On the edge: designing online modules in EAP

1

• On the edge designing online modules in EAP

George Blue (gmb_at_soton.ac.uk) Julie Watson
(jw17_at_soton.ac.uk) Vicky Wright (vmw_at_soton.ac.uk)
2
Overview

• Background
• the project
• the partners
• the learning environment
• The curriculum
• Issues
• technology meets pedagogy the reusability
  question
• our approach to learning objects
• Learning objects in context some examples
• Unanswered questions

3
Background

• The project
• online pre-sessional EAP modules for students
  taking UKeU programmes (launched Sept 2003)
• The partners
• University of Bristol
• University of Leeds
• University of Manchester
• University of Sheffield
• University of Southampton
• University of York

4
Background

• The learning environment
• 20m web-based platform developed by Sun
  Microsystems/UKeU with integrated student and
  content management systems

5
The curriculum 1

• Developing English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
  modules (English language, academic skills,
  skills for studying online).
• Aimed at intending Masters students with IELTS
  score 0.5 below the entry requirement
• Modules differentiated by discipline area

6
The curriculum 2

• Each module conceived as 150 hours study for 15
  credit points
• Three frames of learning
• Online study
• Tutor-directed study
• Guided independent study
• Modules consist of common core EAP broad and
  narrow subject focus

7
The curriculum 3

• Design and content of modules
• Learning outcomes specified in terms of
• understanding (listening, reading)
• production (speaking, writing)
• interaction (speaking, writing)
• language knowledge and awareness (grammar,
  vocabulary, appropriacy)
• language learning strategies
• communication strategies
• study skills (online learning, research,
  organisation)
• Modules taken over 3 months part-time

8
Technology meets pedagogy learning objects
(LOs) 1

• The search for the Holy Grail of content
  creation, aggregation and retrieval
• Broad agreement on the functional requirements of
  an LO
• Accessibility the LO should be tagged with
  metadata so that it can be stored and referenced
  in a database
• Reusability once created, an LO should function
  in different instructional contexts
• Interoperability the LO should be independent of
  both the delivery media and knowledge management
  systems

9
Technology meets pedagogy learning objects
(LOs) 2

• Little agreement on the definition of an LO
• Any entity, digital or non digital, that can be
  used for learning or training (IEEE Learning
  Technology Standards Committee)
• Any digital resource that can be re-used to
  support learning (Wiley 2002)
• Learning objects are small units of learning of
  2-15 minutes (Wisconsin Online Resource Center)
• The smallest learning experience that contains an
  objective, a learning activity and an assessment
  (L'Allier 1997)

10

http//www.wbtic.com/trends_objects.aspx
http//www.zemondo.com/fract/molecules.jpg
11
Technology meets pedagogy the reusable LO

• The reusable LO is a new way of thinking about
  content creation and its instructional use. The
  success of this strategy rests on the rigorous
  separation of the LO and its use for
  instructional purposesAlthough sound pedagogical
  principles should inform the creation of a LO, it
  should not be coded by any specific teaching
  methodology or instructional theory. Genuine
  reusability and optimum functionality of a LO can
  be achieved only when the LO attains a high level
  of abstraction.
• Polsani, 2003

12
Technology meets pedagogy the reusability
dilemma 1

• The extreme form of these design approaches ?
• one to one instructional models
• human interaction in large scale environment is
  economically impossible
• automation via intelligent systems provides
  viable anywhere, anytime learning
• Wiley, 2003

13
Technology meets pedagogy the reusability
dilemma 2

• Wiley (2003) argues
• the goal of decontextualisation runs counter to
  current learning theories
• LOs should not be glitzy information dumps,
  they should aim to mediate understanding through
  action e.g. problem-solving
• higher level learning is not well served

14
Our approach to learning objects 1

• A working definition
• LOs ARE micro learning steps
• They are NOT decontextualised standalone
  resources
• They can be simple (3 or so sequential) or
  complex aggregations (may be iterative)
• Context and coherence are key and are provided at
  several levels (e.g. spinal documents,
  sacrificial LOs)

15
Our approach to learning objects 2

• LO types generated thus far
• Information (rarely used e.g. sacrificial LO)
• Conceptual (reflective) presenting a learning
  concept in a way that encourages active
  engagement and reflection
• Discussion collaborative forum involving peer
  interaction, reflection, problem-solving,
  feedback from tutor etc.
• Task (conceptual) often a guided task or process,
  typically a worked through example showing the
  learning concept
• Task an open task, possibly with application of
  a concept, discovery and problem-solving elements
• Assignment assessment task and document

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Unanswered questions

• How far is reusability of LOs achievable?
• How far can LOs and collections of LOs reflect
  complexities of the learning process
• How far can we meet the challenge of connectivity
  e.g. provide appropriate levels of collaboration
  and social interaction
• How far do technological constraints create
  obstacles to the design of a flexible,
  personalised, learner-centric course?