This post adds another perspective borrowed from Gonzalez (2009) as a framework to report or evaluate findings from Col and Ken’s indicators project. Col added an update on his work recently. Like previous post this one borrows a table of dimensions around conceptions of online learning because it may be helpful.
First the table and then how it might be used.
|Informative/individual learning focuses||Communicative/Networked learning focused|
|Intensity of use||Small range on media and tools used to support learnign tasks and activities (mainly sources of information with small opportunities for interaction and communication)||Wide range of media and tools used to support learning tasks and activities (with emphasis on interaction and communication)|
|Resources||Web pages with information. Lecture notes. Links to websites.||Web pages with information. Lecture notes. Links to web sites. Discussion boards. Chat. Blogs. Spaces for sharing. Animations. Videos. Still images.|
|Role of the learner||Select and present information||Design spaces for sharing and communication. Support the process.|
|Role of the students||Study individually information provided||Participate in a process of knowledge building|
How might it be used
The above dimensions could be used to develop “analysis routines” that would place courses within these dimensions. Some potential approaches:
- Variety and use of tools and media within a course site. (Intensity of use and Resources)
Group the different tools available in the course management system into different types. e.g. those used for information distribution and those for interaction/communication. Count the number of different types of tools present in a course site and the level of usage.
The difficulty here is the increasing use of non-CMS based tools for communication. e.g. I know of an increasing number of staff and students who are using external tools such as Messenger to work around the limitations of CMS services.
- Measure student and staff activity (Role of the lecturer/students)
I believe Blackboard, the main CMS at our institution, tracks the activity in some detail of each course site participant. If the type of activity can be categorised into groups (e.g. adding information to the site, using information on the site, posting to a discussion forum, responding to a post in a discussion forum etc.) then analysis could be run against the activity of all participants. This would identify the type of role the main groups are taking on.
What’s the value of this?
I can hear some thinking, “so what!”. What is the value of this sort of thing? A couple of thoughts.
- As a framework to help make sense of the data.
From my perspective it appears that the project is “drowning in data” and could use some sort of reviewed framework with which to organise or structure their investigations. These dimensions might provide it.
- Enable institutions to get a handle on what is happening.
Most of it ain’t great. The combination of the dimensions and the data potentially enable institutions, that are spending a lot of money on course management systems, to improve the awareness they have of what is actually happening. At the very least some sort of indication of where online courses site within the institution, as imperfect as it will be, sit within the dimensions might start some conversations about online practice that is actually somewhat informed by the reality of what is going on.
- As a demonstration of building on the work of others.
It is possible to argue with the value/validity of the knowledge generated by Gonzalez (2009) – but then it’s possible to argue against the validity of just about the knowledge generated by any research project depending on your perspective. However, this work is in a fairly prestigious journal, so it comes with a certain stamp of approval. This will help Col and Ken.
- Perfect opportunity for a publication.
Building on the last point, suggests that complimenting the qualitative nature of Gonzalez (2009) with some more quantitative measures from a broad collection of students and courses sounds like a pretty good publication opprotunity (or three).
It’s the potential for discussion within the organisation that is, I believe, of potentially the most beneficial for the most people.
The potential for publication is probably the most interesting to the project participants and frankly by far the easiest.
The publication idea would be strengthened if previous work in this area (e.g. the recent ALTC project Learning and teaching performance indicators report either doesn’t do something like this or uses a different set of dimensions.
In addition, Gonzalez interviewed only 7 academics within a single discipline within a single institution. Chances are the results and dimesions identified in the paper are going to exhibit some sort of limitation, potentially caused by the nature of the context. Using a different approach in a different context will at least compliment/reinforce the findings and potentially identify additional dimensions.
Gonzalez, C. (2009). “Conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching online: a study of lecturers teaching postgraduate distance courses.” Higher Education 57(3): 299-314.