EDIT4L presentation ALT-C Sept 2007


Published on

Outcomes of the EDIT4L project

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EDIT4L presentation ALT-C Sept 2007

  1. 1. EDIT4L ALT-C Thursday, 6th September 2007 Online toolkits for learning design. Should we bother? Mark Childs University of Warwick Graham Lewis University of Aberstwyth Paul Riddy University of Southampton (Karen Fill University of Southampton)
  2. 2. EDIT4L - aims <ul><li>Implement and evaluate existing learning design tools in the context of teaching staff development. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Disseminate these tools more extensively. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explore and support their use in design for learning. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluate their impact. </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. EDIT4L – the tools <ul><li>DialogPlus toolkit (DPT) </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) </li></ul>
  4. 4. DPT feedback <ul><li>Disliked: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>educational language to complex </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>interface too linear and non-intuitive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>difficult to re-find sub-phases eg tasks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liked </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured approach to educational design – useful reminder and for new teachers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Outcomes / aims / tasks maps </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>L&T library useful / too detailed </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. LAMS feedback <ul><li>Disliked: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Navigation options too linear / impoverished educational model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non synchronous options for shared activities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Liked </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ease of use of interface, and for developing activity sequences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Potential for sharing of activity sequences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicability to sequential leaning and scaffolding activities </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Design cycle and scope of tools Also: analyses of user groups against design cycle (see evaluation report - live from October 1 st )                 Phoebe                 L.P.                 LAMS                 DPT   Evaluation Delivery Production Content Session design Programme Design Analysis Conception  
  7. 7. Suggestions for new tool <ul><li>User-configurable – so that the different types of users can be catered for </li></ul><ul><li>Progressive disclosure – so that new users aren’t confronted with a large range of options. The tool possesses a kernel onto which users can add layers. </li></ul><ul><li>Navigability – foregrounding the mental model that the tool uses </li></ul><ul><li>Just-in-time instructions and wizards – to allow appropriate learning steps for using the tool </li></ul><ul><li>Engagement – tools that encourage a community of practice </li></ul>
  8. 8. Issues with embedding <ul><li>They can be seen as a reproach for incorrect practice, rather than an opportunity for support </li></ul><ul><li>Embedding them is usually made the responsibility of staff developers. The responsibility for seeing the tools embedded should be made that of senior management and the process integrated with QA and QE activities. </li></ul><ul><li>Tools aren’t seen to open up more opportunities for teachers, not be simply as more work, or limiting the range of what can be done. </li></ul><ul><li>Incorporating a learning design tool requires a cultural change regarding learning design to take place, particularly in HE. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Should we bother? <ul><li>Are the current toolkits effective? </li></ul><ul><li>Can we envisage a toolkit that would be used? </li></ul><ul><li>Can the barriers to use be overcome? </li></ul>
  10. 10. Contact <ul><li>Paul Riddy [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Mark Childs [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Graham Lewis TBA </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.edit4l.soton.ac.uk:8081/ </li></ul>