarks about the same students come again and again. One step towards enhanced practice of personalisation by end-users (teachers and students) would be an increased availability of ‘learning indicators’ that sustain, in a long term (‘historical’) perspective, awareness of enduring problems, critical moments of insights and progress. This approach (Verpoorten, Glahn, Kravcik, Ternier and Specht, 2009) may turn out to be more efficient than automatic learning paths structuring and might foster the sense of personalisation even in regular courses.

3. When you put some of the graphics, side by side, there are inconsistencies.

A: This is true. The exploratory character of the study was underlined in the abstract and the presentation did not hide methodological problems. Because not much is known about personalisation envisaged from the teacher’s viewpoint, preliminary work needs to be done for gaining familiarity with the dimensions of the phenomenon and the instruments (eg the questionnaire) likely to enlighten the practitioners’ position. Despite methodological faults, the presentation served as a lever to interesting discussion, which is another possible use thereof.

66

e-learning@greenwich/conference

ReferencesBonal and Rambla. (1999). The Recontextualisation Process of Educational Diversity: new forms to legitimise pedagogic practice. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 9(2), 195-214.

Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, H., and Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. A critical and comprehensive review of learning style research, highlighting 13 core learning styles. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Czarkowski, M., and Kay, J. (2003). How to give the user a sense of control over the personalization of adaptive hypertext. Paper presented at the Workshop on Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems, User Modeling Session.

DfES. (2004). A National Conversation about Personalised Learning. Retrieved July, 2007, from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/personalisedlearning/downloads/personalisedlearning.pdf

Economides, A. (2006). Adaptive Feedback Characteristics in CAT. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 3(8).

Ferguson, N., Schmoller, S., and Smith, N. (2004). Personalisation in presentation services – A report commissioned by the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Retrieved July, 2007, from http://www.therightplace.net/jp/

Gama, C. (2004). Integrating Metacognition Instruction in Interactive Learning Environments. Unpublished PhD, University of Sussex, Brighton.

Hattie, J. A. (1993). Measuring the effects of schooling. SET, 2, 1-4.

Keenoy, K., Levene, M., and de Freitas, S. (2007). Personalised Trails: How Machines Can Learn To Adapt Their Behaviour To Suit Individual Learners. In S. et al. (Ed.), Trails in Education: Technologies That Support Navigational Learning (pp. 33-58). Sense Publishers.

Lambert, M. B., and Lowry, L. K. (2004). Knowing and being known: Personalization as a foundation for student learning. Seattle: Small Schools Project.

Leadbeater, C. (2004). Pamphlet – Learning About Personalisation. Retrieved July, 2007, from http://www.demos.co.uk/publications//learningaboutpersonalisation

Maragliano, R. (2004). The machine has been delegated a problem which is and remains primarily a teaching problem [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 23-08-2004 from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/directory/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=5148&doclng=6.

Martinez, M. (2002). Designing learning objects to personalize learning. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.) The Instructional Use of Learning Objects (pp. 151-173). Bloomington: Agency for Instructional Technology.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., and Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works: Research based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

67

Making IT Personal

O’Connor, T. O. (1999). Using Learning Styles to Adapt Technology for Higher Education. Retrieved 23-01-2008, from www.isu.indstate.edu/ctl/styles.

Polhemus, L., Danchak, M., and Swan, K. (2004, June 2004). Personalized Course Development Techniques for Improving Online Student Performance. Paper presented at the Conference of Instructional Technologies (CIT), Stonybrook, New York.

Ronen, Y. (2006). iClass Report to partners – Customized personal learning (CPL): Its effectiveness in improving learning results. Tel Aviv: Ben Gourion University.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.

Verpoorten, D. (2009). Adaptivity and autonomy development in a learning personalization process. Policy Futures in Education, accepted.

Verpoorten, D., Glahn, C., Kravcik, M., Ternier, S., and Specht, M. (2009). Personalisation of Learning in Virtual Learning Environments. Paper presented at the ECTEL 09 (submitted).

Verpoorten, D., Logan, K., and Aviram, R. (2006). Beliefs and expectations about personalised learning – A pre-questionnaire. iClass project.

Waldeck, J. H. (2006). What Does ‘Personalized Education’ Mean for Faculty, and How Should It Serve Our Students? Communication Education, 55(3), 345-352.

Waldeck, J. H. (2007). Answering the Question: Student Perceptions of Personalized Education and the Construct’s Relationship to Learning Outcomes. Communication Education, 56(4), 409-432.

West-Burnham, J., and Coates, M. (2005). Personalizing learning: transforming education for every child. Stafford, UK: Network Educational Press.

69

Appendix: the survey

Familiarity with personalised learningWe want to explore teacher beliefs about and practice of personalised learning (PL) and what the perspectives are of teachers in lower and upper secondary schools of PL? To achieve this we would be grateful if you could complete the following short survey.

A. Demographic information1. Age:

2. Gender:

3. Number of years experience teaching:

4. Main discipline taught:

5. Age range or Grades taught in this subject:

6. Average number of pupils per class:

B. Awareness1. Are you familiar with the concept of PL? Yes / No

2. What do YOU define personalised learning as?

3. Have you experienced personalised learning during your own studies (as opposed to your teaching)? Yes / No

3a. If you answered yes to question 3, please describe your experience/s

4. I would describe the education I received at home as: (Multiple answers possible)

Open Rigid Secular Religious Disciplinary

Ideological Loving

5. I would describe the education I received at school as: (Multiple answers possible)

Open Rigid Secular Religious Disciplinary

Ideological Loving

Appendix

70

e-learning@greenwich/conference

6. I would prioritarily describe my daily activity in classrooms as: (Answers mutually exclusive)

a job a mission a stopgap

7. What level of urgency do you believe personalised learning has at school?

None Low Average High Maximum

8. Could you elaborate the reasons for your level of belief in question 7?

C. Attitude and expectations1. Do you practice personalised learning in your classes? (Please indicate for which subject/s)

Subject: Never Sometimes Regularly Often

Subject: Never Sometimes Regularly Often

2. How do you implement/practice personalised learning in your classes?

3. Do you believe personalised learning is desirable for all students? Yes / No

4. Why do you believe this?

5. Do you believe personalised learning is possible in all disciplines? Yes / No

6. Why do you believe this?

7. Would you, with your current resources, be able to increase the level of personalised learning in your courses? Yes / No

9. What would help you to practice more personalised learning in your teaching?

Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.

Making IT Personal is the seventh e-learning@greenwich conference to be organised by the University of Greenwich and provided opportunities to examine and debate the personalisation of learning across different educational sectors and countries. For the third year in succession, we are pleased to publish reflections by

practitioners on their presentations to conference. This includes chapters on such personalisation themes as social inclusion and impersonalisation, staff development, PDP, and systems and tools.

The papers provide insights into the ways that different institutions and their staff are adapting existing teaching, learning and assessment services and practices. They describe how new partnerships with learners generate

new forms of learning, teaching and assessment which lead to student-derived goals, flexibility and choice and, ultimately, greater self-regulation and the co-creation of knowledge.

.Our aim in publishing these papers is to go beyond the nominal remit of a ‘conference proceedings’ publication.

Authors have drawn on their experiences at the Greenwich conference to further inform their thinking and writing, a practice we hope to build upon in subsequent conference publications.

2008

University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee, registered in England (reg. no. 986729). Registered office: Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS

This document is available in other

formats on request

D4371-10 September 10

9 781861 662620

ISBN 978-1-86166-262-0