1. Designs for learning with VLEs Tutors designs and creations in their VLE areas. Mira Vogel, Goldsmiths, University of London Martin Oliver, Institute of Education Peeking Out by Richard Lowkes http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardlowkes/

2. 2 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Overview of the next 10 minutes 1.Project background 2.Putting a VLE in place 3.Articulating designs 4.Integrating VLE and non-VLE designs 5.Selection and use of different tools 6.Conclusions and implications

3. 3 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Blended / f2f 10 UK institutions HE FE ACL Focus on 3 VLEs Moodle (6) Blackboard (2) WebCT (2) Background: scope and focus support The institutions learning teaching VLE

4. 4 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Background: participants Hill College (Moodle) Brett Fred Luca Olly Pete Zoe Ozzy Rachel Lake University (Moodle) Downs College (Moodle) Kurt Jed Ian Ike Ben Bart Laurie Bay College (Moodle) Chris Cliff College (Blackboard) Ina Tim Rick Lila Kathy Kitty Petra Della Babak Uplands University (Blackboard) Colin Island College (WebCT) Luke Paul Forest College (Moodle) Mike River University (WebCT) Bill Valley College (Moodle) Dave Learner Tutor E-learning lead E-learning lead & tutor KEY Studying with Interview participants

5. 5 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Findings: learning technology contacts Putting a VLE in place

6. 6 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 An overview of VLE adoption Deciding on a VLE Procurement Replacement Stages of adoption Flexibility Control Cost Risk Pedagogy Peers Usability Awareness Playtime Piloting Formalisation Status quo

7. 7 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Summary of putting a VLE in place Overall, concerns focused on institutional, technical and administrative issues »Classified into two categories »40 Organisational, 26 Educational Grappling with organisational issues diverts attention from designing for learning Slightly more than 1/3 were directly to do with designing for learning »Still unclear how organisational issues affect this process

8. 8 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Findings: learning technology contacts Articulating designs

9. 9 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Whether and how All teachers design for learning Designs are rarely fully articulated on the VLE Even designs for VLE-based learning is not represented on the VLE itself »Stuff without rationale Course areas are usually inscrutable if viewed in isolation Designs can only be observed in the connections between elements of learning and teaching »On a VLE: order, timing, layout, formatting, commentary flagging of gaps

10. 10 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Findings: learning technology contacts Integrating VLE and non- VLE designs

11. 11 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Integrating practices within the study Some very creative manoeuvring »To keep students participating in all areas Design adapted on the fly »Flexibility was an original selling point of VLEs »… they encourage an open-ended design process Tutors talked about running designs, not about designs or the process of designing So what is the design we should be studying? »A process, not a single artefact

12. 12 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Design blindness Technocentricity v. learner centricity divided the tutors »Should new tools suggest new ways to teach? »… or should an expert teacher select the tools needed to meet learners requirements? Tutors were unable to think of ways to preserve new practice if the VLE were withdrawn »Changes in practice associated with the tool itself rather than a new way of doing things »Integration a strength, but pedagogy hidden by VLE

13. 13 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Findings: learning technology contacts Selection and use of different VLE tools

14. 14 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 VLE features used by tutors ( 2 nd questionnaire) High take-up of Content presentation Forums Groups Self-test Selective release Distinctively (social) constructivist tools less used

15. 15 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Why are some Moodles most distinctive tools underused? E.g.Wiki, Glossary, Workshop There is little time available for innovation »Tutors have little protected time to design, police, scaffold and assess online activities »Diverting learners self-study time into highly interactive online learning has implications Institutions are built round traditional learning »No frameworks exist for assessing new forms, »Participation is notoriously low for unassessed activities Complexity of the tools can put people off The tools emphasise process but blended courses offer ample f2f opportunities to acquire these skills

16. 16 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Conclusions and implications Case studies

17. 17 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Overview of design for learning in VLEs Tutors design but may not make that design explicit straight into VLE (a representation) Content & activities Relationships eg sequence, order, explanation because of context and maybe as eg time, maintenance, complexity, keeping flexible, infrastructure, simply no need

18. 18 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Implications Realising creativity on a VLE requires considerable institutional »Flexibility »Support for experiments »Support for networks to share ideas and inspiration If it is considered desirable that designs are fully articulated in VLEs (eg for audit or sharing) »Incentivisation required »A maintenance burden must be anticipated Eliciting design practice »Access to logs would be helpful – interview-plus »A more naturalistic approach?

19. 19 Mira Vogel, 24 May 06 Acknowledgements & further info Helen Beetham, JISC (consultant) Martin Oliver, IoE (consultant) Liz Masterman, University of Oxford Sarah Knight, JISC (kind and patient project manager) All the participants. The report: »http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/D4L_VLE_repo rt_final.pdf Email Martin or me: »m.vogel@gold.ac.uk, m.oliver@ioe.ac.uk