Blended Learning Conference 2012

<Awaiting Presentation>

These are the handouts used for this session:

Changing the Conversation handout

The Rapport Exercise Bands are best printed on two different coloured papers for easy identification. Form participants into pairs and had one of each band type (A+B) asking them not to share what is written on them. Run the exercise for about 5 minutes, so rapport is well established. Then sit down, or other action. Again let them disengage for about 5 minute or until the room is suitable uncomfortable. If there is time allow them to re-establish rapport, but this is not essential.

Changing the Conversation handout

Preview of PebblePad 3

Attended a PebblePad workshop in Preston today at which a demo of PebblePad 3 was given. Didn’t get the opportunity to play with it directly but some demo accounts may be available shortly so will keep my eyes open. Interface looks light and airy with more opportunities to use it a more like your desktop. Multiple asset types can be opened which is good. Text formatting within asset fields is also great, which will make blogs and webfolios better in appearance.

There is a social element that draws in from popular Social Networking apps, Facebook, Twitter and Blogger, as well as posts out. Institution tab acts like a portal with one stop login to other systems, pulling information in and linking out to more details, all admin customisable. The main difference is being able to completely customise the standard wizards and forms with your own designs. At the moment you can create new forms but not replace the standard set. The other useful feature is being able to replicate assets across multiple PebblePad accounts.

The workshop also went over some of the features in 2.5 and I now understand the potential of forms and gateways much better. One of the issues we have had with PebblePad and the disengaged students is being able to assess what they are having an issue with. If we had used the Gateway instead of a Blog we could have tracked student progress much better. The other thing I realised was how you can create a work booklet for students to complete as they progress through their studies. Again shared and published via a gateway, becomes an effective means of keep track of students you don’t meet face-to-face. Some good lessons learned today, Ill be definitely working on the booklet idea. Possibly as a means of implementing focus questions around the GROW model of coaching, for staff and students.

ELESIG: Evaluating Learners’ Experience of e-learning

On October 6th I attended my first symposium of the Evaluating Learners’ Experience of e-learning special interest group (ELESIG), held in London on the topic of Effective Learning in the Digital Age. ELESIG is an international community of researchers and practitioners who are particularly interested in understanding how learners use and experience technology in their learning. It was an interesting meeting, where the highlights for me were presentations by students giving first hand accounts of activities they had been involved in, including a major survey soon to be published by the NUS on student perception of different technologies in a learning context.

As part of the day I had the opportunity to give a 10 minute presentation on the PC3 project as part of “Members’ Corner”. The presentation focused on our future activities working with Nick Halafihi and his team on the PDP module for Level 1 students in the Carnegie Faculty. One of our challenges is to engage with these students from the project perspective to get their feedback on the coaching activities, when we are not directly involved in the teaching process this time. We need unobtrusive but effective mechanisms for working with a relatively large group (220) of students that doesn’t place significant additional demands on them and doesn’t interfere with the module itself. We have some ideas but are keen to hear from colleagues about ideas that have worked for them. And ELESIG seemed a good group to ask.

Following the seminar I recorded a short video summary of what I had talked about:

Cluster Meeting – Bolton

Cluster meeting @ Bolton today, good to catch up. The general consensus is that the current economic climate, potential political changes have refocused higher management decision processes which are affecting projects in both positive and negative ways. There is still an overriding concern that a single project is not enough to instigate full institutional change. However alongside this there are several smaller endeavours that have had big up take at various levels.

Tony demonstrated an interesting development for distance learners that enabled them to access and perform laboratory equipment to perform experiments remotely. For me the interesting thing was his use of GoogleSites to build a disposable VLE, using a selection of freely available tools which are accessed via drag and drop chunks of code. Given the enrolment issues we have had with the universities VLE this might be the way forward for running and adapting to the small cohorts on the PLC module. I will have to play with this over the summer.

The afternoon was focused on XCRI and possible adaption to use with module definitions and learning outcomes. This was quickly dismissed as unsuitable. Competencies and learning outcomes will most likely require their own set of attributes.  Discussion moved to the possibility of linking competencies to learning outcomes. Suggested that we need to know more about what research has already been done in this area. It is suspected that there are currently active projects in this area that we are currently unaware of particularly in the international arena.  The need for some form of online resource to host this information was identified. From this discussion I suspect that PLC will be able to input on this debate, usually institutional v industry, by providing the student perspective on how they view their skills and abilities and their perception of what their profession requires.

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.

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:

Screenshot of Intentional Change model: interactive learning content

Sketch of the Intentional Change Model

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

Screenshot of animation used within Learning Object

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

Sketch of the Kite exercise which was made into an animation

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.

Campus Pack Fusion

Attended a webinare today showing the various elements of Campus Pack Fusion (CPF).  This suite of tools plugs into the X-Stream virtual learning environment (VLE) that is used at Leeds Met. It can also run independently as individual learning spaces. It uses the same build, tutor and student views provided by the VLE, and the various tools are selected from a drop down list. Each can then be configured regarding who has access, description, purpose etc. the tool set includes a blog, wiki, podcast feed and private journal (only student owner and selected tutors can view).

We are looking into this package as a solution to an ePortfolio. At the moment the blog and wiki tools are the same as you would find on the web. The company are in the process of developing some templates to represent portfolio but no details were given on how this will look. The two main issues that I have with this package, as compared to dedicated ePortfolio, is that view and edit permissions are set by the tutor (with X-Stream version only) and they apply to all content not specific posts (both in X-Stream and external). A work around would be to use the external learning space for all reflections and then cut and paste selected content into an assessed blog or wiki with in X-Stream. That way a student can choose what they want to share and still be able to reflect intuitively for themselves.

I captured a few screen shots here to give some idea of the interfaces we would be working with:

 

Adding a CPF Element in X-Stream

CPF Blog view within X-Stream

WISIWG for CPF Blog

Front Page of CPF for personal space (Exernal 2 X-Stream)

Embeding a Podcast via CPF in X-Stream

Wiki Page Revisions in CPF

I did have one idea while attending this, which was really well done by the way. That was to use a wiki as a competency resource collection. We could set up a page for each competency that students need to cover. Everyone, students to tutors, can add and comment on any content, modules, courses and other resources they have come across, or simple as a way of sharing experiences and providing support. This would have to be external to X-Stream as it would be a useful resource to pass form cohort to cohort. This is somewhat similar (or may be exactly like) to the competency wiki put forward by Serge Ravet at ePort2009 workshop.

This suit could do the job we are looking for with some work-a-rounds. There’s no clear way at the moment for individual students to link evidence to competencies, an element we are keen to provide. We would also have to use a simple spreadsheet for competency evaluation, something we have already considered as a first step. The MindMap below shows how various aspects of CPF and other apps could be used to build the PC3 framework. The permissions setting is a bit of a bind, and doesn’t really achieve what we were looking for. Being able to reflect and then choose who, if anybody, to share that reflection with is an empowerment feature that encourages ownership of the work. How important this will be I’m not sure at the moment.

MindMap showing CPF apps linked to PC3 Framework

Making It Personal – London

Back to London, at least the weather was on the cooler side, this time the University of Greenwich for the Making It Personal conference. Unfortunately trains and tubes are still up in the air and I didn’t make it in time for the first key note. However I was able to follow the comments on the Twitter stream which I found really useful. Hoping this one gets put onto the web, but haven’t managed to locate it yet.

The first presentation of the day for me was Let’s get personal: Does your computer listen to what you say?,   (Abigail Mann, Chris Tilley), an intriguing title. The abstract was more so, using interactive audio podcasts, a bit of an oxymoron, within scenarios and enable the learners to have a two way conversation. Having seen how successfully podcasts were being used to extend tuition in the field of dance @ Wolverhampton, I was naturally keen to understand how this was being achieved and whether it might be of use to the PC3 project. Used in the department of Law for postgraduates the software shows a video podcast of simulated interviews. At key points the video is paused by the software and the learners are expected to ask the right questions that fit into the conversion in the simulation. Their responses are then recorded and feedback given on how they performed. Students found this to be a challenging and innovative idea, and they were able to practice thier skills within a safe environment. The whole process encouraged students to put more into the assessment and generally do better than previous methods. I did think that this might be a good way to do questionnaires (this might have been mentioned by the presenters), a means of adding the human touch, or maybe even semi-structured interviews. It also might be a nice way to provide a framework for those just learning how to reflect on their practice, something we will be doing a lot within PC3. It also links into a previous LeedsMet project SoundsGood which the presenters said they had drawn on in developing their system. Further information: including presentation slides and project wiki.

The next presentation (Mary Kiernan & Ray Stoneham from Greenwich) was more of an interactive workshop and raised several issues. The one that sticks in my mind at the moment is the assumption, particularly in undergrad courses, that all the students on a course have the same goal, but just require a personalised route to achieve it. This doesn’t ring true for me, and I suspect strong evidence against this will be found in the pC3 cohorts. While learners on a course may all have the goal of achieving the end result of the course, their individual perspectives of: why they want to achieve, and how it will benefit them, will vary considerably. It comes back to that niggling term that keeps cropping up, context, or multiple views of the same object. I’m hoping that that process of coaching will enable us to identify individual contexts more clearly, and thus define individual goals more clearly. Awaiting feedback on the activities the group undertook during this session, will post when they become available.

The third session was one I had seen before at a JISC workshop but wanted to find out more about. Tag clouds and skill conversations (Carol Shergold & John Davies University of Sussex), is a really interesting project, linking tagging to competencies. I think we need to look at this is more detail in regard to PC3. Their research found the tag clouds and evidence linked to individual skills, were invaluable during tutorial lessons. Having access to some sort of skills cloud during coaching conversations and the process of identifying underlying skills across university modules will be useful to us. I need to investigate this project more.

The final key note was by Serge Ravet, Chief Executive of the European Institute for E-Learning (EIfEL) some one I have bumped into several times over the last few weeks at these events. As usually it was an inspirational and controversial was well received by the attending crowd. The issues of fragmented digital identity and access rights to personal data were raised, and again he put forward the idea of a single data store for all individuals. A distinction between personalisation and individualisation was drawn, with the latter being the ideal. The drive towards self-directed learners is critical, but this clashes with current institutional tendencies towards having control, structuring the curriculum. We have already experienced some of the problems linked to this in developing the PC3 framework. All in all a worth while trip.

JISC Programme Meeting

Attended the JISC programme managers meeting today with John. As usual the Sarah’s team put together a well organised and structured day, with good food and space to socialise. The theme for this meet was change management and how this impacts on the structure of the evaluation plan. A particular emphases was again placed on the need for base-lining, particularly form the perspective of stakeholders and their expectations. I found the presentations interesting and informative.

Peter Bullen (University of Hertfordshire) a critical friend, gave a presentation on the CABLE project, developed to support change at a local level using the HEA’s SOME NAME  methodologies. The point I particularly liked here was the inclusion of student representatives within the teams instigating the change process. This is something we should possibly consider, once we have a first cohort going through the PC3 process. While capturing the student perspective is part of the evaluation process,  having live input during the revision process might be very beneficial.

Several models of change management and assessment were also presented. As table teams, we  were asked to consider our current institutional environment form several  perspectives and identify the types of strategy that might support the changes required by the project. This was a very debatable topic, and John and I found that we had fairly different views. However this does highlight the importance of role and experience based perspectives. While it is not possible to accommodate all (a most frequently quoted phrase) the more you are aware of the more likely you are to be able to adjust to those that become barriers to change.

The final exercise of the day (other than a quick cluster debriefing) was to consider the project stakeholders. This was facilitated by a very handy set of documents that I think might be useful for us as a team to consider at our next meeting. Several issues/considerations were raised during this. The difference between the requirements from a stakeholder’s role and their requirements as an individual were raised during our tables discussion. This was brought up in light of the prospect of an individual changing jobs, which also reflects on the risk analysis. Another issue discussed and also highlighted by other groups, was where to draw the line regarding which stakeholders to include within the projects process. This becomes a particular issue when stakeholder views/requirements change frequently, and in effect pull the project in directions others than those intended. As with most things these issues are not new nor unique, and require a balanced approach and well documented justification for the decisions taken.

All in all a good day.

Workshop on curriculum design and assessment – York

Yesterday I attended a workshop on curriculum design and assessment, organised by JISC through the HEA and held in York. This is an area I have very little practical experience with. As a research my opportunities to get involved in teaching tend to be at the practical delivery and support end rather than course development and design. On the other hand as a researcher I spend a lot of time learning and participating in course so I have had a lot of experience of the end product of curriculum design. Enough about me.
 
There were two particular applications that took my interest at the workshop. The first eReflect (University of Westminster) is an across module/course feedback system. This idea made me think about what information the coaches would need to discuss curriculum choices with their coachees (the learner) and how this could be gathered. The use of competency frameworks will enable skills and ability checks on a high level directing learners to fill in those gaps. But what happens once the module has been chosen, during the process of that module? Will coaching be required to motivate learners having difficulties during this period or even just identifying other areas for development. The use of a tool like eReflect would enable coaches to access the feedback given to learners while participating in a module, and thus ask more meaningful questions. Given my current knowledge of coaching (training is still some months off) I might be think in the wrong direction. The flip side to this is the possibility for the coaches to feedback to tutors, where learners feel this might be a benefit.

The second was an Assessment diary. I’m not sure which project mentioned this (possibly Teesside) , or it might have been someone during questions, but the idea is really neat and I think needs to have some form of implementation within PC3. If we are planning to enable flexibility and negotiation with learning and assement, learners are going to need some good organisational tools to keep track of everything. I suspect that what ever core platform we decided on (probably an ePortfolio) will have this tools embed. But it is worth noting and making sure they do.