Shirley: journal

Learning Through Technology

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:36:07 GMT

During the revision of the degree course formerly known as BA (Hons) Learning Technology Research, the team was asked to find a new, more marketable name. The students starting from September 2009 are now studying Learning Through Technology.

Possible names included:

Professional Studies... with technology?
Professional Development
Professional Development with Technology
Professional Practice
Professional Practice with Technology
Work Based Learning
Professional Studies
Applied Professional Studies
Inquiry Based Learning
Applied Research

I found the process amusing and frustrating in turn, as each suggestion was turned down until the paperwork for the revision was almost at the final stage.

Although the problem of finding an acceptable alternative provoked some discussion, it has not turned out to have been useful. There was little that could be said, and much regret at losing the "birth" name of the degree course.

The main outcome has been a headache with the official paperwork and in trying to ensure that with students on both course that are identical but have different names, we don't accidentally add a layer of confusion.

As there has been no obvious sign of increased marketability, I wouldn't recommend a name change unless it is enforced.

Not ICT but Learning, Technology & Research

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:23:33 GMT

A student writes: I have considered using classroom behaviour for my action inquiry as this would at least help me to get through the module, however, will this actually have any bearing on this counting as an ICT degree?

Let's deal with a bit at a time:

ICT degree - I think what the student means is that some of those taking the Learning, Technology and Research degree (BA LTR) hope to use it for a career as an ICT teacher. This is not the most straightforward route to take, as anyone who has asked about it will be aware. To claim that the Technology element is enough to support an application for training as an ICT teacher, students need to be able to demonstrate that 50% of the course is based in Technology. There are BA LTR graduates who have used the degree to get into teacher training, specialising in ICT, but there is no guarantee because of competition for places. Even if you had an A-Level in Computing and a degree in Computer Science, there would be no guarantee.

50% Technology - in order to claim that 50% of your course is technology, you would need to provide your own evidence. Past students have been able to emphasis the technology element by being able to show technology skills in: presentation of work in a range of media (web site, video, podcast); improving the provision of extracurricular activity in ICT (lunch or homework clubs); action inquiry into improving ICT training or support for colleagues;

The evidence I have not mentioned is introducing improvement in timetabled lessons, as this is not suited to staff who are not timetabled to teach ICT. Many BA LTR students who want to train as ICT teachers have few opportunities to carry out an action inquiry in the ICT classroom - after all, that is the ambition and not the reality.

Improving your management of pupils' behaviour as an action inquiry focus: This is a popular and a very fine choice, as anyone who works in a school will have ample opportunity to improve. It will be invaluable for anyone who works with children. It is up to individuals to consider how to develop ICT skills, perhaps through exploring different media in the presentation of the module portfolio. You can also explore what is available on the Internet to support professionals in the management of behaviour (online CPD?) and show that you understand that international comparisons may have value in developing behaviour management skills.

I hope this widens the horizons a little.

PS:The degree course has been renamed BA Hons Learning Through Technology for new students.

CCTV in the classroom

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:04:41 GMT

In the Ultraversity programme (BA (Hons) Learning Technology & Research and other work-based courses), students apply research techniques to their personal career development. Although designed as a generic course that can be adapted to many work settings, the course has drawn interest from school support staff. Teaching assistants and ICT staff often ask about using video to collect data on the effect of introducing small changes to their practice, and the main barrier is in the ethical issues. Undergraduates are developing their understanding of the principle of informed consent, as well as privacy and confidentiality. This has led to interesting discussions in the online learning communities where the courses are discussed.

What is the purpose of collecting video data?

What might be learned from the video data?

What permissions are required?

How will the data be analysed?

Although none of the students has yet mentioned being in a school where video is used in classrooms, it is a technology that seems to be moving from outside (playground security) to inside the walls. There seem to be two main reasons for using video in the classroom: professional development or behaviour management. A company brought to my attention today is Classwatch. This is being marketed as a management system that provides an easy way to make use of CCTV technology in the classroom; CPD Teacher Training Support, Behaviour Management, Anti-bullying, Asset Protection & Management. The web site information includes the statement that "Classwatch® is fully approved by educational authorities..." and implies support for OFSTED inspections. My feeling is that the purpose of using video would need to be very clear in order to develop a robust ethical policy

Naturally, alternative perspectives about the use of video are not mentioned but these are essential in considering the wider view. In a time when there are news articles about parents prevented from making a video (or even taking photos) of school events, a teacher suspended for taking secret footage of pupils for a TV programme and pupils reprimanded for using mobile phones to capture images, it may not be reasonable to assume that classroom CCTV is without potential pitfalls.

A critical view may compare similar schemes, such as School Closed Circuit TV as well as the dimension suggested by NO CCTV- campaigning against camera surveillance in the UK. A BBC news item about teacher concerns over school CCTV could be compared to the Guardian article available from the Classwatch web site. An article in The Register reports from a legal perspective.

Undergraduates on the course are advised that it is acceptable to collect video data for professional development if the camera is filming themselves, not the pupils, and all permissions are sought. Data analysis must be considered at the planning stage, and the focus on staff development rather than pupils must be maintained.

An example that might help to clarify the position is that where the aim of an inquiry is to develop skills in managing pupils: video might be used to analyse whether a proposed change such as the increase of affirmative comments has been made, and what further changes to an individual's practice might be introduced. Pointing the camera at pupils would require full justification of the research ethics, and might be rejected on the grounds that the data collected would not inform the inquiry question in any meaningful way.

Should any less consideration be given to the situation with CCTV in the classroom?

Improvement takes time

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:28:51 GMT

After a long session today that turned out basically to be about identifying changes to bring about improvement in response to evaluations, I wonder how far we have got. I believe the intentions of the meeting were to get agreement to self-manage change that is also directed and controlled from the top - an awkward situation. After a fairly short introduction, there was the first of two breakout sessions and the main problem was a huge mass of data presented shortly before the meeting - effectively the first opportunity to consider some of the data was at the beginning of the breakout.

Somehow, between us we managed to begin to analyse. I was then puzzled by what approach should be taken, but selected the pragmatic option of sticking mostly to what I know and can do. When the groups reported back, it started to look as though some themes would be identified - but there also seemed to be encouragement to identify as many themes as possible. Perhaps post-session reports will make this clearer. I started to wonder whether the outcome of a large meeting could really be the identification of key themes, especially with so little proper preparation.

The first breakout was followed by presentations, then a second breakout that asked groups to identify three changes that could be made for September. Although this seemed a good idea, it took me about five minutes to realise that we already have more than three changes planned - the last thing the team needs is additional changes. Instead, I looked at how suggestions fitted with existing plans that have yet to be approved.

Where have I got to? Perhaps the further involvement of the team in the planned changes - although since the team are already very involved, that's not much of a change. Where has the team got to? Perhaps affirmation that we are on track - but I think we knew that already. The session marked some kind of place along the road - not a milestone, maybe a widening of the path.

There was clearly a recognition of the need for improvement, some energy may have been generated and, for me, a realisation that one of the reasons that universities take a long time to change is because they are full of intelligent people who are capable of debating ideas. What we might need is more frequent debate.

Reflection on Gantt chart

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:29:44 GMT

I pulled together as much information as possible about work for the next 4 months. Sources included my personal diary, team calendar and To Do list. When I started to put together the chart, I realised that although some tasks overlap, I needed to prioritise so I used a traffic light system.

A Gantt chart is a useful tool for managing complex projects, and my work is reasonably complex. I created the chart using Excel and although I have never seen traffic light used on a Gantt chart, it seemed an obvious way to manage multiple tasks. I had a quick search on the internet once I had completed the chart and did not find any similar examples, so a brief explanation might be useful. For each task, I looked at priority levels. Marking is team work and has a fixed period, so those weeks were given red as high priority. Facilitation is ongoing, at about four hours per module per week, so is generally a medium/lower priority. During the final two weeks of a module, there is a reduction in individual feedback so those weeks are green for lower priority.

As I worked through, I realised that some additional information would be a useful reminder, so I used the comment function for a few very specific tasks. Some weeks appeared to have an unmanageable load, so I reprioritised. The traffic light system was very useful for identifying areas that needed further thought.

Although the chart looks less than delightful with the colours, it has already been useful in reminding me that I have to get a key task completed this week. I am fairly well organised but do not always take the time to use planning tools. Facing up to the work required in the next four months shows possible ways to manage better.

The next step will be to align the chart with my studies, to see where the learning outcomes cand assessment products can be matched with exisiting priorities.

Planning

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:54:34 GMT

It is time, once again, to get some serious planning done. Looking through my notes, here are some of the ideas in progress:

Online induction to parallel good practice in the campus experience, including an area for offer-holders. Do we have all the info students will need yet? Does the info need to be updated? Do we have an existing space? Do we need to try a different idea? What are the usual arrangements for campus-based students? What needs to be different for online students?
Oranisation chart to map the stakeholders in recruitment
Review workload in the team, planning for 2009/10
Plan marking loads
Complete materials for the Employer Engagement course module that I will be leading - authentic tasks, assessment products, assessment criteria, module guide.
Watch out for questions from the LTR review process.
Plans for faculty session in May about personalisation.
Progress on renaming the degree course for cohorts from 2009/10 onwards.
Has each module got a library task?
Do the assessment criteria recognise and reward use of technology as well as learning and research?
Follow up on developing a more standard template to present modules in Plone.
Revise Ethics workshops to align with new procedures to be introduced on April 1st.
Develop practice in response to NSS survey.
Discuss how the LTR model might be made more viable, in comparison to campus-based lectures for large numbers of students.

Next step - put these plans into a Gantt chart or other timeline.

Work-based study

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:07:46 GMT

How do we justify the number of hours for study in a work-based course?

Notionally, students need to do about 10 hours per week of study in addition to work-based study. Of course, those aiming for high marks will do considerably more - as do all high-achieving students. I'd like to focus here on how we make sense of a work-based course that requires only about 10 hours per week of additional study.

In some modules at present, only a small proportion of the assessment products can really be seen as work-based. Perhaps a starting point would be to identify where we think we succeed in designing tasks that are mainly work-based. Examples include:

gathering critical incidents
PDP - any student who doesn't actually have one at work probably should:-)
work-related literature

Viable models in higher education

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:27:42 GMT

It could be interesting to compare the Learning, Technology & Research delivery model against other university courses, both campus-based and online. I have had time to realise that it may be a fundamental problem to use a delivery model that requires relatively expensive staff/student ratios at every point. In some American universities, at 200 students per tutor the model for undergraduate online tuition is financially sound, but there would have to be a trade-off in quality that may not be acceptable in all institutions. Currently, the Learning, Technology & Research team is looking at 35 students per tutor as an acceptable ratio although there is less certainty about the quality of facilitated discussion within the university requirement for this to be the equivalent of three or four hours per week.

Do the numbers make sense? A full time teaching load would be for each tutor to lead 4 modules per week, at four hours per module (perhaps 3 hours), with 35 students per module. I tried to clarify this but somehow the numbers keep slipping beyond my full comprehension. I keep thinking I must have misunderstood - but perhaps this is because I know that there would have to be radical changes in the delivery of the Learning, Technology & Research course in order to fit the numbers. We seem to have developed a Masters degree approach to an undergraduate degree course - but without the opportunity to charge a Masters degree fee that would cover the higher costs.

The problem seems to need more information than is available to me. One of the challenges is that in an online course, a considered response to one student might take half an hour to compose - and even though the response would usually be made available to all students, the figures would indicate that in four hours of facilitation, only six to eight questions per week would get full responses. Is that a bad thing?

In a typical week, there are more than eight different questions from each module. Although exploring the questions is fun, perhaps it is not a viable approach.

SharePoint and eLearning

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:27:43 GMT

Policy and Practice

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:35:03 GMT

Somewhere between IT policy at institutional level and student-facing practice there is a black hole that sucks in everything within reach. The black hole contains an alternative universe where little escapes. I have just been reading an internal evaluation, and my strongest impression is that the findings and recommendations are not likely to have much impact on my job, but will create jobs for people who might, in a worst-case scenario, attempt to limit my digital creativity.

One of the problems with IT policy in a naturally conservative, hierarchical and bureaucratic organisation is the lack of flexibility and responsiveness. By nature, IT is a fast moving area where we can expect innovation and change. The evaluation aims refer to change in the educational environment, but there is little evidence of recognition that change is a key feature of technology.

I guess I'm in a minority (along with my colleagues) who are empowered by technology. High priority is given in the report to providing support, mainly so that lecturers can do their jobs. Perhaps this will work, although past experience does not offer much hope. The university probably needs to model support on how it might like courses to be delivered, using all the IT tools in staff development. Of course there will be problems - but many of these will be the same problems that lecturers face in online delivery of courses.

Over the last year, one of the most welcome changes in the way I work has been the acceptance by the Faculty that meetings should make use of video technology to enable virtual .participation. There is still some way to go in making this a fully interactive experience, but it is a good start. For the Learning Technology & Research team, this is not new and we have already had experience of more fully interactive meetings - but it is new for the Faculty.