Weller (2006) considers the three most important aspects of the social interaction for the benefit of society in relation to technology are its
Robustness
Decentralisation that promotes democracy and
Openness
In many ways the Wiki displays all these features, it is much talked about in relation to teaching and learning and even those who may not understand what a Wiki is have heard of Wikipedia, thus demonstrating its social influence and power. But untimely there is a limit on all these features in relation to the wider questions of control and power and whose hands this rest in both in relation to Wikis and the wider use of computers.
This short paper will outline what a WIki is and how it relates to all three of these features promoted by Welles, addressing each in tern. Lastly it will ask the wider question of where power lays and who is excluded from entering the world where equality and openness is promoted as a idealist goal.
What is a Wiki?
A Wiki is a basic webpage that unlike its convention counter part begins its life as a blank space and is open to those who have access to edit and create a document. It does not require any specialist software, it does however require access to the site via a computer in the first place and also some IT knowledge to type and edit. Unlike Fountain (2005) who describes a Wiki as open to “anyone in the world can change anything in a wiki page. That is, no one authorizes the creation of wiki pages. Everyone is automatically (by default) authorized to write, edit and publish”, there are a number of barriers for many to overcome and thus this wide statement needs causius use.
That said in relation to many other aspects of IT publishing the Wiki does offer an opportunity for those who wish to collaborate in knowledge building as teachers and learners it is a useful tool.
Robustness resulting from decentralisation
Part of the robustness as Welles sites is the lack of centralisation for ultimate control. All those who have access to the tool can edit and change it; it sits on no one individual computer and as such is owned as a cooperative. This aspect of decentralisation for Welles is not only a technical advantage it represents a social aspect that promotes democracy. In theory at least nobody’s opinion is considered greater than any others, everyone is able to contribute and as a whole the knowledge generated is richer and more robust in its quality. Taking the most well known example of Wikipedia, this collaborative encyclopaedia is thought by some to be robust due to its public peer review process.
The debate surrounding the public V academic peers review process on Wikipedia is documented and has like all debates its supporters and opponents (Barton, 2004; Lamb 2002). The threat felt by some academics to the traditional knowledge institutions is noted frequently by the citing factual inaccuracies and oversimplifications in Wikipedia. However leaving aside the academic insecurities and debates, the principals behind the use of Wikis for teaching and learning are now widely acknowledged as the research and knowledge acquisition has become increasingly important for today’s ‘knowledge economy’ (Siemens, 2005).
If we accept the principals of knowledge constriction along with behaviourism and cognitivism are all part of the wider learning process, depended on experiences and circumstances then the usefulness of the Wiki is evident. For Siemens (ibid) the tools we use to learn are as important as the process itself and here connectivism (Siemens, 2005) fills the theoretical gap, it allows and promotes a multidimensional conversation and construction of knowledge. The skills it promotes at a more local level as listed below, it is not a comprehensive list but importantly it is the tool that promotes this form of learning is as important as the process of learning and the knowledge gained.
Knowledge sharing
Collaboration and acknowledgment of other people’s expertise
Team building
Literacy
Sense of community and sharing that extending beyond learning itself
Who contributes to a Wiki is an important aspect along with why do so. There are many roles for the Wikiite; there is the scribe, the researcher, the reader, the editor, the consultant, the cleaner (one who keeps pages tidy). These identities can be interchangeable; we are the reader for some parts but the scribe maybe for others. We may be interacting as a learner, a teacher, a researcher, or maybe as an escape artist, these social identities are all interlinked and perhaps at least initially demonstrate our cultural capital, or perhaps age (with new generations who have grown up with IT). This openness may be controlled or regulated but it reflects who we are and what we do in addition to the purpose for the interaction.
Open access
The third aspect Welles notes is the fact the technology is Open access, it is free in terms of its licence and can be uploaded and changed according to the skills of the developer. This principal goes beyond financial exchange to space, time and materials and again this can relate to the robust nature and the decentralisation. It links into the psychology of a community and promotes an all inclusiveness of the ideal type that has been promoted for a long time (think of the Coca-Cola adverts); we are all part of the wider global community. We are all human.
This ideal, all inclusive that promotes democracy and knowledge creation and distribution is a worthy goal but has a long way to travel. Its openness and the ability to use the technology is of course depended on a number of skills and commodities the developed world takes for granted, demands and wrongly believes the whole world has access to. In 2004 within the developed world 57% of the population owned a personal computer with 50% having access to the internet. Compare this with developing countries where only 3.7% of the populations have access to a personal computer, internet access is wider with 6% access, partly due to telephone technology (Chinn & Fairlie, 2006). While these figures will have changed it illustrates the disparities between countries and the relational power play of knowledge domination. Questions come to my mind regarding access for informed participation within the international community (at all levels, from government thought to local). Governments cannot participate if their advisors lack knowledge or struggle to obtain it. Further who writes the history, this area of educational control once the power of governments may be more democratised, but it will be from the perspective of the developed world largely. Moving closer to home (while remaining far away), there are the issues of English as the dominant language and literacy and the largest barriers. We are, within the UK, frequently told seven million people lack adequate literacy skills for ‘normal’ life (Moser, 1999). While this figure is questionable in itself as well as the concept of ‘normal’ it does illustrate the care needed when considering how we think tools can change the shape of society and in which direction.
Conclusion
In conclusion from a personal perspective I feel the internet and more specifically the Wiki has and will continue to contribute to the social dimensions of life in many ways both locally and globally. It is a good teaching and learning tool, it does engender the principals of democracy and can be a tool to promote collaboration and discussion on a local and global level. However I think one should always keep in mind the wider inequalities, the power relations of who has the majority control. Many factors come into play in relation to how equal and how collaborative we are and we are open to be.
References
Barton, M. (2004) Embrace the Wiki Way! [Electronic version]. 21st May: 14:34
Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from
http://www.mattbarton.net/tikiwiki/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=4
Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie R.W., (2006) ICT Use in the Developed World: An Analysis of Differenced in Computer and Internet Penetration. Santa Cruz Centre for International Economics, Working Paper 66.
Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from:
http://sccie.ucsc.edu/workingpaper/2006/ICT_use.pdf
Fountain, R., (2005) Wiki Pedagogy
Downloaded on 31st March 2009 from
http://www.profetic.org/dossiers/spip.php?article967
Lamb, B. (2002) Wiki-based Collaborative Learning
Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from
http://www.educause.edu/wiki/Wiki-based+Collaborative+Learning
Moser, C., (1999) “A fresh start; improving literacy and numeracy”
Downloaded 31 March 2009 from
http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/mosergroup/
Siemens, G., (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, January 2005. Downloaded on 31 March 2009 from
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Weller, M. (2006) “The distance from isolation: Why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning”. [Electronic version] The Open University
Downloaded on 30 March 2009 from:
http://learn.open.ac.uk/file.php/5037/Course_resources/block_2_course_resources/h807_b2_mweller_distance.rtf
Tuesday 31 March 2009
Wiki – a reflection of social history
Monday 30 March 2009
Weller (2006), ‘The distance from isolation: why communities are the logical conclusion in e-learning’
I enjoyed reading this article and it confirmed a lot of what I thought and also grounded it. It also introduced some new ideas to me. I agreed more of less to what Weller said, but put me in mind of social identity as an individual and how we consume IT. We do this on a number of levels and my guess it that education that takes on Elearning for promotion should keep this in mind. We consume education the way we do must things these days so.... Anyway to respond to the questions set:
To what extent do you agree with the central hypothesis that the technological features of the internet are reflected in the social features, and can it be extended to other technologies?
Yes, I agree with this hypothesis. The need for people to be opinionated and stand out is illustrated in Blogs and Newsgroups. The fact people have always tried to communicate fast illustrated by the use of fast (and frequently fresh) horses, the fact the fastest runners were used at Gallipoli. People want communication and they want it now. So email is a form of that. It needs to be robust or else it is not reliable (new horses, the breeding of pigeons that were good at homing).
I agree with the aspect of symbolisation not being underestimated. People need to feel connected and it works well. I can think of examples of voting, the thought we all go to the polls on the same day to make a change (or not) in who we allow to control our services (bit idealistic, but the thought it there). Again a herd attitude is a human trait from football upwards and it is what drives our economy – culture
Culture while it is influenced by technology and can over time change (the car I think is a good example, and within IT think of the mobile phone and how this has changed people’s habits and expectations). I think also the IT is influenced by the culture in the first place (I think Stuart Hall calls this the cultural circuit – where aspects of culture feed into the initial design but as culture modifies so does the design of the object).
If the hypothesis is valid, then to what extent does it reflect a social or technological determinism?
I think this is too simplistic, I think is a mix of the two. The IT represents society or how society would like to be. It taps into our identity and is produced for us to become consumers of it in someway. This in tern is sometimes regulated formally (the train carriages that ask you not to use your phone); it is sometimes informally regulated (parents who allow some form of internet access but not all). It is then re-consumed and re-identified. All this is socially determined but intertwined with the IT. For me no one element can be highlighted as being unique and isolated.
To what extent do you agree with the central hypothesis that the technological features of the internet are reflected in the social features, and can it be extended to other technologies?
Yes, I agree with this hypothesis. The need for people to be opinionated and stand out is illustrated in Blogs and Newsgroups. The fact people have always tried to communicate fast illustrated by the use of fast (and frequently fresh) horses, the fact the fastest runners were used at Gallipoli. People want communication and they want it now. So email is a form of that. It needs to be robust or else it is not reliable (new horses, the breeding of pigeons that were good at homing).
I agree with the aspect of symbolisation not being underestimated. People need to feel connected and it works well. I can think of examples of voting, the thought we all go to the polls on the same day to make a change (or not) in who we allow to control our services (bit idealistic, but the thought it there). Again a herd attitude is a human trait from football upwards and it is what drives our economy – culture
Culture while it is influenced by technology and can over time change (the car I think is a good example, and within IT think of the mobile phone and how this has changed people’s habits and expectations). I think also the IT is influenced by the culture in the first place (I think Stuart Hall calls this the cultural circuit – where aspects of culture feed into the initial design but as culture modifies so does the design of the object).
If the hypothesis is valid, then to what extent does it reflect a social or technological determinism?
I think this is too simplistic, I think is a mix of the two. The IT represents society or how society would like to be. It taps into our identity and is produced for us to become consumers of it in someway. This in tern is sometimes regulated formally (the train carriages that ask you not to use your phone); it is sometimes informally regulated (parents who allow some form of internet access but not all). It is then re-consumed and re-identified. All this is socially determined but intertwined with the IT. For me no one element can be highlighted as being unique and isolated.
Affordances and technology - a few starting thoughts
Affordances - not sure if I understand this fully really.... Is it the act or the outcome that is the affordance??
Anyway the task -
Consider the now commonplace communication technologies of email and blogs, which you encountered earlier. Suggest the affordances found in each technology. Think about how the affordances influence the type of communication you engage in when using the technology.
How does the technology itself shape that communication?
Email – I think the expectation of communication is faster due to email so the shape is faster in terms of what we ask. I also think it has become more chatty and business like and less descriptive, also perhaps less ‘romantic’. For the most part it is also less formal though can be sometimes formal as it is a legally recognised format for communication. As an everyday communication tool it has become as essential today as the Victorian postcard was….. Though on a bigger scale.
Affordances would be I think – expectation, informality and speed and ultimately communication I guess
Blogs – I am not a great fan of blogs both as a form of diary and also as a form of opinion. Diary because I am not a diarist and opinion as I don’t think people really what my opinion on things really. I am not a great one to read the screen of computers as a form of news so that too is not for me…. So what affordances are there for Blogs? I am not sure… I will have to read others opinions on that…..
Affordance - ? Writing, I am not sure it is a prime communication tool as much of what is written is not for disucssion?? Or maybe it is and I have never felt up to discussing
What are the technologies good at?
There is no doubt good for almost instant communication Email, therefore one can feel connected. It shrinks space and to some degree time
When are they a poor medium for communication?
When they don’t work… also when not enough thought has gone into what is written (as they are instant, like potnoodle). They are not personal nor secure, they can be forwarded on unknowingly and then taken out of context. They can also be tagged onto things in many ways and confidential information becomes public.
Was the concept of affordances useful when thinking about the technology?
I am not sure… I am not sure I know and understand what this concept means so may revisit this when others have written their thoughts….
Do you find your behaviour shaped significantly by the affordances of the technology?
Email – speed and instant communication – if this is what it is then yes, I do think this. It is as it says on the tin, instant, and as a result people become impatient when replies are not themselves instant. Also I think people will fire off a number of emails and copy others in when not necessary as a result of it’s ease. This may not be necessary and also be annoying for those who receive a number…..
Were there other explanations for any behavioural influences?
In relation to email, only our general lack of life impatience and expectation within social life. We not only expect things to be easy but we also expect things to be instant.
When you next encounter a technology in this course you can return to the notion of affordances.
Not sure… will have to see
Anyway the task -
Consider the now commonplace communication technologies of email and blogs, which you encountered earlier. Suggest the affordances found in each technology. Think about how the affordances influence the type of communication you engage in when using the technology.
How does the technology itself shape that communication?
Email – I think the expectation of communication is faster due to email so the shape is faster in terms of what we ask. I also think it has become more chatty and business like and less descriptive, also perhaps less ‘romantic’. For the most part it is also less formal though can be sometimes formal as it is a legally recognised format for communication. As an everyday communication tool it has become as essential today as the Victorian postcard was….. Though on a bigger scale.
Affordances would be I think – expectation, informality and speed and ultimately communication I guess
Blogs – I am not a great fan of blogs both as a form of diary and also as a form of opinion. Diary because I am not a diarist and opinion as I don’t think people really what my opinion on things really. I am not a great one to read the screen of computers as a form of news so that too is not for me…. So what affordances are there for Blogs? I am not sure… I will have to read others opinions on that…..
Affordance - ? Writing, I am not sure it is a prime communication tool as much of what is written is not for disucssion?? Or maybe it is and I have never felt up to discussing
What are the technologies good at?
There is no doubt good for almost instant communication Email, therefore one can feel connected. It shrinks space and to some degree time
When are they a poor medium for communication?
When they don’t work… also when not enough thought has gone into what is written (as they are instant, like potnoodle). They are not personal nor secure, they can be forwarded on unknowingly and then taken out of context. They can also be tagged onto things in many ways and confidential information becomes public.
Was the concept of affordances useful when thinking about the technology?
I am not sure… I am not sure I know and understand what this concept means so may revisit this when others have written their thoughts….
Do you find your behaviour shaped significantly by the affordances of the technology?
Email – speed and instant communication – if this is what it is then yes, I do think this. It is as it says on the tin, instant, and as a result people become impatient when replies are not themselves instant. Also I think people will fire off a number of emails and copy others in when not necessary as a result of it’s ease. This may not be necessary and also be annoying for those who receive a number…..
Were there other explanations for any behavioural influences?
In relation to email, only our general lack of life impatience and expectation within social life. We not only expect things to be easy but we also expect things to be instant.
When you next encounter a technology in this course you can return to the notion of affordances.
Not sure… will have to see
Disability awareness
Thinking about ability/disability. The next entry covers this area in relation to weeks 6 and 7
Week 6 - discussing disability
Issue - Videoconference and or other audio materials (tapes, CDs and TV if no subtitles)
Challenge for students - Use of multimedia resources with audio that is important for understanding the resource and is the only resource supplied – this is likely to affect learners with auditory impairments
Issue - Viedoconference
Challenge for students - For deaf student synchrouns viedo communication is problematic.
Issue - Synchronous discussions
Challenge for students - Discussing online (forum and chat): For students with sight difficulties or RSA and other mobility difficulties this could be difficult.
Issue - Website related
Challenge for students -
Using websites that are not designed so that they can be easily read with screen readers – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Need a simple system for signing in and out of the VLE/Website for screen readers - once signed it, be taken directly to the course home page
Using web pages that are divided into segments or frames, thus confusing software programmes that translate text to voice – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Prolonged VLE work sight difficulties and manual dexterity challenge for keyboard and large amounts of navigational issues (mouse work)
Colour and font issues for students with dyslexia this may cause problems
Viewing flashing or moving content (YouTube clips, TV, CDs etc) – this is likely to affect learners with an impairment that makes them sensitive to flashing or moving content;
Issue - Assignments
Assignments able to be submitted in a number of ways to accommodate students needs
Week 7 - Computers and assistive technology
Questions
What sources of advice or financial help are available to disabled students in your country?
If there is financial help, what can it be used for?
If you work in a teaching establishment, what help is available for disabled students?
Response
UK legislation states that UK students are entitled to Disability Students Allowances (DSA) (or at least they are eligible to apply for this).
Undergraduates
• General Allowance: up to £1,640 for full-time and £1,230 for part-time study per year.
• Equipment Allowance: for major items of equipment – up to a maximum of £4,905 spread over the whole duration of the course.
• Non-medical Helpers' Allowance: for help with full-time study-related personal support; up to a maximum of £12,420 and for part-time study up to maximum of £9,315.
• Travel Costs: Assistance may also be available with extra travel costs incurred, but not general everyday travel costs.
Postgraduates
• One allowance of up to £5,915 a year.
• PGCE Students on PGCE courses will be eligible for allowances at the undergraduate level.
All disabled students in post-compulsory education receive the same funding, this doesn’t matter if they are full or part time, undergraduate and postgraduate students they are eligible to apply for the DSA but the amounts differ (see above). Funding does not depend on the programme content but part time students need to have completed the course within the full time equivalent (so a PT postgraduate will need to complete within 2 years if the FT is one year). The DSA is a non-means tested benefit but students need to have an assessment (that needs to be paid for by themselves initially and can be reclaimed from the DSA when received.
Week 6 - discussing disability
Issue - Videoconference and or other audio materials (tapes, CDs and TV if no subtitles)
Challenge for students - Use of multimedia resources with audio that is important for understanding the resource and is the only resource supplied – this is likely to affect learners with auditory impairments
Issue - Viedoconference
Challenge for students - For deaf student synchrouns viedo communication is problematic.
Issue - Synchronous discussions
Challenge for students - Discussing online (forum and chat): For students with sight difficulties or RSA and other mobility difficulties this could be difficult.
Issue - Website related
Challenge for students -
Using websites that are not designed so that they can be easily read with screen readers – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Need a simple system for signing in and out of the VLE/Website for screen readers - once signed it, be taken directly to the course home page
Using web pages that are divided into segments or frames, thus confusing software programmes that translate text to voice – this is likely to affect learners with visual impairments;
Prolonged VLE work sight difficulties and manual dexterity challenge for keyboard and large amounts of navigational issues (mouse work)
Colour and font issues for students with dyslexia this may cause problems
Viewing flashing or moving content (YouTube clips, TV, CDs etc) – this is likely to affect learners with an impairment that makes them sensitive to flashing or moving content;
Issue - Assignments
Assignments able to be submitted in a number of ways to accommodate students needs
Week 7 - Computers and assistive technology
Questions
What sources of advice or financial help are available to disabled students in your country?
If there is financial help, what can it be used for?
If you work in a teaching establishment, what help is available for disabled students?
Response
UK legislation states that UK students are entitled to Disability Students Allowances (DSA) (or at least they are eligible to apply for this).
Undergraduates
• General Allowance: up to £1,640 for full-time and £1,230 for part-time study per year.
• Equipment Allowance: for major items of equipment – up to a maximum of £4,905 spread over the whole duration of the course.
• Non-medical Helpers' Allowance: for help with full-time study-related personal support; up to a maximum of £12,420 and for part-time study up to maximum of £9,315.
• Travel Costs: Assistance may also be available with extra travel costs incurred, but not general everyday travel costs.
Postgraduates
• One allowance of up to £5,915 a year.
• PGCE Students on PGCE courses will be eligible for allowances at the undergraduate level.
All disabled students in post-compulsory education receive the same funding, this doesn’t matter if they are full or part time, undergraduate and postgraduate students they are eligible to apply for the DSA but the amounts differ (see above). Funding does not depend on the programme content but part time students need to have completed the course within the full time equivalent (so a PT postgraduate will need to complete within 2 years if the FT is one year). The DSA is a non-means tested benefit but students need to have an assessment (that needs to be paid for by themselves initially and can be reclaimed from the DSA when received.
Monday 9 March 2009
Rogers’ categories
Thoughts and answers to questions about Rogers’ five adopter types, based on his Diffusion of Innovations.
Q1 Do Rogers’ categories correspond with your experience of people’s attitudes to innovation?
Yes to some extent I can related to this categorisation. However I would not have emphasised the technology and if people are comfortable (or not) with the tools as much as I would have emphasised the pedagogical outcomes and the learning and teaching objectives for the course the tools are being related to…..
Q2 How far can you apply his model to a context you know – a current or past place of work, or a less formal situation? For example, can you link it to an innovation in elearning? You may have one in mind but, if not, how about one of these …
Yes as noted I think it fits to some extent. But how this would fall would as noted to a large extent depend on who the students are and what the course is trying to achieve. I understand the initial innovators would need to have goof IT knowledge to know what was possible in terms of the technology, or what may be possible. But to be an early adopter or an early majority depends on a number of factors including the amount of prior knowledge the person has to build on. Sometimes things can be skipped, for example there is no need to have used synchronous discussion to use Skype is there?
One of the case studies (University of Derby, MSc in Strategic Management in Africa), illustrates the fact that one could be an innovator but other circumstances outside the control of the provider and learner prevent any adoption no matter what stage. There would be I think an argument to revert to email conversations as a means of innovation in this instance… It is not only the tool, it is also the will of the community to make the learning happen.
Q3 Do you think that, deep down, Rogers’ model assumes that innovation is a ‘Good Thing’? And that being an ‘innovator’ or ‘early adopter’ – the inverted commas are there in case you reject those categories – is the only respectable thing to be?
Yes, I would say I do get the impression from the text that innovation is a good thing if only because the last category (and that in itself - listing in this way implies a certain reverence for the top), is classed as the ‘laggards’…. I think this is slightly arrogant and misses the wider point of pedagogy. It puts too much emphasis on tools and not enough on why we are using them and what they are for. Right tool right place, as tools are changing all the time it is important to keep an open mind on what is appropriate for what as it is impossible to keep abreast of it all as a teacher. This is not to say we should stop but it is to say one should be mindful of what they are for, what the externalities are of their use and what their cost is (money, time etc) in relation to what is achieved.
Q1 Do Rogers’ categories correspond with your experience of people’s attitudes to innovation?
Yes to some extent I can related to this categorisation. However I would not have emphasised the technology and if people are comfortable (or not) with the tools as much as I would have emphasised the pedagogical outcomes and the learning and teaching objectives for the course the tools are being related to…..
Q2 How far can you apply his model to a context you know – a current or past place of work, or a less formal situation? For example, can you link it to an innovation in elearning? You may have one in mind but, if not, how about one of these …
Yes as noted I think it fits to some extent. But how this would fall would as noted to a large extent depend on who the students are and what the course is trying to achieve. I understand the initial innovators would need to have goof IT knowledge to know what was possible in terms of the technology, or what may be possible. But to be an early adopter or an early majority depends on a number of factors including the amount of prior knowledge the person has to build on. Sometimes things can be skipped, for example there is no need to have used synchronous discussion to use Skype is there?
One of the case studies (University of Derby, MSc in Strategic Management in Africa), illustrates the fact that one could be an innovator but other circumstances outside the control of the provider and learner prevent any adoption no matter what stage. There would be I think an argument to revert to email conversations as a means of innovation in this instance… It is not only the tool, it is also the will of the community to make the learning happen.
Q3 Do you think that, deep down, Rogers’ model assumes that innovation is a ‘Good Thing’? And that being an ‘innovator’ or ‘early adopter’ – the inverted commas are there in case you reject those categories – is the only respectable thing to be?
Yes, I would say I do get the impression from the text that innovation is a good thing if only because the last category (and that in itself - listing in this way implies a certain reverence for the top), is classed as the ‘laggards’…. I think this is slightly arrogant and misses the wider point of pedagogy. It puts too much emphasis on tools and not enough on why we are using them and what they are for. Right tool right place, as tools are changing all the time it is important to keep an open mind on what is appropriate for what as it is impossible to keep abreast of it all as a teacher. This is not to say we should stop but it is to say one should be mindful of what they are for, what the externalities are of their use and what their cost is (money, time etc) in relation to what is achieved.
Friday 6 March 2009
Innovation - its all in the mind!
What I think having read a number of case studies now about innovation is not really the technology that could be seen as hugly innovative... It is the way it is used. Maybe education is not the first place that new things are tried out? Maybe educators are too busy educating?
What ever the reason I think for me the important thing is that what we have is used in a way that is best served learners and the learning outcomes.
Kathryn
What ever the reason I think for me the important thing is that what we have is used in a way that is best served learners and the learning outcomes.
Kathryn
Wednesday 4 March 2009
University of Nottingham - Moving from OMR to CBA for summative exams in medicine
Moving from OMR to CBA for summative exams in medicine
Background & Context
University of Nottingham has very large medical programmes (one 5 year programme and one 4 year graduate programme with 1,900 students). Students need to do a range of ‘high stakes’ assessments/exams some true/false/abstain question type questionnaire exams need also to be scanned into a computer to download into hard copy this scanning takes time in addition to the marking. There was also a wish to make the tests more realistic and interactive utilising interactive question types such as drag and drop labelling and image hotspots.
Implementation & Technology
There was no steer from the university as a whole and the department could have used a number of software as the university supports Blackboard, Questionmark Perception and other WebCT applications. However the department chose to use Touchstone in 2003 and it was decided to stay with this as there was experience within the department on its application both from the student and staff perspective.
Issues
· Students being able to google or use of a pen-drive for the answers
· Students actually seeing other student’s computers due to the layout of the rooms
· Large scale exam sitting that are depended on IT could fail and need to be secure for such high stake examinations
Issues overcome
· Large computer lab accommodating 150 students who sit back to back and one smaller lab both used simultaneously
· An 'exam desktop' was created. This used group policies in Windows XP to restrict access to no applications apart from Internet Explorer and no web site apart from TouchStone used for examination purposes. It also restricts access to any drives and other operating systems
Stakeholders involved in the process
· Academics creating the questions,
· Administrators performing room booking/timetabling,
· Subject matter experts conducting standards setting reviews,
· External examiners,
· Disability experts and
· IT support personnel
Tangible Benefits
· Student’s records could be kept in one place and reviewed electronically and quickly.
· Time to create and implement and mark the exam is reduced from hours to seconds, student receive results faster and staff have more time to review students who are appearing to fall behind.
· Exam questions and be reviewed and reformed fast and effectively
· The interactive nature of the computer environment allows for a more realistic impression for students, student therefore gain a better understanding of their topic.
· Students with disabilities have adjusted interfaces that enabling better understanding of questions and automatic time added where appropriate.
· Banks of questions can be formed and cascaded between years and medical disciplines, and easier changed
· Log on details could be forwarded to the external examiner who could review the process, questions and sample the answers at random so reducing the administrative and paperwork for review.
Lessons learnt
· All stakeholders need to be involved from the outside to ensure large cohorts are able to take the exams fairly, quickly with results processed efficiently and effectively
· Implementation should be undertaken in stages (cohorts, subject areas etc) to minimise problems and maximise learning opportunities
· Use of soft wear is important but so it is the ability of the staff to support this. Thus Touchstone was the preferred programme.
Kathryn’s thoughts
This type of course and the way it is assessed is completely new to me and my closes experience is the diving exams I take that are multiple choice questions (and I hate them). I can see that such high stakes exams need to be carefully planned and executed and I can also see that from a student perspective they need the results back quickly.
I think the teams acknowledgment of the steps involved is good and also the fact they note the time saved is used to identify students who many need additional support. They have also thought about the aspect of accessibility at the onset and this too is essential.
What I think about the whole process is that I see that this is training at a fast and frantic level that perhaps teaches medical students to conform from an early stage – they are just part of a huge system (the NHS) and they are only small porns within that system.
Background & Context
University of Nottingham has very large medical programmes (one 5 year programme and one 4 year graduate programme with 1,900 students). Students need to do a range of ‘high stakes’ assessments/exams some true/false/abstain question type questionnaire exams need also to be scanned into a computer to download into hard copy this scanning takes time in addition to the marking. There was also a wish to make the tests more realistic and interactive utilising interactive question types such as drag and drop labelling and image hotspots.
Implementation & Technology
There was no steer from the university as a whole and the department could have used a number of software as the university supports Blackboard, Questionmark Perception and other WebCT applications. However the department chose to use Touchstone in 2003 and it was decided to stay with this as there was experience within the department on its application both from the student and staff perspective.
Issues
· Students being able to google or use of a pen-drive for the answers
· Students actually seeing other student’s computers due to the layout of the rooms
· Large scale exam sitting that are depended on IT could fail and need to be secure for such high stake examinations
Issues overcome
· Large computer lab accommodating 150 students who sit back to back and one smaller lab both used simultaneously
· An 'exam desktop' was created. This used group policies in Windows XP to restrict access to no applications apart from Internet Explorer and no web site apart from TouchStone used for examination purposes. It also restricts access to any drives and other operating systems
Stakeholders involved in the process
· Academics creating the questions,
· Administrators performing room booking/timetabling,
· Subject matter experts conducting standards setting reviews,
· External examiners,
· Disability experts and
· IT support personnel
Tangible Benefits
· Student’s records could be kept in one place and reviewed electronically and quickly.
· Time to create and implement and mark the exam is reduced from hours to seconds, student receive results faster and staff have more time to review students who are appearing to fall behind.
· Exam questions and be reviewed and reformed fast and effectively
· The interactive nature of the computer environment allows for a more realistic impression for students, student therefore gain a better understanding of their topic.
· Students with disabilities have adjusted interfaces that enabling better understanding of questions and automatic time added where appropriate.
· Banks of questions can be formed and cascaded between years and medical disciplines, and easier changed
· Log on details could be forwarded to the external examiner who could review the process, questions and sample the answers at random so reducing the administrative and paperwork for review.
Lessons learnt
· All stakeholders need to be involved from the outside to ensure large cohorts are able to take the exams fairly, quickly with results processed efficiently and effectively
· Implementation should be undertaken in stages (cohorts, subject areas etc) to minimise problems and maximise learning opportunities
· Use of soft wear is important but so it is the ability of the staff to support this. Thus Touchstone was the preferred programme.
Kathryn’s thoughts
This type of course and the way it is assessed is completely new to me and my closes experience is the diving exams I take that are multiple choice questions (and I hate them). I can see that such high stakes exams need to be carefully planned and executed and I can also see that from a student perspective they need the results back quickly.
I think the teams acknowledgment of the steps involved is good and also the fact they note the time saved is used to identify students who many need additional support. They have also thought about the aspect of accessibility at the onset and this too is essential.
What I think about the whole process is that I see that this is training at a fast and frantic level that perhaps teaches medical students to conform from an early stage – they are just part of a huge system (the NHS) and they are only small porns within that system.
Monday 2 March 2009
University of Derby - Online delivery in Southern Africa
University of Derby
Case Study - Online delivery of MSc Strategic Management in Africa
Background and context
This case study is about the change University of Derby made for the delivery of its blended learning modules within the MSc of Strategic Management to the delivery of them purely online with specific reference to how they was rolled out in Southern Africa, specifically Botswana and Malawi.
The modules are part of the part time MSc and within the Southern African context students are professional senior or middle managers who work fulltime. Lectures from Derby travel to in country sites at the start of the modules for a 3 day face to face session for the blended learning modules. For the online modules the students were required to access all materials and work online and undertaken online sessions with tutors, with students being required to draw on their professional experience as part of the course.
The course design was adapted from the face to face programme and all previous materials were put into webpage format. Communication problems in Africa resulted in students not accessing the website and thus required workbooks to be given to students.
Technology used
The programme is run through the in-house adaptation of Blackboard VLE with access to students via a portal. This has been a progression from University Alliance/NextEd and followed the central IT decisions.
Tangible benefits
The case study struggles to find specific tangible benefits of this programme as a result of the switch in delivery to online only. In fact it notes they were forced due to student opinion to change delivery back to face to face in 2007.
One of the major benefits cited was online access to the e-journals which does allow students to access academic resources at any point though the Derby portal.
Disadvantages/difficulties
The case study lists a number of negativities (these far out weigh the positive aspects) around the programme citing the dissatisfaction of students who prefer face to face discussions, seminars noting e-learning discussions as slow and lack dynamics of face to face sessions. Staff feel e-learning distances their students from them and feel they have little interaction with them with them only surfacing to hand in their assignments. They noted no better retention rate (they also did note it was no worse) than face to face courses, they also note there are no cost savings citing that both in terms of administrative and teaching time online delivery was more expensive.
Kathryn’s thoughts
I may have read this case study wrong but I was a bit confused as to the reasons for implementation and change from face to face and online only. My initial thinking was it was only for the students in Africa but as I read on it became apparent that student who were at Derby also took the purely online modules. I have a couple of thoughts about this.
First of all they note they were experienced at teaching these modules and also within the context of Southern Africa. If this was the case then I am surprises at the decision to move to online delivery away from blended. Professional people everywhere are extremely busy and the flexibility of online delivery would rest only on the accessibility of the internet. They site that communications in Africa do not allow (at this time) for courses to be carried out online only, I am no expert but this is not a surprise to me. Thus it would be essential for students to have a variety of means to study and not totally reliant on one mode. If they have introduced this to their face to face students in Derby I am also not surprised they did not like it, one of the reasons to take a face to face course is the seminars and interaction.
The fact that their staff note they did not like the online delivery also makes me think they may not have consulted them in the first place and then trained them. A face to face tutor takes time to learn to teach online thus if students were not interacting online (assuming they could get online) then this I would think is because the structure of the course has not been set up for them to do so.
The aspect of time is also a notable point. I am not sure where it says it takes less time to teach online, in my experience and most others tutors I know this is not the case. We timetable more time for distance learning students not less. Again the consultation that staff did not like this mode due to the timetables time leads me to think this project was not well researched before implementing.
I thought this was an interesting case study that illustrated some of the pitfalls of thinking that online delivery was a panacea for a number of things (distance, time, resources etc). I think it also showed a lack of background research (and dare I say it a little common sense…)
Case Study - Online delivery of MSc Strategic Management in Africa
Background and context
This case study is about the change University of Derby made for the delivery of its blended learning modules within the MSc of Strategic Management to the delivery of them purely online with specific reference to how they was rolled out in Southern Africa, specifically Botswana and Malawi.
The modules are part of the part time MSc and within the Southern African context students are professional senior or middle managers who work fulltime. Lectures from Derby travel to in country sites at the start of the modules for a 3 day face to face session for the blended learning modules. For the online modules the students were required to access all materials and work online and undertaken online sessions with tutors, with students being required to draw on their professional experience as part of the course.
The course design was adapted from the face to face programme and all previous materials were put into webpage format. Communication problems in Africa resulted in students not accessing the website and thus required workbooks to be given to students.
Technology used
The programme is run through the in-house adaptation of Blackboard VLE with access to students via a portal. This has been a progression from University Alliance/NextEd and followed the central IT decisions.
Tangible benefits
The case study struggles to find specific tangible benefits of this programme as a result of the switch in delivery to online only. In fact it notes they were forced due to student opinion to change delivery back to face to face in 2007.
One of the major benefits cited was online access to the e-journals which does allow students to access academic resources at any point though the Derby portal.
Disadvantages/difficulties
The case study lists a number of negativities (these far out weigh the positive aspects) around the programme citing the dissatisfaction of students who prefer face to face discussions, seminars noting e-learning discussions as slow and lack dynamics of face to face sessions. Staff feel e-learning distances their students from them and feel they have little interaction with them with them only surfacing to hand in their assignments. They noted no better retention rate (they also did note it was no worse) than face to face courses, they also note there are no cost savings citing that both in terms of administrative and teaching time online delivery was more expensive.
Kathryn’s thoughts
I may have read this case study wrong but I was a bit confused as to the reasons for implementation and change from face to face and online only. My initial thinking was it was only for the students in Africa but as I read on it became apparent that student who were at Derby also took the purely online modules. I have a couple of thoughts about this.
First of all they note they were experienced at teaching these modules and also within the context of Southern Africa. If this was the case then I am surprises at the decision to move to online delivery away from blended. Professional people everywhere are extremely busy and the flexibility of online delivery would rest only on the accessibility of the internet. They site that communications in Africa do not allow (at this time) for courses to be carried out online only, I am no expert but this is not a surprise to me. Thus it would be essential for students to have a variety of means to study and not totally reliant on one mode. If they have introduced this to their face to face students in Derby I am also not surprised they did not like it, one of the reasons to take a face to face course is the seminars and interaction.
The fact that their staff note they did not like the online delivery also makes me think they may not have consulted them in the first place and then trained them. A face to face tutor takes time to learn to teach online thus if students were not interacting online (assuming they could get online) then this I would think is because the structure of the course has not been set up for them to do so.
The aspect of time is also a notable point. I am not sure where it says it takes less time to teach online, in my experience and most others tutors I know this is not the case. We timetable more time for distance learning students not less. Again the consultation that staff did not like this mode due to the timetables time leads me to think this project was not well researched before implementing.
I thought this was an interesting case study that illustrated some of the pitfalls of thinking that online delivery was a panacea for a number of things (distance, time, resources etc). I think it also showed a lack of background research (and dare I say it a little common sense…)
Swansea University - The Learning Lab
Swansea University
Case Study - The Learning Lab staff development initiative
Background and Context
This case study starts by quoting the well quoted e-learning developer Gilly Salmon (2005), in relation to the fact (according to Salmon) that most staff and students in HEIs don’t engage enough in e-learning. It then looks at the setting up of a virtual lab/space on the university website that is available to all staff and students (and live on the web) and has a range of resources, discussion, and links for staff to use with the aim of encouraging e-learning within the University. This virtual lab came about following a survey carried out to find out what the wider understanding of e-learning was within the university. The survey showed that Salmon was right in as much as there were a lot of gaps in staff and student knowledge, despite its acknowledged importance.
Technology used and promoted - What is a Swansea Leaning Lab?
The Learning Lab was set up as an informal place where students and staff can find news, resources, events (in-house and outside) and contact people who are involved with e-learning. People can ask questions on the forums or find someone to contact if they would like to discuss their own programme or learning for e-development. There are also areas for blogs, wikis and pod-casts all laid out in a used friendly manor (I think). Last but not least it has an easy to remember web address and promotes a community of practice through its non imposing and informal style (my thoughts).
Tangible benefits
· There has been an increase in staff usage of some of the tools both on within the Learning Lab (blogs and Wikis) and also calls on the Learning Technologists to support wider university developments.
· The face to face sessions have been popular where IT and technologies can showcase what is happening, the pros and cons of different tools and how e-resources and learning can be integrated into teaching and learning (lunch provided).
· The promotion of a community and the support this could give for e-learning development was at the centre of the Learning Lab and the staff surrounding its development, not the tools
Disadvantages
No disadvantages were noted
Kathryn’s thoughts
I like the idea of the learning lab and having looked at it in detail I like much of what it illustrates and how it works. It is not however up to date (or at least the live web one isn’t). I also like the fact it has a section on accessibility (even though there is not a lot in it at present).
I think this is a slow but sure approach to e-development. Perhaps initially teaching to the converted. It is obviously aimed at staff more than students and within a face to face UG environment I would say it may have less impact that other distance or more flexible course.
I like the emphasis the team place on interaction being a community practice and not over forcing the tools on people. It is also notable that they use food (cake and lunch) as a lure to get people to join in but they don’t note it as a cost, it is an acknowledged part of the informality of the approach.
Case Study - The Learning Lab staff development initiative
Background and Context
This case study starts by quoting the well quoted e-learning developer Gilly Salmon (2005), in relation to the fact (according to Salmon) that most staff and students in HEIs don’t engage enough in e-learning. It then looks at the setting up of a virtual lab/space on the university website that is available to all staff and students (and live on the web) and has a range of resources, discussion, and links for staff to use with the aim of encouraging e-learning within the University. This virtual lab came about following a survey carried out to find out what the wider understanding of e-learning was within the university. The survey showed that Salmon was right in as much as there were a lot of gaps in staff and student knowledge, despite its acknowledged importance.
Technology used and promoted - What is a Swansea Leaning Lab?
The Learning Lab was set up as an informal place where students and staff can find news, resources, events (in-house and outside) and contact people who are involved with e-learning. People can ask questions on the forums or find someone to contact if they would like to discuss their own programme or learning for e-development. There are also areas for blogs, wikis and pod-casts all laid out in a used friendly manor (I think). Last but not least it has an easy to remember web address and promotes a community of practice through its non imposing and informal style (my thoughts).
Tangible benefits
· There has been an increase in staff usage of some of the tools both on within the Learning Lab (blogs and Wikis) and also calls on the Learning Technologists to support wider university developments.
· The face to face sessions have been popular where IT and technologies can showcase what is happening, the pros and cons of different tools and how e-resources and learning can be integrated into teaching and learning (lunch provided).
· The promotion of a community and the support this could give for e-learning development was at the centre of the Learning Lab and the staff surrounding its development, not the tools
Disadvantages
No disadvantages were noted
Kathryn’s thoughts
I like the idea of the learning lab and having looked at it in detail I like much of what it illustrates and how it works. It is not however up to date (or at least the live web one isn’t). I also like the fact it has a section on accessibility (even though there is not a lot in it at present).
I think this is a slow but sure approach to e-development. Perhaps initially teaching to the converted. It is obviously aimed at staff more than students and within a face to face UG environment I would say it may have less impact that other distance or more flexible course.
I like the emphasis the team place on interaction being a community practice and not over forcing the tools on people. It is also notable that they use food (cake and lunch) as a lure to get people to join in but they don’t note it as a cost, it is an acknowledged part of the informality of the approach.
University of Warwick - Team-based approach to developing e-resources
University of Warwick
Case Study – Team based approach to developing e-resources
Background and context
This case study looks at the development of staff training in relation to e-learning tools and materials used. The project came about when a different project highlighted the issue of lack of staff confidence and awareness of e-learning and its connection and use with face to face learning.
The programme this project is aligned to is within the Institute of Clinical Education (University of Warwick) and specifically working with a large group of practitioners (1000) studying part time on a wide range of modules (over 80). The training involved was a series of practical hands on sessions for teaching and support staff to introduce them to the theory, tools and how to embed e-learning with their current (and I assume) future work. Deliberately set up to be collaborative and share ideas, worries and understanding the series used a VLE to report each weeks sessions (again it does not say but one assumes not everyone could attend every session so the VLE would have been useful for these people), the additional attraction of a good lunch added as a good way to encourage people to attend.
The Technology used
The sessions appeared to cover a range of technologies that Warwick IT teams support for the use of teaching and learning. This included synchronous and asynchronous discussion forums quizzes, blogs, personalised content pages. The sessions also highlighted the benefits of e-learning including the flexibility of working students who need to have access to learning when it suites them (not the institution).
Tangible benefits
The case study reports a number of staff related development improvements, for example understanding, enthusiasm and confidence. They also note the uptake of IT and e-learning related activities on modules taught within the institution. They also note that were IT was not introduced related directly to groups of staff who did not attend the training.
Disadvantages
· The cost of the lunch – perhaps not a disadvantage but a consideration when money always needs to be accounted for
· The resource requirements in relation to training were high as there was a lot of duplication (Esites, face to face session and hard copy of session notes)
Lessons Learnt
Noted is the benefit of bringing staff together – (I think this is really important not only for training for a single issue in this case e-learning, it generates collaboration at institutional level and can lead to other development opportunities).
The relation between the staff and students in relation to staffs own learning
Kathryn’s thoughts
I think this is a nice case study of the slow but sure staff development achievements within many institutions (I would guess). I really like the comparison between this particular group of staff and their own students, both working professionals trying to add yet another tool to their armoury that in the long run will help them both, but all struggling with their other demands.
I think as noted above bring staff together in a formal training environment but adding informal elements (in this case lunch) is a really valuable activity for staff to network and find out about each others interests. It builds a wider since of community of practise and has other non measurable benefits.
I was interested to read about the module structure at the start where students get the hard copy etc and then come to the university for a whole week’s face to face session. This is a different method to the one we established at Lancaster where students come to the university at the start then go away …. So, something for me to think about there.
Overall I thought it was a nicely written case study that put forward the genuine but not exaggerated benefits of e-learning for staff development that focused on in-house IT resources and did not try to sell the benefits of other maybe better (maybe not) tools with lots of whistles and bells.
Case Study – Team based approach to developing e-resources
Background and context
This case study looks at the development of staff training in relation to e-learning tools and materials used. The project came about when a different project highlighted the issue of lack of staff confidence and awareness of e-learning and its connection and use with face to face learning.
The programme this project is aligned to is within the Institute of Clinical Education (University of Warwick) and specifically working with a large group of practitioners (1000) studying part time on a wide range of modules (over 80). The training involved was a series of practical hands on sessions for teaching and support staff to introduce them to the theory, tools and how to embed e-learning with their current (and I assume) future work. Deliberately set up to be collaborative and share ideas, worries and understanding the series used a VLE to report each weeks sessions (again it does not say but one assumes not everyone could attend every session so the VLE would have been useful for these people), the additional attraction of a good lunch added as a good way to encourage people to attend.
The Technology used
The sessions appeared to cover a range of technologies that Warwick IT teams support for the use of teaching and learning. This included synchronous and asynchronous discussion forums quizzes, blogs, personalised content pages. The sessions also highlighted the benefits of e-learning including the flexibility of working students who need to have access to learning when it suites them (not the institution).
Tangible benefits
The case study reports a number of staff related development improvements, for example understanding, enthusiasm and confidence. They also note the uptake of IT and e-learning related activities on modules taught within the institution. They also note that were IT was not introduced related directly to groups of staff who did not attend the training.
Disadvantages
· The cost of the lunch – perhaps not a disadvantage but a consideration when money always needs to be accounted for
· The resource requirements in relation to training were high as there was a lot of duplication (Esites, face to face session and hard copy of session notes)
Lessons Learnt
Noted is the benefit of bringing staff together – (I think this is really important not only for training for a single issue in this case e-learning, it generates collaboration at institutional level and can lead to other development opportunities).
The relation between the staff and students in relation to staffs own learning
Kathryn’s thoughts
I think this is a nice case study of the slow but sure staff development achievements within many institutions (I would guess). I really like the comparison between this particular group of staff and their own students, both working professionals trying to add yet another tool to their armoury that in the long run will help them both, but all struggling with their other demands.
I think as noted above bring staff together in a formal training environment but adding informal elements (in this case lunch) is a really valuable activity for staff to network and find out about each others interests. It builds a wider since of community of practise and has other non measurable benefits.
I was interested to read about the module structure at the start where students get the hard copy etc and then come to the university for a whole week’s face to face session. This is a different method to the one we established at Lancaster where students come to the university at the start then go away …. So, something for me to think about there.
Overall I thought it was a nicely written case study that put forward the genuine but not exaggerated benefits of e-learning for staff development that focused on in-house IT resources and did not try to sell the benefits of other maybe better (maybe not) tools with lots of whistles and bells.
University of Nottingham - Disability Support in CBA
University of Nottingham
Case Study - Disability Support in Computer Based Assessments
Background
The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SENDA) act that was introduced in 2001 added to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that was introduced in 1992 to cover all educational establishments. Together they outlaw discrimination in relation to disability including services within Higher Education Institutions.
Institutions are responsible for making reasonable adjustments that are anticipatory of all student needs and thus not treat a disabled student (or staff member) less favourably for any reason relating to their disability. Thus they are required to make changed to all aspects of teaching and learning and general University life.
What the case study is about
The University of Nottingham has noted an increase in students applying to the study has increased but also noted the medical school applicants with disabilities remains lower than average. The medical school wished to increase the amount of electronic assessment but also acknowledged that this type of assessment could exacerbate and discriminate against some students in relation to their disability. This case study reviews how they creased an electronic assessment that could be individualised by each student thus accommodating students whose disabilities might have impeded its use.
The system
The system used was Touchstone which has been designed to provide support for a full customisation of background/foreground colours and a range of different font sizes, additional features were added to accommodate screen readers and Braille tablets as well as dyslexia requirements (this they noted was more difficult due to the wide range of requirements). On a practical level the system needed to be non-technical staff friendly thus have user-friendly interface for assessment designer, in addition clear user instructions for students and accessible for on all networked computers and not just specifically designated computers.
Implementation
The design team consulted widely throughout the university and used the university disability polices to embed the process and outcomes. Consultation included colleagues in the student support unit, timetabling administrative staff, teaching programme staff and students. The student body was informed of the changes via the VLE and students who wished to use the adaptive system were asked to report to the administrative staff that coordinated adjustments for future assessments. The student then evaluated the changes made to the system before these being implemented for use for assessments specific to the student. The adaptive system is only open to students who are declare their disability and are registered as such within the university system.
Tangible benefits
· Compliance with DDA and SENDA – both legal requirements and important for the university reputation and recruitments (Seale, 2006)
· The use of Touchstone was thought to be simple and readily applicable to network computers and importantly could accommodate keyboard stoke use and did not require mouse usage.
· Touchstone timed students exactly thus student with additional time allowance were continually aware of their constraints. In addition these students did not need to be segregated into different rooms thus highlighting their differences with other students.
Disadvantages
· The time taken to set up the system and the numbers of staff involved made it a time consuming and large project.
· Continued negotiation with students on requirements – this requires a lot of time from many staff members.
Kathryn’s thoughts
I liked this project and I think it highlights a number of things in relation to both projects in general and also more specifically projects in relation to the disability legislation.
First of all I think it shows that all projects take more time than you think they will initially. Specifically in relation to projects and disability they always take more time especially as HEI are only beginning to come to terms with the fact they have to anticipate the needs of their disabled students and as a result implement all sorts of things. It costs a lot of resources and even when they get funding they have to get the staff to work together and this is time (which we all know is not costed).
In relation to benefits not mentioned in the case study I think one of the main ones in the longer terms if the fact staff work across departments to achve a task and this is a good thing for all sorts of reasons not only in relation to the project
In relation to innovation – I am not a IT person but it seams to me that this may not be a huge innovative thing to have done on the IT front but it is on the human font. It took someone to think of this and drive the project and that is part of innovation for me.
I was unclear about why they introduced it only to the registered disabled students and why student were not able to set their own parameters on the system perhaps before they started the test. Perhaps students would have found that for example a black background with white text suited them and they did not have declared sensitivity to this…. ??
Case Study - Disability Support in Computer Based Assessments
Background
The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SENDA) act that was introduced in 2001 added to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that was introduced in 1992 to cover all educational establishments. Together they outlaw discrimination in relation to disability including services within Higher Education Institutions.
Institutions are responsible for making reasonable adjustments that are anticipatory of all student needs and thus not treat a disabled student (or staff member) less favourably for any reason relating to their disability. Thus they are required to make changed to all aspects of teaching and learning and general University life.
What the case study is about
The University of Nottingham has noted an increase in students applying to the study has increased but also noted the medical school applicants with disabilities remains lower than average. The medical school wished to increase the amount of electronic assessment but also acknowledged that this type of assessment could exacerbate and discriminate against some students in relation to their disability. This case study reviews how they creased an electronic assessment that could be individualised by each student thus accommodating students whose disabilities might have impeded its use.
The system
The system used was Touchstone which has been designed to provide support for a full customisation of background/foreground colours and a range of different font sizes, additional features were added to accommodate screen readers and Braille tablets as well as dyslexia requirements (this they noted was more difficult due to the wide range of requirements). On a practical level the system needed to be non-technical staff friendly thus have user-friendly interface for assessment designer, in addition clear user instructions for students and accessible for on all networked computers and not just specifically designated computers.
Implementation
The design team consulted widely throughout the university and used the university disability polices to embed the process and outcomes. Consultation included colleagues in the student support unit, timetabling administrative staff, teaching programme staff and students. The student body was informed of the changes via the VLE and students who wished to use the adaptive system were asked to report to the administrative staff that coordinated adjustments for future assessments. The student then evaluated the changes made to the system before these being implemented for use for assessments specific to the student. The adaptive system is only open to students who are declare their disability and are registered as such within the university system.
Tangible benefits
· Compliance with DDA and SENDA – both legal requirements and important for the university reputation and recruitments (Seale, 2006)
· The use of Touchstone was thought to be simple and readily applicable to network computers and importantly could accommodate keyboard stoke use and did not require mouse usage.
· Touchstone timed students exactly thus student with additional time allowance were continually aware of their constraints. In addition these students did not need to be segregated into different rooms thus highlighting their differences with other students.
Disadvantages
· The time taken to set up the system and the numbers of staff involved made it a time consuming and large project.
· Continued negotiation with students on requirements – this requires a lot of time from many staff members.
Kathryn’s thoughts
I liked this project and I think it highlights a number of things in relation to both projects in general and also more specifically projects in relation to the disability legislation.
First of all I think it shows that all projects take more time than you think they will initially. Specifically in relation to projects and disability they always take more time especially as HEI are only beginning to come to terms with the fact they have to anticipate the needs of their disabled students and as a result implement all sorts of things. It costs a lot of resources and even when they get funding they have to get the staff to work together and this is time (which we all know is not costed).
In relation to benefits not mentioned in the case study I think one of the main ones in the longer terms if the fact staff work across departments to achve a task and this is a good thing for all sorts of reasons not only in relation to the project
In relation to innovation – I am not a IT person but it seams to me that this may not be a huge innovative thing to have done on the IT front but it is on the human font. It took someone to think of this and drive the project and that is part of innovation for me.
I was unclear about why they introduced it only to the registered disabled students and why student were not able to set their own parameters on the system perhaps before they started the test. Perhaps students would have found that for example a black background with white text suited them and they did not have declared sensitivity to this…. ??
Sunday 1 March 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)