Update: validation, learning objects and roleplay

Just realised it is a couple of months since our last update – primarily a result of lots of activity leading to less reporting! So what have we been up to? We are essentially preparing for our first cohort – due to start at the beginning of March. Having decided to adopt a module-based approach to giving students access to personalised curriculum development we have had a lot to do: module validation (initially within an existing scheme called Leading Edge but we are now looking at a cross institutional validation), module design and content, as well as recruiting our first cohort and planning and designing our evaluation process. So a lot going on!

Our plan is to produce as much of our content as possible as reusable learning objects, making them available via our open educational resource repository. This is proving more tricky than we anticipated. We started using Glomaker as a production tool which is built around learning design patterns. We really like this model which embeds pedagogy into the design. However we found the components it currently offers too restrictive: without a lot of additional Flash development we were going to have difficulties doing what we wanted to do. So we moved over to CourseLab, which we are now trialling. However we quickly hit a snag with that too – unfortunately the scorm packages it produces do not display correctly within our VLE in any browser other than IE: not very open! So we are now initially preparing learning resources using our VLE’s learning modules, which will be converted to standalone objects for the repository where appropriate.

In the process of producing content, we have produced a series of role play videos to try to demonstrate the differences as we see them between tutoring, mentoring and coaching. These are in the process of being built into a learning object on the subject but are included here as many have asked for an explanation of this. Obviously these are somewhat stylised and caricatured to make the point but hopefully the differences, as we see them, will be clear! All three conversations tackle the same topic: giving presentations.

The Tutoring conversation: 

The Mentoring conversation: 

The Coaching conversation: 

Video update – October 2009

A brief video update focusing on our latest developments on coaching for the PC3 project.

Empower Confidence Workshop

I attended an interesting demo on training videos today that has lost of potential for creating interactive learning objects. The system presents a video scenario which can have questions or choices embedded within it. These can then be answered/chosen by using a personal response system. At the moment this is designed to work with systems other than the one that we are currently using but the creators are looking to extend the range, so there is hope. Regardless of this most of us at the demo were considering the application of standalone embedded videos within the VLE. Negating the need for a personal response system.

From the perspective of PC3 I can see this being a useful tool for gathering together a group of resources into a single learning object. Where we have several models of different views of a particular concept we can let the student explore the ones they are interested in then return to where the choice originated. Another use, demonstrated at the demo, would be to create coaching objects that show how, for example, client questioning can take the client in different directions. This might be a complex one to set up, but having just gone through coaching training, I learnt much from watching others coach and seeing how the techniques used directed the conversation.

I have gained a trial version J which I will explore over the next month and see what we can do with it. Just combining it with the simple animation process we used at the LO workshop could produce some very effect learning material.

Beginning the search for learning Objects

Having now designed a module structure and roughed out the content we need to a range of learning objects. As the focus of the project is on design not delivery we intend to minimise amount of LO creation that we have to do. Fortunately our world is packed with resources. Leeds Met’s own repository is starting to fill, thanks to the OER Unicycle project. The S4L (skills for learning) department have a very compressive site, full of those basic yet essential skills we all have to refer back to from time to time.

These are the two resources I have been exploring today, creating a map between resources and module content labels. Writing ideas and notes on how these resources could be incorporated. I have found some interesting diagnostic tools which might compliment the ones the PC3 team have recently experienced during our caching course. Aimed at developing an employment plan at the end of a degree, they are open enough in context to be adapted for initial exercises on self-understanding and action planning.

This is just initial forage, something to wet the appetite. I have many more places, such as Leeds Met XStream VLE, lectures private stashes, Jorum, YouTube and many more to explore. I’m also looking forward to the October program meeting where I will get the chance to network with the rest of the Curriculum Design group and also the Curriculum Delivery group, both are bound to have something for we can utilise. I suspect I will end up with more than we can teach, but choice is always better for students.

Running alongside this resource collection process, will be the development of a detailed module structure and plan. Each of the eight module topics now need to be broken down into content, activities and reflection. Identifying clearly where they link into the development coaching support and speculating on the types of outcomes and issues students may engage with. We also need to identify which technology to use and how it will support particular tasks. Although coaching, reflection and the ePortfolio will lie at the heart of the process, the content and activities need to be designed to integrate with this process and naturally spark of reflection and self-development. Any ideas?

Developing Learning Objects for Coaching

Day one of the learning object workshop started with defining and looking at examples of learning objects. Then we got on to the hands on process of developing PLC’s first learning object.

We chose to focus on one particular element of the modules content, intentional change, and delivering content and activities to develop understanding of one particular model of intentional change. This was a very creative process, part of which we captured on flip, almost an LO in it’s own right. Tam had the initial idea and with Alex doing the writing (an honorary team member), created an image of the model and defined the sort of content that would assist in understanding. We used one of the templates the presenters had brought with them. The resulting LO framework look like this:

Sketch of the Kite exercise which was made into an animation

Sketch of the Intentional Change Model

Screenshot of animation used within Learning Object

The things we felt are associated with each part of the Intentional change model

Screenshot of Intentional Change model: interactive learning content

Screen Shot of Leaning Object: Views of the Intentional Change model

An important point came up during out discussions around the development of this LO. There was some confusion over whether we were designing this LO for the student to gain knowledge of the content or knowledge about themselves. We kept sliding from one to the other. Something we need to be clear about as we develop the PLC module, when the topic is learning content and when it is an activity for self development.

Day two brought us to the refinement of ideas and production. We were introduced to a handy little tool called GLOMaker. This provides a step by step process for producing an LO from a pedagogical, learning outcomes approach. This is very different to the other tools I have worked with which have focused on the conversion of current material, PowerPoint and Word docs, to a web based bit size chunks. Using just the kit in our bags which says a lot about the majority of the group 3 Laptops (2 Macs) Flip camera and mobile phones, and the materials around us, marker pens and flip charts, we produced a prototype learning object, some screen shots shown above.

(Download will be available as soon as our repository goes public, see Repository Blog for updates)

Will need to work on the assessment at the end, only one question at moment, but the ruff and ready look really captured the audience at the demo we did later in the day. Well done to all the Team: Director Janet Finlay, Content and Art designer Tam Mason, Film and Audio Production Habib Lodal, Alexander Prokop Technical Designer and Scribe, Dawn Wood A bit of everything.

Creating a poster for PC3 events

On return from an enjoyable couple of weeks break, the first job is to finish the Poster I started for various forth coming PC3 events. The aim is to capture the developments we have made since the our initial conception of the PC3 framework. One the primary moves forward has been in investigating and choosing the technology to underpin the process. These are reflected in the changes to the over view framework (diagram at the top of poster). The next step in this process is work out the best way to integrate or present all this individual systems to students as a coherent set o tools. At the moment XStream looks to be the main entry point. I have a workshop next week on Campus Pack Fusion so hopeful should be able to start that development soon.

Introduction to PC3 project and the PLC module structure

The second main development has been the creation of the *PLC module* discussed earlier. I’ve tried to capture the main elements of the module and show clear links between the process and the technology framework. There is a lot to cover over the next few months, including gathering as many LOs in the topic areas, improving access to course specifications and creating the competency maps within PebblePad.

Learning pathways

As students taking the PC3 approach will all take different learning pathways towards their award, we thought it would be a good idea to record and store them in the repository for following cohorts. This enables subsequent students to see what course others used to fill their competency gaps. All sounds good, but how to implement it? I’ve bean chewing on this one for some time. Some of the questions I have been asking myself are as follows:

• how to represent the pathway: a description within text doc, a set of URLs, …
• how to link into course/module specifications within the repository
• how to use intraLibraries LOM set to provided the metadata for the pathway

My view of this problem looked something like this:

Initial View of Learning Pathway

I was trying to work out how to use the metadata to form links to course specifications. The problem with a pathway like this is the metadata could be infinite and unknown. If you design for a fixed step pathway you will have those that don’t fit and infinite steps requires complexity that is probably an new application in itself. 

As usual it takes a conversation with some one else to solve the problem. Was talking metadata and repositories with Nick this afternoon, and the thought stuck me. The important thing is not the pathway, the order in what some one takes the modules is not really relevant. What is relevant is the link between the competencies they want to improve the course/module they take to achieve this. A simple (parsimonious) solution is to just map competency gaps to course/modules taken. This would mean a known and minimal set of metadata. Pairs are such an obvious computer science solution; don’t know why I didn’t think of it before. @MrNick thanks!

This would, I suspect, is probably more in tune with how most individuals would search for such information, one step, competency, at a time. For those who want to generate a complex series, the search engine, using specific fields should be plenty. Still need to think more on this and it may not fit with the vision the rest of the team wish to offer students.

PLC Personalised Learning through coaching

The discussion back in Febuary with JISC started the ball rolling on developing a module as a jump of point for Personalised Curriculum Creation. Over the past five months we have had to look into University processes to find out: whether it was possible for students to register on a single module; and whether it was possible to validate a module external to a course. There have been many discussions with various elements of university systems and debates with others interested in this type of development. Alongside this we have been busy forming ideas and creating the module spec itself.

We’ve designed it around the PC3 process to ensure that all the elements of that process (learning bank, studeo etc) are integrated – see the diagram here. Started with the learner – their self assessment and reflection – we then looked at the learning blocks that would be needed to support this process and the coaching that would underpin it. The assessment we had already agreed would be evidence based so the issue here was really how to ensure we get evidence for the assessment without that interfering with the personal development and coaching which requires trust and confidentiality. We have (I think) resolved this by identifying clear elements of reflection for assessment and making clear the rest is entirely personal – we need to make the assessed elements also serve to give us information to evaluate the process so the assessments also have that in mind.

The learning blocks will comprise learning resources and activities that might include both group and individual online activities. The advantages of doing it this way are that we can make use of resources from a wide range of sources and make available our blocks as learning objects in their own right.

Janet Finlay edited by Dawn

X-Stream power link

I spent a pleasant morning talking code with Mike and Nick who are working on the repository and various methods for enabling access from other applications. They (and the X-Stream team recently enable tutors to access the repositories Learning Objects (LOs) via a power link in X-Stream. Basically this means when creating a course the tutor can select the power-link, search the repository and embed one or more of the returned LOs as part of their modules content. Now all we need to do is fill the repository with LOs, not an easy job. During our discussions I asked them if it was possible to create a link that the students can use to search for content and research. This would be useful for the PC3 project for several reasons. Since we are considering using X-Stream as our main port of call students will need to be able to search both LOs and research papers for their own learning, as well as search course specifications and learning paths to help them decided on their own learning path. Nick said he would look into it but it wasn’t a perspective they had been considering. The alternative will be either a link to the intraLibrary login, with students using it directly, or a link to an external search facility, like the one the repository team have already developed for research papers.

Decisions decisions …

We have spent the last couple of months considering what applications and technologies to use for the PC3 framework. All the trips in to ePortfolio conferences (see previous posts) and such have been focused on finding the right combination. The webinar a week last Friday with Campus Pack Fusion was the last up for consideration. In the last couple of days I have been putting all this information together, mapping all these resource and their potential to the PC3 framework which resulted in this:

Mapping technology to framework

The Studeo, personal learning space, was originally perceived as some type of ePortfolio, hence the conferences. At Wolverhampton we were first introduced to the possibility of using a blog, such as WordPress, to support this personal reflective space. There are several issues with this such as external or internal hosting, making it public or private, and limitations on space if video blogging is used frequently. Campus Pack Fusion sort of answered some of these problems. The pack contains both a blog and a private journal module that can be embedded in X-Stream or hosted separately.

However the team discussions keep coming back to three essential elements of the Studeo that blogs (in the main) just don’t support, but portfolios do. As follows:

1. Each post or reflection created by a learner should be able to be linked as evidence to a set of competencies (either directly or via a referencing system).
2. The learner should be using one application for reflection, and be able to choose who they wish to share each post with. Rather than having a public and a private blog.
3. At the assessment or any other critical stage learners should be able to select a collection of suitable reflections and present them however they choose.

The remaining parts of the framework have coursed a lot less problems or already exist. At the moment its looking like we will be using:

• Home page – X-Stream with power or hyperlinks to external apps
• Studeo – PebblePad, 
• Health Check – PebblePad
• Learning Bank – IntraLibrary & X-Stream
• Commons – Ning
• Coaching Lab resources – Face-2-face, telephone, email & Elluminate for communications.

This still may change as development goes on