Evolving pedagogic models for workbased learning within a virtual university

1
Evolving pedagogic models for work-based
learning within a virtual university
Claire Bradley
Dr Martin Oliver
University College London
Learning Technology Research Institute
2
Overview

• Introduction to the context and project
• Explanation of evolutionary steps
• Model 1 Flexible learning
• Model 2 Socio-constructivism
• Model 3 Experiential learning
• Model 4 A pragmatic synthesis
• Discussion of the implications for other projects
  of this type

3
Background

• Problems training employees of Small/Medium
  Enterprises
• Small training budgets
• Release time
• Vocational relevance
• Proposed an online, flexible, masters-level
  course on Supply Chain Management

4
Project teams

• Management
• Learner support systems team
• Provide pedagogic expertise, draw up guidelines
  for authors, provide feedback on materials
• Authors
• Often worked in teams, drawn from across the UK
  (and beyond), selected as subject experts
• Technical team
• Delivery team
• Evaluation team

5
Model 1 Flexible learning

• Open learning - at time and place of students
  choosing
• Computer based learning - delivered through a
  computer system
• Work based learning - applicable to (and
  delivered in) the working environment

6
Model 1 Flexible learning

• Small units of material (each 3 core hours
  computer-based, plus 3 optional hours work-based)
• Core assessed by multiple choice, work-based
  assessed by report/essay
• Levels (e.g. undergraduate/masters) left open
  same material used it depends what the learner
  does with it (to make it relevant to wider
  audience)
• Authors expected to write and storyboard
  materials, but not to implement them

7
Model 2 Socio-constructivism

• Model 1 evolved when project staff changed
• Incoherence of masters- and undergraduate-level
  materials
• Multiple choice (and surface learning) vs.
  masters level courses
• Fragmentation of knowledge/study
• Text-based, hierarchical structure
• View of learners learning in isolation
• No discussion of student support issues

8
Model 2 Socio-constructivism

• How were these issues addressed?
• Guidelines for authors and student support
  developed
• Gave up idea of dual-level courses concentrated
  on masters-level materials
• Explored different assessment methods (essays,
  portfolio, puzzles, exams, simulations, peer
  assessment, etc.)
• Proposed 10-hour units, grouped in 10-unit
  modules for greater coherency
• Gave examples of non-linear, uses of multimedia,
  etc.
• Encouraged possibility of group-based discussion
  and activities (following Laurillards
  conversational framework)

9
Model 3 Experiential learning

• Model 2 evolved when it became apparent that
  authors were not following the guidelines. The
  overall quality of many initial drafts was not as
  high as expected, and it emerged authors had
• little experience of writing for distance/online
  learning
• a tendency to assume a lecturer-centred approach
• a lack of familiarity with Laurillards model
• There was also a general resistance from authors
  to learn new techniques (by some authors, at
  least)

10
Model 3 Experiential learning

• How were these issues addressed?
• Workshops were offered to help authors learn new
  techniques for writing online materials
• Feedback given encouraged authors to consider
  student-centred learning (e.g. more activities,
  peer group online discussions, etc.)
• Compromises were made by both LSS team and the
  authors to reach a more workable solution
• Materials were organised around Kolbs model of
  experiential learning (familiar to all authors)

11
Model 3 Experiential learning

• The diagram here shows how Kolbs learning cycle
  was used as the basis for an online unit each
  unit would involve completing at least one cycle

CONTENT
Concrete
experience
Abstract
Abstract
conceptualisation
experimentation
Reflective
observation
THEORY
12
Model 4 A pragmatic synthesis

• Further evolution coincided with the release of
  the prototype delivery system
• Prototype was based on technical teams
  (didactic) pedagogy - it was transmissive and
  text-led, and linear
• Authors were not making appropriate use of the
  online medium
• There were a lot of inconsistencies between
  materials
• Support guidelines were not being followed - over
  use of tutor feedback and under use of in-company
  mentor

13
Model 4 A pragmatic synthesis

• How were these issues addressed?
• Discussions between all teams led to the
  evolution of the prototype
• The revised system was structured around learning
  content but placed equal emphasis on activity,
  case studies, collaboration and development of a
  portfolio
• Learners can choose their own route through the
  materials

14
Model 4 A pragmatic synthesis

• continued
• Example templates were developed that
  demonstrated the possibilities of the technology,
  allowing easy customisation for authors material
• Tighter guidelines were developed so that
  materials were structured to fit within the
  system and were more consistent across units and
  modules
• The course delivery team became involved in
  agreeing support levels

15
Summary of the final model

• Modules were masters-level of 100 learning hours
  each - they had a common structure, but some
  variation was permitted to suit subject matter
  and author style
• The delivery system gave structure, but also
  allowed learner choice of study pathways
• Learner online discussions and exchanges built-in
• A learner support structure combining online
  tutor feedback, an in-company mentor, regional
  centre facilitator
• Assessment - a combination of self-assessment
  activities with computer-generated feedback or
  model answers, tutor-marked assessments, and
  credits based on modules

16
Conclusions

• Pedagogic model evolved each time new people got
  involved
• Couldnt introduce all teams at the outset each
  needed to engage with something meaningful (e.g.
  guidelines for authors, materials for technical
  team, etc.) a phased development
• Evolution was shaped by participants skills,
  experiences and background
• Evolution was not a one-way process the system
  evolved, and the teams learnt (from each other,
  and through tailored training and as development
  progressed)

17
Conclusions

• All of these points are general they will affect
  any project of this type.
• Certain fixed points were not affected, e.g.
  emphasis on flexibility work-based learning.
  Fixed by needs of learners and project contract.
• Good practice cant just be picked up and used
  instead, it will just become a starting point for
  a new evolutionary process.

18
Contact details

• Claire BradleyLearning Technology Research
  Institute, University of North London, 166-220
  Holloway Road, N7 6PPc.bradley_at_unl.ac.uk
  http//www.unl.ac.uk/ltri
• Martin OliverHigher Education Research and
  Development Unit,University College London, 1-19
  Torrington Place, WC1E 6BTmartin.oliver_at_ucl.ac.uk