Just posted the reflection for week 9 into my reflection journal. Wrote it up in bits and although finished it before weeekend only got round to posting it today (3/1). To keep entries in synch. have posted this with date of original draft.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
9.01b - VLEs & Curriculum
I concur with the statements on 'tail wagging the dog' although I cannot see how utilising the commercial VLE software how you would get away from this without massive educational / organisational change. One problem is possibly how we teach staff to use the VLE itself - perhaps it should be more experiential / problem based.
I'd be interested to research how the issues raised here apply across the curriulum in general i.e. how the problems apply to the more traditional campus based teaching and learning. The move to apply these techniques should happen across all spheres - does online learning simply facilitate a better approach to some of these techniques.
One point I find difficult is to see the differences applied within courses - what makes our course x rather than y - from a theoretical perspective the online course is acting as 'content and support' (in its widest terms) for the MSc were are undertaking. I can see some of the examples mentioned in the approaches within the course itself.
I think there does need to be a review / shift in the VLE world - something I think is happening with the developments of Blogs, collaborative software e.g. Colloquia, and MOO/MUD type environments e.g. bodington. I cannot understand why VLEs cannot be more open and flexible to allow better creativity and construction of learning - the development and features seem to be wedded to a very old-fashioned view. For example the tools should be there within the VLE to allow course leaders to manage their course and classes in a proactive way - they genreally are not there unless they are developed specially.
I cam across a useful reference at the website Theory and practice of online learning. Some of the ideas are replicated in Relationships Between Interactions and Learning In Online Environments. Some snippets were also read at Active Learning on the Web . JiscInfonet also has a Theories of learning and teaching site which states some basic principles.This is part of their Effective Use of VLEs infokit.
I'd be interested to research how the issues raised here apply across the curriulum in general i.e. how the problems apply to the more traditional campus based teaching and learning. The move to apply these techniques should happen across all spheres - does online learning simply facilitate a better approach to some of these techniques.
One point I find difficult is to see the differences applied within courses - what makes our course x rather than y - from a theoretical perspective the online course is acting as 'content and support' (in its widest terms) for the MSc were are undertaking. I can see some of the examples mentioned in the approaches within the course itself.
I think there does need to be a review / shift in the VLE world - something I think is happening with the developments of Blogs, collaborative software e.g. Colloquia, and MOO/MUD type environments e.g. bodington. I cannot understand why VLEs cannot be more open and flexible to allow better creativity and construction of learning - the development and features seem to be wedded to a very old-fashioned view. For example the tools should be there within the VLE to allow course leaders to manage their course and classes in a proactive way - they genreally are not there unless they are developed specially.
I cam across a useful reference at the website Theory and practice of online learning. Some of the ideas are replicated in Relationships Between Interactions and Learning In Online Environments. Some snippets were also read at Active Learning on the Web . JiscInfonet also has a Theories of learning and teaching site which states some basic principles.This is part of their Effective Use of VLEs infokit.
Monday, December 27, 2004
9.01a - Structure (VLEs / MLEs)
An extended blog entry
An interesting presentation expressing several conceptal ideas, I've tried to encapsulate the notes in a mindmap converted into HTML at VLEs.
I think the description of the types of VLE (content &, Wrap, integrated) are quite useful in the short term and seem to well describe the way that VLEs have been implemented across universities at the moment. However one might question, with the amount of research on online learning, whether this model is too simplistic. I would argus that there needs to be added other dimensions to this model to be able to qualify. Firstly the move through the types represents a distinct increase of the use of online facilities to teach and learn, however this must also be viewed in terms of amount of interactivity or 'ownership' being passed to the student. I beleive it would be possible for an integrated model to be still very much controlled by the tutor. The 3d modelling of Online perspective diagram shows this reasonably well.
The work looking at elearning models e.g. Mayes & Freitas Review of e-learning theories,frameworks and models and Conole (e.g.Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design) is important in this area to help understand how 'online' learning fits and works within the curriculum. See also the summary An update on the Pedagogy strand of the JISC eLearning Programme which brings together the work in th estrand elearning and pedagogy.
Another useful way of viewing elearning is to look at it through a two dimensional model relating to level of learning products (e.g. curriculum, course, lesson, page, etc) and the category of tools to support the learning (create, offer, access). As expressed in the 'Elearning tools and technologies' book this has the ability to cut through the baggage associated with the words VLE and MLE.
Having undertaken a survey of VLE usage across the UK and a review of evaluations undertaken I concur with the problems of evaluation. I would however suggest that that VLEs by their functionality & tools break down into three areas:
- content and support (e.g. WebCT)
- Collaborative product) (e.g. Colloquia)
- MOO/MUD type structures (e.g. Bodington)
This means that most VLEs tend to stick with what they are good at and do not move into the wider requirements for a fulfilled learning environment. A clear point here is the issue associated with communication tools in VLEs - why are they there? Normally any institution will have existing communication tools not embeded within the VLE but which cannot communicate with the VLE - communication tools are wider than the VLE.
Moving onto MLEs I think there are fundemental issues on some of the approaches taken in the various studies e.g. the FERL website is really talking about VLEs and not MLEs. Important to this is that JISC have actually moved away from the idea of a standard MLE being provided through a single piece of software to one that looks at the MLE as a concept. The best web site for this is the jisc infokit - creating an MLE but see a series of quotes encapsulated in mlenotes.
Having said that if you compare the functionalities between the two they are extremely similar which is why some software companies e.g. Blackboard, WebCT are advertising their products as MLEs. However the one clear distinction is that the VLE is a component part of the MLE and not a substitute for it, the MLE requires an extensive and expansive range of tools and functions outwith the pure delivery of learning content. The MLE is more about the processes to support the business of the university. It therefore cannot be easily delivered through proprietary software. i.e. an MLE is independant of the underpinning systems in that it should be possible to have several VLEs operating simultaneously.
The most obvious way to achieve this is to firstly integrate the systems in the background either logically or physically and then present that informatrion and processes through a portalised approach. The portal provides the physical mean to deliver an MLE (see JISC and others e.g. WebCT see their Vista product sitting underneath a portal). This approach allows any amount of legacy systems to be integrated to gether consistently - while the portal is seen as a culprit most problems arise out of poor processes and data. An MLE is possible and I beleive we have showed that asects of it can be achieved quite cost-effecitvely - comparison with what is being delivered in the univeristies Portal and the JISC PORTAL survey show a good match.
Itf we take that Portals are now seen as the practical means to deliver an MLE which may have a VLE associated with it we have an interesting debate on whether you need a physical VLE (piece of software) to create an MLE. I would argue not if the MLE is there to support th eporcess of learning - elearning may exist outwith of a specific VLE e.g. eresources, HTML web pages etc.
An interesting presentation expressing several conceptal ideas, I've tried to encapsulate the notes in a mindmap converted into HTML at VLEs.
I think the description of the types of VLE (content &, Wrap, integrated) are quite useful in the short term and seem to well describe the way that VLEs have been implemented across universities at the moment. However one might question, with the amount of research on online learning, whether this model is too simplistic. I would argus that there needs to be added other dimensions to this model to be able to qualify. Firstly the move through the types represents a distinct increase of the use of online facilities to teach and learn, however this must also be viewed in terms of amount of interactivity or 'ownership' being passed to the student. I beleive it would be possible for an integrated model to be still very much controlled by the tutor. The 3d modelling of Online perspective diagram shows this reasonably well.
The work looking at elearning models e.g. Mayes & Freitas Review of e-learning theories,frameworks and models and Conole (e.g.Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design) is important in this area to help understand how 'online' learning fits and works within the curriculum. See also the summary An update on the Pedagogy strand of the JISC eLearning Programme which brings together the work in th estrand elearning and pedagogy.
Another useful way of viewing elearning is to look at it through a two dimensional model relating to level of learning products (e.g. curriculum, course, lesson, page, etc) and the category of tools to support the learning (create, offer, access). As expressed in the 'Elearning tools and technologies' book this has the ability to cut through the baggage associated with the words VLE and MLE.
Having undertaken a survey of VLE usage across the UK and a review of evaluations undertaken I concur with the problems of evaluation. I would however suggest that that VLEs by their functionality & tools break down into three areas:
- content and support (e.g. WebCT)
- Collaborative product) (e.g. Colloquia)
- MOO/MUD type structures (e.g. Bodington)
This means that most VLEs tend to stick with what they are good at and do not move into the wider requirements for a fulfilled learning environment. A clear point here is the issue associated with communication tools in VLEs - why are they there? Normally any institution will have existing communication tools not embeded within the VLE but which cannot communicate with the VLE - communication tools are wider than the VLE.
Moving onto MLEs I think there are fundemental issues on some of the approaches taken in the various studies e.g. the FERL website is really talking about VLEs and not MLEs. Important to this is that JISC have actually moved away from the idea of a standard MLE being provided through a single piece of software to one that looks at the MLE as a concept. The best web site for this is the jisc infokit - creating an MLE but see a series of quotes encapsulated in mlenotes.
Having said that if you compare the functionalities between the two they are extremely similar which is why some software companies e.g. Blackboard, WebCT are advertising their products as MLEs. However the one clear distinction is that the VLE is a component part of the MLE and not a substitute for it, the MLE requires an extensive and expansive range of tools and functions outwith the pure delivery of learning content. The MLE is more about the processes to support the business of the university. It therefore cannot be easily delivered through proprietary software. i.e. an MLE is independant of the underpinning systems in that it should be possible to have several VLEs operating simultaneously.
The most obvious way to achieve this is to firstly integrate the systems in the background either logically or physically and then present that informatrion and processes through a portalised approach. The portal provides the physical mean to deliver an MLE (see JISC and others e.g. WebCT see their Vista product sitting underneath a portal). This approach allows any amount of legacy systems to be integrated to gether consistently - while the portal is seen as a culprit most problems arise out of poor processes and data. An MLE is possible and I beleive we have showed that asects of it can be achieved quite cost-effecitvely - comparison with what is being delivered in the univeristies Portal and the JISC PORTAL survey show a good match.
Itf we take that Portals are now seen as the practical means to deliver an MLE which may have a VLE associated with it we have an interesting debate on whether you need a physical VLE (piece of software) to create an MLE. I would argue not if the MLE is there to support th eporcess of learning - elearning may exist outwith of a specific VLE e.g. eresources, HTML web pages etc.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
9.02 Storyboarding tools
Have experimented over the last couple of weeks with various approaches to storyboarding for CBT e.g. Microsoft Visio, DENIM, Word, Various Paint packages.
However after a presentation at the University of Portsmouth Teaching and Learning conference I cam away with the idea of putting the storyboard into powerpoint. Facilities embedded within powerpoint seem to offer possibiites to create a prototype mimicing the stcuture of the eventual CBT. For example able to:
- use templates with hyperlinks to other existing slides.
- animate slides as one might do in Flash.
- include sound files
- associate items with mouseclick / mouseover events.
I'll be posting my storyboard over the christmas period
However after a presentation at the University of Portsmouth Teaching and Learning conference I cam away with the idea of putting the storyboard into powerpoint. Facilities embedded within powerpoint seem to offer possibiites to create a prototype mimicing the stcuture of the eventual CBT. For example able to:
- use templates with hyperlinks to other existing slides.
- animate slides as one might do in Flash.
- include sound files
- associate items with mouseclick / mouseover events.
I'll be posting my storyboard over the christmas period
Sunday, December 12, 2004
8.03 Reflection on week 8
Another retrospetively posted journal entry left in draft form till I wondered why it wasn't appearing in my blog. Anyhow the musings I wrote as part of my reflective journal for week 8 are now published at simon's reflective journal.
I've dated the postings back to the date of the original journal entry as I have't chnaged them from their original scribblings.
I've dated the postings back to the date of the original journal entry as I have't chnaged them from their original scribblings.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
8.02 SEEQUEL - Sustainable Environment for the Evaluation of Quality in E-Learning
The organisation SEEQUEL - Sustainable Environment for the Evaluation of Quality in E-Learning was methioned in the Times Higher Education this week. It has links to other european organisations in this field.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
8.01 (f) Pros and Cons of Learning Objects
The site used for the above was Pros and Cons of Learning Objects
I also found an intersting online conference site Distance Learning Conference .
and an interesting article at Health and e-learning.
One thing that did strike me in looking into Learning objects was the vas amount of material out there e.g. Learning Objects Web Links.
They weren't joking when they said we'd never read it all.
I also found an intersting online conference site Distance Learning Conference .
and an interesting article at Health and e-learning.
One thing that did strike me in looking into Learning objects was the vas amount of material out there e.g. Learning Objects Web Links.
They weren't joking when they said we'd never read it all.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
8.01 (d) Learning Objects
If you don't read anything else for this area then you should dip into the Creating Courses - Learning Objects, XML, SGML site. It probably contains most of the influential authors on the subject and is worth bookmarking for later perusal.
Stephen Downes article while short is extremely useful, his analogy to a play is especially enlightening.
I'd be interested to explore examples of building shared learning materials as at the connexions site.
Stephen Downes article while short is extremely useful, his analogy to a play is especially enlightening.
I'd be interested to explore examples of building shared learning materials as at the connexions site.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Merlot Teaching
I referred to this in an earlier posting. I've decided to give it a seperate post because of the richness of information within the MERLOT site. While it has a North American stance it does show how 'educational materials can be delivered as 'learning objects'.
8.01 Learning Objects - systems and issues
On standards - I find the technicality of the standards quite difficult to grasp and would welcome a brief clear and accessible guide to what they are about. What makes up the IMS standard?
It was interesting to read the various articles on the difficulties especially the cynical look by James Dalziel. His view of it as a chaotic madness that will never be achieved strikes a few chords.
The article by D. Wiley I found extremely interesting especially the statement on the reason for the ideas behing learning objects:
1. A one-on-one instructional model is preferable
2. human interaction in large scale learning environments is economically impossible,
3. automation is the only viable solution to providing anywhere anytime learning.
Summary of drawbacks:
1. Technical reusability - The majority of digital educational resources, in existing systems supposedly designed to support reusability, cannot be reused .
2. De-contextualisation - Decontextualized learning objects provide the greatest reusability but are also the most expensive and difficult for instructional designers to reuse.
3. IPR - Despite copyright legislation digital content will inevitably make its way into free distribution thus providing any market economy for the production of commercial content for purchase and reuse.
Summary of advantages:
1. Model - The best model will be one separating instructional strategies (teaching techniques) from the available strucutred content.
2. Open access - Allows the building up a library of free, nonrivalrous educational resources.
3. Social learning - Blogs and other software provide a valid way of using learning objects to support learning.
4. Supports learning - Assuming an instructional design rather than direct instruction allows learning objects to be used for problem base learning.
Three Objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards has a wealth of links and highlights the three main concerns as;
1. what is a learning object anyway? - so many standards and definitions
2. Where is the Learning in E-Learning Standards? - pedagogically neutral, pedagogically irrelevant
3. Education in a Militarized Zone? - model on a man-machine / engineering basis.
Other web sites for the above include:
CETIS-CETIS Reference
Topdoglearning
It was interesting to read the various articles on the difficulties especially the cynical look by James Dalziel. His view of it as a chaotic madness that will never be achieved strikes a few chords.
The article by D. Wiley I found extremely interesting especially the statement on the reason for the ideas behing learning objects:
1. A one-on-one instructional model is preferable
2. human interaction in large scale learning environments is economically impossible,
3. automation is the only viable solution to providing anywhere anytime learning.
Summary of drawbacks:
1. Technical reusability - The majority of digital educational resources, in existing systems supposedly designed to support reusability, cannot be reused .
2. De-contextualisation - Decontextualized learning objects provide the greatest reusability but are also the most expensive and difficult for instructional designers to reuse.
3. IPR - Despite copyright legislation digital content will inevitably make its way into free distribution thus providing any market economy for the production of commercial content for purchase and reuse.
Summary of advantages:
1. Model - The best model will be one separating instructional strategies (teaching techniques) from the available strucutred content.
2. Open access - Allows the building up a library of free, nonrivalrous educational resources.
3. Social learning - Blogs and other software provide a valid way of using learning objects to support learning.
4. Supports learning - Assuming an instructional design rather than direct instruction allows learning objects to be used for problem base learning.
Three Objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards has a wealth of links and highlights the three main concerns as;
1. what is a learning object anyway? - so many standards and definitions
2. Where is the Learning in E-Learning Standards? - pedagogically neutral, pedagogically irrelevant
3. Education in a Militarized Zone? - model on a man-machine / engineering basis.
Other web sites for the above include:
CETIS-CETIS Reference
Topdoglearning
Sunday, December 05, 2004
7.04f Reflection on week 7
This posting went into virtual hibernation because I did not convert it from draft form. Anyhow the musings I wrote as part of my reflective journal are now published at simon's reflective journal.
I've dated this posting back to the date of the original journal entry.
I've dated this posting back to the date of the original journal entry.
8.0X Flash Tutorials
This week I be mostly concentrating on video but have decided to post only some of them because of the large size of the files created. The HOT exercises were useful but I adapted them quite a bit for my own purposes.
I quite enjoyed playing around with video clips and see it as a great way to utilise the concept of learning objects - a single clip could be broken down into its component parts and be used in a variety of situations.
The videos are:
1 . Rome clips which shows how dialogue could be synched and highlighted with a video. Also has 'rollover' functions on some text to show how translation of italian could be achieved. Video can be stopped and started.
2. Lanzarote clips which allows a user to pick a clip to look at. May be used for different scenarios of the same situation or different scenarios for different situations.
Be warned they are quite large.
I quite enjoyed playing around with video clips and see it as a great way to utilise the concept of learning objects - a single clip could be broken down into its component parts and be used in a variety of situations.
The videos are:
1 . Rome clips which shows how dialogue could be synched and highlighted with a video. Also has 'rollover' functions on some text to show how translation of italian could be achieved. Video can be stopped and started.
2. Lanzarote clips which allows a user to pick a clip to look at. May be used for different scenarios of the same situation or different scenarios for different situations.
Be warned they are quite large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
