Making the Institutional Business Case for Introducing Learning Design Tools Gayle Calverley

1. Making the Institutional Business Case for Introducing Learning Design ToolsGayle Calverley

2. Griffiths et al Two Exploratory Case Studies Chapter 21: Challenges in the Wider Adoption of Learning Design Koper, Tattersall’s Learning Design, Springer (2005). A Response to….

3. Griffiths et al discuss ‘The Effectiveness of the Solutions Developed’. Two key statements are made, critical to effective uptake of learning design tools at an institutional level. These are: ‘… the effort involved in creating the UOLs in this context, and with the current tool set, is too great to justify the benefits which come from the use of [EML]… This similarity however, masks substantial differences between the two contexts, both of which make use of different subsets of the functionality offered by EML.’ ‘The teacher involved in the trial of the User Interface Design UOL was enthusiastic about the technology when it was first explained to him. However, this enthusiasm turned to scepticism when the effort involved in creating the UOL became clear, requiring lengthy work by a team of experts.’ Why Respond?

4. Balance of effort must meet a justifiable level within the day-to-day work of an institution. Many contexts in which LD tools offer benefit often appear similar to contexts that are already handled adequately - but may really be substantially different. LD potential benefits are masked, if the contexts are not distinguished. End result is lower potential adoption of LD low or little uptake of LD-based tools vendor-reliance of an institution unclear benefits to institution of providing resource for expert support. LD Expert Teams, not affiliated to mainstreaming work in an institution, are in a good position to contribute to reducing the load on institutions & contribute to providing support. increases probability of uptake of individual LD developments. For Adoption

5. A great deal of work has gone into a beneficial development. We want it to be used. BUT… Internal issues to institutions exist Can be hard to overcome Wolfgang’s talk Compounded because some of these transcend the organisation and its business concerns They relate more closely to differences in understanding between the communities involved. Important to Realise…

6. Focus is pinpointing significant barrier issues in understanding Especially between widely different influential communities Consider ways the communities involved can work together to overcome these barriers Approach of Response

7. Acceptance or promotion of Vendor Lock-in across the organisation Direct consequence of decisions to invest in mainstream implementation of learning system High investment required to make the implementation successful i.e. training, new processes Support from Vendor included Resource restrictions on pilots of non-mainstream systems & tools without clear business models of their potential Unlikely to promote use of tools that deliberately promote multiple systems without clear business model Point-of-Change risk more effectively managed than creating a Higher Daily Loading Interoperable tools can be viewed solely as mechanisms for retaining potential to switch systems at some future time Better to build the analysis into the change programme when it arises Continual monitoring for unused interoperability increases daily load – can be seen as empty additional requirement on managing daily processes Prevents benefits of Interoperability being a sufficient adoption argument in its own right Although Developer communities work to prevent for the benefit of all Barrier Issues: ‘Value’ of Interoperability

8. Confusion in Institutions between Vendor models of learning in use Functionality & potential offered by interoperability specifications Common Belief that ‘Open Source = Non-proprietary = Free’ Content Export & Transfer Models not conceptually separated from rich LD Models relating to roles, activities, environments and exchange of rich learning designs between systems. Core Issue to Overcome: ‘What is the point of offering tools for added functionality, e.g. better ordered content, if the user believes the system they have already supplies it?’ Ensuring Technical Clarity

9. Offer tools on the basis of added value Will soon highlight what current systems can and cannot do within any particular (set of) scenario (s). Aim to raise expectation & quality standards beyond those offered by current ‘best of breed’ Extend capacity of vendor-oriented development staff in institutions to work with added-value non-vendor tools Examine new models e.g. within team teaching, streamlining courses, course records, ‘write once’ models Main benefit likely to arise from staff recording of their day-to-day working practice and the ability to analyse that practice. Initial draw may be a quick-gain automation, but will not sustain interest. Ways to Success

10. People remain attracted by technical potential to integrate previously disparate parts of their work. UK community demonstrated to be intellectually ready for adoption (LAMS study), but not yet practically capable of making the changes beyond in a minor capacity. Individual Institutional constraints create complex impact on capacity for individuals to respond. Developers targeting different ways for people to use the tools at different levels can work well Create ‘entry points’ for use, Raise expectation Needs to be combined with change programmes in institutions These recognise & can help with organisational constraints Key Points

11. Developer groups are freer to pursue pilots of non-mainstream options to gather evidence of their value Ability to use freedom from existing system constraints to encourage creativity Explore new areas for where benefits may lie Careful design to target different user groups Developer or user oriented? Graphical, template or code models? Examine impact of implied models of learning presented by tools– may not be intended but can still occur. Define clear levels for tutor use, & level where developer support can be introduced Be aware of polarisation in techniques excluding future opportunities e.g. tendency to over-support one type of user Development Issues

12. Reference: Making the Institutional Business Case for Introducing Learning Design Tools Commentary on: Chapter 21: Challenges in the Wider Adoption of Learning Design: Two Exploratory Case Studies. (Griffiths, Blat, Casado, García, Martínez, Sayago, 2005) Journal of Interactive Media in Education (Advances in Learning Design. Special Issue, eds. colin.tattersall@ou.nl, rob.koper@ou.nl), 2005/16. ISSN:1365-893X [jime.open.ac.uk/2005/16]. Email: g.j.calverley@manchester.ac.uk Thank You