e-learning Reality Check: Keynote Durham University 2009

Exploring whether e-Learning has lived up to the early promise

e-learning: A Reality CheckDurham University, January 2009

Andy Ramsden

Head of e-Learning

University of Bathhttp://go.bath.ac.uk/andyramsden

eatbath-present

andyramsden

Link: download the presentation

expectations

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bidryboo/300945382/

my aims & your role

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pigpogm/13839044/

How long have you been involved in some capacity within e-learning?

less

than

a y

ear

one

to th

ree

year

s

four

to fi

ve y

ears

six

to e

ight

yea

rs

nin

e ye

ars

and

above

I’m

not

0% 0% 0%0%0%0%

1. less than a year

2. one to three years

3. four to five years

4. six to eight years

5. nine years and above

6. I’m not

What would you like me to talk about next?

Dep

artm

enta

l use

of .

..

Use

s of t

echn

ology

i...

0%0%

1. Departmental use of the VLE

2. Uses of technology in face to face teaching

The reality: vle use

Category 1: Content & Support Model

Category 2: Wrap around Model

Category 3: Integrated Model

Where content is delivered in print or online and support is provided online. Content and support are not integral to one another. Online support is an optional extra

Where there is a mixture of prepared content and online learning activities. The learning activities involve online discussion and collaborative activities.

Where most of the learning takes place via collaborative online activities and content is largely determined by the learners, either individually or as a group.

• Unit Handbook• Lecture material• Reading lists• Problem sets• Timetable• Web links• RSS infeeds

• Forums (admin, T&L)• Moodle Lesson• Moodle Quiz• Moodle Survey• Text Chat

• Wiki• Journal/blog• Group Tools

A framework for analysing VLE use

Dept / School Category 1 (Content & Support)

Category 2 (Wrap around)

Category 3 (integrated)

No of courses (as a percent of available units)

A 61 27 12 40 (31)

B 82 15 3 82 (64)

C 79 19 2 185 (54)

D 70 25 5 54 (26)

E 73 24 3 70 (59)

F 84 15 1 30 (26)

Group Average 75 21 4

VLE use at University of Bath

So across to you

Stro

ngly A

gree

Agre

e

Neu

tral

Dis

agre

e

Stro

ngly D

isag

ree

0% 0% 0%0%0%

1. Strongly Agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

5. Strongly Disagree

To what extent do you agree with the following statement.

“I’d confidently predict a similar pattern of VLE use at my institution”

The reality: face to face teaching

The respondents

Average Mode

Largest Class Size (students)

115 150

Smallest Class Size (students)

29 15

Time in teaching (years) 14 30

Number of respondents: 69

What do they do with lecture notes?

• Do you consistently make your material (slides, links, multimedia) available on Moodle (or online) before the lecture?

– Yes: 48.3%

– No: 51.7%

• If no to above, do you consistently make your material (slides, links, multimedia) available on Moodle (or online) after the lecture?

– Yes: 78.1%

– No: 21.9%

What technologies do they use?

• Which of the following electronic resources have you used in your lecture this term (you can select more than one)

Number of responses

Powerpoint 50

Audio recording 16

Video or animation 35

Accessing a web site 38

A graphic (still image) 34

Other 18

• OHPs• Web surveys• Twitter• Video conferencing• Simulations• Spreadsheets

N=69

What is their lecture style?

Could you summarise how you lecture, in particular, the style you adopt and the technologies that you use.

The reality: sharing stuff

Within your team (s) do you regularly share web resources?

Yes N

o

0%0%

1. Yes

2. No

How do you share these resources?

how do you share these resources? For instance, email, shared word document, wiki, blog, social bookmark software (diigo, delicious) or other

07624 804921

Word cloud

In your view, has e-learning lived up to it’s early promise?

1 –

oh, y

es 2

3 –

no v

iew 4

5 –

oh, n

o

0% 0% 0%0%0%

1 2 3 4 5

1. 1 – oh, yes

2. 2

3. 3 – no view

4. 4

5. 5 – oh, no

What might explain this reality?

Collis & Moonen 4 E’s Model

I am

ver

y fa

mili

ar w

ith it

I’m

fam

iliar

with

it

I’ve

hea

rd o

f it

I’ve

no id

ea

I don’t

care

0% 0% 0%0%0%

1. I am very familiar with it

2. I’m familiar with it

3. I’ve heard of it

4. I’ve no idea

5. I don’t care

Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model

Educational effectiveness

(perceived or actual)

ease of use (personal) engagement

environmental (institutional) factors

Organisational influences

Social-cultural influences

Technological influences

threshold

“an individual’s likelihood of making use of a technological innovation for a learning related purpose is a function of for groups of factors”

Back to Bath … use of VLE for specific tasks

Dept / School Include a copy of the course handbook

(%)

Include an online formative or

summative quiz (%)

No of courses

A 70 8 40

B 84 4 82

C 79 3 185

D 28 2 54

E 70 21 70

F 80 0 30

Pattern makes sense if you put yourself in the academics shoes

Putting lecture notes online

Running an objective test

Actual level of use in the organisation Medium (2) Low (1)

Level of day to day support High (3) Low (1)

Adequacy of technical infrastructure High (3) Low (1)

Previous experiences Medium (2) Low (1)

Environment: Total Score 10 4

Likely to solve a learning related problem Low (1) High (3)

Help me do routine tasks more quickly Medium (2) Medium (2)

Result in new learning experiences in institution Low (1) Medium (2)

Better grades for students Low (1) High (3)

Effectiveness: Total Score 5 10

Putting lecture notes online

Running an objective test

Network is adequate in speed and reliability High (3) Low (1)

Software is easy to learn High (3) Low (1)

Lets me do what I want / need for the task High (3) Low (1)

Ease of use: Total Score 9 3

Encourage others to follow High (3) Low (1)

Self confident at using the software High (3) Low (1)

Improve my career prospects Low (1) High (3)

My prior experiences of this task have been +ve High (3) Low (1)

Engagement: Total Score 10 6

The outcome (black: notes)

Educ effectiveness ease of use Personal engagement

environmental factors

How might we change the situation?

Implementing a new technology

A QR Code is a matrix code (or two-dimensional bar code) created by Japanese corporation Denso-Wave in 1994. The "QR" is derived from "Quick Response", as the creator intended the code to allow its contents to be decoded at high speed. QR Codes are common in Japan where they are currently the most popular type of two dimensional codes.

Common tasks that can be achieved using a qr code, include,

• Link to web site• Send an sms to a phone• Transfer a phone number• Provide more text

Generating lots of different uses

QR Codes only QR Codes with other tools

e-Admin

e-Learning

Sign up for news alerts using QR codes

Append to Moodle printouts Classroom evaluation

Augmented Reality GamingAccess to further guidance

Student (campus) induction

Library catalogue

Students know about them …

• Do you know what a QR Code is?

– Yes: 13.8% – with 95% confidence interval, then 12.34% - 15.26% of total

student population are aware of QR codes.

Some students have accessed a QR Code

• Have you accessed a QR Code?

– Yes: 2.2% – with 95% confidence interval, then 1.58% - 2.82% of total

student population have accessed a QR code.

• The most common action was

– Web site – 33 responses– Read more text – 28 responses– Phone a number – 19 responses– Send a pre-written SMS – 12 responses

They have the technology in their pockets

QR Code Readers: Kaywa, Quickmark, i-Nigma & SnapMaze

Back to Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model

Educ effectiveness ease of use Personal engagement

environmental (institution) factors

threshold

Down with ….

Central workshops, a large case study which takes a year to publish, one single specialist within the team

Back to Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model

Educ effectiveness ease of use Personal engagement

environmental (institution) factors

threshold

Up with ….

Dedicated project blog, attending uses and co-writing session reports, a project lead but all the team deliver, prioritise profiling at meetings (DoS, LTC, Innovations Week, eLPF), implement with other teams, focus regular deliverables on lit reviews, encourage academics to submit journal and conference papers, assist with evaluation and resource, ring fence LT development time, organise publicity events with external speakers, commit to the long term (3 year plan).

Back to Collis and Moonen 4 E’s Model

Educ effectiveness ease of use Personal engagement

environmental (institution) factors

threshold

Why do you think e-learning has not lived up to it’s early promise?

What would others say?

“Much of the potential is only now becoming apparent as technological and pedagogical expertise builds up”

– Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler (2007) in “Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age”

In response …

The pedagogical expertise is taking a very long time to develop, and it is still a very narrow base …

back to themes of the conference - why it matters that• we practice what we preach, • why we need to disseminate this effectively and

efficiently • roll these findings into our staff development

programmes

thank you & questions

Andy Ramsden

a.ramsden@bath.ac.uk

eatbath-present

andyramsden