 |
 |
We have to be careful to avoid making Learning Design more than it is, and then condemning it to failure. Teaching practice always involves some kind of lesson plan, some sequencing of activities. These "recipes" used to be an important part of teacher training in the old days, and can be seen as the "scripts" of the "plays" that are the lessons. I'm concerned that describing these as "recipes" seems to suggest that they play a minor part - with the "chemistry" of the human interaction being the major part. While I can agree that actors' performance makes a big difference, the structure and content of a play also has significant value, that is interpreted differently by different performers. We've traditionally treated lessons as "improv" plays - the teacher is told what the lesson is supposed to be about, and then they have to develop their own script (in advance or on the fly) and perform it, including managing audience participation. Some are good at this, some are not. Many would benefit from seeing others' scripts and performances, which they can adopt and adapt. But of course their interpretation makes a difference, as does their interaction with audience - and the audience contributions are hugely important too. My view is that teachers have spent too little time exchanging "scripts" and learning from each other, focusing too much on the mystique of performance and chemistry - or dare I say the machismo of being a "good" teacher. Capturing learning designs can help with the sharing of experience, and even though they are decontextualised, they can still play an important role, while still allowing for interpretation. Finally, we should note that the main reason for developing a specification for Learning Design is to try and push VLEs to support a wider range of learning and teaching activities than at present. VLEs typically embody a narrow pedagogy (the 20% that 80% of teachers want, as one leading vendor said to us recently); Learning Design, if implemented moves this on - and that's all. The problems of expressing personality online, of developing chemistry between participants, continue to be issues that require much research and development. Oleg Martin Oliver wrote: > ...and the other thing I sent that didn't make it... > >> Clive Church wrote: >> >> >P.s As the success of each lesson is dependent on the teacher (skills, >> >enthusiasm, personality etc.) in using the resources at his/ her >> disposal >> >and the 'chemistry' of each particular group how can different leanring >> >design models be effectively evaluated.......or am I just a crusty old >> cynic??!! >> >> I think this is a good question. I'd say that there is a real risk here. >> This is the worst-case scenario: >> >> --------------- >> >> Someone does some "effective practice". It's evaluated, which >> provides an >> abstract description of it (inevitably losing elements of context, often >> including things like "chemistry"). This model then becomes a >> resource of >> the kind that these projects are exploring (a case study, say, or >> tips for >> practice). Someone else picks these up and tries to use them and - >> because >> vital but intangible information is missing - it doesn't go as expected. >> They lose heart and grow more conservative. >> >> --------------- >> >> In other words, no matter how good the source, we risk just producing >> "more of the same" by turning these learning designs into yet more >> recipes >> for practice. (Of which there are already plenty.) >> >> All that it would take to turn this into a good outcome, really, is that >> the person who picks up the resource thinks creatively about how to >> adapt >> what is described to their own practice. Of course I suspect this >> (people >> thinking, not just copying) is the one bit that it's going to be hard >> for >> JISC to promote through funding! >> >> Am I being overly cynical, too? Can anyone come up with a "fix" for >> this? >> >> Martin > > > > --------------------- > > Dr. Martin Oliver, > Education and Professional Development, > University College London, > 1-19 Torrington Place, > London, > WC1E 7HJ > > Phone: +44 (0)20 7679 1905 (x. 41905) > Fax: +44 (0)20 7679 1715 > Email: [log in to unmask] > > From May 10th: [log in to unmask] > > MA Learning Technology Research: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/epd/ltr/ > ALT-J: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/09687769.asp > > -- Oleg Liber Professor of eLearning Bolton Institute of Higher Education Deane Road Bolton BL3 5AB Tel: +44(0)1204 903660 mobile: +44(0)7919 573532 Web: http://www.cetis.ac.uk