Around the World of Learning Design in 10 minutes

1. Around the World of Learning Design in 10 minutes Liz MastermanMay 2006

2. Overview • Outline of projects • Methodological issues • Outcomes

3. The projects • Evaluation of the LAMS practitioner trial • July 2004-April 2005 • FE, HE, ACL • Acceptability to practitioners as an activity-based tool for post-compulsory learning

4. The projects • JISC eLISA independent lifelong learning project • + University of Greenwich, local partners, schools and colleges • Jan 2005-Mar 2006 • FE • Deliver study skills e-learning to a set of practitioners and learners using LAMS and Moodle, evaluate their use and make recommendations on the exploitation of e-learning resources for study skills

5. The projects • Reusing learning materials in English Literature and Language (ESC) • + Oxford Brookes, Leicester Universities • Jan-July 2005 • HE • Elicit the key issues associated with the sharing and reuse of e-learning resources among lecturers in English departments • Explore the suitability of LAMS within those departments

6. The projects • Evaluation of generic tools used in design for learning (LD Tools) • May 2005-Jan 2006 • FE, HE, ACL, WBL, SL • Complement VLE project at Goldsmiths’ • Gather research-based information on practitioners’ use of tools in designing for learning

7. Methodological issues • Exploratory nature of projects: aim to uncover practices and issues, not prove a hypothesis • Challenge: capture a process which is largely cognitive, which may be substantially tacit and which may take place over an extended period and at multiple sittings

8. Methodological issues: Participants • Non-random selection of participants (self-selecting) • But focus on “agile adopters”  uncover potential of tools, creative use (LAMS, eLISA) • Agile adopters blaze trail and cascade to less adventurous colleagues • Small numbers • Richness of data can compensate for difficulties generalising (and NB aiming to uncover issues, not prove hypothesis) • Use questionnaires to capture contextual info from large number (LAMS, LD Tools, ESC); follow up issues with smaller number through interviews (incl. interview+), think-alouds

9. Methodological issues: Setting • Loss of control over data collection if researcher cannot be present • Structured reflective questionnaires focus participants on issues of interest (LAMS, eLISA) • Difficulties observing cognitive, tacit processes • Lesson design workshops with observation, interview+ (LD Tools)

10. Methodological issues: Techniques • Normal practice • Questionnaires, interviews • Immediate feedback on novel experience • Think-aloud, questionnaires, observation with interviews (in constructed setting) • Reflection (retrospective feedback) on novel activity • Reflective questionnaires, interviews

11. Methodological issues: Data • Status of qualitative data captured from small number • Indicate themes, issues, questions • Uncover the unexpected (things that you didn’t know you didn’t know) • Produce case studies ( “reassuring evidence” re similarity of experiences; awareness-raising re tool use) • Value to practitioners: • Not “how many?” (the Whiskas response) but “under what conditions?” — esp. if findings inconclusive (LAMS)

12. Outcomes: Practical recommendations • Usability and usefulness of specific tools (LAMS, ESC, LD Tools) • Requirements for future design (LAMS, LD Tools) • Policies/strategies e.g. maximise penetration of study skills support via e-learning (eLISA)

13. Outcomes: Broaden the landscape • Sharing and reuse • Individual resources and/or sequences of learning activities (ESC) • Principle vs. practice (eLISA, ESC) • Relevance of content • Closeness of match to own pedagogical approach • Modify vs. use for inspiration only • Subject-specific? • Sector-specific? • Authorship • Written in the abstract vs. specific cohort • Cost-benefits of modifying online sequences vs. F2F

14. Outcomes: Broaden the landscape • Change in pedagogical approach • Criterion: what can do with e-tools that was difficult or impossible before? • Evidence is patchy (LAMS): • “I think it has made me want to be less instructivist” vs. “‘The ease of authoring probably encouraged me towards an excessively didactic/instructivist style that isn’t really consistent with the aims of LAMS or good practice generally.” • Novel tools often don’t enable anything radically new, but irruption of new tool can raise awareness of other, more productive ways of doing things (LD Tools) • Change as step-wise adoption of new activities, sustained over time

15. Outcomes: Broaden the landscape • Planning: rediscovery of a lost practice? (eLISA) • “It fundamentally made me think about what I actually do in the class … when I first started the sequence I started to really think — you know, the VLE really made me think about how am I going to project what it is that I give to a lesson when I’m face to face on this screen, yeah? … ‘cos usually I don’t have to plan my lessons, I just go in and do it … What it brought me back to was the actual lesson plan, you know, like when you first started off … it was like that all over again .”

16. Outcomes: Frameworks • Rehearse existing • Model of learning activity design as tool for analysis (LAMS) • Activity theory (+ extensions) as framework for describing design for learning (LD Tools) • Synthesise (hopefully) new • Activity theory + epistemic efficacy  set of questions re design and deployment of learning design (LD Tools) • Set of continua for helping teachers to determine blend of online vs. F2F (eLISA)

17. Outcomes: Caveats • Some problems are not design-for-learning problems: • Cultural barriers to sharing (ESC) won’t be solved by yet another repository • “Ineffective” practice may be a staff development issue (although a D4L tool might help!)