University of Wolverhampton
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/wolverhampton/index_html2
I have to say I got very confused with this case study, probably because it was the last one I read in the evening. I am not sure that the case study gave me enough background to the ‘before’ for me to make a proper decision.
The innovation was about developing a website to support student learning, giving access to resources about religions in Wolverhampton prior to visiting local religious communities.
The elearning was a way of preparing the students for this, and also helped the local community in developing interfaith relations. It used general material about religions and web quests and treasure hunts.
WOLF – Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework (love this acronym!) was already being used to access the course learning material. The website was housed within this platform.Reading the case study suggest that they were in an environment whereby consultation and staff engagement we the norm, and so this was about enhancing the elearning experience for this particular topic. However this meant that developments were slow, due to the time that the department could allocate to new projects. This also meant that there were policies for formatting of resources. This was an individual initiation rather than a departmental one, and as I could no longer access the link, I think that it may have been a short lived one. Interestingly this case study used Dreamweaver – which was an appropriate software choice, whereby my first case study rejected it – as it wasn’t appropriate.
There is mention in the case study that by using interactive maps and web quests it made exploring the religions more fun, and there was an obvious benefit in improving links with the local community.I liked the fact that this course had a more diverse student demographic, and that with the work they did they also wanted to engage with the local community.
Innovation?
This was obviously innovative to the students engaged with it and it created a more creative learning environment. Because it was not imbedded in the institution it may have suffered from providing any longevity.
However they took a risk, and it worked.
· right technology for the need
· increased motivation
· engagement with community
· needs to have some long term planning
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/wolverhampton/index_html2
I have to say I got very confused with this case study, probably because it was the last one I read in the evening. I am not sure that the case study gave me enough background to the ‘before’ for me to make a proper decision.
The innovation was about developing a website to support student learning, giving access to resources about religions in Wolverhampton prior to visiting local religious communities.
The elearning was a way of preparing the students for this, and also helped the local community in developing interfaith relations. It used general material about religions and web quests and treasure hunts.
WOLF – Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework (love this acronym!) was already being used to access the course learning material. The website was housed within this platform.Reading the case study suggest that they were in an environment whereby consultation and staff engagement we the norm, and so this was about enhancing the elearning experience for this particular topic. However this meant that developments were slow, due to the time that the department could allocate to new projects. This also meant that there were policies for formatting of resources. This was an individual initiation rather than a departmental one, and as I could no longer access the link, I think that it may have been a short lived one. Interestingly this case study used Dreamweaver – which was an appropriate software choice, whereby my first case study rejected it – as it wasn’t appropriate.
There is mention in the case study that by using interactive maps and web quests it made exploring the religions more fun, and there was an obvious benefit in improving links with the local community.I liked the fact that this course had a more diverse student demographic, and that with the work they did they also wanted to engage with the local community.
Innovation?
This was obviously innovative to the students engaged with it and it created a more creative learning environment. Because it was not imbedded in the institution it may have suffered from providing any longevity.
However they took a risk, and it worked.
· right technology for the need
· increased motivation
· engagement with community
· needs to have some long term planning
No comments:
Post a Comment