300 likes | 460 Views
“Interactive” e-learning. John Webber, Sussex Downs College JISC “effective practice in e-learning” Nov 2005. E-learning without pedagogy. How to make things worse with e-learning: Any suggestions? Ignore or underestimate your students Focus on resources not learning activity
E N D
“Interactive” e-learning John Webber, Sussex Downs College JISC “effective practice in e-learning” Nov 2005
E-learning without pedagogy How to make things worse with e-learning: Any suggestions? • Ignore or underestimate your students • Focus on resources not learning activity • Make students passive • exclusively viewers / receivers • rather than actors in the creation of their own understanding
Interactivity: the “holy grail” of ILT? • The great claim: • Interactive in the way a book can never be • But must ask: • Who is active? • Interacting with what (or whom)? • Question: Examples of different types of interactive e-learning?
Three types of Interactivity • Interaction with software • Interaction with teacher/lecturer • Interaction with other learners
Interaction with software • An example: • A level Environmental Science students • Field trip less effective than expected • Problems handling environmental data
Evaluation • By observing user groups, interviewing students, and feedback from staff • Motivating • Clearly benefited from diversity of modes of engagement • Gained confidence in handling and interpreting data • Also rated highly as revision tool • Production was time-intensive • But design principles transferable to simpler resources
Interaction with teacher • Surviving PowerPoint • An example from a Physics class:
Interaction with other learners • The effective planner in action:
Who? • Sixteen adult Access to HE students • Returning to study • 9th week of a year-long preparation for study at HE • Currently completing UCAS applications • 4 ESOL students • 1 partially deaf-blind (Usher) • 2 dyslexic
What? • Course learning objectives • To acquire the skills and knowledge required for H.E. • Module learning objectives • Develop an informed understanding of the dynamic relationships between Science, Technology and Society • Learn to research and critically engage with questions, ideas & assumptions
What specifically? Intended Learning Outcomes for this session • Use the web effectively to researchalternative views on a controversial issue • Work collaborativelyin an online environment • Summariserepresentative claims and counterclaims of lobbyists within the energy debate • Comment on the authorityand potential bias of a range of resources • Identify vested interestsin the energy debate • Illustrate the dynamic relationshipbetween Science, Technology and Society
Additional objective • Raise awareness of learning, research and knowledge creation as collaborative processes
Where & with what? • Crowded (quite noisy) classroom • Computers & projector • Textual and multimedia resources on VLE • Online discussion forum • Access to Internet
The scenario • Hypothetical new Dept of Energy • Sudden resignation of Minister during crisis • New minister • Urgently needs briefing on key issues within current controversy : “The Energy and Climate Change Debate”
The process • 8 topics matched to 8 teams (pairs) • Individually research, summarise and post to specified forum thread • Feedback between sessions from tutor • Review each other’s posts • Work together to post final summary to new forum
Differentiation through access to text, graphics & multimedia Deliberate selection of diversity of views
& tutor’s response – directing to investigate counter-argument
Tutor direction, this time, to include further detail in summary
Some spontaneous feedback from a, less confident, (ESOL) student At 11pm!
The final session (short burst activities): 1) Online research & writing 2) Conversation &collaborative writing 3)Reading & critical review 4)Whole class discussion
Review / Evaluation • Strengths • An effective strategy for supporting students practicing active research and collaboration • Learning about diverse perspectives • Motivation: enjoyable and engaging • Valuable opportunities for formative assessment both tutor and peer • Highlighted learning needs both individual and group • Allowed differentiation • Weakness • Rushed – deserved an extra session • For a few, technology still an obstacle
Questions / contributions? • Experience of using technology to stimulate collaborative learning? • Other ways of using technology to stimulate interactive learning? • Or other active learning?
Contact details • John Webber • Sussex Downs College, Lewes: john.webber@sussexdowns.ac.uk