Best practice and the case of the VLE

Best practice, and the case of the VLE Dr Claire Mc. Avinia Centre for Teaching and Learning, NUI Maynooth DKIT, 7 June 2012

The Information Superhighway l 1997 - Bruton, Blair and Clinton all reference the web l l l Schools IT 2000 Dearing Second Inaugural Address

Change in third level l l l Massification and expansion Modularisation Semesterisation Computerisation Globalisation? Emergence of educational development as a key function (Gosling 1996, 2001) What did it mean to teach in third level (Laurillard, 1993)? l Laurillard’s Conversational Framework

the scene is set…

Enter the VLE!

A strategic decision l VLE as a means of embarking on e-learning: The Committee believes that the mainstreaming of e-learning in a strategically aligned manner will enable NUI Maynooth to l enhance the learning experience for students through a consistently student-centred approach l support the quality agenda of higher education l enhance the research capacity of NUI Maynooth l increase student numbers and market of NUI Maynooth globally l upskill for the knowledge economy l enhance access to higher education l provide progression routes and learner mobility l emphasise the importance of learning communities l operationalise the public policy imperatives of lifelong learning. (Committee, 2005 a, p. 1, my emphasis)

So - what happened next? …fast forward to the end of the noughties…

A literature of disappointment the reality is that e-learning is still marginal in the lives of most academics, with technology being used for little more than acting as a content repository or for administrative purposes (Conole, 2004, p. 2) technology is mostly used to support established practices rather than transform them (Karasavvidis, 2009, p. 436)

A literature of disappointment Certainly, as it is currently being used on campus, e. Learning is not delivering the wide benefits to education which were expected: the anticipated sweeping impact of the new technologies on restructuring the learning and teaching practices at universities (and with it their high-profit prospects) has not materialised. (Donnelly & O'Rourke, 2007, p. 38)

What had really happened? l l l What had people expected from the VLE and why? What was the route of adoption of the VLE from institutional decision to classroom use? If we knew this, what could it tell us for the future in terms of enhancing teaching and learning with technology?

What had really happened? l Researching the story of the VLE l Using Activity Theory to help l Comparing expectations with practice

What had really happened? l Researching the story of the VLE l Using Activity Theory to help l Comparing expectations with practice

Researching the story of the VLE l Data-gathering across a University: l l l l Questionnaires to lecturers and students Observation of small group of students and lecturers over one semester Interviews with managers who had been involved in decision to adopt the VLE at the outset Interviews with lecturers and students Validated by gathering data at some external sites Review of key institutional documents Mix of qualitative and quantitative data

What had really happened? l Researching the story of the VLE l Using Activity Theory to help l Comparing expectations with practice

What is Activity Theory? l l l Activities as units of analysis What do people do? How do they do what they do? What do they use? What things influence what they are doing?

Mediating Artefact Stimulus Outcome Response Subject Behavourism contrasted with mediational model (from Russell, 2002). Object Vygotsky’s Mediational Model (from Russell, 2002; Issroff & Scanlon, 2002).

Instruments Transformation Subject Outcomes Process Rules Community Division of labour Extended Activity System (Engeström, 1987)

Contradictions in the activity system Instruments Transformation Subject Outcomes Process Rules Community Division of labour

What had really happened? l Researching the story of the VLE l Using Activity Theory to help l Comparing expectations with practice

Managers l l Object 1: Select a VLE Object 2: Support mainstreaming of the VLE After the VLE - where next? Object 3: Enhance teaching and learning

Managers - different ideas about best practice l Enhancing teaching and learning: l l Do it by teaching for subject knowledge and employability skills (‘Manager-Lecturers’) Do it by enhancing the teaching and learning environment (‘Manager-Directors’) Do it by flexible course delivery (‘Senior Managers’), strategic Unshared Objects could mean uncertain outcomes…

Central Supporters l Object 1: Mainstream the VLE l After the VLE? Object 2: React to departments’ needs Object 3: Carve out credibility l l Best practice was the mission of their team but often compromised by the support role Strategic direction not always clear once VLE was mainstreamed

Teachers l Broadly defined as anyone teaching/lecturing a formal taught module. l Object 1: Teach the core module efficiently. Object 2: Teach the content module. Object 3: Inspire love of subject/discipline (‘rookie’ lecturer). l l l No direct objective expressed in terms of developing/enhancing their teaching.

Teachers Innovating l Georgia: l l Fostering a love of subject through developing an extensive Moodle page Authentic resources, podcasts, audio files Students began - unprompted - to communicate in the target language in Moodle Forums Liz: l l Made secondary readings accessible to students by providing ‘tasters’ in Moodle Greater use of secondary resources in their essays at the end of semester, greater engagement with the readings than previously

Teachers and Central Supporters: different views of best practice? l Teachers: l l Central Supporters: l l Main objective was to teach their modules, not to develop/enhance teaching Main objective was to foster constructivist use of the VLE Anticipating use of all the tools - not just those for publishing - akin to distance education models Both groups subject to practical constraints But what are the implications of not sharing the same objective? l Adoption of the VLE may not be as intended

Students l Object 1: Keep up to date. l Object 2: Undertake and complete coursework. l No direct statement that more technology should be used in class or in their courses. No desire to lead or drive the use of technology - consumerist approach! l

Why were we disappointed? l l A view of the VLE as supporting questionable practice based on notes publication/distribution BUT: l l The review of literature and documentation indicated that: l l l Notes distribution was already happening Face-to-face teaching was still the more important concern for the teachers Use of the VLE was appropriate to their Objects and they were innovating We were not comparing like with like (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005) Universities did not really have very specific goals for their VLEs So, what do we really want from e-learning in a campusbased institution?

Contradictions and unshared objects as points for development l How do we get better practice? l l l Revisiting the mission of e-learning supporters in third level Revisiting the ‘transformation’ agenda of academic development units Reconnecting management/strategic goals with what happens on the ground Finding out more about what students and teachers really do with technology Challenging the notion of digital natives Taking an activity-led approach

Evolution or Revolution? l Why do we expect technology in and of itself to cause a change in the classroom? We all need to be involved in using that technology to make changes. l This slide included a picture of primary school children with an early desktop PC from 1980. The picture is copyright protected but you can access it from the Science and Society Picture Library: http: //www. scienceandsociety. co. uk/ l The full link to the picture is: http: //www. scienceandsociety. co. uk/results. asp? image=1046 4130&itemw=4&itemf=0001&itemstep=91&itemx=105

Comments and questions…

Thank you! claire. mcavinia@nuim. ie