JISC

 

Supporting staff development and teacher training

Teacher training is a subject that Malcolm Ryan is heavily involved with and there was a question as to the effect listening to learners should have on those who devise and deliver teacher training. One delegate thought that the findings coming out of the JISC Learners' Experience of e-Learning projects might have an impact in teacher training while Malcolm felt that there is a ' perceived lack of ICT/ILT standards in the LLUK framework for the training of PCET teachers' and hoped that ALT might look into this. But there are things available for FE and HE staff and resources mentioned were the Subject Learning Coaches programme (now via Nord Anglia), the NIACE e-Guides programme and Professional Development Certificate in E-learning, Teaching & Training' ( CeLTT) which runs at the University of Greenwich . There was further discussion about ensuring staff have time to take up the training, especially those who don't normally engage with e-learning or understand the learner's perspective. Delegates were reminded that "The e-guides model is based on developing staff who can support their peers. It has worked well with a very wide variety of support from formal sessions to mentors and answering questions. It does require management to support the process by providing time and resources." He also gave us advance notice of 'Learning Matters Publisher on ICT Minimum Core aimed at new teachers and CPD' which will be published in the spring.

There was a conversation about whether students want their tutors in their Facebook lives, as well as some thoughts about using students to help design their courses/learning. The learners who were able to join the debate, had some interesting comments to add about this, including their thoughts about the use of institutionalVLEs, which sparked more thoughts from other participants. E.A.Draffan summed it up by saying that 30 learners in the LexDis project had 30 different reactions to the institutional VLE.

Malcolm reminded delegates that his project – SEEL – found that it became apparent that not all students love and want to use technology at every conceivable moment of the day. In this context a strong case was made for personalised learning. One delegate felt that it was not just about choices of technologies but also about choice in learning approaches. For example collaborative learning is not always the best choice for all students. Some people prefer to learn alone. In a large group of students there are likely to be some people who may be placed at a disadvantage? The thread ended with the question – “How easily could we contemplate allowing students choice about the pedagogical approaches we adopt?”.

There are differences and similarities between HE and FE and there is obviously a learner's perspective. One delegate asked "In one of the presentations there is a quote from a student about most 25 year olds being computer literate but in FE there are many older learners who are perhaps not so confident with technology. How much difference do you think there is and what effect does it have?" Most people agreed that there are younger and older learners in both institutions who may be comfortable with technology in their own lives, but not know how to use it well within an academic framework. Malcolm Ryan said 'If students expect us to be smart in the use of technology and we are not then we let them down" and reminded us that the term 'digital literacies' is one we should be discussing more widely. Another participant provided her thoughts about the use of physical spaces to promote collaborative learning. Everyone agreed that the environment had a big effect on learning though there was some nostalgia for huts where a session began with moving the furniture around, not for pedagogic reasons, but for reasons of warmth. Motivated learners, delegates felt, can learn anywhere. There is room for some action research on "in working out what kinds of learning - and learning support - go on in open plan social spaces. This is particularly important as we strive to provide better institutionally-based training in digital literacies and greater access to personalised forms of learning."

What do we do about students who don't want to engage with technology?

Malcolm Ryan began this thread by reminding us that his project - SEEL - found that "it became apparent that not all students love and want to use technology at every conceivable moment of the day. And this was not just related to age either. So, how should we respond to and cater for those who prefer books, paper and f2f sessions over their technological equivalents? Do they have the right not to engage, to state a preference and be listened to?" One delegate responded by saying that "this valuable reminder that we need to create a level playing field for all students. We need to respect learners' individual preferences….". E.A.Draffan, who is part of a project which is looking at what learners with disabilities have to say about their use of technologies, reminded us that "More barriers are set in place by poor design, lack of forethought and over complication - not all that is digitised is accessible but on the other hand paper is not always the easiest form and even f2f can cause stress levels to rise for some - so we need that flexibility in any learning space." Several delegates made a strong case for personalised learning, with and without books, in an appropriate environment and flexible for learners and tutors. The role of the tutor is changing and Malcolm felt that teachers don't like the 'f' word ('facilitation), which he feels is central to the work of modern teachers.

The notion of a 'trusted intermediary' was introduced to the discussion. This was introduced by the notion that "learners in 'community' contexts learnt best with Trusted Intermediaries making 'timely interventions'…. and certainly in the early stages of learning, it most definitely is not a teacher." E.A. wondered if this would work online. She thought that it would be too easy for people to 'lurk' initially and some agreed that at the beginning, trust needed to be built and confidence gained before learning online could proceed. People can change with support and we should trust learners to create their own learning environment.

What do learners want from educational institutions?

Two learners joined the discussion and it seemed a good opportunity to ask them what they wanted from an educational institution in terms of technology, assessment types and/or education in general. One gave an excellent example of the wide range of feelings about VLEs, including a useful PowerPoint from another student who was looking into the question for his dissertation. The other provided a clear and concise list, which included, "all information to be available online in some way… how to access online journals etc… Interactive learning objects are brilliant but they must be tailored to the course." which suggests that they might not always be used appropriately.

E.A began a thread on Agile Technology Users, which stemmed from discussions around visualisation and learning design. This recalled to her the use of mind mapping tools by some of the LexDis students that led to them being called 'agile users' of technology or even agile technology users rather than Assistive Technology Users. This produced the question - are all our students having to become agile technology users?

A number of delegates contributed to the discussion that agreed that assistive technologies need to available at all levels throughout educational institutions. Disabled learners can show the way for all students’ use of technology. It was suggested that agile users have the ability to switch between different tools, evaluate which tools are useful for them, decide on implementing free software etc. These are beneficial skills to have for any environment. Labelling technologies as for disabled learners is not helpful. It might limit their use by all learners. We should consider which technologies help in overcoming barriers. Many useful technologies are general ones that are used in an agile way.

What can we do to more actively listen to and respond to learners?

Malcolm posted, "We already use a lot of approaches to trying to find out about the student experience - I wonder if we are missing a trick here - can we do it better and differently?" He also mentioned various ways of including learners in decision making; for example, e-Mentors, learner representatives and focus groups, but none of it is entirely satisfactory. In order to overcome the challenge for staff to understand learners’ needs, one approach was to arrange for staff and students to meet informally to discuss learning. It was suggested that if they do not realise the problem students’ face then traditional approaches will continue. However, other views suggested that staff knew that change was necessary. One delegate articulated the challenge as looking at how the outcomes from our research into learners’ experiences can influence or support the way practitioners plan and design their practice. How can learners become active contributors to the design of their learning experiences?

The discussions were concluded by bringing evidence together on student experience and expectations. It was explained that there was a Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience that was attempting to bring the evidence together. Its remit is 'to consider the impact of the newest technologies such as social networking and mobile devices on the behaviour and attitudes of students coming up to and just entered higher education and the issues this poses for universities and colleges'. The committee should be reporting soon and more information together with their emerging findings is available from http://www.clex.org.uk/index.php.