1 / 45

Pedagogic Planning Tools

Pedagogic Planning Tools. Liz Masterman Oxford University Computing Services liz.masterman@oucs.ox.ac.uk for World ORT, 8 th Wingate Seminar 15 th May 2007. Overview. Planning: the impact of technology Pedagogic planning tools What do we do when we plan? The design challenge

jvine
Download Presentation

Pedagogic Planning Tools

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pedagogic Planning Tools Liz MastermanOxford University Computing Servicesliz.masterman@oucs.ox.ac.uk for World ORT, 8th Wingate Seminar15th May 2007

  2. Overview • Planning: the impact of technology • Pedagogic planning tools • What do we do when we plan? • The design challenge • Examples of tools • Phoebe: design rationale and quick tour

  3. Technology as a driver for (re-)planning • “E-learning is often talked about as a ‘trojan mouse,’ which teachers let into their practice without realizing that it will require them to rethink not just how they use particular hardware or software, but all of what they do.”(Sharpe & Oliver, 2007, p. 49) • “It fundamentally made me think about what I actually do in the class. … The VLE really made me think about ‘how am I going to project what it is that I give to a lesson when I’m face to face on this screen?’ … Usually I don’t have to plan my lessons, I just go in and do it … What it brought me back to was the actual lesson plan, you know, like when you first started off … it was like that all over again.”(School teacher)

  4. Planning as a means to “scaffold” technology use • “Technology-reticent” practitioners: • Lack of awareness or interest • “Technophobia” • Lack of time to explore (esp. if part-time or hourly paid) • Aversion to risk inherent in experimentation • Fear of being supplanted • Incompatibility with institutional model of learning • But pressure to engage with digital technology • From above • Implementation of VLE • Use of technology as a criterion in performance assessment • From below • Student expectations • How to engage the technology-reticent? • Institutional staff-development initiatives… • …mediated by pedagogic planning tools

  5. Enter the pedagogic planning tool… • Where the individual practitioner starts getting to grips with technology and exploring its implications • An emergent genre: • JISC Design for Learning programme (2 projects), DialogPlus, ReMath, LAMS • Guide teachers through the construction of plans for learning sessions that make appropriate, and effective, use of technology • Pedagogic planning: • Concept of “lesson” alien to HE • Pedagogy “embraces an essential dialogue between teaching and learning” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 2)

  6. What do we do when we plan? Over to you… Think back to the last lesson that you planned: • What was the lesson about? • Did you plan on your own or with someone else? • Did you create your plan from scratch or did you adapt an existing plan? • What was your starting-point? For example: • Learning outcomes (skills, concepts) • Content (topic to be learnt) • A particular activity or activities • Students’ own interests • What tools did you use? • Paper and pencil, computer… • What sort of document did you produce? • Rough notes or a structured document? • Did your plan have to be approved by a more senior teacher? • After the lesson, did you make “reflective” notes?

  7. The range of approaches • “The starting point would be the assessment criteria/expected learning outcomes. This would be balanced by the students’ needs and level of learning. I would also take into account the type of students […] The environment can affect what can be done in a session e.g. availability of breakout rooms, space for group work etc. Time of day can be important. […] Available resources would also be considered.” • “I often go out for a run to clear my head to let the creative juices start to flow. […] depending on what course it is (some are looser than others), I usually start by thinking about the knowledge or skills learners need, whilst keeping a strong eye on the assessment. This then develops into aims and outcomes. I liken the process to painting a picture… you don’t start at one particular point but move from one part to another. Each development affects the other parts.”

  8. Tools to mediate the design process • “I use pen and paper to collect ideas, Post-its to sort main headings. I like to lecture from a hand-written outline.” • “1. Pen and paper — broad conceptual overview, key learning activities mapped as a storyboard/concept map. 2. Formalise this map in Word or PowerPoint. 3. Detailed matrix of [learning outcomes], activities and assessment in Excel for detailed analysis etc.”

  9. Tools to mediate the design process “For me it is generally a case of getting the basic structure down and some notes into a word-processor, which I then usually replicate as a structure in the VLE. My classes tend to be based around PowerPoint slides with break-out activities so I mainly use PPT and scribble in the notes facility. For out of class online activities I generally ‘sequence’ (i.e. list!) Web sites or activities in the VLE and then construct some prose around these to give the students some direction (e.g. step 1 go to this site, step 2 post up your comments etc.).”

  10. Drafts and completed plans

  11. The design challenge “Maybe it’s going to be difficult to develop a single software tool kit that suits everybody’s preferences for planning learning (paper based, software or a mixture of both!) and maybe it could be useful to develop flexible software tools that support teachers through the ‘process’ and stages of designing for learning…”(Teacher in HE)

  12. Some pedagogic planning tools • DialogPlus • London Knowledge Lab • ReMath • LAMS • Phoebe

  13. DialogPlus: Planning using structured vocabularies http://www.nettle.soton.ac.uk/toolkit; Conole & Fill (2005)

  14. London Pedagogy Planner Tool: guided form-filling http://www.wle.org.uk/d4l/

  15. ReMath: flexible form-filling for hierarchical plans • We do not have permission to make publicly available the screenshot which appeared in the original presentation. • For information about this project, see Earp & Pozzi (2006). http://remath.itd.cnr.it/

  16. LAMS: Template sequences http://lamsinternational.com

  17. Phoebe: Focus on guidance; flexibility in choice of tool • JISC Design for Learning programme • May 2006-February 2008 • Builds on research-based investigation of “generic” tools used for planning • Aim: • Enable teachers in post-compulsory education to develop their confidence and skills in designing technology-mediated learning experiences

  18. Design philosophy • Principles • Propagate effective practice to a wide audience • Allow option to use familiar planning tools • Rationale • Learning Design tools and LAMS in limited use; output XML • Successful IT projects build on the way users work, don’t force them to adapt

  19. The Phoebe prototype • Phase 1: proof-of-concept tool • Open source, built on wiki technology • Supports planning for individual learning sessions made up of learning activities • Envisaged context of use • Initial teacher training • Staff development • Functions • Reference tool: guidance, advice and examples • Planning a learning session • http://phoebe-app.conted.ox.ac.uk

  20. Phoebe: Evaluation of Phase 1 prototype • Very positive response from practitioners to overall vision • Saw applicability in context of initial teacher training and staff development programmes • Not sure if it would work as a self-teaching aid for “lone” practitioners who wish to explore D4L. • The guidance and examples appear to meet practitioners’ needs • In its present form it functions better as a resource with a note-taking facility than as a usable and useful tool for creating lesson plans • There is considerable interest in the potential of Phoebe as a customisable community-owned tool

  21. Future directions: Phoebe phase 2 • Make Phoebe more usable as a planning tool: • Tool needs a place to see and work on a learning design as a whole • Considerable effort is still needed to develop the content • Test Phoebe in teacher-training and staff-development contexts • Explore Phoebe as a community-owned tool • Ensure relevance to users through customisation • A way to tackle long-term sustainability

  22. Bibliography • Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 52–63). London: Routledge. • Conole, G., & Fill, K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME), 2005(08). http://jime.open.ac.uk/2005/08. • Earp, J., & Pozzi, F. (2006). Fostering reflection in ICT-based pedagogical planning. In R. Philip, A. Voerman & J. Dalziel (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International LAMS Conference 2006: Designing the Future of Learning (pp. 35–44). Sydney: LAMS Foundation. • Masterman, L., & Manton, M. (2007, March). Disrupt or co-opt? The role of a pedagogic planning tool in promoting effective design for learning. Paper presented at the CAL ’07 Conference: Development, Disruption & Debate – D3; Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. • Phoebe project wiki: http://phoebe-project.conted.ox.ac.uk

More Related