on the edge: designing online modules in eap george blue ([email protected]) julie watson...
TRANSCRIPT
On the edge: designing online modules in EAP
George Blue ([email protected])Julie Watson ([email protected]) Vicky Wright ([email protected])
Overview
• Background– the project– the partners– the learning environment
• The curriculum• Issues
– technology meets pedagogy: the reusability question
– our approach to learning objects• Learning objects in context: some examples• Unanswered questions
Background
• The project– online pre-sessional EAP modules for students
taking UKeU programmes (launched Sept 2003)• The partners
– University of Bristol– University of Leeds– University of Manchester– University of Sheffield– University of Southampton– University of York
Background
• The learning environment– £20m web-based platform developed by Sun
Microsystems/UKeU with integrated student and content management systems
The curriculum 1
• Developing English for Academic Purposes (EAP) modules (English language, academic skills, skills for studying online).
• Aimed at intending Masters students with IELTS score 0.5 below the entry requirement
• Modules differentiated by discipline area
The curriculum 2
• Each module conceived as 150 hours study for 15 credit points
• Three frames of learning• Online study• Tutor-directed study• Guided independent study
• Modules consist of common core EAP + broad and narrow subject focus
The curriculum 3
Design and content of modules• Learning outcomes specified in terms of:
– understanding (listening, reading)– production (speaking, writing) – interaction (speaking, writing)– language knowledge and awareness (grammar,
vocabulary, appropriacy) – language learning strategies– communication strategies– study skills (online learning, research, organisation)
• Modules taken over 3 months part-time
Technology meets pedagogy: learning objects (LOs) 1
The search for the Holy Grail of “content creation, aggregation and retrieval”
Broad agreement on the functional requirements of an LO:– Accessibility: the LO should be tagged with metadata so
that it can be stored and referenced in a database – Reusability: once created, an LO should function in
different instructional contexts – Interoperability: the LO should be independent of both the
delivery media and knowledge management systems
Technology meets pedagogy: learning objects (LOs) 2
Little agreement on the definition of an LO1. Any entity, digital or non digital, that can be used
for learning or training (IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee)
2. Any digital resource that can be re-used to support learning (Wiley 2002)
3. Learning objects are small units of learning of 2-15 minutes (Wisconsin Online Resource Center)
4. The smallest learning experience that contains an objective, a learning activity and an assessment (L'Allier 1997)
http://www.wbtic.com/trends_objects.aspx http://www.zemondo.com/fract/molecules.jpg
Technology meets pedagogy: the reusable LOThe reusable LO… is a new way of thinking about
content creation and its instructional use. The success of this strategy rests on the rigorous separation of the LO and its use for instructional purposes…Although sound pedagogical principles should inform the creation of a LO, it should not be coded by any specific teaching methodology or instructional theory. Genuine reusability and optimum functionality of a LO can be achieved only when the LO attains a high level of abstraction.
Polsani, 2003
Technology meets pedagogy: the reusability dilemma 1
The extreme form of these design approaches →– one to one instructional models
– human interaction in large scale environment is economically impossible
– automation via intelligent systems provides viable anywhere, anytime learning
Wiley, 2003
Technology meets pedagogy: the reusability dilemma 2
Wiley (2003) argues:– the goal of decontextualisation runs counter
to current learning theories
– LOs should not be “glitzy information dumps”, they should aim to mediate understanding through action e.g. problem-solving
– higher level learning is not well served
Our approach to learning objects 1
• A working definition: – LOs ARE micro learning steps – They are NOT decontextualised standalone
resources• They can be simple (3 or so sequential) or
complex aggregations (may be iterative) • Context and coherence are key and are
provided at several levels (e.g. spinal documents, sacrificial LOs)
Our approach to learning objects 2
LO types generated thus far:1. Information (rarely used – e.g. sacrificial LO)2. Conceptual (reflective) – presenting a learning concept
in a way that encourages active engagement and reflection
3. Discussion – collaborative forum involving peer interaction, reflection, problem-solving, feedback from tutor etc.
4. Task (conceptual) often a guided task or process, typically a worked through example showing the learning concept
5. Task – an open task, possibly with application of a concept, discovery and problem-solving elements
6. Assignment – assessment task and document
Unanswered questions
• How far is reusability of LOs achievable?
• How far can LOs and collections of LOs reflect complexities of the learning process
• How far can we meet the challenge of connectivity e.g. provide appropriate levels of collaboration and social interaction
• How far do technological constraints create obstacles to the design of a flexible, personalised, learner-centric course?