developing online learning resources for schools on a budget
DESCRIPTION
Slides used for a seminar at the Museums Association conference in Brighton on 3 October 2011 in Brighton.TRANSCRIPT
Creating online learning resources for schools on moderate budgets
MA conference 2011 Brighton3 Oct 2011
Helen Ward (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford)
Martin Bazley (Martin Bazley & Associates)
Martin Bazley & Associates
BBC / Public Catalogue Foundation Your Paintings project
Consulting on user interface
Consulting on online survey
User testing
Martin Bazley & Associates
Ford Madox Brown Work schools interactive with embedded video
Consulting on content and user interface
User testing (classroom-based)
(Also worked on redevelopment of main website)
Martin Bazley & Associates
Development of small to medium sized museum websites
Using WordPress, Content Curator or similar low cost, flexible CMS, working with web developer associates
Martin Bazley & Associates
Training
Writing for the web
Developing online resources
Planning online audience research and impact assessment
Video for the web
Podcasting – planning, production, promotion
Social media
Etc: ‘anything digital’
Elements of online learning resourcesImage(s) + caption(s)
Key question(s) / short activities
Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets
Zoomable images
Video
Interactive
More complex functionality
Increasing cost and complexity
Increasing cost and complexity M
ost u
sefu
l for
teac
hers
Mos
t use
ful f
or te
ache
rs
These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment
First two can be done quite easilyThe others will mean investment of money and /or expert timeTwo case studies: 1. with interactive2. with video
Part of the University of Oxford (est. 1683)
Key Collections:• Western Art• Eastern Art• Antiquities/ Archaeology• Coins and Medals• Casts
Reopened in 2009 after major redevelopment
What did teachers want?
• Information to help plan a visit
• Resources to support pre and post visit classroom activities
What could we offer?
• No budget, but in house ICT expertise
• Improved website navigation
• A structure to allow easy searching of carefully selected resources
• ‘New’ content by repurposing old materials
• ‘Quick wins’ eg zoomable images
What did teachers want and what could we offer?
Education web pages 2007
http://www.ashmolean.org/education/resources/
• Funded through Take One… Picture project
• Repurposing an existing activity
• Focus on interactive element – buying in expertise not available in-house
• Opportunity to review and improve content
• Opportunity to involve local teachers
• Time consuming (attention to detail important), but great results!
• Attempts to create interactives in house less successful
Example 1: Brighton Then & Now whiteboard interactive
Brighton Then and Now screenshot
http://www.ashmolean.org/education/resources/resources2011/interactives/Brighton/Brighton.html
Take One Picture interactive: pros
+ An ‘interactive’ resource often seems more attractive.
+ Offers a richer experience around each painting.
+ Activity is closely guided, so can be used even by inexperienced teachers.
Take One Picture interactive: cons
- Relatively expensive to produce.- Quite limited in application – teachers cannot
adjust to suit their needs. - Because most images / assets are ‘wrapped’ in
Flash, this type of resource is sometimes less findable via Google etc.
• Funded through AHRC grant - small component of bigger project
• Starting from scratch - defining concept very time consuming
• Opportunity to work closely with local school on in depth project
• Heavy demands on education staff time – (esp Joint Museums Art Education Officer)
• Opportunity to try out new approaches eg video clips
•Resulted in ‘solution’ for education staff to create teaching and learning packages (requiring minimal help from busy ICT team)
Example 2: ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ learning package
‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ screenshot
http://educationonline.ashmolean.org/ruskin/
John Ruskin resource: pros
+ Provides images, videos and straightforward activities that students or teachers can use in their own way.
+ Less expensive to develop+ More likely to be found via Google etc.
John Ruskin resource: cons
- Does not have the ‘wow’ factor of an ‘interactive’
Overall comparison
TOP: approach quite well defined so easier to see the potential. More constrained.
Ruskin: more specialist audience so more in depth activities. Working with partners creative but increases complexity.
Developing a learning resource: iterative review
your content curriculum (find a match)
Ch
eck
Does it match your audience’s specific needs?
If so TEST - and then amend
Learning activities Learning outcomes (find a match)
Elements of online learning resourcesImage(s) + caption(s)
Key question(s) / short activities
Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets
Zoomable images
Video
Interactive
More complex functionality
Increasing cost and complexity
Increasing cost and complexity M
ost u
sefu
l for
teac
hers
Mos
t use
ful f
or te
ache
rs
These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment
Video can be done quite easily and cheaply.Zoomable images too.The others will mean substantial investment of money and /or expert time
‘What have museums ever done for us?’The main value added for teachers working online is
selection of suitable material
with learning activities and outcomes in mind
Focus resources on editorial, evaluation and testing
rather than technical functionality
Reflection
How can you create effective learning resources on a limited budget?
What are the quick wins for teachers, in online provision?
How do you build a case for investing in the development of online resources?