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?

McLoughlin ‘Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: ten dimensions for successful design’

Following on from the role the e-tutor last week, and how the skills need to be redefined, McCloughlin suggests that the same kind of redefinition is needed in supporting learners (in fact she include the role of the tutor in this)

Design guidelines for constructivist learning include:

· Providing experience of the knowledge construction process

· Providing experience in and appreciation of multiple perspectives

· Creating learning tasks that are relevant and authentic

· Encouraging ownership and voice in the learning process

· Embedding learning in social experience

· Encouraging the development of multiple modes of representation

· Encouraging self-awareness of the knowledge construction process

Models of support include:

(Beed, Hawkins and Roller 1991)

· Assisted modelling: Teachers provide some coaching and models that enable the completion of the task.

· Element identification: The teacher identifies the elements of the desired approach or

strategies to help students complete the task.

· Strategy naming: The teacher articulates a relevant strategy and students employ it on their

own.

(Roehler and Cantlon 1997)

· Offering explanations: Explicit statements are given by an expert to elaborate on learners’

emerging understandings.

· Inviting students’ participation: Learners are given opportunities to assume control of the

knowledge-building process.

· Verification and clarification of students’ understandings: If emerging understandings are

reasonable, the teacher verifies the students’ responses. If the understandings are erroneous,

the teacher offers clarification.

· Modelling of desired behaviours: This includes making thinking visible, as in think-aloud,

showing what someone thinks about the learning process at a given moment.

· Generating questions and comments as in think-aloud: This occurs, for example, when a

teacher shows how to articulate a problem-solving process by talking through the steps.

Teachers generate questions and comments initially and students then take over the

questioning role.

· Inviting students to contribute actively: Learners are encouraged to contribute clues in order to complete a task and to articulate their understandings of task demands.

Scaffolding in f2f is very different from online. In f2f the teacher and learner occupy the same space, and the support is teacher driven. Distance learning is resources based and self-paced and therefore direct teacher interventions is not always possible.

Effective support includes:

• Encouraging reflective thinking
• Provision of social support
• Interaction and extension of ideas with feedback from peers and mentors

 Categories of scaffolding

·       Orientation/ communication of expectation (clear comms of what they should achieve)

·       Coaching (support via software)

·       Eliciting articulation (expressing current understanding)

·       Task support (aiding /person as expertise)

·       Conceptual scaffolding (analytic skills through multiple answers)

·       Metacognitive scaffolding (tools to record thinking)

·       Procedural scaffolding (how to use resources , like databases etc)

·       Strategic scaffolding (offer alternative pathways – engage in decision making)

Examples of technology only scaffolding:

Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment(CSILE). Based on a shared database where text and graphics can be stored. Students can then create their own ‘nodes’ of information that others can comment on, and the authors are notified when comments are made. It aims to promote knowledge building in a community. (more information on the Edutech wiki, or AECT)

Intelligent Tutoring Systems(ITS) .Learners are guided through sequences of tasks. The learners progress is charted against an expert model, and thus customised instruction o feedback is given.

Goal Based Scenarios(GBS). Here students engage in a task that has a goal to achieve, resources are provided to help this. This is most useful where mastery is involved, like in a science subject.

Design Support Environments(DSE) Students engage in the design of the software or instruction. It seems that this is mostly used in upskilling teachers to use online tools for education/learning design.

In summary McLoughlin characterises effective scaffolding as:

· reducing the scope for failure in the task that the learner is attempting;

· enabling learners to accomplish a task that they would not be able to achieve on their own;

· moving learners to a new and improved zone of understanding;

· bringing learners closer to a state of independent competence.

  

The ten dimensions

1.Goal Orientation

Highly Focused < > unfocused

But designed to support independent learning and task performance

2.Adaptability

Fixed< > Flexible

Meeting the needs of a diverse range of learners, and adapting as development occurs

3. Accessibility

High < >Low

When needed (just in time), eg tutorials or FAQs to assist

4.Alignment

High < > Low

Support should align with task goals and learning outcomes – the right tools and resources available at the right time.

5. Experiential value

High < > Low

Include ways that enable learners to plan, act and reflect. Afforded an experience

6.Collaboration

Supported < > Unsupported

Learning through social dialogue, opportunities to communication and collaborate.

7. Constructivism

Strong < > Weak

Knowledge construction rather than memorisation – offer tools and tasks to support this.

               

8.Learning Orientation

Teacher regulation < > Learner regulation

Should be moving from teacher to self to learner self direction

9. Multiplicity

one-dimensional < > multi-dimensional

limited to one aspect of learning to applicable to many aspects (eg metacognition,reflection, articulation)

10 Granularity

low< > High

The number of component parts within the activity – how can they be broken down by the learner?

Conclusion

Scaffolding needs to support learners by giving them more control over their learning environment and the activities they undertake, but it should not assume that learners know how to do this.

Scaffolding needs to foster task engagement, social interaction and peer feedback. The dimensions can help assess the effectiveness of the support with a constructivist learning context – serving as a benchmark.

McLoughlin, C. (2002) ‘Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: ten dimensions for successful design’, Distance Education, vol.23, no.2, pp.149–62.

Week 15 task - social networking

We were asked to explore, again, so of the tools available to us. By this point in the course, I think I have forgotten exactly what I have signed up for!

Anyway a quick look at the following:

Delicious (storing and sharing favourite urls)

Diigo (caching or archiving web content – can file urls, categorise them, comment)

Flickr (managing content – can share photos, send to blogs, comment or tag)

What skills or eliteracies might be required to use these services effectively?

With each of these tools there is an assumed amount of knowledge and internet access and also a need to create a account to use. These are not simple tools to use in my opinion, they take a certain degree of competence in using web tools.This could be done through orientation,or by using something like Elluminate and sharing a browser to take people through step by step. Once again, I found that they looked really interesting but that I didn’t have time to fully utilise them. The other thing I struggle with is that often I will use my work PC in my break to have a browse – but I am not allowed to download any software without the IT department’s authorisation, so often I cannot add links to Delicious as quickly as I would like. So if I have difficulty, no doubt my learners would too.This could have a huge impact on whether they would engage with an activity.

There is also the subject of ‘tagging’. Having started using a content management system for our website at work, this really is an evolutionary process. How do I tag content so that it is useful to me as well as others(in order to make it colloborative). Also, I suffer from putting things in a ‘safe’ place in real life, and I think there is a possibility that this could happen with my tagging – and me forgetting which words I used. It takes time to truly use these tools in a useful way, and this would need to be taken into consideration.

To what extent are the services able, or not able, to support and sustain meaningful exchanges or learning conversations?

As with many online tools, they could be useful as a ‘learning object’ or within a well designed activity. There has to be clear guidelines on aims, objectives and involvement of learners. Using the tools as an individual, I am not sure they have any merit in encouraging learning conversations. I have yet to engage with anyone else while looking for files on delicious. Within the framework of a planned activity, with external support then it may be useful. Certainly when researching for projects or sharing investigations then the tools could prove very useful.

What educational issues are raised by these social tools; e.g. issues of trust, authenticity, self-disclosure or informal learning?

There are more issues to consider when using these tools with young people than adults. The fact that they need an account means that there are issues with who can and can’t sign in. However I work with adults, so will focus from that arena. Again, the assumption that the adults will be happy to create an account is important.

The book marking sites by their nature record what you have bookmarked, and employ cookies where toolbars are downloaded. Diigo say they do not record browsing history, but most of these services link through yahoo or google, and so there will be a certain amount of tracking as this is how they monitor and improved the service they provide. As with all online resources. As learners I do not think there is much self-disclosure between each other, it is the third party service providers who have personal data. This would be different with the sharing of photos. As the OU does, there is a need to inform people of what and how these tools can be used, and awareness that there may be some students who won’t use them.

How could I use these tools?

I can think of instances where each of these tools could be used for an activity within a learning framework. Where training involves topics that are generally widespread, eg, leadership skills, there could be scope for learners to conduct their own investigation and share the content they have discovered. In particular I think these would be useful for trainers to link to each other and build up their resources – provided that the systems they already have are ineffective.

Exploring elearning pedagogy

Summary of week 15 reading

‘Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’  Mayes and de Freitas.

Mayes and Freitas deconstruct the possible elearning approaches. It should start with the learning outcome intended, and then move to design or choose activities and assessment methods.

	Learning Outcomes	Design Principles	Pedagogy	Assessment
Associationist (Learning as activity)	Task analysis - Learning competencies	Organised activity, clear goals and feedback	Instructional. Simpler units build up knowledge. Learning hierarchies.	Knowledge or skill components
Cognitive (Learning as achieving understanding)	Meta cognitive – learning how to learn	Interactive environments for construction of understanding. Encourage experimentation/ support for reflection	Learning by Doing – relating to own context. Learner-centred. Interact with materials. Coaching/modelling; scaffolding; guided discovery; opportunity for reflection.	Performance, conceptual understanding
Situative (Learning as social practice)	Disciplinary practices	Participation in social practices of enquiry and learning. Development of identities as capable confident learners. Development of learning relationships	Wider Community. Building up set of knowledge (eg CPD)/ expertise Or Learning group-social context Or Individual relationships	Participation, practice and peer assessment

How does this compare to my experience? We certainly have elements of the associationist and the cognitive in our training. 'Learning by Doing' is an underpinning value of Scouting, and I have really considered how much we ask our volunteers to reflect on their knowledge. Each learning experience tries to put knowledge into a practical scenario, that relates to the roles that volunteers need to do. The assessment part is validation of that knowledge, by putting it into practice, which sometimes needs the help of a training adviser. When I think about how we construct the learning experiences, they are meant to be a guided tour, taking the learning objectives and creating a stimulating experience. Sometimes this involves demonstration - which is where the skills base comes in, but often it is about understanding or explaining things. Certainly where activity training comes in, this is about displaying competencies, but interesting, we also look at competencies in our trainer training. One would expect this to be more focused in the situative, professional skills, which is does have hints of, as through the trainer training people can build up skills that can be transfered across to professional body affiliation. Interestingly, one could say that all of our training is peer assessed,and that we are the community of learners, as we have volunteers training volunteers.

Learner Centred pedagogy Terry Mayes

In ‘Learner Centred pedagogy’ Terry Mayes looks at the need to recognise individual variances within the bigger picture. Is it possible to match pedagogy to individual ability? There are difficulties in determining if individual’s preferred style or what they really need. Also mismatching might be useful so that the learner experiences different learning styles and become stronger. Is it possible to use learning styles to encourage learners to think about their learning thereby increasing self-awareness and metacognition?Learner tracking can help with this, so that both learner and tutor get a better idea of ways of studying, but the learner decides it's worth. This could be an approach that makes learners question their styles and challenge the way they approach learning for their own self development.

As Mayes points out, matching pedagogy to individuals is a labour intensive action. Again, a principle we adopt is that learning is based of the needs of learners. This materialises as having a number of methods from which learners can chose from, so as Mayes suggests, isn't truely learner centred. However one of the things I have been exploring is how we address the different methods and how learners choose, trying to give some guidance for learners to make a more informed choice.

Student experiences of Technologies Conole et al
Here an interesting array of research has been conducted to highlight the changing nature of students engagement with technology in all aspects of the learning arena, from research to communication, processing data to preparing assignments. This is the kind of research which is particularly useful both before and after learning experiences and it offers some great insights into students' personal experiences. The choice of what technologies are used generally fall into those are easy to use, fast, effective, and useful for the task in hand. It also highlights some chararcteristics of learning activities.

Assimilative - reading information. This happens in many different ways and many different locations. My own experience is that I tend to print of reading where possible so that I can read on the train. . Forums I often read using my mobile, so that I can stay up to date with what people are saying. I also like to look around for other material, not suggested by the course notes, to contextualise and get a greater clarity around a subject.

Information handling tasks - Most students used word to help them write notes and summarise information. For me, I then add this to my blog - so that I have somewhere that helps to form narrative of my developing ideas. Within our learning activities, we are asked to process this to check out understanding.

Adaptive - using technology that models or simulates data. Although we haven't really experienced this, the environment simulation we used in the illuminate sessions, could be a good example (if it actually worked!)

Communicative - Often the students adopted their own communication methods, rather than using discussion.This is interesting, and I think this does depend on the study. So whereas these students might use MSN alot, as they also see each other in the face to face world, for us on H807, it is unlikely that we would email each other and communicate as informally through other routes.

Productive - using technology for the learning artefacts - assignments etc. Mostly these students used Word or PowerPoint, which in my experience are the toold that many people find easy to use, and I myself have used for preparing blogs and assignements.

Experiental - exploring and applying concepts which included practicing, applying undertanding etc (which will will be doing in Block 3). As highlighted early on in our forums, there is often a need to try out the things that have been learnt, which is especially true when the study relates to work based or situational practices.

Thinking and reflection - range of opportunites for students to manage their learning, with many using a blog as a main reflection tool.

Experience and activity - engaging in authentic learning experiences as well as being connected. The staying connected to what is going on is important, and harder when there are less interactions with others online. I wondered whetehr we have truely explored this within our forums. In the early weeks there was lots of activity and exploration, now it has slowed down alot.

Conversation and interaction - many of these were integral to the students' learning process, as by interacting with each other they could reach a better understanding. Certainly for us, it is an integral part of the colloborative elements of learning. Interaction gives you different opinions and choices and allows you to explore more.

The recommendations highlight a number of things that one might also want to consider when designing elearning experiences:

• take into account free content available, that will be used alongside the course material
• consider encouraging central repositories for resources to help the above
• flexibility in activities - so that students can decide how they interact
• clear idea of the social aspects, maybe using social software
• assessments need to clearly meet the intended learning outputs
• the ever increasingly use of mobile devices need to be considered, it is appropriate and have we designed to support this medium
• centralised systems need to be easy to use

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. and Darby, J. (2006) Learner XP project – Student experiences of technologies, Final Report [online], Bristol, The Joint Information Systems Committee.

Mayes, T. (2004) ‘Learner-centred pedagogy: individual differences between learners’ [online], Bristol, The Joint Information Systems Committee,

Mayes, T. and de Freitas, S. (2004) ‘Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’ [online], Bristol, The Joint Information Systems Committee

Innovation interview

Or a summary of my assignment!

Back in February we were set the task to interview an innovator for our second assignment. Well, the assignment has come and gone, and here is a summary of my interview.

I interviewed Jacqui Nelson of Nelson Croom, an elearning company formed in 2000.

Nelson Croom

Nelson Croom creates bespoke elearning resources for clients and publishes a range of professional development courses. Their philosophy is that the learner should always be at the centre of the experience.  When the company was founded by those who had previously worked in publishing companies, they were not 100% sure of the direction they were going in, but knew they wanted to exploit the growing internet market. They had plenty of experience in publishing educational material, and plenty of enthusiasm to do something new, but they had no experience in developing elearning. Elearning itself was still viewed with suspicion by the business and professional world, as many learning designs focussed on instructional screen led learning, so they needed an elearning concept in order to build a business that would attract both investors and clients.

The innovation that was Nelson Croom emerged after meeting with Trevor Bentley and adopted his learner centred design. Nelson Croom became an elearning company that would take clients specialist and technical learning content and turn this into engaging non-linear, learner-centric elearning.

The technology

Nelson Croom use an Application Service Provider model, whereby learners access the applications through a web browser, all the software was hosted centrally. This solution offered a significant reduction in financial investment and structure for clients, as there was no need for software integration and NC’s technical team were responsible for ensuring the technology was supported, maintained and developed. It is currently home to over 150,000 active learners and 1,000 courses. The technology was not developed until they got their first client, and thereafter it developed intuitively, using the same technology throughout, based on their clients’ demands.

Clients

Originally they targeted professional bodies, like the Market Research Society and the Pensions Management Institute, as they were organisations attempting to provide services to members all over the country, on a relatively small budget, with differing levels of experience and different specialisms. As they gained success working in this area, their client-base grew to include government bodies, and public and professional service providers with diverse clients, e.g. Diabetes UK. Many of the clients were looking at ways to improve the professional development of their members or employees, often wanting to enhance or improve face-to-face experiences. Most already had comprehensive technical or professional training programmes, but wanted to utilise both time and money to get the best in exploiting the use of elearning. With each of their clients there was an extensive research period, often lasting for over a year, where they learned more about the client’s area of knowledge and researched the needs of the learners directly, thus ensuring that the solution they provided would be compatible. Solutions have included educational programmes, interactive learning and induction tools, diploma programmes, online testing and resources centres, blended approaches and in one instance the use of actors in real life scenarios during face-to-face training.

Elearning innovation

NC changed their business model in their third year by moving away from being a purely bespoke elearning company, and creating a set of course portfolios, which clients or individuals purchase. These centred on Accounting and Finance, Professional Development, Publishing and Peer-enriched Learning. Accounting for 50% of revenue, this gives them financial security, ensuring a regular income and long-term employment for their team and enabling them to continue to support their innovative bespoke projects.

Once a month company meetings bring the whole team together, which is a vital component in continuing to foster creativity, implement new ideas and motivate the team – “an evolution rather than a revolution.” Creative freedom within the team allows a small flexible business, to adapt quickly to circumstances and continue to innovate for clients. They continues to be learner led and innovates with their technology by listening to both clients and learners. The technology gives them insights into how a learner engages material in a way that a hardcopy never could, for example, by allowing learners to make comments or by seeing where they have difficulties, and this in turn helps to develop learning activities.

They actively participates in conferences and industry communities like the Learning Technology Exhibition hosted annually by the Learning and Skills Group. Looking at what people and technology are doing they learn how to adapt new approaches into the services they provide, whether it is a browser update or a focus towards Web 2.0 tools and collaboration.

Summary

Nelson Croom’s work has been recognised and celebrated by others in the industry (E-Learning Awards, 2010). They still remain an innovation in themselves; although the market now accepts many of the principles of learner led, non-linear approach they began with. They continue to work with clients to create their own innovative practices, by taking their specialist knowledge and transforming it into engaging elearning environments. They foster creativity throughout the company by giving employees the freedom to develop, which is realised by the financial security that their portfolios bring. They continue to embody the enthusiasm and spirit they began with and channel this into new innovations that exploit the need needs of their clients and the technology available to them.

How has that helped in my understanding of innovation?

Innovation recap……..

The JISC (2008) case studies and readings in weeks 1 and 2 had explored the concept of innovation and given us some examples of the benefits, which helped in the formation of a working definition of elearning innovation - using technology and practice to directly benefit learning in a unique, new or pioneering way. Technology should enhance and enable the learning experience (Rich and Holtman, 2005) and focus on creating something new and exciting for learners. (Luck and Lawrence, 2005) In the forums we talked about the need to add value, to renew existing practices and to ensure that there were sound pedagogies behind the learning. Mark Nichols (2003) highlighted that often a breakthrough of practice was more important than a breakthrough of technology.

Reflecting on Nelson Croom

Interestingly NC started from a point of wanting to exploit the Internet and a need to be fully immersed in the technology (Weller, 2002). NC’s innovation actually ended up being about new practice in elearning, learner centred design , creating exciting and motivating learning in an online environment and the technology was really the support structure to enable this.

It was interesting to view in light of Rogers (2003) theories around the diffusion of innovations. The decision of the innovation in this instance is a mixture of optional innovation-decision and collective innovation-decision. They were likeminded individuals working in different companies who decided to go outside their current ‘social system’ as the companies they were working in couldn’t accommodate the freedom with which they wanted to work. They became the market leaders for that which they created. In the forums we talked about the difficulties of individuals in organisations to innovate, so there was a correlation with tehir experience of a big structures not being able to sponsor innovation.

The decision process was less about accepting a specific innovation and more about creating that innovation for themselves. They had the knowledge that they wanted to exploit the Internet but didn’t know how, so their persuasion phase was about information gathering and formulating their concept. The decision came when they formed Nelson Croom. Implementation came through their first clients and adapting the technology and methods to suit them and confirmation through the continuation of their success. In many ways they are the innovators, and their clients are the adopters, although in 2010, with a wider acceptance of Web 2.0 tools and philosophies, more likeminded elearning companies exist and so they could now be moving into the early majority.

Nelson Croom’s relative advantage is in offering a solution, meaning they are the innovators so their clients don’t need to be. They offer compatibility and simplicity by thoroughly investigating the needs of their clients, listening to learner feedback and offering a hosted solution so that clients have a financial and structural advantage. As they have worked with clients and learners for ten years, they have the advantage of knowledge and practice in the field, tried and tested and their results can be observed, and have been commended by the industry.

I felt that creativity, sustainability, and evaluation were the priorities when looking at the criteria to assess innovation (Kaye and Hawkridge, 2003 and Freeman and Capper, 2000), and in the forum we talked about the need to define our success criteria and plan for longevity. Although they say they don’t have a long term plan they did change their business model by introducing their portfolio of courses which created a financial security to continue with innovative bespoke projects. This parallels the structural changes needed in embedding innovation and the idea that innovations change and adapt depending on the circumstances and needs (Moore, 2004). They also affirmed my belief that if you foster creativity then it becomes the commonplace and you create a more innovative environment.

At the end of the interview I felt that Nelson Croom embodied my ideas of creativity, sustainability and evaluation. They also confirmed that innovation can come from the outside and should be led by those who are enthusiastic about it. They are successful because they listen to what the need is, adapt the technology they have to suit the solution and are open and responsive to feedback from clients, learners and the wider world.

Freeman, M.A. and Capper, J.M. (2000). ‘Obstacles and opportunities for technological innovation in business teaching and learning.’ International Journal of Management Education, 1, pp. 37-47.

JISC (2008) Exploring Tangible Benefits of e-Learning: Does Investment Yield Interest? [Online] http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/publications/publications/info/tangible-benefits-publication  (Accessed 14 February 2011).

Kaye, R. and Hawkridge, D. (eds) (2003) Learning and Teaching for Business: Case Studies of Successful Innovation, London and Sterling, Kogan Page.

Lück, M. and Laurence, G.M. (2005) ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’, Innovate, vol.2, no .1.

Moore, G.A. (2004) ‘Darwin and the demon: innovating within established enterprises’, Harvard Business Review, vol.82, no.7/8, pp.86–92.

Nichols,M. (2003) ‘A theory for e-Learning’ International Forum of Educational Technology & Society[online]. Available from http://home.tiscali.nl/schopmanlanden.nl/Papers/LearningTheory.html  (accessed 10th February 2011).

Rich, M. and Holtham, C. (2005) ‘New technology in learning: a decade’s experience in a business school’, British Journal of Educational Technology – Special Issue on Innovation in Elearning, vol.36, no.4, pp.677–9.

Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th edn), New York, Simon and Schuster.

Weller, M. (2002) Delivering Learning on the Net: The Why, What and How of Online Education, London,Kogan Page.