tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1033397069939792494.post5047158428912120766..comments2023-10-08T02:52:44.771-07:00Comments on 13 Things for Curriculum Design: Thing 12 - LDSEaewp2http://www.blogger.com/profile/05865087342440641011noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1033397069939792494.post-18383883217162494492011-09-26T03:22:13.327-07:002011-09-26T03:22:13.327-07:00[Continued...]
For LDSE as for Thing 5: Pedagogy ...[Continued...]<br /><br />For LDSE as for Thing 5: Pedagogy Profile, mrj10 was also unhappy with the opaque scope and derivation of the choices presented by the tool: “The Palette lists seem reasonable, but I am unable to judge whether they are comprehensive or whether I would want other options.” “From the layout of the timeline there could be seen to be an implication that there should be a mix of types of activities (and maybe of activities within a type), but I don’t know why this should be.” “I would ... like to see examples of how these approaches have been effective before attempting to incorporate them in my teaching (but this doesn’t seem to be something that LDSE offers).”<br /><br />LDSE’s course analysis is an interesting feature that could be considered a development of the OU’s Pedagogy Profile (Thing 5). mrj10 “was intrigued to see how the random activities I had entered were ‘evaluated’, but had little sense of why they gave the results they did or whether I should consider this good or bad”, noting “A one hour straight lecture (tutor presentation?) can be fantastic or awful depending on who is teaching it.” Socratic Investigations conceded this platform could “help with laying out facets of educators' concern when planning out an academic course of studies” although he was concerned this might have more to do with institutional expectations that educators‘ concerns. <br /><br />Socratic Investigations also worried that such effort invested in planning might come at the cost of responsiveness to learners: “I am aware of the technical "efficiency" of the program (of how "high" the formatting/grid is placed above the particular changing/malleable needs of real learning environments); but I am also aware of the fact that technical efficiency ought not to trap our judgement in a web of sticky pre-formatted expectations”.<br /><br />In conclusion Socratic Investigations held that “Essentially what LDSE appears to be aiming at is the gradual replacement of the educator's discerning virtue with "the machine." The LDSE team would probably say ‘supplement by means of codified theories of learning design and reusability of designs’, rather than ‘replace’. mrj10 concluded “The basic idea seems reasonable, the choices sensible and it seems fairly straightforward to use. I’m just not sure about the principles behind it or whether it is approaching curriculum design in the way that matters most for me.”<br /><br />Overall our respondents were intrigued but sufficiently unconvinced of the tool’s value that they were unlikely to spend further time investigating. For LDSE, as for Thing 8: Compendium LD, an advocate of the tool might conclude that the problem lies with teaching staff, who should be sufficiently familiar with teaching and learning theory that helping them represent and measure aspects of their courses is enough. Possessed of this information, in this world view staff will be able to exercise their academic judgement more effectively. If this is not a world view shared by teaching staff, I think it would be fair to say the problem lies with the tool. To be fair to LDSE, it is still under development and the team may address this in a future version.<br /><br />As a general point about complex tools in this space, which we must remember is one of an academic’s core concerns, it is important to approach tool design in a user-centric way, not from first principles of theory. Winning users in the latter approach requires having them trust your judgement unquestioningly (an improbable circumstance for an academic) or having them share your whole theoretical and empirical framework (equally improbable). Far more acceptable to accommodate and support, and optionally supplement, their own working practices - who could object to doing what they already do, but better?aewp2https://www.blogger.com/profile/05865087342440641011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1033397069939792494.post-59484571789512080362011-09-26T03:21:56.794-07:002011-09-26T03:21:56.794-07:00Our main funder, the JISC, recommended the Learnin...Our main funder, the JISC, recommended the Learning Design Support Environment to us for consideration. The tool’s credibility is boosted by the fact that team behind it includes Professor Diana Laurillard, a highly respected name in educational technology. If anything comes close to mrj10’s “high-powered, web-enabled gadget that designs curricula at the press of a button”, this should be it, although it focuses more on teaching sessions than larger curricula. LDSE is also a prime example of the kind of tool we at CARET frequently have recommended to us, and which we need to evaluate and filter before coming to a decision on its potential value to Cambridge.<br /><br />As one of only two desktop applications amongst our Things, LDSE required more effort than most from our participants. Further effort, albeit of imagination, was demanded because the version made available for download featured only a few of the remarkable features recently demonstrated by the team at seminars. This is why we made LDSE the last of our 13 Things. However, our respondents were remarkably patient with it.<br /><br />The ‘palette’ model of constructing learning objectives excited quite different responses. Socratic Investigations “quickly ... gained the sense that the platform is far *too* supportive. A bit of support is one thing; programmatic digitalizing of a course of learning is another. The former can be of direct service to the learning environment (classroom); the latter is likely to be only of use to extra-learning-environment bureaucrats and institutions ... It is far too restraining for the educator.” For mrj10 however “it is too open ... anything goes [in this version of the tool, at least], so I felt rather lost.” “Are there no better choices/combinations? No limit on the number of types of activities or suitable durations? .... are there some combinations that make more sense?” “Having a list of possible aims/outcomes/activities provides some food for thought, but ... it’s not clear why I might/should choose a particular selection.” “While I don’t want to be forced to adopt a particular approach, if there is theory on this it would be good to know.” <br /><br />This non-judgemental approach was a major source of frustration for mrj10. The final version of LDSE is supposed to offer recommendations aplenty, drawing on an internal conceptual map of learning design theory, but the version tested had nothing like this, making it seem an empty exercise: “Without any guidance I can’t see any immediate insight for a session I might be planning.” <br /><br />In terms of usability, Socratic Investigations found “The process is straight-forward” and mrj10 reported “It wasn’t hard to work out how to use LDSE. <br /><br />In terms of usefulness, our respondents weren’t able to evaluate the full feature set, which includes sharing and repurposing teaching designs. Based on what they could see, Socratic Investigations felt that “much of the jiggling involved in the LDSE program strikes me as expendable; a bit as relying on a very sophisticated computer to perform calculations such as 5+5”, a sentiment shared by mrj10: “Apart from the evaluation, it’s not clear why this needs to be online. Most of the rest could be done with pen and paper, so what is gained?”. <br /><br />mrj10 explored the reasons for this dissatisfaction: “For me the focus of attention seems back to front. I would prefer to start with what I am going to teach before thinking about what the learning aims or outcomes might be”. Content-first design is how many teaching academics prefer to work, although it seems to be rejected by the teaching and learning development community. Are so many lecturers wrong, is the teaching and learning development community adrift from reality, or is the difference merely in the understanding of terminology?<br /><br />[Continues...]aewp2https://www.blogger.com/profile/05865087342440641011noreply@blogger.com