Outcomes from Mod4L (relevant to D4L)

1. Outcomes from Mod4L (relevant to D4L)

2. LAMS – only 20% adapted and shared by same teacher – only 6% adapted by different teacher. AUTC project – ratio of contextualised to generic sequence downloads around 10:1 Functions desired by practitioners: • Browsing/searching • Choosing a design • Developing/editing a design • Instantiating a design (may mean ‘running’ but may just mean ‘putting into practice’) • Reflecting/reviewing and feeding back to design repository Some pitfalls we uncovered (1) • Models must be familiar, available and useable in practice • effective generic models have never been widely used (even in FE) • existing design communities are discipline focused • teachers find generic designs boring and difficult to contextualise • teachers want both rich representations and standardised, ‘runnable’ designs (probably need different versions of each model for different users/uses) • teachers just don’t have time (to use, let alone to provide) • Teaching and learning are co-dependent, dialogical… • focus on sequence can limit learner autonomy and teacher responsiveness • what can be designed ahead may not be most significant to learning • teaching and learning processes need to be coupled in any model • teaching and learning practices need to (mutually) adapt and change

3. Features valued by practitioners: • Desired learning outcomes • Learning activities/tasks • Learning systems, technologies or services used • Learning (knowledge/content) resources used • Timing, sequencing, feedback/assessment • But also: • Other features of the learning environment e.g. locations, delivery mode, institutional context • Learner characteristics and numbers, prerequisite capabilities • Roles of participants, especially learner/teacher and peer interactions and support roles • Educational approach or theory, teaching tips and guidelines • Adaptability, contingency plans, potential variations • Quality: learner outcomes, evidence of learner engagement, reflections, reviews, ratings • Operational issues: cost, time, resources and support required e.g. locus of control, content vs process focus, authenticity of activity (situated learning), significance of other people (social learning) etc Some pitfalls we uncovered (2) • Generic designs may not differentiate pedagogic approaches effectively • ‘good’ designs may draw on more than one generic model (or none) • ‘good’ learningstrategies cut across designs (e.g. reflection, integration) • learner-centred practice offers flexible pathways for learning • pedagogic approaches may be differentiated in various ways • how many are there??? • Genericity requires aspects of context to be discarded but • what is essential and what is ‘context’ depends on the activity • appropriate granularity of ‘activity’ depends on the context • meaning emerges in relationship between content, context and activity • features particularly valued by teachers are inherently contextual

4. Alternative formulations • From an attempt to define generic models to an understanding of the need for different types of model to meet different purposes • From a blueprint metaphor, assuming that properties of design components and their linkages can be specified to representation of loosely coupled processes • Promising approaches to generic modelling • ‘plain english’ descriptions of generic approaches including pedagogic rationale (‘light bulbs’) - especially linked to examples (development path for planners?) • graphical formats e.g. LAMS for structural relations, psychological immediacy (support for LAMS? Development path for LAMS projects?) • teacher/learner activity notation • web 2.0 (e.g. social tagging of designs, case studies and exemplars) (development path for CETIS support project?) • check-lists and prompts to consider relations between elements • rich typologies (key conceptual research) • defining loose/tight couplings for different design purposes (key conceptual research)

5. Different models for different purposes

6. Introducing LExeL Phase II

7. Designing with/for the learners of the future • How are learners changing? • How is learning changing? • What choices do learners have over the way learning is organised, blended, supported, mediated, assessed? What choices do they want? What choices do they need?

8. How are we investigating learners’ experiences? • Background survey of existing research (Sharpe et al 2006) • Phase 1: two large studies (Creanor et al 2006, Conole et al 2006): • Phase 2: seven focused studies with support and synthesis • Focus on eight high-level research questions, which have been refined through discussions across projects • Sharing methodological challenges, some collaborative data collection (e.g. learner profile) • Shared approach to purposive sampling, qualitative data, participative ethos • See hand-out for summary of projects, questions and sampling

9. Support and Synthesis activities • Two face-to-face workshops • Highly interactive, projects v engaged, good feedback • Good collaborative ethos (e.g. questions swapped, carousel events, co-mentoring, RA’s network…) • Project wiki • Support materials esp methodological (Academy link) • Separate space for each project • Well used (e.g. email prompts, workshop follow-up…) • Evaluation guidelines (plus workshop in October) • Learner profile (shared with other programmes/projects) • Ongoing synthesis and dissemination • Links with HEA projects and Oxford TEL (Becta?) • Conferences: (keynotes at Greenwich, Dublin, NI, HEFCW, many at Alt-C…) • Routledge book proposal • Briefing papers to PVC SIG and JISC CofI

10. What did we conclude from Phase 1? • Learners have high expectations of institutional technologies wrt access, communication, consistency and functionality • Learners expect to be able to personalise institutional technologies and to use personal technologies in the institutional environment • The Internet is the first port of call for information: sites such as wikipedia are preferred to academically approved resources • Communication technologies most used by learners are also often outside institutional control (mobile phones, skype, chat): there is an ‘underworld’ of social networking in support of learning

11. What did we conclude from Phase 1? • Learners display enormous differences in past educational experiences, expectations, needs, and motivations, and in use of technologies • Issues for learners are the emotional significance of learning, perceived cost and convenience of technologies, and time management • Learners take a holistic view of e-learning: they see technologies as part of their learning and their lives

12. Key issues across Phase 2 projects • How do learners experience e-learning, including the affective quality of that experience? What impact do course-level and institutional practices have? • What are the critical choices learners make wrt their use of technologies for learning? What practices, habits and patterns of use emerge from these? What impact do these choices have on their experiences of learning? • What are the critical moments in learners' changing relationships with learning, and with technology? • How can we define 'effectiveness' as a learner in a technology-rich (Web 2.0?) environment? What are the relevant skills, strategies, aptitudes and approaches? • How do learners integrate (blend): formal and informal learning strategies, personal and institutional technologies, online and offline social networks and identities, academic and peer-created/shared knowledge? What role should be played in this by institutional technologies and policies? • (NEW) What role are Web 2.0 technologies and services playing in the lives of learners? How are they changing learners’ experiences? What new challenges/inequalities are they introducing?

13. Key outcomes from Phase 2 • Guidelines for practitioners, institutions and learners (developers? – link with D4L) • Research papers and publications • Case studies (use cases, rich typologies?) • Surveys and profiles (added value – link with MORI poll) • Recommendations for the JISC (and other high-level policy makers?)

14. Ways forward for D4L and LExeL?

15. D4L in the new e-learning programme • Analysis (review of outcomes and lessons learned) • Embed pedagogical ideas and models across JISC programmes • Institutional projects • embedding design practice, e.g. using planners, integrating with course dev, staff dev, learning content, best practice repositories… • using D4L tools to address key ‘sticking points’ e.g. around staff time and resource • Further R&D with planners • Linking planners with exemplars and case studies (funding??) • Further exploratory projects: • exploring different patterns of use and their impact on the learning experience • exploring links between learner behaviours, outcomes, and activity design  • More strategic support for LAMS and LAMS community (funding?? as platform??) • Support for broader D4L community (via CETIS?) e.g. • Sharing designs (linking with planners?) • Sharing design principles and practices • Supporting further technical developments

16. LExeL in the new e-learning programme • Ongoing support and synthesis • Embed learner-centred evaluation across JISC programmes • And more widely? Workshops, support materials, briefings… • Institutional projects • Integrating staff and learner development • Supporting and learning from highly effective e-learners • Exploration of social software • Focusing on learners’ changing skills, experiences and expectations • Working with other proposed JISC projects e.g. • Web services scoping study (LA&R) • E-Framework ‘lite’ (integrating web 2.0) technical study (U&Is) • study of current good practice in uses of social software (MR?)

17. Linking learning and teaching/design • Technologies, tools and models that are (can be) shared by learners and teachers • Critical moments when learners and teachers expectations are (could be) open to change