This blog site is no longer updated – I’m leaving it here as an archive of e-learning related material 2009-2012. My current blog site can be found at joebennett.net.
This blog site is no longer updated – I’m leaving it here as an archive of e-learning related material 2009-2012. My current blog site can be found at joebennett.net.
A business trip
Hotel in a distant town
Need to do some work
Standard hotel room
The bathroom has free water
I wash my face
While in the bathroom
I see free toilet paper
I am reassured
Turn on the TV
An image fades into view
It comes with the room
The room is too dark
I flick a switch by the bed
Free light for the guests
It is a warm night
The aircon is my saviour
Buttons on the wall
I sit down to work
The laptop eats electrons
Plug socket dinner
Time to get started
Email inbox bursting full?
It must be by now
Web browser opens
“Please type credit card number”
Gates of knowledge locked
Phone as a modem
Data allowance maxed out
Credit card again?
Water, light, heat, air
The body’s needs are met here
But the brain must starve
Thanks to Phil Race at Leeds Met for the following;
The message below was sent last week by a DVC to all teaching staff…
“Over the past few years we have seen a significant drop in the use of Overhead Projectors (OHPs) and many sit idly in teaching areas gathering dust. We propose to remove all OHPs from teaching areas between June and August 2012. Therefore, by September 2012 all OHPs will have been removed from teaching spaces.
We appreciate that there may be some staff who still utilise OHPs especially for historical materials or items which may no longer be physically available”.
[The message continued by pointing out help available for colleagues who wished to ‘digitize’ old materials].
Phil invited obituaries for the humble OHP. Here is mine;
Goodbye Over Head Projector
Oh! Heavy Projector
Outstanding High Praise Of History Proceeding
Once, Happily People Owned Hundreds
Particularly Often Helpful Pedagogically
Openly Highly Prized, Only Hardly Perceived
Old Hand-Me-Down, Promptly Outmoded Hardware
Presently Obsolete, Hidden, Pre-Internet, Ontologically Humiliated, Powerless.
Our History, Ponder…
There was a presentation today at Bath Spa organised by Dr Clare Power at the University’s Centre for Learning and Teaching Development. The speaker was Clayton Glen of HDA Consultants and the subject was ‘Generation F’, a discussion of ‘The Facebook Generation’ and the way social networking is affecting business, human resource management and organisational cultures. There wasn’t a lot about teaching and learning, but some of the behaviours under discussion (of the way ‘social’ behaviours have very real professional impacts) were interesting enough.
Download Clayton Glen’s original article. The slides are embedded at the end of this blog entry.
Glen is a good communicator, but some of his observations were arguably a little entry-level or obvious to anyone who has followed the development of business and organisation change on the web over the last ten years or so. He did resurrect the polemical but prescient Cluetrain Manifesto (from 1999) and discussed which elements of it were prophetic and which were wishful thinking. He is, as he confesses, not a Facebook user himself, and thus some of his assumptions (for example, that few people use FB professionally) do not ring true with my own experience as an ‘early adopter’ of social media.
Some of the anecdotes, such as a fan-sourced pop video (linked here and embedded below) were pleasing examples of the way the ‘new generation’ collides creativity and communication using transparent (to them) online tools, but again I found this to be a rather dated example of this phenomenon (Feeder having famously done the same thing in 2001).
However, there was a lot to like in the presentation, particularly Glen’s attempts to ally his nascent surveys with literature analysing organisational behaviours in employees. The presentation was perhaps of more relevance to Human Resources professionals than to academics, but I found that some of the reports cited in the presentation were certainly worth a read. Here are some links;
I gained a lot from the presentation, but not any greater understanding of ‘Generation F’, if indeed they exist at all (social media takeup is hardly a youth-only phenomenon). What I did learn was that, surprisingly, social media usage among employees is still a problem for some managers in large organisations, and that there are still some corporate cultures that attempt to control the Internet. As a ‘Generation F’ person might say, ‘yeah – good luck with that’. Thanks again to Clayton for the presentation (and the permission to publish the slides here) and also to Clare for setting the whole thing up.
There’s an interesting and, I suspect, common debate going on at Bath Spa University at the moment, regarding the pros and cons of providing online feedback to students for their written work. Practices vary across the institution; every academic School has some staff members who use online essay feedback and others who provide feedback exclusively on paper (although our academic regulations require that all staff use Turnitin for plagiarism detection).
The arguments on both sides are easy enough to summarise. Those in favour cite timeliness of feedback, support for disabilities, higher takeup rate, staff time efficiency, student expectation, lower carbon footprint, legibility of feedback, increased wordcount and accessibility of feedback. Those against cite difficulty with the software interface, staff time efficiency, the learning curve required by staff to use it, physical issues using computers and displays, and the ‘academic freedom‘ of staff to defend pre-Internet working practices (of paper-based marking). Considering that this article is originally being written for a blog site (bathspaweb2.edublogs.org) about the benefits of e-learning, it’s no secret that I consider that the pros outweigh the cons. But my reasoning is not based on tech-evangelism – rather, it is because, like all of us, I have devoted a large part of my professional life to ensuring that my students have the best learning experience possible, and experience has shown me that online marking enables students to receive feedback that is more timely, relevant, extensive and clear than the equivalent paper-based method. Does this require academics to learn new skills? Certainly. Can it improve the student learning experience? I believe so.
This is not to say that all assessment feedback is better online. Feedback can and should take many forms; in my own formative and summative assessment I use face-to-face tutorials, group seminars and peer assessment, all using verbal protocols that would have been familiar to any 19th-century academic. But I also use Skype, Google talk, pdf annotations, Jing, Camtasia, Zotero, YouTube , emailed MP3s, Turnitin, Minerva (our VLE), and various blogs, sites and wikis. In each case the feedback tool, whether analogue or digital, is selected with the goal of giving students the clearest and most helpful feedback to support their learning. I personally abandoned paper feedback in 2003, initially for reasons of timeliness (emailing feedback to students was simply quicker and easier) and later for reasons of increased pedagogical benefit.
Let’s start with a scenario that will be familiar to anyone who’s ever marked a pile of paper essays. We dutifully annotate every paragraph, highlighting well known spelling/grammar errors such as possessive its, splice commas and providing notes to help students to improve academic citations. [This article is only being distributed electronically. If it were in paper form, the three hyperlinks in the previous sentence directing the reader to additional online learning resources would be unavailable]. At the end of a long, gruelling day (or week, or month!) of marking, we have a large pile of paper on our desks. We then pass these marked up essays back to the students – often some months later if it was a summer submission – or leave them in an office for collection. Sometimes students collect work and read the feedback, and sometimes they don’t. You only have to prowl the corridors of any building on any campus to find box files containing marked work that students have not collected. I know of one colleague who, at the end of a full marking/handback cycle, was left with 75% of the papers not collected by returning students, who had ‘moved on’, or for whatever personal reasons had no interest in reading the feedback. He was heartbroken – all his detailed and diligent work was wasted because the very people he was trying to help were refusing to engage with his preferred method of communicating.
Pedagogical research studies show that feedback is a vital part of the student learning experience, but the UK National Student Satisfaction Survey results consistently demonstrate that a large proportion of students are unhappy with the ‘frequency, timing and method’ (Holmes and Papageorgiou, 2009) of the feedback they receive from tutors. Online feedback is usually received more quickly by students, because they can read it without coming to the campus, or waiting until staff are available to return it. It can be accessed at a convenient time, and from anywhere, thus supporting distance learners, students with mobility issues, and students with families or day jobs. Pedagogical research supports these assertions. Bridge and Appleyard (2008) found in a comparative study of online vs paper submission that;
“88% of students reported a time saving and many reported financial benefits using online submission. 93% of students preferred having their feedback available online rather than printed and handed to them. Overall, students preferred online assignment management to postal or physical hand-in.” (Bridge and Appleyard, 2008)
And good quality online feedback can provide opportunities for additional learning beyond the limitations of paper marginalia. If a student’s essay fails to reference important academic literature in the field of study, our feedback can contain hyperlinks to further reading. If the essay makes a basic error of grammar, style or citation, we can provide hyperlinks to websites and articles that will enable the student to improve these areas for next time. I have a 500-word ‘rubric’ set up on Turnitin’s Grademark facility so that every time students misuse splice commas I can drag and drop a detailed explanation of how they can avoid making this error in future.
The other consideration is the demographic of our current and future learners. Over 90% of BSU students own their own laptop, and 100% have on-campus web access. Many primary schools now use a VLE for key stage 2, and most secondary schools provide online feedback of some sort through VLEs, including Moodle. Teachers throughout key stage 2 and 3 are setting up their own blog sites to support student learning and encourage online interaction. When these children become young adults and enter HE, we can speculate that an 18-year-old first year undertaking our assignments would be somewhat bemused – perhaps even unimpressed – to receive an A4 printout with handwritten comments, three months after hand-in.
But good quality e-feedback, just like good quality teaching, takes training, skills and experience to deliver. And ‘late adopters‘ (Rogers, 1963) are often left understandably confused by the array of options and the difficulties of getting started. The staff learning curve for a lot of e-learning tools – and I include our own Blackboard/Minerva solution – is far steeper than it should be. As academics we’re thrown in at the deep end with these tools, and the designers of the tools are often so preoccupied with adding features that usability suffers. And although we have some excellent staff training support in our universities, the interfaces should not be as difficult as they are to operate. No-one asks for training using Facebook or Google, because these companies have poured $millions into improving usability. Setting up a Turnitin assignment in the Grade Centre is unreasonably fiddly and complicated. This poor usability creates an apartheid between early and late adopters, with the risk that only the former may provide e-feedback to students. The result is that students become disgruntled that they do not get the same quality of feedback from all staff.
The challenges of software usability and staff IT literacy are very real barriers to students receiving good quality feedback. As assessors, there are two directions we can choose. If we consider that the benefits (to our students) are worth the effort, we’ll forge ahead and confront our difficulties as learners of a new ‘language’, even if the online tool is a bit clunky and difficult. If the learning curve is too great for us, we will resist, and will find a way to intellectualise disengagement – ‘academic freedom to mark however I like’, ‘I like the tangible feel of paper’, ‘I get RSI sitting at a computer’, ‘it’s worked for me for 20 years’ etc.
Let’s look at these arguments one by one. I suggest that the term ‘academic freedom’ may be being misused here. Our own UCU definition of the term covers five areas, all of which relate to the intellectual concept of academic freedom (and all of which I would defend as vehemently as the next colleague). None of them (nor any of the academic literature) refer to the freedom to choose the administrative method by which written feedback is delivered.
The ‘tangible feel of paper’ is a personal preference that doesn’t provide an observable student benefit, and in any case, staff and students can print online materials if they need to. As regards the ‘RSI argument’, physical issues connected with computer usage must of course be treated seriously by academics and organisations, and anyone with a disability of any sort should be – and is – supported in their role. Recently, a member of my team who suffered from back problems told me he was unable to sit at a workstation to deliver online marking, and needed support and advice. We provided him with a portable MP3 recorder and a short training course in how to upload audio files to the VLE. His students received online verbal feedback that was far more extensive than the paper based equivalent, and they made very positive comments about this perceived improvement.
The ‘it’s worked for me for 20 years’ argument may be self-centred rather than pedagogical, but it does provide useful evidence of the need for high-quality staff support. If academics have a responsibility to their students, so managers and institutions have a responsibility to their staff. Given that opposition to online marking is almost always expressed by those who do not yet have the skills to deliver it, there is clearly a staff training issue to be addressed. And this needs to be more than a one-off Friday afternoon showing a small group how to set up a TurnItIn dropbox. Generic ongoing IT literacy must be supported and maintained. In the digital age, communicative teachers need to be able to embed a video, operate simple content management systems, resize a JPEG, make pdfs, share collaborative documents, take a screenshot, store files in the cloud, manipulate a search engine’s advanced features, record an audio file, and most importantly, provide links to other sources of learning. And the challenge of supporting digital immigrants (by which I mean all of us older than about 35) will never be greater than it is now. 15 years ago it wasn’t an issue – students were expecting to receive paper feedback, and in any case the online tools weren’t good enough to provide a better alternative. 15 years hence it won’t be an issue – the majority of the teaching workforce will be naturally digitally literate, having been born into an online society. So the tension we see now, between early and late adopters, will naturally disappear as technology, staff literacy and student benefit combine. If you’re reading these words any time after, say, 2016, you’re probably wondering what all the fuss was about.
2012’s intake of students were born around 1994 and have only ever known a wired world, at home and at school. By contrast, most of us started our professional lives in a pre-Internet age, and have had to adapt our practices – as teachers and as learners – as new tools have become available. The Internet is a new communication tool for our society, enabling instantaneous transfer of information and ideas from one to many, from many to one, or from many to many. As academics we are professional communicators, and many of us are understandably excited by the current and future opportunities for better communication with learners and colleagues. But we’re learning a new language, and we must work together to ensure that our fluency is shared.
You’ll notice that this article isn’t Harvard referenced. Rather, it is hyperlinked. Harvard referencing was invented around 1881 as a system of enabling scholars to follow paper-based trails of information by providing enough metadata about a work to enable it to be located in a physical library. Most other citation systems predate the Internet. Hyperlinks were invented in the mid 1960s and are the primary method by which users navigate online. It may be interesting to speculate whether these long established citation systems decline as the same rate as the need to access information in its physical form.
I’ve been to the University of Exeter today, giving a presentation about Zotero, which I’ve blogged about before, to a group of library and information professionals from Exeter and elsewhere in the South West. As ever with teaching and conferences, you learn as much as you provide, and through feedback and questions from the group, I discovered Mendeley, a more recent (and UK-based) citation software alternative which I will explore soon. It seems to have a very similar feature set to Zotero, and crucially has an iPhone app associated with it.
Here, mainly for the benefit of those who were at the presentation, but also for anyone else who’s interested, are some short videos demoing the specifics of Zotero (including some features I didn’t cover in the presentation).
Drag and drop in Firefox – Zotero to Google docs
Extracting metadata from a journal article
Live citations in MS Word using Zotero plugin
The Online Learning Task Force (OLTF) last week published its report making various recommendations about the future of online learning in HE.
The OLTF makes six recommendations to HEFCE and government;
The report speaks for itself, and, in my view (based on what I have seen at many Universities) it demonstrates how far behind the rest of the world Higher Education’s (still primarily face-to-face) activities have fallen.
I think this is symptomatic of the unique times in which we live. For the first (and only) time in history, we have a generation of educators (and senior managers) most of whose professional experience and training occurred mostly pre-Internet; conversely, we have a generation of learners (some of this year’s HE applicants were born in 1993) who have only ever known a wired world. Marc Prensky coined the phrases ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital Immigrants’ to describe this generational divide. Although Prensky’s work has been rightly criticised for its poor research methodology and lack of supporting evidence, one thing at least is clear – that younger people generally spend more time online than older people (my own anecdotal experience of observing students and academics is supported by the research). Thus, parts of the HE sector are likely to be quite resistant to some of the OLTF’s recommendations – this has certainly been my experience in some staff training sessions.
To be fair to late-adopter HE teachers, evidence for student demand for online learning is inconclusive. Students clearly want part of their learning experience to be online, but not necessarily at the expense of ‘premium’ face-to-face staff contact. The OLTF report makes the following observations about student demand, based on NUS survey data;
students prefer to be regarded as partners in the development of online learning rather than mere recipients
This is not to say that all teaching should pander to student preferences; HE teachers are, by their nature, experts in teaching & learning, so just because a student may prefer a certain form of learning, this does not necessarily mean it is the most effective or sound pedagogical strategy.
However, it is clear that HE itself is partly demand-led; students choose courses, and all HEIs need to fill places. Thus, any university would be foolish to ignore student demand for online or blended learning, especially in the forthcoming higher-fees climate.
And, of course, there are some students for whom online learning is the only option (actually, I’m one of them, being a distance-learning PhD student at the moment). Yesterday I met an MMus Songwriting student (she was a distance learner, and we spoke during the residential week that forms part of this particular online programme). Here’s what she said to me – as verbatim as I can remember it;
“I have to say, studying this course online has great for me. What with the family and day job, I never could have afforded to give up a year and move to Bath. I waited years to find a Masters that I could study online – and this one came along at just the right time.”
(BSU Masters Distance Learning student, Feb 2011).
This example demonstrates that there are at least some students for whom face-to-face learning at a particular site is not possible. Of course, such a demand for distance learning is hardly a revelation – the Open University has around 168,000 students, almost all of whom are studying using a distance-learning model. Unsurprisingly, the OU is at the forefront of the development of online learning in HE (its Vice-Chancellor Martin Bean was part of the OLTF group).
So although the future for HE is almost certainly neither all-online nor all face-to-face, the learning (and recruitment) opportunities appear to suggests that the current balance between the two is changing – and Universities need to adapt fast.
The full report can be downloaded here, and is summarised by the HEFCE article below;