Oleg's points are interesting and I would not deny the main thrust of them -
that teachers have too few opportunities to share what they do in the
classroom.

But I think it's important to remember that the EML metaphor of scripts and
plays is exactly that - a metaphor. And though classroom practice = play,
learning design = script is an intuitively reasonable equation, not least
because it suggests that it is an easy matter to perform 'the same' script
in a different theatre, there are some problems with it.

For example, a script establishes the content of a play, not the structure.
This is why people have likened classroom teaching (and teaching online)
more to improvising than to acting out a script, where one goes in with a
series of notes on the back of an envelope, and is prepared to change them
depending on audience response. Personally I think it woudl be useful to
share those envelopes, but only in the context of knowing what actually
happened on stage, and how the performer interpreted those jottings to
create a coherent performance, full of rich content.

Second, teachers may follow a script, but learners do not. Learners are in
this sense a cross between actors and audience - or perhaps they are very
unruly actors who haven't learned any lines. Their role may be constrained
by the situation of 'being at a lecture' for example, but their response is
much broader than a script allows for. The meaning of a learning encounter
emerges only when learners start to respond in their own ways to the stimuli
offered by the teacher. Therefore the analogy with a script is potentially a
dangerous one. Teachers do not learn from other teachers by slavishly
following the same script, but by improvising their own script within the
conventions of a certain genre (e.g. 'lecture', 'seminar').

Third, a play or improvisation generally has one purpose or intended
outcome - to entertain an audience. A learning interaction can have many
different intended outcomes. Both content AND structure of the learning
activity depend fundamentally on the intended outcome, which is usually
domain specific.

Finally, a play is a time-dependent, narrative form in which meaning is
determined largely by the sequence of events, though of course the
disposition of actors about the stage, the tone of voice, the poetry of the
lines etc. also have their role to play. We know that while the sequence of
events is in some cases crucial to learning - e.g. where new concepts need
to be progressively scaffolded - we also know that much learning requires
exposure only to a range of different experiences, not necessarily in any
given sequence, and that different learners will prefer to encounter them in
different ways (e.g. in different linear sequences; using a branching
decision tree; trying different approaches before settling on one;
holistically across the wole range of available tasks etc) . Thus it is
sometimes preferable to talk about 'orchestrating' learning experiences
rather than sequencing them as in a play.

I agree that practitioners' repertoire of teachin needs to be broadened, but
I'm not sure that the form in which this repertoire is communicated can be
reduced to 'scripts' - I think it is something more subtle. In literature
there is epic, there is situation comedy, there is tragedy, there are
sonnets, novels, farces, limericks. You can learn the rules for a genre -
five acts for a tragedy, 16 lines for a sonnet - but you won't be able to
write a tragedy or a sonnet that works until you have read a lot of examples
and also a lot of criticism about how the best ones work. I think this is
closer to what we are trying to share in this programme - some simple rules
but also some very sutble *examples*, in the form of case studies, video
clips, and shared experiences, which cannot be reduced to the rules.

Helen

----- Original Message -----
From: "oleg liber" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]


> 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