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

ArchiMate Workshop – Bolton University, May 19th 2009

An interesting event that helped to crystallise my views of the level of detail we should engage in when modelling relevant University processes. There were several presentations from JISC projects that had engaged with modelling processes using the ArchiMate language though using different tools. There was also a brief introduction to the JISC Innovation Base which resulted in a partially complete contribution of our proposed modelling activities for inclusion in the emerging IB.

A couple of presentations were from completed JISC Enterprise Architecture projects where substantial parts of university people, processes and systems are being modelled. It was clear from these that there is a considerable amount of time and effort required to both capture and model University wide activities, though there are potentially considerable benefits for the institution. In both cases there were identifiable full time staff involved in the modelling activity and such staff are based outside the typical University structure i.e. not associated with any particular strand of the University. They could be seen as the guardians of the models of existing organisational roles, processes and systems. Both groups were using a tool called BizzDesign which includes support for ArchiMate – this is an expensive modelling tool [ £2000 per year per licence was quoted].

A third presentation (by Alan Paul from APS Consultancy) showed part of the modelling done as part of the MMU SRC project. This was at a lower level of detail and used MS Visio but it was more detailed than the modelling that I have done for PC3 in that roles and data are separated out from the processes and rules used to represent our Academic Award Validation Process.

With regard to the overall workshop there seemed to be an implicit expectation that participants were already using ArchiMate as there was no actual introduction to the language semantics, similarly there were references to approaches such as ‘The Open Group Architecture Framework – TOGAF’ and an expectation or awareness of the levels of support offered for the language within various tools. It was clear during the discussions that there are shortcomings with regard to ArchiMate in that it appears to be well suited to modelling (and visualising) the relationships between roles, processes and systems but was less suited to more detailed process descriptions particularly where there decision points with alternate paths that could be followed.

I propose that we look at my existing models of the Academic Award Validation process and represent it with the roles and data elements split off and then present it back to SRO to see if they find it more useful.

HEA / JISC QA-QE Event April 28th 2009

Went to this event yesterday at Aston University – actually only about 10 minutes walk from Birmingham New Street so this is a really accessible venue.

Interesting range of presentations with the morning devoted largely to QA-QE in the HE sector across the UK at institutional level. The afternoon provided a stimulating glimpse of the Pathfinder programme (phase 1 of the follow on from the national e-learning benchmarking exercise).

One issue arising from the morning presentations was the gap between QA-QE at institutional level and QA-QE for the JISC projects. Perhaps more could have been done to help project personnel relate the institutional QA-QE approaches to their individual projects.

The Pathfinder projects demonstrated different institutional outcomes from the e-learning benchmarking exercise and their respective responses to dealing with the gaps identified. A lack of time limited the experience of the PREEL 2 workshop; it would have been interesting to compare this to the participative workshop approach developed in the Planet project.

As ever at such gatherings it was the wider informal discussions that proved particularly enlightening. Listening to Fleur (Corfield) describing the use of scenario planning to help stakeholders recognise successful outcomes from her project was very illuminating – perhaps we should be doing something similar with a cross section of our identified stakeholders (including members of different stakeholder groups in the same workshops could enhance the appreciation different groups have of the project outcomes)?

There was a lot of interest in the PC3 project however it is clear that many people consider this approach unsuited to the typical 18 year old undergraduate student. We should consider contacting Dr. Judith Kuit at Sunderland and Dr. Eileen Webb at Teesside to pursue discussions around this – both of who showed a keen awareness and interest issues around the PC3 project.

Overall this was a useful workshop that should help to motivate us to revisit the PC3 project Quality Plan. In particular we should be clear what QA processes we are applying and what information these provide us on the project.

A moderator group?

I spent lunchtime talking about PC3 to a small group of representatives from the University’s PDP Network – a group of academics from across the institution who have a special interest in PDP, employability and enterprise. It was a very profitable discussion: they are very interested in and supportive of the aims and approach we are taking; they pointed out some potential stumbling blocks such as students not accepting “incomers” to their modules who may not be taking it in the same way as them. Certainly the options available through PC3 will need to be carefully negotiated to ensure neither PC3 programme students nor students on more traditional curriculum pathways are disadvantaged.

One outcome of the meeting is that the PDP Network have agreed to be a “sounding board” for us, allowing us to get grass roots staff outside of the user group course teams to moderate what we are doing and assess how it would work elsewhere in the institution. This should help a lot with the ongoing embedding and sustainability of PC3.

International Faculty staff

On January 22^nd the JISC team were invited to address the International Faculty staff at their termly development meeting.  The theme of the event was Assessment for Learning and colleagues were very interested in the innovative approaches being developed through the PC3 project. 

 

In particular, Hospitality and Retailing subject staff were very enthusiastic about how the project may be able to support their area in due course.  Much discussion centred on the technologies being brought together to make the curriculum developments happen and there was strong support for this approach.

Evaluation Workshop- Jan 14th 2009

Dawn and I attended the Evaluation Workshop organised by JISC at Maple House, Birmingham yesterday, 14th January 2009. Overall the event was very useful in that it helped us to focus on what evaluation means for the PC3 project.  I was happy that the Support & Synthesis (S&S) team  were comfortable with the idea that evaluating a project lasting four years means that an evaluation plan is likely to change over that time particularly given the experience of the chocolate cookie activity!

Something else that caught my attention during the day was the recognition that different stakeholders had different expectations from our project and that we need to ensure that our evaluation plans allow us to include activities that allow us to say something towards these different expectations.

Helen Beetham talked about the ‘power words’ in the original bids and  a need to be clear what these mean in the context of our respective bids. Early views on this for us certainly highlights words such as ‘coaching’ , ‘flexible’ approaches and ‘personalised curriculum’; feedback from project events run so far clearly show that staff have very different views about what these mean for them.

The discussions around ‘baselining’ a project were helpful for us as we are modelling current processes and workflows in order to demonstrate what they currently enable and where changes are needed in order to facilitate the radical changes to curriculum design inherent in our project. There was also a suggestion that one evaluation activity could be to contrast a typical output (subject specific award design over a limited time period with limited student choice) for the current processes against a typical output for the modified processes (generalised award design over a variable period with a wide range of choice).

There was also a timely reminder that each project is a part of the S&S programme and that the programme itself would be evaluated so it would be helpful to identify aspects of our evaluation plans that offered insight on the programme aims and objectives.

Sarah Knight closed the event  with a few key dates for the project and evaluation plans so perhaps I had better stop chattering here and make sure that we meet the first deadline for the draft project plans on February 2nd.

Carnegie Graduate School

Following the presentation to Mainstream the other, on Monday we had the opportunity to present PC3 to our new Carnegie Graduate School, a university wide initiative to support Masters’ students across the institution.

There is much interest in our approach as a core aspect of supporting Masters provision in the University. Again issues of cost were raised and it is clear we need to consider carefully the associated costs of supporting the approach, especially on a large scale. Although the idea is to allow personalisation of curriculum creation this does not mean that content will be developed for each individual, rather that content is shared far more effectively and the coach helps the learner to negotiate it.

Our next presentation is on December 11th to the Regional University Network ALT Enhancement Forum. This is our opportunity to present the framework to our college partners and to engage more of them in the process.

Overall we are pleased with how well engagement with stakeholders is going – as well as user groups we are finding opportunities to talk to some very significant groupings of staff around the University which is particularly helpful at this early stage.

TEL Network

Yesterday we had the opportunity to present PC3 to the Leeds Met TEL Network – learning technologists and academics from across the University with an interest in Technology Enhanced Learning. These will be the people who will assist our staff in developing the content necessary to support the PC3 process for different cohorts so it is important for them to be on board. A number of them have asked for further information and want to become more closely involved which is great.

One thing we decided was that we would get a set of Flip video recorders for loan to these staff to help them in producing video based learning resources – this certainly seems to be becoming gadget of the month!

The Support and Synthesis Programme Launch Event at Eynsham Hall – Day One.

 

 

 

At Eynsham Hall

We got the call

To stand up tall

And tell it all.

 

Each pitch was hot

And told the plot

Of plans we’ve got

To win a slot.

 

Producers mustered

Projects clustered

No one blustered,

None filibustered.

 

Dressed in jeans

We spilled the beans

And shared the means

To reach our Deans.

 

And after dinner

For saint and sinner

There was a winner

A real plate spinner.

 

________________________________

PC3 successfully launched

We had a successful launch event on Monday with around 40 staff attending all together in two sessions, including team members, senior staff, learning technologists, teaching fellows and the TEL team. Presentations on the project and on coaching were followed by lively discussion exploring how participants might be involved in the project and issues raised by it – our first informal consultation exercise.

We now have paper work to review and new potential user groups to follow up. A good start which will give us plenty to discuss at our first project team meeting on Monday.