Peeking Out by Richard Lowkes flickr/photos/richardlowkes/

1. Peeking Out by Richard Lowkes http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardlowkes/

2. Overview of this session • Definitions of design for learning • Project background • Putting a VLE in place • Articulating designs • Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs • Selection and use of different tools • Conclusions and implications

3. Definitions of design for learning …designing, planning, orchestrating and supporting learning activities as part of a learning session or programme. …plan out in systematic form; intend or have as a purpose; execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner; an iterative conversation with your materials …

4. Designing for Learning Effortful, involving Creative thinking Investment of time in Conceiving sequences Representing to learners Testing Designs rarely explicitly represented Design process is private Tacit, diverse, complex VLEs Most institutions have a VLE Catalyst of open source Mostly used to serve files Easy, worthwhile Information not education? Powerful, but with hurdles Privilege text and files Hinderforming connections Design becomes more important than ever Background

5. Background: project aims and objectives • Learning Design Tools theme of the Designing for Learning theme of the E-Learning and Pedagogy strand of JISC’s E-Learning Programme • Aims • Understand how to support tutors’ use of VLEs • Strategic emphasis on sharing • Objectives • Explore how tutors use VLEs to design learning activities

6. Background: scope and focus Blended / f2f 10 UK institutions • HE • FE • ACL Focus on 3 VLEs • Moodle (6) • Blackboard (2) • WebCT (2) The institutions teaching learning support VLE

7. Background: participants Kurt Ozzy Laurie Luca Jed Lila Olly Ian Downs College (Moodle) Kathy Lake University (Moodle) Pete Ike Kitty Rick Zoe Ben Petra Della Rachel Bart Hill College (Moodle) Babak Valley College (Moodle) Island College (WebCT) Colin KEY Studying with Ina Uplands University (Blackboard) Learner Tutor Fred E-learning lead & tutor E-learning lead Brett Tim Paul Cliff College (Blackboard) Mike Luke Dave Forest College (Moodle) Chris Bill Bay College (Moodle) River University (WebCT) Interview participants

8. Study design – mixed methods 1. Interview e-learning leads 2. Tutor questionnaires 3. Generate questions 4. Site visits –interviews, focus groups 5. Report and recommendations

9. Findings: learning technology contacts Putting a VLE in place

10. Methodology Exploring how VLEs are chosen, implemented and supported Privileged insights from a group with cross-institutional perspective E-Learning Contacts: VLE administrators Involved in selecting their institution’s VLE Many had dual roles as tutors. Interviews (F2F or telephone, transcribed) Responses open coded Anonymised individuals and institutions

11. How long have they had their VLE?

12. Usability Most frequently mentioned Problematic - only really known once system in place Flexibility In terms of physical resources Fit with learners’ other commitments (family, work) Ability to modify the system (code) Control Understanding how the system works Being able to add functionality Giving teachers ability to shape their course (although some institutions were insisting on templates) How and why was the VLE chosen?

13. Cost Second most frequently mentioned reason Complex Low up-front cost of Open Source systems Hidden costs (staff time, server) Relative cost (is it more expensive than other options?) Direct cost (if it fits on an existing server with existing support, it’s “free”) Risk Combining control and cost Tends to focus on resource implications Off-the-shelf “less risky” as responsibility lies elsewhere How and why was the VLE chosen?

14. Pedagogy Discussed rarely, and mainly ‘high level’ (i.e. no details) Moodle’s constructivist rhetoric made an impact Where present, focus on monitoring students/use Peers Local “Places like us” Partnerships How and why was the VLE chosen?

15. Contrast between Moodle and commercial systems Commercial VLEs high-risk (costs) and so laborious to select Examples of two-year tendering process for VLEs Moodle low-risk, and ‘sneaked in’ “We’d come up with some open source software and why didn’t we use it in the meantime” “Senior management are aware of it but happy to let us get on with it because there have been no major resource implications so far.” “…came out of the closet spectacularly…” Procuring the VLE

16. Awareness Playtime Piloting Formalisation Status quo An overview of VLE adoption FlexibilityControlCostRiskPedagogyPeersUsability Deciding on a VLE Procurement Stages of adoption Replacement

17. Funding 5 Moodle users, 1 WebCT Perhaps a licence stabilises funding concerns? Intertia Continued existence of support roles Bad precedents leading to disillusionment Legal issues (e.g. software patents) Other organisational, cultural concerns Threats to the VLE

18. New practices Expansion (new markets) Distance learning Working with communities Other organisational/pedagogic achievements “embedding” “full use” Etc. Opportunities with the VLE

19. Summary • Overall, concerns focused on institutional, technical and administrative issues • Classified into two categories • 40 Organisational, 26 Educational • Grappling with organisational issues diverts attention from designing for learning • Slightly more than 1/3 were directly to do with designing for learning • Still unclear how organisational issues affect this process

20. Findings: learning technology contacts Articulating designs

21. How is your course represented to your learners? (15 min) • In pairs, explain how your course (or session or module) is represented to your learners (10 min) • May be course specification, introductory lecture, VLE course area, web pages… • Think about what you want to get across and why you chose the ways you chose • Summarise these to outline to the group • Group discussion to outline examples you came up with (5 min) • To get a sense of the range of representations

22. Representing designs – represent or not? • All teachers design for learning • For VLE-based learning, designs may be represented • fully • not at all • partially or in fragments • Enormous difference in what is represented • Depends on subject area, learner aptitude, duration, etc • VLE designs are tutors’ own – they don’t tend to delegate • Sharing ideas and inspiration but not designs per se • Surprisingly, a lot of design for VLE-based learning is not represented on the VLE itself • VLE as publishing medium rather than a module representation • Course areas are often inscrutable if viewed in isolation

23. Representing designs – factors in decisions about representation • Time • To conceive, plan and create and evolve designs • To maintain the currency, completeness, accuracy and appropriateness of designs • Representing designs may actually impinge on the creative act of designing for learning • Learner time to access the designs • Contact time or absence of it • How VLE activities are orchestrated • Institutional stake in representing designs • eg quality assurance, audit • Keeping flexible and responsive • Representations can make practice rigid

24. Tutors tend to design straight into the VLE • This kind of immediacy was one of the original selling points of VLEs • It also invites an open ended design process • Incremental, evolutionary and responsive • Many instances of a “just in time” approach • Course areas “never stand still” • Suggests that course areas do not easily lend themselves to packaging and reuse • Minority of tutors did design holistically in advance • Eg mapping activities to specific learning outcomes

25. Looking at VLE course area screenshots (20 min) • In pairs, consider the three handout VLE screenshots – from blended courses at different institutions • What can you infer about the intentions of each tutor for their students’ learning • Summarise these to outline to the group • (10 min) • Group discussion to explore how your impressions are consistent and how they differ • There is scope for difference • (10 min)

26. Findings: learning technology contacts Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs

27. Integrating designs that use VLEs and other technologies • Explicit brief from JISC: ‘hybrid’ or ‘blended’ courses (not just fully distance courses) • Sensible intention, but muddled • Does “blended learning” exclude any course? • Is “face to face” a recognisable, coherent thing? • Rather blunt • Unclear what things can be “blended” • Unclear about the effects of mix, timings, styles of use, etc • Four broad categories discussed: • VLE, face-to-face, hard copy, embodiment (acting, use of instruments, medical procedures…)

28. Integrating designs that use VLEs and other technologies • A task for you: • In pairs (3-4 minutes each) discuss what technologies for teaching you use • Could include VLE, lectures, tutorials, books, etc • Questions to consider • What are you “blending”? • How are your pedagogic intentions represented within each of these? • How are your pedagogic intentions co-ordinated across each of these? • How flexible and adaptive are these designs? • 5 minutes discussion reporting back to the group

29. Location of VLE-based activities Almost all use the VLE between contact sessions. Half use it during contact sessions – where the design may be harder to identify

30. Integrating practices within the study • A definitive point of reference • Handbook, VLE, initial lecture… • VLE often used for orchestration (instructions, descriptions) • Flexibility that handbook lacks • Particularly if out-of-class activities (e.g. work placement) or preparations for forthcoming class

31. Integrating practices within the study • Some very creative manoeuvring • Deliberately incomplete information(e.g. hiding what will happen next week) • Required access to VLE, participation in sessions etc to complete the picture • Design adapted ‘on the fly’ • Staying one step ahead - flexibility • …and working incrementally, using students’ materials for discussion and analysis • …and certainly adapted year on year - “constant evolution” • So what is “the” design we should be studying? • A process, not a single artefact

32. Integrating practices within the study • Technocentricity v. learner centricity • Should a new tool suggest new ways to teach? (innovation) • …or should an expert teacher select the tools needed to meet learners’ requirements? • Phenomenon of ‘design blindness’ • Tutors talked about running designs, not about designs or the process of designing • Couldn’t think how to preserve their new practices if this specific tool were taken away; VLE seen as ‘unique’ (even though easily re-created with modular technologies) • Changes in practice associated with the tool itself rather than a new way of doing things(Integration a strength, but pedagogy ‘hidden’ by VLE)

33. Findings: learning technology contacts Selection and use of different VLE tools

34. JISC emphasises 3 broad learning ‘types’ • Identified by Mayes and DeFreitas in their e-Learning Models Desk Study for JISC • Associative – emphasises cumulative information or skill components • Constructivist (individual or social) – emphasises activity • Situative – emphasises social and cultural setting • How can a VLE support these?

35. Associative: Moodle Lesson (BA Music) • ‘Lessons’ are for instruction, ie not very social constructivist – considered unfashionable by some • Rachel developed one on Referencing – simple and linear, chunks of content each followed by a MCQ • “…it was immediately and overwhelmingly apparent who had done it and who hadn’t … what they’d do is hand in their essay topic with a short provisional bibliography. Those immediately gave away who had and hadn’t done the lesson, and we double-checked [in the logs]”

36. Constructivist: moving activity online (AS Computing) • Certain circumstances need to be in place: • Self-study time • Motivation (assessment) • Ways of scaffolding (tutor or peers) • I think that’s probably one reason I haven’t gone into it, because when I want to do it, I want to do it properly… Which will need I think quite a lot of extra time initially, because if a student posts something on a forum, they, even if it’s only subconsciously, expect to get some kind of reaction fairly quickly…

37. Situative: reflecting (MA Acting) • VLE hosts a growing multimedia record of learners’ development over time, used with a forum • Learners view these, reflect and feed back as a community • ... I think having a record … makes you appreciate it, makes you kind of take note of what you were doing, what you are doing better, what you should be doing, and I think all those things make you reflect on it in a much more profound and … complex way than if you didn’t have it.

38. Tutors’ aims for the VLE (2nd questionnaire) • Checkbox question • Most prevalent: • Repository • Motivate or engage • Individualisation • Collaboration • (Free-text field yielded nothing specific)

39. VLE features used by tutors (2nd questionnaire) High take-up of • Content presentation • Forums • Groups • Self-test • Selective release Distinctively (social) constructivist tools less used

40. Why are some Moodle’s most distinctive tools underused? • E.g.Wiki, Glossary, Workshop • There is little time available for innovation • Tutors have little protected time to design, police, scaffold and assess online activities • Diverting learners’ self-study time into highly interactive online learning has implications • Institutions are built round traditional learning • No frameworks exist for assessing new forms, • Participation is notoriously low for unassessed activities • Complexity of the tools can put people off • The tools emphasise process but blended courses offer ample f2f opportunities to acquire these skills

41. Agile adoption Tutors Interested in emerging T&L practice Review existing practice in the light of innovations Able and prepared to experiment radically Institutions Foster awareness of innovations in T&L Discern and invest wisely in valuable innovations Accommodate changingwork patterns Cautious adoption Tutors Alive to new ways to achieve existing approaches Unprepared for experimenting radically Institutions Maintain status quo Bandwagon approach to innovations Underinvest in them Entrench inflexiblework patterns Approaches to choosing tools

42. Case studies Conclusions and implications

43. VLE (a representation) straight into Tutors design as and maybe Content & activities Relationships but may not make that design explicit eg sequence, order, explanation eg time, maintenance, complexity, keeping flexible, infrastructure, simply no need because of context Overview of design for learning in VLEs

44. Conclusions • Designs for learning • Only observable as relationships between different elements – eg order, sequence, explanation • Usefully represented when • Tutor not present to orchestrate or scaffold activity • Activity is complex or process is important • Otherwise representations are rare or partial • Evolve continuously, incrementally • ‘design process’ is hard to comprehend • Tutors • Have little time - opportunistic about what and when • Don’t delegate design, aren’t sharing designs • Evolve their designs in response to feedback • Are concerned with quality, which may hinder experiments

45. Conclusions (cont’d) • Learners • Have to negotiate two designs on the VLE – the VLE’s and their tutor’s – as well as designs represented elsewhere • Are not all digital natives (kit or skills) • Aren’t necessarily prepared for online interactivity • Different VLEs • Are used fairly similarly to serve files, bulletins and for communication • Moodle’s constructivist tools generally underused • Commercial VLEs have v. different procurement processes • Institutions • Have a more top-down approach where VLE is commercial • Aren’t yet prepared for online social-constructivism • Currently rely on enthusiasts’ extra effort • May not understand that VLEs cost more than a license

46. Implications • Institutions should aim for • a good climate for sharing practice • Within and between institutions • Via networks chosen by tutors • protected time for tutors to learn skills and think • opportunities for experimentation • Institutions and government bodies should • Continue to regard tutors as designers • Offer and advance tools for authoring as well as sharing • Tutors • Commit to keeping aware of innovations (practice & tools) • Counteract ‘design blindness’ • Allow innovations to inspire practice and vice versa • Aim to be agile adopters

47. Implications for sharing • Sharing can be perceived in different ways: • Saving (by institutions) • Gaining, and giving (by tutors) • Sharing designs more complex than content • Designs are less granular, more context dependent • Depends on understanding the rationale and design process • Different ways to share designs • Inspiration and ideas are likely to work best • Case studies? Talking heads? Skype usernames? Workshops? • OTS (eg LAMS, whole course areas) - change of culture • depends on meticulous representation • depends on tutors’ expertise to repurpose them • Some wheel reinvention is fine • A very good way to learn and reflect

48. Acknowledgements • For their inspiration, direction and feedback • Helen Beetham, JISC (strand consultant) • Liz Masterman, University of Oxford (researcher on project in same strand) • All the participants.

49. More about the project • A report will be available from JISC soon • Email Martin or me in the meantime: • m.oliver@ioe.ac.uk or m.vogel@gold.ac.uk