ePedagogy for Virtual Learning Environments

 

A draft Professional Doctorate Report

 

Anthony ‘Skip’ Basiel

 

November 2006

 


Table of Contents

Table of Contents. 2

Table of Figures. 5

Acknowledgements. 6

Executive Summary. 7

1.0 Introduction. 9

1.1 Programme background -. 9

1.2 Report structure -. 10

1.2.1 Professional recognition - 10

1.2.2 Who will value this review?. 11

1.3 Three projects approach -. 11

1.3.1 Web-based video conferencing. 11

1.3.2 Teaching Activity Templates - 12

1.3.3 Virtual learning environment denouement profiling. 13

1.4 ePedagogy: a starting definition. 14

2.0 Significance of policy and literature to ePedagogy. 16

2.1 Introduction. 16

2.2 Policy. 16

2.2.1 National level - 16

2.2.2 Institution level - 17

2.2.3 School level - 18

2.2.4 Centre Level - 19

2.2.5 Summary of policy constraints. 20

2.3 eLearning Context 20

2.4 eLearning perspectives. 21

2.4.1 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Usability Design (Principles for VLE Interface Design) –  23

2.5 Emerging eLearning theory -. 23

2.6 VLE design principles -. 29

2.7 Summary Discussion. 31

3.0 Research Methods. 32

3.1 Introduction. 32

3.1.1 Critical reflections on research traditions. 32

3.2 Action Research. 33

3.2.1 Criticisms of Action Research. 35

3.3 Related approaches influencing the project 35

3.2.1Towards a synthesis of approaches. 37

3.2.2 The Projects. 40

3.2.3 Ethics. 41

3.3 Learning theory from practice. 42

3.3.1 Do we need a new research technique?. 42

3.4 Summary. 43

4.0 Project 1: Web Video Conferencing. 44

4.1 Introduction. 44

4.1.1 Chapter structure. 45

4.2 Professional Doctorate Interview Cases Study. 45

5.0 Project 2: Teaching Activity Templates. 58

5.1 Introduction. 58

5.1.1 Aims and objectives. 58

5.1.2 Background and context 59

5.2 Action Research Approach. 60

5.2.1 Teaching Activities Templates system design. 60

5.2.2 3Ps Sub-folder template variations. 62

5.3 Project and website evaluation. 67

5.4 Summary discussion. 72

5.4.1 Reflections and follow-up. 74

6.0 Project 3:  Virtual Learning Environment Denouement Profile. 76

6.1 Context: DPS/WBS01 and WBS2/4802 Case studies. 76

6.1.1 Introduction. 76

6.2 Steps to using the toolkit 77

6.3 Case study overview.. 78

6.4 DPS/WBS01 Case Study (2003 & 06): 78

6.4.1 Video taped interview summary (2003) 78

6.4.2 Summary Discussion: DPS/WBS01 Case study. 80

6.5 WBS2/4802 Case Study (2003 & 06): 81

6.5.1 Video taped interview summary. 82

6.5.2 Summary Discussion: WBS2/4802 Case Study. 84

6.5.3 Questionnaire analysis and conclusions. 84

6.6 Related supporting eLearning events. 85

6.6.1 Summary Discussion. 86

7.0 Conclusions and denouement 89

7.1 Introduction. 89

7.1.1 The adventure of an online epistemology. 90

7.1.2 Epistemology and instruction. 90

7.1.3 Chapter structure. 92

7.2 Profile methodology. 92

7.2.1 Exploring what profiling is not - 92

7.2.2 The synchronic nature of profiling- 93

7.2.3 How Denouement Profiling is designed to meet the research problem.. 93

7.2.4 Software illustration. 94

7.2.5 Generic nature of the profile framework for validation. 94

7.2.6 Weaknesses of profiling. 94

7.3 Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) 95

7.3.1 Web Constructivism.. 95

7.3.2 Transactional distance theory (TDT) 97

7.3.3 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Interface Principles: 98

7.3.4 Usability Design Principles: 99

7.4 Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) Principles. 100

7.5.1 Critical review of TAM.. 102

7.5.2 Summary discussion: a ‘transitional school of thought’ 102

7.6 Spiral-web learning model 103

7.6.1 Steps of the Spiral-web Learning Model (SLM) –. 103

7.7 Epilogue - reflections. 105

7.7.1 Research reflections: Towards a web ‘Panagogy’ 105

7.7.2 Personal and professional reflections. 106

References. 107

Chapter 1: 107

Chapter 2: 107

Chapter 3. 109

Chapter 4. 112

Chapter 5. 112

Chapter 6. 113

Chapter 7. 114

Bibliography. 117

Appendix. 119

Chapter 1. 119

Appendix 1 –. 119

Chapter 2. 120

Appendix A: 120

Appendix B –. 121

Appendix C: 123

Chapter 3. 124

Appendix 1: 124

Appendix 2: 124

Appendix 3. 126

Chapter 4. 127

Appendix A.. 127

Appendix 2. 130

Appendix B. 132

Chapter 5. 156

Appendix A.. 156

Appendix B. 158

Appendix C.. 160

Appendix D.. 161

Appendix E.. 162

Appendix F.. 163

Appendix G.. 163

Chapter 6. 166

Appendix A.. 166

Appendix B. 166

Appendix C.. 169

Appendix D.. 172

Appendix E.. 173

Appendix F.. 173

Appendix G.. 174

Appendix H.. 175

Appendix I 176

Appendix J. 177

Chapter 7. 177

Appendix A -. 177

Appendix B -. 178

Glossary. 181


Table of Figures

Figure 1 Report overview.. 11

Figure 2 Adapted from Stephenson’s (2004) eLearning Actors. 11

Figure 11 File path of the templates. 62

Figure 14 Steps for use of VLE Denouement Profile toolkit 77

Figure 19 The spiral-web learning model 103

Figure 5 DfES eLearning Strategy Summary. 120

Figure 7 - AR Model 1. 124

Figure 8 - AR Model 2. 125

Figure 9 - AR Model 3. 125

Figure 10- AR Model 125

Figure 8 Summary of examples of WVC use by priority. 131

Figure 1 Breeze 4 bandwidth prompt 134

Figure 2 Breeze 5 bandwidth prompt 134

Figure 4 Case Study - Dr. Pauline Armsby. 163

Figure 5 Case Study - Sheila Blankfield. 163

Figure 6 - Survey question 4. 164

Figure 7 Survey question 5. 164

Figure 8 Survey question 6. 164

Figure 9 Survey question 7. 164

Figure 10 Survey question 8. 165

Figure 11 Survey Question 9. 165

 


Acknowledgements

 

First, and foremost, I must thank my wife, Monica, and son Cody for their support and inspiration. Without them this challenge would have been meaningless.

 

Academic support came from my Internal Advisor, Professor Jonathan Garnett, who helped to keep me on a career path that enabled me to complete this task. Professor Steve Torrance started as my Consultant and guided me with philosophical direction. Dr. Steve Warburton came in at the later stages of the study and provided me with the context needed to make the investigation a worthwhile contribution to knowledge and the eLearning community. Raphael Commins, my fellow eTutor of the Year 2004, has been a friend and colleague who provided a professional and personal anchor throughout this journey.

 

Other influences contributing to this adventure came from the staff at the NCWBLP and CEWBL, the Middlesex University Breeze Consortium, the British Council, University of London CDE, Institute of Education – especially Anita Pincas, Adobe and the Adobe International Education Leadership Programme, the Association for Educational Technology, the HE Academy, the eLearning Network, and other individuals and organisations I have been honoured to collaborate with over the course of this study.


Executive Summary

Three projects were conducted to generate data to validate the eLearning theories, models and pedagogical design principles[1] offered in the concluding chapter. Through this study the overall research question addressed is:

‘How can the learning process (a virtual learning environment event) be facilitated and supported through the research and development of web-based technology that is appropriately matched to eLearning pedagogy and online epistemology?’

 

The projects discussed are:

Ø       Project 1: Educational Web-based Video Conferencing -
This study aims to answer the question, ‘How can web-based video conferencing and related tool sets (white boards, shared desktop, text chat, recording utility, etc.) be pedagogically designed appropriately and applied to a virtual research environment (VRE) context to address the collaborative and support needs of trans-disciplinary (across subjects and levels) work based learning practitioner researchers?

Ø       Project 2: eLearning Teaching Templates –
This study will answer the research question, “How can eLearning model templates be used to promote the online teaching/learning process?”

Ø       Project 3: VLE Denouement Profile methodology and Toolkit -
The research question, ‘How can a common understanding of VLE design and implementation between the NCWBLP stakeholders be facilitated and supported?’ is addressed.

 

Research approaches and tools

The three-stage strategy of this study starts with the Web-based Video Conferencing Project. This study was funded for £5000 from Middlesex University’s Centre for Learning Development (formerly CLD). Data was collected through:

*      Online survey,

*      Interviews- by telephone and face-to-face (f2f),

*      Research Blog – online learning diary,

*      Multimedia case studies using Adobe Breeze.

 

Project 2: Teaching Activity Templates project-
This project was funded by the
University of London through the Institute of Education (IoE) and the Centre for Distance Education (CDE) for £20,000. The main data collection techniques were:

*      Online survey using www.surveyshare.com,

*      Interviews- by telephone and face-to-face (f2f),

*      Research Blog – online learning diary,

*      Multimedia case studies using Adobe Breeze,

*      Website toolkit with evaluation (see CD-ROM).

Work based learning case studies have contributed to and informed the formation of several teaching templates designs. In my capacity of NCWBLP Chair of Staff Development I intend to integrate these online pedagogic models into the VLE adoption system of the Centre when they have been refined. In this way the NCWBLP staff will have the opportunity to contribute to the project evolution.

 

The final study, Virtual Learning Environment Denouement Profiling, tied together the first two research strands in an innovative approach to promote a common understanding between the stakeholders of a VLE. Data collection techniques, listed below, were used to promote a common language or understanding to promote a shared perspective of the online learning system. It was funded for £2000 by the CEWBL Research Fund. The VLE denouement profile (VLED) project used:

*      Online survey,

*      Interviews- by telephone and face-to-face (f2f),

*      Multimedia case studies using Adobe Breeze,

*      Website toolkit with evaluation,

*      VLED Profile technique & toolkit (see CD-ROM). Details of profiling are presented in the Conclusions and Denouement Chapter at the end of this report.

 

Concluding contributions - 

This report has shown my research as an example of ‘leading edge practice’ in several ways. First, epistemology (the way we view knowledge) was analysed and adapted to the context of online learning or ePedagogy. This provided a sound theoretical foundation to the study.

 

Next profiling, a research technique, was presented and critically reviewed. This innovation was also supported in Project 3 and illustrated by a software toolkit.

 

The Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) was then offered as a contribution to the eLearning community as the synthesis of several learning theories and computer interface design principles. This resulted in a set of TAM pedagogic design principles to guide VLE stakeholders in the process of developing sound eLearning events.

 

Finally, these instances of online learning events were represented by the Spiral-web learning model (SLM). This graphic exemplar combined many of the elements of the projects and ePedagogy to provide a concise representation of the ‘transitional’ nature of eLearning.

 

CD-ROM exemplars

Attached to this report is a CD-ROM containing the associated software illustrations. You are encouraged to open the electronic exemplars as you read along to get first hand experience and see the theories and pedagogic design principles in action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


1.0 Introduction

My investigation into the pedagogy of eLearning, or ePedagogy (Mehanna 2004), began at Middlesex University in London, England. The University mission statement (MU 2005) corresponds to the DfES’s (Department for Education and Skills)
e-Learning consultation document (DfES 2004) which encourages and promotes the use of learning technology to support learners in a Higher Education (HE) setting in the United Kingdom (UK). Through the personal narrative of this introduction I demonstrate the context of my professional journey to this Doctoral study.

 

The National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP), currently part of the School of Lifelong Learning and Education (LLE), has been recognised as a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for Work Based Learning (CEWBL). This Centre aims to provide HE opportunities to learners in a work based situation that may not be able to get their under/post-graduate degrees through a traditional face-to-face tuition. Through its more than ten-year history a ‘correspondence model’ dominated the student-tutor interaction. Garrison (2004) identified this distance learning model as the first generation - industrial era with characteristics such as learning in isolation and communicating privately with the tutor. A history of distance learning generations is offered in more detail in chapter two.

 

 This student-tutor interaction was mediated predominately by the use of email, phone, post and occasionally through FAX (NCWBLP 2005). As part of the NCWBLP Project Development Plan and the CEWBL grant proposal a focus on designing, developing and evaluating eLearning support for the work based learners was identified. This is where my role at NCWBLP began.

1.1 Programme background -

At the International Centre for Learner Managed Learning (ICLML 2005) I honed my concepts of ePedagogy and refined my understanding of educational research methodologies as a research fellow. I started my career at the NCWBLP as a researcher exploring the ways eLearning and appropriate associated pedagogies could support the work based learners. My role grew into a full-time academic post as a Sr. Learning Development Tutor while doing this Professional Doctorate in eLearning Pedagogy for Virtual Learning Environments. In this capacity I have had two module leader roles and have been made chair of Staff Development as part of the Centre development strategy.

 

As module leader for WBS2802 – Recognition and Accreditation of Learning (RAL) programme introduction course I was responsible for the WBL (work based learning) student’s first taste of online support. The second part of the programme covered Research Methods and Programme planning. I took responsibility again as the large projects module leader (WBS384/61&2). Through WBL projects students complete their degree programmes.

 

In my module capacity I acted as eLearning consultant to the Centre in the pedagogical design of its virtual learning environment (VLE). Additionally, I helped pilot the use of web video conferencing (WVC) for new student interviews online and final project presentations for overseas students.

 

The Centre has overseas offices in Europe, Asia, America and Africa. The value of researching and developing online communication and student support was sign-posted early in my WBL career.

 

As Staff Development Chair I have designed, implemented and evaluated many eLearning related training events. Some of these are detailed later in the report as illustrations of the application of ePedagogy which has emerged from this study.

1.2 Report structure -

The strategies in this document are in keeping with the framework established by JISC (JISC 2005) for the ‘Designing for Learning’ Pedagogy strand. Figure 1 shows the flow or the narrative for this report. To start, a literature review highlights the state-of-the-art of eLearning identifying current trends in online pedagogy and learning technologies. Gaps in the VLE (virtual learning environment) models and associated theories are analysed. The relation between ‘pre-theory’ and emerging eLearning models is critically addressed. Through an overall Action Research approach a new eLearning model supported by adapted online learning theories has emerged.

 

Three projects, detailed next, were conducted to generate data to validate the eLearning theories, models and pedagogical design principles[2] offered in the concluding chapter. Through this study the overall research question addressed is:

‘How can the learning process (a virtual learning environment event) be facilitated and supported through the research and development of web-based technology that is appropriately matched to eLearning pedagogy and online epistemology?’

 

In answering this question the research projects are innovative at several levels. This professional study set several ‘firsts’. Middlesex University (MU) was the first Higher Education Institution (HEI) to use Adobe Breeze web video conferencing in the UK. Since the projects conception we have consulted Oxford University and the English Criminal Investigation Agency on Breeze. Organisationally, the formation of the MU Breeze Consortium (a collection of Leading Learning Technologists across the University) was founded to create a research and support team for web video conferencing (WVC).

1.2.1 Professional recognition -

During my academic role I have been recognised for my eLearning expertise in both the HE and corporate sectors. The Higher Education Academy – UK awarded me eTutor of the Year ’04 for a project with the British Council (British Council-IUG 2004). In 2005 I was one of only 15 people in the UK invited to join the international software company, Adobe (formerly Macromedia) as an International Education Leader (MEL 2005). The E-Learning Network and E-Learning Age Magazine (ELN 2005) awarded me with a Special Mention for e-Tutoring in my work with the NCWBLP. These recognitions provide evidence of my professional credentials to conduct this investigation.

 

Figure 1 Report overview

1.2.2 Who will value this review?

One proposition of this study is that dynamic VLE guidelines are needed to support the learning technologist in their quest to communicate with the many various stakeholders involved in the eLearning process. Some of the ‘actors’ in an online learning event vary from administrators, library services, content providers, academics, researchers, web interface designers, eLearning pedagogues to the learners themselves.

 

Figure 2 Adapted from Stephenson’s (2004) eLearning Actors

1.3 Three projects approach -

The next part of this introduction details the aims and objectives of the projects conducted through this investigation.

1.3.1 Web-based video conferencing

Research Questions:

This study aims to answer the question, ‘How can web-based video conferencing and related tool sets (white boards, shared desktop, text chat, recording utility, etc.) be pedagogically designed appropriately and applied to a virtual research environment (VRE) context to address the collaborative and support needs of trans-disciplinary (across subjects and levels) work based learning practitioner researchers?

 

Objectives:

This study will:

1)      Conduct a literature review of web based videoconferencing software and research available,

2)      Determine the needs of the work-based practitioner researcher though case studies to establish generic issues of concern with respect to online communication and support through web-based video conferencing by specific cohorts,

3)      Identify open source, proprietary and distributed software resources appropriate to the delivery of these needs,

4)      Determine the ability of these tools to deliver to the identified needs through the case studies in Work Based Learning cohorts (Project 1, 2 & 3),

5)      Identify the appropriate frameworks of use for this community and to the large context of promoting dialogue between communities as required for trans-disciplinary research (Project 1, 2 &3).

 

Deliverables:

This project produces the following outputs:

Guidelines and protocols that could be applied across the subject disciplines to support the research activity of individual, isolated researchers will be an output of this study. Areas covered by these protocols will include, but are not restricted to:

1.3.2 Teaching Activity Templates -

Research Question:

This study will answer the research question, “How can eLearning model templates be used to promote the online teaching/learning process?”

 

Aims:

This project aims to:

  1. Identify appropriate pedagogical models to support a range of eLearning tools
  2. Design and develop a set of online pedagogical presentation software templates that can be used to generate interactive multimedia content using a 'wizard' approach for both student and teacher.
  3. Seek to take the learning and teaching process through structured formats to support educational goals using online interactive multimedia tools.
  4. Increase the usability of disseminating the possibilities of using VLEs and interactive multimedia tools more widely across the educational community, and to provide opportunities for streamlining the process of converting conventional teaching material into online teaching material.

 

Objectives:

This study will enable staff and students to be guided in multimedia formats for learning and teaching strategies to:

-   Save design and development time for constructing online learning materials,

-   Create engaging multimedia materials that support the learning process.

 

Deliverables:

Project deliverables are seen as:

1.      A set of online pedagogical presentation software templates.

2.      A communication and dissemination website

1.3.3 Virtual learning environment denouement profiling

Project proposal context - The research problem

The National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP) academics and administrators are asked to adapt and apply their current face-to-face (f2f) teaching practice to a web-based delivery and support systems such as VLEs.

 

A starting proposition of this study is that a VLE architect (or online pedagogical designer) such as the NCWBLP VLE Manager or the School of Lifelong Learning and Education (LLE) Web and Distance Learning Manager, needs to form a common framework of communication (language) with the academic/e-content provider to better guide them in choosing appropriate online curriculum models and supporting VLE tools.

 

Research Question:

The research question, ‘How can a common understanding of VLE design and implementation between the NCWBLP stakeholders be facilitated and supported?’ is addressed.

 

The research proposition –

To facilitate and support communication between the stakeholders in the VLE design and implementation process these elements are needed:

 

Aim:

My project aims to support the NCWBLP goal of designing VLEs that facilitate learning between the Centre’s stakeholders.

 

 

Objectives:

In this study I design, produce and test:

 

 

Deliverables:

This project produces:

1.4 ePedagogy: a starting definition

Wikipedia (2005), the online ‘open source’ glossary, sees pedagogy as the art or science of teaching. The word comes from the ancient Greek ‘paidagogos’, the slave who took children to and from school. The word "paida" refers to children, which is why some like to make the distinction between pedagogy (teaching children) and andragogy (teaching adults). The Latin word for pedagogy, education, is much more widely used, and often the two are used interchangeably. To the ancient Greeks, Paideia was "the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature." It also means culture. They are the ideals in which the Hellenes formed the world around them and their youth.

 

Since self-government was important to the Greeks, Paideia combined with ethos (habits) made a man good and made him capable as a citizen or a king. This education was not about learning a trade, or an art which the Greeks called banausos (mechanical) unworthy of a citizen, but was about training for liberty (freedom) and nobility (The Beautiful). Paideia is the cultural heritage that is continued through the generations. This study also seeks to stir a higher understanding in you, its reader.

 

“Pedagogies are connected with students’ learning and outcomes, and have been widely accepted for epistemological and empirical reasons. In this way, the issue of integrating e-learning into the pedagogical system has recently emerged as an important and pressing focus for research.” (Mehanna 2004, p. 280)

 

Mortimore (1999) refers to pedagogy as a ‘contested’ term with ‘changing connotations and pressures’. His preferred definition states that pedagogy is: ‘any conscious action by one person designed to enhance learning in another’ (p.3). This proposition implies that knowledge/learning is an ‘external product’ according to the Empiricalist’s view (Lane 2005). The Constructivist epistemology, upon which this investigation is based, sees meaning making as an internal and personal construct, but mediated through social exchange.  This argument is detailed in the final chapter of this report.

 

Mehanna (2004) sees pedagogy as any effective behaviour or activity designed to impart knowledge. It is used in the process of teaching and learning and has an association with students’ learning and outcomes.  ‘Imparting knowledge’ implies a teacher-led transmission model of pedagogy. The position of this study is that although there is value in showing direct links between pedagogy and learning outcomes, pedagogical design should not be constrained by assessment deliverables. 

 

Pedagogy is also sometimes referred to as a correct use of teaching strategies. For example, Brazilian Paulo Freire, according to Mehanna (2004), who is one of the most influential educators of the 20th century, referred to his method of teaching adults as "critical pedagogy". In correlation with those teaching strategies the instructor's own philosophical beliefs of teaching are harboured and governed by the pupil's background knowledge and experiences, personal situations and environment as well as learning goals set by the student guided by the teacher.

 

This position is aligned to Stephenson’s (2005) Learner Managed Learning (LML) approach, where the pedagogical design is negotiated between the student and the learning facilitator. The NCWBLP employs LML pedagogical elements such as negotiated learning agreements in the form of programme plans. Through this system the work based learning candidate establishes their expertise through APEL/RAL (accreditation of prior experiential learning/recognition and accreditation of learning), develops a scheme for their degree program, prepare a research proposal and methodology and conduct a work based project (NCWBLP Subject Handbook 2005).

 

One definition sees work based learning as, “a learning process which focuses university level critical thinking upon work (paid or unpaid) in order to facilitate the

recognition, acquisition and application of individual and collective knowledge, skills and abilities, to achieve specific outcomes of significance to the learner, their work and the university (Garnett 2004).

 

Some eLearning researchers related to the context of this investigation have focused on pedagogies associated with social interactions and online discussions (Henri 1997, Stephenson 2002, Alexander & Boud 2001) (Appendix 1). The remained of this report examines emerging pedagogies linked to online communication, collaboration and learning via the web. It is this transition of pedagogy to a web-based learning context that is the focus of the remainder of this report.


2.0 Significance of policy and literature to ePedagogy

2.1 Introduction

What does literature and the web show in the way pedagogy and online learning theory can inform design principles for virtual learning environments (VLEs)? Through this chapter we identify the main themes of eLearning pedagogy and the gaps that exist in these areas. One purpose of this chapter is to inform the following research projects about the issues, according to literature, that need to be addressed. This approach is illustrated in figure 1 from Chapter 1 which shows the revisiting cycle of review between this literature review and the parallel issues emerging from the projects.

 

First this chapter identifies the possible stakeholders who would value the answer to that question. Next, eLearning policy is examined from a national, institutional, school and centre level. A background context is then provided exploring the path of ‘five generations’ of VLE growth and development. A critical review of various perspectives of eLearning is next discussed including a focus on the computer interface. This analysis, showing the pros and cons of eLearning, is linked to the related project issues. The interaction between the issues and the issues informs the theory developed from this literature review.

 

An emerging eLearning theory is presented with analysis of Constructivism and Activity theory provided. The social qualities of an online learning space are argued next which builds towards a transitional learning model. The theories and models finally lead to the formation of pedagogical design principles to aid the VLE architect. 

 

The eLearning theories, VLE models and related pedagogical design principles from this review are critically compared to each of the projects to inform the final chapter in the formation of the Doctorate’s innovative ePedagogcial approaches and toolkits.

2.2 Policy

Policy, as it relates to eLearning, is examined in a descending fashion from a national to centre perspective. First, England’s Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) concerns are summarised. Then, institutional policies at Middlesex University (MU) are reviewed which are followed by the School of Arts and Education. Finally, the National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP) and Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for Work Based Learning’s (CEWBL) perspective of eLearning is reviewed.

2.2.1 National level -

The DfES eLearning Strategy identifies barriers to distributed learning and develops a sustainable long-term strategy (DfES 2005). The HE (Higher Education) strand encourages a collaborative approach to personalised learning activities, a theme which is developed through the course of this review (See Appendix A).

 

“e-Learning exploits interactive technologies and communication systems to improve the learning experience. It has the potential to transform the way we teach and learn across the board. It can raise standards, and widen participation in lifelong learning. It cannot replace teachers and lecturers, but alongside existing methods it can enhance the quality and reach of their teaching.” (DfES 2006-Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy)

 

Unlike some government documents pertaining to eLearning I have reviewed over the past decade, there was a real consultation procedure carried out by Diana Laurillard (formerly Pro Vice Chancellor of the Open University) in producing the National eLearning Strategy. I was invited to a Higher Education Academy consultation event as the HE Academy eTutor Award winner in 2004. The representation at the event captured many of the stakeholders’ perspectives presented in Figure 2. 

 

 According to the QAA (2006) guidelines for distance learning VLE system design, programme design and delivery, student development and support, student communication and representation, and student assessment all raise particular questions for institutions about the ways in which they 'manage' teaching and learning to ensure that the quality of provision and security of academic standards are as they need to be.’

 

 “I’ve read many times that the VLE is a Trojan horse that gets staff to think about how they teach. Once you make the move into eLearning, it definitely makes you think more about your face-to-face teaching.” (Staley 2004)

 

In my previous role as eLearning author and proof reader for MU’s Computing Science Global Campus Project, I experienced first hand this transitions process to teaching with WebCT which is the institution’s commercial VLE. One outcome was a pedagogically improved paper-based course handbook.

2.2.2 Institution level -

Middlesex University (2006) has several policies in place addressing the institution’s eLearning strategy and home-working provision. According to the MU Corporate Plan, ‘new approaches to teaching and learning are needed involving web technology; higher productivity; increased access to higher education for people previously excluded by barriers of time, place and finance; growing international competition between universities (including new for-profit corporate universities); and a developing culture of lifelong learning as a response by employers and employees to the pace of change in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.’ The MU Open and Distance Education policy sets these objectives:

Ø      proportion of module runs to have VLE support at least at the level of module       handbook online;

Ø      increased number of modules to be more substantially supported by online open learning;

Ø      increased proportion of enrolled students in each School undertaking web-supported modules;

Ø       integration of VLE with student management system;

Ø       increased number of WebCT-trained staff.

 

Although these seem like reasonable objectives for the Academy, there is a lack of focus and follow-up. Several references to the proportion and increased numbers are made, however, initial statistics are not objectively provided to gauge progress. Additionally, there seems to be the proposition by this policy that more is better. Quality of provision in not described or built into the strategy. Due to the University’s centralised management structure and training model the action plan to accomplish these objectives in not clear or publicly accessible.

 

A positive innovation has been made at the university level through the Learning Resources (LR) Services. This group, represented by Mike Bell, is a member of the Breeze Consortium which will be discussed in detail for Project 1 of Chapter 4 on web video conferencing. The web help desk has been instrumental is providing support to our WBL students through a web-based email system. We have now been able to steer our novice online learners to this resource for help, particularly when there is a conflict with the student online registration system (MISIS) not ‘talking to’ the WebCT/Oasis VLE due to an enrolment problem (i.e. – a fee payment query).

 

Communication is a key factor between the distance learning units however. When we migrated to the new version of WebCT Vista / OasisPlus the MU Oasis team did not inform the help desk so up-to-date login procedures were not properly communicated. Without a clear problem follow-up protocol in place it was only through student complaints to NCWBLP that the issue was identified and corrected. Procedural handbooks are now being designed to help with this support system.

2.2.3 School level -

University staff members are given minor financial support for working at home depending on the discretion of the School’s Dean.  A weakness of these provisions in the eLearning strategy is the follow-up implementation. A more detailed action plan showing online pedagogical principles linked to appropriate software tools would help academics better understand ‘how’ to produce eLearning content and personalised learning activities. The WebCT/Oasis team (MU’s eLearning Support Centre) offer Staff Development training, but this report aims to address the gap in the University’s plan (Middlesex 2005).

 

Figure 3 shows the issues around the VLE adoption at the School level. At the time of this writing MU has four Schools on several North London campuses and represented throughout the world with our International Offices. Each academic Module Leader throughout the University was informed by the Executive Management that they must produce a VLE containing [1] content [2] evaluation and [3] communication.

 

At a minimal level this was interpreted as the paper-based handbook in electronic format (e.g. PDF, HTML or Word files), email or online surveys, and asynchronous text discussion boards. Instead of a blanket-wide university adoption strategy it may have been beneficial to take a staggered adoption approach by looking for smaller pilot groups to identify any problems or issues arising.

 

Two elements missing from the MU model are: [Pre-start] access to the VLE before the learning event has begun and [Core] pedagogy for online learning.  A major weakness in the University model is the assumption that the learner is campus-based. NCWBLP (National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships) candidates are distance learners.

 

Pedagogic guidelines were not provided at the start by the WebCT/Oasis team. Project 2 of this study addresses this gap. In collaboration with Raphael Commins, the School Web and Distance Learning Manager, a strategy was found where the focus on training shifted progressively over time.

 

In the short-term access, content and evaluation had the most focused training, while communication and pedagogy was emphasised more in the mid/long-term.

 

Figure 3 School-wide eLearning Strategy

2.2.4 Centre Level -

The NCWBLP (National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships) and Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for Work Based Learning (CEWBL) formed an ICT (Information and Communication Technology) action group. I have drafted a strategy (Appendix B) addressing these issues at a macro level:

*           NCWBLP/CEWBL website,

*           WebCT/Oasis (Vista),

*           Adobe Breeze Live (Web video conference) &  online Content (PPT-to-Flash),

*           CETWBL Capital Improvements (Soft/Hardware),

*           Online Content Process,

*           ICT Training (Staff Development),

*           Follow-up on Network Bandwidth Test.

 

As I am the Chair for Staff Development in the NCWBLP, I am well situated to act on implementing this plan under the direction of the Centre Head. However, although there are financial resources available, the University bureaucracy inhibits the progress of acquiring ICT (information and communication technology) hardware and software. We work under the constraint of a vendor system. This means we have approved ICT suppliers. Problems arise when the vendors can not provide the product or service required. CCSS (computing support team) do not aid eLearning research and development under those circumstances. 

2.2.5 Summary of policy constraints

The key point of this summary is to identify the awkward relationship between MU policy with respect to Computing Support (CCSS) and our role as an innovative distance teaching and learning research centre. The ‘default student model’ which most policy is based around assumes the ‘on-campus’ full-time student profile. Our WBL students are working full-time and learning remotely (see Garnett - Chapter 1). The University wants to control the flow of information through its ‘corporate desk-top’ approach. As such, many of the technologies and related eLearning pedagogies discussed in this report do not fit their model. This constraint in policy even impacts on the purchase of ICT hard/software. Therefore, MU policy has placed innovative research groups at the fringe of the corporate model. This makes communication between the related learning organisations patchy at best and not working towards the Academy’s mission statement.

2.3 eLearning Context

Moore (1996) states that distance education is a complex system of institutional, individual, technical and social components.  The eLearning experience, a sub-set of distance learning, is an integrated whole of all related components. A change in one part affects the whole system (Garrison 2004). This study supports Moore’s position by taking a ‘gestalt overview’ approach to analysing the component parts of an online learning system.

 

Wikipedia (2006) offers a dynamic definition of VLEs as, ‘a software system designed to facilitate teachers in the management of educational courses for their students, especially by helping teachers and learners with course administration.’ A historical overview of VLE development from the 1940 to 2006 is continuously growing in this ‘open entry’ resource.

 

Another approach to looking at eLearning under the umbrella of distance learning (DL) is to cluster its evolution through ‘generations of development’. Garrison (2004), himself, is critical of reading too deeply into this classification scheme, but identifies its value in gaining perspective on the overall context of eLearning research. Table 1 allows us to compare and contrast the growth of technology in relation to pedagogy. It is valuable to remember that these are ‘soft’ barriers between the generation descriptions. A VLE may have elements of different generations. This ‘cross threading’ of VLE components is elaborated in the report’s conclusion.

 

1st Generation

Correspondence /Transmission Model

(Industrial) 

2nd  Generation

Broadcast model
(OU – BBC TV)

3rd  Generation

Computer Mediated Conferencing

(CMC)

4th  Generation

Blending Learning

(Generations 1 – 3)

5th  Generation

Artificial Intelligence Managed Learning Environments

> Behaviourist Learning Theory: scaffolding

> Mass production / high quality content

> Course team (instructional designer, graphic artist, editors, manager, etc.)

> Personal self-paced

> Sense of isolation

> Screen for Paper / email for post

> Stand-alone: not taking advantage of web communication

> Cognitive learning theory

> CD-ROM resources

> Limited interaction with tutor

Libraries of digital learning objects

> Constructivist learning theory

> Individuals as members of online learning groups

> Networked communities of practice

> Various pedagogical designs

> VLEs:

 - provide retrieval of web content

- CMC (ie – text, audio &/or video),

- Locally distributed processes (ie – face-to-face inductions digitally recorded)

> Personalised

> Intelligent flexible design (e.g. work based learning model)

> Automated FAQs

> Integrated systems (ie database, VLE, web conferencing)

> Semantic web searching: Web 2.0

> Student generated content, citizen journalism

Table 1  eLearning Generations adapted from Garrison 2004

The focus of this report falls mainly on 4th Generation VLE description and analysis.

It is this ‘blended pedagogical design’ which has influenced the ‘transitional’ quality of the proposed online learning model offered in the final chapter of this report.

 

Although it may be valuable to see and critically compare the evolutionary path of distance learning design and implementation, due to time constraints in this project,  the other generations will not be assessed.

 

Nipper (1989) sees, ‘a major task of scholars and researchers in distance education is to create conceptual models and taxonomies that allow us to better understand the [virtual] world [and VLE][3] we inhabit and create. The next section of this review provides some critical discourse in several learning theories influencing the eLearning model and pedagogic typologies which frame the contribution of the study.

2.4 eLearning perspectives

Contrasting views of the design and development of eLearning systems is reviewed next. First, the possible stages the academic and learner go through in an online learning event are analysed. Next, a summary table of key issues relating to VLEs offers an at-a-glance ‘pros-and-cons’ comparison.

 

In table 1.0 Garrison emphasised the value of thinking about the differences between the DL generations as a ‘soft barrier’ or ‘cross-generation’. The same perspective applies when analysing what constitutes a VLE. For this discussion I have grouped the processes and tool for VLEs into:

*           Content – online learning materials and activities,

*           Communication – online discourse, argument, collaboration and feedback evaluation,

*           Epistemology – leading to a view of online learning (Telepistemology),

*           Management – the logistics of operating in a virtual space.

*           Assessment – this has been grouped within Communication for this analysis.

 

I recognise that these contrived categories can not be examined in isolation. When interrogating a learning theory aspects of the other components come to play. In this light I offer a denouement or joining together the ‘core components’ in the final chapter. For this literature review, the focus is on the theories related to eLearning.

 

Anderson (2004) sees a relationship between the VLE’s intended learning outcomes and the teaching approaches used, ‘like any pedagogy – eLearning is based on assumptions about achieving learning outcomes.’ Contrasting this,’ instructor-set learning outcomes’ are models that encourage proactive student learning agreements. This Learner Managed Learning (LML) approach (Stephenson et. al. 2005) can be exemplified in a Work Based Learning (WBL) model template illustrated in chapter 5 [See the CD-ROM for Template 3.2]. The LML approach was used in the British Council-Islamic University Gaza eLearning Workshop Project (British Council 2004) that resulted in being awarded the UK Higher Education eTutor of the Year in 2004 (Basiel 2006).

 

Biggs (1999) views constructive alignment as creating consistencies between learning outcomes, curriculum, teaching methods, the VLE and assessment, but Mayes and Beetham (2004) in a JISC report remind us that alignment can be achieved without the learning outcomes actually being valuable to the learner. In fact, Weiss (2000) takes it a step further to suggest a ‘hidden curriculum’ or a ‘null curricula of the web.’ It is this trend towards ‘a personalised curriculum’ or individual programme plan (as used in our Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning) linked to in/formal learning that has growing recognition for VLEs.

 

It can be argued that a VLE is composed of a (conscious) blend online content and communication opportunities. Online content, then could range from a ‘teacher creates all’ to a ‘student-generated’ activity approach.

 

An extended online debate grew out of the University College London (UCL) conference on VLEs and publishing (UCL 2006). Emerald publisher (2006) is researching models of blending paper-based journal articles with personalised online learning opportunities.

 

Principles of online (text) discussion design warn against an over reliance on teachers posting questions not relevant to learning objectives that may de-motivate students. Rourke & Anderson (2002) suggest discussion groups can be led by student moderators which increases participation.

 

A bi-polar view of VLE models presents an individual or virtual community approach. The ‘individual model’ relates to table 1 with the Generation 1 & 2 designs, where as a virtual community of learning uses online communication tools to support student collaborative activities (Anderson 2004).

 

To have a realistic perspective of eLearning systems we should recognise their constraints. Table 2 compiles data from Bonk’s (2006) “Blended Learning Handbook”, (Chapter 1). This matrix offers a critical comparison between the strengths and weaknesses of eLearning systems.

VLE Topic

PROS

CONS

 

Usability

Convenience and access

Online learning components often require a large amount of self-discipline

Balance between global and local interests

Ability to distribute uniform learning materials rapidly

Customise materials to local audience to make them culturally relevant.

Content:

Text-based VLE

flexibility, depth of reflection

Asynchronous tools lack spontaneity, serendipitous discoveries. Tendency to procrastinate. Impersonal interaction lowers human bonding and satisfaction.

Communication:

Web Video Conferencing supported VLE

Social presence encourages trust, rapid chain of associated ideas more likely

Dominate personalities may limit participation. Limited time may restrict discussion depth. Intl’ time zones must be addressed for meetings.

 

Transferable/critical  thinking skills

Tutorial software can be used as a basis for discussion between learners can be a good way of infusing thinking skills into the curriculum.

Just using technology does not, by itself, lead to transferable thinking skills. Critical thinking should be part of the pedagogical design.

Table 2 Pros and Cons of VLE systems

Issues related to the core components of a VLE have been examined. It is useful to identify it will be teacher and/or student-led:

*           Learning objectives – constructively aligned,

*           Online content – static or dynamic,

*           Communication – student-tutor or networked collaborative community.

We need to acknowledge the weakness of the tools and system to guide us by appropriate use. So, we are not locked into one scheme. A transition between system states is possible. This view is guided by the theories discussed next.

2.4.1 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Usability Design (Principles for VLE Interface Design) –

Just as our meaning making may be mediated through our senses, so to our eLearning may be mediated through the interface of the online learning system as Goldberg and Idinopulos (2000) suggest. Table 2 only begins to touch issues of HCI (Dix 1993) and Usability (Nielsen 2006). These factors need to be added to our perspective of learning through a VLE interface. These issues will impact on our online learning models and VLE pedagogic design principles as we will see in the final chapter.

2.5 Emerging eLearning theory -

Moore (Bonk 2006) reminds us that one can, and should, study eLearning from the point of view of the classroom teacher and the pedagogical theories underlying classroom practice. This position is part of the debate in the second project of this study raised by Professors Stephenson and Evans.  Pedagogies are connected with students’ learning outcomes, and have been widely accepted for epistemological and empirical (theory and practice) reasons. In this way, the issue of integrating eLearning into the pedagogical system has recently emerged as an important and pressing focus for research (Mehanna 2004). Mayes (2004) states that for good pedagogical design, there is simply no escaping the need to adopt a theory of learning.

 

Garrison (2004) supports Privateer’s (1999) position that digital technologies require radically new and different notions of pedagogy. It makes little sense for academia to continue a tradition of learning significantly at odds with technologies that are currently altering how humans learn and interact with each other in new learning communities.

Lane (2006) says there are various models of science on which we might draw to underpin our practice, which include:

*     The pursuit of truth – the empiricist worldview

*     Finding the best available solution – falsification

*     Working within frameworks – paradigms

*     Elevating discourse – social constructivism

*     Interacting systems – critical realism

*     Chaos out of order – new science, approach

 

These general philosophical/epistemological groupings aim to guide the modern scientist-practitioner in finding an appropriate research methodology. This list brings us to the formation of other learning perspectives.

 

Mayes (2004) offers us some ‘generic learning perspectives’:

Ø      Associationist/empiricist perspective – learning as activity

Ø      Cognitive perspective – learning as achieving understanding

Ø      Situative perspective – learning as social practice

 

While table 3, a JISC (2004) eLearning report summary, refines them:

Learning Perspective

Epistemology

Illustration

Associative perspective

learning as acquiring competence

Progressive difficulty / individualised pathways (i.e. – Work Based Learning student learning agreements)

Individual Constructive

achieving understanding

Activities to discover principles. Support for reflection

Social Constructive

achieving understanding

VLE with activities to discover principles. Support for reflection and peer review

Situative perspective

social practice

Social learning communities of inquiry

Table 3 Adaptation of JISC ePedagogy summary

The eLearning perspectives offered by JISC in Table 3 may be aimed at the individual or group as are the related epistemologies. Again, I see the benefit of a ‘soft separation’ or transitional relationship between these categories. This type of eLearning pedagogy matrix may serve as a guide the VLE designer in identifying and selecting appropriate support tools.

 

Reflection on learning is a common thread running through most learning perspectives or theories to some degree. Dewey recognised it as far back as 1916, while Cowan (1998) sees reflection as a necessary pedagogical method and Kolb (2006) includes it in his experiential learning cycle. In a work based learning (WBL) context personal and professional reflection is encouraged through the course of the learning process.

The opportunity for reflection should be built into the design of the VLE taking the form of a prompt from the tutor or part of a group activity. The technical system needs to support the learner in recording or annotating their thoughts and experiences. As such, a VLE learning model should include reflection in its design. This argument is continued in the Conclusions chapter with my contribution towards an online learning model.

 

Constructivism is currently seen as a dominant theory to support VLE design and development.  Mayes (2004) summarises this view of learning as a process which is cumulative, goal-orientated, self-regulated and dependent on prior knowledge/experience through active construction of understanding. He offers these key components to promote online learning:

Ø      problem-solving,

Ø      ownership of task,

Ø      coaching and modelling of thinking skills,

Ø      scaffolding,

Ø      guided discovery,

Ø      reflection opportunity.

 

Vygotsky’s Activity Theory is another prominent learning theory applied to a VLE context. Professor Evans, in Project 2 of this report, provides detail of this approach to eLearning from a WBL context. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is also linked to Activity Theory (Jonassen 2000).

 

ZPD is the distance between learner’s current conceptual development (as measured by independent problem solving) and that of their potential capability (measured by what can be accomplished through collaboration with more capable peers). Scaffolding is building connecting links between these points of understanding. This can be supported through ZPD. Tutors need expert domain knowledge to judge individual needs to switch between novice and experienced student perspectives. In a VLE context then, online tutors need guidance in the art of scaffolding as they learn to use online support tools such as email, discussion boards, web video conferencing, etc. (Mayes T. 2004).

 

In the UK programmes for online tutors are offered through a variety of sectors:

Ø      The University for Industry (UfI) manage an online tutor certification programme (UfI 2006),

Ø      The University of London through the Institute of Education conduct the Online Education and Training Course (OET 2006),

Ø      The CMALT certification for learning technologists (ALT 2006).

 

Brown (2000) sees concepts as tools to be understood through use, rather than as self-contained entities to be delivered through instruction while Jonassen (1998) interprets  scaffolding as a type of ‘mind tool’ which support different forms of reasoning about content promoting students to think about what they know in different, meaningful ways. In this context, VLE tools, such as, physical (books, software) and cognitive (memory, concepts, language) tools enable and constrain learning activity through their affordances (Mayes T. 2004). It is up to the VLE pedagogue to make the recipe for the online learning event by blending theory and practice appropriately. Recommendations made in the conclusion of this report should add to the VLE architect’s eLearning cook book.

 

Student-centred VLEs are moving away from a ‘Transmission Model’ (Generation 1 – Table 1) to take on a problem / project-based approach (Generation 4 – Constructivism). This requires inquiry-oriented pedagogies according to Mayes (2004). There is a shift from interacting with stand-alone online content to engaging with others in critical discourse via web-based collaborative tools.

 

A sample of exemplars from Horton (2000) is offered here:

Ø      problem based learning,

Ø      anchored instruction,

Ø      cognitive apprenticeships,

Ø      reciprocal teaching,

Ø      goal-based scenarios,

Ø      project-based learning.

 

Project 2 of this report expands these pedagogic models as templates for academics preparing course materials for online systems. Face-to-face pedagogic models such as Horton’s (2000) serve as an analogue foundation upon which to build digitally adapted counterparts. Although he speaks to an American corporate training audience, his pedagogic designs are appropriately adapted to a Higher Education context in the UK.

 

Through these VLE models Mayes (2004) believes more experienced learners are adopting the values of personal responsibility and shared control as their own. ‘A critical, collaborative learning community has been the sine qua non (you can not do it alone [in isolation]) of higher education. Written communication alone lacks a sense of immediacy – behaviours that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another (Mehrabian 1969). The transactional perspective for an (online) community of inquiry where both reflection and discourse are utilised to facilitate the construction of personally meaningful and socially valid knowledge is a ‘deep learning approach’ (Ramsden 1988).

 

Through this examination of the literature Garrison’s summary of the evolution of DL seems validated. A progressive trend is emerging from a focus on content in VLE’s pedagogic design to supporting communication and collaboration. Related learning theories such as Constructivism and Activity Theory are being adapted to promote principles of VLE design.

 

Critical thinking and discourse are central to an eLearning theoretical framework, according to Mayes (2004 p. 57 & 59, Figure 6.1 & 6.2), who summaries the process as a six-stage cycle. Table 4 shows a comparison to Dewey’s (1933) practical inquiry which is grounded in experience:

 

Critical thinking

Practical inquiry

1. Begin with a problem identification or definition. This shared knowledge of the world forms a public information-base.

1. A triggering event in the shared world is leading to perception and awareness.

2. Insight through induction: A hypothesis is generated through exploration of the problem.

2. Exploration is conducted in the private world.

3. Meaning is constructed individually and socially.

3. Deliberation is done to determine the applicability of the solution.

4. Insight through deduction: Understanding is applied to the context of the real-world problem.

4. Integration is achieved through reflection which generates meaning making

5. Integration is where confirmation builds a personal knowledge-base.

5. Conception: Ideas are formed first individually and modified socially.

6. Reflection, in the form of dissonance and appraisal, links back to the problem.

6. Resolution, a higher cognitive thinking, is supported via discourse.

Table 4 Comparison of Mayes & Dewey's framework

Thinking skills are not unified by any single psychological theory, but includes strategies, habits, attitudes, emotions, motivations, aspects of character or self-identity and also engagement in a dialogue and in a community of inquiry. Mayes (2004) suggests that a VLE has ‘transformative potential’ and this should be used to support analytical and flexible learning capabilities, confidence, self-discipline, communication, an ability to collaborate, reflexivity and questioning attitudes.

 

Critical thinking can not be automatically built into the design of a VLE, but is a feature which should not be overlooked. Commercial learning management systems do not offer critical thinking as an optional toolset. As the VLE architect composes the pedagogic design, consideration should be placed on how the critical thinking process can best be promoted and supported in the context of the online learning event.

 

In/formal learning should also be addressed, as not all education takes place in a formal academic setting be it face-to-face or virtual (Cook et. al 2006, Sutton 2005). VLEs may support in/formal learning, differentiating between formal instruction and that type of spontaneous and undefined learning associated with information retrieval and display. There can be a great deal of unscripted interplay in an eLearning experience that potentially provides for creativity and serendipity. Functional communities have a common purpose, but must also allow new meanings and understandings that recognise the uncertainty of knowledge to emerge (Myers K. 1999).

 

At the Diverse’06 conference in Scotland I put forward the argument that web video conferencing had the potential to stimulate and support serendipitous learning opportunities (Diverse 2006). The VLE architect should be aware of this attribute of an online learning event and plan for it in the pedagogical design. This may be expressed as VLE features such as:

Ø      An ‘ice breaking’ introductory ‘brain storming’ or mind mapping activity,

Ø      An un-moderated virtual social space.

 

The pedagogical design of the VLE should include activities which give the stakeholders the opportunity to become inducted as a group. These ‘online bonding activities’ may use multimedia to share cultural perspectives, learning goals, etc. They can also help the online tutor identify any unplanned issues early on in the eLearning event. One example of this type of activity is the Global Rich Picture (GRIP) (Basiel 2004). This mind mapping design and toolkit adapts Checkland’s (1999) Soft System Methodology (SSM) to a VLE context.

 

A communication space in the VLE where the participants can freely exchange perspectives may also encourage informal learning. Ideally, this is a real-time multimedia conference space that is not controlled by the tutor. Ethical concerns around this ‘open access’, un-moderated space have arisen from conference presentations (Basiel 2005). Although a recognised issue, this is not be a focus of the study.

 

A transitional learning model is emerging. Wegerif (2002) believes that most eLearning practitioners do not mind blending pedagogic approaches and tools within a VLE if it leads to the promotion of automatic habits through positive feedback, in other words, learning as behavioural modification. At a higher level there is teaching conscious meta-cognitive strategies. Examples of this approach would be the student seeking an alternative view and creating a community of inquiry in the virtual classroom (see Table 3).

 

Learning can be seen as a change in the state of understanding. Growth implies learning as a positive move towards completion of a goal (Wegerif R. 2002). This, however, infers learning as a linear metaphor.

 

Figure 4 Transitional model representations

Figure 4 critically contrasts three different representations of learning system approaches adapted from Basiel (1999). A production approach is a linear progression from ‘A’ to ‘C’. A systems approach is a 2D cycle that revisits the point ‘A’ to ‘C’ until a conclusion is reached. A systems perspective is detailed in the Research Methods of this report. The third model is a three dimensional spiral without a specified end-point. This representation infers the change of state from ‘A’ to ‘C’ has several levels of intertwining variables. The Conclusions chapter adapts and develops this last model to a VLE context as a ‘spiral web learning model’ (figure 19).

 

If we embrace the ‘spiral model’ adaptable design principles are then needed to accommodate the flexible pedagogical structure of a VLE to deal with the transitional nature of the ‘state of the learner’ and the selection of appropriate online tools to support the educational process.

2.6 VLE design principles -

Mayes (2004) believes that VLE design should support the connection between participant/stakeholders and the VLE purpose via mediating tools. Through the relationship between the components are linked by a set of rules. Garrison (2004) suggests some design principles that can be adapted and applied to a VLE context:

Content design principles

Organisation guidelines

Teaching presence

Social presence guidelines

> illustrate content issues with personal reflections, anecdotes, discussion of teacher’s own struggles and successes as they have gained content mastery to motivate students

 

> inclusive, globalised approach to consider local learner’s perspective

> profile learner

> establish curriculum

> identify resources

> define clear expectations and goals [process & content]

> identify & address technological concerns

> structure (individual/collaborative) activities

> set time frames

> devise assessment process and instruments [some would put this first][4]

> select media

> factor formative evaluation into the VLE system

> establish a ‘global perspective’

> establish trust and being welcomed

> belong to a critical community

> give a sense of control

> promote a sense of accomplishment

> encourage a willingness to engage in discourse

> set a conversational tone

> promote a questioning attitude

> acknowledge and welcome participants as they enter discussions

> discussion moderation should be encouraging and supportive

> students should login regularly

> peer response to specific contributions should be recognised

> communication should be conversational and not too formal

> encourage ‘lurkers’ to participate

> express feelings, but avoid ‘flaming’

> be cautious using humour, until familiarity is achieved

> students need to contact tutor when problems arise

Table 5 - Garrison's adapted eLearning design principles

A way to develop Table 5 is to link the principles and guidelines with eLearning pedagogical research with appropriate online support tools. Project 3 of this report addresses this weakness.

 

Principles to support learning in a VLE should:

Ø      provide conceptual order and guidelines that have generalisability,

Ø      value for academics and related professionals (Mayes 2004).

 

Mayes (2004) also sees that ‘a crucial stage in the VLE design process is where the learning theory is unpacked into a detailed pedagogical approach’.  The principles offered by Garrison in Table 5 for content organisational structure are simple and straight forward. Some may argue for a ‘reverse engineering’ approach to VLE design which establishes the assessment terms and then builds the learning event. An example of this strategy was a project in which I was the online student support officer. Middlesex University Computing Science Global Campus Project pilot used this approach with the Masters in Business Information Systems degree (Stephenson 2001). 

 

In a JISC report (2004) effective practice in e-Learning is analysed:

6 key dimensions of eLearning

Guidelines of effective eLearning

&    Connectivity- global access to info

&    Flexibility – anytime/place

&    Interactivity – immediate and autonomous assessment

&    Collaboration – through online discussion tools

&    Extended opportunities – reinforce classroom learning

&    Motivation – enjoyable learning

Ø       engage learners in the learning process

Ø       encourage independent learning skills

Ø       develop learner’s skills and knowledge

Ø       motivate further learning

Table 6 JISC VLE design guidelines

These suggested VLE guidelines and pedagogical design principles are not meant to act as a constraint to eLearning creativity. A VLE architect is not required to use all of these suggestions. This research encourages the learning technologist to select guidelines appropriate to the context and level of the knowledge domain and learner’s needs.

 

Garrison (2004) sees that the challenge is to design and create a context, with appropriate levels of social presence, which is congruent with the content and the reinforcement of the educational goals that will enhance cognitive presence and the realisation of higher-order learning outcomes. This position is linked with Mayes (2004) earlier comments on generic learning perspectives and the JISC (2004) eLearning report in Table 3.

 

Mayes (2004) encourages a blending of elements that emphasise all three perspectives of learning: as behaviour, as construction of knowledge/meaning and social practice. This act of blending is unlikely to have a one-to-one mapping for a VLE to a single perspective. Project 3 approaches this ‘denouement’ issue in VLE context.

 

In relation to Garrison’s (2004) VLE design principles, Bonk (2006: Chapter 2) conjectures that these categories of blended learning systems are possible:

Ø      Enabling Design:
VLE provides additional flexibility to learners or blends that provide the same opportunities or learning experience but through a different modality

Ø      Enhancing Design:
Incremental changes to pedagogy but do not radically change the way teaching and learning occurs.

Ø      Transforming Design:
Radical transformation of pedagogy makes a change in a model where learners are just receivers of information to a model where learners actively construct knowledge through dynamic interactions.

This ‘transitional’ approach to VLE pedagogical design is developed in the conclusion of this report.

2.7 Summary Discussion

This report proposes that by critically comparing the online learning theories and VLE design principles put forth in this literature review with the conclusions drawn from the three projects in this study, it would be possible to design a purposeful, creative learning environment with an appropriate balance between reflection and discourse. This position supports Garrison’s (2004) beliefs that VLEs have the capability to precipitate private reflection as well as promote public discourse within a community of learners.

 

A flexible and adaptive set of VLE pedagogical design principles are offered in the conclusion of this report to accommodate the transitional nature of online learning systems. These principles are informed by this literature review and supported by the project case studies and related toolkits, templates and methodologies generated by this investigation in the following chapters.

 

Some possible outcomes of these VLE design principles are offered in Appendix C. For example, Mason (1998) provides three generic online curriculum models:

*     Content and support model – static web content supplemented by e-tutorial support.

*     Wrap-around model – web course material is wrapped by activities of online discussion.

*     Integrated model – collaborative e-activities are supported by dynamic online content.

These models have been included in project 3 which provides a VLE pedagogical toolkit.

 

Through the process of reviewing literature on eLearning pedagogy, critically examining online learning theory and developing principles of pedagogical design for VLEs appropriate online learning models can continue to be developed.

 

Massey (2003) takes us into the next chapter on research methods by providing us a European perspective, “The technologies are here. To be honest, I’ve been evaluating R & D in learning technologies across Europe for well over a decade now and in the last couple of years I’ve seen nothing new. The technologies are becoming quite mature. What is still in its nascent stage are innovative learning and development processes that take advantage of the technologies. So the final lesson for now is that we have the technology – now we need to find the compelling reason to use it.

 

 

 


3.0 Research Methods

3.1 Introduction

What research methodologies are appropriate when investigating pedagogy for eLearning? This chapter provides insight into some possible solutions. To start, several research traditions are critically discussed with a brief analysis of related learning theories. Action research (AR) is then reviewed and critiqued (Koshy 2005, et. al.). Within the ‘umbrella’ of the AR approach other methodologies influenced this study such as Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland 1999) and the Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan 1954, Gremier 2004, et. al.). An argument is put forward as to why a synthesis of research elements is appropriate to support the three-part project structure of this investigation. Ethical considerations for the research methods used in the study are then highlighted.

 

Next, the relation between theory and practice is explored in the context of my role as a practitioner researcher within the Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning (CEWBL). Finally, a proposition is made to continue the research towards the development of a new research technique appropriate to an eLearning context.

3.1.1 Critical reflections on research traditions 

Koshy (2005) identifies two general paradigms of knowledge. The positivist approach, a traditional scientific method, seeks large quantities of data with the intent to make generalisations. A naturalistic approach tries to get inside individuals and institutions to understand situations and people (Becker 2006). I apply the naturalistic paradigm for my investigations. Lane (2006) might place this project research focus in the ‘social constructionism’ philosophy (evaluating discourse approach) for the modern scientist-practitioner. Arguments in support of naturalistic research also align themselves with a constructivist view of education as highlighted in Table 7. Consequently, this study is influenced by constructivist principles in its design and implementation.

Research Paradigms

Learning Theory Counter-parts

Experimental

Naturalistic

Traditional Didactic

Constructivist

Quantitative

Qualitative

Success if students learn what is intended

Learner makes meaning

Atomistic

Objective

Holistic

Subjective

Subject structure determines learning hierarchy

Learning richness =  expansion of learner’s knowledge

Experimental

Lab model

Naturalistic

Real-world based

Learning outcomes are predetermined

Outcomes legitimately emerge from data

Hard

Confirmatory

Soft

Exploratory

Differentiate expected outcomes from others

Need to describe all outcomes

Decontextualised

Explanation

Contextualised

understanding

Goal of Generalisability

Goal of understanding this situation

Deterministic

Responsive

Analytic

Holism

 

Analytic

 

Synthetic

Belief that total experience can be sub-divided for study

Belief that ‘experience’ requires all components

Deductive (a priori)

Inductive(aposteriori)

Emphasis on behaviour

May be self-managed

Table 7 General research & related learning categories


3.2 Action Research

Action Research (AR), in relation to the projects conducted within this study is put forward as the dominant approach. By this I mean it is the ‘umbrella’ under which other research techniques are used to collect and collate validating evidence to the research questions.

 

First some definitions of AR are explored and adapted to the context of the investigation. Next, some examples of AR are critically reviewed in relation to this chapter to illustrate models of use.

 

‘AR is all about developing the art of knowing through observation, listening, analysing, questioning and being involved in the construction of one’s knowledge.’  This new knowledge and experience informs the researchers’ continuing professional development (CPD) (Koshy 2005 p. 14).

 

Cohen and Manion (1994: 192) see AR as an, ‘on-the-spot procedure designed to deal with a concrete problem located in an immediate situation.’ It can be monitored over varying periods of time and by a variety of mechanisms. This feedback may be translated into modifications, adjustment, directional changes, and redefinitions, as necessary so to bring about lasting benefit to the ongoing process itself rather than to some future occasion.

 

Data collection techniques

The projects in this report use questionnaires for quantitative data for triangulation purposes:

Ø      Project 1: p. 44,

Ø      Project 2: p. 61,

Ø      Project 3: p. 76 - Section 6.5.3, p. 78 – Section 6.6,

but mostly rely on qualitative data in the form of semi-structured interviews and case studies.

 

The strength of this approach is the focus on natural occurring ordinary events in every-day settings. These real, life-like events have the ability to capture the richness and holism of a situation (Miles and Huberman 1994: 10). My proposition is that this approach is more appropriate when examining pedagogy than an artificial or contrived laboratory experiment.

 

Bell (1999) believes it is the practical, problem-solving nature of AR which makes it attractive to research practitioners as a means towards greater understanding and improvement of practice. Reason and Bradbury (2001: 2) agree that AR is about working towards practical outcomes and creating new forms of understanding. This interpretation is especially appropriate in the context of my work at the CEWBL where the outcome of the project impacts directly on the organisation.

 

The growth of this ‘dynamic living knowledge’ may be stimulated through developing communities of practice. In many ways the process of inquiry is as important as specific outcomes. Good AR develops over time in an evolutionary and developmental process, as individuals develop skills of enquiry and as communities are developed. AR can be seen as a constructive enquiry. Insider researchers make their own knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining, and learning from the experience (Koshy 2005).  In turn the researcher also shares this knowledge with those who may benefit from it. In my context, I have conducted several staff training sessions in the Centre and University-wide. Additionally, as a Committee member of the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) I have helped organise and host eLearning workshops to promote discourse within the eLearning community (ALT Workshop 2005).

 

According to O’Leary (2004: 141) cycles of AR take shape as knowledge emerges. Cycles converge towards better situational understanding and improved action implementation. AR is an experiential learning approach to change the goal, which is to continually refine the methods, data and interpretation in light of the understanding gained in earlier cycles.

 

Hopkins (2002) sees a participatory research movement emerging illustrated as self-reflective spirals. The stages can be expressed as:

Ä     Planning a change à

Ä     Acting and observing the process and consequences of the change à

Ä     Reflecting on these processes and consequences – then re-planningà

Ä     Acting and observing à

Ä     Reflecting à repeat

 

AR project structure can also be shown as the title, background information, project aims and objectives, specific outcomes of the study and recognition of the cyclical nature of AR. Changes may need to be made in response to the project evaluation and reflections on how the study is progressing. The concept of using a spiral metaphor is common in many of the AR models offered in Appendix 2 (Koshy V. 2005).

 

These various threads of AR can be drawn together. AR can be seen as part of a critical professional development ‘truth’ that is not objective. Fixed results of study may be interpretive and used to build ‘language frameworks’ to develop theory analysis of practice. Understanding provides opportunity for change linking reflection to action. The concern of forming a ‘common language’ is mirrored in the third project, ‘Virtual Learning Environment Denouement Profiling’, detailed later in the report. Project 2 shares the learning activity templates with the eLearning community and encourages academics to add case studies to the website (see CD-ROM).

 

Dialogue for self-critical communities of action researchers may be supported by online communication tools (Carr & Kemmis 1986). If AR is seen in this light, it aligns itself well with the processes of Work Based Learning (WBL) which promote reflective critical analysis and discourse for ‘insider researchers’. WBL supports and promotes new knowledge of a personal/shared understanding.

 

This collaborative feature of AR is supported in each project through online exemplars with the intent to stimulate and engage members of the eLearning community to participate through critical discourse and contribute to the dynamic archive of online case studies. These case studies give added value to the projects as an illustrative part of AR. Through them the online pedagogical principles are demonstrated by practice.

3.2.1 Criticisms of Action Research

A critical commentary of AR from literature is that it may lack rigour and validity (Bell 1999 et al.). In response to this criticism the use of data triangulation in my projects promotes the quality of the data/analysis as robust and without undo bias. The projects discussed in detail in the next section of this study use:

*     Questionnaire data cross-referenced to interview data,

*     Peer and external expert review of findings (e.g. – critical feedback from eLearning Community listserv (AEL),

*     eLearning community feedback evidenced through reviewed conference publications (Basiel A. 2006),

*     Recognition by eLearning Community: 

o       eTutor Awards from the Higher Education Academy & eLearning Network (Basiel A. 2006),

o       Adobe/formerly Macromedia Education Leadership Programme (AEL)

 

Additionally, I impact on practice through my roles as:

*     Centre Chair for Staff Development,

*     Founder of the Middlesex University Breeze Consortium, a team formed to address eLearning using web-based video conferencing (Diverse 2006).

 

A premise of ‘conventional scientific research is that the data or output can be replicated and then generalised to variations of the project problem. In this light AR has been criticised that research findings may not be generalisable widely outside the context of the project aims. However, for this report, AR does not set out to seek generalisable data, but to generate knowledge based on actions within the context of the projects’ recognised limitations. From this perspective AR is not a deficient model. Developing strategies for solving a problem within a situation is not a negative action, but about making progress and the development of ideas from the ‘insider’s perspective’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998).

3.3 Related approaches influencing the project

Armsby and Costley (2003) offer a collection of research approaches appropriate for a work based learning context. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland P. 1999) has elements that I have adopted and adapted to an eLearning context. Critical Incident Technique (CIT) is another approach which reflects the spirit of this study (Flanagan 1954, Gremier D. 2004, et. al.) as multiple case studies, discussed at the end of section 3.2. These exemplars are ways to demonstrate the pedagogical design principles for VLEs developed in this investigation (Bell 1999 et al.). In the Conclusions chapter a proposition is made to move towards a ‘case law’ for the principles supported by underpinning theory.

 

Soft Systems Methodology

An element from Checkland (1999) that has been adapted and applied in this investigation to a virtual learning environment (VLE) context is the initial Rich Picture stage of the SSM cycle (See Appendix 1). I’ve adapted parts of SSM because it would enable a detailed picture of the issues to become clear and offer the opportunity to take action to improve the situation using a critical evaluation cycle. Briefly, the inquiring/learning cycle can be summarised by these principles:

 

Critical Incident Technique

Aspects of critical incident (CIT) analysis are also threaded throughout the three projects in this study. CHED (2006) put forth CIT as a useful tool for collecting research data, usually within the context of a wider research framework such as Action Research. It also matches the work based learning nature of the study as it promotes reflection on professional practice.

 

Usability first (2006) see critical incidents as events that represent significant failures of a design. In the context of this study we identify incidents where communication and learning may not be supported in the virtual learning system. CIT is a multiple case study technique where the observed failures (although sometimes successes) are documented and analysed to determine the source of the ‘system forensic’. CIT may pick-up issues or concerns that could be overlooked by a standard task analysis for usability of a computer system.

 

According to Infopolis (2006) the first principle of CIT is that the ‘occasion’ will be memorable to those using the system. It is most useful in the early stages of a larger task or activity analysis, because its strength lies in the correctly rapid separation of problem areas within a system.  In this way CIT can be a helpful methodology in advising the design principles of a VLE.

 

The projects in this document were informed by this technique, although it may not have been implemented explicitly in detail. According to Roos (2002), CHED (2006) et al., the CIT method of analysis should include the following steps:

*      Choose a critical episode (e.g. an online tutorial or activity that did not meet expectations of the instructor or learner),

*      Describe the incident to include:

*     When and where - such as time of day, location (in the VLE) and social context (i.e. – misunderstood email or discussion board activity),

*     What actually happened (add details of who said or did what during the learning event),

*     Reflect on feelings just after the incident.

*      Interrogate the description to include:

*     Why did this incident stand out?

*     What was going on?

*     Were there different levels of behaviour or activity?

*     Was there personal bias or a particular mindset to the [online learning] event?

*     From a different perspective (e.g. teacher/learner or online/face-to-face) could the (online learning) event been interpreted differently?

*     What can be learnt from this episode?

*     What can be done to progress a resolution of the problem(s) it suggests?

*      Find a critical friend or colleague [using online communication tools][5] to:

*     Share your account of the episode.

*     Discuss your interpretation.

*     Modify the analysis, where needed, in light of the peer feedback, advice or perspective.

*     Compare the analysis with the views of other key people involved in the episode.

*      Write up summary – The detail included depends on the purpose of the report. Confirm confidentiality is addressed to decide what level of public access the document will have (e.g. – online, password protected, etc.).

 

An advantage of CIT is that it is emphasises features that make a system particularly vulnerable. It may also be used to inform the design of questionnaires. The survey questions may stem from the emerging issues of the CIT interview. This strategy supports data validity through triangulation.

 

A disadvantage is that the technique relies on events being remembered by the VLE stakeholders (academics, administrators, students etc.), therefore the CIT interview should be done as soon after the event has occurred (Infopolis 2006).

3.2.1Towards a synthesis of approaches

Mixed methods are becoming increasingly significant in educational research…combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study can help elucidate various aspects of the phenomenon under investigation.’’ (Giannakkaki 2005) 

 

A pre-project feasibility study, or ‘needs analysis’, exercise was done when I first started research for the National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP) (see top of Figure 1). Email questionnaires followed by telephone interviews were conducted with Work Based Studies (WBS - undergraduate) and Doctorate of Professional Studies (DPS – post-graduate) (Basiel A. 1999). The small sample size was a recognised constraint of this initial pre-survey. Data triangulation was done through follow-up phone interviews.

 

The purpose of this pre-pilot study was to identify key issues and concerns of students that would steer the research and development activity of NCWBLP for eLearning. The main reasons to use online support for work based learners were:

*     Easier access to learning materials and library resources,

*     Timely support from academic and administrative advisors,

*     The ability to network with like-minded WBL researchers.

At a ‘meta-level’ or macro-view the concerns identified by the students were grouped as online content and communication. The NCWBLP academics needed to be able to contextualise these concerns within a VLE. This information from the pilot guided the study to take a three-prong-project approach:

1.      Web-based video conferencing – became the online communication focus (a.k.a. – eCommunication)

2.      Pedagogical templates for online teaching – became the online ‘content’ structure focus (a.k.a. – eContent)

3.      A methodology and toolkit to help VLE stakeholders get an overview of eLearning pedagogy and technology became the VLE Denouement Profile project.

 

Figure 5 DProf. Action Research Cycle

Rich Pictures

Checkland’s (1999) Rich Picture technique, a graphical representation of the key components of a system from the user’s perspective, was adapted and applied to a VLE context. A Global Rich Picture (GRIP 2002) is an online mind-mapping exercise promoting web-based discourse by graphically representing the overall VLE elements from the stakeholder’s perspective (See Glossary and Appendix 3).

 

GRIP exercises were done with staff at the NCWBLP (April 03) and at Barnet College, Week End College Staff INSET training in eLearning (Dec. 03). GRIP was also used in the British Council/Islamic University Gaza (IUG) eLearning Workshop Project that was awarded by the Higher Education Academy eTutor of the Year Award (HEA 2004). Since then, GRIP as an online induction technique, has been built into the use of Adobe Breeze web video conferences by using a blank PowerPoint slide to mind map and record initial points of views for the conference participants.

 

Literature Review -
The eLearning literature review, critically discussed in Chapter 2, works towards confirmation of the pre-pilot’s results through triangulation. In a VLE context, there is a need for a common language with a focus on online content and communication.

3.2.2 The Projects

The three-stage strategy of this study starts with the Web-based Video Conferencing Project. This study was funded for £5000 from Middlesex University’s Centre for Learning Development (formerly CLD). Data was collected through:

*     Online survey,

*     Interviews- by telephone and face-to-face (f2f),

*     Research Blog – online learning diary,

*     Multimedia case studies using Adobe Breeze.

 

Project 2: Teaching Activity Templates project-
This project was funded by the
University of London through the Institute of Education (IoE) and the Centre for Distance Education (CDE) for £20,000. The main data collection techniques were:

*     Online survey using www.surveyshare.com,

*     Interviews- by telephone and face-to-face (f2f),

*     Research Blog – online learning diary,

*     Multimedia case studies using Adobe Breeze,

*     Website toolkit with evaluation (see CD-ROM).

Work based learning case studies have contributed to and informed the formation of several teaching templates designs. In my capacity of NCWBLP Chair of Staff Development I intend to integrate these online pedagogic models into the VLE adoption system of the Centre when they have been refined. In this way the NCWBLP staff will have the opportunity to contribute to the project evolution.

 

The final study, Virtual Learning Environment Denouement Profiling, tied together the first two research strands in an innovative approach to promote a common understanding between the stakeholders of a VLE. Data collection techniques, listed below, were used to promote a common language or understanding to promote a shared perspective of the online learning system. It was funded for £2000 by the CEWBL Research Fund. The VLE denouement profile (VLED) project used:

*     Online survey,

*     Interviews- by telephone and face-to-face (f2f),

*     Multimedia case studies using Adobe Breeze,

*     Website toolkit with evaluation,

*     VLED Profile technique & toolkit (see CD-ROM). Details of profiling are presented in the Conclusions and Denouement Chapter at the end of this report.

 

The final stage of the investigation produces findings and recommendations for each of the projects. The summary conclusions of the study lead to the formation of VLE design principles. Additionally, these pedagogical guidelines were cross referenced with the eLearning theory in the literature review to validate the Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) put forward in the Conclusions chapter.

 

Qualities of a synthesised approach

The National Education Standards agenda demands homogeneity in its construction of academically successful students. In other words, a minimum standard of a success is expected which implies that ‘one curriculum fits all’. This agenda believes that every student’s need may be successfully met (AKA - curricular fundamentalism). Slee (1998) sees that this approach is fundamentally flawed. I agree and have built into my research strategy the use of multiple approaches and techniques. 

 

Additionally, I would argue that my ‘trans-paradigm’ approach is mirrored by the ethos of the WBL design which does not try to force the learner into a fixed academic curriculum of study. Instead, an individual learning agreement is built around their prior knowledge and skills (Recognition and Accreditation of Learning – a.k.a. Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL)). Next, a personally customised research project proposal is made and executed.

 

In a similar fashion this study does not try to force the data collected into one rigid research approach. Features of Action Research, SSM and CIT have been used to inform the conclusions and recommendations of the investigation.

 

It is unrealistic to think that every student would approve of every part of a VLE system, or that VLE designers would find a suitable pedagogic model to match their every need. Both supportive and non-supportive evidence must be analysed to answer the research questions. Conan-Doyle (1891) reminds us that, “it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...” (from 'A Scandal in Bohemia')

3.2.3 Ethics

Several factors need to be acknowledged in my capacity as practitioner researcher in NCWBLP. First, my employment contract is currently as a Sr. Learning Development Tutor. This promotion and permanent status was recently earned. I am also Chair of the Staff Development Committee for our NCWBLP Development Project which places me in a position to design, develop and conduct eLearning related training to support the Centre. Ethical considerations are addressed through our Professional Doctorate release policies and release forms. 

 

In the first project, for example, in web-based video conferencing whenever online sessions are recorded permission to do so is explicitly requested from the stakeholders. In project 2 where several interviews were conducted the respondents were asked to edit and approve the summary transcripts. Project 3 dealt with ethics from the perspective of the participants using the online toolkit. Formative feedback was collected from the users expressing their values in relation to the usability of the software design. This supports the open and dynamic ethos of the study to be receptive to constructive reviews from ‘critical friends’.

 

Additionally, Middlesex University has formed an Ethics Committee that will scrutinise this document. On a national level the study is informed by the ESRC Research Ethics Framework document (CPE 2005).

3.3 Learning theory from practice

Action without understanding is blind, theory without action is meaningless.

 (Reason and Bradbury 2001)

 

According to Strauss and Corbin (1998) the research process of analysis can lead to theory building so the researcher can construct ‘personal theories’ based on evidence. The act of curriculum theorising, in the context of this investigation, is not so much the application of classroom theory learned in university as it is the generation of theory from attempts to change curriculum practice in VLE development and use. Based on a pedagogy-driven concept of curriculum, this change is a process dependent on the teachers’ capacities for reflection (Zeichner K. 2001).

 

Through the course of the projects the theory was informed by practice. Therefore, theory evolved and adapted in the context of the new revelations emerging from the evidence. Although I have been informed by this approach I have not fully adopted a grounded theory approach. Theory has not come solely from projects. Pre-conceptions and feasibility study data influenced by the literature review was linked to the Conclusions chapter. In other words, this investigation started with a theoretical position informed by literature and personal professional experience which evolved into new innovative contributions to knowledge.

 

3.3.1 Do we need a new research technique?
In the Literature Review and associated research leading up to this point I have not found a ‘stand-alone’ research technique to meet the needs of research in VLE design, implementation and support. This is one reason I have used a synthesis of several methodologies and techniques in this study. Still, there seemed to be something missing.

 

In the VLE Denouement project the software toolkit (see Project 3 and CD-ROM) served as a communication aid or mediation device between the stakeholders designing and producing an eLearning system. Out of the structure of the software toolkit emerged a data collection, organisation and representation technique for the context of online learning environments. It became known as ‘Profiling’. This research data collection technique grew into a data analysis system and software toolkit that could be adapted and applied to other research situations wanting to get an overview representation (or profile) of the ‘event of study’. Profiling is offered in the Conclusions Chapter of this report in a detailed argument for its contribution to the eLearning community.

 

This perspective of theory building also links well with the WBL model discussed earlier in that experience leads the learning to form the theoretical foundation upon which critical discourse can be built.

3.4 Summary

In this discussion I have presented an argument as to why I have not adopted a single or isolated research approach. Through this narrative I have demonstrated the ‘leading edge’ of this Doctorial study through its innovative research techniques and software toolkits. These contributions have been both to the field of study and the CEWBL’s research agenda. The exploration of research methodologies in this chapter has also provided me with the opportunity for personal and professional development.

 

The next chapter takes you into the three research projects. Within each parts of the methodologies examined in this chapter are discussed. Since Action Research is the ‘umbrella approach’ for this report I tie the data from each of the projects together in the Conclusions Chapter.


4.0 Project 1: Web Video Conferencing

4.1 Introduction

The Centre for Learning Development (CLD) of Middlesex University, London put a call out to bid for a learning project that would impact on the School of Lifelong Learning and Education (LLE). We had three groups that were interested in investigating the pedagogical issues associated with the educational use of web-based video conferencing (WVC):

 

*      The National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP),

*      The MA (Masters of Arts) in Education Leadership,

*      The MIDWHEB Project – a distant teacher training programme.

 

For over a year NCWBLP had done a pre-pilot study of using WVC software systems to support academic provisions of its distance learners. The focus was on summative assessment in the form of project presentations for students in Cyprus. In this study we wanted to expand our investigation to include WVC for interviews of new students, tutorials and administrative support to NCWBLP candidates.

 

LLE had recently started a new MA in Education Leadership. The model for the degree saw overseas students come to the UK for a one-year taught programme followed by a project done at the home country. The need for remote student supervision and online project vivas was the motivation for this group to join the project.

 

Middlesex University was a partner institution to a consortium aimed at supporting teachers. The MIDWHEB project provided the opportunity for UK teachers to gain qualifications through a distance programme. This group, lead by Dr. I T, wanted to explore real-time collaborative tools and pedagogies for small groups of teachers.

 

Research Question:

How can web-based video conferencing be used in a pedagogically appropriate fashion to support communication and learning for students through a range of educational situations?

Aim:

This study will investigate the pedagogical issues, online protocols and procedures in the use of web-based video conferencing in the support of student learning through a range of learning situations such as placement interviews, project presentations, thesis support and peer collaboration/mentoring.

Objectives:

Through each of the learning situations stated in the project aim this study will research the associated procedures that facilitates the online communication and learning process.

Research Method:

Due to time constraints, this small project will not fully complete an Action Research cycle. The principle and structures of this research method to guides the investigation. Data collection was done through on/off-line questionnaires, on-off-line semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Additionally, Adobe Breeze was used as an online tool to support these data collection techniques.

Project Deliverables:

*      Guidelines of use for each learning context,

*      Protocols appropriate for the pedagogical design,

*      Examples of interactive online sessions.

4.1.1 Chapter structure

Although there are three groups involved in the projects presented in this chapter, only the DProf. Interview is detailed in the body of the report due to size constraints of the document. The other case studies are accessible in Appendix 4B. Additionally, the chapter conclusions reflect the compiled lessons learnt from the study.

4.2 Professional Doctorate Interview Cases Study

 Case Study Context -

At the National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnerships (NCWBLP) and Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Work Based Learning (CEWBL) we have international offices and students in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, South Africa, America and the Caribbean. One of the first requirements for admission to our Professional Doctorate (DProf) programme is an interview. Originally it was intended that these discussions would be conducted face-to-face. Due to the constraints and high cost of international travel the DProf. interview model evolved to allow these events to be done by telephone. The problem with this solution was a quality assurance (QAA) issue. How could we verify the identity of the interviewee?

 

Introduction / background -

Video conferencing was the obvious technical solution for conducting remote interviews. ISDN was a high-end dedicated system that would provide a BBC production quality system, but at too high a cost for our DProf. interview situation. Another constraint of the ISDN video conference solution was access. With this type of system the DProf. candidate would have to find a Conference Centre or University to use for the duration of the interview.

 

Since the mid-1990s, with the rapid growth and development of the World Wide Web, another form of video conferencing was emerging. Web-based Video Conferencing (WVC) could support real-time audio and video. This system had its own set of strengths and weaknesses. On the plus-side cost was low and access was open through the internet. On the down-side quality was poor. Images were ‘choppy’ and sound was inconsistent. This was linked to low network bandwidth. Over the years since then broadband connections have improved to support better and more reliable two-way multimedia communication. Another issue that has changed over time in relation to web-based video conferencing was network security or firewalls. With increased network protection over the years access through the network has become increasingly more difficult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: Figure 6 NetMeeting screen shot

 

 

Different types of WVC systems have evolved as the Web has grown from a mere online content depository to an interactive multimedia communication environment. There are three general types of WVC systems currently available:

1) IP-to-IP address system:
The Internet Protocol (IP) number WVC system makes a direct link from one computer to another. This works on the same principle as a telephone call. An example of the software using this system is Microsoft NetMeeting.

2) Distributed WVC systems:
These systems allow you to connect two or more PCs for a web video conference using a mediating server. Some popular examples of this are Yahoo Messenger and Microsoft Messenger (MSN). These services are currently free to anyone registering with the provider. They require you to install a software application on your local hard drive.

 

Figure 7 Yahoo Messenger

Figure 8 MSN interface

 

CUseeMe is a proprietary system that has grown from its basic roots as a MSc. project in America. Many-to-many web video discussions are supported in this environment which sits remotely on their server.

 

 

3) Stand-alone Flash Communication Server

Adobe Breeze is an example of a Flash streaming technology server dedicated to providing a real-time virtual learning environment. These synchronous communication systems provide a tool group (Figure 9) to allow:

a) whiteboard – real-time mark-up annotation to a shared document

b) desk-top application sharing – remote use of a programme on your colleague’s PC

c) text chat – real-time text conversations

d) annotation tool – a text feature to make notes

e) survey and self-assessment – a ‘quiz style’ tool for polling responses or learner feedback

f) record session – this feature captures the entire WVC session for review purposes

 

At the NCWBLP we have been investigating these various WVC systems for educational use over the past three years. We are currently administrating our own Adobe Flash Communication Server. This has come about through the formation of the Middlesex University Breeze Consortium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: Figure 9 Adobe Breeze

 

 

With a growing demand for use of this type of real-time online communication the School of Lifelong Learning and Education (LLE), MUBS (Business School), HSSC (Health and Social Science) and Learning Resources (Library) banded together to purchase the Breeze licence. As we were the first Higher Education institution in the UK to research this technology we were able to negotiate a strong position with the European Director of Education for Adobe. Since then we have run several training workshops and seminars on web-based video conferencing in conjunction with the Association for Learning Technology (ALT). An international WVC network of researchers and developers has formed to share theory and application to practice with members from Oxford to Wales.

 

At the start of June 2005, I was informed that my application to join the Adobe International Education Leadership programme was successful. I was one of only fifteen people accepted across the UK. This position will allow me to work with the Adobe team to have access to the latest software for Beta testing and to consult them on their research and development in the area of eLearning.

 

Case study research question

This case study investigation is one part of a larger project compiling and analysing several sets of web-based video conferencing uses in an educational context for Higher Education. This project focuses on the question, “How can a web-based video conferencing system be used to support the process of a Professional Doctorate interview?” See Chapter 4 appendix for other supporting case studies.

 

Aims and objectives of the case study

The investigation aims to critically review the process of conducting a Professional Doctorate interview at the NCWBLP and the CEWBL, Middlesex University. This is done through the analysis of one case study using Adobe Breeze as the online communication media in conjunction with a conference telephone system.

 

An objective of the study is to produce technical and pedagogical guidelines to inform good practice for future web video conferencing interviews in Work Based Learning. Additionally, we envision a framework of use may be generated by follow-up case studies of this nature. This will be done by identifying the challenges to effective communication in the system and devising strategies and methodologies to overcome them. It is this long term plan that a sustainable solution may evolve.

 

Case study approach
Pre-pilot case studies were in/formally conducted for several years leading to this project. Procedural annotations were recorded by the VLE administrator at the time, JB. Additionally, debriefing interviews were regularly conducted after each online interview. This produced some preliminary guidelines from which to build this project upon. Data is analysed in the next section of this document from all stakeholders such as the academics hosting the interview, the administrator who organised the event and the interviewee (potential student/client) herself
.

 

The advantage of this approach is the detail that can be gained by looking at a specific instance of use or learning event. The limitation is with respect to how much we can generalise from this case study to other web video conference interviews to be held by the NCWBLP in the future or to other Higher Education organisations looking at this eLearning solution.

 

Case study description

The goals of any DProf. interview are to:

1)      establish the identity of the candidate,

2)      determine the candidate’s eligibility for the DProf. programme,

3)      highlight and address any logistical concerns.

 

To address ethical considerations I have not used the stakeholders’ names for this report. As an ‘insider researcher’ I have to conduct my study with consideration of my colleagues, yet at the same time attempt to paint an accurate picture of the event so that recommendations can be made to help improve the interview process.

 

The DProf. interview stakeholders were in these categories:

a)      Academics: the lead interviewer [J], the DProf. Curriculum Leader [P], the observer [F]

b)      Administrative support: the DProf. administrator [S]

c)      Interviewee: the DProf. Candidate in France [I]

d)      Researcher/observer [R]

e)      Office employee [A]

 

Stage 1: Set-up -

We conducted the interview in S’s office which also contained another university’s employee’s desk. She was not at her desk until the last part of the DProf. interview. There were three stages to the event. Fist, there was a set-up and test process done by ‘S’. I was there as back-up technical support as ‘S’ is still training in using the web cam and Adobe Breeze software. ‘S’ had set up the laptop with the Adobe Breeze system and web cam on his desk. The conference telephone was on the desk next to it. The candidate connected from their home broadband / AOL account.

Text Box: Figure 10  Interview room layoutStage 2: Interview -

The second stage was the actual interview. ‘J’ lead the flow of the interview process acting as host. ‘P’ asked questions as well when prompted to do so by ‘J’. ‘F’ silently observed from the back of the room. I also sat in the back of the room to make observations. ‘A’ sat at her desk as she came in at the end of the interview. Figure ten shows the room layout with the stakeholders.

 

System Failure –

There was a major system failure due to the fact that we had left the internet connection running without activity after the pre-test. America Online internet service provider timed-out which froze the Breeze interface controls. This caused a delay in the interview for several minutes. The discussion continued by phone while ‘I’ rebooted her PC to solve the problem and reconnect the web video. She said, “I kept an open mind about the (online) interview. When we did the test I felt good. When it collapsed I did not worry since I was not stressed so I could reconnect…if I were not able to recover so quickly I may have been put off.”  [S] felt this way about the system crash, “I don’t mind setting up, but when it goes wrong I don’t have the experience or confidence (to fix it). In this interview there was no obvious reason what went wrong or what help or feedback to give. When it works it OK, when it goes wrong it’s mysterious like WebCT. A help sheet would be good like: [1] Lost connection – then try: a, b, or c.”

 

Post-event evaluation –

Finally, after event evaluation was conducted using the questionnaire in Appendix A as a guide to conduct semi-formal follow-up interviews. This was done to support triangulation of data. We wanted to validate the responses of the three respondees with discussion data collected reflectively a week after the event.  

 

Through the use of the web video conference system the DProf. Interviewer’s goals were met as the interviewee (‘I ’) stated, “I felt reassured with an image there. Even though the quality of the image was not good, it was still reassuring. This experience was more personal than a phone interview.”

 

Data collection techniques
A variety of data collection techniques were used to help produce evidence to answer our research question of how to support the process of a DProf. interview. Face-to-face observations were made during the event with notes taken by pen and paper. Paper-based questionnaires were given to the stakeholders after the session. A draft questionnaire was given to the DProf. Curriculum Leader for revision before being used in the study. Follow-up face-to-face and Breeze/telephone interviews were done to promote triangulation of the data collected.

 

In the future I hope to develop multimedia versions of the data. For example, I will use Breeze to record the interviews as online Flash video. Although some data was collected from the interviewee (student/candidate), a follow-up interview could be done via Breeze to get more representation from the student’s perspective. This is an area that may be built into the DProf. interview model so we can collect formative feedback after each session to modify the model and better meet the student’s needs.

 

An online survey was taken from across the UK to develop a SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats) analysis. The results are discussed in the following section. Many of the VLE design principles emerging from this study are supported by literature on his website.

 

Constraints of the study

The obvious limitations of the investigation are the small sample size and short time scale. Although there were interviews conducted less formally prior to this event, observation notes were the only data collected. Those lessons been built into the analysis of this research. As Cohen et al. (2000) point out; the biggest disadvantage of case studies is that they are prone to problems of observer bias, despite attempts made to address reflexivity. “Case studies can establish cause and effect, indeed one of their strengths is that they observe effects in real contexts (p181).

 

We can generate guidelines from lessons learnt in this case study. Follow-up case studies are planned to build enough evidence to develop these guidelines into web based virtual learning environment video conference systems design principles.

 

Analysis
There presently is not and appropriate content analysis scheme available for video conferencing according to Hearnshaw (2000). Henri’s (1992) categories are comprised of:

Ø      Participative – messages posted by one or many

Ø      Social – statement not related to formal content

Ø      Interactive – chain of connected messages

Ø      Cognitive – statement related to the learning process

Ø      Metacognitive knowledge and skills – showing awareness of self-regulated learning.

This discussion opens a text-versus-video conference or asynchronous-versus-live (real-time) debate that can only begin to be addressed in this paper. Henri’s analysis scheme can not be applied without modification as a measure of quality for a WVC environment.

As this is not an objective of my study I will simply offer some insight in the nature of the analysis of WVC system in the context of an interview setting in this section.

 

The themes that have emerged from the analysis of data collected are: technical, pedagogical, policy/procedure and ‘other’. The following discussion will present supporting statements by the stakeholders to validate the case study recommendations.

 

Technical theme:

The technical analysis of this study is presented in two parts: a) the pre-test phase b) the running of the real-time event. Before a web video conference is run several technical considerations should be addressed:

Ø      A system pre-test should be done using a Adobe Breeze temporary account. ‘I’ stated: “The set-up was easy because we (my family) have a web cam already for MSN. I was given a better web cam from work, but the installation disk did not work.”

Ø      Test the network bandwidth for speed and robustness. The pre-event test should be done by using the Adobe network diagnostic tool. Just before the event check the down/upload speeds by clicking the green button on the top left of the Breeze interface.

Ø      The issue of a ‘floating versus fixed’ interview room location should be addressed well before the event. The ideal situation would be a permanent room set up with a controlled environment (for sound and light) with all the hardware and software pre-configured. [S] said, “If it were my first experience (with web video conferencing) I’d have found it disappointing because of the problem connecting the video.”

Ø      Quality assurance of the identity of the candidate can be achieved in two ways. During the interview pre-test the person responsible for the set-up can press the ‘Print Screen’ button on the PC to past the screen grab image of the interviewee into a Word document, or the Breeze ‘Record’ feature can capture the video images and sound. Ethically, this should be done with stakeholder permission first.

 

During the live event consider:

Ø      If the system locks up the best thing to do is restart the computer.

Ø      Adjusting the web cam from a 1-to-1 usage to variations of 1-to-many set-ups. [J] said that “the whole environment was poor, no room, not enough space physically for two people to sit.” This may involve (a) adjusting the seating of the interview panel (b) or purchasing a wide-angle lens web cam for group interviews (c) or setting up two ‘host’ web cams to get everyone in the frame.

 

Pedagogical theme

Issues concerning the learning and teaching design of the online system were also analysed.

Ø      The interviewer and interviewee needs to talk to the PC screen, and not the phone,

Ø      At the start of the interview, the lead interviewer can ask, “Can you hear me alright?” as [J] had done,

Ø      Confirm understanding of questions,

Ø      Agree a start time if technical hitches occur and have back-up technological systems in place,

Ø      Induction materials needed in conjunction with staff/student development training. [S] had some strong concerns about his support role being an ‘on call’ style and not a ‘look over the shoulder’ help. He said that the, “on call help means the staff needs training to take ownership of the tools and process. If we ‘look over their shoulders’ then the responsibility is with the support administrator who will need the training.”  [J] commented, “I’m happy to learn how to do it (use the web cams), but until we have the training we need technical support.”

Ø      Limited movement due to fixed web cam position.
We used a ‘basic’ design web cam. More advanced models have movement tracking as a possibility. A possible follow-up project could explore wireless web cams fixed into a handheld device as a possible solution.

 

Policy and procedure

Several procedural issues arose from the project, not all of which were expected. These should be taken from the project to be formed into organisational policy.

Ø      Co-ordinate GMT time.
As a standard procedure ALL time tabling should include ‘GMT’ (or BST) after the meeting time to avoid confusion. Be aware of differences not only in time zones, but countries not ‘setting the clocks back/forward’ to adjust for daylight time.

Ø      Ethical considerations for recording images/events.
The fourth Technical issue mentioned capturing the images of the stakeholders. We have done a number of conference presentations over the past year and this was a reoccurring concern. A release statement is suggested to be sent out with any meeting/interview forms and paper work advising all participants that a record of the event will be made with their awareness and permission.

 

Another solution uses the Breeze Polling tool as an ‘online consent’ form.

 

Ø      Home versus Work location.
In several project meetings following this case study concerns were raised about conducting the interviews from home. The advantage is saving time and travel expense. The down side is the personal costs incurred for telephone, broad band connection, printing, etc. It was pointed out that a university policy was in place for working at home, but it did not adequately compensate the academic and was not a good incentive to work from home (See Section 2.2.3 p. 15).

 

Technical support was another related issue for working at home. This links to staff training discussed earlier. A procedure is needed to access 24/7 help if the interviews will be done outside of a 9-to-5 day. Currently the university Library Resources Web Help Desk will feedback email questions within 24 hours.

 

Other issues did not fall into the categories previously mentioned. They are:

Ø      Disruptions
To avoid phone or ‘knocking at the door’ interruptions put a ‘Do not disturb’ sign up and have phone calls redirected during the interview.

Ø      Promote eye contact
Not everyone shared the same feeling of being ‘connected’ through the web cam. [I] said, “It was a relief to be interviewed this way. I was not as stressed because being interviewed at a distance in a way makes it feel less real.” While [J] said, “The notion of eye contact was lost.” [S] came up with a good suggestion, “The laptop monitor is too small. We need to set-up the data projector. Although the image quality is not better, it makes you feel closer.”


The following comments made by [I] support the proposition that the research and development of this media to support the DProf. interview process should continue:

“I never did a phone interview before. I was not sure who was speaking (at start when video was out), but (later) I felt reassured by the image. It was more personal than by phone.” To give context to her personal ICT (information and communication technology) profile she said, “I used VHS for self-evaluation for presentation skills (as a university communications lecturer) and I’m a bit ICT confident.”

 

Although not the focus of this study, it must be recognised that there is a link between the success of the online event and the stakeholder’s prior ICT capability. This issue should be addressed as part of the induction pack and staff training. [I] continued to say “The more you use the technology the more confidence you will have. When the video stopped I could feel the interviewer’s [J] stress, but you (the technical support staff) made me feel confident. The interviewers may feel more stress as it is their job to control the interview flow.”

 

Human computer interaction (HCI) or software interface analysis was not an objective of the investigation, but can lead to system failure if the online stakeholders are unable to navigate through the software features and options in a simple consistent fashion. [I] had this to summarise, “The use of Breeze was very good. It has a lot of potential. It is a powerful tool with clear instructions. You have flexibility in that you can control access to the individuals involved.”  Not everyone agreed. “Ease of use was dire.” said [J]. This was supported by the survey results in question 5 below. Prior training or induction was not done for this interview. Using Breeze to create some start-up training material for interviews is suggested. Table 8 summarises this analysis:

 

Factors: (issues / concerns)

How it ‘s addressed

Lesson(s) learnt:

1.0 Pedagogy

(designed / implemented):

 

1.1 Making & keeping eye contact

 

1.1 We used the self-view window of Breeze

1.1 The self-view window is too small for a group. A resizable Breeze ‘pod’ for self-view could help stakeholders stay in the frame.

1.2 Sound check

1.2 At the start – ask if everyone can hear.

1.2 If sound is reliable the event can continue.

1.3 Confirmation of understanding

1.3 Ask, “Do you understand?”

1.3 ‘Comprehension checks’ should be placed throughout session.

1.4 Back-up strategies

1.4 We used the conference phone with PC sound as a back-up

1.4 Use multiple forms of media (web, CD-ROM, paper, phone, email, etc.)

1.5 Induction and training

1.5 Staff development training has started.

1.5 Stakeholders will need regular sessions to support ownership going to the module leaders.

1.6 Lack of movement

1.6 Interviewer positioning was poor

1.6 Expand investigation to mobile/wireless technologies

2.0 Technology

 

 

2.1 Run technical pre-test

2.1 [S] called [I] on the conference phone before the actual session to test the connection and hardware.

2.1 Pre-tests should be done the day before and within the hour of the live event.

2.2 Location

 

2.2 ‘Floating location’ using laptop and available room.

2.2 For best results a controlled fixed location is needed for WVC to be reliable.

2.3 Validate student’s identity

2.3 Use the PC’s ‘Print Screen’ button

2.3 Files need to be organised for cross reference of images.

2.4 Keep interview panel in the camera frame

2.4 Adjust seating / web cam location

2.4 Explore wide-angle lens web cams.

3.0 Policy / Procedures

 

 

3.1 Collecting formative feedback from the stakeholders

3.1 In the case study there were questionnaires and interviews, but this is not part of the DProf. interview model currently.

3.1 Although the NCWBLP VLE Supervisor, Janet Bain, has been annotating the sessions there has been no formal process to feed this data into a change process. An online web questionnaire would be a good first step.

3.2 Set GMT time

3.2 Interviewee was + 1 hr.

3.2 Meeting information should include all time zones.

3.3 Permission to record

3.3 Do a screen grab of the interviewee

3.3 Ask permission before image capture

3.4 Work from home[6]

3.4 Discussion of home costs by academic staff

3.4 University needs to revisit the policy for cost and 24/7 help

4.0 Other

 

 

4.1 Disruptions

4.1 People calling or knocking at the door

4.1 ‘Do not disturb’ sign or phone redirect.

4.2 Sense of presence

4.2 Laptop monitor lacked ‘eye contact’

4.2 Set up data projector

Table 8 Summary Case Study: DProf. Interview Process

Case study summary discussion

It is the intent of this study to be integrated into a larger collection of WVC case studies for the School of Lifelong Learning and Education at Middlesex University. The lessons learnt develop a selection of issues and concerns for WVC and guidelines to help further the research and development of pedagogy associated with this learning technology.

 

Case study conclusions
Through the discourse in this report the process of conducting a Professional Doctorate interview at the NCWBLP, Middlesex University was critically reviewed. This is evidenced by the data analysed in Table 8.

 

An objective of the study was to produce technical and pedagogical guidelines to inform good practice for future web video conferencing interviews in Work Based Learning. These are itemised in the next section. A framework of use was generated by follow-up case studies by identifying the challenges to effective communication in the system and devising strategies and methodologies to overcome them. It is this long term plan that a sustainable solution may evolve. We conclude that a second phase to the project be proposed to implement some of the recommendations. These would include:

a) make induction materials for staff and students,

b) make a ‘help sheet’ guide to admin. / academic support – work towards an autonomous system,

c) design, implement and evaluate staff / student training sessions.


Possible guidelines of use for WVC derived from the lessons learnt column in table

The following are some guidelines suggested from the lessons we learnt in the project. These are broken into technical and pedagogical categories:

 

Chapter Summary

This discussion is a denouement of several emerging issues from this study. Table 9 below is a matrix showing a critical comparison of various learning support technologies in relation to their temporality (real-time or asynchronous) and the system’s ability to support interactive learning (collaboration / networking online).

 

Technology

Temporality

                 Ability to support interactivity

1. face-to-face (ICT supported)

1. Real-time

may be recorded as VHS or Breeze

1. Small group discussions and problem solving may provided an opportunity for higher level (critical) thinking skills (Nesta 2005). Networking, collaboration and forming personal bonds may occur at live inductions or tutorials.

2. email (& attachments)

2. Asynchronous

(be explicit about response times)

2. Annotation protocols (marking feedback) needs to be established (ie – comments in brackets or using Word comment tool feature). There were concerns over style/depth of comments and frequency. Issue: when is the essay more a work of the tutor than the student?

3. Telephone

(conference speakerphone)

3. Real-time

(unless using answer phone)

3. Automated phone system as a way to support academic (Duty Tutor) and administrative (FAQ) is a future study.

4. IP Telephony
(i.e. – Skype)

4. Real-time audio telephone via the web

4. Audio discourse may be used in combination with local support materials (ie – paper documents or PowerPoint slides on the hard drive). This may also be recorded.

5. Web Video Conference (i.e. – Breeze Live)

5. Real-time

5. Online environment to promote spontaneous thinking skills (versus asynchronous, reflective responses). Visuals may help promote a sense of online presence or community.

6. Streamed video recording

6. Asynchronous

6. Microsoft Producer – online lecture style presentation.

Breeze Recording – Captured Breeze Live session in Flash format or Flash converted PowerPoint that includes quiz style feedback.

7. WebCT discussion board / home page

7. Asynchronous

7. Threaded text discussion forum that promotes critical discourse and peer review. It also supports attached files. Home page can provide a learner profile.

8. Natural Language Web-bot (Chatter-bot:

Artificial Intelligent Agent)

8. Real-time

(text response or text-to-voice)

8. Dynamic FAQ style ‘virtual duty tutor’ or help-desk text response from a FAQ database. Link this tool to the telephone, email and web forms queries to academics and administrators.

Table 9 Matrix of support technology

 

Although the focus of this study is on web video conferencing systems, a recommendation of this report is to investigate automatic answer phone systems. Phone queries could be directed through an automated ‘branching system’ of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) to provide immediate feedback and record unexpected queries. This information could be used to generate a dynamic help system that would inter-mix email, telephone and web technologies.

 


5.0 Project 2: Teaching Activity Templates

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter I critically discuss the second project of this report, Teaching Activity Templates. The Centre for Distance Education (CDE), part of the University of London (U of L) and linked to the Institute of Education (IoE), funded the study for £20,000. I had been associated with both groups through eLearning research.

 

I did a research presentation on eLearning (Project 2) at Middlesex University. A member of the CDE team approached me afterwards to do a similar presentation (Basiel A. 2005a). As a result of this successful talk I was invited back to the CDE summer conference as a presenter and conference partner (through the Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning). It was there that the call for bids was announced. I realised this would be an ideal situation to put forward and refine my ideas about online teaching templates (Basiel A. 2005b). I needed a U of L staff member to head the project.

 

I met Anita Pincas through her Online Education and Training (OET) course (Pincas A. 2002). I was involved in a European Funded project at the time called the Superior STELLA Consortium (Basiel A. 2002), but assisted Anita as an online tutor for the course to compare eTutor styles. Anita agreed to be the project Director. Additionally, Raphael Commins assisted as a Research Assistant and technical designer of the project website (CDET 2006). Professor Karen Evans agreed to consult the project from the work based learning perspective (Evans K. 2006). Adobe (formerly Macromedia) came in as corporate partners through my involvement with them in the Adobe Education Leadership Programme (Adobe 2006).

 

Like the other projects in this report the initial motivation was to explore ways to address the problem of supporting Higher Education (HE) academics with the dilemma of finding a way to support learning through a virtual learning environment (VLE).

5.1.1 Aims and objectives

The project intends to develop a series of teaching and learning templates for use by academic staff. These will contribute to their understanding of educational issues pertaining to eLearning, especially the use of ICT in distance or blended education within the University. The templates will guide them towards good practice in teaching (online).

 

Use of templates as guides to a variety of activities, especially in the business field, is seen as feasible and effective, but has not been seriously attempted in an educational context. Provision of such aids is intended to facilitate practical advances in teaching and learning in the distance programmes. In the light of continuing uncertainty among staff about eLearning and generally about methods of incorporating ICT into their courses, this project addresses a very relevant educational issue.

 

Specific courses were selected to identify target groups and the templates created for them are the teaching and learning outcomes of the project. The development of the templates is based upon a professional understanding of current approaches to learning and teaching and awareness of current research and development in the field of distance education.

 

The templates themselves are built using up-to-date technology, such as Adobe Breeze, Captivate and Microsoft PowerPoint, in such a way as to simplify the use of ICT aids for the presentation of content and the organisation of learning in the distance education context (though it will be relevant to traditional on-site teaching as well.). The project includes among the aids to teaching the use of real-time web video conferencing (WVC), Flash recordings of these WVC events, audio conferencing and online collaborative text-based discussion. The templates present possible but flexible ways to integrate ICT into a variety of teaching and learning processes so as to create with less effort by the academic teaching plans and course curricula (WLE 2006).’

 

An extended objective of this project is to encourage the growth and development of an online eLearning community through the open exchange of case study exemplars generated by using the Templates and posting them to the website.

 

A set of recommendations is a deliverable of this study. These guidelines will impact on Phase 2 – Learning Activity Templates project that has been accepted by CDE which has been funded for £20,000 in the 2006/8 academic calendar.

5.1.2 Background and context

The concept of templates or reusable frameworks has been around in field of distance learning for some time. In the paper-based correspondence model it would take the form of a ‘style guide’ for writing the course handbook. Through this structured design there would be continuity in the activity of learning from unit-to-unit or module-to-module.

 

Templates have also been adapted and applied to software in a learning context. An example of this is the Microsoft Office PowerPoint templates illustrated in Appendix A (Microsoft 2006). Going through the menu: New / General Templates / Presentations / Training – provides you with a set of 9 pre-made generic slides with headings for you to add your content. The Microsoft PowerPoint Learning Essentials for Teachers tools offer some classroom teaching resources (Appendix B). Bersin & Associates (2003) along with Clothier (2003) explored PowerPoint and Macromedia Breeze as ‘rapid eLearning authoring tools’. But in each of these examples the tools have led the pedagogy. Pedagogy, not technology, should be driving the learning event design according to Thorp (1998).

 

Thomas (THES 2006) said, “The mere presence of computers in the classroom would, advocates argued, increase students’ motivation to learn and improve results. The same argument was rolled out to make the case for wiring classes to the internets and, most recently, for course management systems (VLEs) and blogging. However, a student sitting in front of a computer with access to millions of internet pages of material of greatly variable quality will never learn as effectively as one who follows a highly structured series of tasks that are clearly articulated and are set at the appropriate level of competence.

Educational technology requires a rationale that predates and guides its use in the classroom. Although successful approaches can be developed after the introduction of technology, educators must have the pedagogical discussion before formulating the [lesson and][7] marketing strategy. Otherwise, they could end up with just another version of the UK’s failed eUniversity project.”

This project offers a structured guide to that discussion in the form of pedagogic templates.

 

This study offers a different approach to examine how templates can be used as pedagogic models or exemplars. This innovative investigation fills the gap in current research by providing theoretically sound pedagogic models that have a practical application.

5.2 Action Research Approach

This study applies an Action Research Approach (McNiff J. 1988 &92, O’Leary Z. 2004). A cycle of data collection, analysis and evaluation informed the on-going design of the Templates and supporting website system. The outputs of this investigation will impact on the Phase 2 – Learning Activity Templates project.

 

Data collection was done using three methodologies. First, several case study interviews were done producing multimedia exemplars (accessible on the website or CD-ROM). Next, an online questionnaire was conducted to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The over 100 respondents were from the IoE’s Masters course Online Education and Training (OET). Finally, an expert review was done by external examiners. Data from these sources was then triangulated to generate emerging issues related to the design, development and evaluation of Teaching Activity Templates and website. Recommendations are offered at the end of the report to guide the Phase 2 project. This pilot project is working towards a ‘case law’ for sound pedagogic eLearning design principles.

5.2.1 Teaching Activities Templates system design

A deliverable of this project is a dynamic website containing many eLearning pedagogical templates for teachers (Templates Website 2006). This site is still in draft form pending user feedback in Phase 2 of the project. In this section of the report I will go through the navigation of use for the site while detailing the educational rationale for its design. Visual links are provided in the following Appendices (C - D). Alternatively, you may wish to open the accompanying CD-ROM which contains the local version of the website.

Introduction to the 3Ps model:
The 6 main sample guidelines-only templates, seen in Adobe Breeze Presenter format on the website, demonstrate a way of helping teachers/academics prepare some teaching material and follow teaching plans suggested in the 3Ps structure (see Table 10, Pincas 2006).

The 3Ps concept is well established in the field of learning English as a sound as a second language (ESOL). From the ‘conventual model’ Six variations have evolved.

An aim of the website is to support teachers and academics that want to use new technology for either distance or blended learning, but are not confident or sure where to start. Appendix C provides a screen grab of the website home page.

We start by explaining our basic approach to this teacher, and then take them through one or more templates. The explanation could be face-to-face, or as a voice-over while the teacher is looking at the template academics might omit the explanation and let the templates stand alone. This flexibility of choice is built into the design of the website. Users are encouraged to provide feedback in the templates themselves, through submitting case studies to the website or by entering critical commentary into the website discussion area.

Chart 8 - from OET Talk 2

1

Conventional

PRESENTATION

PRACTICE

PERFORMANCE

The default sequence: Give the knowledge first, arrange activities, then test.

2

Follow feedback

PRESENTATION

PERFORMANCE

PRACTICE

Give the knowledge first, test to see what further practice is needed, arrange activities.

3

Resource based

PRACTICE

PRESENTATION

PERFORMANCE

Ask learners to look for sources of the knowledge, summarise the knowledge for them, test.

4

Discovery learning

PRACTICE

PERFORMANCE

PRESENTATION

Arrange activities through which learners to discover the knowledge, test, summarise the knowledge for them.

5

Problem based ‘A’

PERFORMANCE

PRESENTATION

PRACTICE

Set a problem for the learners to solve, present the solution, arrange further practice.

6

Problem based ‘B’

PERFORMANCE

PRACTICE

PRESENTATION

Set a problem for the learners to solve, ask them to apply it, summarise the solution.

Table 10 Core samples of the 3Ps templates

Evaluation

The original 3Ps model did not have feedback-evaluation built into the design. Although it could be argued that this may be a quality of Performance/Assessment. Appendix D (slide #5) shows that an additional component was added to the Template model. The purpose of this feature is two-fold. First, it is intended to ensure that a feedback methodology is in place for the academic/teacher to gauge the appropriateness of the eLearning pedagogic design. Secondly, the evaluation is for the academic/teacher to give us feedback on the Template model and website system itself. Through every use more formative data can be collected and analysed to help refine the learning event for the student and the Template system for the instructor.

 

5.2.2 3Ps Sub-folder template variations

Each of the six core 3Ps models seen in table 11 has its own set of sub-folders of related templates. Figure 11 presents a tree hierarchy of the related templates in Appendix D.

 

Figure 11 File path of the templates

The following are further templates based on the 3Ps model:

 

Core Templates and sub-level examples[8]

1) ConventionalMODELS-1-0 [P]:

Ä      ConventionalMODELS-1-1 Web-cast [H]

Ä      ConventionalMODELS-1-2 Sequenced Explanations [H]

Ä      ConventionalMODELS-1-3 Drill & Practice[H]

Ä      ConventionalMODELS-1-4 Case Study-History[H]

Ä      ConventionalMODELS-1-5 Reflective Practice [W]

Ä     ConventionalMODELS-1-2-1 Project Presentations[W]

2) FeedbackResponsivelMODELS-2-0 [P]:

Ä     FeedbackResponsivelMODELS-2-1 Critical Peer Review

3) ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-0 [P]:

Ä      ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-1 Scavenger Hunt [H]

Ä      ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-2 Guided Research [W]

Ä      ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-3 Literature Review[H]

Ä      ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-4 Guided Analysis [H]

Ä      ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-5 Virtual Laboratory [H]

Ä      ResourceBasedlMODELS-3-6 Hands-on-activity [H]

4) DiscoveryLearningMODELS-4-0 [P]:

Ä     DiscoveryLearningMODELS-4-1 Games Approach

5) ProblemBased-A-MODELS-5-0 [P]:

Ä      Problem Based-A-MODELS-5-1 Team Design [H]

Ä      Problem Based-A-MODELS-5-2 Brainstorming [H]

Ä      Problem Based-A-MODELS-5-3 Mind mapping

Ä      Problem Based-A-MODELS-5-4 Critical Discourse [J]

Ä     Problem Based-A-MODELS-5-5 One Minute Essay [J]

6) ProblemBased-B-MODELS-6-0 [P]:

Ä      Problem Based-B-MODELS-6-1 Student Generated Content [B]

Ä      Problem Based-B-MODELS-6-2 Modelling Solutions

Ä      Problem Based-B-MODELS-6-3 Coaching-Mentoring [B]

Ä      Problem Based-B-MODELS-6-4 Knowledge-based Tutorials [H]

Ä     Problem Based-B-MODELS-6-5 Virtual Community Discussion [G][9]

Table 11 Core Templates and sub-level examples

The models are aimed at two general teaching approaches. First, classroom-style teaching conducted face-to-face is the ‘default’ situation. The second approach is a learner-managed-learning situation (Stephenson J. 2004). Several of the templates can be used in a work based learning (WBL) context (Costley 2006 et al.) which promotes a shift from a teacher-led to a personalised model.

 

Whichever approach the academic/teacher is using, the Templates provide suggestions as to selecting appropriate technologic support for the learning event.  This conversion or adaptation to a virtual learning environment (VLE) context is also developed in Project 3 of this study, the VLE Denouement Profile Toolkit project by putting forward a set of three ‘web metamorphosis models’ (see the attached CD-ROM).

 

Details of the sub-level examples

The Conventional Model templates have a wide range of variation. A web-cast (1.1) is a traditional face-to-face style lecture distributed by multimedia technologies over the web. A ‘Sequenced Explanation’ template (1.2) offers a set of explanations provided in a specific order of events. This may be due to the need for the content to be presented in a specific order. A ‘drill & practice’ (1.3) template is the more traditional Computer Aided Learning (CAL) design with a small task to do online as an immediate follow-up activity. In a case study/history (1.4) there is more of a ‘medical history’ sequence of steps as a Doctor may ask in the diagnosis of an illness. This sequential series of branching questions takes the student through the learning event in a guided path approach.

 

 In template 1.5 steps are taken to promote reflection in your teaching design practice. Finally, for teaching that requires learners to do presentations to discuss the projects they are doing template 1.2.1 offers a set of steps to help organise the talk.

 

The second core 3P design is a Feedback Responsive design (2.0). A sub-variation of this approach is to promote the opportunity for the learners to have a critical peer review. This allows the student to give critical comments to colleagues and promote argument.

 

Template 3 is a resource-based approach. One variation is a ‘scavenger hunt’ approach (3.1). In this way the learner must seek out the information needed to solve the problem. A guided research (3.2) approach is similar to the ‘hunt metaphor’ but the tutor provides direction to the learner about which research path to follow. In a literature review (3.3) approach the student is taken through some stages that are common in a literature review. In a virtual laboratory (3.5) the student has the opportunity to use an online simulation of a ‘real experiment’. Interactivity may vary depending on the sophistication of the virtual environment. For a ‘hands-on’ activity the lesson takes place in a face-to-face classroom setting (3.6). The online system is used to support the related tasks for the lesson.

 

In discovery learning model (4.0) a popular approach is to nest the learning in the context of a game (4.1).  A wide range of technology may be used including Artificial Intelligence. Games may be done individually or as collaborative online events. This is a growing area of eLearning research. 

 

There are two main variations on problem-based template models (5.0). One variation (5.1) focuses on the team work needed to solve the problem and less on the solution. In a ‘brainstorming’ approach the learners are encouraged to think ‘laterally’ to promote creative solutions (5.2). This approach is also seen in ‘mind mapping’ (5.3) which is a graphical way of representing the problem solving activity. In a ‘critical discourse’ approach (5.4) the focus is on the dialogue. A specific sequence of steps is followed to direct the problem activity towards a solution. The ‘one minute essay’ is a condensed variation of this approach by limiting the learner to only 1 minute to post a text solution.

 

The second strand of the problem-based templates contains these variations. In a ‘student-generated’ approach (6.1) the focus is on the learner producing the ‘course content’ through the problem solving activity. This is a growing trend on the web. The ‘user-as-author’ metaphor is increasing with the current surge in ‘social networking’ websites using Web 2.0.

 

Modelling solutions (6.2) is an approach where the learners generalise their solutions into exemplars for use in different contexts. A coaching / mentoring approach (6.3) sees the learner taking on the role of peer-tutor. This relates to the online networking which is encouraged in the virtual community discussion (6.5).

 

A knowledge-based tutorial approach (6.4) takes an artificial intelligence or ITS (intelligent tutoring system) perspective to provide a template that would encourage an expert system design. In this template a branching yes-no logic path is offered to the learner in this teacher-led approach.

 

The related project website (www.ncwblp.org/cdet/ ) provides more detail on each of the template variations. Teachers using the website are encouraged to personalise templates for their context. We hope to see the templates approach continuing to develop in this way.

 

‘Trans-application’ of Templates

These models are intended to be ‘trans-discipline’, meaning that they can be adapted and applied to any subject matter or knowledge domain. Of course, each subject expert may wish (and is encouraged to) tweak the Template to meet the idiosyncrasies of the topic.

 

The nature of the Templates is also to be ‘trans-level’. For this pilot project UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) were the focus as it was aimed at and funded by the University of London (U of L). Supporting case studies, detailed later in the report, come from U of L and Middlesex University (MU). However, it is the intent of the Templates design to be adapted by the educators using them. Further studies could explore their use with Further Education (FE) and Secondary Schools.

 

There is also a ‘trans-cultural’ characteristic of the Templates. The models are not intended for use only in the UK or Europe, although this version is only produced in English. It is foreseen that different cultures could apply their use. In fact, in the review section of this study, the respondents of the survey were from several continents as members of the OET course. Another interpretation of this ‘trans-cultural’ quality could be seen in its use outside the academic sector and placed in the corporate context. Sutton (2005) sees one change that is taking place in corporate education is, “a desire to base the process of learning on discovery and problem solving. Both of these pedagogic models are addressed in this study. Future investigations could include applying the Templates to a staff training or continuing professional development (CPD) context.

 

Fill-in templates

Next the teacher/academic is prompted to take an appropriate pedagogic model (3 Ps template) and adapt/adopt and apply it through the fill-in templates option on the menu (see Appendix E).

 

Figure 12 File path for fill-in-the-blanks templates

This can be done through several approaches. First, the teacher/academic can read through the Course Planning Overview and Teaching Choices documents (Pincas 2006a) to get an overview of how to apply the Model Templates descriptions previously introduced. They may then convert, or ‘fill-in’ their materials (i.e. Word files, handbooks, etc.) into digital format for use in an online setting.

 

If the academic/teacher is not confident with this process they may choose to download the PowerPoint (Fillin-models.pot) as seen in Figure 12. This online resource is like the PowerPoint presentation templates introduced in Appendix A. The academic/teacher takes their existing digital materials and copies-and-pastes them into the Fillin-models.pot file.

 

Once uploaded to the VLE web server it can be accessed by the learner as a download file (.ppt), converted into an HTML file for viewing via a web browser or as we can see in the Templates website, converted through Adobe Breeze Presenter into a Flash format (.swf). As a Flash file the academic/teacher can add voice over to the PowerPoint slides that have the new content and activity directions. This audio commentary can: (a) be aimed at the student as induction directions and/or (b) feedback commentary on the value of the Template model system and software.

 

User testimonials

As the use of the website increases from the current pilot stage we will be able to organise samples or exemplars of use by subject domain and academic level. For now, as figure 3 shows there are three main resources; a commentary by Anita Pincas on the 1.0 Conventional Template, two multimedia Breeze Presenter case studies and the results of the IoE’s Open Education and Training online survey. The results of these analyses are detailed later in this chapter.

 

Figure 13 User Testimonials

Discussion

With the expected growth of the website as a teaching and learning resource we have added online communication tools to promote discourse (Appendix F). Since the growth and development of an online eLearning community through the open exchange of case study exemplars is an objective of the study, we need to provide up-to-date a/synchronous online tools for the stakeholders.

 

Some of the communication systems that may be developed in the next phase of the study could include; text-based discussion boards, Wikis, web video conferencing and other new emerging mobile devices which converge with these technologies.

5.3 Project and website evaluation

The next section of the project report contains a critical discussion towards validation of the 3Ps design. It contains both an internal and external expert review. First, Anita’s commentary is a reflective self-assessment of the project and processes in the design, development and evaluation of the website. Next, two multimedia case studies are provided with a critical analysis of the discourse. This is followed by a questionnaire analysis conducted by the members of the Institute of Education’s OET course. Finally, the project and website were evaluated from a work based learning (learner managed learning) perspective. Two professors gave their expert review.

 

Multimedia case study exemplars

At this stage of the pilot project there are two Breeze Presenter Flash case studies (Appendix G) as seen in figure 13; Pauline Armsby and Sheila Blankfield. The actual Breeze Presenter files can be accessed on the CD-ROM for the audio and PowerPoint presentation. Both respondents have consented to the following summary transcripts generated from VHS recorded interviews:

 

Pauline Armsby:

This case study is for a Work Based Learning Doctoral level course (DPS4520). It is the Recognition and Accreditation of Learning (RAL) level 5 portfolio module. Students are at a distance, but have the option of attending sessions in person. The ConventionalMODELS-1-0 from Table 2.0’s summary was chosen for this analysis.

 The commentary is from the perspective of moving from a paper-based (Correspondence Model) to an eLearning model. There is a text with voice-over Introduction, Agenda and Overview section. Main support for the learner is intended to be done through online communication tools. ‘Draft RAL claims from the Doctorial candidates are aimed at promoting reflection and discussion as part of the learning process in doing the portfolio.’ Two main ‘interventions are offered for the student. First, a video of a face-to-face ‘Questions-and-Answer session’ is provided. Next, sample materials are provided to the learner prompting them to post comments on the text discussion board.

 

In reviewing the process of using the Template Dr. Armsby said that, ‘the summary feels a bit redundant, but it does compile all the elements. It allows me to critique the whole process of the RAL 5 procedure. The induction system works overall at a ‘macro level’ but at a micro level only with some flexibility concerning Support.’ Further she felt the Template addressed more the process, not the content of the module. ‘The content is covered in the module (handbook). I could have added (web)[10] links to the induction materials such as advisors’ profiles, videos, screen grabs, etc.’

 

In summary she said, ‘The main question is – with the time available, is it worth doing? Compared to the payoff I need further investigation of the interventions put in place.’

 

Sheila Blankfield:

Supporting the Adult Dyslexic Learner in FE and HE (EDX4010) was the case study presented by Sheila. A blended-learning design was used with a face-to-face introduction day followed by online activities. The ConventionalMODELS-1-0 from Table 2.0’s summary was chosen for this analysis.

 

She felt there was a, ‘difficulty in delivery of this topic as a whole and this topic in particular – while the template represents the conventional approach (#1) of the chart of approaches – I’m not convinced that it matches the What, How and Why approach used by the EDX module.’ A research note is the issue of how to portrait the variations of the 6 Core templates are highlighted by this comment.

 

The introduction slide of the Template opened the next issue. ‘I have a problem with using PowerPoint in this way. I regard it as a tool for presenting visual aid for spoken presentations.’  How the content is loaded and presented on the Template is left to the academic’s choice. But the option of using the text as bullet points with audio voice-over needs to be made more explicit in the induction. This is confirmed in the next part of the Fill-in Template as there is a problem presenting a complex image. Technical solutions could be to add small ‘thumbnail images’ to hyper link to larger, more detailed image files. Alternatively, the student can be prompted to use the web browser Full Screen View option from the menu.

 

The next section of the Template is entitled ‘Agenda’, but Sheila felt that this, ‘implies an order of the material that needs to be learned. There is an understanding of adult learning. No matter how the teacher organises the learning sequence, there is no guarantee that the students will do (the learning activity) in that order. ’ The issue emerging from this analysis relates to teacher control.

 

What is the pedagogic design of the learning event? Is it intended to be teacher-led or a more learner managed learning (work based learning) approach. This thread of the analysis is expanded in the summary discussion. Some VLEs offer a technical feature to consider as a time-controlled release which can be added to online content or tools, thus giving the eTutor control as to when the student gets access to resources through the process of the learning event.

 

Learning activities were the next part of Shelia’s Template based on Salmon’s (2002) e-tivity design. She felt that there could be, ‘problems with too much text on one slide – but may be useful to have it all in one place.’ A false assumption about Fill-in PowerPoint design has emerged.  Use of the Templates is not limited to only one slide per topic. Templates are intended to be a guide by topic heading to aid in structure for the pedagogy. Users can replicate any slides or put as much content as needed in each heading, or as stated before in the previous case study, use hyper links to other resources.

 

OET questionnaire analysis

The participants in the IoE’s Online Education and Training course contributed 115 responses to our questionnaire by selecting any two templates to evaluate. The raw data is accessible through our Surveyshare.com account and summarised by the charts in Appendix H. Table 3 presents a brief analysis by each question:

 

 

 

 

4) Would these PowerPoint files + examples + Word charts be helpful as they stand?

% Response

Yes – 60% 

Discussion 4:

The templates proved to be useful as pedagogic guides for early stages of development, but not (at this stage of development) as an overall framework. The templates would be better if supported (illustrated)[11] by subject specific examples and linked to tools and multimedia resources. There was some concern about being overly text-based. The instruction for the 3Ps was good, but a more developed multimedia induction is needed. PowerPoint was seen better as a visual aid to spoken presentation and needed to be linked to more interactivity. One reviewer felt that, ‘once the links are inserted the PowerPoint files may be helpful. Personally, I find it much easier to learn by looking at examples rather than following theoretical/practical guidelines. ‘

5) Would you like a voice-over with them to explain what each one means?

% Response

Yes – 70% 

Discussion 5:
One respondent said, ’Audio input could expand some of the rather cryptic statements but need not be always played once heard and understood.’

6) Would you like to take anything out? If yes, What?

% Response

No – 62%

Discussion 6:

There was a general desire to simplify the content in the slides and navigation between them. ‘I don't really like many repetitions because that makes me confused. I wonder if there’s any way to better organize the site.’ But a core design principle of the project was recognised, ‘The teacher should adapt the templates according to his or her needs and circumstances.’  

7) Would you like to add anything? If yes, What?

% Response

About 50% Yes and 50% No

Discussion 7:

Several useful suggestions were made such as, ‘an initial needs analysis template to start the process.’ And to provide, ‘a manual with a critical component that discusses why teachers should be using Ps in different sequences and why different tools should be used.’ Some felt there was a need for more illustrations. A way to track your navigation and progress through the system was noted, ‘it would be useful if tic-boxes can be made next to each tool; one for "I have", the other for "I want to use".’

8) If you don’t like this method of helping a teacher, what alternative method would you prefer [other than traditional classroom teaching – we are looking for something that could stand alone].

% Response

Majority (over 30%) don’t know

Discussion 8:

The importance for peer teacher interactivity was reinforced. The Templates system should be, ’supported with collaborative/cooperative learning in order to sustain commitment, interest and confidence in learners for whom this is a very new medium.’ Another innovation to the site was offer: ‘Personally I'd like to have a form (Word or Excel) in which I could write down my choices. This form could be additional to the templates.’ And, ‘A practical hands on activity where teachers could mix and match the various options - tools, methods, actions - under the Ps. A drag and drop activity might be effective so teachers could change scenarios.’

Distribution should not be limited to the web, but include a DVD version of the site. The user would go online for the communication features but access resources locally.

9) The method we have shown you is generic, i.e. - intended for any subject teacher. Imagine now that you are helping a teacher of a specific subject [e.g. language teaching]. Are there any fundamental changes you feel would be necessary?

% Response

Majority (over 40%) - No

Discussion 9:

Some comments on how to migrate from a ‘generic-to-specific domain’ model were; ‘Somehow incorporating course background information and learner profiles into the decision making rubric might help tailor the template to more specific courses without losing their general usefulness.’ And, ‘I have considered this question in the past and have found it quite complex. The variation in common and subject specific across all of the disciplines is large and would be an interesting piece of research to undertake. This question can be partially answered by providing examples relevant to different disciplines.’  

Table 12 IoE - OTE Survey summary

External expert review

There are two key critical reviews done by ‘external’ experts as a means of validating the Template design principles which are evolving from this pilot project. The first is from Professor Karen Evans of the IoE. The second is done with Professor (emeritus) John Stephenson, formerly Head of the International Centre for Learner Managed Learning (ICLML 2006).

 

Karen Evans[12]

The focus of the interview was on theoretical teaching models as related to the Teaching Templates project. Five models of learning are related to this project which helps strengthen its theoretical foundation. These approaches also take into consideration the issue of formal (i.e. – a taught lesson from an academic or corporate training institution) and informal (i.e. – improvised or unplanned instructional efforts that are part of everyday work operations) (Sutton 2005).

 

The Transmission Model is teacher-led and content-driven. This approach to teaching is most closely linked to the Conventional Template set [1.0]. Within the 3Ps the term ‘Presentation’ can be interpreted several ways. It seems to pre-suppose some pre-packed content given to learners. But, in some of the variations of the Conventional Template set ‘Presentation’ may be done after the learners have attempted to discover the content for themselves. It is important, therefore, to make these options explicit at the induction phase of using the Templates website system.

 

In an Experiential Model tacit knowledge may be gained through everyday activities. As the focus of this approach is on the ‘practitioner researcher’ directing the path of the learning event, it is addressed in the follow-up Phase 2 project – ‘Learner Activity Templates’.

 

With a Social Model communities of practice and partnerships are addressed. Several of the sub-templates provide an opportunity for this approach to be used in our system. For example, the 2.1 Critical Peer Review template encourages analytic discourse between the learners, while the templates 5.1- 5.5 (Team Design, Brainstorming, Mind mapping, Critical Discourse, One Minute Essay) all require a strong peer/expert engagement. Finally, Template 6.5 the Virtual Community Discussion approach seeks to establish an online network of like-minded researchers.

 

A Competence-based Model has a focus on the learning outcomes in relation to the prior knowledge and experience of the student. Again, the Conventional Template set [1.0] is equipped to support this teaching approach.

 

Activity Theory Model is currently a dominant teaching approach, according to Professor Evans, especially with respect to a work based learning context (Vygotsky L. 1962, Bruner J. 1966). With respect to the 3Ps, this strategy takes a dynamic interpretation of ‘Presentation’. In this context there is no (static) content as such, because the goal is to deal with procedural issues (e.g. team work, strategies, etc.) and/or affective processes (e.g. developing appropriate attitudes). However, these are by no means to be imposed by any teacher, coach or mentor – rather, they are to be elicited and developed through some kind of critical peer discussion among participants so that a ‘collective artefact’  is created, although, it might be a cluster of individual artefacts that have been created during group interactions.

The model can be captured as an open series of Practice activities followed by Performance activities, including formative assessment from peers and/or mentors, coaches, consultants, etc. with optional summative assessment (when certification is required). As seen in the Social Model, Templates 2.1, 5.1-55 and 6.5 can support this approach to teaching.

 

There is a set of planning stages related to the Activity Theory Model which can be applied to the context of our Templates system:

  1. Decide the learning goals: ‘What needs to change’ – This may be done through a needs analysis activity. The decisions may be made by the instructor, in consultation with learners, teams, managers, etc.
  2. Plan a variety of activities
  3. Decide on the desired outcomes – e.g. performance, change in team efficiency, morale, etc.
  4. Accreditation – decide if educational outcomes are wanted.
  5. Evaluation – the process should loop back to continually evolve.

These planning stages are integrated into the induction materials designs for the Phase 2 project refinements.

 

John Stephenson[13]

The 3Ps are a useful ‘tried and tested’ set of models for learning in that context. There is nothing wrong with the 6 core models. They pretty well cover what happens in a classroom-based situation. I want to start with the basics. Those six models are features of conventional classroom teaching. When you talk about a work based learning model (WBL), you talk about the individuals, you talk about dispersal…a highly personalised type of learning. As soon as you talk about computers and online learning – you reinforce that individualism.

 

If the web is a medium that has almost universal materials, access to online experts, and tools that are beyond most conventional classrooms – then it seems to me that it would be appropriate to look at the problem afresh. It is as McLuhan (1967) says, ‘the medium is the message’. If you want to move towards a use of new media – it will be most successful to examine, not what teachers do – how they structure things, but the aspirations, needs and interests of individual learners. In a classroom (university or school) the students are a group with similar backgrounds and working towards a test. This approach will not achieve a WBL design. There must be a distinctive approach by building on the individual’s background, knowledge, experience and employment needs. This is why the ‘medium is the message’ – because the new media allows you to do things that you would not otherwise have been able to do (in the classroom).

 

This is not to say that many schools and universities would not be interested in the models you have shown me, because they want to ‘convert their learning’ to a computer-based environment, which I’m sure works in some situations. Where this will be less likely to be effective is a work based learning situation. Although there is some recognition of the individual [in Template 3.2 Guided Research][14] and, in the final part, there is encouragement to develop self-reliance.

 

The distinctive feature of WBL is not so much the learning, but the work. It is the work that individuals or teams are doing. It is how an individual person is engaging with the work and progress their career that makes it individual. It is also how a person sees an employer and the business benefiting. This is how we have developed the UfI (University for Industry) Learning Through Work model. Most of the other UfI materials are based on your ‘good practice’ classroom designs which is then individualised within a generic framework.

5.4 Summary discussion

This pilot project is working towards a ‘case law’ of design principles that can be applied to Teaching Activity Templates and, in particular, the evolution of the system applied to the website. Through triangulation of the issues emerging from the case study, questionnaire and expert interviews several key issues have emerged.

 

An initial proposition of the Templates design is their ‘generic quality’. The use of the Template process does not intend to hinder the academic/teacher’s innovation or creativity. On the contrary, it aims to provide a clear overview of the pedagogic options available. It is from this structured starting point that variation in the Template themes that more variations may evolve. In this way the system can encourage online pedagogic design growth through scholarly exchange on the website. With the addition of more case study exemplars this aim will be realised.

 

This pilot project was HE specific. As the website and templates become more ‘trans-application’, we will need to make navigation pathways for level and subject domain. HE, FE, and Schools navigation will need to be catered for as well as accessing examples by topic.

 

Along with the evolution of the website design will be research into appropriate software tools to promote and represent the Template models. Currently, Word, PowerPoint, Flash (Breeze Presenter and Captivate) and PDF formats are being supported by voice-overs. Increased interactive induction materials and activities will be designed, implemented and tested. 

 

Critical discussion about the ‘transmission nature’ of the Templates design was re-occurring. Linked to this topic was the issue of teacher control. Although there are clear advantages to the Activity Theory Model, it may not be appropriate to all pedagogic designs offered in this study. Pincas (2006b) emphasises the difference between HE (Lecture / seminar / 1-2-1 tutorial) and schools class room (one teacher does all- whole class lecture, small group discussion and private help) models.

 

Although a pedagogic design may be teacher-led in approach, the tutor may not completely control all the variables in a learning event. This is even more complicated when learning technology is introduced to the system. Thus, a ‘transmission model’ may best describe the flow of data than a true online pedagogy.

 

Due to the ‘trans-application’ quality of the project presented earlier, it may be safe to say that the Templates system is not aligned to any one theory or model at this nascent stage of its development. 

 

Recommendations

As per the project objectives this set of recommendations is a deliverable of the study. These guidelines may influence the design considerations of the Phase 2 project:

 

Ø      Establish a user profile / needs analysis to establish possible problems before using the system (such as ICT capability, learning preference to use sound inductions, etc.),

Ø      Revise induction materials - planning stages can be integrated into the induction materials for the Phase 2 project refinements,

Ø      Improve examples/case studies through critical online discussion,

Ø      A site map should be added with a progress tracking option to show where you are in the process of using the system (e.g. – a step-by-step procedure ‘wizard tool’),

Ø      Add a print manual for support (possibly as a downloadable .pdf file),

Ø      To promote a common language as more levels and subject disciplines join the website add a Wiki glossary.

Predictions

Based upon the themes and emerging issues from this study a set of predictions can be made that may be realised in the Phase 2 project:

 

Ø      3P exemplar collection  - a wider range of selection will grow as the system gets more exposure through dissemination events,

Ø      Links to online tools will grow – a stronger correlation between the pedagogic models and the appropriate support tools will change with new media and online community environments,

Ø      Discourse around the Templates changes – as people become more aware of the ‘how-to’ level of the system, they will grow to critically reflect on higher level concerns related to the pedagogic designs,

Ø      A staff training and CPD model to match evolution of the website will emerge – if new academics/teachers are to embrace this system and toolset the stakeholders must become confident and capable,

Ø      Make the site more database driven – a move to provide forms that allow the users to mix-and-match P’s and build their own variations will develop through pro-active needs of the site membership, 

Ø      Add engaging interactivity - DHTML ‘drag-and-drop’ activities to make the site more ‘hands-on’ will provide ‘sticky content’ that will bring users back to the site,

Ø      Finally, the base of users will continue to grow – the ‘web ring’ of membership will progress from the UK – HE sector to embrace FE, Schools and international cohorts.

5.4.1 Reflections and follow-up

In response to Professor Stephenson’s expert review, an email response from Professor Evans reinforced the different starting points between a classroom approach and a work based learning situation. She stresses that, ‘rather than the traditional approach of ‘learning-as-getting-the-right-answer’, learning in a work context starts with the work activity which is embedded in doing it and developing competencies.’ Collins (1988) believes that, ‘these competencies are not learnt, but are acquired through sufficient practice. Competencies, along with their constituent knowledge, skills and attitudes are best acquired through rich learning environments (Boshuizen H. 2004).’ This study postulates that VLE’s designed by appropriate pedagogic models may serve as examples of such rich settings. 

 

Current research, according to Evans, into the training practice in companies shows that much of the learning/training is actually conducted through the ‘old transmission model’ (as is detailed in Chapter 2 - Garrison’s VLE Generations, Table 1). And, she concludes, ‘There is therefore, a place for offering teaching templates that help improve this, and in this respect the ones developed so far are probably an advance on much of what is currently on offer. The templates should be tried in the workplace to be compared and evaluated against what is currently in use in their organisations.’ This concern is addressed in Phase 2 of the project.

 

The [epistemology][15] linked to a work based learning context naturally informs the development of ‘Learning Templates’ in the Phase 2 project.’ Evans continues, ‘There are eleven ways in which people learn at work which include: making mistakes, correcting them and learning not to make them again; testing theory against real work problems, practising skills, solving problems that arise in day-to-day work practices, interacting with others through teamwork – quality assurance – offering leadership to others or helping  through explaining to others by demonstration or by finding new/more effective ways to do things in their particular context.

 

An emphasis should be placed on designing and developing more/new templates that focus on collaborative knowledge construction (including knowing how, what, and why) with attention on how this can be facilitated by coaches, mentors and teamwork.’ she concludes.

 

In light of this critical review future work on the teaching and learning templates activity approach will factor into the design the ‘grain of these ways of learning at work’. An intent of the project is not to ‘superimpose approaches based on assumptions of classroom learning and traditional accreditation’, but to create a dynamic online collection of teaching resources that provide a virtual space for critical discourse.

 

It is recognised in this project that learning can be looked upon as a process and not only a fixed product. The value of the learning event may be in the journey to the solution (i.e. building teamwork and communication skills) and not necessarily the outcome (i.e. – a result that only partially fixes a problem). The templates design will need to become more ‘organic’ in their use as there is a greater take-up from the eLearning community. This ‘build-your-own’ template strategy should support the system’s ability to deal with ‘open-ended solution’ situations, where the problem resolution is not known in advance. Based on the evidence of this chapter, I conclude that the current project is a pedagogically sound foundation from which to build further research in ePedagogy.

 


6.0 Project 3:
Virtual Learning Environment Denouement Profile

6.1 Context: DPS/WBS01 and WBS2/4802 Case studies

Through the description and analysis of Project 3, DPS/WBS01 and WBS2/4802 case studies, the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Denouement Profile toolkit and technique is examined. An introduction provides my position as an ‘insider researcher’ and a rational for the study. A step-by-step breakdown of the software toolkit procedures and features is presented next. The case studies are introduced giving an overview of the National Centre for Work Based Learning’s perspective. DPS/WBS01 and WBS2/4802 case studies are investigated by analysis of data collected in 2003 and 2006. The toolkit is designed with its own feedback questionnaire which then is critically analysed. Several related supporting eLearning events are described and triangulated to the findings of the toolkit case studies. Finally, a summary discussion establishes emerging related trends.

6.1.1 Introduction

In my role as Senior Learning Development tutor I have been working with my colleagues at the Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning (CEWBL) in the capacity of academic/researcher and learning technologist advisor for over six years. Additionally, I am currently Chair for the Centre’s Staff Development Committee for ICT (Computing) related topics. These responsibilities have placed me in a position to impact on the research, design and development of eLearning for the Centre.

 

A problem I faced in my discussions with the Centre staff was in forming a common language from which we could move forward in getting their current paper-based learning and materials and curriculum design, a correspondence model (Garrison 2004), migrated over to a virtual learning environment (VLE).

 

My research website (Basiel 2006) provides evidence of the many earlier software and pedagogical designs I have piloted to address the problem of, ‘How can a mutual understanding (common ground or language) be promoted between the learning technologist and stakeholders involved in the design, development and implementation of a VLE?’

 

In 2003 I conducted several pilot case studies using a Microsoft Excel version of the VLE Denouement Profile toolkit (Please see attached software on Attached CD-ROM). For this report I have selected two specific WebCT/Oasis web site examples; WBS01 – the programme area for the Centre’s undergraduate VLE, and WBS2/4802 – which is the introductory module for student’s to do their Recognition and Accreditation of experiential Learning (RAL or APEL) portfolio work. As a critical follow-up in my Action Research approach, I have repeated the case studies for these VLE areas with the intent to accomplish these objectives:

Ø      demonstrate that this toolkit and technique is capable of being used as a way to liaise the learning technologist with other VLE stakeholders,

Ø      validate the initial study results by replicating the study from 2003 in 2006,

Ø      provide evidence that the toolkit and technique can be adapted to a critical incident technique approach, as discussed in Chapter 3 – Research Methods, which highlights emerging concerns in the VLE design and implementation,

Ø      provide a website where the multimedia case studies can be reviewed by other stakeholders and invited to add to the collection of examples.

 

The case studies conducted in 2006 used a new, under development, web-based version of the VLE Denouement Profile toolkit (MUBSweb 2006). This project was funded for £2,000 by the CEWBL Research Projects grant. This is an ongoing research and development project carried out in conjunction with the eLearning Development team from the School of Business headed by Alex Moon.

6.2 Steps to using the toolkit

An online Flash multimedia induction presentation has been piloted at the login page of the online toolkit (VLED induction 2006). There are 6 main steps to this process to get an overview of how to construct and/or analyse your VLE as seen in the next figure:

 

Figure 14 Steps for use of VLE Denouement Profile toolkit

 

[1] A break down of your VLE components: eContent, eCommunication, online learning theory and eManagement. Within each of these categories there is a set of descriptors for that core component. Each of these is assigned a profile descriptor or virtual autonomy value (VAV) which has a numerical representation. The average for each category has a graphical summary or chart.

 

[2] The VAV translates into a generic eLearning model. [3] A cross comparison is then made against different eLearning criteria.

 

Next [4], approaches to the meta-level transition issues of migrating to a VLE are offered. Some pedagogic principles of VLE design are presented [5]. Finally, feedback is presented as an electronic questionnaire with open responses [6].

6.3 Case study overview

One goal of the VLE profile is to be reusable. This functionality is aimed at people that are either just starting out to design, develop and implement a VLE or those who are experienced, to revisit and reflect on the possible changes that may occur over time. Analysis in this chapter used the profile technique and electronic toolkit to draw a critical comparison between two Work Based Learning VLEs over a 3-year period from 2003-06 (see Chapter 3 & 7). 

 

This review focuses on the DPS/WBS01 Programme area and the WBS2/4802 Module area. The Work Based Studies (WBS) area was made to provide a common virtual space for all under and postgraduate students, apart from the Professional Doctorates. Dr. Pauline Armsby was the Module Leader for each case study. The Recognition and Accreditation Learning (RAL WBS2802) module was lead by Mr. Jonathan Hawkes in 2003 and myself, Anthony ‘Skip’ Basiel, in 2006.

 

The following discussion is presented in two parts. First, each of the four main VLE components is summarised with it numerical Virtual Autonomy Value (VAV), or the way the element being described for the VLE promotes learner autonomy (i.e. – eContent, eCommunications, Online Learning theory and eManagement).  Then, data triangulation is supported by comparing the VLE profile toolkit questionnaire between the start date in 2003 and the adoption of the new Vista/WebCT version.

 

A critical summary discussion is presented at the end to draw conclusions about the change over time for VLE development. Trends are predicted for the future direction of the VLE design and development for the rest of the Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning.

 

6.4 DPS/WBS01 Case Study (2003 & 06):
Work Based Studies Programme Area

Results from 2003 pilot:

The DPS/DPS/WBS01 National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnership (NCWBLP) Programme Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Denouement Toolkit case study is presented in two main threads:

  1. A summary of the video taped interview produced during the use of the toolkit ,
  2. A summary of the toolkit survey.

6.4.1 Video taped interview summary (2003)

Analysis of the interview transcripts produced from the use of the VLE Denouement Toolkit produced six main issues: [1] description of a programme site, [2] toolkit revision, [3] mixed description issues; [4] VLE evolves over time, [5] issues not previously considered – highlighted by use of the toolkit, [6] mixed users – students and academic advisors.

 

[1] Description of a programme site -

The ‘default’ design for WebCT is as an online support for a face-to-face instructional class with scaffolded content. The WBS/DPS Programme website can be summarised as a portal to provide support to all work based learning students in the WBS/DPS system. In this way learning content takes on two types:

1) Procedural handbooks – support literature on NCWBLP regulations (i.e. – What are the assessment level descriptors?)

2) Supporting research seminars – a set of guidelines is in Appendix-A (p. 161) for helping the presenter provide web-based materials and follow-up.

 

Since WBL does not follow a traditional instructional model, summative assessment does not easily apply. Formative feedback can be built into the design to accommodate learners going through the handbooks in the form of simple true/false prompts at the end of major section. This is not currently used in the paper based designed materials.  The face-to-face research seminars can have peer review through the use of online discussion boards and the tutor posting questions/tasks. A tool and methodology is needed to provide the learners an opportunity to record and reflect on their experiences (i.e. – a learning journal). This research was conducted before the current popularity of Blogs. One goal of the programme site is to support networking.

 

[2] Toolkit revision -

As part of the toolkit design, self-evaluation and ongoing revision is built in. The following points may be considered in the next version:

  1. Coversheet – prompt case study respondents for their email contact with a link they can adapt.
  2. Add a glossary of terms –
    1. as pop-up comments in Excel as an additional worksheet

 

[3] Mixed description issues -

The nature of the toolkit descriptors is to help form a generalised level. It may not catch all examples or cases. The description should only for the current state of the system, not the desired end goal.  The concept of ‘soft barriers’ on the cover sheet needs to be highlighted during the induction.

 

[4] The VLE evolves over time -

The ‘VLE may start at one level and change as developed over time.’ For example, DPS/WBS01 currently uses a paper-based system of content delivery with email and phone support. NCWBLP is working towards a web-based support system.  The current ‘static’ nature of the content will evolve into a more interactive style given time and feedback.

 

 [5] Issues not previously considered – highlighted by use of the toolkit -

A goal of this toolkit is to raise awareness of the many components in a VLE and their relationships: (a) Mobility was not considered. Planning for m-learning (mobile technology) in the future can be started at this stage. (b) A ‘mentor-help feature’ would be useful to have since the DPS/WBS01 Programme website has a mix of novice and experienced work-based learners. This is an online support network, where past successful alumni would be able to provide feedback to an open forum.

 

[6] Mixed users – students and academic advisors –

The DPS/WBS01 work-based learning programme website is not a one-tutor-to-many-students model. This website is a virtual meeting place for NCWBLP candidates (learners) and advisors (academic supervisors). Due to this mixed audience there is a mix of ICT skill and confidence. Dealing with the reluctance of the staff to take on the additional task of learning how to use a VLE was one of the biggest hardships in the DPS/WBS01 pilot. Appendix B has a critical comparison of the VLE Denouement Profile toolkit case studies between 2003 and 2006.

 

In figures ‘X & Y’ below a comparison of the VLED Profiles for the module can be seen through the numerical representation of the virtual autonomy value:

 

Table 15 Comparison of the DPS/WBS01 modules between 2003 & 2006

6.4.2 Summary Discussion: DPS/WBS01 Case study

In this critical comparison issues that arose from the analysis of the virtual autonomy values for each of the core components of the VLE Denouement profile are highlighted. Appendix B contains the detailed breakdown of each component. Since Dr. Pauline Armsby was the same academic interviewed for each of the VLE Denouement profiles there is a strong case for comparing the different profiles and issues resulting over the three year gap.

 

eContent: There is a shift in the focus of the logistics of producing content for a VLE to the design concerns of the academic and learner:

“…there needs to be an awareness of the online tools to manage, structure and make eContent.” And “The student’s perspective needs to be considered and their ICT capability.”

 

To address this concern I have added a new section to the revised Toolkit v.7.3 (see attached Excel file on CD-ROM). There is a list of online tools help guide the academic as to possible ways to address eContent in the VLE. Multimedia induction materials are planned to be designed and developed using Adobe Breeze and Captivate to better support VLE users that are less confident with ICT.

 

eCommunication: Over the three year period there has been research conducted in the area of web based video conferencing as discussed in a previous chapter of this report. However, “(online support is) static for the WBS instructor’s role, but we have the LR (Learning Resources) website available now. (There is) [16] not an on going system of support. Right now we offer a web page for helping online.”

 

This is an ongoing area of development. We will need to continue to explore emerging technologies for online student support. Additionally, we will need to challenge the current student support model at NCWBLP to adapt it into an online peer support model. This will entail additional multimedia induction materials to train staff and students to be constructively supportive in the VLE.  

 

Telepistemology: When discussing online learning theory after the three years Dr. Armsby felt, “I recognise that doing the VLE design is very complicated. I feel inadequate to the task, as an academic making my WebCT space, I have an explicit understanding of HOW I want to teach. I use this knowledge to inform what I want to do with the VLE, but…I still feel that there is a lot I don’t know.”

 

This perspective reinforces the point that the VLED profile is only a ‘snap-shot’ in time of the stakeholder’s understanding of related learning theories. Because the VLE development is dynamic the profile is not a fixed result or prescription, but a relative description.

 

eManagement: There were three main issues related to the management of the VLE. First was the introduction by the university of a new student database system responsible for automatically populating the VLE, MISIS. Second, was the introduction of a new version of WebCT-Vista. NCWBLP is a pilot group starting with the new system in September 2006. Third, was the University Learning Resources Webhelpdesk (see Appendix G).

 

Since the University adopted MISIS there have been an increasing number of problems with getting the students to log into the VLE. To complicate matters, our Centre has been selected as a pilot group for the new WebCT-Vista system. With this change came an opportunity to modify the current system design and pedagogical structure. Ralph Commins, the Centre VLE consultant, has done a system needs analysis (Appendix D) to guide the re-structuring process.

 

The University Learning Resources Services has established a Webhelpdesk online system of support. They use email questions to provide feedback from support staff by phone, email or in person. This blended-support approach is still under development, but has been useful to our WBL students.

 

6.5 WBS2/4802 Case Study (2003 & 06):
Recognition and Accreditation of Learning

The WBS2/4820 National Centre for Work Based Learning Partnership (NCWBLP) Programme Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) Denouement Toolkit case study is presented in two main threads:

  1. A summary of the video taped interview produced during the use of the toolkit ,
  2. A summary of the toolkit survey.

The WBS (Work Based Studies) programme is a work-based counter part to an undergraduate programme. "This is a work based learning module. It is the first one studied by (NCWBLP) students. It allows them to make a claim for academic credit in relation to their experiential and prior learning." JH (2003 Module leader).

6.5.1 Video taped interview summary

After analysis of the interview transcripts six main issues arose: [1] general goals and issues, [2] (VLE) virtual learning environment components, [3] (GVM) generic virtual learning environment model, [4] VLE cross comparison grids, [5] (WMM) web metamorphosis model, [6] (TAM) transitional autonomy model.

 

[1] General goals and issues

This VLE aims to support the work based learning students in the process of producing a RAL portfolio, a document making a claim for academic accreditation based on prior knowledge and work experience. Although the module has several geographic cohorts (i.e. – Hong Kong, Cyprus), it was the UK group that was the focus in producing this VLE profile.

 

It was felt by JH that, ‘use of the VLE Denouement toolkit can help form good practice guidelines for work based learning virtual learning environments,’ and to do this, ‘there was a need for a common language to share overall concepts.

 

[2] Components

A VLE profile is a ‘snap-shot’ of its development at that point in its evolution. The virtual autonomy value should represent all stakeholders (students, administration staff, other academics, etc.) involved in the online module. Although the main focus of the description is based on the learner.

 

JH said, ‘I was lost in understanding e-content until you made the connection to a normal face-to-face classroom. E-content is confusing, but if you take the ‘e’ off it is much clearer.’ The profile descriptions, according to the module leader, are based on what the students have in the current version of the VLE, not what they may need in the future version.

 

The most difficult part for the module leader to come to grips with was the telepistemology section, even though he felt it clearly presented. This issue also came up in the discussion of the knowledge and learning grid section of the toolkit.

E-management was sees as a ‘comprehensive list of criteria to see student and workplace relationships.

 

[3] GVM

The GVM was seen a very clear and understandable from the survey results. The tutor felt that ‘doing this BEFORE making the WebCT virtual learning environment would be best and recommends this procedure for others.’

 

 

 

[4] Grids

As mentioned above, some of the conceptual models for online learning and knowledge (telepistemology) were not easy to grasp. This may have been, in part, due to large amounts of information presented in the grids at one time.

 

[5] WMM

Since the current model for content dissemination is paper-based manuals with phone and email support, the transition to a web- based model was seen as a main focus for the module development. The work based learning model has its roots in easy access to learning and flexible times, so the programme is a natural match for a virtual learning environment. 

 

[6] TAM

The TAM principles were seen in the survey as very understandable. The tutor’s comment, ‘Now that I’ve become more comfortable with the toolkit language, the intent and vision of what the VLE is doing is clearer.’ Only three principles were seen to be used in the WBS 2/4820 VLE model (see next section). Some reasons for others not being selected were that;

Ø      the VLE had only a small induction pack online,

Ø      the content has a personal learning outcome (in the portfolio), so strong collaboration is not critical to the model and there was no direct link between the learner’s progress through the VLE learning experience and the VLE design or choice of support tools at this time. 

 

[7] Summary

The format of the interview followed the stages in the toolkit design. After each section of the ‘summary total’s’ page the end survey was completed. This format is suggested for other profiles since it added continuity to the profiling process.  The over all average of the survey rated the usefulness and clarity of the tool kit at 4/5 (5 = best). Appendix C has a critical comparison of the VLE Denouement Profile toolkit case studies between 2003 and 2006.

 

In figures ‘X1 & Y1’ below a comparison of the VLED Profiles for the module are shown as a numerical representation of the virtual autonomy value:

 

 

Figure 16 Comparison of the WBS2/4802 modules between 2003 (L) & 2006 (R)

6.5.2 Summary Discussion: WBS2/4802 Case Study

Issues that arose from the analysis of the virtual autonomy values for each of the core components of the VLE Denouement profile are highlighted in this next section. Since JH (2003 Module Leader) was not the same academic interviewed in 2006 there is a less convincing case for critically comparing the different profiles and issues resulting over the three year gap. Appendix C contains the detailed breakdown of each component.

 

eContent: A shift from the current role of ‘static handbooks’ in WebCT to , ‘A model where examples of Areas of Learning (the accredited parts of the experiential portfolio) are given would be better. Then, students post samples on the WebCT discussion board for peer/tutor review.

 

eCommunication: There is a shift from asynchronous individual email communication, towards a more blended learning model that follows the face-to-face meetings and communication with distance communication opportunities such as peer WebCT discussion chats, telephone conversations and emails. Tutor support via web video conferencing and other online tools.’

 

Telepistemology: The learning theory behind the module has not changed dramatically over the three years. ‘The nature of the course was best represented by a Behaviourist (scaffolded content) approach. For assessment, a norm-referenced approach (individual portfolio) is used to create the Recognition and Accreditation of Learning.’

 

eManagement: From a WBS2/4802 perspective it was felt that, ‘the work based learning model supports the VLE well by allowing the student to learn at home and at work.’

6.5.3 Questionnaire analysis and conclusions

As part of the VLE Denouement Profile Toolkit design evaluation has been built into the model. One purpose of this survey analysis is to triangulate the data from the interview and the Virtual Autonomy Value numerical ratings. Emerging issues are taken on board to make appropriate modifications to the toolkit software and research technique. As a result of this analysis a new version 7.3 of the Toolkit can be viewed on the accompanying CD-ROM to this report. This information also informs the online development of the toolkit as well.

 

Face-to-face induction to the system and software was seen as fairly-good to good level (3.25-4.5/5). One respondent ‘often found it difficult to conceptualise the categories’. An action point for future development includes more extensive multimedia induction materials. As part of my role in the Adobe International Education Leadership Programme (AEL 2006), I have access to Beta test several new software packages. Adobe Breeze is a PowerPoint-to-Flash tool that can be used in conjunction with the live video conference system recording tool. This allows for several pedagogic designs of the induction support materials. Additionally, Adobe Captivate is an advanced screen capture tool which can record audio and add text annotations to the images (Adobe 2006). Future work should focus on the pedagogic design, development, implementation and review of new support induction materials.

 

Although the induction and summary totals section of the toolkit were seen as at 4 (Fairly Agree), one academic felt: ‘it was difficult the conceptualise module.  The online toolkit has a needs analysis / feasibility study.’ The eContent component ranked well (over 4-4.25/5) but it was felt that, ‘content still drives this module - I would like to see a model where we give examples of AoLs, then students post samples on the WebCT discussion board for peer/tutor review.’  A further action point says, ‘online communication is the strength of the web (4-4.25/5). This section needs to be supported by more online tool examples.With respect to online learning theory, ‘more explanation of what telepistemology is needed (by multimedia), (but)[17] it got me thinking about possibilities.(3.5-4.5/5)

 

A suggestion to, ‘make the eManagement component more useful was to link it to an online glossary’ (i.e. – Wiki).(3.5-4/5).  The generic VLE models were seen as useful (3.75/5) because, ‘(they) help put the VLE in context.’ The comparisons to other learning paradigms (3.5/5) were seen as needing multimedia induction material to help it stand alone. Additional supporting examples were also sited as useful. The web metamorphosis model section (3.5-3.75/5) was also sited as needing more support materials. The VLE design principles, ranked less than 4/5, were seen to be more useful if they ‘were linked to case studies.’  For the WBS/DPS01 module the average ranking saw a rise over the three years from 3.45 to 3.50, which is not a significant change. Although the WBS2/4802 Module average score dropped from 4.09 to 3.55/5, this may be due to the change in module leaders reporting on the survey.

 

Several issues concerning the VLE design arose from the use of the toolkit itself and the evaluation survey. Through highlighting these concerns actions were recommended to the academics about how the VLE may be designed. The toolkit survey proved to suggest ongoing modifications to the profile software system.

6.6 Related supporting eLearning events

I have several international refereed research conference publications directly linked to this chapter which provides evidence that this section of the report has been under scrutiny by Doctorial level reviewers (Basiel A. 2000-05). Feedback from ongoing critical discourse helped to inform two related eLearning events:

Writing for the web workshop

This Writer’s Lunch-time talk was organised by the MU Humanities group. Over twenty staff from Middlesex University, outside professionals and online (through Adobe Breeze web video conference) participated in the live session which I designed and implemented (eWriting 2005). An email discussion followed the event to promote further debate raised during the talk. Events of this nature would be a pedagogically sound follow-up to doing a VLE Denouement session to develop writing skills and ICT capability to create text-based content for the VLE.

 

Breeze Consortium Web Video Conference Survey and Online Workshop

Another event that was informed by the profile approach was a Breeze live workshop conducted over three campuses of the university. A pre-survey was done to inform the nature of the discourse around the issue of web video conferencing.

The figure below shows details from the survey found in Appendix I.

 

Figure 17 Breeze Workshop eContent Survey

 

The majority of the respondents (57%) changed their Word files into PDF format. This implies that eContent is still mostly aimed at a print media. A majority of eContent authors surveyed (62.8%) still use Word documents or HTML versions of the files in their VLEs. This report suggests that Adobe’s Dreamweaver HTML editor should be used to clean-up the Microsoft Word code (Menu: Commands / Cleanup Word html.). Only 14.2% respondents actually produce their own web pages. Figure 17 shows the need for tools such as the VLE Denouement profile toolkit and related eWriting workshops to promote awareness of the pedagogic differences in producing content in a VLE. Additionally, with the rapid changes in technology, it is helpful to keep abreast of the new tools and trends for use happening with eLearning such as ‘E-Learning 2.0’ (Downs 2006).

6.6.1 Summary Discussion

“WBL is not content driven, but it is individual. The collaboration is between the student and the workplace. It may not always be with student or tutor (Stephenson interview Project 2) Collaborative communication is one of the key themes in this project. The VLED Denouement Profile case studies and toolkit:

Ø      demonstrate that this software and technique are capable of being used as a way to liaise the learning technologist with other VLE stakeholders,

Ø      validate the initial study results by replicating the study in 2006,

Ø      provides evidence that the toolkit and technique can be adapted to a critical incident technique approach, as discussed in Chapter 3- Research Methods, which highlights emerging concerns in the VLE design and implementation,

Ø      and provides a website where the multimedia case studies can be reviewed by other stakeholders and invited to add to the collection of examples.

 

Emerging issues -

The emerging issues from the analysis of the project can be grouped in the categories of new technology, learner support, staff attitudes and revisions to the toolkit. Finally, strengths and weaknesses of the online system are discussed.

 

Since the start of this project in 2003 there have been several shifts in learning technology for the web. This project’s initial focus was on the ‘core components’ of a VLE, with eContent, eCommunication, Telepistemology and eManagement offered as possible groupings for a denouement discussion. According to Downes (2006), the traditional commercial learning management system (LMS) is being replaced by a dynamic, open-source environment. In this Web 2.0 model, the VLE is seen less as a medium for transmission of information, and more of a platform where new learning events can be created, shared, remixed and repurposed to meet the needs of the stakeholders. In this new type of VLE learning units of material are replaced with collections of tools to support virtual networks and communities of learners. These portals of distributed resources may include shared student generated content through critical discourse, Wikis, Blogs, student-made podcasts, web video conferencing (WVC), mobile technology – to name just a few.

 

Support for learning has been highlighted as a concern in this study. A range of solutions has been discussed and critically reviewed from static FAQ pages to online real-time helpdesk support via WVC and application sharing. Appendix D shows the Middlesex University webhelpdesk approach. This ‘blended model’ is a mix of online communication tools and human support staff. Answers are provided by real people through eLearning tools. This study promotes further research in the area of web-bot agents such as virtual assistants (Botspot 2006 and HAL 2006).

 

Staff attitudes towards ICT / eLearning are still resistant in some cases in the Centre over the past three years. This makes it slower and more difficult to adopt a culture of change which embraces learning technology as a learning, communication and support environment. Further study using the toolkit as a data collection approach is recommended.

 

There are several revisions that have been made to the toolkit as a result of this recent investigation:

o       Add new terms to glossary

o       Add online tools to the Generic VLE models

o       Make a central list of tools (add a new worksheet)

These changes reinforce the Action research approach discussed in Chapter 3 of this document. It is recognised that the evaluation and modification of the toolkit and profile technique will be an on-going review process.

 

Finally, the online version of the toolkit project is put to a (Strengths-Weakness-Opportunities-Threats) SWOT analysis in the next table as evidenced in Appendix J.

 

SWOT analysis of online VLED profile toolkit

Strengths

Ideally one great advantage of an online toolkit over a stand-alone software is access. Currently, the website can be reached from any web browser in the world. The online system is connected to a database which provides dynamic data for analysis.

Weakness

The current structure of the system does not provide enough support to allow respondents to complete the forms in isolation. It is still necessary for a ‘real-time interviewer’ on/offline to walk the respondent through the VLE component descriptions and terms. Greater development of multimedia induction material is needed.

Just-in-time ‘chunks’ or partitioning the entire process into stages would allow the respondents to work on one VLE component or questionnaire section at a time. Currently, they can not easily work the profile in sections or independently.

Opportunities

It would be possible to take this framework and software system and adapt it to any knowledge domain interested in producing a system profile with a numeric and graphic summary.

Additionally, this toolkit can produce a collection of case studies which can then serve as a resource to the VLE stakeholders. Profiles could be grouped by subject, scoring criteria, etc. giving the online community a focus for critical discourse.

Threats

Project or system failure may occur due to technical or human fault. If the software is not compiling data clearly or correctly it will not be usable. The web design team will need to maintain the site to correct any sections that do not meet the user’s needs.

Table 13 SWOT analysis of online VLED profile toolkit

 

Relationship of theory and practice –

Section 3.3 of the Research Methods Chapter introduced the concept of a cycle between the underpinning theory of this investigation and the analysis of results of the study. Several learning theories and computer interface design principles discussed in Chapter 2 impacted on the design of the software developed in Project 3. Through its use, aposteriori, to illustrate these methodologies new techniques and learning models have emerged. The set of case studies and related work discussed in this chapter influenced the developing theoretical principles that are critically reviewed next.


7.0 Conclusions and denouement

7.1 Introduction

According to Gorsky (2005), ‘Many attempts have been made to define distance education [and eLearning]. Some view it as a unique discipline (Holmberg 1986; Sparkes 1983) while others view it with the bounds of traditional educational endeavour (Keegan 1986). Over the past twenty years, parallel to developments in communication technologies, several theories have been proposed that seek to define an overall framework through which distance education may be viewed.  Theoreticians such as Garrison (1989), Holmberg (1989), Keegan (1986), Moore (1993), Peters (1983), and Verduin & Clark (1991), have all made significant contributions to our understanding of distance education [and eLearning][18].

 

Moore (1993) defined distance education as ‘the universe of teacher-learner relationships that exist when learners and instructors are separated by space and/or by time’ (p. 22). This definition includes both a/synchronous delivery formats. Advances in ICT (information and communication technology), which made a/synchronous interaction readily available, enabled interaction to become a key factor in distance and eLearning systems. Prior to these advances, distance education and eLearning was often studied in comparison to face-to-face or classroom instruction. ‘The usefulness of such comparative studies has diminished as results generally indicate’, postulates Gorsky (2005), ‘there is no significant difference’.

 

As a challenge to Gorsky’s conclusion, this study supports Stephenson (Chapter 5 – Project 3) and McLuhan’s (1967) position that the ‘medium is the massage’.

First, we need to address the proposition that the nature of face-to-face (f2f) learning is different than eLearning. To better understand this claim follow the logic of the example below:

Our experience of an audio/visual event is processed into meaning or learning differently depending on the media. For example, the words of a play (the script) as in a book (written text on paper) differ from an iPod audio recording due to the added voice inflection. This would differ from a film or video that would include facial expressions. Additionally, this would differ from a ‘live’ (analogue real-time) event such as a face-to-face play where we can ‘sense’ the body language between the actors.

 

All of these examples would have a different impact on our learning if mediated through a 2D computer monitor which is the default VLE interface. Our perspective is altered from a f2f learning situation where we are inside the classroom looking out. Our perspective in a VLE is from the ‘outside’ looking into the event which is mediated by the online tools and resources made available.

 

Therefore, the process of a learning event is fundamentally different face-to-face than in an online setting. The electronic medium tends to be more symbolic or iconic. This infers that meaning making, in a VLE context, may need more negotiation between the stakeholders and their use of online resources.

7.1.1 The adventure of an online epistemology

If we accept this last proposition, then it brings us to the next stage towards a ‘telepistemology’.  By explicitly defining our epistemology as ‘the philosophical study of knowledge’, there is an affect on our teaching practice and pedagogy’ says Indinopulos (2000). Gorsky (2005) believes that philosophical approaches to interpersonal instruction tend to emphasise either its epistemological advantages in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding (as with Socrates and Plato) or its moral and political foundations based on equality and mutual respect (Bruner et al. 1966).

Due to time constraints this study has focused on the former.

 

Gorsky (2005) goes on to criticise philosophical approaches to learning dialogue as being highly idealised and prescriptive. He feels they tell us how people should relate to each other and what outcomes should result from the learning event. This investigation has addressed epistemology from both prescriptive (templates – Project 2) and descriptive (profiles – Project 3) approaches. He concludes that philosophical approaches are biased a priori toward an anti-empirical approach to the study of dialogue in learning that, in fact, may explain the dearth of empirical research into distance and eLearning theory. I put forward this report is a contribution to address that gap in the research.

7.1.2 Epistemology and instruction

Table 14 starts at a ‘macro’ or general ‘top-level’ perspective of the relationship between our epistemology and the models we choose to represent the learning that may occur under that condition. This is then mapped to broad generic pedagogic categories.

Epistemology

General face-to-face learning paradigm

 

Theory of knowledgeè

 

Models of learning

Ø       Instructional

Ø       Research-based

Ø       Informal/unplanned

Table 14 Macro level relationship between epistemology & pedagogy

This simplistic view is a fair starting point but an adaptation of Hein’s (1995) matrix in Table 2 has been broadened to provide more detail.

 

If knowledge is seen as…

Then, f2f instruction can be…

an amount of content for students…

a product to be delivered

a cognitive state as seen in a person’s schemas and procedural skills…

a set of instructional strategies aimed at changing individual’s schema

a person’s meaning is constructed by interaction with their environment…

a learner drawing on tools and resources within a rich environment

enculturation or adoption of a group’s way of seeing and acting…

participation in a community’s everyday
f2f activity

the result of a tacit experience

structured to accommodate informal, learner managed learning or work based learning opportunities

Table 15  f2f Knowledge to instruciton transition

Thus, by recognising that the awareness of our f2f epistemology influences our pedagogy we can make the next step into an eLearning context. If our view of knowledge is mediated through a VLE, then this online epistemology (telepistemology) impacts on the way we negotiate an online learning event. Table 16 then adds the next layer of the argument to include web-based learning settings.

 

If knowledge
is seen as…

f2f instruction
is seen as…

Web-based
 instruction is…

a  research
VLE  is: 

an amount of content for students…

a product to be
delivered

static and interactive
text & graphics

digital libraries
for literature review

A cognitive state as seen in a person’s schemas and procedural
skills…

a set of instructional
strategies aimed at
changing individual’s
schema

sequential
instructions and/or
activities

a place for
a/synchronous
research seminars

a person’s meaning is constructed
by interaction with their
environment…

a learner drawing on tools and resources within a rich environment

online multimedia
tools and resources
to achieve learning
objectives

online multimedia
tools and resources
to answer research
question/hypothesis

Enculturation or adoption of a group’s
way of seeing and
acting…

participation in a community’s everyday
f2f activity

participation in a virtual community’s everyday
activity for the specified learning outcome

collaborative participation in a virtual community’s
activity for sharing research issues

the result of a tacit experience

structured to accommodate informal, learner managed learning or work based learning opportunities

an online communication space supporting serendipitous learning opportunities

research network opportunities that promote lateral thinking, brainstorming, mind mapping, etc.

Table 16: Analogue-to-web opportunities

This table brings our discussion around full-circle. Here we recognise that the VLEs for instruction and research have unique demands for the academic designer and the online learner. To meet these demands VLE design principles are needed along with the appropriate support tools.  Here then are the beginnings of an ePedagogy apothem formed from discussion thus far:

 

Table 18 First stage VLE apothem

An at-a-glance summary of these initial propositions of the discussion state that:

Ø      the medium impacts on the nature of the meaning making which occurs  in a f2f learning event,

Ø      the context of the learning event changes as a result of being mediated through a 2D computer interface,

Ø      our epistemology impacts on the way we teach (our pedagogy),

Ø      our online epistemology (telepistemology) influences how we negotiate events in a VLE,

Ø      this negotiated online learning is guided by the principles used to construct the VLE and the ePedagogy associated with the events such as which tools/resources are used and at what times they are implemented.

 

To continue this chain of thought we ask, what is needed next? The remainder of the chapter needs to address these issues:

Ø      Is there a way to gather a pre-construction overview of the VLE development?

Ø      What are the principles to guide the construction of the VLE?

Ø      Is there a model of the learning paths within a VLE context?

Ø      Is there a new paradigm for eLearning as Mason (2002) suggests?

7.1.3 Chapter structure

To help us understand the many variables influencing an online learning system a more detailed examination is required. The remainder of the chapter will provide these solutions. First, a methodology which develops a profile description of a system and its components in relation to each other is analysed. This is a follow-up to the VLE toolkit discussed in the third project. Next, VLE design principles are offered through the Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) which is informed from the conclusions of all three projects. Finally, a representation is offered to visualise the process of an online learning event in the form of the spiral-web learning model. ‘Panagogy’ is offered as a new developing paradigm to consider in relation to ePedagogy for the future.

7.2 Profile methodology

What is profiling?  A profile photograph or painting shows the individual’s outline as represented at the point of time it was created. This same principle is true of profiling as a research technique. The profile is a representation of the data that is entered at the time of submission. It is this ‘snap-shot-in-time’ that gives this technique its synchronic quality. A typical example may be illustrated by the start of a generic research survey. Personal data is collected and analysed to establish the ‘average’ characteristics of the respondent. This may be formed from the age, gender, ICT capability, etc. of the study participants. Based upon the profile information, the researcher can react in an appropriate fashion in the development of the investigation.

 

An information system profile is another example. It could examine the elements of a virtual learning environment such as:

Ø      the context of the learning materials (i.e. -  programme handbook),

Ø      the nature of online communication (i.e. - text discussion boards),

Ø      the supporting learning theory (i.e. - content driven models vs. experiential)

Ø      the online management (i.e. - file organisation, etc.).

Criteria are needed to interpret responses to questions about system features or components. One measure, used in this investigation, was the way the VLE promotes autonomous learning.

7.2.1 Exploring what profiling is not -

By identifying these characteristics we can see that profiling is not a research technique used to only produce hard, quantifiable evidence (e.g., a survey ranking student satisfaction with a class). It is not intended to place the people (or systems) being profiled into an order of priority. Neither is there a diagnostic quality to profiling (e.g., `on-line doctor’ for medical advice). It is not intended to prescribe a solution as an expert system may offer (Conole & Oliver 2002).

 

Finally, this profiling technique is not linked to summative assessment. It is not intended to provide evidence of the mastery of a subject domain or skill. However, profiling is closely matched with formative feedback in that it offers an overview of the person (or system) that may assist in the learning and development process.

 

Profiling gives a ‘gestalt overview description’ at a macro-level to guide the stakeholders to an action path based on an informed position. This research applies profiling to a VLE context.

 

7.2.2 The synchronic nature of profiling-
There is a ‘time-element’ quality of the profiling technique that should be recognised. The profile stakeholders or profile-users map out, not what they want ultimately, but what is the ‘best-guess’ description of the VLE at the time of the data collection. The profile should be redone after a new cohort of learners comes through (i.e. - next academic term) or a new set of variables are introduced to the system being analysed. In this instance research profiling can be used to support reflective practice. The individual or system designers are able to compare the profile descriptions over time to gauge any differences (See Project 3 for a three-year cross reference).

7.2.3 How Denouement Profiling is designed to meet the research problem

This research technique is applied to the software toolkit detailed in Project 3. Although it is intended that this research technique may be adapted to other contexts and subject domains, it specifically meets the problem of facilitating communication between the stakeholders by generating a ‘gestalt overview’ description of the various VLE component parts (i.e. – content, communication, epistemology and management). This information is collated in the form of numerical averages and ‘at-a-glance’ summary charts to guide the stakeholders to various curriculum models. The final profile is represented in online multi-media case study exemplars (see CD-ROM).

 

This problem of, ‘How can communication be mediated between the stakeholders in the design, implementation and support of a VLE?’ has steered this investigation. Can a system of gathering evidence through the VLE Denouement profiling technique lead to a set of VLE curriculum design principles and protocols to support learning? The next paragraph offers a possible explanation.

The generic stages of the profiling research technique from Figure 18 are:

  1. Each layer (Excel worksheet) contains core component data of the system being described/profiled,
  2. A set of item descriptors based on pre-established criteria. (e.g. – see examples of how the VLE components support learner autonomy online – Project 3) A rubric or criteria scale is established for the items on each layer/worksheet.
  3.  The component values may be represented in multi-modal fashion. (i.e. – survey number statistics, graphical chart summary or interview dialogue script) Note, the values assigned are not Likert scale values, but component descriptors based on the criteria previously established in #2.
  4. The component values can be passed to a summary page (worksheet) which provides a denouement (a bringing together of all the component threads) for an overview profile.

The research technique of profiling in this work, as it is applied to the context of virtual learning environments, works from a ‘micro-to-macro’ analysis approach. The ‘core components’ of an eLearning system are analysed to generate an overview of the learning environment (micro level). From there, a relationship to online pedagogical models is made to guide the VLE architect/academic to appropriate web-based tools (macro level).

7.2.4 Software illustration

A software toolkit has been designed and piloted illustrating profiling as a research technique to help promote communication between the learning technologist and other VLE stakeholders (see Project 3). The VLE architect asks, for example, the academic responsible for converting their face-to-face lecture module to an online format, a series of questions. The numerical responses are mapped to several generic VLE models suggested by Mason (1998).

 

A graphical representation (Excel chart) is also generated to get an ‘at-a-glance’ summary of the VLE design in relation to how it supports the learner’s autonomy. The next stage is to locate the VLE profile in relation to a ‘web metamorphosis model’ which is the context the VLE designer may find themselves in with respect to implementing their online curriculum model. Lastly, this ‘gestalt overview’ or VLE denouement profile is compared to a set of theoretical design principles. Project 3 of this report provides detail of the implementation of this research technique and toolkit.

7.2.5 Generic nature of the profile framework for validation

Profiling, as a research technique, follows the ethos of Project 2 – the Teaching Activities Templates, in that it can be applied across disciplines and levels. This study offers profiling to the eLearning and research community at-large to adapt and apply this methodology to a specific context of use. In this way the methodology will be validated inductively (a posteriori) through its use (see 3.1.1 Table 7).

A step towards this validation the VLE Denouement profile methodology and toolkit were presented at an invitation-only conference at the London Knowledge Lab in 2005 for critical review (Basiel A. 2005).

7.2.6 Weaknesses of profiling

Since profiling is a new innovative technique in the study of eLearning there is little substantial evidence available at this time to validate its use. However, evaluation has been considered in its design. The questionnaire at the end of the toolkit (see the Excel file on the CD-ROM) provides qualitative and quantitative data about the toolkit and profiling technique. Project 3 analyses several case studies from that data done over a three year period. Additionally, these case studies are on the web with the intent to encourage and promote critical review.

 

Several changes have been made to the current version of the toolkit as a result of feedback gained through its use:

Ø      a glossary was added to help with acronyms and technical terms,

Ø       a list of online tools was included in its own page to compile the resources for easier access,

Ø      the TAM principles themselves have been reworded for simpler understanding,

Ø      the distribution has been made available in a web-based prototype in addition to the stand-alone Excel version (MUBSweb 2006).

 

These ongoing modifications highlight the organic nature of the methodology and software which shows the research quality of robustness through continuous testing.

7.3 Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM)

The Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) (Armsby & Basiel 2003) is an emerging online learning model which synthesises learning theories and two web design principles to a virtual learning environment context into an appropriate web-based learning paradigm:

*      Web-constructivism (Basiel 1999): constructivism in web-based settings,

*      Transactional Distance Theory (Moore 1993): relationship between autonomy, structure and dialogue in a VLE,

*      Human Computer Interaction (Dix 1993) and,

*       Usability (Nielsen 2005&6): navigation and learnability in a virtual space.

 

TAM is not a theory which explains a process and predicts an event. It is a model that represents the components of a system and their relationships to any interactions ongoing within it. This section of the report operationalises the VLE process supported by a theoretical foundation. The TAM has been used in this study to generate VLE design principles which have been added to the end of the Profile methodology and toolkit to guide the user (as seen in Project 3 and the VLED toolkit on the CD-ROM).

 

Conole (2005) has stated in an eLRC (eLearning Research Centre) workshop that we need to consider the link between theory and method in e-learning research to develop a philosophy of eLearning. This position supports my philosophical approach to examining ‘telepistemology’ at the start of the chapter.

7.3.1 Web Constructivism

"Constructivism in education is a cognitive perspective of learning with profound implications for teaching and research methodology. All cognitive perspectives focus on mental behaviours. In cognitive views of learning, the ...active work of mental behaviour turns information into useful knowledge." (Gabe & Gabe 2002).

 

Wilson (1995) sees the following components as part of the theoretical framework of Constructivism:

Ø      mind is real: mental events are worthy of study

Ø      knowledge resides in the mind

Ø      knowledge is dynamic

Ø      meaning is constructed

Ø      reflection / abstraction is critical to becoming an expert

Ø      learning includes constructing representations

Ø      teaching is negotiating construction of meaning

Ø      thinking and perception are inseparable

Ø      problem solving is central to cognition

 

Constructivism as part of a cognitive family tree, branches out to many directions with a rich history in philosophy, psychology and education (Mahoney 1994). Today constructivist-orientated research, classroom pedagogy and spirit builds on key contributions from educators such as Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, Bruner, Jonassen, Hein, Boyle and others (Basiel A. 1999). The next table is an elaboration of constructivist principles expanded into a web-based learning context.

 

BASIC CONSTRUCTIVIST

LEARNING PRINCIPLES

EXPANDED WEB-CONSTRUCTIVIST

LEARNING PRINCIPLES

1)   PROBLEM-SOLVING
Learning should start from open-ended problem-solving questions. This problem should be set in a real-world context.

 

 

1)   (a) The starting task should be a realistic and relevant problem to solve which involves higher level cognitive skills such as classifying, analysing, predicting, creating and evaluating.  It should be presented as an open-ended question to guide the learning experience with the aid of web-presentation media.
(b) Multiple forms of representation for information should be used (i.e.-multimedia as a combination of media, represented in a digital form, sufficiently well integrated to be presented via a single interface, or manipulated by a single computer program.

2) PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
Student readiness for learning is the combination of motivation with prior knowledge and experience.

2) Readiness must be considered in the learning experience. Prior knowledge / experience and its context make the student willing and able to learn. New knowledge is constructed from prior knowledge and the student's motivation to gain it. Web and ICT experience and confidence should be profiled and monitored to establish student readiness.

3) MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES

Learning should encompass the views of all stakeholders involved. Individual learning needs/styles and cultural considerations should be accommodated.

3) As the VLE may ‘house’ trans-national or multidisciplinary views, students’ perspectives should be measured and designed for by adjusting content and appropriate online support tools.

4) EPISTEMOLOGY
Knowledge is not external from the student.

4) Knowledge is not independent of the learner. It is a personal interpretation of the world. It is not something that exists outside the learner’s realm of cognition, but is mediated through the virtual learning environment (VLE).

5) ACTIVE LEARNING
Empower student ownership in the learning process with active participation.

5) Learning is an active, iterative PROCESS, not a PRODUCT. It is ownership of this learning process that promotes motivation in the online educational experience via interactive, collaborative web tools.

6) REFLECTION
is conceptual re-evaluation.

6)   REFLECTION is central to learning. Ideas and experiences must be revisited and re-evaluated to become knowledge. Interaction with a web-based learning has the potential to promote reflective practice.

7) COLLABORATION
is socially constructed knowledge.

7)   Collaborative construction of knowledge through social exchange is encouraged through dialogue which can be supported and/or facilitated by online multimedia.

8) TEACHER’S ROLE
is a mentor and coach.

 

8) The teacher’s role has changed from the all-knowing sage-on-the-stage to a supportive guide in the web-based learning system.

9) NORM REFERENCED ASSESSMENT is peer-review to measure improvement

9) Assessment is viewed as formative feedback.  Peer review and self -evaluation is the norm-referenced methodology used to gauge student progress through web-based tools. An online thesis viva is used in place of a summative, standardised exam. Web-based communication tools and automated assessment can support this process.

Table 18 Web-Constructivism summary

Appendix B offers a critical analysis of this summary table pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the Web-Constructivist principles in the context of VLE design.

7.3.2 Transactional distance theory (TDT)

Moore (1993 & 96) states that TDT assumes that the most profound impact on distance education is pedagogy and not the physical or temporal distance that separates instructor and learner. He sees the extent of transactional distance in an educational programme as a function of three variables; dialogue, structure and learner autonomy. By his own definition, dialogue is not the number of verbal interactions that occur and transactional distance is not a perceived value of ‘closeness’. Table 5 provides a summary of this operational definition according to Chen & Willits (1998).

 

Transactional Distance

Dialogue

Structure

Learner Autonomy

Learning Outcomes

Distance of understanding & perception

Number of communications

Implementation organisation

Independent;

Interdependent

Extent of learning

Table 19 TDT operational definition

Moore’s theory (1972) evolved from basic insights regarding independent learning and learner autonomy into a multi-dimensional set of interrelated definitions, propositions and constructs, much the same as the online learning models proposed in this report. Garrison (2000) sees TDT as a basic analytical framework for understanding distance education systems:

 

1.      Dialogue describes the extent to which the learner and educator are able to respond to one another. Some elements of dialogue are the content, educational philosophy and (virtual)[19] environment factors such as the medium / online tools for communication. For example, dialogue is low in a one-way iPod lecture, but high in an interactive web video conference. Murphy and Collins (1997) attempted to identify real-time communication conventions through text chat systems and to recognise the need to use these protocols to promote collaboration.

2.      Structure is a measure of an educational programme's responsiveness to the learner's individual needs. Some elements of structure are the adaptability of learning objectives, teaching strategies, and summative/formative evaluation methods to support the learning experience. Highly structured programmes are determined for the learner in a linear, content-driven design, while a loosely structured design allows flexibility to support a student-centred pedagogy (Baume 1994). The current trend in the UK is towards personalised eLearning solutions (OPUS Project 2002).

3.      Learner autonomy is illustrated by the student sharing responsibility for the education process. One example of this is when students make presentations to the class face-to-face or online (e.g. Project 1 Appendix Case Studies). By acting as a resource for their peers, motivation and self-direction is supported (Moore 1993).

 

The transactional distance apothem (Table 20) shows a relationship between dialogue, structure and learner autonomy. The greater the transactional distance, the more autonomy the learner will exercise. Low transactional distance can be achieved by a large amount of dialogue and little predetermined structure.

(+) Learner autonomy = (-) Structure + (+) Dialogue
(+) = an increase, (-) = a decrease

Table 20 TDT apothem

Gorsky (2005) explains that if the TDT is to be useful to distance education (and possibly education in general), the variable ‘transactional distance’ must correlate in a significant and meaningful way with learning outcomes. Project 2 provides a set of pedagogic models/templates which support learning outcomes in relation to learner autonomy. I do not try to validate TDT as suggested in Gorsky’s (2005) paper. Instead, this report is informed by TDT and synthesises its variables to offer an online interpretation as the Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM).

 

If TDT is ‘a psychological and communication space to be crossed, a space of potential misunderstanding between the inputs of instructor and those of the learner,’ as Moore (1993) suggests, then ‘transactional distance can be measured as student misunderstanding’ in Gorsky’s terms (2005: p. 8). This can be represented as the tautology: “As understanding increases, misunderstanding decreases”. Appendix C offers a more detailed breakdown of this expression.

7.3.3 Human Computer Interaction (HCI) Interface Principles:

Learnability, flexibility and customisation are principles of web interface design that should be considered for virtual learning environments.

1.      Learnability: Certain prerequisites are needed for the student to have the ability to learn in the VLE. There must be a clear, consistent design. Content should be delivered in a positive fashion with text having user-centred phrasing. This gives the student direct manipulation so that every action is a legal operation which shows a positive result. The student should be able apply knowledge gained in one part of the VLE to another, thus generalising their actions. Through this predictability the learner can determine the effect of future actions based on past interaction history (Dix 1993).

2.      Flexibility: The system’s ability to adapt to the needs of the student determines its flexibility. Passing the responsibility for the task between the learner and the system to achieve the goal is called task migration (Dix 1993). This ‘transitional’ quality is expanded in the next section.

3.      Customisation: Learner, supervisor and administrative data must be regularly collected through the feedback methodology and tools of the VLE system. Necessary changes to the system content, tools or protocols should be done on a regular basis to meet the dynamic needs of the stakeholders.

7.3.4 Usability Design Principles:

Nielsen (2005) believes that web ‘browsing is a solitary experience – but life is not. Collaboration remains a field with immense promise and little progress. Wikis offer a primitive example of the power of multi-user hypertext. To manage a huge, worldwide information [and collaboration] space, users [and online learners] need proven features [for a VLE][20] such as integrated search/browsing and overview maps.’

 

‘Search is one of the main ways [students] access the Web and it has the huge benefit of letting them explicitly state what they want during each [learning event] visit.’ The VLE technical design should factor in this feature while the pedagogic design needs to consider this online learning approach to ‘fact finding’.

 

‘Navigation menus and site maps are two common approximations of overview maps, but neither provides the full set of features that [learners] need. VLE designers should integrate the concept of overview maps to support features such as:

Ø      you-are-here markers: like those found in a shopping centre map,

Ø      foot-prints or ‘navigation bread-crumbs’: showing the path of where the learner has been,

 

Nielsen (2006) states these current usability design trends from the Intranet perspective which this report supports can be adapted and applied to online learning:

Ø      a consistent look and feel across the VLE,

Ø      training activities for content contributors teaching them how to use design templates correctly in order to achieve a unified design (like Project 2 of this report),

Ø      task-based information architectures where the problems lead the route to the resource solutions,

Ø      a significant use of multimedia in the form of video (see Project 1) and audio (e.g. – IBM’s employee directory pronounces overseas names),

Ø      an increased use of ‘weblogs’ or online journals,

Ø      targeted task-related tools (see Project 3),

Ø      mobile access,

Ø      integrating text, images, video into a single simple interface to control the pace of eLearning content presentation,

Ø      exploring the game metaphor for eLearning to promote motivation. 

 

Summary

Appendix A of this Chapter contains an expression, or apothem, which reflects the relationship of the learning theories and the computer interface design principles in relation to the core VLE component parts discussed in Chapter 6. Although not yet formalised, this research sees future value in attempting to express the VLE denouement in a concise procedural statement.

7.4 Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) Principles

Not all virtual learners/researchers are at a state of readiness for fully self-directed knowledge acquisition. Students may be too inexperienced or too conditioned by traditional rote teaching methods to benefit from [virtual][21] autonomous learning settings (Potts & Boud 1988). The following TAM design principles for a VLE are informed by web-constructivism, guided by the formula of transactional distance and applied to VLE interface design. The principles are not listed in a chronological or procedural order. Some would emphasise the importance of planning the evaluation strategy at the start of the TAM process after the learner’s profile has been established (Basiel 2000 & Armsby 2003).

 

The Transitional Autonomy Model VLE design principles in Table 21 state:

 

TAM Virtual Learning Environment Design Principles

  1. Acknowledge the learner’s profile coming into the online learning event -
    1. Establish the characteristics of the VLE stakeholders such as their prior experience and knowledge (level, depth, etc.), ICT and VLE skills and capability, language mastery, cultural context, critical thinking, etc.
    2. This may be done in/formally through appropriate data collection techniques such as a feasibility study, needs/task analysis, Global Rich Picture (see Chapter 3), mind mapping exercise, etc.
  1.  Provide an appropriate induction to the system -
    1. The induction should be segmented throughout the VLE to provide support at all stages of the learning process.
    2. Content of the induction should include academic, administrative, technical, learning resources support, etc. references.
    3. Multimodal and trans-level induction design should be considered. Meaning making can be approached from different media types and learning perspectives (Gardner H. 1983) which should be reflected in the format (e.g. paper handbook, video, etc.) and the structure (e.g. one-page help sheet, step-by-step software wizard, etc.).
  1. Establish a strategy for the aims, objectives and goals of the online learning event rooted in an explicit VLE epistemology or ‘telepistemology’ –
    1. Constructive alignment aims to create consistencies between learning theory, outcomes, curriculum, teaching methods and assessment (Beetham 2004).
    2. Define the learning paradigm (e.g. formal academic classroom model, informal learning context such as a work based learning scenario).
  1. Define the transitional content and activity strategy
    1. In relation to the goals established in TAM Principle #3 – decide on the appropriate pedagogy, media types, etc. with respect to the online learning objects, artefacts, resources, etc.
    2. Consider interoperability standards (e.g. – SCORM).
  1. Define the transitional communication strategy
    1. In relation to the goals established in TAM Principle #3 – decide on the appropriate pedagogy, synchronicity, media form, with respect to the online learning tools and associated protocols, etc.
    2. Make explicit the ethical protocols for online identity, recordings of a/synchronous events, etc.
  1. Define the transitional management logistics strategy
    1. In relation to the goals established in TAM Principle #3 – decide on the appropriate moderation guidelines, with respect to the online learning discussion, critical discourse, debate, collaboration, etc.
    2. Establish explicit ‘service agreement’ protocols (e.g. how timely will tutor responses be posted to email, text discussion boards, etc.).
    3. Establish file management protocols (e.g. file naming and organisation, version control, security access, etc.).
  1. Define the transitional learner support strategy
    1. In relation to the goals established in TAM Principle #3 – decide on the appropriate level of learner support (e.g. more tutor-led to start, shift to more peer-support as expertise is gained).
    2. Support should include academic, administrative, technical, learning resources support, etc. with a clear ‘job description’ of the various stakeholders’ roles. The transitional nature of these negotiated role definitions may vary over time or as the capabilities of the actor’s increase.
    3. The media and technology for support is also transitional. It may evolve from a static single-modality (e.g. – text FAQ) to a real-time multimedia virtual helpdesk (e.g. – dynamic natural language web-bot or web video conference application/documentation sharing).
    4. The tutor’s role and relationship with the VLE stakeholders may show a transition from a teacher-led ‘docent’ design to adopting the role of a facilitator, mentor or moderator.
  1. Define the transitional assessment strategy
    1. In relation to the goals established in TAM Principle #3 – decide on the appropriate pedagogic model for blended or online summative assessment within the context of the organisation’s quality assurance regulations.
    2. Identify the available online tools for monitoring and recording assessment opportunities (e.g. self-assessment quizzes, student tracking for access to web pages, review of online text discussion, project presentations via web video conference, etc.)
    3. Decide how the issue of reflection will be addressed through the learning stages of the event and/or course (e.g. learning diary during the session or summary essay at the end).
  1. Define the formative evaluation strategy
    1. In relation to the goals established in TAM Principle #3 – decide on the appropriate pedagogic placement for feedback opportunities (e.g. end of the ‘unit of learning material’, after each webcast lecture) within the curriculum design.
    2. Decide what action can be and will be done with the feedback collected. The timeliness of the action should be considered (e.g. – if a diagram on the webpage is inaccurate fix it before the exam).
    3. Consider the issue of critical thinking and constructive feedback opportunities to encourage reflective thinking from the respondents.
  1. Link the VLE design to an eLearning model(s) –
    1. A relationship between the pedagogic design of the VLE and one or more eLearning models, theories, paradigms, frameworks, etc. should be made to guide the future development of the system.

Table 21 TAM - VLE design principles

7.5.1 Critical review of TAM

The online pedagogic principles, associated toolkits and models have been made available for critical review at many international research conferences over the past six years (Basiel 2006). A strength of this investigation’s design is the fact that self/external review has been built into the model.

 

The weakness of TAM resides in its complexity. There are so many ‘threads of discussion’ in relation to an online learning event it is difficult to distil them down to a set of pedagogical design principles. This leads to the threat of in/validation of the principles. At the time of this writing TAM is an innovative new eLearning model. As such, it has not been widely tested. As a ‘practical contribution to knowledge’ this research continues to develop and refine its contributions through related follow-up projects such as the CDE Teaching/Learning Templates Project – Phase 2.

 

The opportunities of the TAM model are made available at several levels. Locally, within the MU academy, I have conducted many research workshops, seminars and presentations. At a national and international level my involvement with the Association of Learning Technology and the Adobe Education Leadership Programme provides network links to the wider eLearning community through which I can continue to evolve TAM and its associated toolkits.

 

In an email Dr. ‘G’ of the University of Central Florida, a fellow member of the Adobe International Education Leadership Programme, made this expert criticism, ‘Your terminology is different but much of the content of the charts is the same type of material I studied under the guise of distance education/distributed learning. I had finished much of my work by 2002, when a lot more information was coming online. I looked at your homepage[22], and it looks like I should have known you back then. What a fantastic resource!’

7.5.2 Summary discussion: a ‘transitional school of thought’

Based upon the TAM principles previously outlined in Table 21 it is recognised that the design of a VLE will not be static. The transitional nature of the web as a media, the adaptability of the learning resources, emerging communication tools and formative feedback force the VLE to be a dynamic online learning system. With respect to the stakeholders of the system their growth is equally transitional. The VLE design should factor for a range of experience and knowledge related to eLearning systems. The pedagogic strategy should aim to encourage and promote online learner autonomy through the course of the single learning event as well as progression through the course or programme.

 

As TAM principal # 10 implies the VLE architect/tutor should involve an eLearning model. The next section of this report offers a model under development, the spiral-web learning model.

7.6 Spiral-web learning model

A base premise of the ‘transitional school of thought’ is that the pedagogic design of the VLE should not be constructed to one student profile, format of content, communication media, telepistemology or learning theory. The VLE design should accommodate the learner’s cognitive and autonomous progression as they mature from remembering basic facts to constructing sound critical arguments to defend their position on solving higher order problems. The flexibility of the VLE should promote and support the online learner on their path from being a didactic receptacle towards an active learner managed learner (Stephenson & Hein on the VLE Profile toolkit – CD-ROM).

 

TAM Principle #10 –

To support the last TAM principle of linking learning theory to VLE pedagogic design I address this question: How can a model illustrate the processes an online learner must undergo through the course of an eLearning event, to become an autonomous learner?

 

Figure 19 offers the ‘Spiral-web Learning Model’ as a representation built from the TAM principles. Appendix B of this chapter offers a more detailed version of the model.

 

Figure 19 The spiral-web learning model

7.6.1 Steps of the Spiral-web Learning Model (SLM) –

This 3D graphical representation of an eLearning event has these core components:

Ø      [H] = Human system – the ‘wet-ware’ or participant-stakeholders,

Ø      [S] = Computer system – the VLE and related online tools,

Ø      [T] = Time – passage through the eLearning event,

Ø      [R] = Reflection – the learner’s review process

 

These variables are broken into levels expressed as (L) low, (M) medium and (H) high to indicate a progression from one stage of development to another. For example, the learner may progress through the eLearning event by mastering higher-level critical thinking skills [H] (discussed in Chapter 2). In parallel, the online student may progress through the use of the VLE’s simple-to-complex eCommunication tools [S] (e.g. – email to web video conferencing (Project 3)).

 

This model aligns itself with web-constructivism discussed previously. As such a starting problem is shown where the three points [H,S,T] meet. The model also recognises the value and role of prior knowledge and experience [PK] in the eLearning process. Reflection [R] is presented as a feedback loop repeating through the core of the ‘eLearning event spiral’. Lastly, [‘n’] indicates the nature of the eLearning event as being an ‘open-ended’ resolution. That is, the problem solution is not fixed, but dynamically linked to the knowledge produced through a combination, or interweaving, of the systems [H,S,T] and prior knowledge and experience [PK] leading to the event.

 

It is the transitional, dynamic and flexible qualities that make this graphical model appropriately linked to the TAM principles presented in Table 21. Through such eLearning event models VLE architects, subject experts and eContent providers may get an overview of the many factors contributing to the online learner’s experience. This proposition is supported by the findings of Project 3, the VLE Denouement Profile project.

 

Summary comparison -

In Table 22 a cross reference is made to the TAM principles and how they link to the Spiral-web learning model followed by its weaknesses.

 

TAM principle

Spiral-web

learning model

Weakness of the model

1. Acknowledge the learner’s profile coming into the online learning event

Prior knowledge is recognised as a ‘pre-event’ element.

An annotation methodology is needed to link ‘old and new’ knowledge.

2. System induction

Implied at the ‘local’ system level

A simple, clear explanation is needed.

3. Strategy for the goals of the online learning event rooted in an explicit VLE epistemology

P0 and S0 infer the starting point of the learning event.

Develop the link between epistemology and the nature of the transitional model.

4. Transitional content and activity strategy

Content is generated from the search ‘Stages’.

More detail of passing information between the stages needed.

5. Define the transitional communication strategy

Reflection is an individual communication process.

Develop the model to extend from an individual to a social model.

6. Management logistics strategy

Structure is provided through the stages and levels of progression.

A ‘step-by-step’ explanation is needed.

7. Define the transitional learner support strategy

Support is inferred through reflection.

Develop a system support link to the model.

8. Define the transitional assessment strategy

Assessment is seen as working towards an ‘open-ended solution’.

Academic institutions need a quantifiable measure of the changes in ‘P’ = assessment results.

9. Define the formative evaluation strategy

Reflection acts as a personal feedback mechanism.

When the model is extended to the online community (#5) for review it will have a more robust validation.

10. Link the VLE design to an eLearning model

This is done through personal reflection by the VLE architect.

The model should include references to alternative approaches to eLearning.

Table 23 Critical review of Spiral-web learning model

7.7 Epilogue - reflections

This chapter has shown my research as an example of ‘leading edge practice’ in several ways. First, epistemology (the way we view knowledge) was analysed and adapted to the context of online learning or ePedagogy. This provided a sound theoretical foundation to the study.

 

Next profiling, a research technique, was presented and critically reviewed. This innovation was also supported in Project 3 and illustrated by a software toolkit.

 

The Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM) was then offered as a contribution to the eLearning community as the synthesis of several learning theories and computer interface design principles. This resulted in a set of TAM pedagogic design principles to guide VLE stakeholders in the process of developing sound eLearning events.

 

Finally, these instances of online learning events were represented by the Spiral-web learning model (SLM). This graphic exemplar combined many of the elements of the projects and ePedagogy to provide a concise representation of the ‘transitional’ nature of eLearning.

7.7.1 Research reflections: Towards a web ‘Panagogy’

As I reflect on the learning and experiences I underwent in the course of this Professional Doctorate some key conclusions rise to the surface. The very title, ‘ePedagogy for Virtual Learning Environments’ has met the end of an evolutionary cycle. Downs (2006) sees pedagogical shifts in ‘eLearning 2.0’ towards networked communities of practice and multiple-user gaming environments. Such paradigm shifts stand ready to replace existing commercial proprietary VLEs (e.g. – Blackboard). Equally publishers, such as Emerald (2006), recognise a shift to ‘learner-generated content’. Is this set to replace the current commercial eContent providers’ role with the growth of social networking sites and software toolsets (e.g. – Blogging, YouTube, etc.) in the near future?

 

Through this Professional Doctorate I have addressed such concerns through the three projects. The web video conferencing project has examined the pedagogies of real-time ‘serendipitous’ learning. The online teaching templates project explored eLearning templates to support academics in producing pedagogically sound VLEs. While the VLE Denouement Profile toolkit and methodology provided and overview of the pedagogic issues and related technologies needed to support communication between the stakeholders involved with the design, implementation and evaluation of a VLE.

 

Future visions of ePedagogy -

As we work towards a model for web-based learning the value of prior knowledge should be acknowledged. This impacts on how the learner engages with their peers in the VLE and the online resources. Making the link between what we already know and what we will know requires engagement. eLearning has not produced a new theory of learning but instead a new paradigm which reflects the growing connectivity of people and learning resources according to Mason (2002). She concludes that eLearning offers the opportunity to integrate working, learning and community in the virtual workplace. If this is so, than perhaps we can see room for a new web-based pedagogy to evolve. ‘Panagogy’ may be a way to look at eLearning that applies the principles of the transitional autonomy model to the design of online learning systems to come.

7.7.2 Personal and professional reflections

Like the great Italian artist, Michelangelo, said in his 87th year, ‘I’m still learning.’ This research opportunity has provided me with tacit and academic knowledge and experience. I have been fortunate to work with professional colleagues that have challenged me to ask ‘what if?’ Through this Professional Doctorate I have addressed my continuing professional development (CPD) which has helped me progress my career. This personal and professional growth has equipped me to continue my eLearning research into the future.

 

Closing thought -

In summary, this report agrees with Massey (2003), ‘The technologies are becoming quite mature. But what is still in its nascent stage are innovative learning and development processes that take advantage of the technologies. So the final lesson for now is that we have the technology – now we need to find the compelling reason to use it.”  

 

 


References

Chapter 1:

<All website references seen in 2006>

Alexander S. & Boud D. 2001 ‘Learners still learn from experience when online’ in Stephenson J. 2002

Beetham H. 2004 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ <visited 11/05>

British Council-IUG 2004
www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/BC-IUGfinalReport-v2.htm <visited ‘06>

DfES 2004 - www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conResults.cfm?consultationId=774 <visited ‘06>

ELN 2005 – http://www.elearningage.co.uk/goawards.htm <visited ‘06>

Garnett J. 2004, ‘Work-based learning. a new imperative: developing reflective practice in professional life’ Reflective Practice, Routledge – v5 # 3 – Oct. DOI: 10.1080/1462394042000270637

Garrison D. 2004, “E-Learning in the 21st Century” Routledge Falmer, London

Global Campus 2005 – http://www.mdx.ac.uk/schools/cs/globalcampus.asp <visited ‘06>

Henri F. 1997  - Computer conferencing and content analysis in: A.R. Kaye (Ed.) ‘Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: the Najaden papers (Springer-Verlag, New York) p. 115-136

ICLML 2005 – http://www.lle.mdx.ac.uk/iclml/ <visited ‘06>

JISC 2005 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elearning_pedagogy.html <visited 11/05>

Lane D. 2005 – NCWBLP Professional Doctorate Research Seminar, November 2005 http://vle.mdx.ac.uk:8900/ Log into the DPS01 WebCT site resources <visited 11/05>

Mehanna W. (2004) “e-Pedagogy: the pedagogies of e-learning”, ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology Vol. 12, No. 3, September 20004 ISSN 0968-7769

MEL 2005  www.adobe.com/resources/education/k12/special/leaders/profiles/abasiel.html <visited ‘06>

Mortimore P. 1999 ‘Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning’ Paul Chapman Publishers, London

MU 2005 – http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/cu/about/index.html <visited 2006>

NCWBLP 2005 – www.webfeedback.mdx.ac.uk/research/ <visited 2006>

NCWBLP Subject Handbook 2005 - November 2005
http://vle.mdx.ac.uk:8900/ Log into the DPS01 WebCT site resources <visited 11/05>

Stephenson J. (2005) – http://www.iclml.com <visited 11/05>

Stephenson J. 2002 ‘Teaching and learning online: pedagogies for new technologies’ Kogan Page, London

Wikipedia (2005) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy <visited 11/05>

 

Chapter 2:

<All website references seen in 2006>

ALT 2005, Learning Theory and Design for Learning–
www.alt.ac.uk/workshop_detail.php?e=187 <visited ‘06>

ALT 2006, ‘CMALT Certification Programme’ http://www.alt.ac.uk/cmalt.html <visited ‘06>

Anderson T. 27/07/04, “Teaching in an online learning context”

http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch11.html <visited ‘06>

Basiel A. 1999 “Applied Formative Evaluation in the Web-based Environment” - Middlesex University MPhil. in Computing Science

Basiel A. 2005, ‘Educational Web Video Conferencing www1.lle.mdx.ac.uk/r17575982/  <seen ‘06>

Beetham H. et al. 2004 – JISC www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_outcomes.html <visited ‘06>

Biggs J. 1999  Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does’,  Higher Education, Volume 40, Number 3, October 2000, pp. 374-376(3), Springer

Bonk C. 2006, “Blended Learning Handbook” – http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/

Brown J. 2000, ‘Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education, and the ways people learn’ Change, March/April

British Council 2004 – http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/inside_he/archives/2004/lessons_in_e_learning.cfm <visited ‘06>

Checkland P. 1999 “Soft Systems Methodology in Action” Wiley & Sons ISBN: 0471 986054

Chickering A. 2004, “Implementing the seven principles: technology as lever” – AAHE Bulletin, Oct. p. 3-6, www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html

Constructivism List serve 15/06/05CONSTRUCTIVISM@LS.UNIVIE.AC.AT

Cook J. et. al 2006,’Blending Formal and Informal Learning within an International Learning Network’,  Networked Learning Conference ’06 - UK

Cowan J. 1998 On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher. Open University Press, Buckingham
www.heacademy.ac.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=21690&filename=Cowan <seen ‘06>

Critical Thinking Skills: DfES 2002 – The National Curriculum, London: HMSO www.nc.uk.net/learn_think.html <seen ‘06>

Dewey, J. 1916 Democracy and Education. An introduction to the philosophy of education , New York: Free Press - http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-dewey.htm <seen ‘06>

Dewey, J. 1933 ‘How we think’, Boston – MA: D.C. Heath

DfES 2004 ‘Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy’ www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/ <seen ‘06>

DfES 2005 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/docs/e-strategy.pdf  <seen ‘06>

Diverse 2006, ‘Web Video Conferencing: Serendipitous Learning?’
http://elisu.gcal.ac.uk/diverse2006/DIVERSE%20Conference%20Programme.pdf <seen ‘06>

Dix, A. 1993 "Human Computer Interaction" -Prentice Hall

Dyson M. 2003, “Evaluating Virtual Learning Environments: what are we measuring?” – Electronic Journal of e-Learning, Vol. 1 Issue 1 p. 11-20 http://www.ejel.org <seen ‘06>

Emerald publishers 2006  www.emeraldinsight.com/ <seen ‘06>

Eskow S. 25/07/05, ‘My stake on transactional distance’ DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU - <seen ‘06>

Garrison D. 2004, “E-Learning in the 21st Century” Routledge Falmer, London

Goldberg K. 2000, ‘The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the Internet’ – MIT Press

Horton W. 2000 “Web-based Training”, Wiley Press, London

Idinopulos M. 2000, ‘Telepistemology, Mediation, and the Design of Transparent Interfaces’ – MIT Press

JISC 2004, “Effective Practice with e-Learning” HEFCE, www.jisc.ac.uk/elearning_pedagogy.html

Jonassen D. 1998 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4138/is_200401/ai_n9466857 <seen ‘06>

Jonassen, D. 2000 “Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving.” Educational Technology

Research and Development

Kolb D. 1984 http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm <seen ‘06>

Lane D. 2006 “The Modern Scientist-Practitioner: A Guide to Practice in Psychology”, Routledge Press – ISBN 1-58391-886-8

Lee J.-S. 2003, “Technology Acceptance and Social Networking in Distance Learning” – Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 50-61 – http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/6-2/6.html 

Mason, R. 1998, “Models of Online Courses” ALN Magazine 2 (2)

http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm <visited 08/06>

Massey J. 2003e.learning age (Oct) ‘What have we learned?’ p. 13

Mayes T. 2004 “Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models”

JISC e-Learning Models Desk Study

Mehanna W.  2004, “e-Pedagogy: the pedagogies of e-learning” – ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology Vol. 12, No. 3, Sept. 2004 ISSN 0968-7769

Mehrabian M. 1969, ‘Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior’, Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation

Middlesex University 2006– Policy Statements www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/core/future/docs/  <seen ‘06>

Corporate Planning Statement

Academic Policy Statement APS15 - Open Learning (including e-learning) and Distance Education (including e-programmes)

Revised Learning, Teaching & Assessment Strategy Document LTASv.3 Human Resources Policy Statement 31 - Homeworking

Middlesex University 2005, “Accreditation of Short Courses, Prior Learning, Experiential Learning, Work Based Learning and Other Forms of Continuing Education and CPD”
www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/core/future/docs/ <seen ‘06>

Middlesex University 2005, “Human Resources Policy Statement: Homeworking”
www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/core/future/docs/  <seen ‘06>  

Middlesex University policy 2006 www.intra.mdx.ac.uk/core/future/docs/corpplanstate0506.pdf

NESTA Futurelab 2004 Educational Research and the Design of Interactive Media – ESRC Seminar Series  www.futurelab.org.uk/ <seen ‘06>

Nichols M. 2003, “A theory for eLearning”, Journal of Educational Technology & Society – April 2003 Volume 6 Number 2 ISSN: 1436-4522 http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/ <seen ‘06>

Nielson J. 2006, Usability – www.useit.com <seen ‘06>

OET 2006 - www.ioe.ac.uk/english/Apincas.htm <seen ‘06>

QAA 2006 www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice/distancelearning/ <seen ‘06>

Ramsden P. 1988, ‘ Context and strategy: Situational influences on learning’ , Learning strategies and learning styles – New York: Plenum

Rees M. 08/09/05, The Guardian Online – “Doctor, doctor”, Kate Ravilious - p. 22

Rotblat J. 20/01/05, “Life Einstein issue”, p. 6 [quote related to string theory]

Sener J. 29/06/05, DEOS-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU , “Redeeming Transactional Distance Theory”

Shon J. 2002, “Standardization for eLearning” – Korea National Open University Press

Staley A 2004 www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/casestudy.5.pdf <visited ‘06>

Stephenson J. (2004) Adapted from: http://www.johnstephenson.net/jsdownloads.htm

Stephenson J. 2001, ‘Teaching and Learning Online’ Kogan Page, London

UCL 2006 http://publishers.org.uk/paweb/paweb.nsf/0/504531a8868e3c2a80257172004ef552/
$FILE/Brave%20New%20World%20or%20Publisher%20Lock%20Out%20-%20Will%20VLEs%20transform%20the%20landscape%20of%20learning.pdf

UfI (2006) University for Industry – <seen ‘06>

www.ufi.com/home/section5/9_Archive.asp www.mmdesign.co.uk/reach/backissues_e.php?id=35

Viens J. 2001, IntersTICES – Swiss Virtual Campus Report
www.scedu.umontreal.ca/CRACTIC/LaRecherche.htm

Vrasidas C. 1999, “Principles of pedagogy and evaluation of web-based learning” Educational Media International. 37(2), 105-111

Vygotsky <Add details here> - Activity theory  and ZPD

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Vygotsky%2C+Activity+Theory%2C+ZPD&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search  <seen ‘06>

Waller V. 2004, “Does e-learning always bring home the bacon?” Learning Technologies Publications – www.learningtechnologies.co.uk

WCET 2004, “Balancing Quality and Access: Principles of Good Practice for Electronically Offered Academic Degree and Certificate Programs” – Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications Project -
www.wcet.info/Projects/balancing/principles.asp

Wegerif R. 2002, “Literature Review in Thinking Skills, Technology and Learning” NESTA Futurelab  http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/ts22.htm <seen ‘06>

Weiss J 2000 < visited ‘06>
www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20(Version%201).pdf

Chapter 3

<All website references seen in 2006>

Aldrich A. 2000, Evaluating an End-to-End E-Learning Infrastructure Provider

Note number: R-10-9646 (Advanced search under author's name) www3.gartner.com

ALT 2005 – www.alt.ac.uk/docs/NLN_handout_20041128.pdf <visited 08/06>

ATL Workshop 2005 - http://www.alt.ac.uk/workshop_detail.php?e=181 <seen ‘06>

Armsby P. & Basiel A. 2003 ‘Developing a Virtual Project Environment for Research to aid Doctoral Level Professional Studies: ‘The Transitional Autonomy Model’ (TAM)’ UACE Work Based Learning Network Annual Conference: Knowledge, Work and Learning- Wales

Armsby P. & Costley C. 2003, “Research Approaches Selected By Practitioner-Researchers On A Professional Doctorate” VACE Conference Proceedings: Work Based Learning Opportunities for Lifelong Learning, Cyprus 2003 ISBN: 1-85924-226-X

Baker M. et al (1998), ‘Grounding for Intersubjectivity and Learning’ – ISCRAT 98, Denmark

Basiel A. 1999, ‘WBL VLE needs analysis’ http://webfeedback.mdx.ac.uk/ <last visited 2000>

Basiel A. (2000), "Web-based learning environments: the Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM)", HCT Conference - University of Sussex, BrightonUK

Basiel A. 2003 “Conference on Work Based Learning Opportunities for Lifelong Learners” November 2003, Intercollege, Cyprus

Basiel A. 2003 X-Learning Conference’ Milan, Italy - Keynote speaker for International conference on E-learning, 6/8/03 www.bdp.it/content/index.php?action=read&id=346

“Forming a common e-learning language through Global Rich Pictures (GRIP)” Indire, E-learning Web-magazine www.bdp.it/content/index.php?action=read&id=346<visited 08/06> 

Basiel A. 2005 – [a] www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/#Toolkit  <visited 08/06>

[b] www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/VLEcaseSTUDIES/PA-WBLcaseSTUDY-v3.htm

Basiel A. 2006 – Research CV: www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/

Basiel A. et al 2003,“Innovating profiling as a research technique to promote autonomous work based learning” - UACE Work Based Learning Network Annual Conference: Knowledge, Work and Learning, Cyprus

Basiel, A. 1999 "Applied Formative Evaluation in the Web-based Environment", MPhil. Thesis - School of Computing Science, Middlesex University Press – London

Basiel, A. 2000 – “Web-based Learning Environments: The Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM)”, HTC’2000 (Human-centred Technology Conference), University of SussexEngland www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/lab/hct/hctw2000/papers/skip.pdf<visited 08/06>

Basiel, A. 2002 – “The virtual project environment for research (ViPER) taxonomy”, Networked Learning Conference – Sheffield University, UK

Baume, D. 1994 “Developing Learner Autonomy” SEDA Paper84, ISBN 0946815 739

Beaty L. 2002, Doing Research to Improve Practice: Qualitative Research Approaches for Higher Education Staff – LTI Research Methods Workshop, 22 November, Sheffield University

Becker S. 2006, ‘Brief Notes on the Theory and Practice of Action Research’ – Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, University of Bath <visited 2006> www.bath.ac.uk/~mnspwr/Papers/BriefNotesAR.htm

Bell 1999 ‘The handbook of Qualitative Research’ <seen ‘06>

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nrI65qyhL84C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&sig=w2j1HCEVyxH6DaRRtnjwPHk_

48A&dq=Bell,+1999,+qualitative+research&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3DBell,%2B1999,%2B

qualitative%2Bresearch%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

Britain, S. & Liber, O 2001 A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments - University of Wales - Bangor

Brunner J. 1966, Towards a theory of instruction – Cambridge Ma. Harvard University Press

Burchardt J. 2002, A Researchers Paradise: High Quality Services on the Internet for Research and Lifelong Learning – Networked Learning Conference Proceedings, University of Sheffield 2002, ISBN: 0902831410

Carr & Kemmis 1986

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415171520&id=yb3woWRXi0gC&pg=RA1-PA258&lpg=RA1-PA258&dq=Carr+%26+Kemmis+1986&sig=I2eWNXzNggXErE91eqPuW8FJ_zY

Carr & Kemmis 1986 ‘Becoming Critical’

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=93BdN7btysoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP14&sig=_NGg7QQ7Ly86E

Hndij43rILCXao&dq=Carr+&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3DCarr%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

Checkland P. 1999 “Soft Systems Methodology in Action” Wiley & Sons ISBN: 0471 986054

CHED 2006 http://legacywww.coventry.ac.uk/legacy/ched/research/critical.htm <visited 08/06> adapted from Martin K. 2001 www.csd.uwa.edu.au/newsletter/issue0896/crtical.html ,

Tripp D. 1993 http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/asu/pubs/tif/tlf97/burgum58.html <visited 08/06>

Clarke, P. 2002 – October – “Which LMS is best for you”, e-learning age magazine ISSN: 1474 - 5127

CLD (Centre for Learning Development) 2002 – WebCT training manuals.
VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Director: Jacqui Hall (oasis@mdx.ac.uk )

Cohen and Manion 1994: 192 <seen ‘06>

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415195411&id=5twk1pHwyL8C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Cohen+and+

Manion&sig=Wzi7C7SXOQfyGIhIToxnlvJvxYU

Collis et al  p.9 – Earle A. 2002 – Designing for Pedagogical Flexibility – Experiences From the CANDLE Project – www.jime.open.acluk/2002/4 <visited 08/06>

Conole, G. & Oliver M. 2002 “Embedding Theory into Learning Technology Practice with Toolkits” Journal of Interactive Media in Education ISSN: 1365-893X

www.jime.open.ac.uk/2002/8   <visited 08/06>

Conole, G. 2005 “E-learning: Research methodological issues” Higher Education Academy – eLearning Research Centre Workshop Keynote presentation

www.heacademy.ac.uk/ <visited 08/06>

Cook J. et al (2005), ‘Finding and maintaining common ground between Gaza and the UK: A framework for dialogue led e-learning’ – CAL’05, BristolUK

Conan-Doyle A. 1891 http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/acdoyle.htm <seen ‘06>

CPE 2005, ‘Research Ethics in a Higher Education Context’ - Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University Press

Diverse 2006, ‘Web Video Conferencing: Serendipitous Learning?’
http://elisu.gcal.ac.uk/diverse2006/DIVERSE%20Conference%20Programme.pdf <seen ‘06>

Dix, A. 1993 "Human Computer Interaction" -Prentice Hall

EDUCA Berlin 2000 Conference – Summary of the commercial VLE vendor’s presentations: http://www.online-educa.com/

E-learning Age 2002 www.elearningage.co.uk  - March 2002 issue

Ellington, H. 1995 – “Handbook of Educational Technology” Kogan Page Ltd., London

Elsom – Cook 2001 www-jime.open.ac.uk/2001/cook/references.html <seen ‘06>

Flanagan J. 1954, ‘The Critical Incident Technique’, Psychological Bulletin Vol. 51 Pt. 4 p. 327 - 358

Garrison D.R. and Anderson T. 2004, ‘E-Learning in the 21st Century’ – Routledge Falmer, LondonUK

Giannakkaki, M 2005 ‘Using Mixed-Methods to Examine Teachers' Attitudes to Educational Change: The case of the Skills for Life strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills in England’ - Educational Research and Evaluation – Routledge Press Volume 11, Number 4 / August 2005

GRIP 2002 http://www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/GRIP_files/frame.htm <seen ‘06>

Gremier D. 2004, ‘The Critical Incident Technique in Service Research’, Journal of Service Research –  Volume 7 No. 1 August p. 65 – 89, Sage Publications

Hein, G. 1995 – “The Maze and the Web: Implications of Constructivist Theory for Visitor Studies”, http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/ghein/mazeweb.html<visited 08/06>

HEA 2004 – eTutor Award: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/977.htm

Higher Education Academy 2005 – eLearning Research: http://www.elrc.ac.uk/ <visited 08/06>

Hopkins D. 2002  (Kemmis S. and  McTaggart R.)  - ‘ A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research’ – Buckingham: Open University Press

ICLML NELMO IST Framework 5 Proposal 2002 – http://www.cordis.lu/<visited 08/06>

Idinopulos Michael 2000 - Telepistemology, Mediation, and the Design of Transparent Interfaces - MIT Press, USA

Infopolis 2006 www.ul.ie/~infopolis/methods/incident.html <visited 08/06>

Koshy V. 2005, ‘Action Research for Improving Practice – A Practical Guide’ – Paul Chapman Publishing, London ISBN 1-4129-0755-1

Lane D. 2006 “The Modern Scientist-Practitioner: A Guide to Practice in Psychology”, Routledge Press – ISBN 1-58391-886-8

Laurillard D. 2003 “Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy” ALT e-Learning Strategy Conference, London DfES Publications ref. no. DfES/0424/2003

Laurillard, D. 1993 “Rethinking University Teaching – a framework for the effective use of educational technology” – Routledge, London.

Laurillard, D. 2000 “Interactive Learning Environments for Learning Conversations”

ILTAC 2000 Conference Keynote Presentation

Mason R 2002, ‘Review of E-Learning for Education and Training’ - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings, Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Mason R. 1997 Keynote speech – EDMEDIA Conference proceedings, USA
www.edmedia.com <visited 08/06>

Mason R. 1998, “Models of Online Courses” ALN Magazine 2 (2)

http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm  <visited 08/06>

Mason R. 2002 “Review of E-Learning for Education and Training” Sheffield University ISBN: 0902831 410

Massey J. 2003 “e.learning age (Oct) ‘What have we learned?’ p. 13        

McAteer E. 2002, Characterising On-line Learning Environments, - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings, Sheffield University  ISBN: 0902831 410

McMahon A. 2000 “The Intuitive Practitioner: On the Value of Not Always Knowing What One is Doing” p. 137 – 148, The development of professional intuition, Buckingham: Open University Press.

McNiff J 1988, Action Research: Principles and practice, Routledge Press

McNiff J 1992, Teaching as Learning: an action research approach, Routledge Press

Miles and Huberman 1994: 10 <seen ‘06>

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN076191191X&id=46jfwR6y5joC&pg=PA340&lpg=PA340&dq=Miles+and+

Huberman+1994&sig=ax5QVW8rmyN_wjEOP56mD0KWkAg

Moore M. 1993 "Theory of transactional distance" in the book: "Theoretical principles of distance education" edited Desmond Keegan, Routledge studies in distance education - London 1993

Moore M. 1983 “On a theory of independent study” In: Stewart, D. Keegan & B. Holmberg (Eds.) Distance Education International Perspectives, London: Croom

O’Leary Z 2004 – ‘The Essential Guide to Doing Action Research’ – London Sage

Oliver M. 2002 “Embedding Theory into Learning Technology Practice with Toolkits”, Journal of Interactive Media in Education ISSN: 1365-893X www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/8  <visited 08/06>

OPUS Project 2002 – Technology Assisted Lifelong Learning (TALL) Oxford University, UK www.tall.ox.ac.uk <visited 08/06>

Passmore John 1980 – The Philosophy of Teaching – Duckworth, London
ISBN: 0 7156 1465 7

Popper K.1972 "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" Hutchinson, London

Potts D, Boud D 1988,“Developing Student Autonomy in Learning” Kogan Page, London

Preece J. 2000, ‘Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability’ – Wiley & Sons, London

Reason and H. Bradbury (eds.), ‘Handbook of Action Research: Participative Enquiry and Practice’ – London Sage

Roos I. 2002, ‘Methods of Investigating Critical Incidents: A Comparative Review’ – Journal of Service Research

Slee, R. 1998, High reliability organizations and liability students – the politics of recognition. School effectiveness for whom? Journal: Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements – Falmer, London 1998

International journal of Inclusive education Editor: Roger Slee Vol. 6 Oct. – Dec.  2002

Stephenson J. 2003 – Terms produced from informal expert interview

Stephenson, J. 2001 "Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies" Kogan Page Ltd., London

Strauss A. and Corbin J. 1998, ‘Basics of Qualitative Research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory’ Thousand Oaks, Ca. – Sage Publishing

Thorp, M 1988 - " Evaluating Open and Distance Learning" - Longman, Harlow

Toole, T. 2001 “Developing an online pedagogical toolkit” National Extension College workshop at NEC 2001 National Conference http://www.nec.ac.uk/groups/<visited 08/06>

Usability first 2006 www.usability.com/glossary/term_496.txl <visited 08/06>

Usabilitynet 2006 www.usabilitynet.org/tools/criticalincidents.htm <visited 08/06>

Zeichner K 2001 – ‘Educational Action Research’ in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds.), ‘Handbook of Action Research: Participative Enquiry and Practice’ – London Sage

 

Chapter 4

<web sites seen in 2006>

Basiel, A. 1999 – “Applied Formative Evaluation in the Web-based Environment”, MPhil. Thesis in Computing Science, Middlesex University

Brown J. S. 2000 ‘Growing up digital: How the Web changes work, education and the ways people learn’, Change March/April p. 11 – 20

Checkland, P. 1999 “Soft Systems Methodology in Action” John Wiley & Sons inc. USA ISBN: 0471 986054

Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2000) ‘Research Methods in Education’, Routledge - London

Dix, A. 1993 "Human Computer Interaction" -Prentice Hall

Ellington, H. 1995 – “Handbook of Educational Technology” Kogan Page Ltd., London

Elsom – Cook 2001 www-jime.open.ac.uk/2001/cook/references.html  

Flanagan J. 1954, ‘The Critical Incident Technique’, Psychological Bulletin Vol. 51 Pt. 4 p. 327 - 358

Hearnshaw D. 2000 “Towards an Objective Approach to the Evaluation of Videoconferencing” Innovations in Education and Training International ISSN 1355-8005, Taylor & Francis Ltd. www.tandf.co.uk/journals/

Henri, F. (1992) “Computer conferencing and content analysis” In Kaye, A R (ed.) Collaborative Learning Through Computer Conferencing, Springer-Verlag, p. 117 - 36

JISC (2004) Joint Information Systems Committee: Effective Practice with e-Learning www.jisc.ac.uk/elearning_pedagogy.html  [p.13] ‘ Defining approaches to learning’

Koshy, V. 2005 “Action Research for Improving Practice: A Practical Guide”, Paul Chapman Publishing - London

Heidegger, Habermas and the Mobile Phone (Post-modern Encounters) (ISBN: 1840462361) by George Myerson

Chapter 5

<web sites seen in 2006>

Adobe 2006, Adobe Education Leadership Program: www.adobe.com/resources/education/ <seen ‘06>

Basiel A. 2002 – Online EDUCA Berlin Conference:
www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/EDUCA-BERLIN%2702-SuperiorSTELLA.htm <visited 2006>

Basiel A. 2005a – CLD Mini Conference, Oak Hill Park – ‘Supporting the eLearner through Web Video conferencing’ www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/UofL-STUDENTsupport.ppt <visited  2006>

Basiel A. 2005b – Teaching Templates  Project proposal:
http://www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/UofL-grant/UofL-CDEgrant-v2.doc <visited in July 2006>

Bersin & Associates 2003, “Is PowerPoint an E-Learning Tool? Enter Rapid E-Learning: Macromedia Breeze” Bersin & Associates, June 2003 version 1.0 – www.bersin.com/research/content_development.htm <visited in July 06>

Bonk C. 2006, “Blended Learning Handbook” – http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk <seen ‘06>

Boshuizen H. 2004 ‘Coaching and training in integrated electronic learning environments’ Edited by Jochems W. 2004, ‘Integrated E-learning: Implications for Pedagogy, Technology and Organisation’ , Chapter 12 – Routledge Falmer, London

Bruner, J. 1966, "Toward a Theory of Instruction" Harvard Uni Press www.gwu.edu/~tip/theories.html  <visited 1998>

CDET 2006 – Teaching Templates Website: http://www.ncwblp.org/cdet/ <visited in July 2006>

Clothier  P. 2003, “Developing Instructionally Sound Content with PowerPoint and Breeze’
http://www.adobe.com/ <seen ‘06>

Collins A 1988, ‘Cognitive Apprenticeship and Instructional Technology’ – Technical Report No. 6899, BBN Labs Inc. – Cambridge, MA

Costley C. 2006 et al. www.ncwblp.org/publish/ <seen’06>

Evans K. 2006 – Project WBL Consultant:
http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=4458&4458_0=5228 <visited in July 2006>

Garrison D. 2004, “E-Learning in the 21st Century” Routledge-Falmer, London

Horton W. 2000, “Web-based Training”, Wiley Press, London

ICLML 2006 – International Centre for Learner Managed Learning www.lle.mdx.ac.uk/iclml/

Jackson, S. 1996 http://star.ucc.nau.edu/~nauweb97/papers/jackson1.html  <visited:21/08/98>

McLuhan M. 1967, ‘The Medium is the Massage’ - Bantam Books / Random House

McNiff J. 1988, Action Research: Principles and practice, Routledge Press

McNiff J. 1992, Teaching as Learning: an action research approach, Routledge Press

Microsoft 2006 – http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/default.aspx <visited in July 2006>

O’Leary Z 2004 – ‘The Essential Guide to Doing Action Research’ – London Sage

Pincas A 2006 – <seen ‘06>
www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=4&Itemid=11

Pincas A. 2002 – Online Education and Training: www.ioe.ac.uk/english/OET2.htm <visited  2006>

Pincas A. 2006a – Fill-in Templates documentations: http://ncwblp.org/cdet/Chart_1___CoursePlanningOverview.doc &Chart_2___TeachingChoices.doc

Pincas A. 2006b – Focus Group Interview (25 July 2006 meeting at Kings College)

Salmon G. 2002,  ‘E-tivities: the key to active only learning’ Sterling, VA : Stylus Publishing Inc. ISSN 0 7494 3686 7

Stephenson J. 2004 - Adapted from: http://www.johnstephenson.net/jsdownloads.htm

Super STELLA Consortium 2000, www.lle.mdx.ac.uk/iclml/SuStFull.pdf <seen ‘06>

Sutton  B. 2005, ‘Adopting a holistic approach to the valuation of learning programmes deployed in corporate environments’ – NCWBLP & Middlesex University Professional Doctorate Report

Templates Website 2006, http://www.ncwblp.org/CDET/ <visited  2006> &  CD-ROM appendix

THES 2006 – ICT in Higher Education, Michael Thomas
The Times Higher Education Supplement,
5 May 2006 – Issue 7, ‘Just how tempting is an Apple?’

Thorp M. 1998 – TLTP Conference keynote: www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/tltp/ <visited in Dec.1998>

Vygotsky, L. V. 1962 - "Thought and Language", Cambridge - Ma.-USA, MIT Press

WLE 2006 – Centre for Excellence in Work Based Learning for Education Professionals
www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/E-learning%20and%20teaching.pdf <visited in July 2006>

Chapter 6

<web sites seen ‘06>

Adobe 2006, http://www.adobe.com/products/breeze/solutions/webconferencing/ (Breeze), http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate/ (Captivate) <seen’06>

AEL (Adobe Education Leader Programme) 2006, http://www.adobe.com/resources/education/k12/special/leaders/profiles/abasiel.html  – Education Leadership Programme <seen’06>

Basiel A. 2006, List of earlier versions of VLED Profile Toolkit found at: http://www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/vled_case_study.htm <seen’06>

Botspot 2006, http://www.botspot.com/pages/chatbots.html <seen’06>

Downs S. 2006, ‘E-Learning 2.0’ – National Research Council of Canada
www.elearningmag.org/subpage.cmf?section=articles&article=29-1<seen’06>

eWriting 2005, http://www1.lle.mdx.ac.uk/p93049728/ <seen’06>

Garrison D. 2004, “E-Learning in the 21st Century” Routledge Falmer, London

HAL 2006, http://www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/Chatterbot/webbotframe.htm <seen’06>

MUBSweb 2006 http://mubsweb.mdx.ac.uk/www/open/vle_lle/index.htm, Database results:http://mubsweb.mdx.ac.uk/www/open/vle_lle/admin/ <seen’06>

VLED induction 2006, http://mubsweb.mdx.ac.uk/www/open/vle_lle/induction/index.htm <seen’06>

Extract of my CV publications related to this chapter: Basiel A. 2000, ‘Web-based learning environments: the Transitional Autonomy Model (TAM)’, HCT Conference - University of Sussex, Brighton - UK 6-10-00

Basiel A. 2002, “Meeting the needs of the online researcher: an investigation in virtual autonomy”, HCT Conference - University of Sussex, BrightonUK Sept. 2002

Basiel A. 2002, “Developing a Virtual Project Environment for Research to aid Doctoral Level Professional Studies: ‘The Transitional Autonomy Model’ (TAM)” - Uace Work Based Learning Network Annual Conference: Knowledge, Work and Learning, Wales – Nov. 2002

Basiel A. 2003, “Innovating profiling as a research technique to promote autonomous work based learning” - Uace Work Based Learning Network Annual Conference: Knowledge, Work and Learning, Cyprus – Nov. 2003

Basiel A. 2003 “Forming a common e-learning language through Global Rich Pictures (GRIP)”
http://www.bdp.it/content/index.php?action=read&id=346 Indire, E-learning Web-magazine
(may be translated from http://babelfish.altavista.com/)

Basiel A. et al.  2005 “Finding and Maintaining Common Ground Between Gaza and the UK: A framework for dialogue led e-learning”, Computers and Learning Conference, BristolUK

Basiel A. 2005, “A methodology and toolkit to mediate understanding between the stakeholders of a virtual learning environment: the VLE Denouement Profile’ – London Knowledge Lab Conference.”

Basiel A. 2005, “Blending Formal and Informal Learning within an International Learning Network’, with John Cook, et al. – Networked Learning Conference ’06 - UK

2.’Introduction to eBusiness applications’ co-authored with Aboubakr Abdel Moteleb ISBN: 1 904750 26 5, MU Press Limited 2005

Chapter 7

< web  pages seen 2006>

Aakhaus P. 1996, "Designed Discourse and Discourse Design" International Conference, USA

Armsby P. & Basiel A. 2003 ‘Developing a Virtual Project Environment for Research to aid Doctoral Level Professional Studies: ‘The Transitional Autonomy Model’ (TAM)’ UACE Work Based Learning Network Annual Conference: Knowledge, Work and Learning- Wales

Basiel A 1999a  "Push & Pull Pedagogy for Web-based Instructionally Designed Environments" HTC’99 Conference, England

Basiel A. & Dikerdem M. 2003, ‘Innovating profiling as a research technique to promote autonomous work based learning’ Conference on Work Based Learning Opportunities for Lifelong Learners - Intercollege, Cyprus

Basiel A. 2003 “Work Based Learning Support: A shift to a web based model” Conference on Work Based Learning Opportunities for Lifelong Learners

21st – 22nd November 2003 Intercollege, Cyprus

Basiel A. 2005, ‘A methodology and toolkit to mediate understanding between the stakeholders of a virtual learning environment: the VLE Denouement Profile’ – Technology and change in educational practice’05 conference, London - UK

Basiel A. 2006 Research CV: Publications www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/ <seen’06>

Basiel A. 1999 "Applied Formative Evaluation in the Web-based Environment", MPhil. Thesis - School of Computing Science, Middlesex University Press – London

Basiel A. 2000 "Web-based learning environments: the Transitional Autonomy Model" HCT'2000 Conference - Brighton, England http://weblearning.mdx.ac.uk/webresources/tampaper.htm<seen’06>

Basiel A. 2002 – “The virtual project environment for research (ViPER) taxonomy”, Networked Learning Conference – Sheffield University, UK

Baume D. 1994 “Developing Learner Autonomy” SEDA Paper84, ISBN 0946815 739

Beetham H. et al. 2004 – JISC www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_outcomes.html <seen’06>

Biggs J. B. 1982  "The Quality of Learning - The SOLO Taxonomy" Academic Press ISBN # 82 054889

Bruner J. 1966, ‘Toward a theory of instruction’ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Checkland P 1999 “Soft Systems Methodology in Action” John Wiley & Sons inc. USA ISBN: 0471 986054

Chen Y. & Willits F. 1998, ‘A path analysis of the concepts in Moore’s TDT in a videoconferencing learning environment’ The American Journal of Distance Education, 13 (2), 51-65

Collis et al  p.9 – Earle A. 2002 – Designing for Pedagogical Flexibility – Experiences From the CANDLE Project – www.jime.open.acluk/2002/4 <seen’06>

Conole G. 2005, eLRC (eLearning Research Centre) of the Higher Education Academy – UK presentation www.elrc.ac.uk/about/staff/  - http://www.elrc.ac.uk/events/ <seen’06>

Conole G. & Oliver M. 2002 “Embedding Theory into Learning Technology Practice with Toolkits” Journal of Interactive Media in Education ISSN: 1365-893X

www.jime.open.ac.uk/2002/8 <seen’06>

DfES Towards a Unified  e-Learning Strategy: Consultation Document July 2003

p. 21 online community, p. 23 online mentors

Dix A. 1993 "Human Computer Interaction" -Prentice Hall

Downs S. 2006, ‘E-Learning 2.0’ – National Research Council of Canada
www.elearningmag.org/subpage.cmf?section=articles&article=29-1<seen’06>

Ellington H. 1995, “Handbook of Educational Technology” Kogan Page Ltd., London

Emerald publishers 2006  www.emeraldinsight.com/ <seen ‘06>

Gabe & Gabe (2002) Constructivism, sociology and the new genetics, New Genetics and Society - Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group - Volume 21, Number 3 p. 279-289

Gardner H. 1983, ‘Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences’ Basic Books - http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic68.htm <seen’06>

Garrison D. 1989, ‘ Understanding distance education’ New York: Routledge

Garrison D. 2000, ‘Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues’ International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1) www.irrodl.org/content/v1.1/randy.html <seen’06>

Gorsky P. 2005, ‘A Critical Analysis of Transactional Distance Theory’ – The  Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 6(1), 2005, pp 1 -11, Information Age Publishing Inc. ISSN 1528-3518

Hein G. 1995, “The Maze and the Web: Implications of Constructivist Theory for Visitor Studies”, http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/ghein/mazeweb.html <seen’06>

Holmberg B. 1986, ‘Growth and structure of distance education’ London: Croom Helm

Holmberg B. 1989, ‘Theory and practice of distance education’ London: Routledge

Idinopulos Michael 2000 - Telepistemology, Mediation, and the Design of Transparent Interfaces - MIT Press, USA

Indinopulos M. 2000, ‘Telepistemology, Mediation, and the Design of Transparent Interfaces’ - MIT Press, USA

Jackson S. 1997, "Protocols for On-line Learning: A Problem of Discourse Design" NAU/web Conference, AZ. - USA

Keegan D. 1980, ‘In defining distance education’ Distance Education 1(1), 13-35

Keegan D. 1986, ‘The foundations of distance education’ London: Croom Helm

Mahoney, M. 1994 - Human Change Processors, London - Basic Books

Mason R. 1998 – “Models of online courses”, ALN Magazine Vol. 2 Issue 2, Oct. 1998

http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm <seen’06>

Mason R. 2002, ‘Review of E-Learning for Education and Training’ - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings, Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Massey J. 2003e.learning age (Oct) ‘What have we learned?’ p. 13 www.elearningage.co.uk/ <seen’06>

McAteer E. 2002, Characterising On-line Learning Environments, - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings, Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

McLuhan M. 1967, ‘The Medium is the Message’ - Bantam Books / Random House

Moore M. & Kearsley G. 1996, ‘Distance education: a systems view’ Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth

Moore M. 1972, ‘Learner Autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning’ Convergence, 2,76-88

Moore M. 1993,’Theory of Transactional distance’ In D. Keegan, (Ed), Theoretical principles of distance education – New York: Routledge

Moore, M. 1993 "Theory of transactional distance" in the book: "Theoretical principles of distance education" edited Desmond Keegan, Routledge studies in distance education - London 1993

Moore, M.G. 1983 “On a theory of  independent study” In: Stewart, D. Keegan & B. Holmberg (Eds.) Distance Education International Perspectives, London: Croom

Murphy K. & Collins M. 1997,’Development of communication conventions in instructional electronic chats’ Journals of Distance Education, 12(1/2), 177-200

Nielsen J. 2005, ‘Reviving Advanced Hypertext’ www.useit.com/alertbox/20050103.html <seen’06>

Nielsen J. 2006, ‘Ten Best Intranets of 2006’ www.useit.com/alertbox/intranet_design.html<seen’06>

OPUS Project 2002, Technology Assisted Lifelong Learning (TALL) Oxford University, UK http://www.tall.ox.ac.uk <seen’06>

Passmore John 1980 – The Philosophy of Teaching – Duckworth, London ISBN: 0 7156 1465 7

Peters O. 1983, ‘Distance teaching and industrial production: A comparative interpretation in outline’ In D. Stewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg, (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp 95-113) – London, Croom Helm

Piaget J., ‘The Psychology of Intelligence’, Harcourt and Brace, New York, 1950.
Funderstanding 1998: http://www.funderstanding.com/
GWU 1998: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/theories.html <visited 1998>

Popper K.1972, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" Hutchinson, London

Potts D. Boud D. 1988 – “Developing Student Autonomy in Learning”, Kogan Page, London

Sparkes J. 1983, ‘The problem of creating a discipline of distance education’ Distance Education, 4(2), 179-194

Verduin J. & Clark T. 1991, ‘Distance education: The foundations of effective practice: The foundations of practice’ San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Wilson B. 1995, " The Impact of Constructivism (and Postmodernism) on ID Fundamentals" - in Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Review and Reconsideration - Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications


Bibliography

 

Aalborg H 2002 A Survey of Technologies Supporting Virtual Project Based Learning -  Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Allison A. 2002 An Action Research Approach to the Design and Implementation of an On-Line Course in Applied Mechanics -- Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Boyle T. 2002 - Towards a Theoretical Base for Educational Multimedia Design - http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/2/boyle-02-2.pdf

Burchardt J 2002 An Action Research Approach to the Design and Implementation of an On-Line Course in Applied Mechanics - -- Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Conole G. 2002 Systematising Learning and Research Information - http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/7/conole-02-7.pdf

Conole G. and Oliver M. 2002 - Embedding Theory into Learning Technology Practice with Toolkits

http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/8/conole-oliver-02-8.pdf

Cook J 2002 - The Role of Dialogue in Computer-Based Learning and Observing Learning: An Evolutionary Approach to Theory - http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/5/cook-02-5.pdf

Dryfus H. 2000 Telepistemology: Decartes’s Last Stand- MIT Press 2000

Earle A. 2002 - Designing For Pedagogical Flexibility: Experiences From the CANDLE Project - http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/4/earle-02-4.pdf

Goldberg K. 2000 The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the Internet - MIT Press 2000

Harris R. 2002  Retrofitting theory to practice – a reflection on the development of an e-learning community - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Idinopulos M 2000 Telepistemology, Mediation, and the Design of Transparent Interfaces- MIT Press 2000

Issroff K. and Scanlon E. 2002 - Educational Technology: The Influence of Theory - http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/6/issroff-scanlon-02-6.pdf

Levy P. 2002  Researching Networked Learning and Teaching: a Case Study in Practitioner Knowledge Construction - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Little B. 2002 - e.learning age journal Philosophical and design imperative” - E-learning Journal:
www.elearningage.co.uk – Bizmedia Royal Station Court Twyford, Reading England RG10 9NF
ISSN: 1474-5127

Mason R. 2002  Review of E-Learning for Education and Training - Networked Learning ‘02
3rd International Conference Proceedings -
Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

McAteer E. 2002  Characterising On-line Learning Environments- Networked Learning ‘02
3rd International Conference Proceedings -
Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

McConlogue T. 2002 Researching the Tutor in Online Practice: Reflections on an appropriate research methodology - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Oliver M & Aczel J. 2002 - Theoretical Models of the Role of Visualisation in

Learning Formal Reasoning- http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/3/oliver-aczel-02-3.pdf

Ronteltap F. 2002 POLARIS: A Tool For The Support of Interactions In Learning Communities - Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Venkatachary R. 2002 From Distance Education to eLearning: Philosophical and Design Imperatives- Networked Learning ’02 3rd International Conference Proceedings - Sheffield University 2002 ISBN: 0902831 410

Boud D.  1988 Developing Student Autonomy in Learning Kogan Page, London

Popper K. 1972 Objective Knowledge An Evolutionary Approach Oxford University Press

Popper K. 1989 Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge Routledge Press

Stephenson J 2001 Teaching and Learning Online - Kogan Page 2001

Ellington H, 1993 Handbook of Educational Technology -Kogan Page 1993

Horton W Designing Web-Based Training-Wiley Press 2000

Checkland P. 1999 Soft Systems Methodology in Action -Wiley Press 1999

Jayaratana  N 1994 Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies - - NIMSAD: A Systemic Framework McGraw-Hill ISBN: 0-07-707882-9

Hein G. 1995 The Maze and the web - http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/ghein/mazeweb.html

Passmore  J. 1980 The Philosophy of Teaching -Duckworth Publishers  ISBN: 07156 1465 7

Checkland P. 1972  Towards a systems-based methodology for real world problem solving Journal of Systems Engineering  - 1972


Appendix

Chapter 1

Appendix 1 –

Definitions and eLearning Researcher’s Glossary

Definition of eLearning:

Ø      eLearning = enhanced learning

Ø      learning facilitated and supported through ICT

Definition of Pedagogy:

Ø      the activities of educating, or instructing or teaching

Ø      ‘literally a guide who took a boy to school’

(NB: Related to the term Docent – a museum curator or language translator (look up from Dictionary )

Definitions of Pedagogy:

Mortimore 1999 – any conscious action by one person designed to enhance learning in another.

Mehanna W. 2004 – any effective behaviour or activities designed to impart knowledge, it is used in the process of teaching and learning, and has an association with students’ learning outcomes. [NB: My critical review of this definition focuses on the expression ‘impart knowledge’. This implies a teacher-led model. ‘Learning outcomes’ implies a formal learning context (versus informal learning) with Behaviourist overtones.

Henri et al. (1997) – see pedagogy linked to social interaction and online discourse / debate.

eLearning Glossary:

Ø      eLearning – technology enhanced learning

Ø      theories of learning – provide empirically-based accounts of the variables which influence the learning process and provide explanations in which that influence occurs.

Ø      Pedagogic frameworks – describe the broad principles through which theory is applied to L & T practice.

Ø      Models of eLearning – describe where technology plays a specific role in supporting learning such as: pedagogical principles and practice using the principles.

Ø      Taxonomy – a mapping of theory, frameworks and models

 

Marzano (1998) systems of human thought:

1. self-system processing of presenting tasks – if it is judged as important and the rate of success is high, positive affect is generated and the individual is motivated to engage in the presenting task.

2. use of task-related knowledge – system comprised of the information, mental processes and psychomotor processes that are specific to a subject matter.

3. cognitive processing of tasks can be organised as: storage and retrieval, information processing, input/output, knowledge utilisation

4. meta-cognitive processing of tasks is ‘the engine for learning’. (setting objectives – provide feedback)

Marzano (2000) trans discipline/level pedagogies:

Ø      identify similarities/differences

Ø      summarising and synthesis of information

Ø      recognising effort to boost levels of engagement

Ø      provide practice opportunities

Ø      use non-linguistic representations (graphics)

Ø      promote co-operative learning

Ø      application of knowledge – generating & testing hypothesis

Ø      set learning objectives and provide feedback

Ø      activate prior knowledge (question prompts and cues)

Minocha and Sharp (2004) – eLearning in HE should adopt pedagogical models that are not fundamentalist in nature but allow for a complementarily between behaviourism and constructivism (p. 2) and cognitivism (Driscoll 2002).

[NB: This position supports my TAM research ]

 

Chapter 2

Appendix A:

DfES eLearning Strategy Summary

Figure 5 DfES eLearning Strategy Summary

 

Appendix B –

CETWBL-ICT strategy Draft  2 November 2005 Prepared by Anthony ‘Skip’ Basiel

Suggested Action Plan – follows outline break down below

1) NCWBLP Website

Revamp of current site to modernise look and functionality

Work with MU web team to restructure current system

Closer link to MU home site

Be able to find NCWBLP and CEWBL via search engines and home page links

Maintain content – people & protocols

Checks and balance system to send revision to Pat B. & Janet B. with staff review/confirm

Link to software issue for Dreamweaver, etc.

Collaborate with MU Web team for CMS (Content Management System) integration

Pilot new system to help staff maintain their own areas

Update code to optimise search engine results (marketing)

Googleise the site (ie – add Web Ring of contacts: eg – Maritime site)

Update storage space for WebCT files (for students with access problems)

Update research and publication info.

Update MU Expert database

Consultants

and Second Supervisors

Get DProf. Network support system established

2) CETWBL Website

Maintain content – people & protocols

Work with MU web team to restructure current system

Collaborate with MU Web team for CMS (Content Management System) integration

Update code to optimise search engine results (marketing)

Link to other CETLs in England

Update research and publication info.

Update MU Expert database

Expand consultancy 

3) WebCT/Oasis

Maintain content – people & protocols (ie annual diary)

Staff Training for new version (& overseas offices)

Strategy for adopting new WBL Oasis/WebCT templates (site clones)

Design, implement and pre-test sites (this should be done this year with a pilot group!

Strategy for adopting new WBL Oasis/WebCT file management structure

Inductions for Overseas Offices

4) Video conference: Adobe Breeze Live (web) and ISDN (conf. suite)

Maintain content – people & protocols

Pre-test dates for Cyprus – projects (Sem. 1 & 2)

Locations for set-up

Individual PCs in office

Group meetings (ie – Blue Room)

Staff Training for new version (& overseas offices)

Liaise with MU Breeze Consortium

 Liaise with MU CCSS to support Breeze

Inductions for Overseas Offices

Liaise with MU Regional Directors

MU ISDN systems

Research options and emerging technologies

Need to have dedicated Laptop for WVC. (03-11-05 no laptops available)

5) Adobe Breeze eContent (PPT-to-Flash)

Maintain content – people & protocols

Need to integrate with WebCT/Oasis

Staff Training for new version (& overseas offices)

Establish NCWBLP Staff Training Strategy

Link with MU Staff Training

Inductions for Overseas Offices

Link with NCWBLP Staff Training Strategy

6) CETWBL Capital Improvements (Soft/Hardware)

Strategy – people & protocols

Link with NCWBLP Staff Training Strategy

List of software (ie - PDF writer, Dreamweaver, Breeze v.5, etc.)

See pre-submitted lists

List of hardware (ie – Breeze 5 server, Tablet Notepads, etc.)

See pre-submitted lists  (add: Conference phone with external speakers!)

NB: for all laptops, etc. we must add batteries in the plan for next year.

Distributed software services

Online survey tool (ie – www.surveyshare.com or done in Breeze?)

Virtual Duty Tutor – Web-bot natural language Help System

7) eContent Process

Training in Breeze PPT-to-Flash

Liaise with CETL Tools project in Midlands

Review System for proofing eContent

Tie in with existing Projects Data-base system

8) ICT Training (Staff Development)

Establish Annual Diary

Link to MU CPD?

Link to PC kit allocation?

New strategies and motivation techniques?

9) Follow-up on Network Bandwidth Test

Gwo (CCSS team) has said he is busy, but admits we have a problem

 10) Other related ICT Issues

Team support - Ralph is gone! Janet’s VLE position is not to be replaced! HELP!

Programme Planning – Excel sheet: Please review for next terms use.

WBL/eLearning Related Projects (proposals, etc.)

Get a licence / server for a Virtual Assistant – natural lang. web-bot Help System

Pre-testing systems

Back-up strategies

eLearning Awards?

 

Suggested Action Plan:

Short Term (1 -3 yrs.)

Form committees for each of the ICT Issues (ie – NCWBLP web site, WebCT, etc.)

Fix and Maintain all related ICT Issues specified

Design, implement and evaluate next generation ICT Specifications

Research projects and partners for networking and publication

Begin to get International Regional Offices more linked with ICT

DProf. Network graduates linked online

 

Medium Term (3 – 5 yrs)

Design, implement self-sustaining ICT strategy

Review ICT Soft/Hardware up-grades

Overseas offices should have strong ICT links

Strong DProf. Online Community

 

Long Term – After the CEWBL funds run out

Use funds from WBL/eLearning projects to expand networks to increase more projects

Design, implement and evaluate self-sustaining ICT strategy

 

 

 

Appendix C:

VLE pedagogy
There are some examples in literature examining online pedagogical issues concerning VLEs such as “Teaching and Learning Online: Pedagogies for New Technologies” (Stephenson, J 2001) and “A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Virtual Learning Environments” (
Britain, S & Liber, O 2001). These, however, tend to be the exception, not the rule. The following virtual learning environment models of use illustrate the wide variety of contextualisation in the area of online pedagogy. 

 

According to Toole (2001), “…not enough is currently known about the pedagogy of online learning to evaluate the effectiveness of the different models in online learning.” Four examples are offered of online pedagogical models:

Ø       The conventional model is tutor-driven by lectures and assessed coursework.   This model follows the standard academic year calendar.

Ø       The BOBO model (Batch-on batch-off) is tutor driven with integrated assessment. This system uses workbooks to deliver content.

Ø       The RORO (Resources-on Resources-off) shifts to a student-driven pedagogy. This model takes a modular approach with assessed coursework.

Ø       The campus assessment model is similar to the RORO model with an on-campus assessment.

 

The OPUS Project (Oxford University, UK 2002) presents three course models to support personalised e-learning. ‘Unit 0’, an induction unit defining the structure of the model, precedes the following samples:

The Hybrid Course Model is typified by a diploma course in Computing. Ten percent is face-to-face (f2f) orientation with 90% distance delivery. The online part of the model supports information acquisition, elaboration, clarification and confirmation.

The Geography-independent Model, illustrated by an Advanced Diploma Course in Local History, is fully distance-based. This course design is a resource-based approach with online tutor support. The computer enabled group activities are complimented by multiple media (not only multimedia) online document delivery. A semi-synchronous online communication methodology is taken to support learning dialogue.

The Curriculum on Demand Model allows each student to follow a tailor-made course.  This personalised e-learning approach conducts a needs analysis and assessment of prior learning. Learning components are then suggested to keep leaning content in small ‘chunks’ of appropriate information supported by metadata and concept maps.  Continuous assessment and intense tutor support allow course modification. This design will be piloted in a medical module for Immunology.

 

Mason (1998) offers three generic online curriculum models:

Ø       Content and support model – static web content supplemented by e-tutorial support.

Ø       Wrap-around model – web course material is wrapped by activities of online discussion.

Ø       Integrated model – collaborative e-activities are supported by dynamic online content.

 

Britain and Biber offer a pedagogical evaluation framework for VLEs (University of Wales 2001).  Their research suggests a holistic approach to evaluating commercial VLE products highlighting the educational principles around which the systems were designed. Two models of evaluation were examined:

Ø       Conversation Framework (Laurillard, 1993 and Crawley 1999).

Ø       Viable Systems Model (VSM) (Beer 1981).

 

The conversation model focuses on interactions between individual students and tutors. This evaluation perspective helps identify if the nature of learning activities matches the conceptual domain between the tutor and the student. The extent that the VLE can support this process is evaluated.

 

The VSM model pinpoints how the software helps a tutor manage conversations and the construction of activities for large classes.  These VLE examinations offer valuable information on the elements of existing VLEs. This research examines the design and construction of VLEs for instruction-based and research-based activity. The ‘gap’ in these models for use of VLEs is their application to ‘research-based design’. According to Laurillard (2000), virtual project environments for research (or research-based web-learning systems) will be the 'next generation' of managed learning environments (MLEs) from current instructional-based systems.

Chapter 3

Appendix 1:

Soft systems diagram - Checkland P 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: Figure 6 Checkland's SSM

 

Appendix 2:

AR model figures - from Koshy V. 2005

 

Figure 7 - AR Model 1

Figure 8 - AR Model 2

Figure 9 - AR Model 3

 

Figure 10- AR Model

 

 

Appendix 3

 Global Rich Pictures


Chapter 4

The appendix for Chapter 4 is in two parts:

  1. Part A – is for the DProf. Case Study interview related data,
  2. Part B – is a collection of the project’s related case studies that would not fit into the body of the report, but which is the raw data to support the conclusions of the chapter.

Appendix A

DProf. Case Study Interview Data

Appendix A contains the statistical summary and sample questionnaire. I will highlight here the issues that emerged in relation to the interviews as a way of triangulating the data. A Likert scale was used 0 = unknown to a 5 very good to respond to the following questions:

 

1. Based on your prior knowledge, please rate this web video conference interview with your experience of any other face-to-face interview. (Or, how you would envisage this comparison?)

The mark was 2.75/5 (almost average) with comments ranging from [J] “This was the worst DProf. interview I have ever experience.” to [I] “It was good, even with the technical hitches. There was no stress from travel.”

 

3. Based on your prior knowledge, please rate this web video conference interview with your experience of any other telephone interview. (Or, how you would envisage this comparison?)

The mark was 3/5. Surprisingly only half of the sample group had done phone conferencing before, therefore this question should be extended for further study.

 

5. Please rate the web video conference software system in terms of ease of setting up.

The mark was 2.75/5 with the student giving a higher rating than the academic staff.

 

7. Please rate the web video conference software system in terms of ease of use during the online interview.

The mark was 3.0/5 for an average ease of use rating. Here the student and Support Administrator found the ease of use to be good [4 average] compared to the academics [2 fair] average.

 

9. Before you experienced this video conference interview you may have formed some expectations of what the results would be like. Please rate your actual experience as compared to your expectations. (ie – 5 would mean the interview was exactly what you expected.)

The mark of 2.75/5 again finds the result of the experience to be below average in terms of the expectations going in. This is not surprising considering the technical system failure at the start.

 

Due to the limited nature of the questionnaire its purpose is more for triangulation of data gathered from observation of the event and interviews. An online survey was done conducting a SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats) analysis was done in conjunction with this investigation [11]. Twenty respondents to-date (June 2005) have given feedback to the following questions; 13 from UK Higher Education institutions and 7 from elsewhere. Appendix B shows the results of examples of educational web video conferencing prioritised by importance. In brief, Assessment (ie project presentations) and Peer collaboration were rated as very high priority (30%) with Supervisory (ie dissertations) and Tutorials (1-2-1) a close second (25%). Sadly student interviews, as done in this case study, were seen as the least important use of WVC by the respondents with 40% making it a low priority.

 

Figure 5 in Appendix B is a chart giving the total statistics. Some examples of use provided by respondents are:

Ø      Peer assessment (presenting a case or reviewing peer artefacts) 

Ø      Helping with student teachers / mentors whilst on placement

Ø      Collaborative writing projects with other colleagues

Ø      Recording of lectures/teaching sessions as learning material in VLE 

 

When asked to describe the type of educational use respondents were interested in for using WVC supervision and tutorial support was highlighted.

 

The last section of the survey contained responses to the WVC SWOT analysis:

Strength:

Two key threads from the comments made were:

1) time/cost savings – “In two sessions we have saved 16 hours travel time for me and the students. They found it very user friendly and easy to use. They love it!  Often talking about deeply held issues so very good to see response and also to on the white board and notes together.“

 

2) multi-modal nature of the communication – “ability to pick up on visual clues (nodding agreement, smiles etc) that makes communicating at a distance so difficult and so unrewarding.”

 

Weakness:

A combination of technical weakness linked to slow bandwidth and the need for good communication protocols is summarised by, “slowness - the long wait - this negates the strengths for me - I'd rather use a simple combination of programmes such as Skype and Subethaedit - much more effective for my purposes Also, it doesn't seem to cope with all participants freely using the features - almost seems to need someone in charge which isn't my idea of equal partnership.” 

 

Opportunities:

A thread of opportunity which emerged from the survey focused on the international community, “Distance Learning for a dispersed university community, Teaching large groups, International links. “ and “our international and trans-national activity.”

 

Threat

One comment  captured many of the threats voiced was, “Need to have reliable and fast enough internet connectivity. Learners limited to local libraries, collaborative hostel or own connection. There is also a possibility that learners will not attend formal classes if they are able to communicate with tutor from bed.”

 

It is the intent of this study to continue this survey for longer than the six months of the project to gather more data. We have sent the web address to the Macromedia Education Leaders Programme to get more feedback from their expertise.

Questionnaire
This survey contains the summary results of the responses listed in the square brackets. These numbers were generated from the sample of two interviewers, one interviewee and one administrative support staff member ( 4 in total).

Sample: DProf. Interview Questionnaire

This questionnaire will take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please answer all questions. All results will be kept anonymous. Thanks for your help. Research Project Manager-Anthony ‘Skip’ Basiel

[5-v.good, 4-good, 3-average, 2-fair, 1-poor, 0-unknown/not applicable]

 

A) Critical comparison to other forms of interview:

[ 3,3,1,4 = 2.75 ] 1.Based on your prior knowledge, please rate this web video conference interview with your experience of any other face-to-face interview. (Or, how you would envisage this comparison?)

      2. What factors contribute to this rating? ___________________________________

[ 0, 0, 3,3 = 3  ] 3. Based on your prior knowledge, please rate this web video conference interview with your experience of any other telephone interview. (Or, how you would envisage this comparison?)

      4. What factors contribute to this rating? ___________________________________

B) Technical usability:

[ 1, 4, 3, 3 = 2.75  ] 5. Please rate the web video conference software system in terms of ease of setting up.

      6. What factors contribute to this rating? ___________________________________

[ 1, 4, 4, 3 = 3.0  ] 7. Please rate the web video conference software system in terms of ease of use during the online interview.

      8. What factors contribute to this rating? ___________________________________

C) Expectations and perspectives:

[  1,4,3,3 = 2.75 ] 9. Before you experienced this video conference interview you may have formed some expectations of what the results would be like. Please rate your actual experience as compared to your expectations. (i.e. – 5 would mean the interview was exactly what you expected.)

      10. What factors contribute to this rating? ___________________________________

D) Follow-up interview:

Please email me at pros@mdx.ac.uk or leave a phone message at: [44] 208 411 6118 if you would be willing to do short informal follow-up interview.

NAME: ____________________________Telephone number:  __________________

Best Day/Time to contact you: ___ ___ / Feb. / 2005  @ ___ ___: ___ ___ (GMT)

(Or we could do a Web Video Conference)

 

 

 

Appendix 2

6) Please rate the following examples of educational web video conferencing in the context of your situation at your organisation based on your priorities:



Responses

 

Very High priority 

High priority 

Medium priority 

Low priority 

Not applicable 

Totals

Student interviews

15.00% (3)

5.00% (1)

25.00% (5)

40.00% (8)

15.00% (3)

20

Conduct inductions or training sessions

10.00% (2)

35.00% (7)

20.00% (4)

20.00% (4)

15.00% (3)

20

Administration or technical support

10.00% (2)

20.00% (4)

25.00% (5)

30.00% (6)

15.00% (3)

20

Academic help desk

15.00% (3)

5.00% (1)

25.00% (5)

35.00% (7)

20.00% (4)

20

Language support for ESOL (overseas) students

5.00% (1)

20.00% (4)

20.00% (4)

35.00% (7)

20.00% (4)

20

Supervisory (ie dissertations)

25.00% (5)

15.00% (3)

25.00% (5)

20.00% (4)

15.00% (3)

20

Tutorials (1-2-1)

25.00% (5)

30.00% (6)

20.00% (4)

15.00% (3)

10.00% (2)

20

Tutorials (1-2-many)

20.00% (4)

30.00% (6)

15.00% (3)

25.00% (5)

10.00% (2)

20

Tutorials (many-2-many)

15.00% (3)

25.00% (5)

25.00% (5)

25.00% (5)

10.00% (2)

20

Research (ie data collection)

10.00% (2)

20.00% (4)

20.00% (4)

35.00% (7)

15.00% (3)

20

Peer collaboration

30.00% (6)

20.00% (4)

30.00% (6)

10.00% (2)

10.00% (2)

20

Assessment (ie project presentations)

30.00% (6)

5.00% (1)

35.00% (7)

20.00% (4)

10.00% (2)

20

Academic board representation

10.00% (2)

10.00% (2)

25.00% (5)

35.00% (7)

20.00% (4)

20

Totals

16.92% (44)

18.46% (48)

23.85% (62)

26.54% (69)

14.23% (37)

260

 

Figure 8 Summary of examples of WVC use by priority


Appendix B

 Related case studies

Focus Group Analysis

This section of the report analyses the focus group meetings discussions held monthly through the course of the project. The themes that have emerged from the topics discussed had three macro-level groupings; technical, pedagogical and social. From these topics  I have made sub-groups entitled; technical prerequisites, staff training, general technical issues, alternative technologies, administrative concerns, communication media, pedagogical models, informal learning, social quality of eLearning and interactive design. Each of these sub-sections is organised in two parts; the issues and the summary recommendations for that topic.

 

Technical Prerequisites:

There were two main issues under the heading of ‘prerequisites’ concerning WVC:

1.        Breeze staff training and organisational adoption.

2.        Technical prerequisites to provide robust WVC service.

 

Staff training

Breeze has a wealth of induction materials at the www.macromedia.com website. Middlesex University will need to take over the pilot training done by member groups of the Breeze Consortium (i.e. – Library Services and LLE – Summer School). Academic staff expressed the design of ICT training in these terms, “people want ICT to be easy. We want an ‘idiot’s guide’.”” We need to have administrative and technical support available at both ends of the conference. If there is a problem, help would come in.”

Students and staff will have a varied ICT skill and confidence level. “Some of our teachers did not even use e-mail yet.”

 

Technical prerequisites

The following technical areas need to be cross linked to the Macromedia specifications and applied to the specific context of use for WVC at Middlesex University:

*       PC operating system (there may be some conflict with Macs and Windows NT).

*       Processor capability (min. 800MHtz.)

*       USB ports for web cams

*       Sound card and speakers

*       Head-set for PC microphone and earphones

*       Memory – minimum 512 RAM

*       Web cam (USB connector)

*       Broadband network connection

*       Telephone with external speaker as back-up to PC sound

 

Summary:

The following recommendations have emerged from this study concerning the prerequisites of using Breeze:

*       Middlesex University Staff Development should liaise with members of the Breeze Consortium to formulate a strategy for making the transition to taking over the maintenance of Breeze.

*       A novice entry level check list should be established for PC skills and confidence.

*       Technical prerequisites should be taken from the Macromedia website and adapted to our context at Middlesex University

Staff training

In any educational technology innovation in Higher Education (or industry for that matter) staff training is an issue that can not be overlooked. In relation to this project the NCWBLP hosted an Association for Learning Technology (ALT) workshop on web-based video conferencing (WVC) (www.lle.mdx.ac.uk/lle/alt - confirm). Additionally, a Middlesex University Summer School course was piloted: Web Cams and Web-based Video Conferencing.

 

ALT WVC workshop:

The two-stage structure of the event was met with very positive feedback. The first day was held face-to-face (f2f) at the Trent Park Campus of Middlesex University. Although the session itself went seamlessly, the preparation of the PC lab to host the session was problematic. Currently Computing Services of the university only allow software to be added to the student PC labs twice a year. Despite submitting our application in a timely fashion we encountered resistance in getting the lab ready for the ALT-WVC workshop. We found that our Breeze Communication Server was the only robust WVC service that would work within the restrictions of our intranet security and firewalls. In some cases this meant we had to use the Breeze account we have with the Macromedia Server in America. This project recommends that a follow-up investigation should be done to establish the technical reasons for the ‘blocks to service’ in using Breeze, so we can create a set of guidelines for use to provide ‘best case’ options.

 

The second stage of the workshop was conducted online using Breeze and a telephone conferencing system. Attendance was about half that of the f2f session which seems to be a pattern. We had a similar result in our project when we held a monthly meeting via Breeze. This project recommends a follow-up study to see if over time and increased usage attendance to online meetings increases. A survey of participants could also be conducted to establish motivation. Are online meetings seen to be as important as f2f sessions?

 

Summer School:

A five-week pilot course was held over the 2005 Middlesex University Summer School entitled, “Web Cams and Web-based Video Conferencing”. It had a diverse range of attendees in and out of the university. Representatives were from the School of Computing Science, Global Campus, School of Health and Social Science, Library Resources and the International Office. Additionally, two students from Barnet College who had taken a Week End College Web Design class participated.

 

We encountered the same difficulties in setting up the lab with software. It was our intention to expose the class to a variety of WVC software solutions such as Microsoft NetMeeting and Messenger as well as Yahoo Messenger. As the PC lab was configured for student use we had no success in using anything but Breeze on the university corporate desktop.

 

The goal of the class was to have each student do a Breeze Live PowerPoint presentation of 3 slides at the end of the 5 weeks. The topic was open so they could investigate issues that were relevant to their situations. Interestingly, one participant was going on leave for the last session and was unable to come in physically for the class. She did her talk using Breeze from home with a speaker phone set up in the PC lab. Other talks included a wide range of topics:

*       A demonstration of Microsoft Presenter software  was provided offering an alternative to Breeze. This system captures video presentations for online lectures.

*       Web casting was demonstrated. This is real-time video streaming to show sight and sound from the location of the web cam.

*       Other talks raised issues concerning pedagogy for WVC sessions.

 

Summary:

Our recommendations for the issues related to Continuing Professional Development at Middlesex University are focused at the organisations involved in staff training and the groups responsible for installing software:

*       CCSS will at some point in the near future need to take over responsibility of the Macromedia Breeze Communication Server from the Breeze Consortium. A pass-over strategy needs to be established.

*       Appropriate software to support WVC at Middlesex University needs to be installed on the Corporate Desktop.

*       The Middlesex University Staff Development team need to liaise with the Breeze Consortium to gain knowledge from the case studies done with the various partners.

General technical issues:

Two threads of discussion emerged from the project focus groups:

Ø       Reliability due to a robust network connection

Ø       Open source software versus commercial products

 

Network Connection

Without a broadband connection you can not get the optimal performance in your WVC system. Macromedia provide a pre-test at:

http://www.macromedia.com/software/breeze/productinfo/meeting/meeting_intro.html or you can use an external websites such as:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=bandwidth+test&meta=

or within Breeze Live itself you can click on the latency button in the top left (v4) or right (v5) of the screen:

 

Figure 1 Breeze 4 bandwidth prompt

Figure 2 Breeze 5 bandwidth prompt

Table 20 Version 4 (left) Version 5 (right)

At Middlesex University there is a bureaucratic procedure in place to have computing services make a modification or test of the network or add software to the corporate desktop. This is called a request for change (RFC) form. This process is lengthy and often lacks feedback to the applicant making the request. In the case of the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning: Work Based Learning  (CEWBL) it took over two months for technicians to establish that the 100 MB/sec. Bandwidth connection to the Super-JANET network was diminished to less than 2 MB as second at the desktop. At the time of this writing a follow-up report has not been submitted to explain this drop in service for network bandwidth.

 

Open Source Software

Macromedia is a proprietary WVC system. This means we do not have access to the software source code to make modifications to the system. There are a growing number of open source VLE solutions (e.g. – Moodle) and web-based video conference systems. To progress the research and development of educational WVC at Middlesex University in addition to our continued relations with Macromedia through the Macromedia Educational Leadership Programme open source alternatives need to be explored. Continued relations should be fostered with academic institutions such as Dublin City University, Ireland who have made the transition from WebCT to Moodle.

 

Summary:

The following are suggestions that have emerged from the study:

*       Middlesex University Computing Services should revisit the request for change procedures to improve turn-around time and ensure feedback is provided to the applicant in a timely fashion.

*       A network test should be made to determine bandwidth and network reliability for all CETLs (WBL and Health). Changes should be made as necessary.

*       Middlesex University should research and develop open source VLE solutions in parallel with its development of WebCT as the main eLearning support system.

 

Alternative Technologies:

All case study groups felt the opportunity for real-time collaboration using the Breeze whiteboard was a useful learning/teaching tool. It was also agreed to have a back-up system in place, such as a conference phone or real-time text tool. However, not all groups found the WVC system to be robust. The MIDWHEB case study group had a number of problems with cameras and network connections as well as online sound. This may have been, in part, due to the use of Apple/Mac operating systems. These technical issues lead the group to research alternative technologies such as:

*       Skype - for online telephony,

*       Subeither Edit – a free whiteboard for shared document editing,

*       Yahoo Groups – for threaded asynchronous text discussions,

*       Wikis – online dictionary resource edited by the users,

*       Blogs – online diaries and journals.

*       Maratech – an alternative web video conferencing system

*       Mind mapping software: http://emap.ihmc.us/

 

Blogs were related to the project for two reasons. The first, because the MIDWHEB case study group leader kept a research Blog on the project at:

http://slartibartfast.ultralab.net/~blogger/breeze/

and we attempted to use Breeze as an online research Blog at:

http://macromedia.breezecentral.com/r1739929/ login as guest.

 

A critical comparison of the websites shows that Breeze was not designed to be a Blog tool. Although it can be ‘nudged’ into this category of online learning resource, it is not a natural match. In this project, the use of Breeze of as a Research Blog just did not catch on. A recommendation to Macromedia may be to explore this as a possible area to develop an alternative market for Breeze in future versions.

 

In current versions of ‘instant messenger’ systems on the web, such as MSN or Yahoo Messenger, there is the facility to be automatically notified when members of your ‘group’ are logged in so you may open an unplanned or unscheduled real-time conference. This facility is not available in version 4 of Breeze. Ralph Commins, Distance Learning and Web Manager for the School of Lifelong Learning and Education at Middlesex University, has started looking at integrating Breeze with Moodle (an open source VLE). Another ‘spin-off’ project from this study would be to investigate the technology and pedagogy involved in conferencing and learning in an ‘informal or unscheduled’ structure. This style of learning is not currently supported by WebCT.

 

Summary:

Our investigation recommends:

*       The emerging issue of ‘instant messaging systems’ should be examined in relation to WVC technologies.

*       Alternative online communication and collaboration technologies should continue to be researched and synthesised with Breeze for appropriate pedagogical usage.

 

Administrative issues:

One of the key ‘administrative’ issues related to this project concerned the use of WVC in a ‘working-from-home’ context. Middlesex University has a Human Resources policy [add URL] in place that does not yet address the use of WVC technology. In brief, if you are ‘working-from-home’ in a full-time capacity with permission from your line manager, you are entitled to £2 month compensation. You have to pay for your broad band connection (currently averaging £15 a month).

 

Equally vague in the context of this policy is working outside of the 9-to-5 daily work load. In the case of WVC and international students it may be likely that online tutorials or lectures need to be made outside this normal working day. Currently, it seems to be the policy to individually negotiate with your line manager procedures and tracking for student support done from home during ‘off hours’. The MA in Educational Leadership (check actual title) case study leader stated, “motivation is high from students as we are in an exploratory (pilot) case study situation. Some of our MA students will be returning to their home counties as they are overseas learners to complete their dissertation projects.”

 

Summary:

This study makes the following recommendations based upon focus group debriefing:

*       Middlesex University Human Resources needs to revisit the Working-From-Home policy to put it in-line financially with the current costs of Broad Band connections. This bandwidth is needed to offer robust WVC to provide consistent service to the overseas students.

*       A consistent policy should be established with a time tracking strategy in place for online support from staff. Technically this can be monitored through the Breeze Communication Server logs to quantify online support activity.

*       A follow-up case study should be done with the MA students as they will have mixed level of access to WVC. This is due to the variety of telecommunication infrastructures in the student’s home countries as well as the differences in workplace network security (ie – firewalls).

We have been informed by CLD that the Small Project Fund is established as a one-off research project. This study suggests that this policy be revised to accommodate follow-up investigations. The current model is restrictive in both time and limited resources provided. A ‘second-phase bid’ approach would give opportunities to gain more detailed understanding of the issues being investigated.

 

 

 

Communication Media:

Web-based video conferencing as a communication media was another discussion point for the focus groups. There was no final consensus made on the added value of seeing the video image of the person you were communicating with online. This may, in part, be due to the lower frame rate and generally weaker quality of web-based video over a restricted bandwidth connection.  Many of the project academics or tutors were ‘put off’ by the use of ‘visuals’ provided to the learners. However, in at least one case, the learners seemed more receptive. In fact, with the NCWBLP case study Veterinary group one student was ‘phone-a-phobic’. That is she was not comfortable having an unstructured tutorial session on the phone. She was fine to answer questions to her clients as she had a prepared FAQ script from which she referred to. When she had her tutorial sessions using Breeze, the fact she could see her tutor’s face online stopped anxiety she felt during phone conferences.

 

The Breeze Live Presenter needs to determine the ‘added value’ of the ‘eye-to-eye’ contact and body language exchange for the session. Generally, WVC works best with a close-up ‘head shot’ of the participants. Full-body presentations with large fast movements should be avoided. This issue is addressed in the study with our discussion of hand-held wireless web cams and related presentation pedagogy.


Summary:

This study recommends that each tutor will need to assess the appropriate use of web video for their set of circumstances. Here are some options that Breeze supports in this context:

*       No video – It is possible to use only sound during the Breeze conference simulating a web-based telephone session. This option maximises the bandwidth.

*       Still image – It is possible to start the session with video and then ‘freeze’ the image to a still graphic. This process can be turned on or off at any time of the session. Here you can at least see the person’s face, but lack the facial visual cues.

*       Full video (low frame rate) – This can be achieved by setting the meeting to a Modem connection speed. A slow choppy video appears often with sound synchronisation problems.

*       Full video (high frame rate) – Setting the meeting at a LAN connection gives the best video quality.

 

Other technical factors concern the quality of the web cam itself, the lighting in the room, consistent broadband connection (check the green light in the top left for latency in Breeze version 4) and the size of the video window (you can customise the Breeze ‘pods’).

 

WVC Pedagogic Models:

A learner-centred pedagogical model was endorsed by the project stakeholders:

“Part of the (learning) equation is need. The learner’s needs should drive the technology.” “Our students need support, dialogue and human contact. Management should not be done on a ‘mass approach”. “The ethos we want to promote is that of ‘personal support’.”

 

The question of a supporting learning theory emerged from the critical discourse. Our research is closely linked to social constructivism set in a web-based context. This theoretical grounding is expanded in section [ ???? ] of the report. The social aspect of online learning was supported by the MA student group who wanted to establish an online peer support network.

 

“Affirmation is a core issue. We want the feeling that we are part of an (online) community.” We heed Myerson’s warning of “replacing meanings with messages, consensus with instructions and insight with information” (Myerson, 2001, p. 65)

 

We want the best situation that enables us to be understood in a tutorial.

“It (learning) is more effective if you have made an initial bond with (online) students.” But, “there is a lot of set-up time; you need to have materials and protocols to push the limit (of the online system).”As evidence of this shift in personalised support online it was noted that “relationships therapy is moving towards phone and the internet to support the client or patient.”

 

 

 

 

 

The following table summarises the matrix of group interaction in the context of WVC:

Matrix of group interaction for WVC

Tutor / Student

One

Small group (< 10)

Large group (>10)

One

 

 

     Ideal for WVC

Needs to have:
- a local facilitator. - data projector and good audio system

Needs to have:
- a local facilitator. - data projector and good audio system

Small group

(together in same physical space)

Consider seating so images are in the frame 

Must establish physical location of participants (one place or many).

Communication protocols needed to provide structure to discourse.

Small group

(many 1’s in video window)

Presenter needs to establish system control

Moderation guidelines need to be set in advance with task

Pre-set structure is needed to keep dialogue on track.

Large group

(together in same physical space)

A portable microphone +/or web cam may be needed

Sub-group leaders may be needed

Sub-groups summaries help keep discussion moving.

Large group

(many 1’s in video window)

Like a TV phone in chat show with many little windows.

A ‘hand raising’ protocol/tool may be needed (in Breeze).

May be good for introductions, but then move to smaller groups.

Table 21Group size - suggested protocols

Summary:

The pedagogical recommendations for a WVC context are:

*       Work with the learning principles, not just the software.

*       The project was a success. We have NCWBLP staff (academic and administrative) thinking about how WVC can be used (ie – tutorials, interviews, overseas staff development, etc.).

 

Informal Learning:

Building off the theme of interactive design was the identification of the need for ‘informal learning’ opportunities. This may be roughly defined as learning that is not formally structured or planned for in the curriculum design. In a Work Based Learning context it may be the discussion that occurs over a cup of coffee after the formal staff training has finished.

 

As discussed earlier in the Staff Development section an issue was highlighted concerning attendance to formal meetings online. “Breeze may be able to accommodate ‘spontaneous’ learning interactions if we can alert online stakeholders that tutors and students are available. I argue for informality in eLearning.” This was the mantra of several project leaders. This was supported by one of the NCWBLP case studies, “For our students (the vets) if we say – ‘I’ll be around all morning’ – it makes them more relaxed about tutorials online.”

 

Summary:

This study recognises the value of informal learning. Suggestions based on focus group discussions are:

*       Provide an opportunity in your eLearning design for informal learning.

Explore technologies that are appropriate for less structured learning interactions.

 

Social Quality:

We want a 2-way process to promote a culture that can cope with shifting and developing research.” “We do not want to impart information; we want ‘change dialogue’.”

 

“Trust and affirmation is a core part of online communication… (that) has to do with the richness of people (virtually) coming together.” “The sense of (online) ‘presence’ makes a difference.”

 

“Technology helps mediate the feeling.” “The students need to know the ‘way you ask a question’… because you can not interpret the silence.”

 

Reaction to the social quality of WVC was mixed. For example, one student said she had a ‘bad hair day’, so she by the window to make her image a silhouette. While others had a more positive experience, “WVC made a difference for the student who did not feel comfortable to have discussions by the phone.” But we were cautioned not to use technology as a crutch. For example, Psychologists that are on call 24/7 for at-risk clients give them the assurance that someone is always there. Would we be able to maintain and support learners to this degree? Or would we want to?

 

Summary:

There is much focus on the technology involved for WVC. This investigation highlights the importance of identifying the social quality of eLearning which Breeze seems to have the potential to support. Our recommendations are:

*       Give learners the opportunity to network, collaborate and form an online social community.

*       Identify where and when social exchange occurs so that the circumstances can be replicated appropriately.

*       Promote staff development which helps tutors identify and refine their sense of online presence in a learning context.

 

Interactive Design:

Breeze was seen as a learning environment that offered a different type of learning interaction to that of other VLEs such as WebCT. The opportunity for real-time video and collaboration raised a new issue as interactive design.

 

Not all case study groups agreed on the value of the video; “When it did work there was good sound, but not (good) images. We felt the video (in this situation) did not give added value.” Others felt, “Cameras and faces are important (for learning interaction).” “For a collaborative design you have to identify the problem, and then plan the next move. This is the type of interaction we want.”

 

One-way interaction was not wanted. We wanted to be able to let everyone have control. Breeze Presenters (the meeting moderator) can ‘promote’ students to ‘presenters’ giving them access to the system controls. Pedagogically, however, this changes the shift from a teacher-led activity to a learner-centred approach. Associated online protocols need to be in place to prevent total chaos from replacing meaningful communication and collaboration.

 

Location of the WVC kit is associated with the type of interaction. Should the web video conference be restricted to a WVC room? Should every PC in the office be equipped with web cams and headsets? Is this any different than the use of telephones in an open office space? What procedures can be in place to prevent interruptions of WVC events? Access and location may vary on the goals of the WVC and the physical space available. One group leader said, “When we first started I wanted a specific place for WVC, not I want it for everyday use.”

 

Summary:

The following recommendations have emerged from this thread of the investigation:

*       There is a need to have the right platform to express your personality online. Further study needs to focus on the technical and communication protocols to support meaningful discussion and collaboration.

Location of the WVC system needs to be planned ahead for appropriate usage. Where possible, WVC should not be constrained to one location. Signs should be posted on doors for private conferences to avoid interruption.

 

Supporting examples – cases studies

This section of the report is broken into several parts. First there is a detailed description of the Professional Doctorate Interview. Next there is the NCWBLP case study. The next two case studies are presented through discussion analysis. First is the MIDWHEB Blog, an online diary. Finally, the MA Education Leadership discussion is summarised.


Web Based Video Conferencing (WBVC) Project:  Supporting M/DProf Candidates - Dr Pauline Armsby

 

Introduction / background context
The M/DProf programme is similar to a PhD in that each candidate has an Adviser (Director of Studies) that works with them throughout the whole programme, with heavy use of tutorial support.  Candidates are spread right across the world, and so any medium that can support tutorials would be a welcome addition.   In addition, application interviews, oral presentations and team meetings with staff at overseas centres may benefit from the use of web based video conferencing.  Core staff at the NCWBLP who run the M/DProf have slowly been developing their expertise in using electronic and communications technologies in their work with candidates and this project provides another opportunity to develop this further.  The project therefore took a broad brush approach to staff development and hence improving teaching and learning in this area.

 

Aim

To enable M/DProf staff to use WBVC to support their work on the M/DProf.

Objectives

-to fit equipment on machines

-to learn how to use the equipment

-to use the equipment in as many situations as possible

-to improve interviewing process for potential candidates

-to improve the quality of remote tutorials

-to mentor staff in remote locations

-for each user to informally evaluate the effectiveness of each usage

 

Research methodology/Approach /Techniques

A broadly defined case study approach was used encompassing the majority of staff working on the M/DProf.  One significant sub group case study (appendix 2 and 4) looked at fairly intensive one to one supervision sessions with a small cohort of doctoral candidates who were working with an Adviser from one of our partner organisations (PDF).   Other staff participating in the project took a more ad hoc approach to meeting the aims and objectives of the project by taking any opportunities that arose to communicate with candidates or each other, and evaluating the outcomes by whatever means possible, for example, email response from participants. A summative email evaluation asked participants to outline their learning during the web based video conferencing project.

 

Criteria for Success

-an increase in the number of usages of the webcam

-an increase in the number of staff using web cams

-a development of staff confidence in using web cams (self evaluation)

-a development of staff understanding of the effectiveness of using web cams (self evaluation)

 

Staff included in the pilot and their role

Academic

Relevant role

Possible activity

P A

Adviser, GCWBLP and S Africa link, Admissions

Remote advisee work, admissions, PAPs, mentoring overseas staff

C C

Adviser, Cyprus link

Remote advisee work, PAPs, mentoring overseas staff

M D

Adviser,

Remote advisee work, PAPs,

A F T

Adviser, PDF

Remote advisee work (vets), being mentored by PA

J G

Adviser, HK link

Remote advisee work, PAPs, mentoring overseas staff

F M

Adviser (home link)

Being mentored by PA

J N

Adviser, ICWBLP link

Remote advisee work, PAPs, mentoring overseas staff

Administrators

 

 

G A

Admin Manager

mentoring overseas staff

V B

Cyprus admin

mentee

J B

VLE Supervisor

mentoring overseas staff

S W

admin for admissions, assessment; overseas mentoring

mentoring overseas staff

 

Case Study Project Activity Log

Feedback from users who have trialled the system is in appendix 1

 

24 Jan- Email to Ralph asking for the equipment to be put in place and to all M/DProf core staff advising them their machines would be fitted and to consider how they might best use WBVC

16 Feb- Web cams arrived- email Ralph to help me set up.  DPS Operational Team meeting discussed using web cams when working with candidates.

25 Feb- Web cams were fitted and tested on computers for PA, CC,MD, JN, JG and SW.  PA, CC and SW took part in a meeting to familiarise themselves with the facilities

1/3- Meeting with AFT.  Gave her a web cam which she will set up so she can liaise with PA and her candidates.

2/3- PA set up a meeting with an overseas candidates (Germany)*. Through a setup error of not enabling all internet users access  it was necessary for RC to  intervene and set up a meeting area.  This was successfully used, although the candidate had not set up their web cam yet so was only able to see PA whilst talking on the phone.

3/3- DProf team were asked to take part in a group meeting, assisted by AB and RC.  SW, MD, CC, PA and FM took part.  PA set up the meeting. Getting visuals was immediate. Eventually we were all able to hear each other.

10/3- PA took part in the Breeze demonstration.  It took a long time checking connections etc with Ralph and Skip running back and forth, and did not work very well which was quite disheartening.

16/3- PA set up a meeting with some prospective candidates in Qatar*.  They purchased the webcam specifically to have the meeting.  Hence I was not confident it would go smoothly.  There were some initial connection problems (they could not see us), however with Skip’s help (who was mercifully available to assist) we got full visual and oral communication and had a very successful meeting in which I felt I was able to ‘interact’ with the prospective candidate

23/3-  ‘A’ provided a rationale for the inclusion of the DProf candidates she works with  (see appendix 2)

6/4- Attended half of the Breeze training session run by Skip and Ralph.  Annette has asked for administrator rights.  Have continued to suggest web cam meetings to the team where appropriate.

20/4  Have continued to encourage people to use Breeze but to no avail.  I logged into the HSS psychology research seminar which was interesting in terms of its content and in relation to how it felt to be a remote participant.  As someone who would not normally speak up when present at these occasions I felt empowered to contribute.  I think this is due to being anonymous (in the not seen sense rather than the not known sense) to the other participants.  I was also able to formulate written words rather than verbal ones so that I could make clear my meaning.  Another issue that emerged is how dislocated one can feel as a remote participant.  I was sensitive to not being acknowledged on the system.  Reacting as I would if someone did not acknowledge me in a face to face situation. Overall, I felt a very successful event, although the animations did not work.

21/4 ‘F, J’ and I had an unproductive breeze meeting.  We eventually got pictures but never all got to hearing each other.  This left me feeling less confident in using the system alone again.  Later, Janet said she found out what the problem was so we will need to try again.

29/4 Breeze Meeting- I was unable to attend.

23/5 Have continued to encourage candidates and staff to use Breeze but to no avail.  Even the most technical candidate of mine does not have easy access to a web cam and appears to find it unnecessary.

25/5 Nagging has paid off, the Cyprus team had a web cam meeting (see appendix 3 for feedback)

20/6 DProf. candidate has rejected the possibility of doing a Breeze mock presentation because he says that his work’s network will not allow it.  I don’t know if this is the case but he is happy enough with a telephone mock.

20/6 Another DProf candidates has turned down the opportunity of a Breeze tutorial.  My impression is that he is quite happy with a telephone tutorial.  It’s not worth extra hassle just to be able to see me! 

 

Results and Analysis

In general, the data available from the project activity log in the previous section, the feedback from the sub group case studies (appendix 3 and 4) and the summative staff evaluation (appendix 5) showed that increased usage resulted in staff developing their understanding and confidence in the use of WBVC. Staff probably participated partly for novelty and partly because they had agreed to trial the system.  Most staff had some, if minimal involvement.  Feedback showed that meetings took extra time to set up and this was a problem for staff with very busy work schedules.  The time cost weighs heavily for staff and non-staff in the cost benefit analysis.

 

Staff had some concerns with regard to the technology; technical difficulties in achieving sound together with voice synchronisation problems exacerbated these.  The tools available were used most effectively in the supervision of GP vets sub case study (appendix 4).  Overall, the tools were positively received.  Novice user status probably increased set up time and hence stopped staff using the system as often as they might have done if the system had been set up for them.

 

Limited feedback from non staff users pointed to an overall positive experience.  However, some refusals to be involved by non staff (see 20/6 log entries above) may indicate that the extra time and technology requirements discouraged usage

 

6 of the 10 staff included in the pilot responded to an email request for feedback on what they had gained from the project (see appendix 5).  Those who did not respond had either no, or more limited participation in the project.  The responses suggested that learning had taken place

The following table summarises the analysis of the data:

Factors:
(issues / concerns)

How it’s addressed
(designed / implemented):

Lesson(s) learnt:

(towards recommendations)

1.0 Pedagogy

 

 

1.1 familiarising staff and candidates with the technology

1.2 being comfortable with the technology

1.3 being comfortable with the media

1.1 in a busy work setting the drip feed approach worked with staff.  By enlarge non staff users organised their own equipment

1.2 a trial meeting before a significant meeting can improve confidence in staff and non staff users

1.3 being extra vigilant and attentive to other participants

1.1 Customised sheets for staff and candidates on logging on would be useful.

1.2 It takes more time than one would like so costs and benefits for both parties need to be carefully weighed.

1.3 Lack of eye contact/ability to read body language must be compensated for.

2.0 Technology

 

 

2.1 Voice synchronisation

2.2 Sharing word documents directly is not possible

2.1 when this worked it was very effective, when it did not resorting the phone was acceptable but not preferable especially for the phone phobic.

2.2 Cut and paste

2.1 trials should sort out if voice sync works.  If it does not then there is a less effective fall back.

2.2 Sharing texts is an important tool

3.0 Policy / Procedures

 

 

3.1 Preparation for WBVC

3.2 Number of participants should be manageable

3.1 Setting up early and uploading materials to prevent wasted time in the meeting is more important than when if a F2F meeting (link to pedagogy above)

3.2 In trials we ‘squeezed together’ which was difficult to manage, especially given the crowded office environment

3.1 Time is distilled in a meeting.  Participants feel they must make use of the time more effectively than in F2F

3.2 Don’t include too many people in the meeting as it confuses the interaction

Table 22: Summary Case Study:  Supporting M/DProf Candidates

Conclusions -
The aim of the project to enable M/DProf staff to use WBVC to support their work on the M/DProf was partially met.  All participants had equipment fitted and learned how to use the equipment in basic mode.  The equipment was used in a variety of settings, for prospective and formal interview; for tutorials and for staff development.  There was some agreement that WBVC could improve the interview and tutorial process but only under certain conditions.

 

The criteria for success for success of the project were all met.  There was a perceived increase in the usage of webcam and in the number of staff using them.  Staff reported gaining understanding and confidence in the use of WBVC

 

The following summarises possible guidelines of use for WVC derived from the lessons learnt

 

 

MIDWHEB – Blog analysis

Some educationalists believe you can learn more from your mistakes and failures than your successes. If this is true, the MIDWHEB case study group made a substantial contribution to the project by identifying the barriers to eLearning with web video conferencing.

 

Two main threads have emerged from the analysis of IT’s Blog for the MIDWHEB project case study:

1.             Pedagogical concerns for WVC,

2.             Technical difficulties.

 

 WVC Pedagogy

Appendix C shows six examples of use for Breeze in this case study group. Several online pedagogical issues became apparent from the Blog analysis:

ü       Online interaction of ‘many Ones’

ü       Control of the online discourse

ü       Moderation guidelines

ü       Emotive issues (seeing and hearing together)

ü       Staff training

 

Many Ones –

There are many interaction paths that may be supported by WVC as illustrated in table 1 of this report. Each participant logged into Breeze individually for this case study. This means that each person of the small group had their own video window. The Breeze ‘presenter’ or host of the meeting controls the access rights to the online tools in the WVC environment. For the MIDWHEB online discussions the goal was to have ‘open’ or equal access in a brain storming discourse model.

                “Is there a phrase for many ones at a time to many?” “Nothing concise comes to mind…(but) reciprocal multi-individualistic synchronous (communication).”

 

Control of online discourse -

“Too many people talk at once (is a problem).One-to-one or one-to-many is (better for WVC). Breeze is not good for a group of five all with (duplex – like a telephone, where you can talk and hear at the same time) sound.” “This means it would be great for tutorials, but useless at (many) groups in different locations. Clearly, one-to-many works if they use a desk-top speaker phone system- (like in the British Council – IUG project ).”

 

“I didn’t like the way you could only speak one at a time. I can’t see a dynamic discussion happening under those circumstances.”

 

Moderation guidelines –

A set of online communication protocols is needed for WVC. “One technical solution is to control the number of operatives. It is not only confusing, but more importantly (it leads to) freezing the computer.” “One solution is self-discipline, another – take away privileges, albeit temporarily.”

 

Emotive issues –

In Section 4, the Focus Group Analysis, of this report the social quality of WVC is discussed. In this case study the social quality of eLearning can be as illustrated through, “some great features (in WVC). The video was more important than I realised at the time – it provided an emotive edge; hearing laughter was great, but seeing it was better.”

 

Staff training-

Perhaps many of the problems experienced by this group’s participants could have been avoided if there had been appropriate time and support materials for staff training. For example, one stakeholder felt that “we do not have access to full functionality (of Breeze) and our competence at using the platform in not well developed.”

 

Summary

The following guidelines are suggested to address the problems encountered by this case study group:

ü       A Breeze staff training package should be available to stakeholders,

ü       Clear pedagogical models need to be established to identify the patterns of interaction,

ü       Possible moderation guidelines should be provided before WVC discourse,

ü       Online communication has a social quality. This factor needs to be considered in the design principles of WVC learning.

 

Technical Difficulties:

The issues discussed in this section relate to the technical problems encountered in the study.

 

WVC technology with Apple/Mac operating systems:

Many technical problems occurred in this group due to these technical constraints:

             use of the Apple/Mac operating system,

             Web cam compatibility,

             Network constraints,

             Sound over IP (Internet Protocol or the web).

 

Apple/Mac operating systems –

This cohort used predominantly Apple/Mac computers to support their online communication via Breeze. This proved to be problematic. Some of the technical difficulties were:

ü       “It appears we can not upload content from the desk-top. It would also seem that this not possible using Apple/Mac hardware.”[NB: This was written for version 4 of the Breeze Flash Communication Server. Version 5 may have addressed this problem.]

ü       “Logging out is problematic, and there is no option apart from closing the browser.”

ü       “While working from home on wireless broadband I crashed out three times on each browser; Safari, Firefox and Explorer.”

 

Web cam compatibility –

Web cam access is a technical prerequisite: “I do not appear to have rights even to switch on the camera.”

 

Network constraints –

Although Breeze has several settings (ie LAN, ISDL, and Modem) and the ability to turn off the sound or video to conserve bandwidth, you will not have a robust connection with anything less than 2 Megabytes a second rate.  In one case, “’G’ was on broadband and ‘P’ was on dial-up using the Breeze whiteboard, text and sound. “The sound was too intermediate, delayed and echoing to be of any use.”

 

PC sound issues –

Using PC sound with Breeze version 4 is unreliable. “We found oral communication (over the PC) impossible and opted for a telephone connection instead.” Reliable sound can be accommodated by freezing the video and setting the network speed to the appropriate bandwidth.

 

 

Summary

These technical suggestions may help prevent hard/software problems:

v      Pre-test all systems before the ‘live’ WVC event,

v      Check the bandwidth connection speed using the Breeze resources,

v      Try different web browsers for access speed to Breeze,

v      Have a telephone conferencing system in place as a back-up it the PC sound system did not work.

 

General Summary

Although we do not want the technology to drive the pedagogy in our eLearning efforts we have to recognise the value or constraints our electronic tools provide. Here are the suggestions we offer to guide in the use of our hard/software for learning:

ü       Pre-test the systems and networks several days before the learning event. Then test again at least an hour before you ‘go live’.

ü       Have back-up technologies in place (i.e. – speaker phone for PC sound).

ü       Test room set-up for lighting, sound, seating, video framing, etc.

ü       Confirm the time of the event to accommodate international time zones and daylight savings time differences.

ü       Build evaluation into the model. Get feedback from the stakeholders to adjust the protocols for each pedagogical situation.

 

MA in Education, Development and Performance

This section of the report was produced by Mike Riddle the MA’s visiting academic and course tutor.

 

Participation by the MA's teaching staff (3) and students (6) on the Breeze WVC Project was prompted by the need to provide effective tutorial contact between staff and students during students' third semester.  The course design recommends that students return to their home countries during their third semester to finalise their research, write up their dissertations and make their final oral presentations. 

 

The level of student participation in the Breeze Project was governed by the fact that the Breeze tutorial sessions they attended took place in the second semester of the course, that is, at a stage before they could properly evaluate the potential of the software in a working environment.  The level of staff participation was governed by each individual member's responsibilities and other commitments.  It fell to me, as a Visiting Academic (on a part-time teaching arrangement) to track the MA's participation such as it was, and report on it.

 

Students were excited by the software and their interest in its potential was evident from their questions and their readiness to explore its versatility.  Three of them had qualifications in the teaching of Computing and classroom experience.  All were familiarised in e- communication by use of the discussion list which I had made part of the MA learning environment, and most were conversing with each other using MSN Messenger as a synchronous mode of interaction.  During the second semester I joined their chat group, and responded to questions and problems they had about their work.  We could not, for technical reasons (please see below), set up Web Cam contact, but students were in Web Cam contact with friends and family back home.  It seemed to me that given this kind of familiarity with Messenger, they would take Breeze with Web Cam in their stride.

 

From my experience in the chat group and from the Breeze sessions, I was able to consider it in the context of its advantages and disadvantages as a written medium with visual video support.  The unsuccessful demonstrations during the sessions of oral exchanges made these unlikely media of communication.  So, the pluses and minuses that I want to look at apply to the written and visual media, looking at the following: the availability and reliability of the software, redundancy in its design, continuity and connectivity. 

 

There was considerable discussion of the availability of hardware.  Both staff and students were concerned that the requisite equipment and technical environments might not be made available at times when they were needed, namely, when tutorials were conducted across time zones.  Furthermore, students noted that, even if they were keen to prepare themselves in their second semester to use Breeze, the use of Web Cam was not possible for those in Halls of Residence (see above) as the University's system seemed to block Web Cam transmissions.  Such lack of practice added to students anxieties that, once back in their home country, managing the uncertainties of the hardware would be an unwanted distraction from their need to press on with their research and dissertations.

 

As the versatility of Breeze was unrolled it became apparent that the benefits of such versatility to MA staff and students were not likely to outweigh the costs, as long as the main reason for using the software was to conduct one-to-one tutorials.  It seemed that, from a design point of view, the software had built-in redundancy.  Once into the software, everything was available, even if it would never be needed.  Experience with Messenger showed it was adequate for tutorial Purposes, though a case could be made for the advantages of some kind of whiteboard.  Perhaps Breeze could retain its versatility and reduce its redundancy by tailoring its design to the educational/professional needs of different kinds of users.  This point is supported in other areas of the report, where readers can find practical suggestions for making the software more sensitive to users' needs. 

 

In both of the Breeze sessions attended by the MA students, the question arose about what would happen if Breeze could not be got to work satisfactorily in students' home countries.  The solution proposed was to fall back on the group's discussion list, which was reliable, familiar and had proved to be an all-purpose forum for bonding, social arrangements and academic exchanges.  It was only when the solution was mooted that its disadvantages in comparison with Breeze (and other synchronous tools) rapidly became apparent.  The MA curriculum envisaged the Breeze media to be exclusively used for academic purposes, where mutuality of knowledge, logical continuity of conversation, and accurate interpretation of each other's meaning are critical.  These criteria are difficult to meet in any communicative exchange.  In any circumstances, the written E-mail has shown itself to be a deceptive medium, because when messages are brief, meaning and intention risk being mis-interpreted, because decontextualised; and when messages are long, what meaning has been surmised can appear too complex to be handled by reply by e-mail.  How can there be any sense of dialogue in circumstances where much of the original meaning can become distorted by lapse of time, changed contexts and new material?  It is in respect of these criteria that any solution involving e-mail is not a viable option even for the limited needs of the MA.

 

As the versatility of Breeze was unrolled it became apparent that the benefits of such versatility to MA staff and students were not likely to outweigh possible costs, as long as the main reason for using the software was limited to conducting one-to-one tutorials.  Given this condition, it could be argued that, from a design point of view, the software had built-in redundancy.  Once into the software, everything is available - writing/reading, presentation/observation, speaking/listening, and drawing/interpreting.  Not all these communication modes are needed in one-to-one exchanges. 

Experience with Messenger showed writing/reading is adequate for tutorial purposes, and the ability of the software to save conversations for revisiting later makes it more productive than speaking/listening (which, the Breeze sessions made clear, was the least reliable and/or most expensive mode of communication).  However, a case could be made for the advantages of some kind of whiteboard for shared the view of text or diagrams.  Perhaps Breeze could retain its versatility and reduce its redundancy by tailoring its design to the educational/professional needs of different kinds of users.

 

If Breeze (or a substitute, like Messenger) is to be used to deliver synchronous exchanges, it must be treated as an integral part of the course from enrolment.  One suggestion is that the cost of the Web Cam and headset should be absorbed by MA budget.  This would allow early distribution of the kit.  Opportunities could be made for staff/student practice using Breeze, preferably in semester two.  This would solve a number of the problems raised above.  It may seem odd to speak of practice in reference to communication skills which all of us perform adequately without rehearsal.  After all, in Breeze communication is synchronous. Again, this conclusion is supported by other report findings.

 

From my limited experience of conducting tutorials by Messenger, the meaning the term synchronous as "working or moving at the same rate" may apply, but certainly not the meaning "happening at the same time".  Conversational dialogue that seeks to convey meaning is consecutive not simultaneous.  As consecutiveness breaks down, failures in connection creep into the exchanges.  However, continuity in questions and answers can be achieved satisfactorily with practice at observing turn-taking procedures.  Without well adjusted timing of turns, the substance of conversations becomes jumbled, and some breakdown in the meaning of the discourse is bound to occur.  This argues for practice at a stage in the MA course where time spent on Breeze is not seen as a distraction from academic work.

 

Finally, my observation (during the sessions) of the screen images of staff and students on the Web Cam prompts me to suggest that practice in the placing of Web Cam should also be included in the course.  Apart from the lantern effect found in many of the images, seating angles and distance from the camera all require practice to get the best out of the facility.  The Web Cam medium is invaluable for its capacity to increase understanding between interlocutors using writing/reading.  Eye contact and other means of non-verbal communication can help to rescue dialogue from breakdown by regulating continuity.  In addition, visually signalling the emotional temper of the exchanges can greatly enhance meaning and reinforce mutuality of intention, thus satisfying staff/student expectations of the tutorial process.

 

Web Appendix links:

[1] http://www.msn.co.uk ; http://communities.msn.com/TheNetMeetingZone; http://directory.netmeeting.microsoft.com/ MoreInfo/nmMoreInfo2.htm; http://www.tucows.com/preview/193932

[2] http://www.yahoo.co.uk ; messenger.yahoo.com/; zdnet.com.com/3000-2150-10029188.html?legacy=zddl

[3] http://www.msn.co.uk ; messenger.msn.com/; www.e-messenger.net/

[4] http://www.cuseemeworld.com

[5] http://www.macromedia.com/go/gnavtray_breeze_home 

[6] http://www.alt.ac.uk

[7] http://www.lle.mdx.ac.uk/lle/alt/

[8] http://www.macromedia.com/resources/education/k12/special/leaders/  

[9]  http://www.hmco.com/college/education/station/concept/construct/conback.htm  

[10] http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_theory_how2.html

[11] http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/take/?sid=16561

[12] http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk

[13] http://www.macromedia.com/ [Add Breeze temp account URL]

[14] http://www.macromedia.com/ [Add Breeze network diagnostic tool URL]

[15] http://www.mdx.ac.uk/ [Add work at home policy URL]

[16] www.skype.com/

[17] http://www.lr.mdx.ac.uk/comp/webhelpdesk.htm

 

Web Based Video Conferencing (WBVC) Project:  Supporting M/DProf Candidates APPENDIX 1 FEEDBACK FROM NON STAFF USERS

 

2 3 05 DProf candidate in Germany

I thought the overall experience was good.

User interface: The software was easy to log onto and use. We did not use features other than the webcam, so I cannot comment on other parts of the tool. The URL was a bit cumbersome, although manageable. Since my email provider was slow that day, I did not get your email with the URL until an hour after the session. While the web cam’s actual visible area on my side was rather small (approx. 5 x 3.5 cm), the image was all the sharper. The image quality was good.

Bandwidth: I was surprised that, since the last time I tried a similar technology in 1998, bandwidth still appears be an issue. There was quite a bit of delay of the video side. This may be due to the fact that, while overall throughput speeds have increased, in some DSL technologies (especially via cable), users are effectively using the same fixed bandwidth, thus competing with one another. 

Feasibility: It was nice to "see" you for the first time, if only on the screen. Generally, I think webcam technology gives a certain added value for distance learning students. If I also had had a webcam on my side, it could have seemed even more interactive. I would certainly like to try it again.

 

16 3 05 Prospective DProf candidate in Qatar

We purchased the eyeball especially for the communication as we do not normally use this system of communication.

We then had it specially installed for the communication in my room next to the international phone line should the communication break down.

The system took a bit of time to set up because we were not sure which system of communication you were going to use.  When you gave us the macro breeze we were lucky to have our systems manager with us at the time to sort out the communication.  Without his help it could have proved difficult.

The communication was clear and allowed verbal and non verbal communication between parties.  The communication was effective in that we could see you clearly and hear you not so clearly but clearly enough to communicate with you.  Although there was a time delay it was manageable.  The time delay was about one and a half seconds.  But as the conversation went on you got into the rhythm for the timed response. Our systems engineer told us that we have very high speed capability here and I imagine that if we did not have that, the communication might not be so clear and could be slower.  Therefore if this is used with other parties this may be a stumbling block.

In terms of usage I think that being a distance student this helps to put a face to the person for both parties.  It therefore is not a nameless, faceless relationship.  It also is helpful that questions allow the exploration of avenues as a conversation progresses and therefore is natural and seamless.  On the other hand by buddy system or chat room facility it does depend to some extent on the ability of the person to type quickly to have a good conversation.  There is also frustration involved in chat rooms when the flow of information is not satisfactory.

If there are multiple parties involved then video conferencing might be better used or we sat further back and all three of us were involved.

We welcome the opportunity to try this system out and we would certainly use it again.

 

PROPOSAL FOR SUB GROUP CASE STUDY

Proposal for inclusion within LLE/CLD SPF – Breeze Project

From: Professional Development Foundation – Annette Fillery-Travis

Context: The PDF/MDX programme currently offers a pathway for a MA/MSc in Professional Development. The students are usually established professionals, geographically dispersed and with severe constraints upon their time. They are formed into Learning Sets of between 5-8 individuals with a common focus to their development or a shared professional basis. The Sets are generally facilitated by an academic advisor but they can be initiated and facilitated by Doctorate students under the supervision of an academic advisor. These Doctorate students undertake the MDX DProf programme.

 

The Sets meet once a month on average for a half-day session to support and develop each others learning. Between meetings the students communicate either by email or in a virtual learning environment, the Learning Net, which is text based. This environment allows the posting of discussions and reference material as well as search and collation of material within both a shared area and a personal area. Current students have identified that this allows easy tracking of discussions, meetings and development of joint documents.

 

However it is clear that some students do not fully engage with a text based environment. They then run the risk of being side-lined from the group which presents difficulties in maintaining the cohesion and structure of the Set. It is also clear that these students and others need and value one-to-one interaction with their academic advisors. Although this can be done on the telephone one student has already identified she is phone-phobic and I suspect another also suffers from a similar problem.

 

Proposal: A group of five GP Veterinary Surgeons is currently undertaking DProf. with a theme of developing a Professional Development Framework for their profession. They have all previously completed a MA within the PDF/MDX framework. They are maintaining their Learning Set as they pursue their doctorates. One is phone phobic and another has experienced difficulty with written feedback and finds it far easier to engage with verbal feedback. They are very time limited and cannot travel to meetings unless they have at least one months notice (difficulty in hiring locums). All but one have recently completed stage 1 of their programme and are progressing to Stage 2 where supervision has a more individual focus and may be needed at relatively short notice.

 

I suggest that this group could provide some valuable information for the project as

·         they are already well experienced in work based learning,

·         they have experienced a number of different learning environments (learning set, Learning Net and one-to-one)

·         the Set contains two members who have specific needs for face-to-face supervision.

I propose to use the Breeze environment for supervision sessions with individuals of this group and to monitor the effectiveness of the interaction.

 

SUB GROUP CASE STUDY OF WEBCAM USE BETWEEN NCWBLP, UK OFFICE AND CYPRUS OFFICE – 25/05/05

Participants; CC (tutor) and S W (administrator) UK, V B (administrator) Cyprus

 

The Case Study draws from the three independent perspectives of the participants.

Perspective of CC

I instigated this the day before but I only tested Breeze on my machine just before we were about to have the session. I was unable to set it up because a page came up on my screen stating that Breeze was not available. Stephen came in to help me but we could not see a quick way to solve the problem so we decided to have the session with the two of us in Steve’s office. As we were pushed for time we did not use the sound option nor did we use the conference phone. We got the picture easily on Steve’s screen although Veronica was quite dark –like a negative photograph. This did not seem important though. No-one appeared to take much notice of the visual image. We passed the phone from one to another. I am not sure if Steve was listening all the time when I was speaking to Veronica. He could not hear what she was saying.

 

The exercise, in spite of all I have said, was a worthwhile one. We discussed a number of matters that were important to the three of us. The three way conversation was something we needed to have and we ‘nudged by the occasion’ to plan ahead and explain some detail that we may not have done if we had not had the session.

 

I resolve to test the system in good time before the next session which we have planned in a few weeks.  

 

Perspective of S W

A web conference was held with V B in the Cyprus office and CC and myself here in London.

 

I had no trouble logging onto Breeze and setting up the meeting and the connection with Cyprus was good with no communication breaks. However when we attempted to log on through Carol's machine we could not connect with Breeze and were directed to a help site if you had problems. But to time constraints we did not pursue this but used my machine for both of us to communicate with Cyprus.

 

Perspective of V B

There were initial complications with the camera and the headphones which I resolved by using the laptop instead of my computer. After this the meeting went very smoothly technologically.  The meeting was also very beneficial with my two colleagues in London and we managed to cover a lot of ground using this medium of communication. 

 

CASE STUDY OF SUPERVISION OF A GROUP OF GP VETS UNDERTAKING A DPROF.

Dr Annette Fillery-Travis Professional Development Foundation

                                                                Partner of NCWBLP

1.0    Case study context:

The PDF/MDX programme currently offers a pathway for a MA/MSc in Professional Development. The students are usually established professionals, geographically dispersed and with severe constraints upon their time. They are formed into Learning Sets of between 5-8 individuals with a common focus to their development or a shared professional basis. The Sets are generally facilitated by an academic advisor but they can be initiated and facilitated by Doctorate students under the supervision of an academic advisor. These Doctorate students undertake the MDX DProf programme.

 

The Sets meet once a month on average for a half-day session to support and develop each others learning. Between meetings the students communicate either by email or in a virtual learning environment, the Learning Net, which is text based. This environment allows the posting of discussions and reference material as well as search and collation of material within both a shared area and a personal area. Current students have identified that this allows easy tracking of discussions, meetings and development of joint documents.

 

However it is clear that some students do not fully engage with a text based environment. Although active contributors within the meetings their contribution to the text environment is very concise and sporadic.  They run the risk of being side-lined from the group which presents difficulties in maintaining the cohesion and structure of the Set. It is also clear that these students and others need and value one-to-one interaction with their academic advisors. Although this can be done on the telephone one student has already identified she is phone-phobic and I suspect another also suffers from a similar problem.

 

1.1    Research question or initial proposition

A group of five GP Veterinary Surgeons is currently undertaking DProfs with a theme of developing a Professional Development Framework for their profession. They have all previously completed a MA within the PDF/MDX framework. They are maintaining their Learning Set as they pursue their doctorates.

 

 One is phone phobic and another has experienced difficulty with written feedback and finds it far easier to engage with verbal feedback. They are very time limited and cannot travel to meetings unless they have at least one months notice (difficulty in hiring locums). All but one have recently completed Stage 1 of their programme and are progressing to Stage 2 where supervision has a more individual focus and may be needed at relatively short notice.

 

The research question:

 

This group is an appropriate sample population to evaluate this technology for their supervision needs as:

·         they are already well experienced in work based learning,

·         they have experienced a number of different learning environments (learning set, Learning Net and one-to-one)

·         None of the Set has specialized computer knowledge and are generally at the level of competence in sending emails and producing simple word documents

·         the Set contains two members who have specific needs for face-to-face supervision.

 

Aims and objectives of the case study

2.0     Research methodology

A case study approach was used. The entire group were offered the chance to use the technology through email notification.  There are four males, one female, and their ages range between 45 and 58 years of age. They are competent in Windows Software and have reasonable typing skills but none has an interest in computer technology or use computers within their leisure interests. Only three of the group was interested in participating in the study, one was indifferent and one was actively negative to the idea. When asked the negative candidate stated that he was totally against anything which got in the way of full communication which he identified as being physically present with someone. It was interesting that this person also acknowledged without prompting that he had a low emotional intelligence and found it difficult to pick up ‘cues’ from people’s body language so this may be why he was so against the study. (Might be worth pursuing in another study?). The two participants identified as having specific needs were very willing to participate.

2.1 Techniques:

The study was conducted in two parts-

1) An initial session was booked for which the only agenda item was ‘getting to know your way round the screen’. I would give a short overview and then hand over control for the student to try out the various options such as moving pods, changing screens and sharing presentations. After ten minutes I would ask the student if they felt comfortable with the system and whether they would like to book a webcam supervision. The student would then be asked to send me their reflections on the process by email within 24 hours.

 

2) Within a week a supervision session would be conducted with the student.  On all occasions but one I pre-loaded the meeting screen with documents, presentation slides and other text that I wanted to use within the session. After the supervision session the student sent me their reflections on the session by email within 24 hours.

 

For one student their needs and interest were such that in total 5 supervision sessions occurred via Breeze. For the other two participants two supervision sessions occurred for each.

3.0 Analysis

Factors:
(issues / concerns)

How it’s addressed
(designed / implemented):

Lesson(s) learnt:

1.0 Pedagogy

 

 

1)       Establishment of dialogue

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2)  Exploration of issues and experience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The technology was distracting initially so it was necessary to work very hard as a supervisor in asking open questions and keeping engagement with the issues until the student had relaxed sufficiently to ignore technology

 

All students identified that it was easier to explore their experience through this technology cf. text or phone. The overriding positive was the ability to share documents/mind maps/presentation slides in real time. In one session the webcam of the student would not work and hence I could not see them. However the flow of dialogue was not interrupted and the session was successful as the sharing of text and documents continued.

A set plan for the start of the supervision session was useful e.g. set open questions such as ‘what have u done since we last met’ to establish dialogue and allow student to relax.

 

 

 

The combination of image, voice and sharing of text in real time is powerful. Image and voice is not as useful. However sharing of text and voice is of benefit.

2.0 Technology

 

 

1) There is no capability for sharing word documents in real time and this was pivotal in discussing write-up of proposals or reports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) The icon at the top of a person waving asking for admission is too small to attract attention.

 

 

 

 

3) The voice sync was not good

 

2.1 I cut and pasted the document into the text box. This allowed us to jointly edit/highlight text

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This arose when a student left the meeting to adjust their webcam and then had to wait to be let into the meeting again as I was doing something else whilst I waited

 

The phone phobic individual identified that even using a phone whilst viewing a webcam was inhibiting to them and thus they preferred to use the sound system on Breeze. Although difficult at first we identified a signal (wave of hand) to indicate that the person wanted to speak. This worked well and after approx. 20 minutes became automatic.

2.1 One of the major benefits of face-to-face supervision is to share and discuss written text together. It is difficult to do so over the phone and impossible via a text environment. This ability to share the same view of a document and ‘point’ to text is a major benefit.

 

Organise ‘rules’ for all meetings including how someone can re-enter etc.

 

More in detail below

 

 

 

Agree signals for when each person wants to speak.

3.0 Policy / Procedures

 

 

3.1 For one supervision session I did not pre-prepare the meeting screen in terms of setting up the text/presentation I wanted to share. This resulted in a lot of wasted time and uncertainty for the student as they could not see what I was doing hence became distracted and uncertain

3.1 Always pre-prepare room and have any additional material to hand.

3.1 If a process takes time (e.g. finding and uploading a file to share) the student cannot ‘see’ it happening, becomes distracted and so loses focus. This can reduce the effectiveness of the whole session.

Table 23Summary Case Study Supervision of a Group of GP Vets undertaking a DProf

4.0 Summary discussion

4.1 Conclusions

All participants agreed that this technology was of significant benefit compared with telephone or text supervision. All were competent to use the technology after ten minutes of experiential learning in the meeting room itself. The ranking of effectiveness of the various combinations of available media i.e. sharing text in real time, audio and webcam were:

 

Text, audio and webcam> text, audio>webcam, audio

 

There are no insurmountable technology problems although the sharing of word documents is cumbersome and required development. At various times the webcams of the students did not operate properly and it is clear that a short set-up manual on installing and running webcams would have been useful.

 

In all cases the supervision sessions were identified as effective by the students although all agreed that this technology should complement face-to-face supervision which was the preferred method overall.

 

It is of note that in one session an additional supervisor sat in on the supervision and this was the only unsatisfactory session. The additional supervisor was not trained in the use of the technology and the student identified that she was distracted and found establishing rapport difficult. It may be that further ‘rules of engagement’ are required when more then two people are in the meeting.

4.2 Possible guidelines of use for WVC derived from the lessons learnt column in table 1.

 

1)       An initial session when students ‘play’ with the system was effective at establishing familiarity and reducing distraction (by the technology) in further sessions.

2)       Preparation of meeting room by supervisor is essential. All documents and slides etc to be used within the session should be uploaded and ready for use prior to beginning the meeting.

3)       There should be a clear set of ‘rules of engagement’. These are effectively those which should be in operation in a good meeting face-to-face but our familiarity with that process means we do them subconsciously. For this environment, at least initially, there rules should be made explicit and adhered to. Examples of such rules would be:

a.        agreement on who is leading discussion,

b.       prearranged process for the unexpected (i.e. when someone has to leave room a phone number for them to call to ask to be let back)

c.        agree rules of meeting and attention to participants comfort (in this case is everything working OK)

d.       Initial period for putting participants at their ease (open questions)

e.        prearranged agenda,

f.         clear signal to indicate when someone wishes to speak

 

PARTICIPANT STAFFS’ FINAL RESPONSES TO THE PROJECT

I look forward to building competences in all this so that we can communicate effectively with our METU partners.

 

MAD

I am now fully competent in the use of the Webcam facilities and have used it to conduct discussion with the NCWBLP administrator in Cyprus in order to facilitate administration and for mentoring purposes. Personally I think it is more effective as an administrative tool than for conducting interviews as it is very impersonal and rather unfriendly for an interview.

S

I've only been involved on 1 occasion:

Interview of DProf. candidate in France.  Only partially successful as equipment her end didn't work.  Room was over crowded.

J

My overview comment is that, we started to get somewhere with webcams but due to my own 'busyness' and lack in not prioritising it enough, we did not manage to institute it as part of our regular practice. When I say 'we' I just mean the small team I was working with, largely initiated by me, not the whole team. The being able to see people aspect actually worked against us in that some people did not want to be seen and the anonymity of the phone can sometimes be favoured. The small but annoying technical difficulties made it that the team did not want to spend the time getting technical things right when we could still communicate easily by phone and get done what we needed to do anyway. I think that if we could have done this as simply as making a phone call we would now be in an enhanced position re communicating with overseas colleagues and students. I think this should be the case and the impetus for another go at getting it right would help.

C

-To fit equipment and machines.

I asked about webcams etc and was promised one for my computer at work/ for my laptop.  It never materialised, so I bought my own...otherwise I would have been unable to actively participate.

- To learn how to use the equipment.

This objective was partly achieved, within the scope  This was thanks to the facilitation of yourself, Skip and Ralph, as well as my own commitment to learn.  However, I can't say that I learnt how to use Breeze confidently, nor that I could pass my knowledge on.  Its more that I have become aware of how the equipment COULD be used.  I'm still very much a novice.  It been good to start though.

- To use the equipment in as many situations as possible

Thanks to your invitation and willingness to engage with me, as well as Skip's and to the opportunities that emerged, I was able to use the equipment from home and to participate in a Doctoral interview

- To improve the interviewing process for potential candidates

I was able to observe this taking place. 

- To improve the quality of remote tutorials

- I didn't get a chance to try this out, but I did attend some training offered by Skip and Ralph with the School of LLE, so my awareness of the possibilities was raised of the potential of BREEZE technology.

- To mentor staff in remote locations

- You and I tried this out.  I found it useful and interesting.  I felt frustrated though, that you had access and control to certain aspects of the technology that I didn't have.  This interfered with my potential to learn by doing and to learn for myself.

- For each user to informally evaluate the effectiveness of each usage

 

I feel that this objective was achieved.  A key factor was the quality of the RELATIONSHIP, the building of trust and my faith in the professionalism and commitment of yourself, SB and RC.   It's not something that can be forced on people, nor something that staff should be coerced or bullied into.  I do have some concerns though, for those who do embrace and learn the technology, because they risk being exploited or marginalised.  Equally, this applies to those who do learn the technology.

 

All in all I am very grateful to have had the chance to learn, develop and grow through the project.  However, it is also a risky undertaking, in the context of the demands of our existing workloads and unrealistic expectations for growth and quality in conditions that border on survival in terms of hugely limited resources to do our 'day' jobs.

F

NB Summative evaluation from A F T is included in her report in appendix 4

 

MIDWHEB Blog

Breeze Researcher

This is the research blog for our experimentation and research using Macromedia Breeze for Online Learning.

Tue 22 Feb Agenda - To use the whiteboard feature to discuss the key concepts of assessment for learning in an online community environment, and examples for a future research paper.

We will attempt breeze and camera's. Failing sound will lead us to resort to telephone for sound.

Posted by I at 10:39 AM | Comments (3)

Previous - IT's Blog

Comments: Research Update
Trying again this morning using my ultralab account. Unfortunately I do not appear to have rights even to switch on the camera. This is awful and means I cannot use ad hoc sessions without prior arrangements with administrators. A bit like booking an ICT suite leading to more work not easier and better. This direction leads to "lets forget it". It needs to be intuitive and instant access.
Posted by Ian at
January 20, 2005 09:25 AM

First attempts are chaotic. Sound is a real problem and better at present to do without. However, we must use phones. Too many people talk at once. Problem is more one to many than two way. or one to one. No good for group of five all with sound. Should turn off sound and use phones. (But need conference call for more than one to one ) This means that it would be great for tutorials but useless at present for groups in different locations) Clearly one to a group (say in Gaza) works if they use a desktop speaker phone system.
Posted by Ian at
January 20, 2005 11:54 AM

I was overwhelmed by the possibility of this software-if it worked-WOW! I'd be able to write a paper with someone in Brazil. Or I could take a session with my group of online learners-we could explore web pages together-I could show them things on my desktop and vice versa, and we could chat and see each other-a nice touch for students I never see face to face.

But-it just didn't work. Too slow-sound didn't work-when we switched to the new version, it improved because the sound worked-but I didn't like the way you could only speak one and a time-I can't see a dynamic discussion happening under those circumstances. (and we'd never be able to stop you talking Ian :-)

I also didn't like how slow the cursor was-it was so frustrating I just lost interest.

The best bit was at the beginning when there was a few seconds delay and we got the giggles and couldn't stop because we kept hearing ourselves laugh-it was impossible to stop!

Anyway, thanks! Was great and we ought to meet again, maybe trying a different server to see if it makes a difference...
Posted by G at
January 20, 2005 03:23 PM

Yes G. One technical solution was to control the number of operatives. We were all in the position of doing all the changes as we had those privileges. This is not only confusing about who is doing what but more importantly it freezes the computer. One solution is self discipline, another take away privileges albeit temporarily. However, that pushes us much more towards a transmission, one to many model of learning, not many to many. My preference would be to have some rules and order next time.
Posted by Ian at
January 20, 2005 03:51 PM

Some great features, the video was more important that I realised at the time - it provided an emotive edge; hearing laughter was great but seeing it was better.

Initial impression of the audio was that I prefer the FC system where anyone can record audio at anytime and clips are placed in with the text chat and can be played asynchronously. With practice and keeping an eye on the microphone icons the breeze system may well be more workable than it appeared but it felt a bit awkward on first use.

We are taking the first steps in our exploration of this software and as always it takes time to grow some strategies and protocols for group interaction.

Looking forward to the next time – tc - xian
Posted by Ian Tindal at
January 20, 2005 04:18 PM

Thanks Ian
Yes, I guess anyone could record a sound file and post it into the materials (given privileges to do this) Certainly, it could be part of a .ppt presentation. However, I recall that .ppt file size is a bit of an issue. The server has to be able to handle large files, I seem to recall. This would be easier as a pure sound file. RC would be able to comment on file formats that we can use. For me its the synchronous possibilities for distant collaborative constructivist work.......and I must say without those protocols this looks slow and clunky for many to many. (Great for one to one,). Is there a phrase for many ones at a time to many? Posted by IT at
January 20, 2005 05:17 PM Is there a phrase for many ones at a time to many?

nothing concise comes to mind reciprocal multi-individualistic synchronous.
Posted by Ian Tindal at
January 20, 2005 05:40 PM

It sounds like you had a great time. Just because breeze wasn't as wonderful as you thought don't give up! There are other software packages. We've been testing out a program called Maratech, that wasn't great either! (But then I am testing from a music angle and I don't think anything in the near future is going to be as great as I'd like). We need to keep pushing and exploring! I love those pictures! Especially the guy with the enormous capability to keep so very, very still!
Posted by VIx at
January 22, 2005 11:17 AM

Posted by I at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)
Breeze Researcher – Comments: Tue. 22 Feb - Hello Ian and company!
This Blog looks good.
Can we put any of it in the BREEZE style Blog at:
http://macromedia.breezecentral.com/r17399291/
login as a guest. Cheers - Skip

Posted by ASB at February 17, 2005 12:17 PM

What time is it? Not in my diary for some reason....

Posted by G at February 18, 2005 10:26 AM

Session had G (on broadband) and P on dial up. Agenda was to discuss the characteristics of assessment for learning in online learning communities, using the whiteboard collaboratively and discussion by text and sound.

Agenda was printed in one pod. The meeting begun with the usual gathering of thoughts about what we are doing, and how to organise it, while struggling to make the connection and software work. Unfortunately, the telephone conferencing facilities were unavailable (3 locations). The sound was too intermittent, delayed and echoing to be of any use.

The text and whiteboard conversation proceeded and there were some good mind mapping of ideas. However, discussion was limited by the text, and the dual agenda of the software and the topic. Clearly there is some potential for this kind of work. However, the time delays on whiteboard entries, and seeming intermittent way of working did not help.

We attempted to control entries and typing by strong chairmanship and eventually demoting participants. This barely seemed to make much difference.

In conclusion, it seemed to be felt that although the set up has some potential, it just does not work adequately for collaborative generation of ideas. (It may well work well for the presentation of content from one presenter but this is not the focus of this research, nor of our approach to pedagogy.

As IU have experienced tutorials from San Francisco, I appear to be alone in identifying that this is a problem of the software, the server or its host network, rather than largely inherent in the platform. However, it may be worth considering what we get and what we need. We need in order 1. Sound/Conferencing 2. Whiteboard sharing and 3 Video in that order, At the moment we are barely getting the first, and yet this may be available elsewhere.

Posted by I at February 22, 2005 10:07 AM

24 Feb - Session started 8am. The focus of the session was to share three papers and decide collaboratively how they should be redrafted for publication. G and P were present with camera's.

I spent hour before hand preparing papers for discussion. 15 minutes was spent setting up camera . This was problematic as it seems to want settings to be manually established for light levels etc. Breeze opened using id and password. However, logging out is problematic as there is no option apart from closing the browser.

The session started with no sound. Finally voice on command was found on the top left of the video pod. I do not recall this being required before. We also found that the option fast images were better.

We found oral communication impossible and opted for a telephone connection instead. This was because of the time delay, because the sound would be intermittent, seemingly switching from one person to another. (A later test might explore use with only one microphone working at a time)


An attempt was made to share screen share but nothing seemed to be working. An attempt was made to share some written material, however it appears that we cannot upload content from the desktop. It would also seem that this is not possible using Apple Macintosh equipment. One way forward appears to be that we need access to "Breeze manager", and the group (G and P) need to be authors. It would seem best if G and P also had ids.
The discussion, although distracted by the technical problems and research carried on well. Clarity was developed over the feedback from referees and tasks were divided by the group. A timescale was set for the next phase of authoring each work.


Our conclusions for this session were that Breeze as a sound and video conferencing package was not yet viable. Audio conferencing was possible using the phone connection but in this trial the use of video was not exploited, there being just headshots.

The sharing capacity of breeze for documents was not exposed as oral communication was difficult (even with the phone typing and holding receivers is impossible), we have not got access to the full functionality, and our competence at using the platform is not well developed.

This is the research Blog for our experimentation and research using Macromedia Breeze for Online Learning.

Proof the camera worked Logged in this morning at 10.40 ready for Skip's presentation at a conference. However no body was there (1240). Also had two difficulties. Camera is very flaky. Never seems to open ready to work. Need to manually adjust to get any kind of picture let alone a reasonable one. This worked last week after some adjustment when I recorded some video messages using image capture. It has worked in breeze before. This morning however, I was usually not getting a picture in the select camera box. Sometimes I did. I tried to check in the midwheb area. However, I fell foul of a second problem. Crashing. I crashed out three times, Once each on safari, Firefox and Explorer. Working at home on wireless/broadband.

Posted by midwheb at 11:37 AM | Comments (0)
07 March 05 – Mind mapping: Came across this on concept map at http://cmap.ihmc.us/
Free open source software apparently. Worth investigating

Posted by midwheb at 05:51 PM | Comments (0)

Breeze Researcher

This is the research Blog for our experimentation and research using Macromedia Breeze for Online Learning.

An Alternative? - Yesterday I spent a pleasant hour talking to Sarah in Yorkshire about a paper we are publishing. We used Skype with headphones and for over an hour and a half the line was quite good. There was a background buzz but nothing I couldn't tolerate. We worked through the paper changing various parts according to referees comments. We were able to share the document and editing by using Subethedit. This is more free software (for non commercial use- although we need to research is education non commercial? is research?). It enables us to type comments and lists jointly. There were sections of the paper that required deeper thought and individual work. We noted these on the paper for "homework". Smaller parts could be changed by either of us and discussed. It was really good for ideas and brainstorms but I need thinking time for longer texts. It's not Breeze in terms of sharing desktops but for working on a shared document its OK. It can't handle pictures etc

Posted by midwheb at 10:27 AM | Comments (3)

22 April 2005Another session on Breeze which was a disaster I am afraid. The 30 min were yet again spent adjusting my camera. This sets automatically to the darkest blues and greens. Every time you connect reconnect it reverts back and needs manual adjustment.

The sound did not work. the video from my guest did not work. We are on Macs. The camera is Logitech. hers insight. We were both set to LAN and both on broadband.

Chapter 5

Appendix A

PPT presentation templates

 

 


Appendix B – Microsoft PPT Classroom Assistant

 

 


Appendix C
Templates project home page

 

 


Appendix D

The core templates and sub-categories

 

 

1.0 Conventional Model – sub-categories (model variations)


Appendix E

 

 


Appendix F

 

[ add screen grab of discussion tool ]

Appendix G

 

Figure 4 Case Study - Dr. Pauline Armsby

Figure 5 Case Study - Sheila Blankfield


Appendix H (page 1 of 2) – Online survey summary from www.surveyshare.com
 www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/addfilename.htm ]

 Key to following charts

 

Figure 6 - Survey question 4

 

Figure 7 Survey question 5

Figure 8 Survey question 6

Figure 9 Survey question 7

 

 

 

 

Appendix H (continued) – Online survey summary from www.surveyshare.com

 Key to following charts

 

 

Figure 10 Survey question 8

Figure 11 Survey Question 9

 

Raphael Commins, the project Research Assistant contributed to the collection and analysis of this data.


Chapter 6

Appendix A

Online seminars/workshops Suggested guidelines (2003)

 

CONTACT DETAILS -

 

Name:

 

Email:

 

Telephone:

 

Other:

 

INDUCTION -

 

* Context text:

 

* PowerPoint slides

 

* Self-assessment

 

* Wrong answer feedback prompts

 

* Resources- digital files of related material

 

* Resources – web links

 

* List of search engine key words

 

DISCUSSION

 

* Questions

 

* Moderation guidelines

 

ACTIVITY

 

* Specific problem-solving activity

 

* (optional) Sample model solution

 

* Collaboration guidelines

 

* Collaboration groups (student names)

 

Table 24 Guidelines for online presentations

 

Appendix B

DPS/WBS01 Case Study Summary

 

VLE Denouement Case Study Summary Template-
DPS/WBS01-2003/06

Name:

Case number: 01 – NCWBLP: DPS/WBS01 Programme Portal

2003

Case number: 01 – NCWBLP: DPS/WBS01 Programme Portal

2006

Contact name:

Dr. Pauline Armsby

Dr. Pauline Armsby

Contact email:

p.armsby@mdx.ac.uk

p.armsby@mdx.ac.uk

Contact phone:

[44] (0) 208 411 6581

[44] (0) 208 411 6581

VLE type:

Project-research (non-instructional): This WebCT site is not for a specific instructional model. The WBS/DPS programme portals are entry portals for all students in the WBS/DPS set. It is intended to support all associated modules.

VLE software:

WebCT 3.5

 

E-content:

Score: 1.4 – All content component descriptions were ranked at 1.0. Distribution location was given 3.0, however, the project plan is to continue with paper-based distance learning material and phase into an ‘online: only internet protocols (www, ftp, etc.) system’. Version control was said to be an ‘unstructured system’ (value 2.0). Early discussions have been made with administration staff to devise a file naming and management system to sort old programme handbooks from new ones. It was suggested that the file name start with the date of the document for filtering data.

Score: 1.8 – All components at 2.0 except induction material and mobility (1.0).  As an academic / VLE designer there needs to be an awareness of the online tools to manage, structure and make eContent.

 

The student’s perspective needs to be considered and their ICT capability.

E-communication:

Score: 2.4 – E-communication components were all 2-3 except for the ‘communication mobility’ element. The current focus of the VLE design is for desk-top and lap-top PC/Mac’s. With the growth in m-learning and the convergence of multiple forms of technologies (ie – video conference phones), this area could be developed with the use of SMS text messaging reminders of research seminars/workshops, key module coursework deadlines, etc.

Score: 1.9 - All components at 2.0 except for communication mobility and support tools (1.0) and knowledge exchange (3.0).

From survey:

static for the WBS instructor’s role, but we have the LR website available now. Pauline- not an on going system of support. Right now we offer a web page for helping online. TSB: his may be an area we want to develop.

 

Telepistemology:

Score: 2.5 – 8 of the 13 elements were ranked 3 (62%) and all but two other components at 2. Curriculum design was said to be content driven (1.0). This criteria description may not be wholly applicable to the ‘programme portal’ nature of the website. The second category given a 1.0 ranking was ‘summative assessment’. Traditional multiple choice to essays was selected as eh descriptor, however there is only formative feedback opportunities given in the DPS/DPS/WBS01 web site for the online research seminars. There is no final exam in the programme web site.

Score: 2.3 – There is an equal number of description for learning theory at level 2 (six) and level 3 (six). Only the student’s learning style was ranked as a 1 (text only) with the evaluation criteria (1.0) not providing student feedback at present.

E-management:

Score: 2.3 - Only 4/13 categories (31%) were rated at 3.0 value. The balance of the elements were scored at the 2.0 range. Due to the diverse nature of the learners/candidates it was difficult to specify the ICT levels and geographic locations as descriptors. Although 2.0 was assigned it was not indicated for all cases.

As to the technical issues of system/data back-up and firewall- security – virus protection a value of 3.0 was assigned although the academic did not have a full understanding of the technical issues this an accurate summary.

Score: 2.2 -  The majority of the responses fell into the 2.0 range (9/13). Geographic/work model, eLearning time allocation and system / data back-up were rated at 3.0, while quality assurance was seen as level 1.0 since it was established by the university management. 

From the survey interview:

> Ralph Commins (eLearning Consultant) has done a needs analysis in Appendix D

Generic VLE model:

Total average 2.1 – Wrap around model: There was a mis-match with the content description in the current state of the system. Presently content is static, but they are working towards more dynamic, engaging content. At the moment it is mainly subject and programme handbooks that do not lend themselves to active participation.

 

Currently for communication in the VLE moderation guidelines are under construction. Informal groups are being formed for the DPS portal, but not essential for its use. Instant messaging is not planned for at this time.

 

Peer review is suggested for this programme model for assessment.  This could be achieved with students commenting on research seminar activities and the arguments posted on the discussion boards.

 

The WebCT diary was seen as an important tool to be developed with the aid of NCWBLP administrators. An ‘what’s new’ dynamic content may replace the current ‘news’ link on the home page.

Total average: 2.0 –

The Wrap-around model fits the total average at 2.0, with eContent lowest (1.8), eCommunication (1.9), Telepistemology (2.3) and eManagement (2.2).

K & L Grid: Q3

(for both years)

Dialogue:

Discussions about scaffolded sequence of content

Involvement:

Students act on increasingly difficult tasks

Support:

Peer/expert forum discussion boards, tutor live chat

Control:

Students guided by tutor moderators

Advice-

(Wrap-around Model)

* Moderation guidelines provided (i.e. eModerators.com)

* Have clear consistent navigation (site map)

* Use threading to manage topics

* Save dialogue text for evaluation analysis

DISC Grid:
Q3 – Guide

(for both years)

 

Dialogue:

Combined Q1 & Q2

Involvement:

May start as solo-leads to active content

Support:

Tutor offers direction, not solutions

Control:

Learners set goals & manage activities

Advice-

(Wrap-around model)

* Promote group co-operation

* Offer examples of good online communication

* Categorise and summarise discussion threads

* Provide steps in the problem solving process

 

 

Web metamorphosis model:

(for both years)

Open choice model was selected as the students will have the ability to choose which navigation path to explore the site. Resources and communication tools will also be openly available. That is to say, there will be no restrictions to access (ie – time out constraints).

 

Appendix C – Comparison of the WBS2/4802 case studies

 

VLE Denouement Case Study Summary Template-
DPS/WBS01-2003/06

Mod.

WBS2-4802-PilotUK

2003

WBS2-4802-PilotUK

2006

Name

Jonathan Hawkes

Anthony Basiel

email:

j.hawkes@mdx.ac.uk

pros@mdx.ac.uk

phone

44-020 8411 6072

0044 208 411 5638

VLE type:

WebCT 3.5 - Instructional – (however because these work based learning candidates are working on individual (RAL) R…. Accreditation of Learning portfolio )

Cont.

Score 1.6 – All categories were ranked at 1.0 except distribution location (3.0), version control (3.0) and push/pull content (2.0). In this case, the e-content is distributed via the web through WebCT. In terms of version control, no software was used but a well thought out system of file organisation/naming was used. The students had limited control over the way the content was disseminated with respect to the push/pull technology used. 

Score 1.5 – All categories were ranked at 1.0 except for content interactivity and distribution location (2.0) and version control (3.0).  A model where examples of AoLs are given would be better. Then, students post samples on the WebCT discussion board for peer/tutor review.

Com.

Score 1.5  - All of the categories were ranked at 1.0 except with accessibility, push/pull and formative evaluation set at 2.0. Mastery of English language was set at 3.0 for this UK cohort pilot group of work based learning RAL students.

Accessibility (2.0) to communication tools is a mix of pubic and private WebCT features. Public tools are discussion boards and ‘live’ real-time text chat rooms. Private online communication is seen through email. The tools and protocols used to support communication were considered but not fully applied with respect to push/pull attributes in the VLE. Lastly, the UK cohort for the module had a fluent mastery of written and verbal skills in the English language. This was to be expected as it was their native language.

Score 2.0 – All categories were ranked 2.0 except for the computer media type (3.0) and communication mobility (1.0). There are steps towards a more blended learning model that follows the face-to-face meetings and communication with distance communication opportunities such as peer WebCT discussion chats, telephone conversations and emails. Tutor support via Breeze and other online tools will be developed.

theory

Score 1.9 – All categories we ranked as 2.0 except for learning theory and learning style at 1.0 and summative assessment at 3.0.

The nature of the course was best represented by a Behaviourist (scaffolded content) approach. The learning style is seen as preferring one media type (text) at a time.

The strength of this VLE is seen with respect to assessment. A norm-referenced approach  (individual portfolio) is used to create the RAL.

Score 1.9 - All categories we ranked as 2.0 except for Curriculum design, learning objectives and evaluation rubric (1.0) and Summative assessment with the tutor’s role at 3.0.

Man.

Score 1.7 – Six of the 13 components were marked at [1] with five/thirteen at [2]. The two areas ranked at [3] are geographic access and time allocated for e-learning.

The model for the geographic access work model is seen at [3] for the pilot as it is an open and flexible design. The work based learning model supports the VLE well by allowing the student to learn at home and at work. 

Score 2.1 -  All descriptions were ranked at 2.0 except fro the learner ICT profile at 1.0 and system back-up and security at 3.0.

GVM

Total VAV average: 1.7 (2003) VAV average: 1.9  (2006)
Wrap-around model

Content should be mostly dynamic. But in this case it is not yet at that stage. The content presentation ‘chunking’ is still being developed. At the moment the transition is from a paper-based module handbook that is about 60 pages long.  Communication is primarily supported by tutor-student 1-to-1 email, but discussion boards are in development. The strength of this module is the individual portfolios for assessment. At the moment peer review/ collaboration is still in the planning stage, but there is great scope in this area. In the area of management there were no difference from the suggested model.

K & L Grid:

Knowledge & Learning

Dialogue:

One-way tutor-led multimedia a/synchronous transmission

Involvement:

Passive student recalls linear information

Support:

FAQ, Email, Phone from tutor

Control:

Tutor controls dissemination of information

Advice-

Content-support Model 

* Test network connection for media streaming

* Present the content in workable 'chunks' of text in web pages

* Tutor/student should keep copies of email correspondence

* Email/phone queries can form the source of FAQs

DISC Grid:

DISC: Q2

Dialogue:

Teacher controls  

Involvement:

Pre-set tasks 

Support:

On/offline reply to ?s by tutor

Control:

Learner responds to tasks

Advice-

Content-support model

* Make online participation required (all Quadrants!)

* Link online with f2f activity

* Easy access to technical support

* Clear link to learning objectives

WMM

Fixed Model:
This model was chosen by the module leader because he had adopted the module recently and has not had time to adapt the curriculum or content delivery from the paper-based subject hand book to advisor-to-candidate tutorials structure. In this way he feels that he has adopted a ‘fixed WMM’ model since he has not had the control yet to change its design.

TAM

‘06

The following principles were selected out of the 10 offered:

5. Content presentation ranges from a static delivery to a flexible/interactive content mode.

6. Communication tools support basic email to a/synchronous collaboration and argumentation.

8. The VLE management system provides appropriate tools to help students/researchers organise their VLE resources and tools.

TAM

‘06

The following principles were selected out of the 10 offered:

1. Web-based learning environment (WLE) students enter a virtual learning system with individual learning needs, prior knowledge of VLE systems and experience of on-line support tools. A student/ group profile is established

2. Stakeholder (learner, academic, admin., etc) perspectives are made explicit through a needs analysis

5. Content presentation ranges from a static delivery to a flexible/interactive content mode.

6. Communication tools support basic email to a/synchronous collaboration and argumentation.

7. Presentation opportunities need to be supported for collaboration. Students and researchers need online tools to present arguments.

8. The VLE management system provides appropriate tools to help students/researchers organise their VLE resources and tools.

9. Academic/Admin./Technical Help Desk Support (FAQ - Virtual Assistant) - click the comment link for more detail

10. The TAM is facilitated in a WLE by offering a spiral curriculum (Basiel 1999) as illustrated by these elements; teaching, learning methods, student / teacher role, learning environment (Basiel 2000).

 

 


Appendix D – Questionnaire 2003 & 06

 

 

VLE type:

 

 

 

 

 

Name:

 

 

 Phone:          Best day/time to call for interview:

 

e-mail:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scale:

Strongly disagree =1  Fairly Disagree=2 Not sure = 3 Fairly Agree=4 Strongly Agree=5Unknown = 0

 

S
03

S
06

W
03

W
06

Ave

 

Comments: <Quotes in italic>

 

3

3

4

3

4.50

1) induction was clear & understandable.

1

I often found it difficult to conceptualise the categories.
Action: smaller segments of explanation will be offered linked to the core 4 categories and item descriptors

 

4

4

5

3

3.25

2)  induction was useful.

2

 

 

4

4

3

2

4.00

3)  summary totals was clear & understandable.

3

 

 

3

4

5

4

3.25

4) summary totals was useful.

4

Develop needs analysis / feasibility study

 

4

4

5

4

4.00

5)  e-content was clear & understandable.

5

content still drives this module - I would like to see a model where we give examples of AoLs, then students post samples on the WebCT discussion board for peer/tutor review.

 

4

4

5

3

4.25

6)  e-content was useful.

6

this could be made more useful by a smaller induction to this VLE component.

 

4

5

4

4

4.00

7)  e-communication was clear & understandable.

7

supported by more examples or illustrations

 

4

5

4

5

4.25

8) e-communication was useful.

8

online communication is a strength of the web. This section needs to be supported by more online tools examples.

 

4

3

4

3

4.50

9)  telepistemology was clear & understandable.

9

Action: link theory section more to grounded examples

 

4

3

3

4

3.50

10) telepistemology was useful.

10

more explanation of what telepistemology is needed - by multimedia?- yes it got me thinking about possibilities

 

4

4

4

4

3.50

11) e-management was clear & understandable.

11

expanded multimedia training materials needed

 

4

4

3

3

4.00

12)  e-management was useful.

12

link the intro to the glossary

 

3

3

5

4

3.50

13) Generic VLE Model was clear & understandable.

13

nice to see all parts in one display Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

4

4

3.75

14) Generic VLE Model was useful.

14

helps put the VLE in context Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

2

3

3.50

15) Knowledge & Learning Grid was clear.

15

needs more induction Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

3

4

2.75

16) Knowledge & Learning Grid was useful.

16

needs more induction Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

3

3

3.25

17) The  DISC paradigm was clear & understandable.

17

needs more induction Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

4

4

3.00

18) The DISC paradigm was useful.

18

offer supportive examples Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

5

4

3.50

19)  Web Metamorphosis Model was clear

19

offer supportive examples Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

5

3

3.75

20) The  Web Metamorphosis Model was useful.

20

offer supportive examples Action: Link to multimedia overview

 

3

3

5

3

3.50

21) The TAM checklist was understandable.

21

Action: cross-link to case studies

 

3

3

5

4

3.50

22) Transitional Autonomy Model checklist was useful.

22

Action: cross-link to case studies

 

3.45

3.50

4.09

3.55

3.75

AVERAGE

 

 

 


Appendix E – Web helpdesk

 

Appendix F

Ralph Commin’s DPS needs analysis from Surveyshare.com

http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/results/?sid=36734

 

 

1= not useful 

2= a bit useful 

3= useful 

4= very useful 

5= essential 

6= not familar with this tool 

Totals

Announcements

0.00% (0)

11.11% (1)

22.22% (2)

44.44% (4)

22.22% (2)

0.00% (0)

9

Assessments

0.00% (0)

12.50% (1)

25.00% (2)

37.50% (3)

25.00% (2)

0.00% (0)

8

Assignments

0.00% (0)

22.22% (2)

22.22% (2)

55.56% (5)

0.00% (0)

0.00% (0)

9

Calendar

0.00% (0)

11.11% (1)

22.22% (2)

33.33% (3)

33.33% (3)

0.00% (0)

9

Chat and Whiteboard

11.11% (1)

22.22% (2)

11.11% (1)

11.11% (1)

33.33% (3)

11.11% (1)

9

Discussions

0.00% (0)

11.11% (1)

11.11% (1)

22.22% (2)

55.56% (5)

0.00% (0)

9

Mail

25.00% (2)

0.00% (0)

25.00% (2)

25.00% (2)

25.00% (2)

0.00% (0)

8

My Grades

25.00% (2)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

25.00% (2)

25.00% (2)

0.00% (0)

8

My Progress

25.00% (2)

25.00% (2)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

8

Notes

37.50% (3)

12.50% (1)

25.00% (2)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

0.00% (0)

8

Search

0.00% (0)

12.50% (1)

37.50% (3)

37.50% (3)

0.00% (0)

12.50% (1)

8

Syllabus

0.00% (0)

28.57% (2)

14.29% (1)

42.86% (3)

14.29% (1)

0.00% (0)

7

Who's Online

37.50% (3)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

25.00% (2)

12.50% (1)

0.00% (0)

8

Quizzes

25.00% (2)

12.50% (1)

12.50% (1)

50.00% (4)

0.00% (0)

0.00% (0)

8

Blog/weblog

22.22% (2)

0.00% (0)

33.33% (3)

33.33% (3)

0.00% (0)

11.11% (1)

9

Publicly browseable Home Pages/Website

12.50% (1)

0.00% (0)

37.50% (3)

25.00% (2)

0.00% (0)

25.00% (2)

8

Wikis

14.29% (1)

14.29% (1)

28.57% (2)

0.00% (0)

14.29% (1)

28.57% (2)

7

Online File and shared document repositories

14.29% (1)

14.29% (1)

0.00% (0)

42.86% (3)

14.29% (1)

14.29% (1)

7

Video conferencing and telephony

0.00% (0)

0.00% (0)

11.11% (1)

22.22% (2)

44.44% (4)

22.22% (2)

9

Document and application sharing tools

11.11% (1)

0.00% (0)

22.22% (2)

33.33% (3)

22.22% (2)

11.11% (1)

9

Totals

12.73% (21)

11.52% (19)

20.00% (33)

29.70% (49)

18.79% (31)

7.27% (12)

165

 

Appendix G

www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/Writing4theWEB/Writing4theWEB_files/frame.htm


Appendix H

Breeze talk http://www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/#Breeze_Consortium


Appendix I – Breeze Workshop Survey Data

1) Please rate your interest in web-based video conferencing (WVC):


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

(1) low

2

10.53%

(2) fair

0

0.00%

(3) good

5

26.32%

(4) fairly high

6

31.58%

(5) very high

6

31.58%

0 Respondents Skipped question #1

19 Responses Total

100.00%

 

2) Are you currently using (WVC)?


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

Yes

4

21.05%

No

15

78.95%

0 Respondents Skipped question #2

19 Responses Total

100.00%

 

3) If yes - how do you use it:


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

14 Respondents Skipped question #3

5 Responses Total

26.32%

 

4) If no - how might you:


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

10 Respondents Skipped question #4

9 Responses Total

47.37%

 

5) How do you currently  make eLearning content for your Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)? (select as many as appropriate)


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

Word only (.doc)

6

42.86%

Word to HTML (.htm)

7

50.00%

HTML from editor (ie - Dreamweaver)

2

14.29%

Word to PDF (.pdf)

8

57.14%

Compressed file type (ie - .zip)

1

7.14%

Multimedia type (ie - Flash (.swf))

2

14.29%

Other [View Responses]

2

14.29%

5 Respondents Skipped question #5

14 Responses Total

73.68%

 

6) Are you currently using PowerPoint-to-Flash software?


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

Yes

2

11.11%

No

16

88.89%

1 Respondent Skipped question #6

18 Responses Total

94.74%

 

7) If yes - how do you use .PPT-to-Flash software:


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

17 Respondents Skipped question #7

2 Responses Total

10.53%

 

8) If no - how might you use .PPT-to-Flash software:


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

11 Respondents Skipped question #8

8 Responses Total

42.11%

 

9) If we can contact you to follow-up on this survey please give us your email:


Number of Respondents


Response Ratio

6 Respondents Skipped question #9

13 Responses Total

68.42%


Appendix J

http://mubsweb.mdx.ac.uk/www/open/vle_lle/index.htm and database results at:

http://mubsweb.mdx.ac.uk/www/open/vle_lle/admin/

 

 

Chapter 7

Appendix A -

The VLE Denouement Profile Apothem

The statement in table 3 of this chapter proposed that the VLE design principles and appropriate online support tools acts upon or influence our ePedagogy. Table 6 expands this theme to incorporate the elements introduced in Project 3 as a VLE Denouement Profile apothem (see the Toolkit Excel file on the CD-ROM).

 

Table Appendix A – Chapter 7 VLED Profile apothem

 

The denouement or threading together of the various online learning elements produce the VLE profile. This overview of the VLE is composed of four core components, according to this version of the apothem, which are the content, communication, epistemology and management threads [(eContent * eCommunication * Telepistemology * eManagement)].  The values assigned through the toolkit are related to how the online system supports ‘virtual autonomy’ or the virtual autonomy value (VAV). In the toolkit this was represented by matching descriptions of the core elements in relation to how they supported or promoted the autonomy of the eLearner [/VAV]. The context of the online autonomy was then compared to three generic VLE models (GVM) to provide samples of pedagogic design and suggested online support or communication tools [q GVM]. With a generic VLE model in mind with respect to the ‘virtual autonomy’ and core VLE components the profile was then placed into a wider perspective outside of the VLE itself. The Web Metamorphosis Model [q WMM] stage offers the VLE stakeholder the opportunity to pull their focus from an internal analysis of the VLE and shift it to a broader perspective with regard to the VLE will be adopted into the overall education system. Three sample models are provided: parallel, fixed and open choice. Chapter 6.2, Figure 1 shows a screen grab of the summary data page of the toolkit. With a profile established the VLE stakeholder is then prompted to compare the design to the principles offered in the next section.

Appendix B -

The Spiral-web Learning Model:

The following section is an ‘under development’ version of the figure provided in Chapter 7.

 

 

Spiral-web Learning Model: System state

Ellington (1995) offers in Table 8 an overview of how an online learning event can be viewed from a systems perspective which is influenced by a Popperian (1972) approach of error falsification.

 

P

O

P

P

E

R

[Pre-Stage] =>
(define user/system requirements)

[P1/S1] =>
(initial problem situation or system state)

TS =>
trial solution

EF =>
error
falsification/
elimination

[P2/S2] =>
new problem situation

[Pn/Sn]
ongoing
revised
problem/
system state

 

V

L

S

Needs analysis and system usability study identifies stakeholder’s gaps

Identification of the instructional system objectives and learner’s needs

Development & operation of the instructional system

Identify ways the system fails to meet researcher’s needs

Identify ways system is improved to meet user’s needs

Maintain
feedback
loop to
support
system
changes

Table 19 Ellington's virtual learning system

The problem state [P] and the system state [S] progress from a Pre-stage level to an initial situation. Next, a trial solution [TS] is explored which results in the identification of where the system/solution fails [EF]. This progresses into a revised state of the system and its application to the problem. In principle this process continues until a satisfactory resolution is met or time/funding expires.

 

This sequence of problem solving steps is similar to the Masur protocol that follows these stages (Aakhaus 1996, Jackson 1997):

  1. state the problem
  2. silent individual reflection
  3. commitment to an answer
  4. argumentation
  5. revision / reaffirmation

Although this protocol is more focused on individual/group discourse analysis it reinforces the principle of a transitional passage of steps towards a solution.

 

The VLE system in a TAM design would offer different online tools and resources as the virtual learner progresses through the stages and levels of solving the task.

As indicated on the left side of the figure ‘Stage 1-3’ relate to a possible ‘search strategy’ which could be employed in a TAM design. The learner begins searching for the resources provided with in the ‘local’ space of the VLE provided by the tutor/learning technologist. Next, in ‘Stage 2’ the model suggests that the learner may follow hyperlinks to resources outside the confines of the VLE web address. Finally, in ‘Stage 3’ a search engine may be used (e.g. Google Scholar). The vertical arrows positioned at each stage imply that the learner is not fixed to any one search stage through the course of the online learning event. As the transitional model and set of principles endorses, the tools and strategies may be revisited at anytime through reflection.

 

Reflection

The mechanism of reflection [R] is represented in the diagram as the up-and-down arrows in the centre of the cone and highlighted with the  icon. It is through the act of reflecting on prior knowledge and the transition between the various stages of the spiral-web learning model that old ideas and experiences are joined up with the new to create innovative thinking. This ‘lateral thinking spin-off’ is shown in the figure with the ‘light bulb’ icon.

 

Autonomous learning and critical thinking

The change in the ‘human state’ is shown as ‘virtual autonomy’ [A] or the relation of how the online learner progresses through the problem state [P]. This issue has been addressed by many pedagogues over the years such as Piaget (1950) who coined it as the ‘concrete-to-abstract paradigm’ or Biggs (1982) who used the terms ‘enactive-ikonic-symbolic’ to describe the sequences of conceptual attainment.

 

Notice the link between the changes in autonomy and the search stages, although they may not be proportional as the figure suggests due to the transitional quality of the system.

 

Starting propositions of the Spiral-web learning model

Referring to Figure 3 in Chapter 2.5 the basic transitional representation suggested three possible alternatives of many approaches to progress from point ‘A’ to ‘C’ in an online learning event:

Ø      Production – a linear or ‘scaffolded approach’,

Ø      Systems – a cyclical approach,

Ø      Research – a spiral ‘action research’ approach.

The spiral-web learning model, presented here, builds upon the 3D metaphor offered in the Research approach.

 

There are three basic starting propositions that can be drawn from this model offered in Figure 1 above of this chapter:

  1. Constructivism (see Points S0 and P0) -
  2. Recognition of prior knowledge  (see the downward spiral [2]) -
  3. Open ended solution (see the arrow pointing to P & S at [3]) -

 

The infinity symbol [∞] has been used to represent the concept that the solution to the problem is contextualised or relative to the information and resources available at the time of the eLearning event. The solution is bound to the time constraint associated with it for the investigation acknowledged by the vertical axis on the right.

 

 

 

 


Glossary

Telepistemology (as defined by this research): the adaptation and application of the philosophical study/theory of knowledge to a web-based context. (as published in ‘Developing a Virtual Project Environment for Research to aid Doctoral Level Professional Studies: ‘The Transitional Autonomy Model’ (TAM)’, Uace Work Based Learning Network Annual Conference: Knowledge, Work and Learning -  Pauline Armsby and Anthony ‘Skip’ Basiel NCWBLP, Middlesex University

panagogy: the adaptation and application of pedagogy to a web-based learning context.

[1] environment:
 all events which influence people, the area of a space or place
i.e. - Managed Learning Environment (MLE)

[2] system:

group of related parts that work together for one purpose, organised set of ideas of methods  i.e. – Virtual Learning System (VLS – Also known as VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, virtual learning environment)

[3] process:

series of actions, developments or events to produce a change or result

[a] guidelines:

instructions on the best way of doing something

[b] methodology:

way of doing something, strategy or principle

[c] principles:

rules of a process, series of actions, developments of events to produce a change or result

[d] rules:

official instructions, which have a controlling, influence on action, a system for control

[e] protocols:

system of rules, method of connecting (people through  computers) to exchange information (which leads to new knowledge and experience).

[f] policy: a course of administrative action, any system of management, prudence or sagacity in the conduct of affairs

VLE Stakeholder perspective –

The point of view may be from any VLE stakeholder’s experience or expectations such as administration, information systems support (librarian) academic / trainer, technical support, e-content provider, multimedia designer, Human Computer Interaction (HCI) expert, VLE architect or online instructional designer, online pedagogical expert, project manager, eLearning policy maker or (last but not least) the learner. If it is an international learning event different geographic and cultural interpretations should be considered.

 

Figure 1 Overview of research elements

 



[1] The term design is commonly used in this report. The focus is on the eLearning design as it relates to pedagogically unless otherwise specified (i.e. – computer interface design).

[2] The term design is commonly used in this report. The focus is on the eLearning design as it relates to pedagogically unless otherwise specified (i.e. – computer interface design).

[3] My comments added in square brackets.

[4] My comments have been added to clarify.

[5] Square brackets indicate my added comments for clarification.

 

[7] My addition to adapt the quote.

[8] Add par. 1 from page 57.

[9] These sub-group models have been informed by literature. This list is annotated to show where the models were influenced by Pincas (2006) as [P], Horton (2000) as [H], Jackson (1996) as [J], Garrison (2004) as [G] and Bonk (2006) as [B]. Templates that relate to a WBL context are annotated above as [W].

 

 

[10] My additions for clarification.

[11] Comments added for clarification

[12] Transcript generated from emailed notes provided by and interview with Anita Pincas

[13] Transcript generated from an Adobe Breeze recording.

[14] My added comments for clarification.

[15] My comments added for clarification.

[16] My comments added for clarification.

[17] My comments added for clarification.

[18] My comments added for clarification.

[19] My comments added for clarification.

[20] My comments added for clarification.

[21] My comments added for clarification.

[22] www.elearning.mdx.ac.uk/research/