designs for learning with vles tutors’ designs and creations in their vle areas. mira vogel,...

Designs for learning with VLEs

Tutors’ designs Tutors’ designs and creations in and creations in their VLE areas.their VLE areas.

Mira Vogel, Goldsmiths, University of London Martin Oliver, Institute of

Education

Peeking Out by Richard Lowkes

http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardlowkes/

Mira Vogel and Martin Oliver, 26 April 06 2 of 49

Overview of this session

1. Definitions of design for learning2. Project background3. Putting a VLE in place4. Articulating designs5. Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs6. Selection and use of different tools7. Conclusions and implications


Definitions of design for learning

…designing, planning,

orchestrating and supporting learning

activities as part of a learning session or programme.

…plan out in systematic form;

intend or have as a purpose; execute in

an artistic or highly skilled

manner; an iterative conversation with your materials …


Background

Designing for Learning

• Effortful, involving» Creative thinking

» Investment of time in- Conceiving sequences

- Representing to learners

- Testing

• Designs rarely explicitly represented

• Design process is private» Tacit, diverse, complex

VLEs• Most institutions have a

VLE» Catalyst of open source

• Mostly used to serve files» Easy, worthwhile

» Information not education?

• Powerful, but with hurdles» Privilege text and files

» Hinder forming connections

» Design becomes more important than ever


Background: project aims and objectives

• Learning Design Tools theme of the Designing for Learning theme of the E-Learning and Pedagogy strand of JISC’s E-Learning Programme

• Aims» Understand how to support tutors’ use of VLEs

- Strategic emphasis on sharing

• Objectives» Explore how tutors use VLEs to design learning activities


Blended / f2f10 UK

institutions• HE• FE• ACL

Focus on 3 VLEs

• Moodle (6)• Blackboard (2)• WebCT (2)

Background: scope and focus

support

The institutions

learning

teaching

VLE


Background: participants

Hill College (Moodle)

Brett

Fred

LucaOlly

PeteZoe

Ozzy

Rachel Lake University (Moodle)

Downs College (Moodle)

Kurt

JedIan

IkeBen

Bart

Laurie

Bay College (Moodle)

Chris

Cliff College (Blackboard)

Ina

Tim

Rick

Lila

KathyKitty

PetraDella

Babak

Uplands University (Blackboard)

Colin

Island College (WebCT)

Luke

Paul

Forest College (Moodle)

Mike

River University (WebCT)

Bill

Valley College (Moodle)

Dave

Learner

Tutor

E-learning lead

E-learning lead & tutor

KEY

Studying with

Interview participants


Study design – mixed methods

Activity

Background

Identify and recruit Moodle users

Organise contacts

Collect preliminary data

Analyse preliminary dataObservations

Plan

Observe tutors and students

Write up fieldnotes and transcribe

Analyse

Generate focus group questionsFocus group interviews

Organise participants across roles

Plan

Carry out

Transcribe recordings

AnalyseDeliverables

Monthly reports

Interim report

Write up case studies

Final report and recommendations

Participant feedback sought

Participant feedback integrated

Float / annual leave

low level activity

high level activity

critical path

JanuaryDecemberNovemberSeptember October

Key

May June July August

1. Interview e-learning leads 2. Tutor

questionnaires

3. Generate questions

4. Site visits –interviews, focus groups

5. Report and recommendations


Findings: learning technology contacts

Putting a VLE in place


Methodology

• Exploring how VLEs are chosen, implemented and supported» Privileged insights from a group with cross-institutional perspective

• E-Learning Contacts: » VLE administrators » Involved in selecting their institution’s VLE» Many had dual roles as tutors.

• Interviews (F2F or telephone, transcribed)» Responses open coded» Anonymised individuals and institutions


1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Bay College (M) None None None None None Oct JanCliff College (Bb) ? ? Intranet SummerDowns College (M) ? Intranet Intranet Intranet Intranet SummerForest College (M) ? ? ? ? WCT WCTHill College (M) ? ? ? Intranet Intranet Intranet May JanIsland College (WCT) ?M Lake University (M) ? ? ? WCT/LE/intranetWCT/LE/intranetWCT/LE/intranetJan SepRiver University (WCT) ?Upland University (Bb) ? WCTValley College (M) ? ? other VLE other VLE other VLE Summer

Pilot Adoption

WebCT

Bb

Moodle

Mid-year

Key

How long have they had their VLE?


How and why was the VLE chosen?

• Usability» Most frequently mentioned» Problematic - only really known once system in place

• Flexibility» In terms of physical resources» Fit with learners’ other commitments (family, work)» Ability to modify the system (code)

• Control» Understanding how the system works» Being able to add functionality» Giving teachers ability to shape their course (although some institutions were insisting on templates)



• Cost» Second most frequently mentioned reason» Complex

- Low up-front cost of Open Source systems- Hidden costs (staff time, server)- Relative cost (is it more expensive than other options?)

- Direct cost (if it fits on an existing server with existing support, it’s “free”)

• Risk» Combining control and cost» Tends to focus on resource implications» Off-the-shelf “less risky” as responsibility lies elsewhere



• Pedagogy» Discussed rarely, and mainly ‘high level’ (i.e. no details)

» Moodle’s constructivist rhetoric made an impact» Where present, focus on monitoring students/use

• Peers» Local » “Places like us”» Partnerships


Procuring the VLE

• Contrast between Moodle and commercial systems

• Commercial VLEs high-risk (costs) and so laborious to select» Examples of two-year tendering process for VLEs

• Moodle low-risk, and ‘sneaked in’» “We’d come up with some open source software and why didn’t we use it in the meantime”

» “Senior management are aware of it but happy to let us get on with it because there have been no major resource implications so far.”

» “…came out of the closet spectacularly…”


An overview of VLE adoption

Deciding on a VLE

Procurement

Replacement

Stages of adoption

FlexibilityControl

CostRisk

PedagogyPeers

UsabilityAwareness

Playtime

Piloting

Formalisation

Status quo


Threats to the VLE

• Funding» 5 Moodle users, 1 WebCT » Perhaps a licence stabilises funding concerns?

• Intertia• Continued existence of support roles• Bad precedents leading to disillusionment• Legal issues (e.g. software patents)• Other organisational, cultural concerns


Opportunities with the VLE

• New practices

• Expansion (new markets)» Distance learning

• Working with communities

• Other organisational/pedagogic achievements» “embedding”» “full use”» Etc.


Summary

• Overall, concerns focused on institutional, technical and administrative issues» Classified into two categories» 40 Organisational, 26 Educational

• Grappling with organisational issues diverts attention from designing for learning

• Slightly more than 1/3 were directly to do with designing for learning» Still unclear how organisational issues affect this process



Articulating designs


How is your course represented to your learners? (15 min)

• In pairs, explain how your course (or session or module) is represented to your learners (10 min)» May be course specification, introductory lecture, VLE course area, web pages…

» Think about what you want to get across and why you chose the ways you chose

» Summarise these to outline to the group

• Group discussion to outline examples you came up with (5 min)» To get a sense of the range of representations


Representing designs – represent or not?

• All teachers design for learning• For VLE-based learning, designs may be represented

» fully» not at all» partially or in fragments

• Enormous difference in what is represented» Depends on subject area, learner aptitude, duration, etc

• VLE designs are tutors’ own – they don’t tend to delegate» Sharing ideas and inspiration but not designs per se

• Surprisingly, a lot of design for VLE-based learning is not represented on the VLE itself» VLE as publishing medium rather than a module

representation

• Course areas are often inscrutable if viewed in isolation


Representing designs – factors in decisions about representation

• Time» To conceive, plan and create and evolve designs» To maintain the currency, completeness, accuracy and appropriateness of designs- Representing designs may actually impinge on the creative act of designing for learning

» Learner time to access the designs» Contact time or absence of it

- How VLE activities are orchestrated

• Institutional stake in representing designs» eg quality assurance, audit

• Keeping flexible and responsive» Representations can make practice rigid


Tutors tend to design straight into the VLE

• This kind of immediacy was one of the original selling points of VLEs

• It also invites an open ended design process» Incremental, evolutionary and responsive» Many instances of a “just in time” approach» Course areas “never stand still”

• Suggests that course areas do not easily lend themselves to packaging and reuse

• Minority of tutors did design holistically in advance» Eg mapping activities to specific learning outcomes


Looking at VLE course area screenshots (20 min)

• In pairs, consider the three handout VLE screenshots – from blended courses at different institutions» What can you infer about the intentions of each tutor for their students’ learning

» Summarise these to outline to the group» (10 min)

• Group discussion to explore how your impressions are consistent and how they differ» There is scope for difference» (10 min)



Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs


Integrating designs that use VLEs and other technologies

• Explicit brief from JISC: ‘hybrid’ or ‘blended’ courses (not just fully distance courses)

• Sensible intention, but muddled» Does “blended learning” exclude any course?» Is “face to face” a recognisable, coherent thing?

• Rather blunt» Unclear what things can be “blended”» Unclear about the effects of mix, timings, styles of use, etc

• Four broad categories discussed:» VLE, face-to-face, hard copy, embodiment (acting, use of instruments, medical procedures…)


Integrating designs that use VLEs and other technologies

• A task for you:» In pairs (3-4 minutes each) discuss what technologies for teaching you use

» Could include VLE, lectures, tutorials, books, etc

• Questions to consider» What are you “blending”?» How are your pedagogic intentions represented within each of these?

» How are your pedagogic intentions co-ordinated across each of these?

» How flexible and adaptive are these designs?

• 5 minutes discussion reporting back to the group


Location of VLE-based activities

Do you anticipate learners doing most of their VLE-based activities in the classroom or a

distance learning location?

Classroom, 1

Distance, 8

Both, 7

Almost all use the VLE between contact sessions.

Half use it during contact sessions – where the design may be harder to identify


Integrating practices within the study

• A definitive point of reference» Handbook, VLE, initial lecture…

• VLE often used for orchestration (instructions, descriptions)» Flexibility that handbook lacks» Particularly if out-of-class activities (e.g. work placement) or preparations for forthcoming class



• Some very creative manoeuvring» Deliberately incomplete information(e.g. hiding what will happen next week)

» Required access to VLE, participation in sessions etc to complete the picture

• Design adapted ‘on the fly’» Staying one step ahead - flexibility» …and working incrementally, using students’ materials for discussion and analysis

» …and certainly adapted year on year - “constant evolution”

• So what is “the” design we should be studying?» A process, not a single artefact



• Technocentricity v. learner centricity» Should a new tool suggest new ways to teach? (innovation)

» …or should an expert teacher select the tools needed to meet learners’ requirements?

• Phenomenon of ‘design blindness’ » Tutors talked about running designs, not about designs or the process of designing

» Couldn’t think how to preserve their new practices if this specific tool were taken away; VLE seen as ‘unique’ (even though easily re-created with modular technologies)

» Changes in practice associated with the tool itself rather than a new way of doing things(Integration a strength, but pedagogy ‘hidden’ by VLE)



Selection and use of

different VLE tools


JISC emphasises 3 broad learning ‘types’

• Identified by Mayes and DeFreitas in their e-Learning Models Desk Study for JISC» Associative – emphasises cumulative information or skill components

» Constructivist (individual or social) – emphasises activity

» Situative – emphasises social and cultural setting

• How can a VLE support these?


Associative: Moodle Lesson (BA Music)

• ‘Lessons’ are for instruction, ie not very social constructivist – considered unfashionable by some

• Rachel developed one on Referencing – simple and linear, chunks of content each followed by a MCQ

“…it was immediately and overwhelmingly apparent who had done it and who hadn’t … what they’d do is hand in their essay topic with a short provisional bibliography. Those immediately gave away who had and hadn’t done the lesson, and we double-checked [in the logs]”


Constructivist: moving activity online (AS Computing)

• Certain circumstances need to be in place: » Self-study time» Motivation (assessment)» Ways of scaffolding (tutor or peers)

I think that’s probably one reason I haven’t gone into it, because when I want to do it, I want to do it properly… Which will need I think quite a lot of extra time initially, because if a student posts something on a forum, they, even if it’s only subconsciously, expect to get some kind of reaction fairly quickly…


Situative: reflecting (MA Acting)

• VLE hosts a growing multimedia record of learners’ development over time, used with a forum

• Learners view these, reflect and feed back as a community

... I think having a record … makes you appreciate it, makes you kind of take note of what you were doing, what you are doing better, what you should be doing, and I think all those things make you reflect on it in a much more profound and … complex way than if you didn’t have it.


Tutors’ aims for the VLE (2nd questionnaire)

• Checkbox question • Most prevalent:

1.Repository 2.Motivate or engage

2.Individualisation

4.Collaboration

• (Free-text field yielded nothing specific)

For what purpose(s) have you chosen to use the VLE to support this particular module / course?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Mot

ivate

/ en

gage

Partic

ipat

e in

disc

ussio

n

Collab

orat

e

Differ

ent a

bilitie

s

Help

mor

e stu

dent

s

Distan

ce le

arnin

g

Part-t

ime

learn

ers

Repos

itory

Form

ative

ass

essm

ent

Purpose

Num

ber

of m

entio

ns


VLE features used by tutors (2nd questionnaire)

High take-up of•Content presentation

•Forums•Groups•Self-test•Selective release

Distinctively(social)constructivisttools less used

Oz Lu Ina T4 T5 Br R T8 T9 Bar La F BaFile uploadLinkingTutor elements*Learner elements*Chat L-to-LForum L-to-LChat L-to-TForum L-to-TSelf testAssignmentsGroupsSelective release* eg wikis, web pages, glossaries, blogsNamed tutors were also interviewed


Why are some Moodle’s most distinctive tools underused?

• E.g.Wiki, Glossary, Workshop• There is little time available for innovation

» Tutors have little protected time to design, police, scaffold and assess online activities

» Diverting learners’ self-study time into highly interactive online learning has implications

• Institutions are built round traditional learning» No frameworks exist for assessing new forms, » Participation is notoriously low for unassessed activities

• Complexity of the tools can put people off• The tools emphasise process but blended courses offer ample f2f opportunities to acquire these skills


Approaches to choosing tools

Agile adoption• Tutors

» Interested in emerging T&L practice

» Review existing practice in the light of innovations

» Able and prepared to experiment radically

• Institutions» Foster awareness of

innovations in T&L» Discern and invest

wisely in valuable innovations

» Accommodate changing work patterns

Cautious adoption• Tutors

» Alive to new ways to achieve existing approaches

» Unprepared for experimenting radically

• Institutions» Maintain status quo» Bandwagon approach to

innovations» Underinvest in them» Entrench inflexible

work patterns


Conclusions and

implications

Case studies


Overview of design for learning in VLEs

Tutors design but may not make

that design

explicit

straight i

nto VLE (a representation)

Content & activities

Relationships

eg sequence,order, explanationbecause

of context

and maybe

as

eg time, maintenance, complexity, keeping flexible, infrastructure, simply no need


Conclusions

• Designs for learning» Only observable as relationships between different elements – eg order, sequence, explanation

» Usefully represented when - Tutor not present to orchestrate or scaffold activity- Activity is complex or process is important

» Otherwise representations are rare or partial» Evolve continuously, incrementally

- ‘design process’ is hard to comprehend

• Tutors» Have little time - opportunistic about what and when» Don’t delegate design, aren’t sharing designs » Evolve their designs in response to feedback » Are concerned with quality, which may hinder experiments


Conclusions (cont’d)

• Learners» Have to negotiate two designs on the VLE – the VLE’s

and their tutor’s – as well as designs represented elsewhere

» Are not all digital natives (kit or skills)» Aren’t necessarily prepared for online interactivity

• Different VLEs» Are used fairly similarly to serve files, bulletins and

for communication» Moodle’s constructivist tools generally underused» Commercial VLEs have v. different procurement processes

• Institutions» Have a more top-down approach where VLE is commercial» Aren’t yet prepared for online social-constructivism

- Currently rely on enthusiasts’ extra effort» May not understand that VLEs cost more than a license


Implications

• Institutions should aim for » a good climate for sharing practice

- Within and between institutions- Via networks chosen by tutors

» protected time for tutors to learn skills and think» opportunities for experimentation

• Institutions and government bodies should» Continue to regard tutors as designers » Offer and advance tools for authoring as well as sharing

• Tutors » Commit to keeping aware of innovations (practice & tools)- Counteract ‘design blindness’

» Allow innovations to inspire practice and vice versa- Aim to be agile adopters


Implications for sharing

• Sharing can be perceived in different ways:» Saving (by institutions)» Gaining, and giving (by tutors)

• Sharing designs more complex than content- Designs are less granular, more context dependent- Depends on understanding the rationale and design process

• Different ways to share designs» Inspiration and ideas are likely to work best

- Case studies? Talking heads? Skype usernames? Workshops?» OTS (eg LAMS, whole course areas) - change of culture

- depends on meticulous representation - depends on tutors’ expertise to repurpose them

• Some wheel reinvention is fine» A very good way to learn and reflect


Acknowledgements

• For their inspiration, direction and feedback» Helen Beetham, JISC (strand consultant)» Liz Masterman, University of Oxford (researcher on project in same strand)

» All the participants.


More about the project

• A report will be available from JISC soon• Email Martin or me in the meantime:

» [email protected] or [email protected]

designs for learning with vles tutors’ designs and creations in their vle areas. mira vogel,...

Documents