Overview of the presentation

1
(No Transcript)
2
Overview of the presentation

• Project background
• Findings
• Putting a VLE in place
• Articulating designs
• Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs
• Selection and use of different tools
• Conclusions
• Teachers, learners, VLEs and institutions
• Some time for discussion hopefully

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
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
5
Background participants
Interview participants
6
Findings learning technology contacts
Putting a VLE in place
7
An overview of VLE adoption
FlexibilityControlCostRiskPedagogyPeersUsabi
lity
Deciding on a VLE
Procurement
Stages of adoption
(Some skipped playtime)
Replacement
8
Contrast between Moodle and commercial systems

• Commercial VLEs high-risk (costs) and so
  laborious to select
• Examples of two-year tendering process
• Moodle low-risk, sneaked in
• Wed come up with some open source software and
  why didnt 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
• Implications for institutional support and
  resourcing
• Institutional policy makers may ignore other
  costs and consequences of VLEs

9
A preoccupation with operational issues

• Overall, operational (institutional, technical
  and administrative) issues dominated ELL
  responses
• E.g. flexibility, cost, control, risk, usability,
  the neighbours
• We classified response codes into 2 categories
• 40 were operational, 26 educational i.e.
  slightly more than 1/3 were directly to do with
  designing for learning
• Grappling with operational issues diverts
  energies from educational ones
• Such as design for learning

10
Findings learning technology contacts
Articulating designs
11
Whether and how to articulate

• All teachers design for learning
• But designs are rarely fully articulated on the
  VLE
• Even designs for VLE-based learning may not be
  represented on the VLE itself
• VLE often looks like a load of stuff without
  rationale
• Course areas are highly personal - inscrutable if
  viewed in isolation
• Designs can only be observed in the relationships
  between elements of learning and teaching
• On a VLE order, timing, layout, formatting,
  commentary flagging of gaps
• Design and representation are not the same thing

12
Overarching designs are dispersed across
different representations

• We hoped to explore design practice through the
  VLE area
• VLE representations tend to be partial
  fragmented not a unified design
• A f2f / blended course or module is spread over
  different representations
• The VLE area, as design product, is of limited
  use in exploring design practice

13
Findings learning technology contacts
Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs
14
Integrating practices within the study

• Some very creative manoeuvring
• To keep learners participating in all areas
• Consequently, design adapted on the fly
• Flexibility was an original selling point of
  VLEs
• which also means an open-ended design process
• Designs are continually being evolved - often in
  tiny, incremental stages
• Teachers talked about running designs, not about
  designs or the process of designing
• So what is the design we should be studying?
• A process, not a single artefact

15
Design blindness

• Some teachers were unable to think of ways to
  preserve new practice if the VLE were withdrawn
• Changes in practice associated with the tool
  itself rather than a new way of doing things
• Integration a strength, but pedagogy hidden by
  VLE
• Design blindness
• This suggests that the reflexivity which a new
  tool is said to inject into practice may be
  short-lived
• (Though some teachers had good awareness)

16
Agile adoption

• The interview question Did the VLE tools
  influence your designs? divided participants
  intriguingly
• Not at all I do it my own way, however I want
  to do it..nothing in here makes me do things in a
  different way.
• It was shaped but it was a good fit.
• Yes, because there were things we cant do
• Totally I think this interface is much
  better
• Perceived dichotomy between technocentric and
  learner-centric practice
• Agile adopters integrate both
• they are aware of their learners, their subject
  area and the potential of different technologies

17
Findings learning technology contacts
Selection and use of different tools
18
Why are some Moodles most distinctive tools
little used?

• 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

19
Case studies
Conclusions and implications
20
Overview of design for learning in VLEs
VLE (a representation)
straight into
Tutors design continually incrementally
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
21
Conclusions

• Teachers
• Have little time - opportunistic about what and
  when they represent
• Dont delegate design, arent sharing designs
  (are sharing ideas and inspiration)
• Consider practice as highly personal
• Evolve their designs gradually and in response to
  feedback
• Are concerned with quality, which may hinder
  experiments
• Learners
• Have to negotiate two designs on the VLE the
  VLEs and their tutors as well as designs
  represented elsewhere
• Are not all digital natives (kit or skills)
• Arent necessarily prepared for online
  interactivity

22
Conclusions (contd)

• Different VLEs
• Are used fairly similarly to serve files,
  bulletins and for communication
• Moodles constructivist tools generally little
  used
• Commercial VLEs have v. different procurement
  processes
• Institutions
• Have a more top-down approach where VLE is
  commercial
• Arent yet prepared for online social-constructivi
  sm
• Currently rely on enthusiasts extra effort and
  sticking out of necks
• May not understand that VLEs cost more than a
  license

23
Acknowledgements further info

• Helen Beetham, JISC
• Martin Oliver, IoE
• Liz Masterman, University of Oxford
• Sarah Knight, JISC
• All the participants.
• The report
• http//www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/D4L_VLE_r
  eport_final.pdf
• Email me or Martin
• m.vogel_at_gold.ac.uk, m.oliver_at_ioe.ac.uk