1st Workshop Developing a Framework for eLearning 2006

1
1st Workshop - Developing a Framework for
e-Learning 2006

• D. GrahamSchool of Computing and Mathematical
  SciencesUniversity of Greenwich30 Park
  RowLondon SE10 9LSUKE-mail D.Graham_at_gre.ac.uk
  http//www.cms.gre.ac.uk

2
1. Introduction

• In March this year it was reported that the main
  reason for the failure of the UKeU was
  attributable to the lack of research into
  potential customers needs and a supply-driven
  approach 1.
• Mason 6 states that
• There is absolutely no evidence that learners
  are able or willing to do without teachers, no
  matter how well designed the materials, how
  extensive the resources or how just in time the
  learning. The fundamental role of the teacher or
  tutor has not changed but the mode of operation
  has.
• Experiential data from our current students on
  Computer Science programmes within our own
  university 4 insisting on no more than thirty
  percent of their courses in total (their
  management, content and delivery, etc) be e.

3
Figure 1 Activities and skills required for
Tutoring and e-Tutoring
4
2. Salmons 5 Stage Model of eTutoring
Figure 2 A Framework for supporting e-Tutoring
5
3. Results Revisiting the Framework

• Blended Learning has been defined as 14
• An educational formation that integrates
  elearning techniques including online delivery of
  materials through web pages, discussion boards
  and/or email with traditional teaching methods
  including lectures, in-person discussions,
  seminars, or tutorials.
• In developing a framework for e-Learning it was
  apparent that many of the technological
  requirements necessary to enable e-Learning were
  provided then by our in-house tool, namely
  Teachmat.

6

• The pros of this situation, the deployment of
  Blended Learning, seem to be of most benefit to
  the management
• A reduction in the amount of printing and
  photocopying costs, and paper.
• Moderated work examinations papers, etc are
  immediately available electronically. Indeed
  almost everything programmes, courses,
  associated materials, student records, etc are
  now available at the click of a mouse.
• All learning materials for each course
  schedules, coursework, room bookings, etc are on
  the system so staff absence can be more easily
  accommodated. Staff absence is also recorded on
  the system and news bulletins provided on
  Teachmat inform students of the absence of staff.
• Extenuating circumstances and coursework
  extensions are also dealt with on-line.
• Everything is on Teachmat.

7

• Teachmat, whilst having provided for many of the
  mostly technical requirements of Blended Learning
  or e-Learning support, has yet to completely
  resolve the human issues
• Due to the increasing amount of asynchronous
  communication, tutors are expected to be on-line
  24/7.
• Traditional tutoring is still superior in terms
  of flexibility and the accommodation of
  unforeseen circumstances, e.g. unanticipated
  plagiarism. Plagiarism software is available but
  in one example it was not expected, and was
  spotted by chance by tutors.
• It is still much easier to flick through paper
  coursework submissions than electronic ones.
• A register may show that a coursework has been
  uploaded by a student for a course that week,
  however, all it actually shows is that a file has
  been uploaded for the course that week by the
  student. On closer inspection some uploads have
  been found to be just the question asked.
• There are restrictions on the file size of
  uploads.

8

• Any printing of uploaded coursework is restricted
  to black and white, which is a weakness for
  assessing HCI criteria in particular. This adds
  further pressure for tutors to mark on-line.
• Students and especially staff feel that they are
  losing practical freedoms and flexibility, and
  are being dictated to by the system, of which
  they are being forced to become increasingly a
  part of. Responding to more and more electronic
  communication than ever (a great proportion of
  this generated by the system), continuously
  monitoring forums, etc.
• There are issues associated with the ownership of
  teaching materials which are obviously more
  accessible in electronic form.
• Teachmat has furthered the vast increase in e
  administration, with the proliferation of
  electronic documents being required to be
  completed for tasks. For example, creating an
  exam paper now has about eight stages and forms
  (excluding the paper itself).

9

• The management system is becoming unmanageable.
  There is so much stuff that is not so easy to
  know where to look for things.
• Anxiety and resentment within staff and students
  is being created by this wandering into Blended
  Learning.
• There are still health and safety, as well as
  social issues regarding e-Tutoring which have yet
  to be addressed.
• Finally, everything is on Teachmat - all the eggs
  are in one basket. When the intranet goes down,
  life ends!

10
4. Other Viewpoints Aims of this Workshop

• Current e-Learning Tools and Systems What is the
  state of the art?
• Traditional versus e Learning What are the
  issues? Technical? Pedagogical? Human? Social?
• Developing a Framework for e-Learning The way
  forward?
• The Future of e-Learning What will a course look
  like in 20 years time?

11
Thank you