Developing online learning resources for schools on a budget

Creating online learning resources for schools on moderate budgets

MA conference 2011 Brighton3 Oct 2011

Helen Ward (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford)

Martin Bazley (Martin Bazley & Associates)

Martin Bazley & Associates

BBC / Public Catalogue Foundation Your Paintings project

Consulting on user interface

Consulting on online survey

User testing

Martin Bazley & Associates

Ford Madox Brown Work schools interactive with embedded video

Consulting on content and user interface

User testing (classroom-based)

(Also worked on redevelopment of main website)

Martin Bazley & Associates

Development of small to medium sized museum websites

Using WordPress, Content Curator or similar low cost, flexible CMS, working with web developer associates

Martin Bazley & Associates

Training

Writing for the web

Developing online resources

Planning online audience research and impact assessment

Video for the web

Podcasting – planning, production, promotion

Social media

Etc: ‘anything digital’

Elements of online learning resourcesImage(s) + caption(s)

Key question(s) / short activities

Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets

Zoomable images 

Video

Interactive

More complex functionality

Increasing cost and complexity

Increasing cost and complexity M

ost u

sefu

l for

teac

hers

Mos

t use

ful f

or te

ache

rs

These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment

First two can be done quite easilyThe others will mean investment of money and /or expert timeTwo case studies: 1. with interactive2. with video

Part of the University of Oxford (est. 1683)

Key Collections:• Western Art• Eastern Art• Antiquities/ Archaeology• Coins and Medals• Casts

Reopened in 2009 after major redevelopment

What did teachers want?

• Information to help plan a visit

• Resources to support pre and post visit classroom activities

What could we offer?

• No budget, but in house ICT expertise

• Improved website navigation

• A structure to allow easy searching of carefully selected resources

• ‘New’ content by repurposing old materials

• ‘Quick wins’ eg zoomable images

What did teachers want and what could we offer?

Education web pages 2007

http://www.ashmolean.org/education/resources/

• Funded through Take One… Picture project

• Repurposing an existing activity

• Focus on interactive element – buying in expertise not available in-house

• Opportunity to review and improve content

• Opportunity to involve local teachers

• Time consuming (attention to detail important), but great results!

• Attempts to create interactives in house less successful

Example 1: Brighton Then & Now whiteboard interactive

Brighton Then and Now screenshot

http://www.ashmolean.org/education/resources/resources2011/interactives/Brighton/Brighton.html

Take One Picture interactive: pros

+ An ‘interactive’ resource often seems more attractive.

+ Offers a richer experience around each painting.

+ Activity is closely guided, so can be used even by inexperienced teachers.

Take One Picture interactive: cons

- Relatively expensive to produce.- Quite limited in application – teachers cannot

adjust to suit their needs. - Because most images / assets are ‘wrapped’ in

Flash, this type of resource is sometimes less findable via Google etc.

• Funded through AHRC grant - small component of bigger project

• Starting from scratch - defining concept very time consuming

• Opportunity to work closely with local school on in depth project

• Heavy demands on education staff time – (esp Joint Museums Art Education Officer)

• Opportunity to try out new approaches eg video clips

•Resulted in ‘solution’ for education staff to create teaching and learning packages (requiring minimal help from busy ICT team)

Example 2: ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ learning package

‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ screenshot

http://educationonline.ashmolean.org/ruskin/

John Ruskin resource: pros

+ Provides images, videos and straightforward activities that students or teachers can use in their own way.

+ Less expensive to develop+ More likely to be found via Google etc.

John Ruskin resource: cons

- Does not have the ‘wow’ factor of an ‘interactive’

Overall comparison

TOP: approach quite well defined so easier to see the potential. More constrained.

Ruskin: more specialist audience so more in depth activities. Working with partners creative but increases complexity.

Developing a learning resource: iterative review

your content curriculum (find a match)

Ch

eck

Does it match your audience’s specific needs?

If so TEST - and then amend

Learning activities Learning outcomes (find a match)

Elements of online learning resourcesImage(s) + caption(s)

Key question(s) / short activities

Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets

Zoomable images 

Video

Interactive

More complex functionality

Increasing cost and complexity

Increasing cost and complexity M

ost u

sefu

l for

teac

hers

Mos

t use

ful f

or te

ache

rs

These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment

Video can be done quite easily and cheaply.Zoomable images too.The others will mean substantial investment of money and /or expert time

‘What have museums ever done for us?’The main value added for teachers working online is

selection of suitable material

with learning activities and outcomes in mind

Focus resources on editorial, evaluation and testing

rather than technical functionality

Reflection

How can you create effective learning resources on a limited budget?

What are the quick wins for teachers, in online provision?

How do you build a case for investing in the development of online resources?