> However looking at the examples of use of the toolkit I
got the impression that the theoretical position can soon fall into the
background as people work through an approach that leads to teaching that fits
with an approach that was held by the toolkit designer but not necessarily
having to be held by the teacher.
This was a worry that came up in initial consultation.
I think the short survey of 'toolkit' and 'help function' approaches that
Grainne and Martin are carrying out will be really informative at this stage.
ie. what is the real story about how such conceptual tools are used, embedded
etc, how useful they are (whether it is the tool itself that changes practice or
the activities such as workshops around embedding the tool, or even the activity
of developing it).
A lot of people in the experts' meeting were
concerned that tools of this kind are simply not used by practitioners at their
desks, and the question is whether they are more likely to be used by staff
developers, learning technologists, ICT champions, researchers etc as
intermediaries between 'learning design', 'learning theory', and practical
approaches to teaching.
Patrick also noted:
> all the details of
metadata and representation that is needed for a runnable "Learning Design", one
issue for me is how much these do integrate or if design tools where the result
is partly throw away are valuable (like the mini activities in the first
paper).
Sandy Britain and myself have been looking at whether,
and how, different theoretical approaches to learning can be expressed in terms
of different learning design 'use cases' or 'sequences', and concluding that
there are probably only a limited number of effective mappings (and that anyway
what is 'effective' within any given theoretical framework is usually highly
context dependent). Also, what counts as an 'activity' (or a 'mini-activity') is
highly context sensitive. Is 'read this article' an activity, a mini-activity
within a larger cluster, or in fact a whole sequence of conceptual activities
(scan, overview, summarise, take notes, read for
comprehension etc).
I think we need to recognise and value the practice of
sharing learning plans in FE, but also question how and where these plans arise
(e.g. might there be a case for 'learning design' tools to support the
developers of materials such as lesson plans, to ensure a good fit with a
least one accepted pedagogical theory?). Also I question whether these
plans are actually subject-neutral sequences that can be 'filled up'
with new content for new subject areas - which is the claim for LD - or whether
they are rather deeply embedded in the specific subject that is being
taught. the fact of the more standardised curriculum in FE makes it economic to
develop and share sequences that contain subject content, while it may be less
economic to do so in HE or in the very learner-centred areas of
ACL.
James Dalziel (developer of LAMS) has been arguing that
what the LD specification ought to do is offer ways of orchestrating different
tools, rather than simply sharing different sequences. There is a major argument
at the moment over whether lesson plans, or activity sequences, or 'learning
designs', make any sense without the information about their context and content
for use: and if they are so context-specific then what is gained by sharing
them? I think there are probably some things that can be shared as 'models' for
direct re-use (Laurillard's conversational framework?) and many things that
can only be shared as 'examples', that need interpretation and adaptation if
they are to be useful in a new context.
Thanks,
Helen
-----Original Message----- From:
Conole G.C. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 14 May 2004
11:14 To:Subject: Re: Recipes or
chefs..
Hi Patrick I would
totally agree with you on this – definitely seems to be a general consensus
on this – but I suspect getting people to really use and adapt may still be
more problematic than we think. Attached are two papers which might be of
interest. The first is a paper we have in computers and education which
provides a map of learning theories from which a model is developed which is
intended as the first step in better linking theory with practice – of
relevance in particular I think to the Models deskstudy. The second is a draft paper on our
specification for the learning design toolkit we are developing as part of
the jisc/nsfdialogplus
project.
Thoughts, comments
welcome!
Grainne
ProfessorGrainne
Conole
Chair
in Educational Innovation
University
of Southampton
Tel
023 8059 3086
Mobile
07870 166 362
Editor
of ALT-J
www.alt.ac.uk
Chair
of ALT-C
2004
-----Original
Message----- From:
P.McAndrew [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 07 May 2004 10:57 To:[log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Recipes or
chefs..
Hi
All,
I
think Learning Design is proving very attractive to us as at first glance it
is fairly easy to understand the idea that it should be worth writing down
our "recipes". As Oleg points out though there are different drivers. OUNL
are using it as a way to describe their courses extending from EML, so that
a course can be constructed with some independence from the environment that
plays it. While the approach has a pedagogic neutral feel to it, the
examples and aspects that get highlighted are where it brings in
collaboration, recognition of roles, need for synchronisation etc. - i.e.
aspects that tend to be missing from the mainstream
VLEs.
Where
I see a lot of interest though is on more generic designs that perhaps do
not have all the content in place to actually play out to students. I
believe there is value in offering these and also in tools that help
people work with them. James Dalziel's LAMS system sits well in this,
in that it can be used to manipulate various components into a sequence at
one level, or it can be used to complete more detailed information
that can then be used with students. At the moment LAMS does not
match to Learning Design (in IMS terms) but I do think it gives a good idea
of what might be useful.
I
personally almost never create a word document from scratch - I will pick
the closest previous document to hand and rework that. Some collection of
reworkable designs (or activities or templates or designs) therefore
seems attractive to me, provided the tools for reworking are relatively
simple. Where part of the problem lies and where Helen and I have shared
experience is that learning situations often become complex fairly quickly -
so that the dropping in of an idea from one context changes in perhaps
surprising ways in a new context. Then the other aspects that sit beside the
design start to become more important: who used? what did they actually do?
where were the problems? etc. My position at the moment is we really need to
investigate the representations and will get some gains if not all that we
might have hoped for.
Hmm -
I see how joining in this debate leads to longer and longer emails. I will
stop.
Patrick.
(Picking on
Alistairs message to reply to because it had the nicest
title.)
-----Original
Message----- From:
Alistair McNaught [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 06 May 2004 23:31 To:[log in to unmask] Subject: Recipes or
chefs..
Picking
up on Martin's point
"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!"
There is clearly a
difference between giving someone recipes they follow and giving them
inspiration to create their own variants using the ingredients at their
disposal. Moving someone from copy mode to creative mode is dependent on
several factors which must include (among others no doubt) confidence in
the tools, some contextualised inspiration and an opportunity for some
supported "playtime" with the appropriate hardware or software.
I can see the JISC project
providing the middle bit of the equation - along with existing schemes
like the Ferl Practitioner's Programme - but the other two elements are
down to institutional policies regarding staff development priorities.
Staff development is highly fragmented across the sector with many
institutions having very ad hoc policies based on voluntary attendance out
of hours with no carrots for attendance or sticks for non-attendance. I
can't imagine many banks or building societies running like
that…
A good outcome of this
project would be to raise awareness of the need for strategic, ring-fenced
staff development monies. There is no shortage of high quality training
materials and this project could very usefully plug some of the gaps that
still remain. But unless there is a reason for staff development (driven
by institutional strategies and expected by inspectors), moving beyond the
"enthusiasm" cohort to mainstream expectation is unlikely to occur
quickly.
Ironically, a couple of
years ago FE had a one-off injection of ILT staff development money but
little training materials available. Now we have the opposite. Maybe next
time?
Alistair
Alistair
McNaught FPP Development
Officer 07801 612
458
********************************************************************** This email
and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system
manager. This
footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
by MIMEsweeper
for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
