present: Stuart Brown, Jan Haines, Richard Francis, Greg Benfield, George Roberts
apols: Rhona Sharpe, John Lidgey

Agenda:

1 Pathfinder Progress
2 Planning Meetings of 7 December
3 Other discussion

1.0 Pathfinder progress

Discussion focussed on the Plan, submitted on 27 October
paper is here: http://tao4learning.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/draft-project-plan/

We agreed the basic structure of Pathfinder reporting. Paper tabled here:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=BROOKES-BENCHMARKING&X=&Y=&a=get&f=/Pathfinding/PathfinderReportStructure01.doc

I asked for a brief summary update (c. 300 words each) to the plan according to the work packages:
1) Infrastructures (Stuart, Richard, Jan)
2) Learning Technology Practice (Richard, Greg)
3) Educational Development (Greg, Rhona)
4) Evaluation (Rhona, George)

1.1 Infrastructure (RAF, SB, JH to elaborate)

Infrastructures outputs include models, workflows and procedures. Several models were identified that emerged in the bids for Circle and Emerge projects. These will be incorporated into our report

The main impediment to the progress of the infrastructure is felt to be the delay in recruiting staff. Richard undertook to speak with Ben Cooper to get the post HERAed. There is an immediate and urgent need to “bring the wiki in from the cold”. Stuart undertook to facilitate the relationship between Ops/SysAdmin and MW. A positive and co-operative approach is needed. There is a recognised need to avoid weak links in any system. Other means of making progress were explored. Of particular note is the possibility to second George Davson into the project for a limited period to time to work with Operations to get the Wiki into the University’s main infrastructure with a reliable heavy-duty back up regime and user management linked to LDAP.

1.2 Learning Technology Practice (RAF, GB to elaborate)

We want to make the wiki part of the stable framework.
It is becoming apparent that the project to migrate the VLE to WebCT CE6 was under represented in the Pathfinder Plan. At present roles and permissions on the new system still need to be assigned.

1.3 Educational Developments (GB, RS to elaborate)

The formation of the eL Co-ordinators’ network/group/forum is a critical output for Pathfinder.

1.4 Evaluation (RS, GR to elaborate)

We need to develop an evaluation framework with the assistance of the eL Co-ordinators. We hope to “anchor the prcess” of evaluation in the eLCs. The evaluation design needs to allow for emergent properties as well as a priori categories.

Brief framework paper tabled for discussion: towards an evaluation framework
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=BROOKES-BENCHMARKING&X=&Y=&a=get&f=/Pathfinding/BenchOutcomesDiscussion01.doc

In this paper 3 frameworks were set out:
- OBHE Benchmarking
- Pathfinder structure
- BSLES

3 other frameworks need to be woven in:
- New Academic offering (see below)
- Space to think
- WP and communities

It is suggested that the BSLES framework might be most useful for Brookes to adopt as the headings for an evaluation of the Student Experience of e-Learning.

We propose a very Learner-Experience focused evaluation. BSLES provides the linkage between C4eL and the eLCs. We intend to put the evaluation framework to the eLCs as a question, proposing that there be a series of evaluative activities. We have a highly strategised model of e-learning development but the articulation with the learner has not been made as explicit as it needs to be. We may be too distant from the experience “on the ground”. It is hoped that the eLCs can be a “reality check” and that through them we can leverage communities and groups.

We propose to support this with real resource drawn from the Pathfinding Budget and to make an application to BSLES strategy money. Let the eLCs define the terms and the linkages betwen evaluation and school strategy.

I undertook to review the budget to create this fund and to apply to Clive for matching funding.

2.0 Meetings planning

Thursday 7 December agendas agreed

1030 – 1230 e-Learning Pathfinder team review with Terry Mayes
- Infrastructure
- Learning Technology Applications
- Educational development
- Evaluation
- Project management and reporting

1230 – 1300 Buffet Lunch

1300 – 1530 e-Learning Co-ordinators’ Forum
- School presentations of key e-Learning developments in Schools
- C4eL feedback to Schools on visits
- National Pathfinder context (Terry Mayes)
- Brookes Pathfinder (RAF, SB, JH, RS, GR)
- Developing an e-Learning Evaluation Framework

3.0 Other discussion

Academic Offering

Stuart and Jan reported from the management conference in regard to the new Academic Offering proposals. There is a concern that this might represent a move away from learner-directed learning towards a more constrained linear structure, possibly with less interdisciplinarity. This could lead to a more siloed, discipline-based curriculum, which could be seen as contrary to Brookes educational philosophy which is rarely stated as such, but seems to be about choice, the blurring of boundaries between disciplines, roles, and loci of interaction (work, community, university). But, in some way the new proposals might make things easier: systems can more readily model linear, constrained choices. Library resourcing might also be more efficient. It was observed that in some respects there may be discontinuity between the proposals and the thinking in C4eL about learning

The aim of the new Academic Offering is to

• reduce complexity and sharpen focus
• reduce cost
• introduce more discernible 1st, 2nd and 3rd levels
• develop the post graduate offering

eFramework

While we respect the role of the JISC as a change agent and acknowledge that bidding for JISC projects has stimulated useful debate, there are many other change agents and powerful commercial interests: such as Blackboard
- How does Blackboard propose to respond to the eFramework and shared services approach favoured by central government?
- Is there the possibility of a sectoral (CHEST) agreement with Bb?

GR 01/12/06

I have trawled around the site and found some of what is going on in out droplet of the blogosphere. If you are at Brookes and keep anything that might broadly be classified as a Brookes (or Brookes related) blog, please let me know.

• Brookes Blogs is one of Phil Whitehead’s initiatives at Westminster. This grew out of…
• Oxford Blogs “…is a space for Performing Arts students and the (very) odd tutor & learning technologist at Oxford Brookes University to explain, explore and express their own take on the world.”
• I have been using TypePad for JISC and HEA Project reporting: the myWORLD e-portfolio blog and Brookes Benchmarking. When Benchmarking moved to Pathfinding I set up a new blog using WordPress.
• The MA/PGDip Interactive Media Publishing provides space for student blogs. These are quite active. (But it took a Google search to find.) Chris Jennings, course leader, keeps his own blog, Page to screen.
• Phil Torr has a blog on his homepage at Computing and Maths.
• The International Student Advisory Service is trying to encourage a blog, but it appears as though the posts have to be uploaded by a third party.
• The CPD site mentions Web logs
• Bob Pomfret of the Media Workshop kept a blog of his expedition to Churchill, Canada with Earthwatch.

• Arts and Humanities: Virginia Crossman and Suzuko Anai (Languages)
• Built Environment: Gina Ennis-Reynolds
• Business: Berry O’Donovan
• Health and Social Care: Peter Bradley
• Life Sciences: Andrew Rosenthal
• Social Sciences and Law: vacant
• Technology: Douglas Higgison, Sharon Curtis
• Westminster Institute of Education: Jonathan Allen

01/12/2006

It disappoints me to hear it suggested that in any form of higher education there is ever, “…very little point and … very little place for interaction between teachers and students.” These views do not appear to take into account current trends of thought or practice in learning technology.

First there is evidence that good student learning occurs when:

• student-tutor contact is encouraged

• student-student co-operation is encouraged
• active learning is encouraged
• feed back is prompt
• time on task is emphasised
• high expectations are communicated
• diverse talents and ways of learning are respected.

I argue that these factors remain constant regardless of the mode of engagement: face-to-face, distant or blended, and regardless of electronic elements. In fact, as many teachers have discovered, electronic elements enhance communication, co-operation, collaboration, access to information and feedback response time.

The quality assurance agency for higher education has a 3 dimensional model (Sect. 2, para. 25) of flexible distributed learning – or blended learning – where one can consider educational modalities along three axes: collocation (are we sitting together), collaboration (are we working together) and computerisation (are our tasks electronically mediated). Recent research suggests that reasons for adopting blended approaches to learning are highly contextualised. The evidence does not support a binary divide where on the one hand “…certain old universities maintain traditional forms of teaching – tutorials, seminars, so on and so forth”, while others provide that “electronic version of teaching”.

Blending occurs for at least 10 reasons, to:

1. offer flexibility in respect of delivery (face-to-face and distance education)

2. take advantage of new (web based) technologies (Web2.0: blogs, wikis, eportfolios, web services, etc)
3. provide and support authentic/work-based learning
4. provide different pedagogical approaches (didactic, group work, problem-based learning, etc.)
5. introduce flexibility in respect to chronology and sequence (multiple pathways, synchronous and asynchronous interventions)
6. provide for and support multi-disciplinary groupings of learners and course teams
7. provide for different foci and different aims (diversity in a cohort)
8. allow multiple loci of control (instructor-directed vs. learner-directed)
9. recognise different epistemological approaches (positivist, associative, cognitive constructivist, social constructivist, situative, etc)
10. accommodate a complex polity (expose overt/covert curricula; direct/indirect objects of learning).

While there is evidence that students value supplementary web-based materials, to suggest that this should imply a learning or teaching prefererence (or even tolerance) for a transmissive, knowledge-deficit, banking model of education is very wide of the mark. The learner experience is highly varied. There are many people working to support problem-posing learning communities online within, outside and between institutions (e.g., e.g., e.g.).

Good teaching is based on reciprocity, authenticity and credibility. It sets ground rules, provides alternatives, exemplifies models, and gives access to the experience of teachers and other practitioners. There are new ways of doing things, but I suggest that certain constants emerge:

• A good teacher can support a limited number of students well. While lectures and their various online equivalents may be very effective for some teachers, learners and purposes, close critical work requires individual attention: 1:5, 1:10, 1:20, maybe 1:30. But 1:50? 1:100? But that attention does not need to be given face to face.

• The value of the learning experience lies in interactions, not in the provision of content (otherwise MIT and the Open University would not be releasing their content on the Web for free)
• A rich learning experience is possible in many ways. It does not inhere exclusively in traditional educational forms.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these ideas further.

• Pathfinding project team 1000 – 1230

• School e-Learning Co-ordinators Forum: 1230 – 1530

The visit of Terry Mayes links these events.

Pathfinding project team 1000 – 1230

Draft Agenda

• Project Plan (241K Word doc)

• Infrastructures: Identification of appropriate softwares and platforms including the repository architecture for research outputs, learning objects, and personal and professional development portfolio items; elaboration of the service matrix; workflows and procedures for identity management, authentication and access for diverse users and groups in open and accessible ways; support and development of test environments.
• Learning Technology Practice: Learning designs, templates, workflows and procedures for integrating social softwares (e.g. Elgg, Confluence, OSP and other learning and collaboration tools), and repositories into Brookes Virtual; support for expanded Learning Technologists Forum
• Educational Development: Integration of Pathfinding activities into staff and educational development activities; Development of models and processes to support inter and intra institutional teams undertaking transformative course redesigns; Support for e-Learning Champions in academic Schools and e-Learning Networks in Associate College Partners and Community Learning Centres; Guidelines, Reports and Dissemination to embed e-learning into the wider communities.
• Evaluation: Evaluation of the course design and curriculum development models; Research into the Brookes student learning experience in the technology rich collaborative and social environments
• Project management

Buffet Lunch 1230 1300

School eLearning Co-ordinators Forum 1300 – 1530

Draft Agenda

• School presentations of key e-Learning developments in Schools

• C4eL feedback to Schools on visits
• National Pathfinder context (Terry Mayes)
• Brookes Pathfinder (RAF, SB, JH, RS, GR)
• Presentation of Benchmarking Outcomes
  • Application of Benchmarking outcomes to School Learning Experience Strategies

Intro

The meeting was initially characterised by the difficulty of getting the in-room technology to work: Internet connection was slow and data projector wouldn’t display multiple windows. But that’s the real world?

Streaming service

There is a new QuickTime streaming server being installed in Graphics Workshop. Previously-encoded video can be transcoded to QT. Graham Toon and Lez Zieleznik are running the operation.

PRS

Personal Response Systems have been acquired. The Business School has 64 handsets. AV Services has 128 handsets. These can be used in conjunction: 192 users. These are proving to be popular and AV services are considering acquiring more. Tues 21st November Business School Post Graduate Centre 1200 – 1400 trial/demo session. The suppliers are contracted to run demo sessions. Media Workshop will also organise sessions on GLC and Harcourt Hill.

School of Built Environment Developments

Gina Ennis Reynolds, e-Learning Champion, School of Built Environment showed superb new DL developments in the Department of Real Estate Management. They are developing a whole Masters in International Real Estate Management, delivered on line for Chinese Market. Developments are sponsored by 5 large Chartered Surveyors and the programme is/will be accredited by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. For Gina, audio is the way to go. She believes that the audience is more “…directed to audio rather than the visual stuff.” The course is being created for the international students. She observes that international students appear to use WebCT more than “home” students.

There has also been close attention to lecturer needs and preferences. It is understood that lecturers change things at the last minute, up to and including the moment they are speaking. Immediacy is valued. So is the ability to change things easily and at the last moment.

So, while the course is packaged in a WebCT site it is highly disaggregated. No learningv sequence is longer than about 15 minutes: audio supported by ppt compressed with Impatica, and a transcript.There are, of course the usual other components, quizzes, video introductions, reading lists, assignments. Each piece is stand alone.

MSN mySpace, youTube can be used as backup.

4 hours to produce 1 hour of content.

General discussion raises the usual challenges, but the interesting development here is that they have disaggregated the coursxe into 15 minute chunks with a lot of consideration of the possibility for reuse, reordering and repurposing the compomnents of the course. This has meant that updating is facilitated.

Student representative observes that learning preferences are important. Some people will like this approach, others will not.

Gina is eager to get feedback. She is collecting log-ons to add people to the course as viewers.

BSLES

Clive Robertson, Head of Student Learning Experience gave us an update on BSLES bids.
26 bids, 8 or 9 are being funded. £208,000 in Round 1. RLO project in WIE. Round 2 £100,000 not constrained: can be for any activities. 7 bids received, and one or 2 will go forward. Round 2 bids are with advisory panel. Funding is conditional and impact must be evaluable. I asked if there could be a simple website to keep track of these developments. A BSLES blog would be nice.

BLLES conference in early May.

Schools will write LES and these will be “integrated” strategies including learning technologies