MEL04 Portfolio

Unit 6 - Evaluation

Expectations

• I came onto the module with a bevy of expectations. – a desire to embed my interest in e-learning.

– Develop a piece of research into the subject.

– Extend my knowledge and acquire competence in new tools.

• My first impressions were slightly disappointing– The cohort was possibly too small for effective dialogue

– The “tools” were pretty well worn and ones which I have used albeit fleetingly in various contexts.

• However, through the interactions on the module I began to develop my knowledge and achieved a very useful context on my own teaching which I was then able to research and contextualise.

Issues in Module Design

• The module was a great opportunity to look at research-informed teaching methods and apply these to the design and content of my own practice.

• Given that the intended audience for the module is NTU academics, I think there is a real opportunity to fit the module to the calendar as it is experienced by academics (rather than by students).

• This would give the opportunity for a closer relationship between the day-to-day teaching, research and planning

Self-directed Research

• I was slow to get going with the research, and struggled to get a handle on the “subject-centred” discourse – by which I mean how to effectively translate what I was reading into my own subject domain in art & design.

• Engagement with the wiki task, gave me the angle on how to direct my studies so that there was an explicit focus on something I was developing in my teaching practice.

• Whilst I am aware that I have strayed from the explicit task, I think that I have uncovered a line of inquiry which has already been very valuable to me.

Scheduling and Scaffolding

• The module has given me a real insight into the research literature and I have found it most useful as a structured piece of research into my own teaching. That is the authentic context which I work in, and also reflects my own learning preferences.

• Where I have struggled to engage has been in some of the tasks which at first glance seemed to be a bit tokenistic (lets try this out this tool and talk about it).

• Looking back on the module (mostly by virtue of coming to the portfolio late) I can see the value of the whole structure and the value of the components are much more clearly available.

• So in some respects the directed progression through the units, whilst an important scaffolding device, has hindered my own engagement with the subject.

Interaction

• If we follow the model that one third will participate intensively, one third will participate intermittently and one third rarely; the question of critical mass for a sustainable learning community becomes central.

• There is a need for any dialogic resource to become credible through user participation.

• So the key questions for the module evaluation are.– How to create critical mass?

– Should the dialogic elements of the programme, have a more explicit relationship to the assessment tasks?

– Should dialogue be extended into collaboration.

Collaborative Research

• The collaborative elements of the module have been some of the most rewarding in modelling the collaborative potentials of e-learning.

• There is a great opportunity here to think about using the module as a way to advance the collaborative process of learning design. – a collaborative case study?

– Open curriculum design - given that the moves within NTU are for greater transparency in electronic resources (reviewer access) there might be useful opportunities here for colleagues to collaborate or critique existing and potential module designs.

Open Educational Resources

• E-learning and Blended learning is a key NTU strategic platform.• The module structure offers a very useful platform for an academic

to develop an understanding of the framework of e-learning.• I would urge that the resources are made accessible (beyond the

reviewer function in NOW) so that a wider learning community can be built up.

• This might address issues of critical mass in the learning community.

• It could also be a viable way of extending the resources as members of the learning community widen the body of knowledge.

• There could still be a paid for structure of tutor support, assessment and qualification.

References• De Simone, C., Schmid, R., McEwen, L., (2001), Supporting the Learning Process wih

Collaborative Concept Mapping using computer based communication tools and processes, Educational Research and Evaluation, Vol 7, No. 2-3, pp. 263-283

• Guat-Kheng, C., (2008), Organising Collaborative Learning Spaces for knowledge construction: Deep Learning and Online Behaviour, ICCE Proceedings.

• Johnson D., & Johnson R., (2004), Co-operation and the use of technology, in D. Johanssen (ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 1017 – 1044), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

• Jenkins, H., (2006a), Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century, HYPERLINK "http://wwwdigitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF"

• Jenkins, H., (2006b), Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century, New Media Literacy Website, HYPERLINK "http://www.projectnml.org.files/working/nmlwhitepaper.pdf" www.projectnml.org.files/working/nmlwhitepaper.pdf

• Mason, R., & Rennie, F., (2008), E_learning and Social Networking Handbook, New York: Routledge.

• Salmon, G., (2004), E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online, Abingdon: Routledge

• Wenger, Etienne, (1999), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press