Phoebe A wikibased pedagogic planner to promote innovative

Phoebe A wiki-based pedagogic planner to promote innovative practice in Design for Learning Liz Masterman Oxford University Computing Services with Marion Manton & David Balch Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford

Overview • Introduction: § Design for learning and the role of pedagogic planning tools • General challenges to the design of pedagogic planning tools • Design principles for Phoebe • Quick tour of Phoebe • A complementary tool: the London Planner Jonathan San-Diego, London Knowledge Lab Comments, questions, suggestions, bouquets, brickbats… To what extent is there a need for these tools? Is it possible to create a tool for all? (Discuss further on Thursday!)

Aligning our understandings: Design for learning • “the process by which teachers – and others involved in the support of learning – arrive at a plan or structure or design for a learning situation” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 7) that strikes “an appropriate balance between e-learning and other modes of delivery” (JISC, 2004, p. 11). • Design, rather than planning, because: § Simultaneously a systematic and a creative activity (Winograd, 1996) § “learning can never be wholly designed, only designed for” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 8)

Aligning our understandings: Pedagogic planning tools • Purpose-built applications that guide teachers through the construction of plans for learning sessions that make effective use of technology where appropriate • Pedagogic planning: § Concept of “lesson” alien to HE § Pedagogy “embraces an essential dialogue between teaching and learning” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 2)

Aligning our understandings: Pedagogic planning tools = Where the individual practitioner starts getting to grips with technology and exploring its implications: • “E-learning is often talked about as a ‘trojan mouse, ’ which teachers let into their practice without realizing that it will require them to rethink not just how they use particular hardware or software, but all of what they do. ” (Sharpe & Oliver, 2007, p. 49) • “It fundamentally made me think about what I actually do in the class. … The VLE really made me think about ‘how am I going to project what it is that I give to a lesson when I’m face to face on this screen? ’… Usually I don’t have to plan my lessons, I just go in and do it. … What it brought me back to was the actual lesson plan, you know, like when you first started off … it was like that all over again. ” (School teacher)

Challenges to the design of pedagogic planning tools • Range of approaches: § “The starting point would be the assessment criteria/expected learning outcomes. This would be balanced by the students’ needs and level of learning. ” § “I usually start by thinking about the knowledge or skills learners need, whilst keeping a strong eye on the assessment. This then develops into aims and outcomes. ” • Range of tools: § “I use pen and paper to collect ideas, Post-its to sort main headings. I like to lecture from a hand-written outline. ” § “ 1. Pen and paper — broad conceptual overview, key learning activities mapped as a storyboard/concept map. 2. Formalise this map in Word or Power. Point. 3. Detailed matrix of [learning outcomes], activities and assessment in Excel for detailed analysis etc. ”

Challenges to the design of pedagogic planning tools • Forms of representation • Tools to support creation of these representations • Moving from one form of representation to another

JISC Design for Learning programme • May 2006 -February 2008 • Phoebe § Planning at the session level • London Planner § Planning at both the course (module) and session levels

Phoebe • Aim: § Enable teachers in post-compulsory education to develop their confidence and skills in designing technology-mediated learning experiences • Principles: § Propagate effective practice to a wide audience § Allow option to use familiar planning tools • Rationale: § Learning Design tools and LAMS in limited use; output XML § Successful IT projects build on the way users work, don’t force them to adapt

Phoebe • Envisaged context of use § Initial teacher training § Staff development: engage the reluctant and/or curious § Productivity tool and source of further inspiration for experienced practitioners § Community tool to be “owned” and customised by individual institutions • Development methodology (see poster): § “Informant Design” § Activity Theory analysis of Learning Design Tools project data • Phase 1 proof-of-concept prototype: § “A wiki within a wiki”

Phoebe • http: //phoebe-app. conted. ox. ac. uk

Future directions: Phoebe phase 2 • • • Expand the content Evaluate in a range of contexts Explore Phoebe as a community-owned tool § § • Ensure relevance to users through customisation A way to tackle long-term sustainability? Consider the future research agenda for planner tools Integration with other planner tools • § The London Planner