2a

“The phrase ‘technology and education’ usually means inventing new gadgets to teach the same old stuff in a thinly disguised version of the same old way.”

Seymour Papert, ‘Teaching Children Thinking’, 1971

In the above article, Seymour Papert criticised educational tools that he saw as glorified Skinner boxes: produce the correct answer and be rewarded with something. For technology to be used effectively in learning, he felt outdated behaviourist/instructivist assumptions needed to be challenged. I like to think the landscape has improved since 1971, but as JISC have noted it is common for online learning to use these methods, albeit in digital forms like online text and recorded lectures. They teach subject matter in a classic “sage on a stage” fashion: reading or listening is equated with learning. This is not surprising, given that lectures are still a standard teaching method in formal education.

In my opinion the battle is largely between these passive teaching methods and those inspired by Jean Piaget’s constructivism, which argues that humans continuously and actively build and reorganise their own knowledge in the form of mental schemas. The developers of Moodle are officially inspired by Lev Vygotsky’s social constructivism which places more emphasis on building knowledge through observation and interaction with others. Papert’s own theory of constructionism has inspired many wonderful computer-based educational tools, which I have learned about in a MOOC from MIT but haven’t found a use for yet. I feel that for any learning designer it is important to become familiar with as many learning theories and approaches as possible.

In this section I will discuss my approach to learning design, and how I aim to avoid passive learning in favour of active learning. In support, I have included testimonials of my work as a learning designer, and my recommendations from former colleagues are available on my LinkedIn profile. Most of my experience in pedagogy is from developing courses for the Online Academy, as on academic modules teaching staff have primarily been responsible for the pedagogy of the module as a whole. However, learning designers have had significant input into individual resources and how they relate to others. In 2018 they are on an equal footing with tutors in terms of module design as a whole.

Learning from student feedback

As an Instructional Designer I have learned a lot from my teammates, from tutors, from departmental processes, and from guidelines such as JISC’s guide to curriculum design which are useful for providing context. When I started the role I looked at previous iterations of my modules to see what teaching methods were used and how they had changed.

However, possibly the best source of inspiration for improving the materials I work on is student feedback. UCEM includes anonymous evaluation surveys by default within every week of a module. After my modules finish I find it useful to check back to see how students have felt about what they studied.

See below for feedback on one of the first modules I worked on.

The student feedback was split between positive and negative. As there was still a study paper included there was an unsurprising comment about "too much content". As time has gone on, I have learned a lot from the feedback left by students on these evaluation surveys. They can reveal which approaches students felt worked, and which didn’t. When working on a module I discuss with a tutor the concerns students have had over particular activities, and might discuss possible replacements. I find when I am paired with a tutor who has previously taught the module their subject matter expertise helps to inform the decision on what resource type to use.

The most challenging aspect of learning design I have found is using collaborative activities to their full extent so that learners are engaged and satisfied with the outcome. I feel it is not easy to get learners to engage with the default collaborative activity types within Moodle (glossary, wiki, workshop, database). In my opinion they are clunky to use and not very attractive in a world of beautiful apps tailored for good user experience. I have found they don’t work if there’s a steep learning curve for students – for example, database or workshop activities without clear and detailed instructions have very poor engagement levels.

I would like to experiment more with these, but I find myself wanting to move towards using external tools like Padlet. My team is discussing ways to improve these activities and I look forward to contributing to that.

One course developed with these considerations in mind is my Storyline-based 'Introduction to Freehold Covenants' course. The material for this came from a study paper and two dated presentations extracted from an academic law module which covered complex case law. After working with a tutor at UCEM, I created a three-part Storyline course which simplifies the necessary concepts using interactive elements. It includes activities such as researching cases on external websites, and uses multiple layers to illustrate how similar-sounding concepts differ.