reflections on week 4

Reflecting on the online tutoring programme, I have experienced ups & downs throughout the duration of the course: initally being very open-minded to a new way of thinking (ie the VLE as opposed to my familiar F2F scenarios) and finding the excitment of doing new things (such as blogging!); a period of frustration and disillusionment during the middle of the course for reasons given in previous entries; feeling able to engage more effectively (?) in the group work in week 3...the final week has been, perhaps, the most trying in relation to my motivation...

I came to the course with an open mind to explore the potential for the online medium in my current teaching practice. In many ways, I can see the advantages of a blended approach especially in supporting the development of understanding of key issues in a given topic. We have recently gone through a process of 'kite-marking' the courses we offer (part of which includes a summative assessment) and I do feel that there is scope for an element of online tutoring to support those who sign-up to do the assignment.

From my experiences on the Oxford-Brookes course, I feel that the inventory I drafted earlier this week would be an effective means of managing this as I presented them (- hopefully this is not too presumptuous?!) My concern is that a significant (and increasing) number of students signing up to courses in the past do not have English as a first language and I wonder how this will impact on the F2F aspects, let alone a VLE...I feel there are more thoughts/discussions to be had in my workplace...

Thinking about the Oxford-Brookes course itself in relation to my inventory, I do feel that the outline did follow the 'rules' of constructive alignment. I felt there were clearly defined learning outcomes; active learning was encouraged with the social constructivist paradgim being the foundation of the programme; there was a balance between quantity & quality of contact time between student-tutor and student-student (responsibility for this being with the individual); there was a degree of flexiblity/range of learning opportunities and there was clear feedback throughout both from the tutors and from other students.

Where things were not so clear was 1) in the pre-determined goals of the course which reduced the ability of the group (in weeks 2 & 3) to set their own agenda to meet specific learning needs (although this may my lack of awareness of the freedoms rather than a fault of the course) and 2) that there seemed to be a lack of explicit ground rules (although, again, this may be something I missed!)

However, having said all that, I do feel I have learned much from the course in relation to course design and the role of the tutor that is, I think, transferable between the VLE and F2F environments. Most particularly, I liked the 'presage - process - product' model from Brook and Oliver (2003) which I am keen to explore further in terms of its application to teaching and learning, whatever the setting.

So, 'onwards and upwards...'

an inventory for online tutoring

As I understand the key readings for this week, an inventory of good practice/guidelines for effective online tutoring arise out of constructive alignment (see Brown, 2001). When considering what it is for me that enables learning in the VLE, the key points are:

• effective tutoring (and therefore effective learning) can only occur if there are clearly defined and measurable learning outcomes (Maharg, 2005)
• any goals are developed in collaboration with the group to ensure specific learning needs are identified (Brookfield, 2001)
• the tutor (and the programme) encourages active learning (Graham et al, 2001)
• ground rules are negotiated to ensure participation and safety of group members (Brookfield, 2001)
• a balance needs to be struck in respect of the quantity and quality of contact time between student-student and student-tutor (Graham et al, 2001)
• perhaps, most fundamentally, the tutor respects the diversity of the student group and thus needs to ensure a flexible and dynamic range of learning opportunities whilst maintaining student-centred, constructive feedback that facilitates achievement of the identified goals and outcomes (Brookfield, 2001; Graham et al, 2001; Maharg, 2005)

It would seem to me that the last point is the one that completes the cycle of learning through constructive alignment as it draws together all the required elements - if the tutor is competent in taking a flexible approach to planning and development of an online curriculum, including the assessment processes (formatively, at least), then the programme can be tailored to the group and the learning potential maximized.

If I was being especially brave, I'd base my inventory on Brook and Oliver (2003) as I feel their model - 'presage; process; product' - provides a useful (if somewhat detailed) breakdown of the key aspects in designing a curriculum that is constructively aligned. However, with a suggested limit of 30 lines to present the inventory here, I don't feel I can do this line of argument justice - suffice it to say that I feel the elements I have identified above are addressed in the Brook and Oliver model, just a little more fully! (Further reading and reflection required on my part...)

assessing my contribution

This week I have been feeling more engaged with programme (as I commnented on in my last entry). I certainly feel I have been able to input more directly and positively, learning how to use a wiki in the process - another first for me!

Part of this has been, for me, the more apparent feedback from the group as we have proceded through the week - a more direct dialogue has been helpful in boosting my confidence, but perhaps my increased confidence with the system has helped too - I have felt more able to post comments (and more promtly) and proactively edit the group work, rather than simply offer comments. (I know I added 2 slides to last weeks group work which were in the final draft, but on reflection, I would have to say that was a relatively passive experience).

I guess there is an issue of cause and effect here that reminds me of 'the chicken and the egg' scenario, but I have no wish to get bogged down into which came first. Although usually I am more interested in the process, on this occasion, the result as discussed above, is much more important. In short, I feel much happier with things at this point - hopefully, week 4 will continue in this vein...

turnaround time...

Thinking about this week, I feel that things have turned around quite considerably - I have been feeling more positive and therefore have engaged with the task more readily (helped by good interactions with the group!)

I am also feeling more confident and competent in the VLE (although I still find the system a bit clunky and hard to follow).

On reflection, I get the impression that alot of my experiences recently have been related to differing parts of a whole that I did not grasp, ie competence using the 'blackboard' system and extensions to this such as blogs and wikis; familiarity with the subject (although there are comparisons with F2F environments, they are different); my ability to develop realtionships with others I cannot 'see'; perceived level of support from tutors; and so on.

What I have learned is that, once I have broken down the whole into its constituent parts, I need to find a way of drawing them together in a meaningful way to make sense of how I can best contribute to a task.

I guess the next question is 'How effective is my contribution to the group task'? Well, only time will tell, so, until later...

contributing to online collaboration

I'm currently reflecting on the task for week 2 and considering my contribution. If I was to assess my input here I would be saying that it was somewhat limited, although my contribution did form part of the final submission. For reasons identified previously, I wonder whether this was something about my unpreparedness for the time element involved? I am very aware in face-2-face teaching that however long you think it will take, it will take longer and perhaps I did not fully appreciate the similarity in the online setting.

However, the issue that arises from this is one of quantity versus quality. If we are to assess contributions to a collaborative task, this is clearly a dilemma. For me, the quality of an interaction has to be fundamentally more important than the quantity - for example, one student may make several postings during the task that may bear no relation to the task itself.

If we base an assessment only on the amount of contributions (irrespective of what they contribute to the overall task), the individual who 'posts the most' may receive a higher mark than feels appropriate. In contrast the student that only posts once, but has a considered and well-structured piece, may lose out if we concentrate of quantity, even though they may have established the foundation of group's ultimate success.

Conversely, if assessment is based purely on the quality of the posting, this may not account for the attempts of the stuggling student who cannot make sense of the task and asks more questions rather than adding to the end result. I guess this follows on from the discussion on 'lurkers'. Consequently, it would seem that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the 'norm' should be if, indeed, there is one and any system of assessment must find a balance to both ends of this spectrum (ie the quantity AND quality of contributions).

In many ways, this does seem to reflect the difficulties when assessing work in the classroom setting. Some students are clearly more voluble than others, but does this mean that 'he who shouts the loudest deserves the higher grade'? Where it perhaps differs between the envrionments is in the nature of the medium itself in facilitating assessment - whilst we can (seemingly) monitor the amout of time spent online, there is a limit to which we can engage with someone who chooses not to reciprocate - an e-mail can be easily ignored, as can an invitation to 'chat'. Although this disengagement also occurs F2F, there seems to be (to me at least) something about the visible, non-verbal cues in face-to-face contact that allow a different interpretation of what's going on to ensure appropriate support. I wonder if, in my unfamiliarity with the VLE, I'm missing a trick in how to manage this most effectively online (without the bonus of visual clues)...

quick off the blocks...

Wow - I have read the relevant bits as decided within the Green group, been able to consider them in relation to this week's task on feedback and write/post my thoughts! Not sure how much sense my waffle will make (or if I've got the point), but I feel pleased to have at least got in quick and have something on 'paper'. I'm looking foward to how the rest of the discussions pan out.

week three begins...

I'm sitting contemplating my thoughts on last week and I find myself feeling more positive (and here is me some years ago giving a round of applause!!!) My feeling is that week 2 provided a huge learning curve as discussed previously, and I am in a different place of engagement. Whilst I'm still struggling with the work-life-study balance, I have taken time reading through the resources and feel I'm on familiar territory! (Does make a difference with confidence!)

I am hoping to make a more positive contribution to the group discussion this week and we'll see how I've done when I reflect on Sunday. So, back to apply the theory to feeding back on other group presentations...