e-learning, learning, and e (Reduced file-size version without examples of student PBL work – if you want that, me) Dr. Stephen Bostock Advisor for Technology and Learning Keele University, UK

Summary E Learning Face to Face e-learning, an example Online e-learning Blended learning, an example Conclusion

The e in e-learning Borrowed from e-commerce: electronic transactions between businesses and with customers E-learning: buying degrees online? Learning is far more complex than e-commerce – the wrong connotations (commercialization, commodification)

The learning in e-learning eLearning is learning A cognitive-social-constructivist view Learning requires intellectual activity, engagement Students expect a personal transaction with a teacher Education is a personal service, not a commodity, not publishing “E-learning” – we’re stuck with it

Types of Teaching-Learning Activities and technology support Pedagogy should drive the choice and use of technology – what supports the chosen learning activities? There are many classifications of activities necessary for learning! E.g. Laurillard’s 10; Shuell’s 12; Salmon’s 32 e-tivities; Biggs 16; etc. Level of detail, fine-grained or coarse Five will do here; they map to the others

Student modes of engagement in TLAs 1. Information transmission/reception teacher talk or writing about content, student listening, reading & note taking 2. Multimedia transmission/reception listening, watching content, realism 3. Individual activity doing, practising 4. Interactivity in student groups discussing, proposing, defending, reflecting 5. Student – teacher interactivity individual feedback to and from a teacher

The when and where

TLA type mode of engagement F2F TLA examples Technology support example Online TLA examples Technology support examples 1 transmission /reception Didactic lecture Microphone Chalk? PowerPoint? Shovelware Set text Resource files 2 multimedia transmission /reception Images, video demonstration debate + projector and DVD, VCR, IAW Images, video, audio + multimedia files, streaming 3 Individual activity Answer, question, read, reflect handout, calculator, pen, Answer, question, read, reflect Web, Google, Word, simulation 4 Student interactivity Discussion, PBL, collaboration Groupware? IAW Small group work CMC: , discussion board, chat 5 Student/ teacher interactivity Tutorial, interactive lecture Voting PRSTutorial, Q&A+ FAQs, tests, tutorial, voting integrated into Computer console, IAW Virtual Learning Environment

Information Transmission

Enhanced presentation

Individual activity

Interactivity

Student-teacher interactivity

How many modes of engagement are there in student groups? 1Vote A 2Vote B 3Vote C 4Vote D 5Vote E 6 Vote F

Cheap, simple alternatives to electronic voting  A show of hands  Any questions?  Volunteers  Random selection of students  Coloured cards  CommuniCubes

Electronic voting handsets anonymous but can opt out automatic counting and display electronic: high risk for teacher, training needed expensive  CommuniCubes - partially anonymous - manual counting/ estimating - low tech, low risk, no training - cheap Similar pedagogy Response technologies

Types of questions with a Personal Response System “Concept check”: Multiple choice quiz on content just delivered Multiple choice quiz/problem solving at start to diagnose initial understanding Students self-report relevant experience Students self-report level of understanding Students opt for a revision topic Combine MCQ with activity, interactivity, and presentations.

Vote Vote for: 1.Continue to the next topicContinue to the next topic 2.Say more about electronic Personal Response SystemsSay more about electronic Personal Response Systems 3.Say more about CommuniCubesSay more about CommuniCubes 4.Say more about student evaluation of CommuniCubesSay more about student evaluation of CommuniCubes

TLA type mode of engagement F2F TLA examples Technology support examples Online TLA examples Technology support examples 1 transmission /reception Didactic lecture Microphone Chalk? PowerPoint? Shovelware Set text Resource files 2 multimedia transmission /reception Images, video demonstration debate + projector and DVD, VCR, IAW Images, video, audio + multimedia files, streaming 3 Individual activity Answer, question, read, reflect handout, calculator, pen, Answer, question, read, reflect Web, Google, Word, simulation 4 Student interactivity Discussion, PBL, collaboration Groupware? IAW Small group work CMC: , discussion board, chat 5 Student/ teacher interactivity Tutorial, interactive lecture Voting PRSTutorial, Q&A+ FAQs, tests, tutorial, voting integrated into Computer console, IAW Virtual Learning Environment

Online learning Basic functions Learning resources the Web, subject gateways, course web site, e-library, e-journals e.g. Keele Learning Server (modes 1, 2) Tools e.g. Google, Scholar, Word (mode 3) Discussion boards for asynchronous group text e.g. BSCW (modes 4,5) Computer Assisted Assessment testing and quizzing e.g. QuestionMark (mode 5)

Additional functions in Virtual Learning Environments Easy organization of small groups within courses Student work submission, integration with plagiarism detection Activity tracking of cohorts and individuals Selective release of resources, tests, discussions etc. for individuals depending on activity Calendar, announcements, and other utilities Real-time chat: text, voting, shared whiteboard Many teacher administrative tools: Virtual Teaching Environments

Blended learning Adopted by HEFCE after their e-learning strategy consultation: normal practice! Our daily lives are a blend of F2F and online (cyberspace) activity; so should education be, for similar reasons What is the optimum (effective and efficient) mix of TLAs, traditional and technology- based? F2F and online? An example: engagement mode 4, blending traditional with electronic, F2F with online

TLA type mode of engagement F2F TLA examples Technology support examples Online TLA examples Technology support examples 1 transmission /reception Didactic lecture Microphone Chalk? PowerPoint? Shovelware Set text Resource files 2 multimedia transmission /reception Images, video demonstration debate + projector and DVD, VCR, IAW Images, video, audio + multimedia files, streaming 3 Individual activity Answer, question, read, reflect handout, calculator, pen, Answer, question, read, reflect Web, Google, Word, simulation 4 Student interactivity Discussion, PBL, collaboration Groupware? IAW Small group work CMC: , discussion board, chat 5 Student/ teacher interactivity Tutorial, interactive lecture Voting PRSTutorial, Q&A+ FAQs, tests, tutorial, voting integrated into Computer console, IAW Virtual Learning Environment

A example PBL in UG medicine Groups of 8-12 students with a facilitator A rotating Chair and Scribe 3 one-hour meetings per case, per week Process: Definitions: words they don’t know Cues, of three types Links between cues, and their explanations Learning objectives: questions to answer All recorded on a whiteboard and then lost, unless on a flipchart

Why introduce an “interactive whiteboard”? All the work could be saved electronically A shared record to be printed or distributed to all group members Added to in later sessions

First semester plan Two year 1, two year 2 groups, four facilitators Student scribe to use “flipchart” software by handwriting or typing Training sessions offered for hardware and software Tutors to convert flipchart files to Word or PowerPoint files and distribute by after each session Questionnaire at end of semester: features helpful and unhelpful to learning, and net worth to learning

First semester results 27% response Many groups preferred typing to hand writing “Nice, neat, readable notes.” Liked file distribution “Allowed everyone in the group to have a copy of the same notes.” and re-editing “Access to previous notes quickly and accurately”

However, Many thought the software slow, it crashed too much, and handwriting was not readable Year 1 groups liked IAW at least as much as traditional technology, year 2 groups did not. On a scale of 0 (unhelpful) to 10 (helpful), net advantage:

Second semester Watching the four PBL groups at work: what will save them time? PowerPoint 2003 instead of flipchart software Allows annotation No conversion to Office files needed Case texts prepared on slides, for highlighting and linking Notes stored on the Web instead of ing – web spaces with passwords for each PBL group Simpler process, fewer risks, less dependence on tutor

Semester 2 evaluations “A lot better now using Powerpoint. Easy to read and quick to use Interactive whiteboard“ They found helpful: Helps group process, saves time, notes are more readable Remote access to a permanent copy Ease of use Continuity between sessions Web access during session

However, for some Slows down the work, difficult to draw diagrams System crashed (more training?) One Year 2 group now also liked the IAW but now one Year 1 group did not! Big differences between groups or tutors Sem 2 IAW yr2 gp6 IAW yr1 gp8 IAW yr 1 gp1 Median7.581

Next year … Initial student training in PowerPoint 2003 as part of IT skills, emphasizing Ink Annotations Put PowerPoint 2003 (with PCs, projectors) in all PBL rooms, for use with/without an IAW The PCs in all PBL rooms to load the web spaces without dependence on tutors Case texts ready in PowerPoint in web spaces Let PBL groups mix traditional whiteboards and flipcharts with PowerPoint-IAW-Web

Some conclusions from the PBL example Mixing traditional/technology + online/F2F group support in this way is not “out of the box” Not the intended use of any of the technology (Web, VLEs or IAWs) so unexpected problems (eg handwriting) and unexpected benefits (eg web access to images) Exploring the affordances of the technology blend Success factors: Helping student productivity Student view is different: creating a set of notes (product not PBL process) Minimum effort and risk (familiar software, robust technology) Informal plus formal evaluation Experimentation, discussion, reflection

The e in e-Learning Exciting Exhausting Efficient Effective Enhancing ABCDEABCDE

The e in e-Learning Experiment - Evaluate