Variations in student perceptions of assessment

‘Experiences of assessment: using phenomenography for evaluation’ (Jones and Asensio, 2001)

This paper explores the use of assessment as a tool for structuring students' experiences in a networked learning environment. The phenomenographical approach aims to explore people's qualitatively different ways of experiencing the world. In this case, this was studied through the use of interviews with tutors and students on the Open University 'Information Technology and Society (THD204)' course which used conferencing for communication and in two assignments.

Key points

• "The problems of interpretation and the understanding of others' intentions are fundamental to collaboration" (schwartz, 1999) - in an online, distance learning environment, documentation and the interpretations given to documentation become critical. 
• It is "extrememely difficult to design an online course [or] activities in ways where you are not surprised and/or disappointed by the output".
• Student participation is a common concern - and a common response to to redesign a course with more and tighter control over the learner's choices and pace of interaction/contribution; this was recognised that "the tighter the schedule the more structured the exercise is and there is a danger that you're damping down ont he potential for creativity".
• "it is possible to use assignments as a vehicle for encouraging students to adopt new patterns of learning, whilst at the same time covering course content" (Macdonald et al, 1999) - but for this to be achieve, students must have a clear understanding of the course designers' intentions.
• Students' experiences vary in what may be unpredictable ways for the course designers' intentions. 
• Students can interpret the aims of assessment differently - even if they are in a co-operative group tasked with a joint project! In this case, this was despite 12 pages of detailed instruction.
• Course designers cannot control the background and context in which students interpret instructions or assessment criteria. Even course documentation aimed at students who have many external factors influencing their interpretation may be misinterpreted.
• Distance/networked learning may suffer more from differences in student interpretation because the interpretation of context by students is more vulnerable to variations in setting than in face-to-face settings.
• The approach adopted by the teacher is a key variant in helping to determine a student's approach to learning (Prosser and Trigwell).
• The variation in student interpretation might imply that "teaching interventions were necessary to negotiate understanding 'on the fly' and that a cautious attitude needed to be adopted to reliance on the use of course documents in a networked environment."

Reflections
There were a lot of clarification questions asked in our tutor group and course forums about each of the assignments on H807. This would suggest that (some) students indeed did not have a clear understanding of the course designers' intentions. As in the course described, course designers almost certainly believed that they had produced comprehensive and complete guidance about assessment. I wonder if the level of student anxiety and confusion increases with the weigting of the assignments - if that is the case, I would expect to see the greatest level of uncertainty yet in the coming weeks as we approach the End of Course Assessment.

In the example given, students were using conferencing for collaboration for their assessed tasks. They had only used it for collaborative work once before, so it was unfamiliar to them. This raised questions in my mind about whether this assessment therefore effectively reflected the ways of working which had been previously taught and experienced on the course, or the learning objectives as known to the students.

I wondered whether the difficulties in designing and preparing sufficiently detailed standard documentation might also be mirrored in the design of scaffolding, particularly of group activities. There will be variation in student skills, knowledge and experiences, and therefore scaffolding at any particular level may or may not suite the individual student. How can the individual 'turn off' scaffolding which is built into group activities? Do they just have to sit through (cruising, with little challenge or development) those activities for which they need less scaffolding, but which they are still supposed to engage in? There needs to be a balance between scaffolding and challenge (see Dearnley), but there also needs to be a balance in the way scaffolding is designed bearing in mind the range of experience of a mixed group of learners.

Reference:
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.

Learner support in collaborative online learning

‘Rethinking learner support: the challenge of collaborative online learning’ (Thorpe, 2002) 

This paper looks at course design and learner support, and the blurring of the boundary between the two which occurs in online learning facilitated by computer-mediated communication. Traditionally learner support has been that which happens after course materials are developed. However, in courses with considerably less pre-planned material and greater emphasis on generation of course content through online interaction and collaboration, course design and learner support start to merge. 

'Learner support' in open and distance learning has a specific meaning, referring to:

• guidance about course choice,
• preparatory diagnosis,
• study skills
• access to group learning, etc. 

Key points:

• Use of technology does not guarantee collaborative and constructivist approaches to learning - this depends on how the technology is used -> course design.
• It is important to make sure that we do not lose the values of conversation and community in technicist approaches.
• Learner support is not just provided of 'done to' the student; support is produced and consumed simultaneously - the learner must participate actively, as must the tutor/supporter.
• Key functions of learner support are:
• response, and
• responsiveness, in relation to three essential and inter-related elements: identity, interaction and time/duration.
• Thorpe defines learner support as 'all those elements capable of responding to a known learner or group of learners, before, during and after the learning process.' Therefore, pre-planned course materials or computer programmes, which cannot respond, cannot offer support.
• Thorpe's three elements of learner support:
• Identity - the supporter knows that the learner is a person with an identity. Identities also change in parallel with progress through a course, so support needs to be appropriately modulated.
• Interaction - learner support is essentially to do with interpersonal interaction -> learner support is therefore also culturally specific. Interaction is key to all main theories of learner support
• Time/duration - learner support is a 'live' process which has duration. It is defined by the actions of the learners and supporters involved, and so is a dynamic and not wholly predictable process.
• Electronic communication has been used to provide another medium for support, rather than changing its nature. Online learner support is, however, increasing the frequency of learner to learner and learner to institution contact.
• Online, collaborative approaches may be experiences as reducing an individual's freedom to study at their own pace (Thorpe, 1998).
• Changes in course production (with increase in collaborative, constructivist designs) may mean lower initial production costs are feasible, but "costs during presentation are likely to increase, to sustain the IT infrastructure and realise the benefits of continual updating and learner support online".
• "It takes considerable ingenuity, design and appropriate educational goals in order to achieve a course where interaction online is absolutely essential in order to pass, rather than a highly desirable enrichment.

Reflection

I'm feeling slightly hazy about the scaffolding/support distinction. Thorpe argues that computer programmes can't offer support as they are unable to recognise human identity, but previous literature on scaffolding has suggested that computer tools can provide scaffolding...

Thorpe's comment on increasing costs is interesting. It stands in start contrast to the view/argument/sales pitch that online learning will be cheaper. Thorpe's arguments about the importance of community and constructivist learning are persuasive - if we move to cheaper to produce 'one size fits all' design then our learner support provision will undoubtedly be weakened, and our opportunity to develop engaging constructivist learning will have been missed.

Reference:

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

Strategies for scaffolding learner support

‘Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success’ (Ludwig-Hardman and Dunlap, 2003)

This paper describes a number of learner support strategies implemented with the aim of reducing students' feelings of isolation, lack of self-direction and motivation, and which lead to higher drop-out rates for online courses (typically 20-50% according to the authors).

Key points:

• Self-directed learning skills are developed in a social context, through interactions with peers, teams, communities of practice, etc.
• To be successful, learners need the skills required for effective online learning; these skills need to be explicitly taught and supported.
• "Most descriptions of learner support focus on systemic characteristics" (e.g. administrative, registration, etc) - the cognitive function (e.g. guidance, counselling, assessment, coaching etc) is often ignored. 

The authors describe the following programme, specifically designed to help students to choose the right course, to identify and develop the skills they will need, and to feel part of a community:

• Diagnosing fit between learner and education provider
• intake interview - discusses expected learning outcomes of a course and relationship to the learner's goals
• online tools to enable self-assessment of eligibility and preparedness - students assess their competencies, learning objectives, short and long-term goals, etc.
• diagnostic pre-assessment of learner's strengths, weaknesses, etc - used as a tool to identify strengths and areas for improvement
• Learning Orientation Questionnaire from (www.trainingplace.com) - determines readiness for online learning - looks at 3 factors: learner's emotional investment in learning, strategic self-directedness and independence/autonomy.
• Orientation to the online learning experience - a 4-week course with a high level of structure, introducing learners to the community, communication tools and learning skills required. 
• One-to-one advice provision - encouraging learners to articulate their learning goals and plans, helping them to understand their learning orientations, strengths and areas for improvement, advising on the exploration and selection of learning opportunities and encouraging learners to evaluate their own progress.
• Access to a community of learners - allowing a sense of connection with the institution and with other learners - the learning community is based on the programme in which the learner is enrolled and includes threaded discussions, online chats, role plays, interviews, etc, organised by mentors on specific topic areas. More experienced learners move from the periphery to the centre of the community - "legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger, 1991). 

Reflection:

The authors cited DeVries and Wheeler (1996), arguing that students may drop out of a course because they do not feel part of the community. I found this hard to relate to. I feel that if I need the qualification or have any other motivation for my learning, other than a desire for academic community engagement, then I can't see that I would quit. I might be disappointed, and I might be benefiting less from the course than one which offered substantial interaction, but I feel I would still be likely to continue. Perhaps this is a reflection of my personality, generally fairly independent and self-motivated, or perhaps it's something to do with a degree's worth of distance learning which very little community engagement (OU 2002-2005 - face-to-face tutorials, and online group activities only in a couple of courses, and then only a fraction of the activities), so again, I got used to studying without a community around me. That said, I was aware that I wanted community, and the desire to be part of an academic community was one of the motivating factors in applying for my PhD at a campus-based university.

The orientation programme described seems a thorough start to getting students engaged in the community and the distance learning environment. It has a lot of similarities to early stages of Salmon's five stage model. However, the orientation seems to happen separately to the learner's subsequent courses, i.e. with a different community to that which the student will then interact with. The monthly rolling start of courses mean that students will not be progressing in parallel with a large cohort, so the community is deliberately created from students in related courses, but not all at the same stage. While this allows students with increasing expertise to take a more central role, including scaffolding new learners, Salmon's model is harder to apply as students will not be working on tasks together, and I was concerned that the progression through the model's stages may be interrupted if students develop early socialisation with their orientation group, but then have to move on to a different community for their main studies. For me, this provision of community access and development tools, joining students from a wider network, was also reminiscent of the unofficial OU student society online conferences, particularly psychology, which I experienced 5-10 years ago. These were entirely separate from the official courses, but included much inter- and intra- cohort sharing and discussion, and were extremely valuable as the courses at the time had little or no 'community' built in. 

I feel uncomfortable about the LOQ. Psychological instruments which are a) for sale b) include "testimonials" on their web site, and c) include the words "recent advances in neuroscience" in their overview blurb ring alarm bells for me. I don't have time to research the deep background of the LOQ... but was reminded of this ;-)

Perhaps I've been reading too much Ben Goldacre.

Reference:

Ludwig-Hardman, S. and Dunlap, J.C. (2003) ‘Learner support services for online students: scaffolding for success’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [online]http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/131/211

The current Western Governors University guidance on admission: http://www.wgu.edu/admissions/requirements

Networks of support in open learning

‘Student support in open learning: sustaining the process’ (Dearnley, 2003)

Dearnley explores the types of support required, and the structures which provide them, by adult, open learners. The context of the paper is around nursing education, offering conversion courses to otherwise have limited (if any) experience of higher education, but the findings are thought to be transferable to other adult learner groups. 

3 major supporting networks sustain learning and development: academic, professional and social, providing 3 types of support: practical, academic and emotional.

Key points:

• Appropriate student support can make the different between student success and failure.
• Student support plays a crucial role in sustaining the process of learning and development.
• Students will experience life responsibilities (which are generally constant and predictable) and life events (which should be expected, but what or when is unknown; should be accommodated by curriculum designers).
• Support networks need to interact - and the academic network (in particular) may need to react to changes in the other two (for example if social or professional support breaks down).
• Social networks seem to form the foundation of all support networks - ""domestic harmony" is an essential ingredient in sustaining the motivation and ability for mature learners to continue studying".
• Students rely on a complex mix of emotional and practical support from within their social and professional networks.
• Students beginning from a received knowledge (i.e. the "authority" is always right, I must learn all the facts") orientation may be used to or expect the tutor/course to tell them what to think or do. Taking responsibility for their own learning can be a substantial challenge. 
• Academic peers provide academic, practical and social support. Group tutorials in particular can be useful for friendship, developing trust and motivation. 
• Good tutors provide support in the academic, emotional, practical and technical domains. The must be approachable and accessible - knowing that support is available can be more important than the means by which it is accessed. 
• Development requires a mixture of challenge and support - too much or too little of either will reduce the potential for development.

Reflections:
Studying (particularly in parallel with a job or family commitments) requires a re-alignment of priorities and activities, especially domestic roles and responsibilities. I've been fortunate that my own circumstances have allowed this to happen quite smoothly, but I still strongly related to the statement that domestic harmony is necessary for motivation and continuation of studying - when other aspects of my life, (eg. health, relationships or work) have been harder, my energy for studying is very rapidly depleted.

Has our own tutor group supported me through this? I suppose it has given me the visibility that some of my peers are struggling in similar ways, and so reduced isolation. Practical study related help such as supplying links and resources has also been useful. However, ultimately I still feel like I have to get through this pretty much on my own wits - if I let myself slip so far behind that I cannot catch up, then that's my fault, so it's up to me to pull myself up by the bootstraps. That said, the experience of seeing wide fluctuations in the level of contributions to our online forum does help to remind me that I don't have to respond to every activity in complete fullness and perfectly on time - there's a wide variation in what is acceptable, after all, this is open learning at Masters level, and so responsibility for one's own learning management is an expectation.

The paper notes that students beginning from a received knowledge orientation are likely to be less tolerant of ambiguity, to collect facts and to be surface learners. While I think (hope!) I'm generally fairly well engaged in the knowledge construction this course affords, at times, perhaps when I'm tired, that effort of having to think, question, re-process for myself can feel hard. Similarly, if I "get" something straight away then I'm likely to be able to quickly move on to elaboration or application of the information, but if it was a concept I found more challenging then I can be inclined to slip into attempting surface learning. I think here that blogging really helps me, as it's often not until I try to start writing that my thoughts and reactions emerge... and then I write much more than planned (like this post which I meant to finish half an hour ago - a useful lesson in why these activities sometimes take me longer than I wish ;-) ).

Reference:

Dearnley, C. (2003) ‘Student support in open learning: sustaining the process’, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning [online] http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/132/212

10 dimensions for designing learner support

'Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: ten dimensions for successful design’ (McLoughlin, 2002)

McLoughlin's paper explains scaffolding ("the effective intervention by a peer, adult or competent person in the learning of another person") and gives some of the history and background, particularly Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development. 

The paper compares scaffolding in face-to-face learning with that which might be required in online and distance situations, and argues that the principles of learning support can still apply to these newer teaching and learning contexts.

McLoughlin refers to seven short pieces of advice:

• Provide experience of the knowledge construction process
• Provide experience in and appreciation of multiple perspectives
• Create learning asks that are relevant and authentic
• Encourage ownership and voice in the learning process
• Embed learning in social experience
• Encourage the development of multiple modes of representation
• Encourage self-awareness of the knowledge construction process.

McLoughlin also argues that effective scaffolding is characterised by:

• increasing the learners’ chance of succeeding in a task
• helping them to do something they couldn’t accomplish on their own
• moving them to a ‘new and improved zone of understanding’
• helping them to operate independently.

McLoughlin provides ten design guidelines/dimensions of successful learner support. Each dimension is represented as a continuum with contrasting values at the ends. She points out that it is necessary to combine the individual dimensions in order to create effective instructional scaffolds. 

The dimensions are:

(1) Goal orientation (i.e. the goal of the support; support should be planned, not only when learners are having difficulties)

Highly focused <-----> Unfocused

(2) Adaptability (meet the needs of a diverse range of students)

Fixed <-----> flexible

(3) Accessibility (available when the student needs is - "just-in-time")

High <-----> Low

(4) Alignment (support is aligned with task goals and learning outcomes)

High <-----> Low

(5) Experiential value (learners' experiences allow them to plan, act, reflect and transfer knowledge of skills to new tasks/contexts)

High <-----> Low

(6) Collaboration (emphasis on social constructivism and use of web tools to support collaboration suggest this dimension is already well accepted)

Supported <-----> Unsupported

(7) Constructivism (support knowledge construction (strong scaffold), not memorization (weak scaffold))

Strong <-----> Weak

(8) Learning orientation (scaffolds allow learner to progress from teacher regulation to self-regulation and self-direction)

Teacher regulation <-----> Learner regulation

(9) Multiplicity (various types of scaffolding to support aspects of learning such as metacognition, reflection, articulation and comparison)

One-dimensional <-----> Multi-dimensional

(10) Granularity (high granularity allows learners to select and reconstruct the parts that are meaningful to them in a task)

Low granularity <-----> High granularity

For H807, we were supposed to read the ten dimensions, and pick any two we thought are important and think about why they are relevant to the learning materials that we would like to design. 

I think Alignment is an important dimension. No online course can succeed if it doesn't carefully articulate its goals, and follow these through the activities to appropriately fitting and related assessments (not necessarily only at the end either). It seems that it would follow that you need to also ensure support is aligned to your goals, tasks, activities and intended outcomes. 

Given the wealth of affordances of technologies available for online learners, and the benefits of studying surrounded by a community rather than alone, I would also pick Collaboration as an important dimension. It has clearly been designed in to every aspect of H807, the hyperbole around web 2.0 tools is primarily centered on opportunities for collaboration, and it supports the constructivist theories of learning which are now widely valued.

Reflections

The paper suggests that scaffolds can be created by software, technological tools and web-based functionalities. Previously I conceived scaffolding to be something the might be provided by another person (peer, tutor, etc), or might be provided through the design of course materials (for example, interactive computer-based training with progressively lesser levels of hints or support provided). The idea that technological tools such as collaborative conferencing, document sharing, social forums or web 2.0 tools might offer scaffolds was new to me - but was something that was easy to accept, not least from observation of the provision of such methods throughout H807.

There are implicit value judgements in the ten dimensions, for example, that alignment should be high, adaptability should be flexible, etc, and the desirable ends of the continua (continuums?!!) don't all point in the same direction . It's unlikely you could design scaffolding which 'scored' highly on all ten dimensions, although overlaps exist, for example between Collaboration and Constructivism, and between Goal Orientation and Alignment. I think possibly the most helpful use of the ten dimensions might be in using them as a checklist to review, revise and improve scaffolding once it is designed. 

We were also supposed to answer the question "What are your first thoughts on how you’ll design your materials?". For me, this was an example of a poorly scaffolded activity! I didn't understand the context - was it supposed to relate to our End of Course Assessment designs, to the materials which we design in our jobs (in which case another assumption that H807 students are in e-learning roles), or to our general aspirations? Clearly I want to design the best materials I can, but they will be different in every situation. Having a framework like these ten dimensions in my toolkit is useful, but is a long way from knowing "how I'll design my materials".

Reference:

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.

Musing on Salmon's e-tivities

This post comes at a relatively early stage in my exploration of e-tivities, before I've attempted to design any e-tivities, or had an opportunity to participate in any developed by my H807 colleagues. However, a few thoughts have been bubbling up as I've sat with the readings recently...
..........
E-tivities, or the five-stage framework is highly geared to group learning. There really isn't a place in it for the individual learner. While it may be the case that constructivist and situated learning theories tend to point towards learning in groups, and the web, web2.0 and all that it offers are also highly social, we will still have individual online and distance learners.
..........
I'm wondering how e-tivities relate to child learners. While the five-stage framework has time and space for stumbling through early technical difficulties and early socialisation, I'm wondering whether children's social skills might indicate a natural ceiling within the framework, through which they will not be ready to progress without further maturity. I don't know where that ceiling would or might be, and given the online-savy of many children, perhaps their online social development will take a different trajectory to that traditionally observed in the face-to-face classroom, but it seems reasonable to expect differences in the level of tutor/moderator support required by children and adults, or come to that, generally more and less experienced learners.
..........
I was also wondering how I might apply Salmon's framework to the e-learning I see developed in my job, and I haven't yet been able to make it match. That is despite desperately wanting more (appropriate, tailored, well-designed and purposeful) interactivity, more constructivist activities, to develop students as independent learners, to provide more formative feedback opportunities etc., etc. So, why doesn't it seem to fit? I think it's because so much of the training we develop is focused on learning procedures, for example bringing a generator into service, maintaining a pump, or interacting with a complex human-computer interface to set up highly sophisticated equipment. In cases where it's training in a procedure that's required, I'm not sure that community socialisation, knowledge construction and mutual sharing can help. While all of these might make for deeper learning with greater opportunities for elaborating on personal knowledge, there's also the issue of cost and length of training course. In cases where there is a constraint that you must train x people in y amount of time, it's possible that the extra time required might make e-tivities an unworkable solution - a point which is perhaps supported by Salmon's acknowledgement (see Workshop on E-Tivities, slide 10) that constructivist courses tend to need a longer course length and greater e-moderator input compared to instructivist courses.

E-tivities - integrated into a campus-university module

‘The integration and implementation of a range of “e-tivities” to enhance students’ interaction and learning’, Pavey, J. and Garland, S.W. (2004)

This is a case study of a UK sport science course that used Salmon’s framework to enhance student interaction.

The authors used Salmon’s five-stage framework to develop their e-tivities, and suggest a template which can be used to map the particular aspects of an activity against each of Salmon’s five stages:

Stage in Salmon's model	Activity
1. Access and motivations	Instructions given in face to face session. E-tivity objectives set. Encouraged to familiarise selves with the technology.
2. Online socialization	Familiarization task. Information information exchange encouraged.
3. Information exchange	Discussion board introduced - allocated tasks using synchronous and asynchronous discussion.
4. Knowledge construction	Online information gathering, quizzes and discussions - the main part of the e-tivities.
5. Development	Ongoing discussion boards with tutor moderation as required.

The e-tivities developed for this course were delivered through the Blackboard VLE, which was also new to the students/course at the time. Plenty of familiarisation and orientation time was therefore built in to the programme before students were required to engage in the course-specific learning e-tivities. Four e-tivities were developed:

• formative quizzes - based on a range of online resources and readings, and which provided automated marking and feedback (e.g. drag and drop labelling of anatomical diagrams) 
• interactive web pages and animations - animations of complex processes, helps students to understand concepts 
• topic discussions - using asynchronous discussion board. 
• an online 'lecture' - 90 minute online tutorial using synchronous discussion with students participating in small groups at a number of shared PCs.

Take-away thoughts

• "Students have ample time to read other students' comments, do research and formulate a detailed response" (Clark, 2001)
• "Providing guidelines for online activity should be rated as an important criterion for keeping online discussions 'on-topic'." (Beaudin, 1999)
• Examples of such guidelines for communication are given, and include that groups nominate a spokesperson, that messages should only be posted when invited, that all messages must be directly relevant, and that participation is mandatory.
• Importance of sufficient time to become comfortable with the technology, and that this is carried out separately to the main activities - "this approach supports the work of Salmon (2000) who found that students need to feel competent about how to use a VLE before they are comfortable with exchanging ideas and information".
• The tutor can sometimes serve best by staying silent (Rohfeld and Hiemstra, 1995) as the effort of learning is passed to the students, individually and as a community. This approach has been demonstrated to be effective in increasing critical thinking and active learning (Hughes & Daykin, 2002)
• Tutoring skills include knowing when to stay silent, weaving and summarizing ideas, asking the right questions (not necessarily giving answers), providing consistent support, and introducing and integrating activities into the module.

Reflections

• 83% of the students felt that web-based material should be developed for other modules... but 69% did not find the online lecture/group chat was a worthwhile experience as an alternative to face-to-face delivery. I wondered whether this might be due to technical challenges, discomfort at potential exposure in front of peers, or an underlying expectation that 'lectures' are didactic rather than constructivist in approach. My own experience has often shown students wanting to be told the answer, and finding it uncomfortable if they are required to construct knowledge more independently or collaboratively. 
• The paper argues that online discussions might provide a means for students who prefer not to ask questions in front of their peers or lecturer - while this may be true, my gut feeling is that online fora still provide plenty of opportunities for a shy student to feel uncomfortable. They are (usually) still identifiable to the other participants, and there may even be heightened concerns regarding the fact that any comment made may be archived, prolonging the 'agony' of any 'embarrassing' comment or faux pas. 
• The authors considered that the asynchronous and synchronous discussions were the most innovative aspects of the developments presented. Compared to our current Open University experience on H807 (in 2011), it's hard to feel that this is innovative. However, the paper is from 2004, and more importantly refers to a campus-based module. I think that incorporation of such online discussion in a campus-taught class today may well still be viewed as innovative.

Reference:

Pavey, J. and Garland, S.W. (2004) ‘The integration and implementation of a range of “e-tivities” to enhance students’ interaction and learning’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol.41, no.3, pp.305–15.

Clark (2001), Beaudin (1999), Rohfeld and Hiemstra (1995), Hughes and Daykin (2002) all cited by Pavey and Garland (2004).

Reflecting on web 2.0 week

Web 2.0 is so last week! Well, it is if you're on H807 and already being encouraged to move on to evaluating usability, which is the next theme.

I had a lot of fun looking at mashups (more than once!), RSS feeds, social bookmarking, social networking and assessment 2.0.

There are just a few niggling thoughts that I haven't recorded so far...

• I had fun looking at all these different tools and technologies, as did I think my fellow students, but the fact that they can be included in a course in innovation really shows that despite all the hype, and the growing number of users, there is a long way to go until we reach either widespread acceptance, or toolset stability. In a space of a few short years  tools and trends have come and gone, as shown by this History of Social Media Infographic, and for many people such instability is disconcerting.
• While there were plenty of papers telling me about how brilliant these web 2.0 tools could be for education, finding actual examples and case studies was much tricker. Mashups seem a great concept, but mixing data from multiple sources isn't straightforward, and while there were lots of obvious suggestions for using RSS feeds and social bookmarking in teaching and learning, it seemed that social networking and assessment 2.0 have much further to go in terms of uptake. 
• We often come across statements like "young people expect to use networked technologies in their learning", and "the net generation use their social networks for learning and expect their educators to do so too". I think a lot of caution needs to be exercised here. Steve Wheeler warns against accepting wholesale the idea of digital natives and immigrants, and advocates Dave White's alternative theory of visitors and residents. This all reminds me of the excellent Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future study by the British Library and JISC. It looks at the following claims about the Google Generation, and presents information which indicates that some of these are myths:
• Google Generation show a preference for visual information over text 
• Google Generation want a variety of learning experiences 
• Google Generation Have shifted decisively to digital forms of communication 
• Google Generation 'Multitask’
• Google Generation are impatient and have zero tolerance for delay 
• Google Generation find their peers more credible as a source of information than authority figures 
• Google Generation need to feel constantly connected to the web 
• Google Generation learn by doing rather than knowing 
• Google Generation prefer quick information in the form of easily digested short chunks rather than full text
• Google Generation have a poor understanding and lack of respect for intellectual property
• Google Generation are format agnostic 
• For the Google Generation, virtual reality may be as real as the real experience 

If you're short of time, pages 13-21 cover the claims and fact/myth findings.

Serendipity

While I was thinking about things which are challenging me - which seem to be about putting my views out there for all to see - this Tweet from iOPT popped up on my screen...

"The Internet requires us to adopt norms of open sharing & participation - publishing has become the new literacy" - Clay Shirky

This fits so nicely both with my current struggles about publishing a podcast and sharing posts in a forum (and the internal debates and doubts I had about starting a blog way back at the beginning of the MA ODE), and with the wider themes of sharing and participation which have emerged through our discussions of the definition of innovation in elearning.

Warning: unanswered questions ahead. Cognitive dissonance in progress.

If it is the Internet which is requiring us to adopt these norms, can we chose to go another way, to ignore 'the Internet'? It seems unlikely - that genie is well and truly out of the bottle - except, perhaps this isn't the case, as we've also seen that individuals and, in particular, institutions, are struggling to cope with new methods of openness, sharing and collaboration.

Could it be that the is Internet requiring this of us because actually it's designed/developed/emerged from the way people actually think - another Tweet from iOPT:

The Internet is not changing people's way of thinking but rather it is adapting to the way people think - Steven Pinker

So which is the innovator and which the adopter here - the Internet, or the people who use it? Is it the Internet pushing (or pulling) us and our students... or is it us who are responsible for shaping what it has become? And what are the implications for education? We know norms are shifting, and expectations and opportunities are changing, but how much control can the individual have over the effects on them and their personal learning or teaching? Where does choice end and societal pressure begin?

Whatever the case, the concept that publishing is a new required literacy is very real. We now need to learn, not only to use language to communicate, but to understand what it means to publish it, to identify and evaluate sources, to understand how we credit original work, and to have an eye on the social and cultural effects of publishing, and being part of a community of publishers.

This week...

... has not been my most productive on this course so far! In fact, no posts here, but two posts there suggest I might be avoiding or procrastinating, and I am (even by writing this post!). So, let's attempt to turn it into some more useful reflection...

What am I avoiding?
Two things - making a podcast, and posting things in the forum.

Why?
The podcast - I really hate the idea of recording my voice. There's also a bit of a challenge of coming up with content, but I know I can do that really. So it's the voice recording thing which is just so hideous an idea to me. Kate used xtranormal to do a brilliant alternative podcast - a short animation, for which she wrote the script.

And the forum? There's been quite a bit of discussion this week about how hectic it is, trying to keep up with all the posts, and the difficulties if people post their notes rather than real discussions. I think it's a bit problematic as a lot of the activities suggest you share your notes (or at least your thoughts) with your tutor group, and to get the ball rolling with that, some people will need to post their initial reactions to an activity. I'm now conscious that there are quite a few people in the group who are not happy about wading through posts, and I'm not sure I feel so happy posting any more  - and I worry that my contribution may not be valuable at the best of times anyway.

So how am I going to get passed this?
Well, the podcast I think I might quietly shove under the carpet. I'm quite happy with the technical side of recording, uploading, setting up a feed etc, so I don't feel I particularly need that practice (I might download Audacity though, as it's such a good tool and I think it'll come in handy for the upcoming interview).

And the forum? I probably just have to get on and keep posting! I try to write posts that will be relevant for other students, but I know I can't interest everyone, and certainly not all the time. I guess I just have to let them be selective - they can skip past my post if they want, and then I haven't upset anyone have I? 

But what's gone well?
Well, I have at least arranged my interviewee for the 'interviewing an elearning innovator' task. I shan't reveal who it is yet as we've not been through the release forms, but I'm hoping I'll be able to soon.

Hmm, that doesn't feel like quality reflection... not sure I learnt anything. In which case, maybe it was just procrastination. Damn!

Innovative practice with elearning - reflections

A few reflections on the case study reading...

Some of these case studies do not sound particularly inspirational. While they undoubtedly had tangible benefits, were they innovative? Again, back to the question of what it means for elearning to be innovative. Well, a number of these practices (providing resources online, developing podcasts, computer-based assessment, etc) sound like they are old hat. However, given an analysis of actual current practice in HE institutions (all these case studies were HE), I wonder whether we really would find a prevalence of these elearning practices. More likely, I suspect, that while there is greater awareness of the tools and technologies and the potential of elearning, and that the technological barriers are ever decreasing, perhaps many of these practices have not yet made the transition to mainstream. In that case, looking back on these case studies of 5-7 years ago, perhaps they really were innovative. Also the fact that we now accept that practices such as those described seem familiar, it suggests that they are being adopted and integrated into wider practice - and surely that must be test of whether an innovation really makes a useful difference.

I’m struggling a bit to think how these case studies can relate to my own context - a technology consulting company with a CAI/CBT production wing. We have to produce what customers want, and if that’s what they ask for... I know there is an argument to be had about helping customers see what they want but didn’t know they wanted, but that’s for another day!

While I accept that these case studies might be argued to have had effects on social equality (they claimed to - one of the reasons I selected them!), I think that the link is rather tenuous for a couple. I think they seem to be claiming that online 24/7 access equals equality - I’m sure it’s a contributory factor, but I was hoping to see a bit more than that.

I liked the fact that reading these cases studies made me reflect not just on what value the technological intervention might bring, but also issues surrounding the implementation. These are crucial for successful uptake, and key lessons highlighted in the cases include the need for substantial stakeholder involvement at as early a stage as possible, and the importance of training in ensuring that everyone understands why you are pursuing this elearning avenue.

The cases showed some nice contrasts between large and small scale, school-wide and single-instigator, big-budget and no-budget projects, and all were able to demonstrate tangible benefits.

Back to the Beginning

Only it's not exactly back to the beginning, but rather another new start. I'm moving on, and this blog, which I began for my OU H808 'The elearning professional' studies back in 2009/10 is moving on with me. This time I'm embarking on H807 'Innovations in elearning'.

The course promises that we will 'Discover the latest developments in elearning and reflect on how they are changing relationships between teachers, learners and technology.' We'll be encouraged to consider what innovation is, and what leads to innovations being adopted (or not). I'm also looking forward to the opportunity to develop specific elearning and etutoring skills such as online group moderation, as this will be new to me. I'm particularly keen to see what I can pick up which I can incorporate into my own professional work in developing elearning.

On a personal level, I'm looking forward to the intellectual stimulation of studying again, and I remember the satisfying feeling that came from returning to study and recognising that as a key part of my identity with H808. Work, however, is busier and more stressful now. There is more intellectual challenge there than there was a year ago, and I'm rather concerned about being overloaded. I know I can be a perfectionist, so this time I need to be a bit aware of that, and try to make sure I keep studying in proportion with other important parts of my life (running, climbing, cello, seeing people!), and accept that there will probably be times when I can't do all I would like to, or perhaps even all the activities.

Anyway, I'm excited to get started and look forward to things getting underway for real!

Some thoughts on collaborative group working in an asynchronous forum

We've finished the collaborative activity 6.3, and to be honest the requirement to refelect on it in TMA02 is like asking me to go and relive a car crash. I can reflect on this in a positive way, by completely detatching it from the specifics of our own group experience, but I don't find the kinds of reflections in our group forums which criticise the actions of certain individuals helpful, and so won't be responding there. Similarly, my reflections here are about group work in general, and not our specific roles, tasks, or outcomes.

One reflection I had early on was regarding the importance of understanding roles in group. It was suggested that we should allocate roles at the beginning of the task, but I think this is actually very hard for any group to do from the position of not knowing the individuals in the group, and not yet having a clear conception of the task. While it might be useful to have individuals take on specific roles, in a group which does not know each other well you cannot tell who will be suited to what roles. This problem isn't unique to online forums (there'll be a similar difficulty in any ad-hoc team), but the additional constraints and problems of asynchronous communication make this all the harder for a new online team.

Communication in an asynchronous forum is fraught with well-documented difficulties, including misinterpretations leading to upset or offence, problems with crossed threads (e.g. two people writing at the same time, and so unable to see the other's response, and therefore appearing to ignore it or to duplicate suggestions) and the sheer difficulty of catching up with a multi-threaded discussion if you are away from any period of time. There are difficulties with language and explanations - what appears clear in the author's head can easily be interpreted differently by readers. Given the lack of opportunity to clarify misunderstandings, the asynchronous online forum seems to require extra levels of clarity, precision and tact, including judging when not to respond. There is also a difficulty in reaching agreements or decisions when there is no way to know when individual participants will be available to read and respond.

The nature of the collaborative forum forces participants to use certain agreed working methods. While these may be accepted by all members of the group, it is likely that no one method will be the optimum for everyone's individual learning and working styles. Organisation which one person sees as adding clarity may muddy the waters for another, for example the use of several locations for different elements of discussion - for some it may be very useful to keep aspects discreet, for others this may just add to confusion of where to find content.

Clearly, given my use of a car crash analogy, this group work has actually been a hurtful experience. More frustrating is that I'm not clear what I was supposed to learn from it - and I have seen comments from so many demotivated students in this past fortnight. The requirement to reflect on the group's success is fine done in private, but postings to group forums just seem likely to further inflame misunderstandings and upset. This has left me very likely to be very wary of engaging with group work in future, and rather than help me build trust and community, has left me wanting to run screaming from the place. I don't believe this was the OU's target, but the reflection seems to be requiring further raking over of ground which many of us just want to move on from and leave behind.

Struggling

Finally an update for my sadly recently quiet blog. I have a whole list of things on which I want to post, but I'm just not able to at the moment. Hopefully when I've caught up a bit. But now, the post.

---

Really struggling with studying at the moment. I am behind as a result of 2 weeks off sick, and while I managed to get myself together enough to submit the assignment only 5 days late, I've still been struggling since. I feel exhausted and demotivated. The more behind I feel, the less able to study I feel, and the more behind I get. I'm getting more and more panicked at the thought of the next impending assignment, and less and less able to structure my thoughts or respond to the activities as I feel they deserve.

I need to get myself moving again, so rather than reflecting too much (and risking descending further into gloom) I'm trying to take a pragmatic approach to this. (This probably is as the result of prior reflection anyway - learning from past experience about how to help myself through study struggles).

1 - I was ill, and that's why I got behind
2 - it is impossible to do two week's catchup in one week if you expect to complete the activities to the level you would normally
3 - it's important to move on and ensure I'm ready and able to address the next assignment.

Therefore, the plan:
1 - Attempt the activities, but do not expect to do them to the level I would wish and would usually demand of myself.
2 - Keep moving. Do not get hung up on details or paralysed by the circumstances.

All very bullish. Which unfortunately is not me at all.

I am a perfectionist. I enjoy learning. I want to get the most out of the activities, and I want to show that I can do them well. Further, I think the current activities (on what elearning, professionalism, and the term 'elearning professional' mean) are really interesting, so my struggle to engage with the tasks is frustrating me all the more. Being forced to tackle things in this way is uncomfortable to say the least, and while I know it is actually a good plan for preparing for the next assignment (it is better than reaching the assignment week and still being 2 weeks behind) it still worries me that I won't be as prepared for the assignment as I want to be.

Personal and professional development planning

Core activity 3.4 required the adaptation of a PDP needs analysis grid for our own competency requirements, making self assessments against the required competencies, and development objective setting. My PDP grid is shared here.

This blog completes the activity with a reflection on what I have learned about my strengths and weaknesses as an elearning practitioner as a result of the activity.

I approached this activity with a little trepidation, well aware of the need to understand personal competencies in order to set development goals, but also conscious that people are often not very good at making accurate self-assessments (Boud & Falchikov 1989, Mitrovic 2001, Ward, Gruppen & Regehr 2002, Eva, Cunnington, Reiter, Keane & Norman 2004). Even after completing the activity, how do I know that my assessments are correct? I suppose one way would be to go down the ePortfolio route, assembling items of evidence against each competency - in fact, would this be a new use of ePortfolios (for assisting students' self-assessment - I'm not sure if I've seen that purpose before).

Given that people (myself!) may not be very good at self-assessment, I was also concerned about trying to make assessments to fit the given levels (Complete novice, Below average, Average, Above average and Expert). These seemed to me subjective, and therefore likely to make assessment all the harder. They also implied a comparison with others, whereas I felt my assessments of my competencies would be valid however they compared to others' abilities. Similarly, if self-assessments are likely to be inaccurate, how can I accurately assess the 'average' of a larger community?

I therefore found myself defining slightly more detail for each competency level, resulting in the following:

Complete novice
Limited knowledge / understanding
Some knowledge / understanding	Someone reasonably intelligent, with at least a general interest in eLearning. Perhaps able to use/do the competency, but not to analyse/critique/develop. Probably a base level for students of H808.
Good knowledge / understanding	As above, but with some experience, further study etc in this area of learning/technology.
High knowledge / understanding (expert)	Perhaps able to be an authority or have higher level study in this area, able to teach this element, have greater awareness of issues, practices, debates and resources.

Given these level definitions, I found it easy to consider how I related to each competency.

I think the most striking outcome for me is the distinction between technical aspects, where I score quite highly, and other teaching and learning aspects, where I am comparatively weak. This is not a huge surprise to me, given my background of Computing and Psychology followed by AI in Education research. I clearly lack experience in working with elearning students, and in developing elearning tasks, and these are aspects where I hope to gain first knowledge (from this and subsequent courses) and then real world experience.

I also found the objective setting element useful, and something I haven't done for a long time. This in itself is probably a weakness in terms of both my learning and my elearning professionalism. Useful to be reminded of the benefits.

References
D Boud and N Falchikov, “Quantitative Studies of Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Findings,” Higher Education 18 (1989): 529-549.
A Mitrovic, “Self-Assessment: How Good are Students At It?,” in Workshop on Assessment Methods in Web-Based Learning Environments & Adaptive Hypermedia (presented at the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, San Antonio, 2001), 2-8.
M Ward, L Gruppen, and G Regehr, “Measuring Self-Assessment: Current State of the Art,” Advances in Health Sciences Education 7 (2002): 63-80.
K. W. Eva et al., “How Can I Know What I Don't Know? Poor Self Assessment in a Well-Defined Domain,” Advances in Health Sciences Education 9 (2004): 211-224.
H851 Practice Guide 7, Reviewing and Improving your Teaching, The Open University, 1998, p.31.

Wordle for this blog (4)

Unit 3 (part 1): ePortfolio systems is now done, and so it's time for the weekly Wordle.



System appears to be the dominant word this week, closely followed by systems, able, activity, eportfolio, evidence and use. Given the unit title, I'm quite happy with these as the key features, and it's interesting that they remain dominant despite one of the core activities being only a link to a Google Doc, rather than a full post in itself.

The terms activity, evidence, able and use seem likely to be a result of my reflection on the collation of artefacts and creation of evidence within the framework provided for the course - and remind me that I must post to the tutor group about my uncertainties (a bit nervous about that one).

None of these terms seem particularly aligned with the tag cloud of labels for my posts. I may need to keep an eye on this to ensure that I'm using useful tags, or it may be that the tags I've chosen are suitable summary words for the type of content that is showing up in the Wordle.

One more thing I'm curious about, and that's exactly what Wordle looks at when it creates its cloud. I provide the URL for the RSS feed of the blog, but I wonder how far back in the blog's history it goes... all the way I'm assuming, since that's what you get on the feed URL page. I wonder if there's any difference if I only feed it with the blog URL - does it then just do a screen-scrape of the text, or does it find the associated RSS feed?

A bit of reflection - mainly on evidence of practice-related competencies(!)

I'm enjoying activity 3.1 - considering the key features of eportfolio software. We seem to be moving towards a discussion stage now, which should be really interesting. I really value Madeleine's proactivity in proposing a collaborative effort on the task as I think it has helped us focus on the fact that we are aiming for a discussion, not just 15 different contributions.

I'm also enjoying the activity as I feel I'm able to be proactive myself. Again I've been able to use some of the slightly more technical skills I have to support the group with wiki pages and a collaborative spreadsheet in Google Docs. This has been interesting for me in several ways. Trying to make a large table display in the wiki resulted in a mass of very narrow columns - it would quickly become unreadable as the rows would become enormously high. This reinforced for me the lesson of choosing the right assistive technology for the job... while a wiki was good for collaboration, it wasn't going to be able to display the data. So, next thought was a Google Doc (although I use this a lot, including for collaborative work) it wasn't until I saw Kevin had posted his incredibly comprehensive comparative grid to Google that I realised what a good idea it was). Google Docs also gave the flexibility for our different needs - Kevin's to display to viewers without giving editing rights, and mine to allow full and equal access to all who had the URL.

I hope that I can use activity like this as evidence of technology and communication-related skills and proactivity (categories from our course framework for professional development). I've created my own 4x4 grid to try to start logging how each piect of work relates to the competencies. I've also set up tags in my OneNote notebook - and using its search/aggregation feature I can easily see where I've tagged items against each competency/feature. So, the technology to log my evidence is not the problem. Where I feel I am coming unstuck is in how to identify an item as evidence for a particular competency. I think I can actually relatively easily identify when work relates to the technology, communication or research competencies... so the tricky one for me is practice-related. I really can't get my head around what would demonstrate this in the context of the course. I wonder if an activity like 3.2 (writing a report to educational managers, recommending an eportfolio system) is the type of thing that would count here. My concern again, (as in my blog reflections last weekend), is with the term practice. In my current job I don't work with eportfolios, reflection, or even with students or educational institutions. I'm at the technology end of the educational technologist spectrum - investigating new options, and their applicability to various users and contexts. Perhaps I will actually be able to use this as a practice-related competency... but I feel unsure.

[Quite enjoying this reflection... following where my thoughts go, watching questions bubble up, trying to focus myself on answering them... bit of solution-focused therapy!]

So it seems my concerns are about the practice-related elements, and whether I'll be able to supply appropriate evidence. To reduce these concerns I probably need to better understand what constitutes evidence here - so I need to ask. I guess a tutor group forum post would be appropriate here. I could privately email the tutor, but hopefully I'm not the only one with this confusion... and if that's the case, a forum post would be proactive in itself... and could that also be a practice-related competency (knowing when personal professional development is required, and seeking guidance?)... or am I clutching at straws here? Any comments much appreciated!

[Hoping that this will have got some of the meandering thoughts out of my head, and left me a little bit of room to contemplate the next activity - but it's identified some points I need to come back to.

Finally - thanks to anyone who made it this far through a rambly reflection. It's good to feel my reflective writing is developing though... I'll stop now before I descend into reflecting on reflecting...!

Wordle for this blog (3)

This week's Unit 2 (part 2) title was Reflection and Learning. Here's this week's Wordle, which shows that, happily, I seem to blogging on the same themes! Eportfolios are still fairly dominant in the image... I'd be interested to know how far into the history of a blog's RSS feed Wordle goes when it creates the image.

Further reflections on core activity 2.4

This post returns to the task for core activity 2.4 - to post a comment to your blog reflecting on your own attitude to reflection in learning and on the usefulness or otherwise of blogging as a means of doing it. After completing the readings* for the task, I think my feelings about reflecting on learning, and using a blog as a tool for this are relatively unchanged from my previous post.

However, there are a couple of points/feelings/ideas that I noticed while going through the readings.

Firstly, I felt I identified with those students in Crème's work who would prefer a friendly non-judgemental reader than an assessor to view their reflections. My reflections feel personal, and while I'm happy with the purpose and practice of reflecting, it's the sharing for assessment that I feel is more difficult.

I also noted that the type of reflection I have been doing in these blog posts is more akin to the 'progressive journal' rather than ''reflective writing such as that used in professional courses where students have to relate theory to examples of their practice, a distinction noted by Crème. I think that this is probably ok for the current stage of the course, and my treatment of the blog as more of a learning journal. However, I think that I will have to undertake some more specific, directed reflection, in order to experience these techniques, to develop my abilities in them, and (not least) to meet the course requirements.

I have an ongoing concern about meeting all the criteria for the course assessment. There seem to be many, and I feel that there is likely to be a conflict between honesty and personal investment, and the need to meet assessment requirements in a systematic way. Hopefully the OU's careful development of criteria, designed to assess the development of reflective skills which actually be an enabling factor which may allow me to feel confident that I have conducted an appropriately comprehensive reflection.

A couple of other slightly unrelated noticings and reflections...
- I found reading the papers much easier because I had specific information which I wanted to extract from them, rather than just gain a general understanding
- Pointing our activities to blogs and forums means I am seeing others approaching the tasks differently. This is good and bad. It raises anxiety that I am not doing it right, or am interpreting it wrongly if I approach things differently to others. Equally, seeing these differences between our approaches helps reinforce the recognition of our diversity of backgrounds, expertise, interests and interpretations - and that fact that a varitey of contributions are both interesting and valuable.

[Readings were:

• (Crème, P. (2005) ‘Should student learning journals be assessed?’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 287–96;
• Moon, J. (2001) ‘PDP working paper 4: reflection in higher education learning’, The Higher Education Academy
• Moon, J. (2005) ‘Guide for busy academics no. 4: learning through reflection’, The Higher Education Academy]

Reflecting on reflection - towards activity 2.4

Core activity 2.4 involves reading several papers on reflection, considering their relation to the OU's methods of assessing our development of our reflective skills in this course, and asks for a blog post reflecting on your own attitude to reflection in learning and on the usefulness or otherwise of blogging as a means of doing it.

I thought I'd write a few notes on my own attitude to reflection here, before I read the papers, to see if my feelings change after reading.

At the moment I'm not too sure what I think. Reflection feels hard - especially when it's a required task. I feels that it comes more easily when it's spontaneous... such as when I begin by thinking about a technical concept, but unintentionally diverge in asking why, and how and what this means for me. This type of organic, unstructured reflection has certinaly made me think in ways I otherwise wouldn't have, but I'm not sure it's the best way to undertake the reflection for this course - that needs structure, and I think that's one aspect of the 'professionalism' of the course title.

Having just reread the course and assignment guides, and their comments on assessing reflective writing I feel that I will have to reflect in a very specific, directed way in order to achieve in the course. This isn't, in itself, good or bad, but it may have different outcomes to if it were spontaneous.

I've certainly done more reflection on this course, its contents, and my own learning because I've been writing blog posts, so in that sense, for me,blogging has been useful. Had I not been writing the posts, I strongly suspect the reflection would not have occurred to such a degree. However, I do note that I am conscious that there is an audience for a blog post. I don't attempt to write for them (they can always choose not to read if they're not interested), but I do feel that I censor, re-work, or re-phrase my writing because I know people are reading. If my blog were private, which it could be, then the outcomes may be different - although I don't know in what way or to what degree. I may try a few bits of reflective writing not in the public blog, and consider afterwards whether I want to post them, just to see if there's a difference. However there will be a conflict as I want to post as much on the blog as possible, and if I start feeling the need to re-write some work for public viewing then I'm going to run into serious time problems. It might be that this re-working and re-phrasing is actually a further level of reflection in itself, or perhaps it's just editing, during which the piece might lose its initial honesty.

I think I'm particularly concerned about the course's requirements to relate content to your own professional practice. Given that I'm not currently in an e-learning role (and that the course requirements stated that you didn't have to be), this is going to be difficult for me. I can speculate on how I would (hopefully will) apply what I've learnt, but it's difficult without a context to relate it to. I think this adds to the anxiety about doing the 'right' sort of reflection to pass the course, which may not necessarily be the same reflection that is natural to me. However, being prompted to think outside my comfort zone will almost certainly be valuable to my development, so it's welcome in that respect.

[Thanks are due to Hazel, Isabel and Madeleine here... this post was going to be a private one, but their comments in the tutor group forum have helped me realise I am among friends, and safe to post here (ignorring all the billions of internet users who fortunately don't read this!)]