1 / 11

E-PTLLS

E-PTLLS. Consortium Annual Conference in association with HEA Seminar Series 2011-12 Marta Menor Rodriguez & Karen Veneziale Accrington & Rossendale College 29/06/12. Background to the project. Project funded by the Consortium Rationale and aims The staff The schedule The design

lorne
Download Presentation

E-PTLLS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. E-PTLLS Consortium Annual Conference in association with HEA Seminar Series 2011-12 Marta Menor Rodriguez & Karen Veneziale Accrington & Rossendale College 29/06/12

  2. Background to the project • Project funded by the Consortium • Rationale and aims • The staff • The schedule • The design • The process of selection of students • Piloted on a group of 7 students • The structure of the programme

  3. The model Adapted from Salmon (2011)

  4. Access and motivation Objective: to enable participants quick and easy access to the system • Induction day (5 teams involved): • Technical issues • Password setting • Navigating around the VLE • Course structure and requirements • Points of referral • Library induction • Ground rules(participation) • Ice breaker(first messages successfully posted)

  5. Online socialisation Objective: to provide a strong social ‘scaffold’ and a safe online space to socialise • Face to face socialisation during induction • Two arrivals after induction: these were integrated into the group through online ice breaker • Students’ own space for online discussions • E-moderator (tutor) interventions

  6. Information exchange Objective: to enable participants to appreciate the broad range of information available online and promote active participation • Interaction with course content: • Links to websites • Online resources • E-tivities • Beware: potential information overload • Interaction with people: • Skype facility • Bulletin boards • Emails • Online discussions(very well utilised at this stage) • Mid point evaluation

  7. Knowledge construction Objective: to develop high level constructivist collaboration • Participants engage in more exposed and participatory ways • Clear engagement with relevant concepts and theories • Some develop the confidence to express potentially controversial views • E-moderator’s participation limited to sustain the group and encourage constructivist approaches

  8. Development Objective: to enable participants to become responsible for their own learning • Participants feel more confident in providing feedback to e-moderator • Become more technically demanding • Engrossed in the preparation of the micro teach • Towards the end of the programme participation decreasessignificantly

  9. Evaluation • Selection process successful • E-moderation activities time-consuming • Standard of written work above that of traditional PTLLS • Three potential outstanding microteaches • Clear attempts to integrate new technologies and constructivist approaches in microteaches (see Owston et al, 2008) • Strategies to support participants manage the “Information exchange” stage needed • Structure of the course needs to be revised to possibly incorporate more face-to-face • Stage 5 (development) not fully achieved

  10. What the participants said • Development of literacy [precision of expression (Stacey & Gerbic, 2007)] and ICT skills identified as a “side effect” • High quality resources provided a good starting point • High quality peer interaction • Discussions motivated participants to do the wider reading and get involved • Working at own pace highly valued • Induction extremely useful; departments involved were well coordinated • Excellent support throughout • Issues around the functionality of the VLE and structure of online discussions need to be addressed • Mid point face-to-face session needed to keep high levels of motivation

  11. Further reading • Owston, R., Wideman, H., Murphy, J. and Lupshenyuk, D. (2008), 'Blended teacher professional development: A synthesis of three program evaluations', Internet and Higher Education, 11, pp. 201-210 • Salmon, G. (2011) E-moderating. The key to teaching and learning online, London: Routledge • Stacey, E. and Gerbic, P. (2007), 'Teaching for blended learning – Research perspectives from on-campus and distance students', Education Information Technology, 12, pp. 165-174

More Related