In 2008, JISC produced a publication Exploring Tangible Benefits of e-learning: Does Investment Yield Interest? (2008) which looked at the impact of innovation on the learning process through the use of elearning. It includes case studies of nearly 40 examples of elearning, discussing their backgrount, context, technology used, tangible benefits and lessons learned. The case studies are available from JISC at
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible.
Week 2 Activity 2 asked us to look at 4 case studies. I decided to choose case studies that illustrated effects on learning and effects on social equality, these being two of my personal prime drivers for being interested in education, and technology-supported education. I was a little surprised that although 29 of the 34 case studies reported an effect on learning, only 20 reported an effect on social equality, and the cross-over was further reduced. However, I picked these four, with some additional influences on my selection, which I note in my posts about each study:
University of Exeter, Online economics texts
Newcastle University, Use of a VLE to deliver a 'regional' medical school
University of Nottingham, Moving from Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) to Computer Based Assessment (CBA) for summative exams in medicine
Swansea University, Use of podcasting in Archaeology
My summaries and thoughts on the case studies to follow...
Reference
JISC (2008) Exploring Tangible Benefits of e-Learning: Does Investment Yield Interest? [online], http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/publications/publications/info/tangible-benefits-publication
Friday, 18 February 2011
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Matrix of elearning concepts - mark 1
This is a quick post as I'm a bit behind this week. Hoping for some big catch up sessions on Thursday and Friday... trying not to panic yet!
Using the definitions of elearning concept we'd found, the task for Week 2 Activity 1 was to arrange those concepts on a matrix, showing where they might be categorised on the spectrum of Existing to New and of Formal to Informal.
This is my matrix:
A number of the concepts had me wondering about where to place them (obviously the point of the exercise!), so I also recorded some notes about why I positioned things as I did:
Blended learning - blend of new and existing, formal and informal. The fact that it includes web-based learning etc suggests it tends towards the new and informal.
Mobile learning - reliance on mobile technologies and cannot we yet assume ubiquitous access, therefore still quite 'new'. While may be used for formal access, gives greater opportunity for informal learning.
Virtual communities - initially largely informal. As there is wider uptake and integration into mainstream education, do they become more formal?
Flexible learning - I don't think this has yet been taken up by majority educators. Not yet integrated into most programmes.
Work-based learning - apprentice schemes etc have long history, therefore recognised as 'formal' training. However, OTJ aspect means training may be delivered informally.
Personalisation - widely available in informal, not-necessarily-learning-focused environments. Still a difficulty in achieving personalisation when there is a syllabus to be taught, standards to be met and need to check all material is covered, etc.
Just-in-time learning - relies on access to resources, therefore predominantly a new web-dependent method. No formal teaching - students learn what they want, when they require it. Risks lacking broader understanding as likely only to learn what is sufficient to achieve a task. May be some deep learning as result of applying it to context though.
Peer assessment - does not require new technology, but wider uptake *is* facilitated by web, etc. Not so widely used for formal (summative) assessment, and technology facilitates wider opportunities for informal assessment (e.g. commenting on blogs etc).
Collaborative learning - again doesn't require technology, but additional forms of collaboration may be facilitated by ICTs. Widely recognised as valuable medium, but still seems to be used mainly as an adjunct to more traditional approaches.
Learning objects - developed specifically for LMS-delivered computer-based learning, therefore 'new'. Standards, metadata requirements etc are a way of formalising the development. Usage is not restricted to formal context though.
E-assessment - computer supported marking available probably 20 years. Wider and more flexible uses are a newer development. I use assessment here in a summative context, therefore position towards formal axis - more informal, ad-hoc, on-demand, non-recorded or just-for-fun formative assessment is also possible though, and ICT is prime facilitator of this.
I actually found the formal-informal dimension quite hard to use, which was something of a surprise. I think I need a bit more of a think about what this really means. Also, I have a feeling that there might be some other dimensions on which it be useful to arrange these concepts. A lot of the discussion and reading in week 1 seemed to indicate innovations in elearning have particular implications for collaboration and community, so I wonder if an individual - collaborative axis might be useful to look at. This post is optimistically titled mark 1 - I'm hoping there'll be a chance for a mark 2, but don't hold your breath!
Using the definitions of elearning concept we'd found, the task for Week 2 Activity 1 was to arrange those concepts on a matrix, showing where they might be categorised on the spectrum of Existing to New and of Formal to Informal.
This is my matrix:
A number of the concepts had me wondering about where to place them (obviously the point of the exercise!), so I also recorded some notes about why I positioned things as I did:
Blended learning - blend of new and existing, formal and informal. The fact that it includes web-based learning etc suggests it tends towards the new and informal.
Mobile learning - reliance on mobile technologies and cannot we yet assume ubiquitous access, therefore still quite 'new'. While may be used for formal access, gives greater opportunity for informal learning.
Virtual communities - initially largely informal. As there is wider uptake and integration into mainstream education, do they become more formal?
Flexible learning - I don't think this has yet been taken up by majority educators. Not yet integrated into most programmes.
Work-based learning - apprentice schemes etc have long history, therefore recognised as 'formal' training. However, OTJ aspect means training may be delivered informally.
Personalisation - widely available in informal, not-necessarily-learning-focused environments. Still a difficulty in achieving personalisation when there is a syllabus to be taught, standards to be met and need to check all material is covered, etc.
Just-in-time learning - relies on access to resources, therefore predominantly a new web-dependent method. No formal teaching - students learn what they want, when they require it. Risks lacking broader understanding as likely only to learn what is sufficient to achieve a task. May be some deep learning as result of applying it to context though.
Peer assessment - does not require new technology, but wider uptake *is* facilitated by web, etc. Not so widely used for formal (summative) assessment, and technology facilitates wider opportunities for informal assessment (e.g. commenting on blogs etc).
Collaborative learning - again doesn't require technology, but additional forms of collaboration may be facilitated by ICTs. Widely recognised as valuable medium, but still seems to be used mainly as an adjunct to more traditional approaches.
Learning objects - developed specifically for LMS-delivered computer-based learning, therefore 'new'. Standards, metadata requirements etc are a way of formalising the development. Usage is not restricted to formal context though.
E-assessment - computer supported marking available probably 20 years. Wider and more flexible uses are a newer development. I use assessment here in a summative context, therefore position towards formal axis - more informal, ad-hoc, on-demand, non-recorded or just-for-fun formative assessment is also possible though, and ICT is prime facilitator of this.
I actually found the formal-informal dimension quite hard to use, which was something of a surprise. I think I need a bit more of a think about what this really means. Also, I have a feeling that there might be some other dimensions on which it be useful to arrange these concepts. A lot of the discussion and reading in week 1 seemed to indicate innovations in elearning have particular implications for collaboration and community, so I wonder if an individual - collaborative axis might be useful to look at. This post is optimistically titled mark 1 - I'm hoping there'll be a chance for a mark 2, but don't hold your breath!
Sunday, 13 February 2011
Elearning concepts
This post is hardly going to be the most insightful. It's simply the report of the result of Googling a number of elearning concepts, in search of definitions. More analysis of these concepts, and how they relate to new or existing and informal or formal learning coming up in the next post... (I hope!)
Blended learning
Blended learning
- Learning events that combine aspects of online and face-to-face instruction. [http://www.astd.org/LC/glossary.htm]
- A blended learning approach can combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction. It also applies science or IT activities with the assistance of educational technologies using computer, cellular or Smartphones, Satellite television channels, videoconferencing and other emerging electronic media. Learners and teachers work together to improve the quality of learning and teaching, the ultimate aim of blended learning being to provide realistic practical opportunities for learners and teachers to make learning independent, useful, sustainable and ever growing.[Graham, C. R. (2005). "Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions.". In Bonk, C. J.; Graham, C. R.. Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. pp. 3–21. ISBN 0787977586. via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_learning]
- Blended learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and is based on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. [Heinze, A.; C. Procter (2004). "Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning". Education in a Changing Environment. University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit. http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf. via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_learning]
- Learning that takes place via such wireless devices as cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), or laptop computers.[http://www.astd.org/LC/glossary]
- Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of the learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies.["Guidelines for learning/teaching/tutoring in a mobile environment". MOBIlearn. October 2003. pp. 6. http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/guidelines.pdf.]
- The term covers: learning with portable technologies. Focuses on the mobility of the learner, interacting with portable technologies, and learning that reflects a focus on how society and its institutions can accommodate and support an increasingly mobile population. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-learning]
- Synonymous with Online community: “A meeting place on the Internet for people who share common interests and needs. Online communities can be open to all or be by membership only and may or may not be moderated.”[http://www.astd.org/LC/glossary.htm]
- A virtual community is a social network of individuals who interact through specific media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue mutual interests or goals. One of the most pervasive types of virtual community include social networking services, which consist of various online communities. The term virtual community is attributed to the book of the same title by Howard Rheingold, published in 1993.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_community]
- is a set of educational philosophies and systems, concerned with providing learners with increased choice, convenience, and personalisation to suit the learner. In particular, flexible learning provides learners with choices about where, when, and how learning occurs. Sometimes also referred to as personalized learning. Flexible learning is a term often used in New Zealand and Australia see Shurville et al. (2008) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_learning]
- Work Based Learning generally describes learning while a person is employed. The learning is usually based on the needs of the individual's career and employer, and can lead to nationally recognised qualifications. There are usually three components to Work Based Learning. These are practical skills, underpinning knowledge and key skills.[http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/datadictionary/businessdefinitions/WBL.htm]
- involves using technology to accommodate the differences between individuals.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalisation]
- Tailoring Web content to an individual user. Can be accomplished by a user entering preferences or by a computer guessing about the user's preferences.[http://www.astd.org/LC/glossary.htm]
- Just-in-time - Characteristic of e-learning in which learners are able to access the information they need exactly when they need it.[http://www.astd.org/LC/glossary.htm]
- Just-in-time learning - Augmentation tools can help learners understand issues, acquire relevant information and solve complex issues by presenting supplementary information at the time of need or "on demand." This contrasts with traditional methods of associative learning, including rote learning, classical conditioning and observational learning, where the learning is performed in advance of the learner's need to recall or apply what has been learned. Snyder and Wilson[2] assert that just-in-time learning is not sufficient. Long-term learning demands continuous training should be individualized and built upon individual competencies and strengths.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_learning#Just-in-time_learning]
- JIT learning is broadly conceived as anywhere, anytime, anyhow learning that is just enough, just for me, and just in time.[http://adh.sagepub.com/content/5/3/308.abstract]
- Self or Peer Assessment is the process of students or their peers grading assignments or tests based on a teacher’s benchmarks.[1] The reasons that teachers employ Self- and Peer-Assessment are that it will save them time, students may gain a better understanding of the material, and student’s metacognitive skills may increase. Rubrics are often used in conjunction with Self- and Peer-Assessment.[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-_and_Peer-Assessment]
- Student assessment of other students' work, both formative and summative, has many potential benefits to learning for the assessor and the assessee. It encourages student autonomy and higher order thinking skills. Its weaknesses can be avoided with anonymity, multiple assessors, and tutor moderation. With large numbers of students the management of peer assessment can be assisted by Internet technology. Peer assessment is assessment of students by other students, both formative reviews to provide feedback and summative grading. Peer assessment is one form of innovative assessment (Mowl, 1996, McDowell and Mowl, 1996), which aims to improve the quality of learning and empower learners, where traditional forms can by-pass learners' needs. It can include student involvement not only in the final judgements made of student work but also in the prior setting of criteria and the selection of evidence of achievement (Biggs, 1999, Brown, Rust and Gibbs, 1994).[http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/aa/landt/lt/docs/bostock_peer_assessment.htm]
- Collaborative learning is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.[1] More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles.[2] Collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_learning]
- "collaborative learning" refers to an instruction method in which learners at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. The learners are responsible for one another's learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one learner helps other students to be successful. Proponents of collaborative learning claim that the active exchange of ideas within small groups not only increases interest among the participants but also promotes critical thinking.There is persuasive evidence that cooperative teams achieve at higher levels of thought and retain information longer than learners who work quietly as individuals. The shared learning gives leanres an opportunity to engage in discussion, take responsibility for their own learning, and thus become critical thinkers.[http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c-learn/index.html]
- A reusable, media-independent collection of information used as a modular building block for e-learning content. Learning objects are most effective when organized by a meta data classification system and stored in a data repository such as an LCMS.[http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ict/services/teachingandresearchservices/elearning/abo utelearning/elearningglossary#f]
- Learning objects (sometimes called 'reusable learning objects' or RLOs) are small, self-contained packets of digital content, typically only 2 to 15 minutes in duration. Learning objects can be aggregated into courses, tagged with descriptive metadata (allowing search engines to find them) and can communicate with a learning management system (LMS), typically using SCORM.[http://www.elearningnetwork.org/wiki/learning-objects]
- "a collection of content items, practice items, and assessment items that are combined based on a single learning objective" [1]. They will typically have a number of different components, which range from descriptive data to information about rights and educational level. At their core, however, will be instructional content, practice, and assessment. A key issue is the use of metadata. Learning object design raises issues of portability, and of the object's relation to a broader learning management system.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_Objects]
- e-assessment is the use of information technology for any assessment-related activity. This definition embraces a wide range of student activity ranging from the use of a word processor to on-screen testing. Due to its obvious similarity to e-learning, the term e-assessment is becoming widely used as a generic term to describe the use of computers within the assessment process. Specific types of e-assessment include computerized adaptive testing and computerized classification testing. E-assessment can be used to assess cognitive and abilities. Cognitive abilities are assessed using e-testing software; practical abilities are assessed using e-portfolios or simulation software.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-assessment]
- e-assessment is the use of computers and computer software to evaluate skills and knowledge in a certain area. It can range from on screen testing systems that automatically mark learners' tests (often providing almost instant feedback), to electronic portfolios where learners' work can be stored and marked. Both e-Assessment and e-Portfolios are becoming a fundamental part of modern education. They are essential for personalised learning providing benefits for learners, teachers and those involved with the administration of assessment within schools, colleges and training providers.[http://www.ocr.org.uk/eassessment/index.html]
- Technology can support nearly every aspect of assessment in one way or another, from the administration of individual tests and assignments to the management of assessment across a faculty or institution; from automatically marked on-screen tests to tools to support human marking and feedback. Clearly, though, for technology-enhanced assessment to be effective, pedagogically sound developments need to be supported by robust and appropriate technology, within a supportive institutional or departmental context. 'Technology-enhanced assessment' refers to the wide range of ways in which technology can be used to support assessment and feedback. It includes on-screen assessment, often called e-assessment. [http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/assessment.aspx]
Discussing true innovation in elearning
This first week's course forum discussions have had a view to moving closer to an understanding of the concept of innovation in elearning. There have been many interesting points raised and questioning of whether something is or is not innovative. This post tries to draw together a few threads from our discussions which seem to identify criteria or elements of what members of my tutor group considers to be true innovation in elearning.
This post draws heavily on the contributions of tutor group members to our discussion forum. However, as that is a private student-only area I have not added names to suggestions above, but have attempted to paraphrase and draw together themes on which there was agreement across participants. Full credit and references will of course be given in any course assignments.
- ‘innovation’ in the context of e-learning involves a sense that something may be achieved using that technology that otherwise would not or that the outcome is materially improved using e-technology
- one of the great benefits is the opportunity for interactivity - innovation in elearning appears not to be static and monolithic
- innovation by definition in Wikipedia is :"the process that renews something that exists and not, as is commonly assumed, the introduction of something new."
- it's really important that elearning innovation delivers measurable benefits
- there is a question of whether the technology made the difference or whether having the technology facilitated the use of different methods. Innovation is the realisation of the idea, and technology could support that
- innovations in e-learning seem to have shifted the pattern of learning from centralised class room activity to a collaborative yet de-centralised nature
- innovation in elearning is enabling something different or materially better to occur that cannot happen using existing methods
- innovation can be equated with progress, improvement, and with something that is new (in either revolutionary or evolutionary ways).
- innovation has the potential to change things for the better, although this may not always be achieved
- innovation does not necessarily mean something completely new, often it refers to a new use or outcome from an existing (but differently used) method or technology.
"The truth of the matter is that technology is neither the problem nor the solution, it cannot be blamed for what we do with it. It is the way we actively choose to apply it that matters."Small print:
This post draws heavily on the contributions of tutor group members to our discussion forum. However, as that is a private student-only area I have not added names to suggestions above, but have attempted to paraphrase and draw together themes on which there was agreement across participants. Full credit and references will of course be given in any course assignments.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Beginning to explore innovation in elearning
Week 1, activity 3 is beginning to explore what we mean by innovation in elearning. This post summarises and records some thoughts relating to papers on the subject.
Firstly, ‘New technology in learning: a decade’s experience in a business school’ by Rich and Holtham (2005).
This paper describes the introduction of innovative uses of IT into campus-based MBA courses in 1992 - almost 20 years ago. At this point home and business computing was minimal and email was only just beginning to be explored within the academic network. It doesn't go on to describe changes over the decades since, but it's a short paper, so forgiven!
The MBA programme used email based activities with the aim of adding value to their existing process, particularly through fostering effective group work. Valuable opportunities for international collaboration via email were noted, and email was used for simulations in which students could practise management skills. The paper is brief and doesn’t state in detail how value of the interventions was measured.
It is noted that there was reluctance both amongst some faculty and some students. Some felt that IT should be taught as a practical skill or separate topic, and didn’t appreciate its value as a learning tool. Student’s initial computer literacy was variable, and the need to learn basic computer skills obscured further learning outcomes for some.
The paper reports that changes to teaching/learning were achieved by using IT “as an adjunct to existing channels for instruction”. Given the unfamiliarity with technology of many of the students, I wonder if this use of IT as an additional rather than sole medium made the technology more acceptable, appealing and less daunting to use. Perhaps this is a note to not go overboard with innovation, but to ensure that students are guided in their development, rather than thrown in at the deep end?
Students are described as having participate in a “dynamic knowledge network... which was used to encourage professional knowledge creation... exploiting active learning and knowledge building...” These seem to me to be very common aims or uses of ‘innovative’ elearning, i.e. the development of community, social and connectivist learning and knowledge creation and sharing with varying degrees of collaboration. These can be aims of non-e-learning too, so I’m wondering about what additional or further goals innovative elearning might be able to achieve.
The paper concludes that a small group of faculty with only limited technical resources were able to produce innovative, pedagogically sound material using ICT. I wonder if if the group had in fact been larger or had wider institutional support, whether this might have hindered their ability to be flexible and creative in their learning design. Or perhaps, conversely, did the lack of wider support mean that this was a limited experiment? We’re not told about subsequent elearning innovations trialled by this particular institution, and clearly the growing uptake of elearning suggests that lack of support is not excessively stifling. However, a number of student colleagues on H807 have expressed frustration at their own institutions’ reticence to support or adopt innovation. It seems that a certain critical mass might be necessary to get early innovation going, but that attaining wider acceptance is much harder, and indeed may limit the level of innovation which can be achieved within an institution.
Take away points/thoughts:
The second paper was ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’ by Lück and Laurence (2005).
This is a 2005 paper referring to a process of developing videoconferencing to support lectures by internationally-absent lecturers to a tourism degree class in 2003. I was somewhat surprised to see the substantial effort which was expended on developing the technology - this wasn’t the case of adopting a commercial off-the-shelf solution and applying it to the interactive lecture scenario, as I would have assumed such technology might have been available in 2003.
The aim of the work was to provide a technical solution which permit guest lecturers, possibly based on another continent to lecture to a local class. The desire was to enhance student knowledge through exposing them to the perspectives of international experts with whom they would otherwise be unlikely to be able to interact. It was this contact with “out-of-class sources” which students rated particularly positively.
The paper also cites the principles of “good practice in undergraduate teaching” by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996), including:
The authors argue that videoconferencing offers new possibilities to higher education, predominantly through the extended opportunities for collaboration. They note that they would prefer not to view videoconferencing as a replacement for face-to-face class time, but as an event integrated into the class syllabus. This seems to echo the argument for elearningHoltham.
Again, this paper was about the use of technology to expand knowledge networks - an apparently emerging theme for H807. The aspect I found hard to believe was that video-conferencing was particularly innovative in 2003. However, it was clearly a novel, engaging and inspiring experience for both the students and lecturers involved in this project, and therefore, for them, innovation in elearning. This raises a new (still ill-formed) thought for me - that innovation is relative to its context. What is new and innovative for one user or user community may be old hat to another. Applying a technology or method in that scenario is innovative, even if not a brand new idea which would be globally ‘innovative’. So, some aspects of innovation can involve re-use, or re-application or techniques. Innovation doesn’t require re-inventing the wheel.
Take-away points/thoughts:
References:
Lück, M. and Laurence, G.M. (2005) ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’, Innovate, vol.2, no.1 [online] http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue1/Innovative_Teaching-__Sharing_Expertise_through_Videoconferencing.pdf
Firstly, ‘New technology in learning: a decade’s experience in a business school’ by Rich and Holtham (2005).
This paper describes the introduction of innovative uses of IT into campus-based MBA courses in 1992 - almost 20 years ago. At this point home and business computing was minimal and email was only just beginning to be explored within the academic network. It doesn't go on to describe changes over the decades since, but it's a short paper, so forgiven!
The MBA programme used email based activities with the aim of adding value to their existing process, particularly through fostering effective group work. Valuable opportunities for international collaboration via email were noted, and email was used for simulations in which students could practise management skills. The paper is brief and doesn’t state in detail how value of the interventions was measured.
It is noted that there was reluctance both amongst some faculty and some students. Some felt that IT should be taught as a practical skill or separate topic, and didn’t appreciate its value as a learning tool. Student’s initial computer literacy was variable, and the need to learn basic computer skills obscured further learning outcomes for some.
The paper reports that changes to teaching/learning were achieved by using IT “as an adjunct to existing channels for instruction”. Given the unfamiliarity with technology of many of the students, I wonder if this use of IT as an additional rather than sole medium made the technology more acceptable, appealing and less daunting to use. Perhaps this is a note to not go overboard with innovation, but to ensure that students are guided in their development, rather than thrown in at the deep end?
Students are described as having participate in a “dynamic knowledge network... which was used to encourage professional knowledge creation... exploiting active learning and knowledge building...” These seem to me to be very common aims or uses of ‘innovative’ elearning, i.e. the development of community, social and connectivist learning and knowledge creation and sharing with varying degrees of collaboration. These can be aims of non-e-learning too, so I’m wondering about what additional or further goals innovative elearning might be able to achieve.
The paper concludes that a small group of faculty with only limited technical resources were able to produce innovative, pedagogically sound material using ICT. I wonder if if the group had in fact been larger or had wider institutional support, whether this might have hindered their ability to be flexible and creative in their learning design. Or perhaps, conversely, did the lack of wider support mean that this was a limited experiment? We’re not told about subsequent elearning innovations trialled by this particular institution, and clearly the growing uptake of elearning suggests that lack of support is not excessively stifling. However, a number of student colleagues on H807 have expressed frustration at their own institutions’ reticence to support or adopt innovation. It seems that a certain critical mass might be necessary to get early innovation going, but that attaining wider acceptance is much harder, and indeed may limit the level of innovation which can be achieved within an institution.
Take away points/thoughts:
- Despite a massive growth in familiarity with IT in past 20 years, we should not assume that technological innovations (even with pedagogical value) will be universally appreciated by students/educators.
- The need to acquire technical skills could obscure other learning objectives if computer (and wider technology) literacy is assumed or under-supported.
- Innovation in elearning needs sufficient technical support and positive attitudes towards adoption, but not stifling by large bureaucratic institutions.
- The paper didn’t talk about how success of the innovation was measured. Measuring what is innovation and what makes a successful innovation are areas for more thought!
The second paper was ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’ by Lück and Laurence (2005).
This is a 2005 paper referring to a process of developing videoconferencing to support lectures by internationally-absent lecturers to a tourism degree class in 2003. I was somewhat surprised to see the substantial effort which was expended on developing the technology - this wasn’t the case of adopting a commercial off-the-shelf solution and applying it to the interactive lecture scenario, as I would have assumed such technology might have been available in 2003.
The aim of the work was to provide a technical solution which permit guest lecturers, possibly based on another continent to lecture to a local class. The desire was to enhance student knowledge through exposing them to the perspectives of international experts with whom they would otherwise be unlikely to be able to interact. It was this contact with “out-of-class sources” which students rated particularly positively.
The paper also cites the principles of “good practice in undergraduate teaching” by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996), including:
- encouragement of contacts between instructor and students,
- involvement of active learning
- respect for diverse ways of learning
- prompt feedback.
The authors argue that videoconferencing offers new possibilities to higher education, predominantly through the extended opportunities for collaboration. They note that they would prefer not to view videoconferencing as a replacement for face-to-face class time, but as an event integrated into the class syllabus. This seems to echo the argument for elearningHoltham.
Again, this paper was about the use of technology to expand knowledge networks - an apparently emerging theme for H807. The aspect I found hard to believe was that video-conferencing was particularly innovative in 2003. However, it was clearly a novel, engaging and inspiring experience for both the students and lecturers involved in this project, and therefore, for them, innovation in elearning. This raises a new (still ill-formed) thought for me - that innovation is relative to its context. What is new and innovative for one user or user community may be old hat to another. Applying a technology or method in that scenario is innovative, even if not a brand new idea which would be globally ‘innovative’. So, some aspects of innovation can involve re-use, or re-application or techniques. Innovation doesn’t require re-inventing the wheel.
Take-away points/thoughts:
- Innovation may be through technology development, or through the application of technology in some new way
- An activity or use of technology may be innovative in one context but not in another
- Students valued opportunities for interaction particularly highly
- Providing a technology, even though it may offer a valuable opportunity (e.g. a technological solution to interact with someone geographically distant), does not necessarily mean that the activity will be easy. Every day social influences such as feeling intimidated by a senior/expert, conventions around group interaction, etc will also play a part.
References:
Lück, M. and Laurence, G.M. (2005) ‘Innovative teaching: sharing expertise through videoconferencing’, Innovate, vol.2, no.1 [online] http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue1/Innovative_Teaching-__Sharing_Expertise_through_Videoconferencing.pdf
15 minutes of thinking...
A gentle start on the course theme for week 1, activity 3 - jotting down a few initial ideas of your own about innovation in elearning... here's what I thought.
Does just doing the same thing but with new technology mean it’s innovative? I think not - technology per se does not equal innovation, but it may lead to or facilitate it. For example, putting a spelling test online doesn’t make it innovative, but offering learners a context in which to understand their results, opportunities to practise using the words, links to example uses, ways to document their progress, or reflect on what they’ve learnt might make it innovative. There seems to be a rush to add an e- or i- prefix, but that certainly doesn't automatically make something innovative.
Lots of ‘innovative’, or a least new or re-thought ways of learning seem to involve social aspects of learning - communication, collaboration, development of communities of practice. These aren’t innovative in themselves - we have long encouraged them by teaching students in classes rather than as individuals and by gathering together in university departments rather than writing theses alone. What the technology has facilitated is predominantly the opportunity to access a far wider audience/community, rapid publishing and feedback, access to resources and peers and greater opportunity for co-creation and sharing of knowledge.
Does something have to be truly iconoclastic in order to be innovative? My arguments that ‘just doing it online doesn’t make it innovative’ might seem to suggest so. I'm reminded a bit of Dillenbourg (1992) 'The Computer as Constructorium'. Dillenbourg described an iconoclastic goal of breaking the learner’s passive model of learning. He noted that becoming aware of one’s own knowledge, i.e. the ‘reflection’ process, is of interest not only to researchers on metacognition, but also now to designers of educational computing systems. Dillenbourg wasn't only interested in elearning, but I still feel that elearning that can meet his goal would quite probably be innovative - even today when you might hope our expectations for computer supported learning have moved on.
What about measuring innovation? Do you need to measure how innovative it is? (and can you anyway?!) We do need to be able to compare effectiveness with existing methods - there is no point being innovative if it doesn't improve something. However, the improvement doesn't necessarily have to be in outcomes - it could be in motivation, student retention, engagement, etc... some of which are tricky concepts to measure too.
Reference:
Dillenbourg P. (1992) The computer as a constructorium: Tools for observing one's own learning. In M.Elsom-Cook and R. Moyse (Eds), Knowledge Negotiation.(pp. 185-198) London: Academic Press. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.2.pdf
Does just doing the same thing but with new technology mean it’s innovative? I think not - technology per se does not equal innovation, but it may lead to or facilitate it. For example, putting a spelling test online doesn’t make it innovative, but offering learners a context in which to understand their results, opportunities to practise using the words, links to example uses, ways to document their progress, or reflect on what they’ve learnt might make it innovative. There seems to be a rush to add an e- or i- prefix, but that certainly doesn't automatically make something innovative.
Lots of ‘innovative’, or a least new or re-thought ways of learning seem to involve social aspects of learning - communication, collaboration, development of communities of practice. These aren’t innovative in themselves - we have long encouraged them by teaching students in classes rather than as individuals and by gathering together in university departments rather than writing theses alone. What the technology has facilitated is predominantly the opportunity to access a far wider audience/community, rapid publishing and feedback, access to resources and peers and greater opportunity for co-creation and sharing of knowledge.
Does something have to be truly iconoclastic in order to be innovative? My arguments that ‘just doing it online doesn’t make it innovative’ might seem to suggest so. I'm reminded a bit of Dillenbourg (1992) 'The Computer as Constructorium'. Dillenbourg described an iconoclastic goal of breaking the learner’s passive model of learning. He noted that becoming aware of one’s own knowledge, i.e. the ‘reflection’ process, is of interest not only to researchers on metacognition, but also now to designers of educational computing systems. Dillenbourg wasn't only interested in elearning, but I still feel that elearning that can meet his goal would quite probably be innovative - even today when you might hope our expectations for computer supported learning have moved on.
What about measuring innovation? Do you need to measure how innovative it is? (and can you anyway?!) We do need to be able to compare effectiveness with existing methods - there is no point being innovative if it doesn't improve something. However, the improvement doesn't necessarily have to be in outcomes - it could be in motivation, student retention, engagement, etc... some of which are tricky concepts to measure too.
Reference:
Dillenbourg P. (1992) The computer as a constructorium: Tools for observing one's own learning. In M.Elsom-Cook and R. Moyse (Eds), Knowledge Negotiation.(pp. 185-198) London: Academic Press. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.1.2.pdf
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Getting started with Twitter
It's been really nice to see some early engagement between course participants using Twitter. I'm looking forward to the extra channel it will provide for H807.
That said, I've also been recalling how I felt about Twitter before I did H808. I really didn't entirely get what it was all about. After I'd got to understand it a bit I thought I'd write something which might be helpful for other OU new Twitterers. So, what follows is something I posted in a course forum back in September 2009, but I hope it's still relevant for anyone getting started.
I've recently been dabbling with Twitter, and think I may be beginning to be converted from really not 'getting it', to maybe having an inkling of what it's all about. There are plenty out there who believe Twitter is great for learning... so I want to see what I'm missing out on.
I thought I'd post some basics, and a few observations here, and invite the more active and experienced Twitterers of H808 [and now H807] to help explore its potential and suggest why it might be a valuable elearning tool.
The Basics
Taking it a little further
As I said, I'm pretty new to Twitter. When I had to visit the Twitter web site to see people's tweets, I didn't get round to it much. Similarly, when I only followed one or two friends there wasn't much point - I got more info about them from their blogs, Facebook or other streams. I really couldn't see why it was any use for education. It was 3 things that helped me to start thinking differently:
I hope this might encourage anyone who is reluctant about Twitter, as I was. Now, anyone who's already using Twitter have any thoughts on its educational uses? Or on its uses for helping us in studying H808[and H807]?
That said, I've also been recalling how I felt about Twitter before I did H808. I really didn't entirely get what it was all about. After I'd got to understand it a bit I thought I'd write something which might be helpful for other OU new Twitterers. So, what follows is something I posted in a course forum back in September 2009, but I hope it's still relevant for anyone getting started.
I've recently been dabbling with Twitter, and think I may be beginning to be converted from really not 'getting it', to maybe having an inkling of what it's all about. There are plenty out there who believe Twitter is great for learning... so I want to see what I'm missing out on.
I thought I'd post some basics, and a few observations here, and invite the more active and experienced Twitterers of H808 [and now H807] to help explore its potential and suggest why it might be a valuable elearning tool.
The Basics
- Twitter is a 'micro-blogging' tool - you make posts (called 'Tweets') with a maximum of 140 characters in length
- Like everything else 'web', you create an account - from here you can post your tweets and follow those of other Twitterers
- Twitter suggests you use your tweets to answer the question 'What are you doing?', but reading posts such as "I'm eating a cheese sandwich" is dull (and possibly not very educational!) and so many Twitterers post whatever they like
- You can follow other Twitterers - this means that any tweets they make are added to your Twitter home page
Taking it a little further
- You can search Twitter - for whatever you like. It'll return tweets with your search term in (obviously!)
- You can add hashtags to a word in your tweet, e.g. "I'm studying ePortfolios for #H808 at the moment". This makes it easy to create communities of people interested in the same topic by making it easier for them to find and share info on their topic
- You can reply to another user's tweet, or address a tweet to them by including @ in front of their username, e.g. "Great presentation by @davidjones at Serious Games conference today"
- You can 're-tweet', i.e. duplicating/forwarding someone else's tweet, web link or blog post - and it's not cheating! In fact, having your thoughts or comments re-tweeted is a compliment and social currency. Just include RT at the start of your post to indicate that it's a re-tweet
- All usernames and hashtags in tweets become automatically hyperlinked - so if someone tweets "RT @rob_roy blogging on #eLearning critique", I can click on rob_roy to see all of that user's tweets, or on #eLearning, to see a list of tweets including that tag. This also makes it really quick to move around a community and get introduced to new Twitterers
- You can add links to your tweets to pass on items which have caught your interest. It's good practice to use tinyurl (or similar) to reduce the length of the URL you paste in.
As I said, I'm pretty new to Twitter. When I had to visit the Twitter web site to see people's tweets, I didn't get round to it much. Similarly, when I only followed one or two friends there wasn't much point - I got more info about them from their blogs, Facebook or other streams. I really couldn't see why it was any use for education. It was 3 things that helped me to start thinking differently:
- understanding hashtags and search - allowing me to quickly find tweets that are on topics of interest
- getting the TwitterFox [now re-named Echofon] add-on for Firefox, meaning I get updated tweets from those that I follow automatically delivered to my browser - I don't have to go to the Twitter home page (and I don't have an internet phone). There are all sorts of other similar gadgets out there - others with more knowledge will be able to advise better than I.
- finding Carol Cooper-Taylor's eLearning blog posting on 50 ideas for using twitter for education
I hope this might encourage anyone who is reluctant about Twitter, as I was. Now, anyone who's already using Twitter have any thoughts on its educational uses? Or on its uses for helping us in studying H808[and H807]?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)