Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Notes on e-learning forum
List of reasons people were coming
1. Peter spencer was setting up a twitter feed for scholl
2. Rob measure of success
3. Drug and aclchol adviser wanted to get started
4. Franis muir – see what’s going on
5. Social media legal issues
6. Natalie Seeve-McKenna – use it with trainee teachers
7. Graham has a facebook page
8. Kay hughes twitter feeds
9. Nicola davenport marketing keeping students interested
10. Charlotte marketing
11. David lowe using FB
12. Anita Ellis – setting up a FB page
14. Pat Stein – the same
15. Ray Davies supporting students
17. Val Eva support students
18. Got a FB page wants to do more with it
19. J Foulkes – general engagement
20. Marketing lecturer – needs to start to learn about social media
21. Use it a lot better
FB Not designed for educational use. Could this be challenged what is the difference between these perceptions of technology
Worried by the take over of technology in society – not being with the people you are with
What to do about defamatory comments
Tweet used in libraries to make people be quite in a space
Countdown on blackboard by David Lowe for level 4 students
FB Not designed for educational use. Could this be challenged what is the difference between these perceptions of technology
How do students move from year to year on FB what are all the possibilities
Rules or not Rules when joining a space – do you follow the lead of the space
Sharing uncomfortable things – how do you judge inappropriateness
Kay hughes + Anita Ellis is going to get involved in FB site. Follow this up
The embedding of rss feeds and google+ in BB
Mendeley as an alternative social technology
Talk to d. lowe about the countdown idea for best practice
Do messages in FB disappear when students leave
FB becoming the FAQ notice board to a course
Refered deferred student support using FB
Monday, 18 June 2012
Just a few links from a quick browse
Students can text questions during lectures, and these are addressed by the
lecturer in real-time. Similarly, they can text a glossary of terms at any time
with definitions returned automatically to their phones.
During lectures, students can send texts to a PAYG phone linked via Bluetooth to the presentation PC. The texts can either be dealt with periodically as the lecture progresses, at the end of the lecture, in seminar time or through VLE discussion fora. In dual display lecture theatres incoming text messages could be displayed on one screen, using Nokia PC Suite, whilst lecture resources could be displayed on the second. In single display theatres the presenter can periodically switch between lecture resources and text messages so that students can see their questions are being received.
Connect SMS to Google spread sheet
Monday, 11 June 2012
This literature review analyses 3 number of journal articles made in the last 10 years. They are drawn from the ERIC database and google scholar. The low number reveals a lack of publication in this area.
In terms of the online classroom, research literature has shown that a debate can be effectively facilitated using text-based internet communication tools and achieve its intended aims and goals (Jugdev, Markowski & Mengel, 2004; Pilkington & Walker, 2003).
What is good practice in terms of instigating or preparation for online debates
Stipulating that students need to use evidence from the literature to support their position regardless of the side they take. In some examples students are taught a process by which they research and gather evidence and what are acceptable sources (Park et al., 2011).
Park et al (2011) put students into pairs and then randomly assigned them either the pro and con side of a topic. Debates are best programmed over strict time constraints and need clear instructions on the process (Park et al., 2011). Everyone should have access to both side of the argument when students put up their postings. (Park et al., 2011)
What are good practice methods for managing online debates
Jugdev (2004) chose 2 groups of 5 students, assigning them a current and controversial topic to argue either “for” or “against” a resolution. They chose very subject related topics such as “that project team-related issues (such as performance and disciplinary matters) are the sole responsibility of the functional manager to whom the team members report, and not the project manager’s responsibility.”
They then followed a simple 5 step approach that other case studies have also used.
1. Develop group code of conduct: Each group prepared a code of conduct to guide the group work.
2. Develop a position statement: The 1000 work document is created collaboratively by the group and accessible only to group members, which contains five key arguments for their side.
3. Develop a rebuttal to other side’s position statement: Each group then studied the position statement posted by the other group and developed a formal 1,000- word rebuttal to it. The rebuttal involved developing clear and logical points that identified and addressed weaknesses in the opposing group’s position statement.
4. General discussion: Once the rebuttals were posted, all members of both groups engaged in a final general discussion on the debate.
5. Peer evaluation: The students were asked to evaluate the participation of the members of their groups in the debate process. (Jugdev, 2004)
In another example, students put up their opinion pieces. Then two days later students reply with their rebuttal in answer to the first posting. The whole class can now read and contribute to the debates.
“Three days later, the two debaters each posted a summary of their positions. Finally, the debaters wrote self-evaluations that included what they had learned by debating online and what they would do differently if they were to debate online another time, and emailed these reflective summaries to the instructor. In this course, the debate comprised 35% of the students’ course grade, plus an additional 10% for participating in others’ debates. An individual mark was given.”
Another process has working groups of 8 – 9 students given 2 weeks to prepare 1,000 word formal position statement (10% of final mark). The entire class can read these. The students then have a week to make a rebuttal statement to the opposing side (10% of final mark).
“They were asked to provide three to five clear, logical, supportable, and convincing arguments that support their side and to do the same in the rebuttal, where they were to address weaknesses in the points presented by their opponents”
All students then engaged in further debate and discussion on these statements and introduce new aspects not covered in the statements. All students were then involved in online informal polling to measure the strength of each argument in convincing or changing opinion. In this course, the debate comprised 20% of the students’ course grade, and it was a group mark.(Park et al., 2011)
In another example individual students take both sides of the debate sequentially. The students have 4 - 5 weeks on their papers which includes an annotated bibliography. Students are then asked to write an essay in which they present both sides (Park et al., 2011).
What are good practice methods for assessing online debates
Examples tend to have formal summative processes of assessment. Positional papers are followed by rebuttals and online discussions are summarised by individual students as evidence of learning.
A typical example looks like this
The debate was worth 20 percent of the course grade. Although students were assigned a group mark for the debate, the academic coach could adjust an individual’s grade on the debate based on the peer evaluation.
“• used arguments based on logical and relevant material, not simply opinions
• focused on key issues
• challenged flaws in the opposition’s arguments and research
• used constructive criticism and rationale
• avoided faulty generalizations, distorted information, or over simplifying issues”.
Some examples include student self-evaluation to foster personal insights and reflective learning (Park et al., 2011).
What are the benefits
Debates have been suggested to
· promote critical thinking (Darby, 2007; Kennedy, 2007) in (Park et al., 2011)
· increase engagement, enjoyment with subject area and increase memorisation and deepen learning (Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2006; McGraw-Hill, 2009; Tessier, 2009) in (Park et al., 2011)
· help with reading, writing and researchskills (Lewis & Wakefield, 1983; Scott-Young & Samson, 2008, p. 40) in (Park et al., 2011)
· encourage empathy (Tessier, 2009) leading to open-mindedness (Berdine, 1987) and tolerance (Galloway, 2007) in (Park et al., 2011)
· problem solving and decision making ability (Bellon, 2000; Huryn, 1986; Jackson, 1973; Strait & Wallace, 2008) in (Park et al., 2011)
Advantages of using technology
· more flexibility and creativity to modify the traditional, structured debates to suit pedagogical needs (Roy & Macchiette, 2005; Tu, 2004) in (Park et al., 2011)
· Support for non native language speakers (Pilkington and Walker, 2003)
What are the issues, and methods to mitigate them
Students need time to overcomes the issues involved in the mastering the technology (Love, 2004), and the lack of non-verbal cues (Tu, 2004) both in (Park et al., 2011)
Debates can be the time-consuming if not formally managed (Jugdev, Markowski, & Mengel, 2004; Lin & Crawford, 2007; Tu, 2004) in (Park et al., 2011). Pilkington and Walker (2003) suggest that students should be slowly introduced to a more active roles in managing online discussions and debates. This can take some of the burden from staff, in areas such as students keeping themselves on task. This should also lead to ‘ground rules’ that allow all students to build trust in this virtual activity.
A list of suggested attributes of this increased role are:
· “Exploratory inquiry – asking others to elaborate, explain or clarify anything that is unclear or not explained in enough depth or asking for other examples;
· Task management/focus – keeping people focused on the issues to be discussed, encouraging them to move on when necessary and to discuss as many of the issues as possible in the time available;
· Encouraging participation – encouraging those who are not participating to join in whilst encouraging others to make space for them;
· Positive feedback – encouraging contributions by giving positive feedback when someone contributes well;
· Negative feedback – discouraging disruptive off-task behaviour, inappropriate social behaviour, SHOUTING or non-constructive criticism;
· Content building – answering others’ requests for suggestions, points of view, examples, evidence or explanations.”
Students can have an inherent bias or develop one during the process. “Budesheim and Lundquist (1999) suggested that preventing biased may be possible by having students prepare both sides of the argument before being told which side they would be supporting.” (Park et al., 2011) Getting the students to reflect on their developing understanding and change in position might be useful (Park et al., 2011). Students can also be made aware of this issue before the start of the debate. (Park et al., 2011).
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Knowlton (2000) for evaluating initial contributions:
Is the contribution mechanically clear enough for readers to understand the points being made?
Is the contribution on time?
Does the contribution meet the minimum length requirements?
Does the contribution reference assigned readings or other resources?
Does the post contain “crucial thinking”: that is indicative of the paradigms in the field?
Are the ideas communicated with respect for those who may dissent?
Knowlton, D. (2001) Promoting durable knowledge constructions through online discussion
Proceedings of the Annual Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. (6th, Murfreesboro,
Tennessee). From lams2009.lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04b.pdf
McLoughlin and Luca (2000) online discussions:
Offer and receive assistance
Exchange resources and information
Explain and elaborate on concepts
Share existing knowledge
Give and receive feedback
Challenge others’ contributions
Monitor each others contributions
Engage in collaborative tasks
Negotiate solutions to problems
McLoughlin, C. and Luca, J. (2000) Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer
conferencing : We know why but do we know how? Flexible futures in tertiary teaching: Proceedings
of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February.
Using Blooms Taxonomy
This assignment requires you to both reflect on your studies and to constructively engage with the wholly online environment used in this unit. You are required to post reflections on the course material and to comment on the postings made by other students during the semester. You have two types of task in this assignment.
Task 1—Reflect on the course material you have studied in the current week. Identify what you think is the most important topic, access the DSO system for this unit, open the Assignment 1 forum area for the appropriate week, select ‘Compose Message’ and post a few paragraphs on your selected topic that explain why you think it is important.
Task 2—Review some of the Assignment 1 posts made by other students and select one to comment on. With that message open select ‘Reply’ and post a follow-up to the original message. You may add your own additional thoughts/reasons for why that topic is important, you may wish to contribute an example related to that topic from your own experience, or something else.
You need to make at least five postings for each type of task given above, ie, at least ten postings in total, five of type one and five of type two. You should make only one of each type of posting in a given week. Only the best posting for either task type in a given week will be marked. If your postings demonstrate constructive and thoughtful reflection, you will be awarded up to 1 mark per posting, up to a maximum of 10 marks in total for the assignment. You can make more than five postings for each type of task to maximise your mark for Assignment 1. Please use your own thought/words, do not simply reproduce the course notes. Please note that the forum areas will not remain open for posting all semester, ie, it will not be possible to complete all your postings late in the semester.
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Conference site http://www.alt.ac.uk/events/large-scale-curriculum-redesign
I was very interested in this subject area, as we have been working over the past 3 years with programme teams to redesign their courses to include technology or just design in programme level pedagogic changes. We are currently using TESTA and carpe dime processes very successfully.
The event focused on stories of how institutions are working with all staff at an institutional level to bring in change. We have had strategic, policy lead projects over the years. These changes where similar, with more staff being made or pushed towards the adoption.
Mark Stubbs from MMU told his story of redesigning large scale processes to get the most from systems integration. This would help stream line processes which would lead to an anticipation for curriculum change. We have tried similar things with changes to all programmes in 2010 to larger 24 credit modules, and 3 assessment points per module. I believe, with these types of large changes, a certain rigidity creeps into the system. 30 credit modules, with fixed amounts of assessment points, leave less opportunity for flexibility of delivery in the future. The huge amount of energy involved means that there is little left to address the programmes pedagogic design. However, it was an impressive demonstration of the power of linking live data educational systems. I particularly likes the student feedback collection centrally and then tagged in order to link staff with their student, which creates a tighter connection and turnaround
Donald Clark was persuasive as usual, focusing on the seismic shift from scarcity of educational opportunities to scalable open accesses. If someone can mass produce something that was rare, the impact is huge. He sees current University building projects as a last vain attempt to build scarcity into education. You can only have so many students in those rooms, which leads to in build scarcity. But with the move to massive online education, suddenly something isn't scarce anymore. So we go the way of the book shop. For instance Stanford Uni aren't building any more lecture halls. So the tipping point between physical and virtual has been reached and we are on the wrong side. The shift will be quick and dramatic, leaving old practices in the slow lane. Donald recommends this change management book by kotter to help understand how to find our way out of this mess. Donald touched on Digital literacy, how do we keep up when the skills set develops over every 3 months. He is not sure about this one. I think there probably is some generic skills that could be built into course curriculum design. A programme assessment task that involves a research process by students of the use of technology to support their studies and their careers. The question of why are we not sharing content, remains unanswered. So much reinvention is leaving us far behind, and wasting precious development time.
The big story is the Ufi sell off and the formation of a 54m funding for employability course development.
For me though the most inspiring session was from Ciara Duffy. This project saw 800 staff and many thousands of students not turn up to college for a whole day and then a whole week! These were stud-e days, where the whole college delivered online for a day. I like this for its simplicity of message. The college needs to explore new delivery methods because of weather conditions and rural location of students, so, let's all give it ago.
I was surprised that there was no mention of TESTA, Carpe Diem or Napier Unis 3Es process, all of which I see as having possibilities to help in delivering large scale change.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
This report is ment to be ‘evidence based’. Please can NUS tighten up its act when publishing important and influential work like this. Some kind of literature review would be good. And a few more focus groups, it seems very thin to base findings on at this level
this project provides a range of innovative case studies that have tried to support staff and students to review the way they teach and learn. There are a wide range of case studies, familiar ideas I’ve seen before, some technoically (e.g. pebblepad, second life) enabled and many that try to re-connect learning with a specific context.