Since my last blog post a long time ago I have now successfully completed my MSc in Blended and Online Education with my final dissertation exploring student attitudes to the use of an app to learn vocabulary in English as a foreign language. I will maybe post something more detailed on that later but to sum it up, the students were very happy with the use of this tool and found it made learning more fun and less like hard work. Unfortunately the exam results for the vocabulary section showed no significant difference to previous ones but on the positive side there was no negative impact either. From what I have read and heard so far this seems to be a very typical result for this type of research.
Rather than discuss my findings, today I actually want to begin a series of posts on my experience at the 13th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning which is now taking place in Istanbul. This is my first ever time at a real conference and also my first ever time in Istanbul and Turkey so there has been a lot to take in. The official conference doesn't begin until tomorrow but today there was a range of pre-conference workshops on offer for interested participants.
The full details of the conference can be found here. The first workshop I attended was on "iPads in Higher Education" and was hosted by Nicos Souleles and Fernando Loizides. The two hosts were actually joined by a string of guest presenters in the UK, Australia and the United States who talked about research they had been involved in. I knew that some universities, especially in the US, had sponsored iPads for their students but I was not aware of the scales involved. One university in Australia already has 30,000 iPads and will buy another 15,000 soon! One question none of us were able to answer is what the true benefits of mobile learning are and how we are able to implement them. The session ended with more answers and questions but with plenty to think about, I especially liked the summary from one study participant that iPads gave teaching staff "A licence to thrill"!
The afternoon's session was on "Using Free Tools and a Pedagogical Framework to Promote Teacher Efficacy with mLearning". In this session Rob Power, Dean Cristol and Belinda Gimbert shared their experiences using the CSAM framework (Collaborative-Situated-Active-Mobile) and in particular while using a free LMS called Canvas and a mobile website creation tool called Winkspace. The tools
did indeed seem easy to use and it was an interesting model. Rob was especially interested in creating reusable learning objects which seems like a very good idea so I will be tries to use this model in my future development work.
The conference proper begins tomorrow when there will undoubtedly be a whole lot more good ideas and interesting insights to take in.
Montag, 3. November 2014
Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012
Mentoring with the GROW model
Mentoring is a support function which can be found in many environments, for example in a workplace, at a school or university, and in sports clubs and teams. It is however very important to distinguish between coaching and mentoring. According to the Management Mentors website (www.management-mentors.com) coaching is about specific functions whereas mentoring is a more personal relationship focussing on development as a whole. Another important distinction is that a mentor should not be someone's direct supervisor whereas a coach could well be. This is important as a mentor should be able to listen and give advice impartially and the mentee will also be more relaxed and open when not dealing with their direct supervisor. A mentor could therefore be a manager from a different department, someone outwith the direct chain of command. In actual fact, being mentored by an equal, in the form of peer mentoring, seems to have become a very popular trend. It was within this framework that I acted as a mentor for Nicky during her module Customised Study for Blended and Online Education.
Although I had no previous experience of mentoring I have had training in coaching in the past so I was therefore familiar with the basic concept. Kay and Hind's "A practical guide to mentoring" (2009) also provided a very clear overview of the subject which helped a great deal. As Nicky and I would never meet face-to-face during the trimester we had to carry out online or e-mentoring - mentoring which is conducted totally in a virtual environment. For our purposes we chose to experiement with a few virtual meeting products but ultimately decided that Skype was the simplest and most effective way to meet. Or initial plan was to meet online once a week on a Sunday evening and talk or chat for about 30 minutes. If more time was required and our schedules allowed the meetings could be extended. Sometimes the real mentoring was finished within the 30 minutes and the remaining time was filled with smalltalk or other non-mentoring related course activities.
In order to ensure some structure in the mentoring sessions, and at Keith's suggestion, I decided to mentor using Sir John Whitmore's GROW model. In this model GROW stands for Goal, Reality, Options and Will (or Wrap-up). This technique can be used either within one individual mentoring session or across several sessions. The first point, Goal, involves defining the objectives or topics the mentee wants to discuss. In the second stage, Reality, the present situation should be discussed. In the third stage, Options, the mentor and mentee should explore possible choices or options to address this situation and in the fourth stage, Will, the mentor and mentee should agree on the next steps to be taken. This is a very clear and straightforward model which is easy to follow. In reality however, my mentoring sessions sometimes were more unstructured and took more the form of a casual conversation over a virtual cup of tea. This however did not always seem to be a problem for Nicky and also added a missing social element to this trimester. I will leave it up to Nicky to confirm if the sessions did help but I certainly learnt from them and I hope they helped her too.
Sources:
Kay, D. & Hind, R. (2009). A Practical guide to mentoring: How to help others achieve their goals. (4th edition). Oxford: How To Books.
http://www.management-mentors.com/resources/corporate-mentoring-programs-faqs/ [accessed 28.04.2012]
http://www.msue.msu.edu/objects/content_revision/download.cfm/item_id.378012/workspace_id.298457/GROW_Model_?_Four-Step_Questioning_Approach_.pdf/ [accessed 28.04.2012]
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/cll/othercourses/wmcett/resources/practitionerarea/mentoring/planning/grow/ [accessed 28.04.2012]
Although I had no previous experience of mentoring I have had training in coaching in the past so I was therefore familiar with the basic concept. Kay and Hind's "A practical guide to mentoring" (2009) also provided a very clear overview of the subject which helped a great deal. As Nicky and I would never meet face-to-face during the trimester we had to carry out online or e-mentoring - mentoring which is conducted totally in a virtual environment. For our purposes we chose to experiement with a few virtual meeting products but ultimately decided that Skype was the simplest and most effective way to meet. Or initial plan was to meet online once a week on a Sunday evening and talk or chat for about 30 minutes. If more time was required and our schedules allowed the meetings could be extended. Sometimes the real mentoring was finished within the 30 minutes and the remaining time was filled with smalltalk or other non-mentoring related course activities.
In order to ensure some structure in the mentoring sessions, and at Keith's suggestion, I decided to mentor using Sir John Whitmore's GROW model. In this model GROW stands for Goal, Reality, Options and Will (or Wrap-up). This technique can be used either within one individual mentoring session or across several sessions. The first point, Goal, involves defining the objectives or topics the mentee wants to discuss. In the second stage, Reality, the present situation should be discussed. In the third stage, Options, the mentor and mentee should explore possible choices or options to address this situation and in the fourth stage, Will, the mentor and mentee should agree on the next steps to be taken. This is a very clear and straightforward model which is easy to follow. In reality however, my mentoring sessions sometimes were more unstructured and took more the form of a casual conversation over a virtual cup of tea. This however did not always seem to be a problem for Nicky and also added a missing social element to this trimester. I will leave it up to Nicky to confirm if the sessions did help but I certainly learnt from them and I hope they helped her too.
Sources:
Kay, D. & Hind, R. (2009). A Practical guide to mentoring: How to help others achieve their goals. (4th edition). Oxford: How To Books.
http://www.management-mentors.com/resources/corporate-mentoring-programs-faqs/ [accessed 28.04.2012]
http://www.msue.msu.edu/objects/content_revision/download.cfm/item_id.378012/workspace_id.298457/GROW_Model_?_Four-Step_Questioning_Approach_.pdf/ [accessed 28.04.2012]
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/cll/othercourses/wmcett/resources/practitionerarea/mentoring/planning/grow/ [accessed 28.04.2012]
Montag, 23. April 2012
Feedback on the mobile learning webinar
As part of my mobile learning webinar on 20th March I asked all eight participants to complete a short feedback survey at the end. Getting student feedback is important at all times and my face-to-face students also complete a feedback form for each module at the end of the semester. As this was my first ever webinar I was especially keen to hear if I had got the balance right between pace, amount of content and level of detail. This survey also had the benefit of being entirely anonymous so hopefully everyone felt comfortable being completely honest with their opinions.
I decided to use google doc's form function to produce my feedback questionnaire, which you can see here. There were several reasons for choosing to use google rather than one of the specialist survey websites like surveymonkey or surveygizmo: as I already have a google account there was no need to create a new one and I have already used a google docs form to survey students and was impressed by the ease of use and management of the results. For this questionnaire the form consisted of a mixture of twelve multiple choice, Likert scale, and free-text questions followed by a final option to add any other comments.
The initial responses to the questionnaire were rather slow with only three people completing it on the day of the webinar. Four more people completed it one week later, possibly reminded of it by their attendance at the next student webinar, and an eighth participant completed it the following day.
The aim of my first question was to find out whether I had advertised the webinar properly and included in the presentation that the advertising suggested would be covered. Students were asked to say Yes, No or Partly to the statement "The webinar met my expectations based on how it was advertised". Happily all eight respondents said "Yes" it had met their expectations.
Question 2 was the first of the Likert scale questions. These questions were all to be answered on a five-point scale with 1 meaning "Strongly agree" and 5 meaning "Strongly disagree". The second question was "The trainer clearly stated the webinar objectives", 6 of the students strongly agreed with this and 2 strongly disagreed. Perhaps the two who disagreed missed the objectives when they were mentioned at the start of the webinar.
Question 3 was an attempt at quality control regarding the content of the webinar, "The webinar covered all the stated items". 4 participants strongly agreed with this, 2 students agreed and 2 strongly disagreed. This result suggests that the relationship between the stated content and the actual points in the webinar could have been made more clearly.
Question 4 asked whether "Examples were used to illustrate concepts." 2 participants strongly agreed, 4 agreed, 1 neither agreed or disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. These responses suggest that more attention to illustrations could have been made.
In question 5 I wanted to assess the interaction between the webinar participants with the statement "The trainer encouraged and successfully managed discussions." 5 participants strongly agreed, 1 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. I would say this is a satisfactory result but that perhaps more opportunities for discussion could be offered in the future.
Question 6 stated "The trainer was knowledgeable about the subject matter". This is of course a totally subjective point and heavily reliant on how well the host presented the webinar but happily 6 participants strongly agreed with this statement and only 2 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The two negative votes are nevertheless disappointing as I have spent a long time researching the subject.
Question 7 looked at the responses give to participants by the host "The trainer adequately responded to
questions asked". 5 participants strongly agreed, 1 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. The majority seem to be happy with this aspect and as there were no questions asked at the end of the webinar I am a little unsure of the basis for the negative answers.
The eighth question looked at whether the participants actually felt like they had learnt anything by attending the webinar "The webinar improved my knowledge of mobile learning." 3 participants strongly agreed, 3 more agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. This question could also provide an indication of whether the right level had been reached in the webinar. As the presentation was advertised as an introduction to the area anyone who had previous knowledege would have answered this point negatively. It would however still be preferable if everyone said they had learnt something regardless of prior knowledge. Perhaps in the future this kind of question should be linked to one about previous knowledge.
Question 9 was the final Likert scale question and asked whether "The presenter was clear and understandable". This question could be interpreted both to include physically being able to hear the speaker but also whether the vocabulary chosen was at an appropriate level. 5 participants strongly agreed with this, 1 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. Hopefully the negative votes are due to the technical problems of my microphone (background noise) rather than my poor choice of vocabulary or grammar.
In question 10 I wanted to find out if the pace and amount of information were ok with the question, "Was the right amount of information covered in the alloted time?". All 8 participants responded that "Yes, the amount was just right for the time given.". Knowing how much to include is always difficult so I am glad I seem to have got that right.
Questions 11 and 12 were open questions looking for further feedback from the partipants. These allowed the participants to say what they wanted entirely in their own words. Question 11 asked "What was the most helpful information you learnt during the webinar?". Students mentioned items like the definitions that were explained, the benefits of mobile learning, and the discussion of the frameworks. It was also commented that being able to share experiences with the other participants was very interesting.
Question 12 asked for constructive criticism and suggestions to improve the webinar, "How could this webinar have been improved?". The audio quality problem was mentioned here along with a desire for more practical examples of mobile learning in use. One participant commented that some of the content was "over their head" so perhaps I didn't quite match the needs of someone with no prior knowledge at all times.
The final question was a free-text opportunity for the participants to make any other comments. Aside from complimentary messages it was again commented that it was really nice to meet other students on the course. It seems like the social aspects of such webinars should not be underestimated.
As the feedback from the students was generally positive I am quite pleased with these results. Bearing all of their comments in mind, for the future I will attempt to:
1) Include more opportunities for group discussion.
2) Include more examples of successful mobile learning projects.
3) Ensure that the objectives for the webinar are clear.
4) Ensure the audio quality is acceptable.
All in all, despite being quite nerve-wracking the webinar was a very enjoyable and educational experience for me. The participants seem to have enjoyed the format and were especially pleased to have the chance to meet and interact with fellow students. I would definitely not hesitate to use this form of teaching again given the right circumstances. To my mind a webinar is very similar to a traditional lecture (sage on the stage) and therefore does not directly offer all of the possibilites online learning has but in combination with other tools, such as discussions and blogs, it could form part of an excellent online or blended learning programme.
I decided to use google doc's form function to produce my feedback questionnaire, which you can see here. There were several reasons for choosing to use google rather than one of the specialist survey websites like surveymonkey or surveygizmo: as I already have a google account there was no need to create a new one and I have already used a google docs form to survey students and was impressed by the ease of use and management of the results. For this questionnaire the form consisted of a mixture of twelve multiple choice, Likert scale, and free-text questions followed by a final option to add any other comments.
The initial responses to the questionnaire were rather slow with only three people completing it on the day of the webinar. Four more people completed it one week later, possibly reminded of it by their attendance at the next student webinar, and an eighth participant completed it the following day.
The aim of my first question was to find out whether I had advertised the webinar properly and included in the presentation that the advertising suggested would be covered. Students were asked to say Yes, No or Partly to the statement "The webinar met my expectations based on how it was advertised". Happily all eight respondents said "Yes" it had met their expectations.
Question 2 was the first of the Likert scale questions. These questions were all to be answered on a five-point scale with 1 meaning "Strongly agree" and 5 meaning "Strongly disagree". The second question was "The trainer clearly stated the webinar objectives", 6 of the students strongly agreed with this and 2 strongly disagreed. Perhaps the two who disagreed missed the objectives when they were mentioned at the start of the webinar.
Question 3 was an attempt at quality control regarding the content of the webinar, "The webinar covered all the stated items". 4 participants strongly agreed with this, 2 students agreed and 2 strongly disagreed. This result suggests that the relationship between the stated content and the actual points in the webinar could have been made more clearly.
Question 4 asked whether "Examples were used to illustrate concepts." 2 participants strongly agreed, 4 agreed, 1 neither agreed or disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. These responses suggest that more attention to illustrations could have been made.
In question 5 I wanted to assess the interaction between the webinar participants with the statement "The trainer encouraged and successfully managed discussions." 5 participants strongly agreed, 1 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. I would say this is a satisfactory result but that perhaps more opportunities for discussion could be offered in the future.
Question 6 stated "The trainer was knowledgeable about the subject matter". This is of course a totally subjective point and heavily reliant on how well the host presented the webinar but happily 6 participants strongly agreed with this statement and only 2 disagreed or strongly disagreed. The two negative votes are nevertheless disappointing as I have spent a long time researching the subject.
Question 7 looked at the responses give to participants by the host "The trainer adequately responded to
questions asked". 5 participants strongly agreed, 1 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. The majority seem to be happy with this aspect and as there were no questions asked at the end of the webinar I am a little unsure of the basis for the negative answers.
The eighth question looked at whether the participants actually felt like they had learnt anything by attending the webinar "The webinar improved my knowledge of mobile learning." 3 participants strongly agreed, 3 more agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. This question could also provide an indication of whether the right level had been reached in the webinar. As the presentation was advertised as an introduction to the area anyone who had previous knowledege would have answered this point negatively. It would however still be preferable if everyone said they had learnt something regardless of prior knowledge. Perhaps in the future this kind of question should be linked to one about previous knowledge.
Question 9 was the final Likert scale question and asked whether "The presenter was clear and understandable". This question could be interpreted both to include physically being able to hear the speaker but also whether the vocabulary chosen was at an appropriate level. 5 participants strongly agreed with this, 1 agreed, 1 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed. Hopefully the negative votes are due to the technical problems of my microphone (background noise) rather than my poor choice of vocabulary or grammar.
In question 10 I wanted to find out if the pace and amount of information were ok with the question, "Was the right amount of information covered in the alloted time?". All 8 participants responded that "Yes, the amount was just right for the time given.". Knowing how much to include is always difficult so I am glad I seem to have got that right.
Questions 11 and 12 were open questions looking for further feedback from the partipants. These allowed the participants to say what they wanted entirely in their own words. Question 11 asked "What was the most helpful information you learnt during the webinar?". Students mentioned items like the definitions that were explained, the benefits of mobile learning, and the discussion of the frameworks. It was also commented that being able to share experiences with the other participants was very interesting.
Question 12 asked for constructive criticism and suggestions to improve the webinar, "How could this webinar have been improved?". The audio quality problem was mentioned here along with a desire for more practical examples of mobile learning in use. One participant commented that some of the content was "over their head" so perhaps I didn't quite match the needs of someone with no prior knowledge at all times.
The final question was a free-text opportunity for the participants to make any other comments. Aside from complimentary messages it was again commented that it was really nice to meet other students on the course. It seems like the social aspects of such webinars should not be underestimated.
As the feedback from the students was generally positive I am quite pleased with these results. Bearing all of their comments in mind, for the future I will attempt to:
1) Include more opportunities for group discussion.
2) Include more examples of successful mobile learning projects.
3) Ensure that the objectives for the webinar are clear.
4) Ensure the audio quality is acceptable.
All in all, despite being quite nerve-wracking the webinar was a very enjoyable and educational experience for me. The participants seem to have enjoyed the format and were especially pleased to have the chance to meet and interact with fellow students. I would definitely not hesitate to use this form of teaching again given the right circumstances. To my mind a webinar is very similar to a traditional lecture (sage on the stage) and therefore does not directly offer all of the possibilites online learning has but in combination with other tools, such as discussions and blogs, it could form part of an excellent online or blended learning programme.
Mittwoch, 4. April 2012
Reflecting on the mobile learning webinar
My first ever webinar seemed like it was taking forever to arrive and then when it did come it was over in a flash. During my preparation I found myself revisiting a lot of material I had looked at in previous BOE modules as well as discovering lots of new information too. Now that the dust has settled it is time to reflect on the experience and what I have learnt from it.
At 7pm UK time on Tuesday the 20th of March I presented my webinar "Mobile learning: An introduction to theory and practice" via Napier's Elluminate web-conference platform. For anyone who missed the webinar it is possible to see the recording here. In order to make sure my memory isn't playing tricks on me and, more importantly, to experience the webinar as the students did, I have also played it back again to analyse it myself.
Firstly there were some interesting technical issues. I found talking to a group of students you cannot see and not being able to hear yourself either a very strange, eerie experience. I was also concerned by a constant background noise in my headset which was also present in the recording. This may be caused by the fan in my PC or perhaps another technical fault. If I was to be presenting webinars more often this is something I would definitely want to address.
Elluminate proved to be very straightforward to use and the eight students present were a mangeable amount. As I didn't know all of the students present I decided to begin with a short round of introductions to break the ice. This also revealed the first problem that not everyone present had a headset so some of the introductions took place purely as chat. And after the first person introduced themself via chat all the remaining participants did too, even the ones who seemed to have a headset. This is something that could be controlled a bit better next time.
Through my previous brief experience with Elluminate I learnt that it does not support the transitions that I typically use in my Powerpoint presentations. This time I was prepared for this and put additional information on separate slides to achieve the same effect. It was actually only in preparing for the webinar in a short session with Keith that I realised that Elluminate simply converts each Powerpoint slide into a graphics file which it then displays in the chosen order. This knowledge means that a different approach to presentation design has to be taken for webinars in comparison with traditional presentations.
During my webinar I also used Elluminate's question feature to get some input from the participants and encourage discussion. This feature was easy to use and I was able to switch between yes or no answers and multiple-choice (A, B or C) options. Unfortunately after one such question I was unable to remove the results box from the screen and was only able to do so by switching to the next slide. There is hopefully a proper way to hide the results which I can learn for use in the future.
At the end of the webinar I had left time for questions and a discussion but there was very little response from the audience. I hope this was due to them being satisfied rather than bored by the content. In my next post I will look at the results of the participants questionnaire which I asked everyone to complete. This will hopefully reveal how they really felt.
Neil
At 7pm UK time on Tuesday the 20th of March I presented my webinar "Mobile learning: An introduction to theory and practice" via Napier's Elluminate web-conference platform. For anyone who missed the webinar it is possible to see the recording here. In order to make sure my memory isn't playing tricks on me and, more importantly, to experience the webinar as the students did, I have also played it back again to analyse it myself.
Firstly there were some interesting technical issues. I found talking to a group of students you cannot see and not being able to hear yourself either a very strange, eerie experience. I was also concerned by a constant background noise in my headset which was also present in the recording. This may be caused by the fan in my PC or perhaps another technical fault. If I was to be presenting webinars more often this is something I would definitely want to address.
Elluminate proved to be very straightforward to use and the eight students present were a mangeable amount. As I didn't know all of the students present I decided to begin with a short round of introductions to break the ice. This also revealed the first problem that not everyone present had a headset so some of the introductions took place purely as chat. And after the first person introduced themself via chat all the remaining participants did too, even the ones who seemed to have a headset. This is something that could be controlled a bit better next time.
Through my previous brief experience with Elluminate I learnt that it does not support the transitions that I typically use in my Powerpoint presentations. This time I was prepared for this and put additional information on separate slides to achieve the same effect. It was actually only in preparing for the webinar in a short session with Keith that I realised that Elluminate simply converts each Powerpoint slide into a graphics file which it then displays in the chosen order. This knowledge means that a different approach to presentation design has to be taken for webinars in comparison with traditional presentations.
During my webinar I also used Elluminate's question feature to get some input from the participants and encourage discussion. This feature was easy to use and I was able to switch between yes or no answers and multiple-choice (A, B or C) options. Unfortunately after one such question I was unable to remove the results box from the screen and was only able to do so by switching to the next slide. There is hopefully a proper way to hide the results which I can learn for use in the future.
At the end of the webinar I had left time for questions and a discussion but there was very little response from the audience. I hope this was due to them being satisfied rather than bored by the content. In my next post I will look at the results of the participants questionnaire which I asked everyone to complete. This will hopefully reveal how they really felt.
Neil
Dienstag, 20. März 2012
The birth of mobile learning
A little research into the history of mobile learning reveals you that many researchers think that Alan Kay's "DynaBook" marks the dawn of mobile learning.
In a 1972 article in the Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference entitled "A personal compiuter for children of all ages" (read an extract here), Kay described a device which could be carried anywhere, was no larger than a notebook, was connected to a global wireless network and cost less than $500.
However, if we agree with O'Malley et al.'s (2003) definition of mobile learning as
"Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location"
then the original mobile learning device is something else entirely. Rather than being the Dynabook the original mobile learning device must surely be the book! Gutenberg's development of moveable type meant that books could be printed much more quickly and cheaply than ever before. The availability of cheap books played a role in the Renaisance and the Enlightenment an as making knowledge available anytime and anywhere is one of the central tenets of mobile learning, I could therefore be argued that the introduction of moveable type means that mobile learning is an even older discipline than e-learning.
As always, youtube have a couple of amusing clips which illustrate the importance of this new technology:
Medieval Helpdesk
Did you know the BOOK?
Hope you enjoy the clips!
Neil
In a 1972 article in the Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference entitled "A personal compiuter for children of all ages" (read an extract here), Kay described a device which could be carried anywhere, was no larger than a notebook, was connected to a global wireless network and cost less than $500.
However, if we agree with O'Malley et al.'s (2003) definition of mobile learning as
"Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location"
then the original mobile learning device is something else entirely. Rather than being the Dynabook the original mobile learning device must surely be the book! Gutenberg's development of moveable type meant that books could be printed much more quickly and cheaply than ever before. The availability of cheap books played a role in the Renaisance and the Enlightenment an as making knowledge available anytime and anywhere is one of the central tenets of mobile learning, I could therefore be argued that the introduction of moveable type means that mobile learning is an even older discipline than e-learning.
As always, youtube have a couple of amusing clips which illustrate the importance of this new technology:
Medieval Helpdesk
Did you know the BOOK?
Hope you enjoy the clips!
Neil
Montag, 19. März 2012
DIY mobile learning
Mobile learning has been on the "next big thing" lists of websites and journal articles for several years but for many people it still seems to be a complicated and expensive tool to implement. The American Society for Training and Development published an article by Naomi Norman in the December 2011 edition of T + D magazine with the promising title "Mobile learning made easy", read the article here.
The article reports on the results of research into mobile learning conducted for the NHS, an organization which has a huge need for flexible training due to the enormous amount of staff it has, many of whom work offsite or unsocial shifts. Amongst the key benefits of mobile learning identified are:
convenience
relevance
enhanced content retention
empowered learners
encouraged reflection
The study also notes that not everyone will want to use mobile learning so all courses prepared for Epic for the NHS are also available as e-learning. The physical limitations of mobile learning are also addressed in the report. For example, due to a very small or complete lack of physical keyboard writing long texts is not advisable and as learners will not sit using a mobile device for as long as they would sit at e-learning it is necessary to break the learning down into smaller chunks which can be completed more quickly.
The problem of compatibility is also addressed. Luckily the NHS, like many organizations, provides many staff with mobile devices so a certain amount of consistency is guaranteed. However, many people will prefer to use their own devices which may not be compatible with the official m-learning solution.
Exactly this problem and an answer to it are beautifully demonstrated by Dr Alisa Cooper in one of my favourite youtube videos on mobile learning (watch here). Alisa created an online class using a combination of a mobile-enabled Wordpress blog, embedded google docs, classmarker quizzes and youtube videos. This clearly demonstrates that with a little thought mobile learning doesn't have to be complicated or expensive to implement. I will certainly be looking at some of these ideas in designing my next mobile learning elements and I hope they will inspire some of you as well.
Neil
Sources
Mobile learning made easy, http://www.epic.co.uk/assets/files/ASTD_Mobile_Learning_Made_Easy.pdf [accessed 19.3.2012]
Mobile learning course overview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yasp9W70vw [accessed 19.3.29012]
The article reports on the results of research into mobile learning conducted for the NHS, an organization which has a huge need for flexible training due to the enormous amount of staff it has, many of whom work offsite or unsocial shifts. Amongst the key benefits of mobile learning identified are:
convenience
relevance
enhanced content retention
empowered learners
encouraged reflection
The study also notes that not everyone will want to use mobile learning so all courses prepared for Epic for the NHS are also available as e-learning. The physical limitations of mobile learning are also addressed in the report. For example, due to a very small or complete lack of physical keyboard writing long texts is not advisable and as learners will not sit using a mobile device for as long as they would sit at e-learning it is necessary to break the learning down into smaller chunks which can be completed more quickly.
The problem of compatibility is also addressed. Luckily the NHS, like many organizations, provides many staff with mobile devices so a certain amount of consistency is guaranteed. However, many people will prefer to use their own devices which may not be compatible with the official m-learning solution.
Exactly this problem and an answer to it are beautifully demonstrated by Dr Alisa Cooper in one of my favourite youtube videos on mobile learning (watch here). Alisa created an online class using a combination of a mobile-enabled Wordpress blog, embedded google docs, classmarker quizzes and youtube videos. This clearly demonstrates that with a little thought mobile learning doesn't have to be complicated or expensive to implement. I will certainly be looking at some of these ideas in designing my next mobile learning elements and I hope they will inspire some of you as well.
Neil
Sources
Mobile learning made easy, http://www.epic.co.uk/assets/files/ASTD_Mobile_Learning_Made_Easy.pdf [accessed 19.3.2012]
Mobile learning course overview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yasp9W70vw [accessed 19.3.29012]
Montag, 12. März 2012
Instructional design models
The e-learning I have produced up till now has all been made without any planned framework so in order to make my webinar and podcast as successful as possible I decided to take a look at the major instructional design models to see what I could learn from them. My first discovery was that there are seemingly hundreds of different models, some of them applying to learning in general, others specifically relating to online learning. Chaudry & Rahman (2010) published a very interesting critical analysis of such models in the Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education which thankfully also helps me to reduce the number of models I should consider.
The ADDIE model seems to be the one which is presently most used in preparing online education materials. The five parts of ADDIE are:
A - Analysis
D - Design
D - Development
I - Implementation
E - Evaluation
The analysis stage is a needs analysis in which it should be found out, just what do our participants need to learn, what do they already know and what are the objectives for this piece of training. In the case of my APBOT webinar this question is irrelevant, one could however say the need is to be informed about the theory and practice of mobile learning.
In the design stage decisions have to be made about the format the training will be provided in, what content will be used, and a protoype has to be created.
The development stage is concerned with implemented the requirements listed in the design stage. In the case of e-learning this is also the stage where courses or software should be tested and debugged/corrected. This is the stage my webinar is at, at the moment.
The next stage is the implementation stage which is when everything is set up to deliver the training. Once I have completed my presentation this will be the stage where I upload it to Elluminate and ensure everything is working correctly before I begin the webinar.
Finally, in the evaluation phase presents the opportunity for the creator to evaluate the training themselves as well as giving the participants to provide their own feedback. At the moment I am working on an evaluation form to give everyone at the end of my webinar. This will be produced using the forms function of google docs.
Another very interesting model I discovered is the OAR model which is special in that it was specifically designed for distance learning in higher education.
In this case the name is an abbreviation for objectives, activities and resources. This model is appealing as it seems very simple and straightforward. However, unlike the ADDIE model it does not include any specific area for gaining feedback and evaluating the training.
I found these and the other models I looked at to be fascinated and I am sure there is no one ideal model which fits all circumstances. For my webinar, podcast and future e-learning projects I will therefore take a look at several more models and use the components which seem to meet my needs best. There is here, as always, a lot more reading to be done!
Neil
Sources:
Chaudry, M.A. & Rahman, F.U. (2010) A critical review of instructional design process of distance learning system, Turkish online journal of distance education, Vol. 11, Number. 3.
https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde39/articles/article_11.htm [accessed 12.3.2012]
Instructional design models and theories, http://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/htm/IDC_instructionaldesignmodels.htm [accessed 12.03.2012]
ADDIE instructional design model, http://www.intulogy.com/addie/ [accessed 12.03.2012]
OAR model, http://www.enotes.com/topic/OAR_model [accessed 12.03.2012]
The ADDIE model seems to be the one which is presently most used in preparing online education materials. The five parts of ADDIE are:
A - Analysis
D - Design
D - Development
I - Implementation
E - Evaluation
The analysis stage is a needs analysis in which it should be found out, just what do our participants need to learn, what do they already know and what are the objectives for this piece of training. In the case of my APBOT webinar this question is irrelevant, one could however say the need is to be informed about the theory and practice of mobile learning.
In the design stage decisions have to be made about the format the training will be provided in, what content will be used, and a protoype has to be created.
The development stage is concerned with implemented the requirements listed in the design stage. In the case of e-learning this is also the stage where courses or software should be tested and debugged/corrected. This is the stage my webinar is at, at the moment.
The next stage is the implementation stage which is when everything is set up to deliver the training. Once I have completed my presentation this will be the stage where I upload it to Elluminate and ensure everything is working correctly before I begin the webinar.
Finally, in the evaluation phase presents the opportunity for the creator to evaluate the training themselves as well as giving the participants to provide their own feedback. At the moment I am working on an evaluation form to give everyone at the end of my webinar. This will be produced using the forms function of google docs.
Another very interesting model I discovered is the OAR model which is special in that it was specifically designed for distance learning in higher education.
In this case the name is an abbreviation for objectives, activities and resources. This model is appealing as it seems very simple and straightforward. However, unlike the ADDIE model it does not include any specific area for gaining feedback and evaluating the training.
I found these and the other models I looked at to be fascinated and I am sure there is no one ideal model which fits all circumstances. For my webinar, podcast and future e-learning projects I will therefore take a look at several more models and use the components which seem to meet my needs best. There is here, as always, a lot more reading to be done!
Neil
Sources:
Chaudry, M.A. & Rahman, F.U. (2010) A critical review of instructional design process of distance learning system, Turkish online journal of distance education, Vol. 11, Number. 3.
https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde39/articles/article_11.htm [accessed 12.3.2012]
Instructional design models and theories, http://www.instructionaldesigncentral.com/htm/IDC_instructionaldesignmodels.htm [accessed 12.03.2012]
ADDIE instructional design model, http://www.intulogy.com/addie/ [accessed 12.03.2012]
OAR model, http://www.enotes.com/topic/OAR_model [accessed 12.03.2012]
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)