Dear All,
Following a question on the feasibility study assignment raised by Group4, I would like to specify the following:
The group should consider all aspects of the project's feasibility apart from the financial ones (these aspect will be dealt with in the next assignment to come).
The group should also leave the executive summary for the final report (because it should include the essentials of the financial feasibility as well).
About the alternative scenarios: this part should be discussed in your final report as well, once you have the key data about the financial feasibility. Considering one alternative scenario will be sufficient. It should answer the question: if the project's feasibility can not be guaranteed without limited risk or if any managerial reason would lead to the conclusion that it can not be worked out as it is currently designed, what alternative could be worked out? Or, what key hypothesis should be modified to improve its feasibility to a broader extend?
Thanks for your question.
Good work,
Jean-Dominique
quinta-feira, 1 de abril de 2010
quarta-feira, 31 de março de 2010
Technical
The technical issue: will the solution work efficiently?The technical feasibility study has to evaluate to what degree the proposed solutions will workas required and whether the right people and tools are available to implement the solution. It“refers to the analysis of possible technical problems in the different solutions and who isappropriate to solve”.This involves several questions such as:
Does the technology needed for the system exist?
Should the solution be a bespoke development or an off-the-shelf solution?
How difficult will it be to build or to develop the new solution?
How much do we need to outsource? How much do we need to insource?
Does the organization (school, faculty, firm, etc.) have enough experience and/orneeded skills using that technology (computers, software, networks, etc.)?
Economic
The economic issue: will the new system cost more than the expected benefits?The economic feasibility covers the assessment of costs and benefits of different solutions inorder to select that who gives the best value. In other words the economic assessment has toanswer the question: “will the project (solution) be viable?“…you must have a basic idea about how much time and money it is going to take to put theconcept into a usable program. Doing neat blue-screen video1 effects like the folks atCognitive Arts is very slick and engaging, but that can get very expensive very quickly.Programming simulations is not an easy task either. Of course, the easy and cheap thing to dois dump lots of texts to the computer, and throw in multi-choice questions at the end. That hasto be one of the most unimaginative and most un-engaging type of learning experiences that alearner could encounter, never mind not having an instructional design behind it. As notedexpert in the field of educational technology, David Merrill emphasizes, "Information is notinstruction."7(Curtis L. Broderick, 2001).Said in maybe more concrete terms, the economic feasibility is the analysis of the differentcosts and benefits of implementing a new system. It should also assess the relative importanceof the new system in the comparison with other proposed solutions. Will the new system costmore than the expected benefits?Tangible and intangible costs and benefitsIn carrying out a cost-benefit analysis, both tangible and intangible costs and benefitsidentified and have to be taken into account.What differentiate tangible from intangible costs or benefits is whether or not it is possible toset a definite numeric value against an item. When, for instance, the item is the cost ofinstallation, it is possible to set such a numeric value, and the cost can be identified astangible.
Tangible costs are a measure of costs that can be calculated for each item of expenditure on ane-Learning system. For example, the purchase price of a router needed to install an internetnetwork, or the recruitment of tutors, are tangible costs.On the contrary, it is not possible to place a numeric value on intangible costs and benefits.For example, the user resistance that will occur due to the implementation of a new system orthe disruption of the network will have an effect on the overall organization performance butthey are difficult to measure.A definite measure of improvement can be calculated for each tangible benefit. For instance, areduction in costs of travels thanks to the e-Learning system is a tangible benefit. Theregistration, a subscription or the tuition fee is typically a tangible ‘benefit’. However, thebenefit of using computer animations instead of fixed images in a learning process is difficultto calculate. It has to be considered as a qualitative advantage, or intangible benefit.Accessing a broader range of contents through the Internet is also difficult to quantify, and isalso an intangible benefit.Assessing the costsA range of costs must be taken into account in the feasibility study. They include, amongothers: Technical costso Hardware, software and network equipment purchase costs;o Telecommunication costs;o LMS application;o Internet subscription;o Systems development staff costs if a bespoke or tailored solution isimplemented;o Installation costs including cabling, physically moving equipment and bringingin new furniture to house the computers;o Migration costs, such as transferring data from an existing system to the newsystem;o Operating costs: maintenance costs of hardware such as replacing parts orupgrading to new versions software; staff costs in maintaining the hardwareand the software and troubleshooting ; amount of energy and consumable used; Multimedia costs: audio and video production and editing; Human resource costs, especially when there is a need to hire new personnel or toinvolve free-lancers experts:o Instructional designero Teaching staffo e-Tutors,o Administrative staffo Content designers,o Experts and consultants,o Graphic designers,o Web designers,o Analysts and programmers,o Web master, etc
Training costs; Other costs.It is important to notice that the technical costs not only include the initial cost of purchase butalso the ongoing maintenance costs. These can be considerable and often exceed the costs ofpurchase. As stated by Bocij et al., p.358, (2006), “the cost of ownership of a software or ahardware product is potentially much higher than the purchase costs. This is mainly due to thecost of troubleshooting software bugs and hardware faults, phone support, installing upgrades,and paying for support and/or upgrades from vendors”. As a consequence, the cost ofownership of the selected equipment should also be factored into the cost-benefit analysis.Human resources are also an important cost factor in e-Learning instructional systems, notonly during the design and development phases but also during the implementation phase.Implementing an e-Learning solution for distance learning requires traditional teaching staffresources but also additional tutoring. The latter tends however to be neglected andunderestimated in the costs estimates.The cost of training and education and documentation of teaching staff should also beincluded with standard development costs of paying analyst and programmers.The various costs should be estimated after determining the requirements and scope of theproject and on the basis of the tasks defined in a work breakdown structure.Assessing the benefitsWhile the costs are relatively easy to identify, the benefits are harder to quantify and this fortwo key reasons:
They often are intangible;
They will occur in the future which means that they are dependent from a factor ofuncertainty.Benefits from the e-Learning system can be considered in terms of improvement in thelearning process and the quality of learning contents used to support these processes.Tangible benefits of e-Learning could be, for instance, the following:
Higher revenues due to higher number of beneficiaries (learners)
Reduction of renting classrooms;A way to identify tangible benefits of e-Learning could be based on considering the costs ofperforming a teaching process before introduction of e-Learning and comparing this to thecost after e-Learning implementation.Intangible benefits can include the following: Broader geographical dissemination of e-Learning;
Easier group work o a remote basis;
Easier access to learning content;
Intangible benefits will also include improvements to the quality of learning content in someof the following ways:
Improved usability (easier to understand and then act on information);
Improved utilization;
Improved availability and timeliness;
Improved accuracy;
Improved security of information;CommentsThe cost-benefit analysis has to occur at the very start of a project to implement a new e-Learning instructional system. Although all feasibility assessments for e-Learninginstructional systems should include a cost-benefit analysis, it might happen that someorganizations want to bypass this stage, because other factors are driving the change such asthe need to respond to the learner (or market) demand, or to counter a competitor threat.Implementing an e-Learning instructional system can be seen also as a strategic initiative togain experience aimed at ensuring success in the future when this form of learning becomesmore widely used, or to gain what is called in the business area “first-mover” advantage.It has to be noticed that assessing the costs and benefits of an e-Learning instructional systemis not an exact science. It is not easy to measure each benefit and cost accurately. And evenwhere the benefits and costs are quantifiable, the figures used are only based on an estimatepredicting several years into the future.
Does the technology needed for the system exist?
Should the solution be a bespoke development or an off-the-shelf solution?
How difficult will it be to build or to develop the new solution?
How much do we need to outsource? How much do we need to insource?
Does the organization (school, faculty, firm, etc.) have enough experience and/orneeded skills using that technology (computers, software, networks, etc.)?
Economic
The economic issue: will the new system cost more than the expected benefits?The economic feasibility covers the assessment of costs and benefits of different solutions inorder to select that who gives the best value. In other words the economic assessment has toanswer the question: “will the project (solution) be viable?“…you must have a basic idea about how much time and money it is going to take to put theconcept into a usable program. Doing neat blue-screen video1 effects like the folks atCognitive Arts is very slick and engaging, but that can get very expensive very quickly.Programming simulations is not an easy task either. Of course, the easy and cheap thing to dois dump lots of texts to the computer, and throw in multi-choice questions at the end. That hasto be one of the most unimaginative and most un-engaging type of learning experiences that alearner could encounter, never mind not having an instructional design behind it. As notedexpert in the field of educational technology, David Merrill emphasizes, "Information is notinstruction."7(Curtis L. Broderick, 2001).Said in maybe more concrete terms, the economic feasibility is the analysis of the differentcosts and benefits of implementing a new system. It should also assess the relative importanceof the new system in the comparison with other proposed solutions. Will the new system costmore than the expected benefits?Tangible and intangible costs and benefitsIn carrying out a cost-benefit analysis, both tangible and intangible costs and benefitsidentified and have to be taken into account.What differentiate tangible from intangible costs or benefits is whether or not it is possible toset a definite numeric value against an item. When, for instance, the item is the cost ofinstallation, it is possible to set such a numeric value, and the cost can be identified astangible.
Tangible costs are a measure of costs that can be calculated for each item of expenditure on ane-Learning system. For example, the purchase price of a router needed to install an internetnetwork, or the recruitment of tutors, are tangible costs.On the contrary, it is not possible to place a numeric value on intangible costs and benefits.For example, the user resistance that will occur due to the implementation of a new system orthe disruption of the network will have an effect on the overall organization performance butthey are difficult to measure.A definite measure of improvement can be calculated for each tangible benefit. For instance, areduction in costs of travels thanks to the e-Learning system is a tangible benefit. Theregistration, a subscription or the tuition fee is typically a tangible ‘benefit’. However, thebenefit of using computer animations instead of fixed images in a learning process is difficultto calculate. It has to be considered as a qualitative advantage, or intangible benefit.Accessing a broader range of contents through the Internet is also difficult to quantify, and isalso an intangible benefit.Assessing the costsA range of costs must be taken into account in the feasibility study. They include, amongothers: Technical costso Hardware, software and network equipment purchase costs;o Telecommunication costs;o LMS application;o Internet subscription;o Systems development staff costs if a bespoke or tailored solution isimplemented;o Installation costs including cabling, physically moving equipment and bringingin new furniture to house the computers;o Migration costs, such as transferring data from an existing system to the newsystem;o Operating costs: maintenance costs of hardware such as replacing parts orupgrading to new versions software; staff costs in maintaining the hardwareand the software and troubleshooting ; amount of energy and consumable used; Multimedia costs: audio and video production and editing; Human resource costs, especially when there is a need to hire new personnel or toinvolve free-lancers experts:o Instructional designero Teaching staffo e-Tutors,o Administrative staffo Content designers,o Experts and consultants,o Graphic designers,o Web designers,o Analysts and programmers,o Web master, etc
Training costs; Other costs.It is important to notice that the technical costs not only include the initial cost of purchase butalso the ongoing maintenance costs. These can be considerable and often exceed the costs ofpurchase. As stated by Bocij et al., p.358, (2006), “the cost of ownership of a software or ahardware product is potentially much higher than the purchase costs. This is mainly due to thecost of troubleshooting software bugs and hardware faults, phone support, installing upgrades,and paying for support and/or upgrades from vendors”. As a consequence, the cost ofownership of the selected equipment should also be factored into the cost-benefit analysis.Human resources are also an important cost factor in e-Learning instructional systems, notonly during the design and development phases but also during the implementation phase.Implementing an e-Learning solution for distance learning requires traditional teaching staffresources but also additional tutoring. The latter tends however to be neglected andunderestimated in the costs estimates.The cost of training and education and documentation of teaching staff should also beincluded with standard development costs of paying analyst and programmers.The various costs should be estimated after determining the requirements and scope of theproject and on the basis of the tasks defined in a work breakdown structure.Assessing the benefitsWhile the costs are relatively easy to identify, the benefits are harder to quantify and this fortwo key reasons:
They often are intangible;
They will occur in the future which means that they are dependent from a factor ofuncertainty.Benefits from the e-Learning system can be considered in terms of improvement in thelearning process and the quality of learning contents used to support these processes.Tangible benefits of e-Learning could be, for instance, the following:
Higher revenues due to higher number of beneficiaries (learners)
Reduction of renting classrooms;A way to identify tangible benefits of e-Learning could be based on considering the costs ofperforming a teaching process before introduction of e-Learning and comparing this to thecost after e-Learning implementation.Intangible benefits can include the following: Broader geographical dissemination of e-Learning;
Easier group work o a remote basis;
Easier access to learning content;
Intangible benefits will also include improvements to the quality of learning content in someof the following ways:
Improved usability (easier to understand and then act on information);
Improved utilization;
Improved availability and timeliness;
Improved accuracy;
Improved security of information;CommentsThe cost-benefit analysis has to occur at the very start of a project to implement a new e-Learning instructional system. Although all feasibility assessments for e-Learninginstructional systems should include a cost-benefit analysis, it might happen that someorganizations want to bypass this stage, because other factors are driving the change such asthe need to respond to the learner (or market) demand, or to counter a competitor threat.Implementing an e-Learning instructional system can be seen also as a strategic initiative togain experience aimed at ensuring success in the future when this form of learning becomesmore widely used, or to gain what is called in the business area “first-mover” advantage.It has to be noticed that assessing the costs and benefits of an e-Learning instructional systemis not an exact science. It is not easy to measure each benefit and cost accurately. And evenwhere the benefits and costs are quantifiable, the figures used are only based on an estimatepredicting several years into the future.
domingo, 21 de março de 2010
Claroline
Marcel LEBRUN22describes the model as follows:”…this figure may act as a check-list in order to properly design or evaluate a largevariety of “devices” devoted to learning promotion :
textbooks (the nature, the structure, the attributes and the lay-out of theinformation),
pedagogical software (the context of the proposed activities or the directives tobe followed),
Educational Web sites (the activities proposed to the students or the place ofthe web site in the pedagogical scenario),
pedagogical plans (carefully considered individual and collaborative activities),students’ output …
This model may finally be used, to boost, design and evaluate innovation inside aninstitution” (Lebrun, 2002; Lebrun, 2005).“In the centre, the three rectangles are inspired by the constructivist approach: briefly,information is transformed into knowledge by the student activities and this newknowledge feeds the following process (systemic loop). This process is enabled bymotivational factors and sustained by interaction (from the environment - functionalinteraction) or from other students and from teachers (relational interaction)).”“Our model is in good agreement with the M. D. Merrill “first principles of instruction(Merrill, 2000).
Describing these principles is a good opportunity to illustrate again theopenness and wideness of our model:
1. Learning is facilitated when students are engaged in the solving of realproblems (information and motivation);
2. Learning is facilitated when prior knowledge is activated and questioned withnew contexts (information and motivation);
3. Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is explained, demonstrated andjustified (information, activities);
4. Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is applied by the learners(activities, productions);
5. Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is integrated into the learner'sworld (productions and motivation).”“Despite the fact that Merrill’s principles cover rather well our Learning components,mention should be made for the lack of the “interaction” part which makes usbelonging to socio-constructivism. In all cases, Merrill uses this model as a guidelinefor the development of pertinent pedagogical setup (5 star instructional design rating)… it’s also the way we intend to use our own model.The main components of our model are also coherent with expectations of variousactors for the competences needed in the society (information gathering, autonomy,communication, abilities for team work …) and may be undertaken with the toolsdeveloped on Claroline. (Evers et al., 1998, Knight & Yorke, 2004).”This model is learner-centered and focused on learning rather than on informationtechnology although the latter is enabling and favoring the whole learning process. Itis of course LMS platform independent. It can be put into practice using Claroline butalso with the use of any other LMS platform such as Moodle, Anaxagora, Blackboard,etc.
textbooks (the nature, the structure, the attributes and the lay-out of theinformation),
pedagogical software (the context of the proposed activities or the directives tobe followed),
Educational Web sites (the activities proposed to the students or the place ofthe web site in the pedagogical scenario),
pedagogical plans (carefully considered individual and collaborative activities),students’ output …
This model may finally be used, to boost, design and evaluate innovation inside aninstitution” (Lebrun, 2002; Lebrun, 2005).“In the centre, the three rectangles are inspired by the constructivist approach: briefly,information is transformed into knowledge by the student activities and this newknowledge feeds the following process (systemic loop). This process is enabled bymotivational factors and sustained by interaction (from the environment - functionalinteraction) or from other students and from teachers (relational interaction)).”“Our model is in good agreement with the M. D. Merrill “first principles of instruction(Merrill, 2000).
Describing these principles is a good opportunity to illustrate again theopenness and wideness of our model:
1. Learning is facilitated when students are engaged in the solving of realproblems (information and motivation);
2. Learning is facilitated when prior knowledge is activated and questioned withnew contexts (information and motivation);
3. Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is explained, demonstrated andjustified (information, activities);
4. Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is applied by the learners(activities, productions);
5. Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is integrated into the learner'sworld (productions and motivation).”“Despite the fact that Merrill’s principles cover rather well our Learning components,mention should be made for the lack of the “interaction” part which makes usbelonging to socio-constructivism. In all cases, Merrill uses this model as a guidelinefor the development of pertinent pedagogical setup (5 star instructional design rating)… it’s also the way we intend to use our own model.The main components of our model are also coherent with expectations of variousactors for the competences needed in the society (information gathering, autonomy,communication, abilities for team work …) and may be undertaken with the toolsdeveloped on Claroline. (Evers et al., 1998, Knight & Yorke, 2004).”This model is learner-centered and focused on learning rather than on informationtechnology although the latter is enabling and favoring the whole learning process. Itis of course LMS platform independent. It can be put into practice using Claroline butalso with the use of any other LMS platform such as Moodle, Anaxagora, Blackboard,etc.
point
1.1 Specifications that the e-Learning solution shall refer
Today “e-“learning” becomes one of the most up-to-date expressions. That is why it becomes very important to be aware of some didactical and technological aspects during the development process of any e-learning course. The strong expectations that high level technological tools will increase the quality of any e-learning course often follow to an underestimation of the educational objectives being set. The crucial dilemma is not about what technological tools are to be used during the development process of e-learning courses but how to design and plan an e-learning course that ensures the achievement of the educational objectives. All the e-learning related technologies advance very rapidly while the methodology on how to apply them drops behind. The didactical issues of e-learning can be split in two main directions: One considering the development of e-learning environments while the other attends to the development of learning content and implementation of e-learning courses. Nevertheless the European Committee underlines the necessity of pedagogically develop sound and practically useful standards and specifications. A modern e-learning environment not only has to offer the most recent technologies but it has to possess high level of usability also. In the didactical structure of more e-learning courses the educational objectives are described, but usually they are only described without a feed back with learning content and measurement of level of achievement of the set learning objectives. Technologies for education existed before the current ones. Most of the research on technology for education agrees on such findings as that the real potential of education cannot be found through a technological approach alone; the computer per se superimposed on traditional forms of teaching cannot improve the quality or productivity of teaching. The didactic advantages of the substrate offered by the media in contributing to and injecting enthusiasm into information, the simulation of micro-worlds, the transparency of the classroom walls allowing students to access information in any domain underline however, the lacunae in describing the pedagogic context in which the tools are to be used. The benefits for the use of technology should not be expected only inside the reduced cognitive sphere of knowledge. Despite the desired convergence between objectives, methods fostering learning and added-value use of ICT tools, one important element brought to light is the time and effort these in-depth reforms require. Experience shows that these changes from a traditional pedagogical mode to a new one, supported or not by technological tools, go through different phases: a phase of “assimilation” in which the new tools are used and a phase of “accommodation” in which the new tools find its particular domain. This movement between assimilation and accommodation demands time, effort, and a driving force. The availability of the tools and favourable circumstances such as the ones we have described here will not automatically lead to the reforms we have described. E-learning continues to grow at a tremendous and companies are springing up everywhere. The field is growing at an amazing rate and its standards have yet to be developed or even agreed upon. Training professionals who want to be seen as providing value to an organization must create programs that are tied to business problems and opportunities, and these links must be understood and supported by management. It is essential to link e-learning goals to business goals to ensure the ultimate success of the entire e-learning program. Without support from top management, an e-learning program will probably not survive. E-learning programs require significant resources for development and support and the cooperation of several departments within the organization. If the support from top management isn’t there, it needs to be developed. It is critical to include the IT department early in the development of an e-learning strategy. Often IT is not included until the actual implementation and this can lead to the failure of the e-learning program. The implementation of an e-learning program will require collaboration between the training department and the IT department. This collaboration will most likely be new to both departments, hence the need for establishing standards for working together considering that the standards should be established jointly, with both departments agreeing to expectations and roles. The courses to convert from traditional delivery methods to online delivery should be carefully chosen. The first courses must be successful to not endanger the entire program objectives and its further development and to achieve this one of the most important things is getting learners accustomed to technology if they are not already technically adept. One must start with a mall number of courses and create a plan for integrating e-learning into current training programs. The marketing on the other hand should include an introduction to the e-learning program, promoting it, and maintaining and increasing usage over time. Some ways to accomplish the marketing of e-learning program include the integration of e-learning programs into new employee orientation programs. Incorporating e-learning programs into employee development plans and performance improvement initiatives. Educating managers and supervisors about the program and how they can incorporate it in employee development and performance improvement. Using e-mail to promote e-learning and its benefits by promoting specific courses and providing information about the benefits of e-learning programs. Providing for recognition of employees who take e-learning courses. Evaluating e-learning programs in order to improve the areas that are weak.
Today “e-“learning” becomes one of the most up-to-date expressions. That is why it becomes very important to be aware of some didactical and technological aspects during the development process of any e-learning course. The strong expectations that high level technological tools will increase the quality of any e-learning course often follow to an underestimation of the educational objectives being set. The crucial dilemma is not about what technological tools are to be used during the development process of e-learning courses but how to design and plan an e-learning course that ensures the achievement of the educational objectives. All the e-learning related technologies advance very rapidly while the methodology on how to apply them drops behind. The didactical issues of e-learning can be split in two main directions: One considering the development of e-learning environments while the other attends to the development of learning content and implementation of e-learning courses. Nevertheless the European Committee underlines the necessity of pedagogically develop sound and practically useful standards and specifications. A modern e-learning environment not only has to offer the most recent technologies but it has to possess high level of usability also. In the didactical structure of more e-learning courses the educational objectives are described, but usually they are only described without a feed back with learning content and measurement of level of achievement of the set learning objectives. Technologies for education existed before the current ones. Most of the research on technology for education agrees on such findings as that the real potential of education cannot be found through a technological approach alone; the computer per se superimposed on traditional forms of teaching cannot improve the quality or productivity of teaching. The didactic advantages of the substrate offered by the media in contributing to and injecting enthusiasm into information, the simulation of micro-worlds, the transparency of the classroom walls allowing students to access information in any domain underline however, the lacunae in describing the pedagogic context in which the tools are to be used. The benefits for the use of technology should not be expected only inside the reduced cognitive sphere of knowledge. Despite the desired convergence between objectives, methods fostering learning and added-value use of ICT tools, one important element brought to light is the time and effort these in-depth reforms require. Experience shows that these changes from a traditional pedagogical mode to a new one, supported or not by technological tools, go through different phases: a phase of “assimilation” in which the new tools are used and a phase of “accommodation” in which the new tools find its particular domain. This movement between assimilation and accommodation demands time, effort, and a driving force. The availability of the tools and favourable circumstances such as the ones we have described here will not automatically lead to the reforms we have described. E-learning continues to grow at a tremendous and companies are springing up everywhere. The field is growing at an amazing rate and its standards have yet to be developed or even agreed upon. Training professionals who want to be seen as providing value to an organization must create programs that are tied to business problems and opportunities, and these links must be understood and supported by management. It is essential to link e-learning goals to business goals to ensure the ultimate success of the entire e-learning program. Without support from top management, an e-learning program will probably not survive. E-learning programs require significant resources for development and support and the cooperation of several departments within the organization. If the support from top management isn’t there, it needs to be developed. It is critical to include the IT department early in the development of an e-learning strategy. Often IT is not included until the actual implementation and this can lead to the failure of the e-learning program. The implementation of an e-learning program will require collaboration between the training department and the IT department. This collaboration will most likely be new to both departments, hence the need for establishing standards for working together considering that the standards should be established jointly, with both departments agreeing to expectations and roles. The courses to convert from traditional delivery methods to online delivery should be carefully chosen. The first courses must be successful to not endanger the entire program objectives and its further development and to achieve this one of the most important things is getting learners accustomed to technology if they are not already technically adept. One must start with a mall number of courses and create a plan for integrating e-learning into current training programs. The marketing on the other hand should include an introduction to the e-learning program, promoting it, and maintaining and increasing usage over time. Some ways to accomplish the marketing of e-learning program include the integration of e-learning programs into new employee orientation programs. Incorporating e-learning programs into employee development plans and performance improvement initiatives. Educating managers and supervisors about the program and how they can incorporate it in employee development and performance improvement. Using e-mail to promote e-learning and its benefits by promoting specific courses and providing information about the benefits of e-learning programs. Providing for recognition of employees who take e-learning courses. Evaluating e-learning programs in order to improve the areas that are weak.
weaknesses and threats
Threats
Some teachers may not be sensible to the needs related with pedagogy of sex education, and feel they don’t need training.
Teachers (trainees) may not adhere to the online format and prefer presential courses.
Authenticity of practical skills development may be questioned.
E-learning has some disadvantages related with loneliness, motivation and time management issues, depending on the trainees’ characteristics.
Technology has an ever-changing dynamic nature and raising costs.
There may occur technical problems during the course.
Lack of time to attend the course by the trainees
Frequent Law changings adding new requirements to teacher activities.
Distance mode may get less preference than contact mode.Need of getting programmes accredited.
Weaknesses
No adaptation of the course contents to the online format, all contents have to be developed.
Trainers may not have enough expertise to adapt the contents, there might be a need to search for help related to the content design.
No institutional teachers assessment plan except the general teachers evaluation law, no references about teachers performance on sex education classes.
Teachers different ICT skills.
Due to work teachers (trainees), may have problems following the course, as a result they may use a lighter approach to self-study.
Computers available for the teachers but they may feel some difficulties to access the course outside school, depending on their home equipments.
School’s wireless network has frequent bandwidth overloads.
School may not have enough funds to support unexpected expenses.
School depends on the General Council for decision making, which might delay the promptness of the project.
Some teachers may not be sensible to the needs related with pedagogy of sex education, and feel they don’t need training.
Teachers (trainees) may not adhere to the online format and prefer presential courses.
Authenticity of practical skills development may be questioned.
E-learning has some disadvantages related with loneliness, motivation and time management issues, depending on the trainees’ characteristics.
Technology has an ever-changing dynamic nature and raising costs.
There may occur technical problems during the course.
Lack of time to attend the course by the trainees
Frequent Law changings adding new requirements to teacher activities.
Distance mode may get less preference than contact mode.Need of getting programmes accredited.
Weaknesses
No adaptation of the course contents to the online format, all contents have to be developed.
Trainers may not have enough expertise to adapt the contents, there might be a need to search for help related to the content design.
No institutional teachers assessment plan except the general teachers evaluation law, no references about teachers performance on sex education classes.
Teachers different ICT skills.
Due to work teachers (trainees), may have problems following the course, as a result they may use a lighter approach to self-study.
Computers available for the teachers but they may feel some difficulties to access the course outside school, depending on their home equipments.
School’s wireless network has frequent bandwidth overloads.
School may not have enough funds to support unexpected expenses.
School depends on the General Council for decision making, which might delay the promptness of the project.
eLearning with Claroline
Marcel Lebrun
IPM/ UCL
lebrun@ipm.ucl.ac.be
Claroline is a free LMS, online learning management system developed in PHP/MySQL, which is an Internet based database programming language. Originally developped in the IPM, Institut de Pédagogie universitaire et des multimedias of the UCL, Université Catholique de Louvain, it results now from a collaboration between the former and the ECAM, Institut Supérieur Industriel, both from Belgium.
A platform from teacher for teacher
The teacher training philosophy of IPM is to develop the teacher autonomy concerning pedagogy and, furthermore the good use of technical tools in pedagogy. This main objective was expected to be met by allowing teachers to make experimentations, to discover the need for a sound pedagogy and so to foster pedagogy in university teaching. IPM intended, 5 years ago, to use WebCT but the autonomy requirement failed behind the difficulties to develop courses with this platform. In a team meeting, we develop the idea that a large percentage of the teachers needs may be fulfilled with approximately five or six functionalities like : publishing documents and announcements, giving students tools to develop activities and to demonstrate their competences, allowing interactions between students and with teachers.
Simplicity of use and independence concerning pedagogical setup were the leitmotivs of the development and accompaniment teams. Yet, in our traditional university, the platform would allow traditional “lectures”, autonomous learning, blended learning or real distance learning. As far pedagogy is concerned, the possibilities will range from documents delivering to problem and project based learning with a special attention paid to collaborative eLearning. Also, this platform which supports evolution in the teachers uses may act as a catalyst for pedagogical innovation and faculty development.
A pedagogical model for eLearning
A wide variety of models concerning eLearning developments (or instructional design) exist but these are often scarce about pedagogical fundament. The purpose is not to constrain pedagogical considerations in one definitive model but to discern some pillars on which to build effective pedagogical setup.
The purpose of these educational tools is to promote learning but how to do that without a small knowledge about the nature and the conditions of learning ?
In searching for a dynamic model for learning, we have investigated many authors (Combs, 1976; Saljo, 1979; Biggs & Telfer, 1987; Savoie & Hughes, 1994) who attempt to describe this process. We have also tried to federate a lot of “learner-centered” factors derived from the American Psychological Association (APA, 1997). In addition, learning factors that are particularly well boosted by ICT and derived from educational technology research are embedded in this model (Means & Olson, 1994; Dijkstra et al., 2001). The figure below shows the results presented as a dynamic adaption of our five poles model (Lebrun, 1999) somehow provocating because oversimplified.
Figure 1. Dynamic representation of our learning model
As we will see, this figure may act as a check-list in order to properly design or evaluate a large variety of “devices” devoted to learning promotion : textbooks (the nature, the structure, the attributes and the lay-out of the information), pedagogical software (the context of the proposed activities or the directives to be followed), educational web sites (the activities proposed to the students or the place of the web site in the pedagogical scenario), pedagogical plans (carefully considered individual and collaborative activities), students’ output … This model may finally be used, to boost, design and evaluate innovation inside an institution (Lebrun, 2002; Lebrun, 2005).
In the centre, the three rectangles are inspired by the constructivist approach: briefly, information is transformed into knowledge by the student activities and this new knowledge feeds the following process (systemic loop). This process is enabled by motivational factors and sustained by interaction (from the environment - functional interaction) or from other students and from teachers (relational interaction)).
Our model is in good concordance with the M. D. Merrill “first principles of instruction (Merrill, 2000). Describing these principles is a good opportunity to illustrate again the openness and wideness of our model :
Learning is facilitated when students are engaged in the solving of real problems (informations and motivation)
Learning is facilitated when prior knowledge is activated and questioned with new contexts (informations and motivation)
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is explicated, demonstrated and justified (informations, activities)
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is applied by the learners (activities, productions)
Learning is facilitated new knowledge is integrated into the learner's world (productions).
Despite the fact that Merrill’s principles cover rather well our Learning components, mention should be made for the lack of the “interaction” part which makes us belonging to socio-constructivism. In all cases, Merrill uses this model as a guideline for the development of pertinent pedagogical setup (5 star instructional design rating) … it’s also the way we intend to use our own model.
The main components of our model are also coherent with expectations of various actors for the competences needed in the society (information gathering, autonomy, communication, abilities for team work …) and may be undertaken by the tools developed on Claroline. (Evers et al., 1998, Knight & Yorke, 2004).
Lets see how.
Tools to promote learning
In eLearning, the most important factor is not the “e” which comes from eLectricity or eLectronics as you like. In eLearning, the main point, for us, stays Learning and so we intend to go deeply in these learning enhancing factors .
The learning factors embedded in Claroline need to be enlightened in order to be useful for teachers. We will try to discern some considerations useful when one develop a pedagogical setup “around” Claroline.
What’s about information given as a starting point for learning ?
What will be the context (content source and setup) which will give the way knowledge is used, the objectives of the learning process, the competences to be acquired ?
What are the tools (analysis grid, experimental protocol, evaluation sheet …) given to the students in order they will be able to construct active new knowledge and useful new competences ?
Are the different work stages well balanced between collaborative work, individual appropriation and synthesis by teachers ?
Are the sudents aware about the objectives, the products, the conditions of learning … the signs of completed learning ?
Using the five poles or pillars of our mode, we will now give some very concrete advices deduced from our model :
Information
The different forms around « knowing » (knowing, knowing how to do, knowing how to be) are often reduced to knowledge and knowledge seems to be often confused with information. The information society is quickly (too quickly) become learning society. For a lot of teachers attracted by eLearning, the most important operation is still to provide information : publishing his PowerPoint seems to be the most common use of the « eLectricity learning ». But, we have seen that this use of the publication feature is somehow only one step in the discovery of the platform by the teacher. After some times and good training conditions, he will go deeper in innovation by using other available tools.
Montaigne, some centuries ago, said that « the student is not only one vase to be filled. It is a fire to be lit ».
What can be done ?
To transmit contents (only a first step)
To inform about the scenario, the pedagogical setup
To give learning objectives and evaluation criteria
To illustrate the context
To show the way from prior knowledge and competences to new ones
To give tools in order to assess new knowledge (grid, evaluation sheet …)
To provide resources with small granularities
To provide well chosen web links
Claroline tools like documents and links, announcements, agenda, home page of the course … are tools suitable for these purposes.
Motivation
There is a lot of motivation theories. These generally postulate the importance of contextual factors enabling the representation a student may have about the future situation and the work he has to perform in order to acquire new knowledges and competences.
Following Viau’s theory (Viau, 1994), important factors are : understanding of future competences to be acquired, interest and value of the task, feeling about the control over the tasks to be done … All these feelings originate in the scenario and the context of the activities. Learning effective activities are grounded in everyday and professional realities. The knowledge about the activities is important to develop a “security” feeling about the learning task.
What can be done ?
Underline prior knowledge and “already there” competences
Clarify objectives
Illustrate and underline the importance of new knowledge and competences
Enlighten the context of use of knowledge
State precisely instructions and agendas
Comment over the interest and the value of the task
What are the degrees of freedom and the controllable part of the activities ?
What are the elements of interaction, feedback ?
Claroline tools like course description, Documents and links, announcements, agenda, learning path, home page of the course … are tools suitable for these purposes.
Activities
Quality learning don’t arise only from transmissive methods (transferring contents from books to students head). Not even from collaborative or interpersonal work ! It needs a personal “internal” work to assimilate new knowledge into earlier cognitive structure. Humans don’t learn online, they learn “per se”. So a most important part of learning is not embedded in the technological tool, nor only in the pedagogical setup. It’s necessary to give students tools in order to facilitate this intrapersonal work, to figure out the achieved task and the work still to be done, to assess the efficacy of the acquired knowledge.
What can be done ?
Give a time scenario showing the different steps
Propose tools in order to work through informations (analysis grid, exercise, …)
Consider also activities out of the platform (library and Internet exist also outside the platform)
Be progressive, diversified and coherent over the different activities
Give tools (exercises mainly) in order to assess new knowledge
Alternate readings, exercises, problems, applications, cases
Give activities with the objective to produce or demonstrate something
Alternate individual (convergent) and collaborative (divergent) work
Claroline tools like course description, exercises, learning path, assignments, forums … are tools suitable for these purposes.
Interaction
For Cohen, quoted by Bourgeois and Nizet (1997), a collaborative task is defined as a set of activities divided in different operations or steps and aiming at the realisation of a goal. It should be complex (not easily achievable by one person) and open (different operations or steps are possible) and should request real exchanges between the participants. students’ learning. Furthermore, this influence seems to work rather at the affective level than at the “productive” one. The students need to be supported and to know that someone pays attention to their urges and expectations all the way through the project.
Generally speaking, there is collaboration when a “positive interdependence of goals” is achieved (one will reach his or her goal if everybody succeeds). Competition, in this way, is a “negative interdependence of goals”
What can be done ?
Choose appropriate tasks (needing really team work)
Produce group instructions and shape activities in order to promote interdependence
Acknowledge for multiple points of view
Give opportunity to exert critical thinking
Send feedbacks to students
Give time for personal appropriation
Find a good “middle point” between flexibility and constraints, between divergent thinking and synthesis
Take advantage of the use of writing (in forums)
Use properly advantages of synchronous and asynchronous tools
Claroline tools like users, forums, groups, chat, wiki but also agenda, announcements … are tools suitable for these purposes
Productions
Above all, learning is a process but products may not be discarded as important signs of achieved learning. Computers are tools, production tools. This means that a lot of productions may be developed outside the platform by using usual office tools. An important motivation tool is also to develop something of his or her own, to do his work in an open space.
What can be done ?
Produce and recognize new knowledge
Give the opportunity to build an object, a writing, a sign … a new knowledge
Provide time for publication, communication, sharing of findings
Design activities to evaluate objects with criteria
Design activities to elucidate acquired and missing knowledge and competences
Highlight new questions, new challenges
Make students curious and aware foe a new learning process
Claroline tools like assignments, exercises, forums but also documents, learning path … are tools suitable for these purposes
A synthetic model for eLearning with Claroline
As a check-list for pedagogical set-up development or evaluation, we propose the next picture with our learning model surrounded (and somehow activated) by the Claroline tools.
Marcel Lebrun
IPM/ UCL
lebrun@ipm.ucl.ac.be
Claroline is a free LMS, online learning management system developed in PHP/MySQL, which is an Internet based database programming language. Originally developped in the IPM, Institut de Pédagogie universitaire et des multimedias of the UCL, Université Catholique de Louvain, it results now from a collaboration between the former and the ECAM, Institut Supérieur Industriel, both from Belgium.
A platform from teacher for teacher
The teacher training philosophy of IPM is to develop the teacher autonomy concerning pedagogy and, furthermore the good use of technical tools in pedagogy. This main objective was expected to be met by allowing teachers to make experimentations, to discover the need for a sound pedagogy and so to foster pedagogy in university teaching. IPM intended, 5 years ago, to use WebCT but the autonomy requirement failed behind the difficulties to develop courses with this platform. In a team meeting, we develop the idea that a large percentage of the teachers needs may be fulfilled with approximately five or six functionalities like : publishing documents and announcements, giving students tools to develop activities and to demonstrate their competences, allowing interactions between students and with teachers.
Simplicity of use and independence concerning pedagogical setup were the leitmotivs of the development and accompaniment teams. Yet, in our traditional university, the platform would allow traditional “lectures”, autonomous learning, blended learning or real distance learning. As far pedagogy is concerned, the possibilities will range from documents delivering to problem and project based learning with a special attention paid to collaborative eLearning. Also, this platform which supports evolution in the teachers uses may act as a catalyst for pedagogical innovation and faculty development.
A pedagogical model for eLearning
A wide variety of models concerning eLearning developments (or instructional design) exist but these are often scarce about pedagogical fundament. The purpose is not to constrain pedagogical considerations in one definitive model but to discern some pillars on which to build effective pedagogical setup.
The purpose of these educational tools is to promote learning but how to do that without a small knowledge about the nature and the conditions of learning ?
In searching for a dynamic model for learning, we have investigated many authors (Combs, 1976; Saljo, 1979; Biggs & Telfer, 1987; Savoie & Hughes, 1994) who attempt to describe this process. We have also tried to federate a lot of “learner-centered” factors derived from the American Psychological Association (APA, 1997). In addition, learning factors that are particularly well boosted by ICT and derived from educational technology research are embedded in this model (Means & Olson, 1994; Dijkstra et al., 2001). The figure below shows the results presented as a dynamic adaption of our five poles model (Lebrun, 1999) somehow provocating because oversimplified.
Figure 1. Dynamic representation of our learning model
As we will see, this figure may act as a check-list in order to properly design or evaluate a large variety of “devices” devoted to learning promotion : textbooks (the nature, the structure, the attributes and the lay-out of the information), pedagogical software (the context of the proposed activities or the directives to be followed), educational web sites (the activities proposed to the students or the place of the web site in the pedagogical scenario), pedagogical plans (carefully considered individual and collaborative activities), students’ output … This model may finally be used, to boost, design and evaluate innovation inside an institution (Lebrun, 2002; Lebrun, 2005).
In the centre, the three rectangles are inspired by the constructivist approach: briefly, information is transformed into knowledge by the student activities and this new knowledge feeds the following process (systemic loop). This process is enabled by motivational factors and sustained by interaction (from the environment - functional interaction) or from other students and from teachers (relational interaction)).
Our model is in good concordance with the M. D. Merrill “first principles of instruction (Merrill, 2000). Describing these principles is a good opportunity to illustrate again the openness and wideness of our model :
Learning is facilitated when students are engaged in the solving of real problems (informations and motivation)
Learning is facilitated when prior knowledge is activated and questioned with new contexts (informations and motivation)
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is explicated, demonstrated and justified (informations, activities)
Learning is facilitated when new knowledge is applied by the learners (activities, productions)
Learning is facilitated new knowledge is integrated into the learner's world (productions).
Despite the fact that Merrill’s principles cover rather well our Learning components, mention should be made for the lack of the “interaction” part which makes us belonging to socio-constructivism. In all cases, Merrill uses this model as a guideline for the development of pertinent pedagogical setup (5 star instructional design rating) … it’s also the way we intend to use our own model.
The main components of our model are also coherent with expectations of various actors for the competences needed in the society (information gathering, autonomy, communication, abilities for team work …) and may be undertaken by the tools developed on Claroline. (Evers et al., 1998, Knight & Yorke, 2004).
Lets see how.
Tools to promote learning
In eLearning, the most important factor is not the “e” which comes from eLectricity or eLectronics as you like. In eLearning, the main point, for us, stays Learning and so we intend to go deeply in these learning enhancing factors .
The learning factors embedded in Claroline need to be enlightened in order to be useful for teachers. We will try to discern some considerations useful when one develop a pedagogical setup “around” Claroline.
What’s about information given as a starting point for learning ?
What will be the context (content source and setup) which will give the way knowledge is used, the objectives of the learning process, the competences to be acquired ?
What are the tools (analysis grid, experimental protocol, evaluation sheet …) given to the students in order they will be able to construct active new knowledge and useful new competences ?
Are the different work stages well balanced between collaborative work, individual appropriation and synthesis by teachers ?
Are the sudents aware about the objectives, the products, the conditions of learning … the signs of completed learning ?
Using the five poles or pillars of our mode, we will now give some very concrete advices deduced from our model :
Information
The different forms around « knowing » (knowing, knowing how to do, knowing how to be) are often reduced to knowledge and knowledge seems to be often confused with information. The information society is quickly (too quickly) become learning society. For a lot of teachers attracted by eLearning, the most important operation is still to provide information : publishing his PowerPoint seems to be the most common use of the « eLectricity learning ». But, we have seen that this use of the publication feature is somehow only one step in the discovery of the platform by the teacher. After some times and good training conditions, he will go deeper in innovation by using other available tools.
Montaigne, some centuries ago, said that « the student is not only one vase to be filled. It is a fire to be lit ».
What can be done ?
To transmit contents (only a first step)
To inform about the scenario, the pedagogical setup
To give learning objectives and evaluation criteria
To illustrate the context
To show the way from prior knowledge and competences to new ones
To give tools in order to assess new knowledge (grid, evaluation sheet …)
To provide resources with small granularities
To provide well chosen web links
Claroline tools like documents and links, announcements, agenda, home page of the course … are tools suitable for these purposes.
Motivation
There is a lot of motivation theories. These generally postulate the importance of contextual factors enabling the representation a student may have about the future situation and the work he has to perform in order to acquire new knowledges and competences.
Following Viau’s theory (Viau, 1994), important factors are : understanding of future competences to be acquired, interest and value of the task, feeling about the control over the tasks to be done … All these feelings originate in the scenario and the context of the activities. Learning effective activities are grounded in everyday and professional realities. The knowledge about the activities is important to develop a “security” feeling about the learning task.
What can be done ?
Underline prior knowledge and “already there” competences
Clarify objectives
Illustrate and underline the importance of new knowledge and competences
Enlighten the context of use of knowledge
State precisely instructions and agendas
Comment over the interest and the value of the task
What are the degrees of freedom and the controllable part of the activities ?
What are the elements of interaction, feedback ?
Claroline tools like course description, Documents and links, announcements, agenda, learning path, home page of the course … are tools suitable for these purposes.
Activities
Quality learning don’t arise only from transmissive methods (transferring contents from books to students head). Not even from collaborative or interpersonal work ! It needs a personal “internal” work to assimilate new knowledge into earlier cognitive structure. Humans don’t learn online, they learn “per se”. So a most important part of learning is not embedded in the technological tool, nor only in the pedagogical setup. It’s necessary to give students tools in order to facilitate this intrapersonal work, to figure out the achieved task and the work still to be done, to assess the efficacy of the acquired knowledge.
What can be done ?
Give a time scenario showing the different steps
Propose tools in order to work through informations (analysis grid, exercise, …)
Consider also activities out of the platform (library and Internet exist also outside the platform)
Be progressive, diversified and coherent over the different activities
Give tools (exercises mainly) in order to assess new knowledge
Alternate readings, exercises, problems, applications, cases
Give activities with the objective to produce or demonstrate something
Alternate individual (convergent) and collaborative (divergent) work
Claroline tools like course description, exercises, learning path, assignments, forums … are tools suitable for these purposes.
Interaction
For Cohen, quoted by Bourgeois and Nizet (1997), a collaborative task is defined as a set of activities divided in different operations or steps and aiming at the realisation of a goal. It should be complex (not easily achievable by one person) and open (different operations or steps are possible) and should request real exchanges between the participants. students’ learning. Furthermore, this influence seems to work rather at the affective level than at the “productive” one. The students need to be supported and to know that someone pays attention to their urges and expectations all the way through the project.
Generally speaking, there is collaboration when a “positive interdependence of goals” is achieved (one will reach his or her goal if everybody succeeds). Competition, in this way, is a “negative interdependence of goals”
What can be done ?
Choose appropriate tasks (needing really team work)
Produce group instructions and shape activities in order to promote interdependence
Acknowledge for multiple points of view
Give opportunity to exert critical thinking
Send feedbacks to students
Give time for personal appropriation
Find a good “middle point” between flexibility and constraints, between divergent thinking and synthesis
Take advantage of the use of writing (in forums)
Use properly advantages of synchronous and asynchronous tools
Claroline tools like users, forums, groups, chat, wiki but also agenda, announcements … are tools suitable for these purposes
Productions
Above all, learning is a process but products may not be discarded as important signs of achieved learning. Computers are tools, production tools. This means that a lot of productions may be developed outside the platform by using usual office tools. An important motivation tool is also to develop something of his or her own, to do his work in an open space.
What can be done ?
Produce and recognize new knowledge
Give the opportunity to build an object, a writing, a sign … a new knowledge
Provide time for publication, communication, sharing of findings
Design activities to evaluate objects with criteria
Design activities to elucidate acquired and missing knowledge and competences
Highlight new questions, new challenges
Make students curious and aware foe a new learning process
Claroline tools like assignments, exercises, forums but also documents, learning path … are tools suitable for these purposes
A synthetic model for eLearning with Claroline
As a check-list for pedagogical set-up development or evaluation, we propose the next picture with our learning model surrounded (and somehow activated) by the Claroline tools.
sábado, 20 de março de 2010
Designing for active learning: A conversation
Abstract
There is much written on the benefits of applying reflective processes to unit developments for online learning and teaching. However, there is little information on how this can be done practically. This article presents a collaborative unit development between lecturer and educational designer, driven by a reflective action framework to provide a systematic process for designing an online Masters unit in the Faculty of Education. The framework, based on Kemmis and McTaggart’s action research spiral (1988), helped to strengthen the collaboration by promoting the need for a shared understanding of the development undertaken. Use of student feedback from previous years and principles of effective teaching were paramount in deciding upon the way the unit should be re-designed. This process was recorded in a working document and exchanged over a four month period, bringing together key elements, our ‘thematic concerns’, such as promoting student centredness, advocating reflective practice and designing for active learning. Development is still to be completed and the redeveloped unit will be delivered in first semester of 2005.
Background perspectives
Nowadays a team of professionals supports lecturers in the online learning and teaching context, one such role being that of the educational designer. Torrisi-Steele and Davis (2000) say that lecturers’ expectations and experiences of online materials development is critical in planning and structuring support to address their needs. Interactions with educational designers can culminate in positive changes to teaching practice.
The lecturer, Umesh, works in the Faculty of Education and has a background in inclusive and special education. He has delivered his units online for the past two years. He is computer literate and uses web page design programs and online learning management systems, with a small amount of support. Most of his students are working teachers in primary and secondary education, who have returned to study to enhance their understanding of and gain qualifications in special education and inclusion. Students are obliged to participate online and are most likely to be studying off-campus.
The educational designer, Margaret, works at the University’s Centre for Learning and Teaching Support, and has experience in developing online learning environments and supporting staff development activities in online learning and teaching. Umesh and Margaret share an interest in reflective teaching practice. It is this shared interest that sparked the emerging conversation captured in this article over a four month period and has informed the development of the online unit discussed.
Methodology
This paper highlights the more intangible elements of the collaborative relationship experienced between lecturer (Umesh) and educational designer (Margaret), by applying a reflective action framework to the unit development. The literature has emphasised the need for wider, more discerning application of learning and teaching practices that are underpinned by a shared understanding of sound pedagogical theory; for example, the use of reflective practices (McArdle & Coutts 2003, Boud & Walker 1998, Hardy & Benson 2002) and action research (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, George 2002).
We employed Kemmis and McTaggart’s model of action research for reflective practice to develop a reflective action framework, a conversational framework that has provided us with a systematic approach to the unit development. Kemmis & McTaggart see reflection as analysing, synthesising, interpreting, explaining and drawing conclusions, based on a ‘thematic concern’ (1998:86). We were eager to capture our discussions as a way to highlight our thematic concerns, which were, designing for active learning and enhancing reflective practice in students as well as in our own professional development. Our points for discussion could be described as a series of ‘action steps’ as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988:86) affirm, to begin thinking about the implications for progressive action over time and deciding what to do next.
The key elements we discussed include active learning, the value of reflective practice as good teaching practice and promoting student centredness in online learning. Student centredness was informed by student feedback from the past two years in which the unit has been offered. The lecturer has encouraged students to provide him feedback in order to make improvements to the unit according to their needs, experiences and insights. Student feedback is a powerful catalyst in bringing about effective change in a unit, especially in online learning environments (Mason & Weller 2000, Torrisi-Steele & Davis 2000, Brown & Thompson 1997, Lefoe, et al. 2002, Bishop, 2002). One major concern students had was that the unit was not structured for active and meaningful interaction between students. Lack of peer interaction is a major concern for learners who participate in online learning environments (Fisher, et al. 2000, Mason & Weller, 2000). In order to address this and other concerns, a Unit Innovation Grant application was submitted to the faculty and subsequently approved.
The development is still to be completed and the redeveloped unit will be delivered in first semester of 2005. Figure 2 outlines our reflective action framework, highlighting the key elements that moved our discussions, and subsequent development decisions, forward.
Our conversation began with a discussion on active learning and reflective practice, informed by a number of readings, from which sprang our initial motivations to enhance good teaching practice. This intersected with our ongoing discussions on student centredness, informed by student feedback, placing value on the student voice throughout the unit development. Our methodology emerged from this, echoing Kemmis and McTaggart’s action research spiral, indicative of moments, or ‘action steps’, taken during the development process.
How can I make learning more active for students?
Umesh: The first question I asked Margaret was; how can I make learning more active for my students? Students had indicated to me that although they enjoyed the unit generally, they found the online environment boring and they didn’t engage with the material or each other for that matter.
Margaret: I was keen to find out more about the student cohort and to understand the background of the unit more generally, to begin development. I could see that Umesh had a clear idea of what he wanted to achieve in redeveloping his unit and he seemed very focused on making students’ learning more active.
Umesh: I wanted to ensure that students’ concerns were addressed when redesigning the unit, and to actively engage students in a motivating online environment. I have always provided activities, but didn’t feel that students were really committed to carrying out these activities.
Margaret: I shared Umesh’s concerns after I conducted a short review of the unit, seeing the need to move beyond the ‘read then do’ approach. From his initial unit structure, I could see that the activities mainly required students to read an article then post their thoughts to the online discussion forum. This usually occurred on a weekly basis.
We wanted to focus the unit development primarily on engaging students actively online. Active learning encourages students to act on information: putting ideas into written form; drawing ideas together and analysing them; interacting with others to further develop ideas. (Brown & Thompson 1997, online). We began our conversation by discussing the nature of the student group and the anecdotal feedback Umesh had collected from previous years. Students not satisfied with the unit in the past, cited the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
no or limited knowledge of computers
boring environment- online learning is nothing more than a textbook online
limited interaction with students
hesitation to interact with other students
limited opportunity to meet with the lecturer
overwhelming number of online messages to respond to and
too many online readings.
However, there were some aspects of the unit that students thought were very good. We were careful not to lose these aspects already developed in the unit, as students stated that they were more able to:
examine their current teaching practice
be more reflective
consider the needs of students with disabilities
explore and critique a range of strategies to develop inclusive teaching practice
heighten their awareness of the implications for students with disabilities of any nature
undertake more active, critical questioning
see how the readings and assignments strengthened the case for inclusive teaching practice
develop their confidence to promote inclusion to others and
develop cooperative relationships with teachers and students in their work settings.
Students generally commented that overall, the unit was relevant, challenging and hard work. In an effort to develop the unit structure to enhance active learning, we are convinced that the design of online learning materials revolves around the student. A student centred approach encourages students to interact with the content (and with one another) in the learning environment, as opposed to more ‘traditional’ approaches where the transmission of content is more the focus (Torrisi-Steele & Davis 2000:285).
We considered Lefoe, Gunn and Hedberg’s (2002) eight recommendations for teaching in a distributed learning environment, as identified from the students’ point of view, to reconstruct the unit activities to engage students in more meaningful learning.
Set me clear role expectations
Talk to me
Provide opportunity to work and talk with other students
Choose the best medium for the task at hand
Teach me to use the technology
Provide resources I can use
Let me know what support is available and
Guide me through the administrative nightmare. (2002: paras. 25-37)
Umesh: Originally, I had set up weekly discussion topics to which students must post a response within that week. This meant little time for socialising elements, so students naturally felt a stranger to others in the unit.
Margaret: I believe socialisation is important to engage students who have not met face to face, yet are asked to interact with one another online. I was keen to re-design activities to include social elements and build a learning space for ongoing discussion between students.
Umesh: I could see, after working with Margaret, that the emphasis was on the task, with little context in which students could generate meaningful discussion with others, especially in the short time given to complete activities. These activities were also dislocated and didn’t connect together to form an overall learning experience.
Margaret: I often like to include some structured orientation to the online environment, providing students with help tutorials, tip sheets, audio help and links to student support services. This is important to help students feel more at ease with the technology, so it becomes less of a chore and they can focus on the essence of the learning instead.
Activity and active learning is often most effective when designed with moments and spaces for reflection and review. Sufficient time for thinking, as well as for reading, responding, reciprocating and formulating further responses, should be provided in structuring online activities. This promotes deeper levels of understanding; engaging in more abstract thinking, rather than superficial, didactic expressions, which usually results in a regurgitation of facts and figures or decontextualised quotations.
There seems to be a preconceived notion that communications within a formal educational setting should be devoid of social elements. Thankfully, this is far from the truth! Without developing elements of familiarity and trust amongst students, processes such as group work and group discussions, including online discussion forums, cannot become meaningful. We are inherently social beings and should not dismiss these elements as trivial, but essential to establishing meaningful environments for learning. By engaging students socially we encourage them to do so in their own teaching sites. In the unit development, we sought to have Umesh model what he hoped to see in his students. Modelling ‘good’ teaching is the first step to engaging others in good teaching practice.
How can I encourage reflective practice in online learning?
Umesh: I felt it was important for us to build a shared understanding of the literature on active learning while collaborating on the unit development. I asked Margaret for any readings that demonstrated reflective practice in education and active learning, in our first development meeting.
Margaret: I presented Umesh with a reading by McArdle & Coutts (2003) and also referred him to the work on action research by Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) and Grundy (1995). In return, Umesh provided me with readings on inclusive education. Although I had a teacher education background, I had not touched on inclusion specifically.
Umesh: It has been great to have Margaret as a ‘sounding board’ for refining ideas for the unit development. This is also evident in the literature (Torrisi-Steele & Davis 2000, Hardy & Benson 2002).
Margaret: I could tell that Umesh was interested in his teaching and in seeing his students learn. He also showed a personal preference for reflective processes, which I immediately connected with and so I suggested we capitalise on this and have Umesh model this in his teaching.
We wanted to capture the development process in order to reflect on the ‘action steps’, or changes, as they occurred, rather than on a specific end product. We recorded these changes in a document, which grew into a weekly unit outline. This document has helped us both to monitor the process of development, insofar as it has provided a common or shared ground on which the development is based. Kemmis and McTaggart talk of the need to change the social relationships, discourses, practices and forms of organisation, in order to truly improve education. It is through these changes that we can sustain improvement and by our reflections, steer our next ‘action steps’ in a process of continuous change (1988:44).
As we found early on, a useful, structured framework, which accounts for time, resources and some background information, informs those areas needing development. McArdle and Coutts (2003) describe the ‘good’ teacher as displaying a set of core qualities, which provide a basis for reflective practice. These are confidence, ballast, value maturity, strength and balance. These, together with a strong core of sense making, shape and are shaped by (shared) experiences. It could be said that apart from the practical elements that help to shape a ‘good’ online unit, these qualities must also be considered so as to produce an atmosphere of collaboration within which good unit design can occur. Understanding, willingness, openness, and positive expectations are all evidenced in ‘good’ teaching practice.
Sense making combines processes of reflection and meaning making, while arriving at judgements arising from, and applied to, professional practice. The key to this processing is that it allows connections to be made between different experiences and different forms of experience (McArdle & Coutts 2003:230).
In our attempts to make more sense of the ideas we discussed for the unit development, we put ourselves in the students’ shoes; empathising with, and valuing, their position. We took turns in acting out the student role, in the form of a short scenario, where the ‘student’ would complete a learning activity or navigate a unit web page. We found this useful to not only reflect on the students’ position in the learning environment, but also to be open to accommodate any changes or adaptations that emerged from our reflections on the scenario. We were also conscious of the need for students to make sense and meaning of the learning activity. We also wanted to be sure that the student voice be heard throughout the development process.
We involved other staff in the later stages of the unit development, including a multimedia developer and faculty technical support staff, in response to the needs that had arisen in the development process. Hardy and Benson (2002) espouse that the reflective process occurring in development teams promotes healthy relationships in the team. It can also be seen as playing an essential role in design and development (2002:2). Torrisi-Steele & Davis concur that ‘…“it takes time to ‘re-jig’ thinking”’ and to reach a shared understanding between educational designer and lecturer (2000: para.52). This is a critical point in determining the outcomes of the collaboration.
The unit outline evolved over the four months with the addition of a unit multimedia matrix, shared between the lecturer, the educational designer and the multimedia developer, mapping out the interactive multimedia components to be designed. It was necessary to present a clear, meaningful picture of the multimedia needs to the multimedia developer. The matrix was only developed after about three months of meetings between the lecturer and the educational designer.
How can a lecturer and an educational designer work well together?
Margaret: I was curious to know Umesh’s opinion of working with an educational designer. I asked him what he thought an educational designer brought to a collaborative arrangement such as the one we had established.
Umesh: I saw an educational designer as a catalyst to change the way I looked at how technology can be used to make online learning more active for students. This collaboration differed say to the collaboration I might have with my faculty colleagues, as educational designers focus more on the learning and teaching process than the unit content. Margaret showed she understood the theoretical underpinnings of learning and teaching theory and I hoped we could build this into the unit development.
Margaret: I thought it was useful that we set up regular meeting times, starting once a week and extending to once a fortnight, as our discussions progressed and the unit took shape. It meant we were able to commit to and prepare for upcoming meetings, based on previous discussions, thus maintaining connectivity between the ideas we discussed.
The opportunity to meet on a regular basis was a key ingredient in the collaboration, as we both understood the need to make a commitment to set aside time and space to generate meaningful discussion. Lecturers often have other commitments that impede their time to meet with educational designers on a regular basis.
In managing our time for development, we were also mindful of the time students need, not only to undertake learning activities, but to be able to develop deeper understanding of theoretical concepts covered in the unit. We attempted to create structured activities that engaged students’ interests, encouraged their participation and linked them with other students to flesh out these activities based on their teaching experiences. Therefore, we endeavoured to link social, interactive elements with the need to cover the unit objectives.
The unit, in its pre-developed form, is currently offered online through the university’s web based portal, an information and communication system developed to integrate the resources and services provided by the university for its staff and student community. Figure 3 shows the unit homepage, as seen by students when they first log in to the portal. Figure 4 shows an example of a weekly web page, which outlines the work students must cover in that week. Contrast this with the more structured weekly page, resulting from our unit development, shown in Figure 5. This layout evolved from the discussions on setting out the tasks students should cover in the week, coupled with learning objectives and often including graphical or multimedia elements.
imagem
Conclusion
Finally, the unit development has been a great learning experience for us both. The outcome of the collaboration is, hopefully, a much improved unit. However, unless students feel the same way, and the unit can positively change students’ attitudes towards inclusive education, the ultimate objective of redesigning the unit will remain unachieved. The use of the reflective action framework presented in the methodology was very helpful for us in developing the unit. A willingness to accommodate each other’s ideas and adapt our approach as needed, were two key elements we thought paramount to the overall development process. Some other strategies that helped us included:
a) exchanging a working document to discuss and progress ideas for the unit development (including weekly tasks and use of multimedia)
b) regular meetings (weekly or fortnightly) with a strong commitment to spending time on developing ideas
c) constant use of valuable student feedback (both positive and negative)
d) empathising with students by acting out the student role and reflecting on the outcomes of the scenario and
e) exchanging readings on effective design for online learning (by the educational designer) and inclusive education (by the lecturer), to reach a shared understanding that helped to take the unit development forward.
Other points lecturers might generally consider when approaching a unit development include:
a very good understanding of your learners and their learning settings
a commitment to take time to develop elements to their full potential
an expectation that you will most likely work with others, such as educational designers, in developing your unit and
a willingness to try out ideas, without constraints, or fear of repercussion from faculty or students!
How we frame unit developments can mean the difference between acquiring skills and changing the culture of learning and teaching. As George (2002) states, it is important to underpin staff and learning and teaching development with sound pedagogical models from the outset, rather than retro-fitting in hindsight.
This article captures the reflections and deliberations of two educational practitioners over a four month period. The unit development discussed here continues. It is hoped that this article brings to the surface some of the intangible elements required for successful and meaningful unit developments, with collaborative arrangements paramount in supporting such elements. The educational designer seeks to support lecturers to deliver units online or in a blended mode to students, with empathy for both student and lecturer. The students ultimately determine the success of a unit development, their learning experience and how they see their learning being encouraged and supported.
There is much written on the benefits of applying reflective processes to unit developments for online learning and teaching. However, there is little information on how this can be done practically. This article presents a collaborative unit development between lecturer and educational designer, driven by a reflective action framework to provide a systematic process for designing an online Masters unit in the Faculty of Education. The framework, based on Kemmis and McTaggart’s action research spiral (1988), helped to strengthen the collaboration by promoting the need for a shared understanding of the development undertaken. Use of student feedback from previous years and principles of effective teaching were paramount in deciding upon the way the unit should be re-designed. This process was recorded in a working document and exchanged over a four month period, bringing together key elements, our ‘thematic concerns’, such as promoting student centredness, advocating reflective practice and designing for active learning. Development is still to be completed and the redeveloped unit will be delivered in first semester of 2005.
Background perspectives
Nowadays a team of professionals supports lecturers in the online learning and teaching context, one such role being that of the educational designer. Torrisi-Steele and Davis (2000) say that lecturers’ expectations and experiences of online materials development is critical in planning and structuring support to address their needs. Interactions with educational designers can culminate in positive changes to teaching practice.
The lecturer, Umesh, works in the Faculty of Education and has a background in inclusive and special education. He has delivered his units online for the past two years. He is computer literate and uses web page design programs and online learning management systems, with a small amount of support. Most of his students are working teachers in primary and secondary education, who have returned to study to enhance their understanding of and gain qualifications in special education and inclusion. Students are obliged to participate online and are most likely to be studying off-campus.
The educational designer, Margaret, works at the University’s Centre for Learning and Teaching Support, and has experience in developing online learning environments and supporting staff development activities in online learning and teaching. Umesh and Margaret share an interest in reflective teaching practice. It is this shared interest that sparked the emerging conversation captured in this article over a four month period and has informed the development of the online unit discussed.
Methodology
This paper highlights the more intangible elements of the collaborative relationship experienced between lecturer (Umesh) and educational designer (Margaret), by applying a reflective action framework to the unit development. The literature has emphasised the need for wider, more discerning application of learning and teaching practices that are underpinned by a shared understanding of sound pedagogical theory; for example, the use of reflective practices (McArdle & Coutts 2003, Boud & Walker 1998, Hardy & Benson 2002) and action research (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, George 2002).
imagem
We employed Kemmis and McTaggart’s model of action research for reflective practice to develop a reflective action framework, a conversational framework that has provided us with a systematic approach to the unit development. Kemmis & McTaggart see reflection as analysing, synthesising, interpreting, explaining and drawing conclusions, based on a ‘thematic concern’ (1998:86). We were eager to capture our discussions as a way to highlight our thematic concerns, which were, designing for active learning and enhancing reflective practice in students as well as in our own professional development. Our points for discussion could be described as a series of ‘action steps’ as Kemmis and McTaggart (1988:86) affirm, to begin thinking about the implications for progressive action over time and deciding what to do next.
The key elements we discussed include active learning, the value of reflective practice as good teaching practice and promoting student centredness in online learning. Student centredness was informed by student feedback from the past two years in which the unit has been offered. The lecturer has encouraged students to provide him feedback in order to make improvements to the unit according to their needs, experiences and insights. Student feedback is a powerful catalyst in bringing about effective change in a unit, especially in online learning environments (Mason & Weller 2000, Torrisi-Steele & Davis 2000, Brown & Thompson 1997, Lefoe, et al. 2002, Bishop, 2002). One major concern students had was that the unit was not structured for active and meaningful interaction between students. Lack of peer interaction is a major concern for learners who participate in online learning environments (Fisher, et al. 2000, Mason & Weller, 2000). In order to address this and other concerns, a Unit Innovation Grant application was submitted to the faculty and subsequently approved.
The development is still to be completed and the redeveloped unit will be delivered in first semester of 2005. Figure 2 outlines our reflective action framework, highlighting the key elements that moved our discussions, and subsequent development decisions, forward.
imagem
Our conversation began with a discussion on active learning and reflective practice, informed by a number of readings, from which sprang our initial motivations to enhance good teaching practice. This intersected with our ongoing discussions on student centredness, informed by student feedback, placing value on the student voice throughout the unit development. Our methodology emerged from this, echoing Kemmis and McTaggart’s action research spiral, indicative of moments, or ‘action steps’, taken during the development process.
How can I make learning more active for students?
Umesh: The first question I asked Margaret was; how can I make learning more active for my students? Students had indicated to me that although they enjoyed the unit generally, they found the online environment boring and they didn’t engage with the material or each other for that matter.
Margaret: I was keen to find out more about the student cohort and to understand the background of the unit more generally, to begin development. I could see that Umesh had a clear idea of what he wanted to achieve in redeveloping his unit and he seemed very focused on making students’ learning more active.
Umesh: I wanted to ensure that students’ concerns were addressed when redesigning the unit, and to actively engage students in a motivating online environment. I have always provided activities, but didn’t feel that students were really committed to carrying out these activities.
Margaret: I shared Umesh’s concerns after I conducted a short review of the unit, seeing the need to move beyond the ‘read then do’ approach. From his initial unit structure, I could see that the activities mainly required students to read an article then post their thoughts to the online discussion forum. This usually occurred on a weekly basis.
We wanted to focus the unit development primarily on engaging students actively online. Active learning encourages students to act on information: putting ideas into written form; drawing ideas together and analysing them; interacting with others to further develop ideas. (Brown & Thompson 1997, online). We began our conversation by discussing the nature of the student group and the anecdotal feedback Umesh had collected from previous years. Students not satisfied with the unit in the past, cited the following reasons for their dissatisfaction:
no or limited knowledge of computers
boring environment- online learning is nothing more than a textbook online
limited interaction with students
hesitation to interact with other students
limited opportunity to meet with the lecturer
overwhelming number of online messages to respond to and
too many online readings.
However, there were some aspects of the unit that students thought were very good. We were careful not to lose these aspects already developed in the unit, as students stated that they were more able to:
examine their current teaching practice
be more reflective
consider the needs of students with disabilities
explore and critique a range of strategies to develop inclusive teaching practice
heighten their awareness of the implications for students with disabilities of any nature
undertake more active, critical questioning
see how the readings and assignments strengthened the case for inclusive teaching practice
develop their confidence to promote inclusion to others and
develop cooperative relationships with teachers and students in their work settings.
Students generally commented that overall, the unit was relevant, challenging and hard work. In an effort to develop the unit structure to enhance active learning, we are convinced that the design of online learning materials revolves around the student. A student centred approach encourages students to interact with the content (and with one another) in the learning environment, as opposed to more ‘traditional’ approaches where the transmission of content is more the focus (Torrisi-Steele & Davis 2000:285).
We considered Lefoe, Gunn and Hedberg’s (2002) eight recommendations for teaching in a distributed learning environment, as identified from the students’ point of view, to reconstruct the unit activities to engage students in more meaningful learning.
Set me clear role expectations
Talk to me
Provide opportunity to work and talk with other students
Choose the best medium for the task at hand
Teach me to use the technology
Provide resources I can use
Let me know what support is available and
Guide me through the administrative nightmare. (2002: paras. 25-37)
Umesh: Originally, I had set up weekly discussion topics to which students must post a response within that week. This meant little time for socialising elements, so students naturally felt a stranger to others in the unit.
Margaret: I believe socialisation is important to engage students who have not met face to face, yet are asked to interact with one another online. I was keen to re-design activities to include social elements and build a learning space for ongoing discussion between students.
Umesh: I could see, after working with Margaret, that the emphasis was on the task, with little context in which students could generate meaningful discussion with others, especially in the short time given to complete activities. These activities were also dislocated and didn’t connect together to form an overall learning experience.
Margaret: I often like to include some structured orientation to the online environment, providing students with help tutorials, tip sheets, audio help and links to student support services. This is important to help students feel more at ease with the technology, so it becomes less of a chore and they can focus on the essence of the learning instead.
Activity and active learning is often most effective when designed with moments and spaces for reflection and review. Sufficient time for thinking, as well as for reading, responding, reciprocating and formulating further responses, should be provided in structuring online activities. This promotes deeper levels of understanding; engaging in more abstract thinking, rather than superficial, didactic expressions, which usually results in a regurgitation of facts and figures or decontextualised quotations.
There seems to be a preconceived notion that communications within a formal educational setting should be devoid of social elements. Thankfully, this is far from the truth! Without developing elements of familiarity and trust amongst students, processes such as group work and group discussions, including online discussion forums, cannot become meaningful. We are inherently social beings and should not dismiss these elements as trivial, but essential to establishing meaningful environments for learning. By engaging students socially we encourage them to do so in their own teaching sites. In the unit development, we sought to have Umesh model what he hoped to see in his students. Modelling ‘good’ teaching is the first step to engaging others in good teaching practice.
How can I encourage reflective practice in online learning?
Umesh: I felt it was important for us to build a shared understanding of the literature on active learning while collaborating on the unit development. I asked Margaret for any readings that demonstrated reflective practice in education and active learning, in our first development meeting.
Margaret: I presented Umesh with a reading by McArdle & Coutts (2003) and also referred him to the work on action research by Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) and Grundy (1995). In return, Umesh provided me with readings on inclusive education. Although I had a teacher education background, I had not touched on inclusion specifically.
Umesh: It has been great to have Margaret as a ‘sounding board’ for refining ideas for the unit development. This is also evident in the literature (Torrisi-Steele & Davis 2000, Hardy & Benson 2002).
Margaret: I could tell that Umesh was interested in his teaching and in seeing his students learn. He also showed a personal preference for reflective processes, which I immediately connected with and so I suggested we capitalise on this and have Umesh model this in his teaching.
We wanted to capture the development process in order to reflect on the ‘action steps’, or changes, as they occurred, rather than on a specific end product. We recorded these changes in a document, which grew into a weekly unit outline. This document has helped us both to monitor the process of development, insofar as it has provided a common or shared ground on which the development is based. Kemmis and McTaggart talk of the need to change the social relationships, discourses, practices and forms of organisation, in order to truly improve education. It is through these changes that we can sustain improvement and by our reflections, steer our next ‘action steps’ in a process of continuous change (1988:44).
As we found early on, a useful, structured framework, which accounts for time, resources and some background information, informs those areas needing development. McArdle and Coutts (2003) describe the ‘good’ teacher as displaying a set of core qualities, which provide a basis for reflective practice. These are confidence, ballast, value maturity, strength and balance. These, together with a strong core of sense making, shape and are shaped by (shared) experiences. It could be said that apart from the practical elements that help to shape a ‘good’ online unit, these qualities must also be considered so as to produce an atmosphere of collaboration within which good unit design can occur. Understanding, willingness, openness, and positive expectations are all evidenced in ‘good’ teaching practice.
Sense making combines processes of reflection and meaning making, while arriving at judgements arising from, and applied to, professional practice. The key to this processing is that it allows connections to be made between different experiences and different forms of experience (McArdle & Coutts 2003:230).
In our attempts to make more sense of the ideas we discussed for the unit development, we put ourselves in the students’ shoes; empathising with, and valuing, their position. We took turns in acting out the student role, in the form of a short scenario, where the ‘student’ would complete a learning activity or navigate a unit web page. We found this useful to not only reflect on the students’ position in the learning environment, but also to be open to accommodate any changes or adaptations that emerged from our reflections on the scenario. We were also conscious of the need for students to make sense and meaning of the learning activity. We also wanted to be sure that the student voice be heard throughout the development process.
We involved other staff in the later stages of the unit development, including a multimedia developer and faculty technical support staff, in response to the needs that had arisen in the development process. Hardy and Benson (2002) espouse that the reflective process occurring in development teams promotes healthy relationships in the team. It can also be seen as playing an essential role in design and development (2002:2). Torrisi-Steele & Davis concur that ‘…“it takes time to ‘re-jig’ thinking”’ and to reach a shared understanding between educational designer and lecturer (2000: para.52). This is a critical point in determining the outcomes of the collaboration.
The unit outline evolved over the four months with the addition of a unit multimedia matrix, shared between the lecturer, the educational designer and the multimedia developer, mapping out the interactive multimedia components to be designed. It was necessary to present a clear, meaningful picture of the multimedia needs to the multimedia developer. The matrix was only developed after about three months of meetings between the lecturer and the educational designer.
How can a lecturer and an educational designer work well together?
Margaret: I was curious to know Umesh’s opinion of working with an educational designer. I asked him what he thought an educational designer brought to a collaborative arrangement such as the one we had established.
Umesh: I saw an educational designer as a catalyst to change the way I looked at how technology can be used to make online learning more active for students. This collaboration differed say to the collaboration I might have with my faculty colleagues, as educational designers focus more on the learning and teaching process than the unit content. Margaret showed she understood the theoretical underpinnings of learning and teaching theory and I hoped we could build this into the unit development.
Margaret: I thought it was useful that we set up regular meeting times, starting once a week and extending to once a fortnight, as our discussions progressed and the unit took shape. It meant we were able to commit to and prepare for upcoming meetings, based on previous discussions, thus maintaining connectivity between the ideas we discussed.
The opportunity to meet on a regular basis was a key ingredient in the collaboration, as we both understood the need to make a commitment to set aside time and space to generate meaningful discussion. Lecturers often have other commitments that impede their time to meet with educational designers on a regular basis.
In managing our time for development, we were also mindful of the time students need, not only to undertake learning activities, but to be able to develop deeper understanding of theoretical concepts covered in the unit. We attempted to create structured activities that engaged students’ interests, encouraged their participation and linked them with other students to flesh out these activities based on their teaching experiences. Therefore, we endeavoured to link social, interactive elements with the need to cover the unit objectives.
The unit, in its pre-developed form, is currently offered online through the university’s web based portal, an information and communication system developed to integrate the resources and services provided by the university for its staff and student community. Figure 3 shows the unit homepage, as seen by students when they first log in to the portal. Figure 4 shows an example of a weekly web page, which outlines the work students must cover in that week. Contrast this with the more structured weekly page, resulting from our unit development, shown in Figure 5. This layout evolved from the discussions on setting out the tasks students should cover in the week, coupled with learning objectives and often including graphical or multimedia elements.
imagem
Conclusion
Finally, the unit development has been a great learning experience for us both. The outcome of the collaboration is, hopefully, a much improved unit. However, unless students feel the same way, and the unit can positively change students’ attitudes towards inclusive education, the ultimate objective of redesigning the unit will remain unachieved. The use of the reflective action framework presented in the methodology was very helpful for us in developing the unit. A willingness to accommodate each other’s ideas and adapt our approach as needed, were two key elements we thought paramount to the overall development process. Some other strategies that helped us included:
a) exchanging a working document to discuss and progress ideas for the unit development (including weekly tasks and use of multimedia)
b) regular meetings (weekly or fortnightly) with a strong commitment to spending time on developing ideas
c) constant use of valuable student feedback (both positive and negative)
d) empathising with students by acting out the student role and reflecting on the outcomes of the scenario and
e) exchanging readings on effective design for online learning (by the educational designer) and inclusive education (by the lecturer), to reach a shared understanding that helped to take the unit development forward.
Other points lecturers might generally consider when approaching a unit development include:
a very good understanding of your learners and their learning settings
a commitment to take time to develop elements to their full potential
an expectation that you will most likely work with others, such as educational designers, in developing your unit and
a willingness to try out ideas, without constraints, or fear of repercussion from faculty or students!
How we frame unit developments can mean the difference between acquiring skills and changing the culture of learning and teaching. As George (2002) states, it is important to underpin staff and learning and teaching development with sound pedagogical models from the outset, rather than retro-fitting in hindsight.
This article captures the reflections and deliberations of two educational practitioners over a four month period. The unit development discussed here continues. It is hoped that this article brings to the surface some of the intangible elements required for successful and meaningful unit developments, with collaborative arrangements paramount in supporting such elements. The educational designer seeks to support lecturers to deliver units online or in a blended mode to students, with empathy for both student and lecturer. The students ultimately determine the success of a unit development, their learning experience and how they see their learning being encouraged and supported.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)