finally........

Well, it's done!

"Your assignment, number 30 (EMA) for module H807-11B,
was received by the eTMA system at 17:55 (UK time) on 02-Jul-2011"

Give me a few days to recover and I will post some closing words!

new blog

As I start towards the end of H807 and as I get more excited about the potential for actually trying out some new ideas in real life, I have decided to create a new blog.

I am linked in with a number of communities and checking out new ideas as well as old every day, so want this to continue. Hope some of you stay with me!

Outcome or process? Student created content

“Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand.”

Once again we come back to the ideas of the teacher /tutor role, and whether there are instructors or facilitators and the general design of the learning that is delivered. There can be no doubt that students creating content for themselves is a powerful thing, but I am not sure how far the readings really consider the educational content as ‘content’. Most talk about collaboration, involving students in processes, discussion and dialogue, but how much of this is then re-used in a different educational context? I guess that I use blogs to help my understanding and I certainly use UTube within my training, but there is a fine line to the definition of student created content. Often this is content that has been created outside of an educational context.

There seems to several definitions to me.

1. Student outcomes/actions as a result of activities that capitalise on student creativity within a learning environment
2. Open access to information and resources that are available on the web, but not part of an educational institution or context – probably more rightly termed  user generated content
3. Student created content that is then re used for new students, or peer reviewed resources

How do educators designing online courses capitalise on the growth of user-generated content? How do they encourage students to participate in creating educational content in addition to purely recreational content?

Just as other learning designs facilitate creativity and student content, so can online courses. As with the distinction made above, here in H807 we have both been taken to user generated materials, that may be blogs or newspaper articles as well as having to create our own content (e-tivities, wikis etc).

Depending on the learner, it’s about using the appropriate sources and introducing learners to ways in which they can be critical about them, to reflect and learn how to assess sources, and what is appropriate to use in different circumstances. Is it the content itself that is important, or the process of getting there? I have a suspicion that in the main, it’s the journey that is important. Certainly, most of the literature talks about the way that students learn as opposed to specific content. And of course, on must remember that a student needs to have the skills and knowledge to be able to create that content in the first place – the literacy.

Designing a course with some student-created content.

·         Making content relevant to learners lives

·         Give learners a choice and a sense of control

·         Use peers

·         Involve learners’s affective response

·         Use discussion

·         Encourage self reflection on learning

(wiki books)

What intrigues me most about this is that it is not about content as an outcome, but about content as the process, something that I often design into my learning activities.

Student created content - reading

Chin, P. (2006) The Value of User-Generated Content, Intranet Journal, http://www.intranetjournal.com/articles/200603/ij_03_07_06a.html

In this article Chin asks how the role of user generated content sits alongside engineered content in a business environment. Much of our content management system for websites is like this in my experience. I write and generate content, but it goes through an editorial process to make sure that it is on brand. And this is the issue, depending on where the content is. How do you differentiate between the corporate identity and ‘official’ content as opposed to user content. What makes it official? Do we need to worry about official?

In my experience many discussion forums regulate themselves well – but then it is clear that these are informal. I think here it is important to define the topic areas. So, for example, rules and regulations, guidnace about things like safeguarding, need to have some expertise behind them. But content about leadership or management has a wider expert range and may be a better subject with which to explore the use of user content.

Cook, J. and Light, A. (2006) ‘New patterns of power and participation? Designing ICT for informal and community learning’, E-learning, vol.3, no.1, pp.51–61; http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=elea&vol=3&issue=1&year=2006&article=6_Cook_Light_ELEA_3_1_web&id=137.108.145.11

Cook and Light focus on the idea of participation and technology and how they enhance each other. An important point is again raised, in that not everyone is aware or knows how to exploit online content. It’s great to use technology to enhance and develop practices, but we do risk the digital elite being the only ones who manipulate this. If we want to be truly user focused are user group needs to be fully represented for the context…..

“over a third of the population will not be motivated to ‘participate’ because they have no wish to learn new ways of doing things. Such a suggestion throws out a great challenge to th ideal of an inclusive and participative society.”

What I get from this article is that we need to remember that people have different motivations, and that technology in itself may not be the hook. But getting individuals excited through using technology to do something interesting (eg family trees) means that the ‘spark’ (Salmon) may be ignited. It goes back to what we were saying in the forums about needing to be interested. Then individuals may be more interested in getting behind the technology,how it works and helping to design it. A really good example is the Club house in Massachusetts. Here taher than give kids the computer as a tools, they get them to create the content themselves.

Johnson, J. and Dyer, J. (2006) ‘User-defined content in a constructivist learning environment’ [online], elearning papers, http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=8404&doclng=6

“New pedagogies are developing with the digital age which reflect collaboration, internalised thinking, reflection and iteration rather than the concept of the taught lesson, however the internet is still regarded by many as a convenient mechanism for delivering traditional materials online.”

Firstly, I am not sure that collaboration etc is a new way of thinking, and well, if our forum debates are anything to go by, the digital age isn’t developing new pedgagogies but utilising old ones. (Interesting discussion around this area by Chasing Mr Chips blog).

Despite this there are some good areas of thought or snippets to come out of this paper. They reiterate the point about confusing interaction with participation (one of the things we are guilty of at work), and note the possibility of a changing culture of learning. Once again the need for the learner to be ‘aroused’ into learning is important.

It is interesting that they note that successful communities of practice are not text driven, but use multimedia to attract their members. Now, if I were considering social communities that may be true, but when I consider professional communities and networks, in my experience they are highly text driven. I get that if you want to attract new members you need to think about new hooks, but there does not seem to be any links to such ‘successful communities’ as examples. The things they highlight point to users who are sophisticated and experiences, not those, as Cook suggested, who are outside the digital presence. Having a range of multimedia tools available does not mean that it will make it easier for people to us ethem, it really does depend on your users.

Livingstone, S. (2004) ‘What is media literacy?’ [online], LSE eprints, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/1027/

This article again points out the need for literacy around communication and information technologies and the fact that the majority of the public has yet to develop the skills to make the most of online opportunities. The ‘content creation’ element is the part that focuses on user created content, recognising that by creating one often learns more and feels more engage in the process (Learning by doing). Changing the users from passive to active.

“ Media literacy….the ability to access, analyse, evaluate and create messages acrossa variety of contexts.”

Here though, they argue that media literacy is a key right by which citizens participate in society. To summarise my thoughts on this, it’s all good to talk about new media/digital literacies and pedagogies, but currently this is only available to those with the drive or opportunity to pursue this, much as one might say that the route through University and the knowledge acquire was once, and probably still is, available only to a select few. We talk a lot about the possibilities for user content and openess and access to all, but is it any more open and available than some traitional forms of education?

Morgenstern, D., Plasencia, A. and Seiz, R. (2003) ‘Students as designers and content creators: an online multimedia exchange between the U.S. and Spain’ [online], Campus Technology, 11 January 2003, http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2003/09/Students-as-Designers-and-Content-Creators-An-Online-Multimedia-Exchange-between-the-US-and-Spain.aspx?p=1

This was an interesting article in the sense that you got an idea of how communicating with students across the world, allowed studenst to get a diffreent perspective on being a student, opening tehir eyes to the different experiences people have. Is this student created content though? They ghave access to discussion boards etc, but much of the content they talk about is enabling the students to create the content to be hosted. Do students need to be involved in every process to making it truly student created, or is that fact that they are support to make things like videos enough?

Nicholson, P. (2006) The Changing Role of Intellectual Authority [online], Association of Research Libraries, Notes for remarks to the Association of Research Libraries 148th Membership Meeting, Ottawa, Canada, 18 May 2006; www.arl.org/arldocs/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/148/nicholson.pdf

“ Intellectual Authority…. is changing fundamentally”. Nichollson’s thesis is based on the idea that our deference to any kind of authority is corroding, and thus, so does our intellectual… ‘mistrust and scepticism reign’. Society has changed to one that is focused more on the individual and personal fulfillment. (Ironic when we talk about Web 2.0 being all about collaboration? Are we trying to rebuild our old notions of society after rejecting the old heirarchical ones?) There is more information to assimilate but we no longer trust the traditional agents who used to do it for us!

Nicollson returns us to the idea of the ecosystem…’where different species are adapted to different niches.’  Our job is to educate users on the best use of the information available, back to our right tool for the right job.

Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (eds) (2005) ‘Educating the Net generation’ [online], Educause, http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=pub7101&bhcp=1

I started reading this right back at the start of H807. It’s a very interesting and funny book and great for an easy read around the subject. It should however, also be read with caution, as not everyone fits the ‘net generation’ definition. The important message, once again is to know your user/learner. Don’t make assumptions, engage with learners, relinquish controls and stick to your core values.

Prescott, L. (2006) ‘The year in consumer generated content’ [online], iMedia Connection, 11 January 2006, http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/7800.asp

Prescott tells us that 2005 was the year that users started generating content. MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia, Flickr, Blogs and You Tube. She also tells us that most of these are visited by people under 35 years old. 5 years later, I wonder if this is still true? Has her notion that there will be a smaller divide between content creaters and content consumers come true?

Models of learning

We have already looked at Salmon’s five stage approach, but there are many others out there. So what approach do I choose?

Laurillard (2002) esposes the importance of teacher/student continuous dialogue at a theorectical and practical level. She divides her learning conversation into four phases – “the basic characteristics of every learning encounter” – as follows:

1. a discursive phase in which the teacher presents a new concept and learners enter into a dialogue with the teacher, trying out the idea and its corresponding language, questioning and clarifying.
2. an interactive phase in which learners interact with teacher-constructed tasks, attempting to put the new concept into practice, and getting feedback on their performance
3. an adaptive phase in which learners attempt to put their ideas into practice, modify their ideas and adapt their actions in the light of what they have learned, and make their own links between ideas and events; and
4. a reflective phase in which learners consider their experience of 2) and 3), reflecting on their learning, relating the theory back to the practice, adjusting their thinking in the light of reflection and framing future actions to be more successful

 Or what about Mayes’ ‘Conceptualisation Cycle’? Here different learning activities support student’s understanding and activities promote learning.

1. Conceptualisation – exposed to others ideas or concepts. (This is supported by primary courseware like online lerue notes, reading lists etc)
2. Construction – applying the concepts in meaningful tasks (Secondary courseware supports the performance of the task, like online assessments)
3. Dialogue – performance of the task where concepts are tested and conversations are had to consolidate (Tertiary where two way dialogue occurs using videoconfernecing, shared workspaces etc.)

 Once again the facilitative nature of the teacher is seen as important, thus knowledge of the student is crucial in order to effectively facilitate their learning. All of these focus on activities that will support the learners learning process.The JISC site has some ideas on how to use these models in activities. But should one follow one of these models, or can one use pieces of each of them? And what other models are out there. Maybe I will align our current learning design with these and make an assessment.

 

What changed with conferencng? Back to talking about Learner support.

I probably should have written this before some of my other musings, but a backwards step is fine, and it means all the notes in my notebook have a home. (Even in this technological age, I have a little black book that I write my notes in!)

Thorpe’s paper takes another step, probably one that I agree with, that the course design should include learner support within it. Traditionally support is thought about after the design as the support depends on the learner. Learning support developed as a technical term for all the practices and administration that students need to go through, but Thorpe suggests that it is more than it.

Learner support therefore needs to be dynamic. It contains three elements – identity, interaction and time/duration, and is about roles, structures and environments. Not all tutors can transfer these skills into an online environment, which is why it is important to find the right people for these roles, as everyone shouldn’t be expected to be able to pick up these new skills, as others in our tutor group and many of our reading shave given testimony to.

Once again this highlights that online learning is about facilitation as much as content production.

Biggs - The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.

Biggs looks at the role that quality plays. Traditionally quality, as with any business case for project deliverable, equates to value for money, whether something is fit for purpose and how it transforms the environment in which it exists. Quality assurance focuses on business aims rather than educational goals, which are often harder to measure.  If we are therefore to measure the quality of our teaching and learning, we need to have a clear idea as to what the quality outcomes are. Now often this is hard, as we are not talking about outputs, but about people. We have struggled with this issue ourselves – how do we measure what is good? Is it about numbers or developing people. And thus how do we measure it? In fact this is an issue for much of youth work as the outcomes are subjective rather than objective. You cannot measure the way that someones attitiudes or experience had changed them – very easily.

Of course, the activities that learners undertake should support the outcomes, else what is the point of doing them. However if we go back to the idea of student support and supporting learners to learn, and develop their study habits, sometime the learners may not be clear what those aims are. In the past, when we run train the trainer courses, we have a de-brief on the day, and tell the learners what the objectives for the sessions were, why we used the approach we did, and ask them whether they they think it worked.The idea is to get people to evaluate, and to feel comfortable within an environment of feedback. But this is about preparing them to be in the trainer role. The difficulty comes in getting bad trainers to develop themselves – after all, as Biggs points out, the good ones normally foster their own development anyway. Quality enhancement, as Biggs calls it, is about getting teachers to teach better.

Biggs also talks about a wholehearted change though, in thinking about assessment practices and institutional approach when considering quality review.It should not just be about numbers and percentages on a spreadsheet, but the qualitative review of teaching and underlying principles. Easier said than done!

So what does this mean for me? Thought needs to go into the assessment methods. How do I know that I have achieved my goal? What will be the quality criteria?

Biggs, J. (2001) ‘The reflective institution: assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning’, Higher Education, vol.41, no.3, pp.221–38.

Thorpe, M. (2002) ‘Rethinking learner support: the challenge of collaborative online learning’, Open Learning, vol.17, no.2, pp.105–19.

Telling Learners what to do?

How tightly should you specify what you want your learners to do? And will they do it anyway?

Well, as those of us in H807 know, we don’t always do what we are told! Chris Jones and Mireia Asensio’s ‘Experiences of assessment: using phenomenography for evaluation’ talks about the fact that people experience things in different ways – phenomenography. They highlight that no matter how clear the instructions and design goals are, students can interpret them in different ways. Just as with any learning experience, it never goes the way you plan it!

For some the response is to make the learning even more rigid. But does that help? My experience is that the more you control people and what they do, the more they will rebel. It once again goes back to the skill of the tutor/trainer to adapt the method to meet the needs of learners, which may mean changing the way objectives, are met. This comes with experience and support of the trainer themselves.

I am a fairly relax trainer and often completely change the prepared session to fit with the ‘mood’ of my learners. This is especially true when delivering someone else’s sessions. I have been known to start the day one way, only to run the same session for the forth time in the day in a completely different way. I often have discussions with others about the way they prefer to train or present. And just as some learners prefer a more instructional route, so do some trainers. We try and find ‘safe’ situations for them to be able to try out different methods and skills.

However at heart, I prefer training in a way where I am not the focus of attention. Up till now, people have criticised this in me, but I realise now that my preferred way of training is very much based on collaboration and equality of learning. I don’t believe that I have all the answers, but facilitate activities that help learners to think for themselves. And I think that this is the way that I like to learn too. (Although I still hate role-plays!). I am a constructivist and never knew it! Probably as I had no idea what constructivism was having never studied theories. And this will be true of many informal trainers who happen upon the skills. Their way of learning is based on their experience of what works and what doesn’t. I am definitely feeling more confident about my approach!

Now, to find out what my learners want!

Jones, C. and Asensio, M. (2001) ‘Experiences of assessment: using phenomenography for evaluation’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol.17, no.3, pp.314–21.