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

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

2. Overview of the next 10 minutes • Project background • Putting a VLE in place • Articulating designs • Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs • Selection and use of different tools • Conclusions and implications

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

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

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

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

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

8. Findings: learning technology contacts Articulating designs

9. Whether and how • All teachers design for learning • Designs are rarely fully articulated on the VLE • Even designs for VLE-based learning is not represented on the VLE itself • Stuff without rationale • Course areas are usually inscrutable if viewed in isolation • Designs can only be observed in the connections between elements of learning and teaching • On a VLE: order, timing, layout, formatting, commentary flagging of gaps

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

11. Integrating practices within the study • Some very creative manoeuvring • To keep students participating in all areas • Design adapted ‘on the fly’ • Flexibility was an original selling point of VLEs • … they encourage an open-ended design process • Tutors talked about running designs, not about designs or the process of designing • So what is “the” design we should be studying? • A process, not a single artefact

12. Design blindness • Technocentricity v. learner centricity divided the tutors • Should new tools suggest new ways to teach? • … or should an expert teacher select the tools needed to meet learners’ requirements? • Tutors were unable to think of ways to preserve new practice if the VLE were withdrawn • Changes in practice associated with the tool itself rather than a new way of doing things • Integration a strength, but pedagogy ‘hidden’ by VLE

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

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

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

16. Case studies Conclusions and implications

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

18. Implications • Realising creativity on a VLE requires considerable institutional • Flexibility • Support for experiments • Support for networks to share ideas and inspiration • If it is considered desirable that designs are fully articulated in VLEs (eg for audit or sharing) • Incentivisation required • A maintenance burden must be anticipated • Eliciting design practice • Access to logs would be helpful – ‘interview-plus’ • A more naturalistic approach?

19. Acknowledgements & further info • Helen Beetham, JISC (consultant) • Martin Oliver, IoE (consultant) • Liz Masterman, University of Oxford • Sarah Knight, JISC (kind and patient project manager) • All the participants. • The report: • http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/D4L_VLE_report_final.pdf • Email Martin or me: • m.vogel@gold.ac.uk, m.oliver@ioe.ac.uk