PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY A framework for judging excellence in online interaction?

1. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITYA framework for judging excellence in online interaction? Dr. Andrew Sackville Head of Teaching and Learning Development International Conference on Online Learning Orlando - November 2001

2. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Aims of the presentation • To analyse the nature of interaction in online programmes and to relate this to some design principles • To review approaches to judging “quality” in online programmes • To stimulate discussion on the formulation of standards of excellence in online programmes

3. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY The context - my own practice

4. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY The context - a growing concern for “quality” • Consumer/student demands • Quality Assurance, UK- Q.A.A., Codes of Practice; Guidelines on quality assurance of distance learning (1999) • Professionalisation of teaching/learning facilitation. Institute for Learning & Teaching in Higher Education

5. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Why interactivity? • Research demonstrates the power of active learning, group learning and collaborative learning • Research demonstrates that interaction is important for learner satisfaction and for the persistence of (distance) students • Interaction is central to the social expectations of education in the broadest sense

6. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Social Constructivism Social constructivism offers a metaphor of people in conversation socially constructing a shared version of the world. “A central (constructivist) method is ‘real task’ which includes discourse and exploration, talking and listening, questions, argument, speculation and sharing, but in which domination is replaced by reciprocity and co-operation” Jarvis (1998;p73)

7. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Learning Communities Communities may develop as a consequence of interactivity; and/or interactivity is a function of community. “Communities involve the mutual engagement of participants, a commitment to joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire of approaches/techniques.” Wenger (1998)

8. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY A pedagogic model Learning Interactivity Conditions of learning Climate of trust Social Learning Constructivism Community

9. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY The development of “activities” • Active learning in face-to-face teaching • Developing activities in print-based distance education • Constructing activities - “artificial” v. “real life” • Feedback on activities • The unpredicted consequences of some activities

10. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Dimensions of interaction • Learner - technology (Tutor - technology) • Learner - content • Learner(s) - Tutor(s) & Tutor(s) - Learner(s) one-to-one; small group; total group • Learner(s) - Learner (s) one-to-one; small group; total group • Participants (Learners/Tutors) - “Practice community”

11. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Design • “Learning cannot be designed; it can only be designed-for; that is - facilitated or frustrated” (Wenger 1998 p229) • We can “pull” (extend invitations); “push” (build-in requirements) and “avoid”. (OTIS 2001) • “There is an inherent uncertainty between design and its realisation in practice, since practice is not the result of design but rather a response to it” (Wenger 1998 p233)

12. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY D1 - Learner - technology • Preparation/acclimatisation - Mini-module/ introduction focussing on interaction with the technology • Experiencing the online environment in a non-threatening way • Activities to engender trust/ “comfort” • Start “simple”

13. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY D2 - Learner - Content • “Traditional” activities taken from face-to-face teaching and adapted. E.g. questioning materials; abstracting; reviewing etc • Decide what you want students to actually “do” with the content - comprehend, criticise, memorise - then choose the activity • Learners can work with content in a group - it is not only an individual activity

14. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY D3 - Learner(s) -Tutor(s) • Variety of forms of communication. Start with the individual, then move to groups. E-mail to discussion/bulletin board • The design decision whether to use asynchronous and/or synchronous communication • Groups - “anonymity” but also “tensions” • Use different types of small groups - tutor groups; special interest groups; task-orientated groups

15. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY D4 - Learner(s) - Learner(s) • Should the tutor be excluded? • Agree netiquette with participants • Another design decision - synchronous and/or asynchronous? • Extending interaction across cohorts - building up resources for the next cohort - is this necessarily a good teaching process?

16. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY D5 - Participants - Practice community • Linking to practice - e.g. medicine; dentists; teachers; etc • Why the links? - additional expertise; “real” examples; familiarity with professional information sources • Continuing after conclusion of the programme (e.g. PGCE) - developing into a continuing online learning community

17. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Making a judgement on quality/excellence • Complex - multi-dimensional • Quality criteria vary depending on the design paradigm adopted (Visscher-Voerman 1999) - Instrumental - pre specified, absolute standard - Communicative - standards agreed by team and stakeholders - Pragmatic - proven useful & effective with users - Artistic - meets developers own quality criteria

18. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Judging quality - who? • Students/participants • Course team/tutors • Peers/independent evaluators • Professional community

19. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Judging quality - when? • Pre-presentation • During the learning experience • After the experience

20. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Judging quality - what is being judged? Example 1 - Q.A.A. (UK) • System design - an integrated approach • Academic standards in programme design, approval and review procedures • The management of programme delivery • Student development and support • Student communication and representation • Student assessment

21. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Judging quality - what is being judged? Example 2 - Quality Guidelines for Online Education (Canada) • Quality outcomes • Quality processes and practices • Quality inputs and resources

22. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Judging quality - collecting the evidence • Mapping exercises and checklist pedagogic design; presentational design; delivery design • Peer/professional community review • Self reflection and evaluation • Student/participant evaluation (focus groups; questionnaires) experience - educational; social; technical • Analysis of actual interaction (discourse analysis) quantity; quality; handling non-participation

23. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY A framework for judging quality/excellence in online interaction

24. PEDAGOGIC DESIGN & INTERACTIVITY Contact Details Dr. Andrew Sackville Email - sackvila@edgehill.ac.uk Web site - http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/tld/