This week and last we had two visiting speakers which focussed me in on quality again. John Milne from Massey university ran a workshop on eLearning Guidelines (an eLearning Collaborative development funded project). All NZ tertiary educators are invited to contribute to the guidelines and develop their own for practical use in their institutions through a wiki accessible from the eLearn website.

In response to a scenario we developed with a student who joined the workshop, we developed a couple of new and very important guidelines, and found several existing ones which were relevant. 

The scenario was:
An off-campus multimedia student is using blended methods (mainly eLearning)in a course. The student has a dial-up connection at home and has difficulty getting on-campus access to the computers and software. Not all computers have the necessary tools/software. The student also doesn\’t have them at home and no access from home. The students are given training in using some software in the first week, then no further training and little support from the lecturer. There is no after hours support.

Some people in the workshop found the session a bit wishy washy, but it was a collaborative and consultative exercise which doesn\’t suit everyone. Some people just want to be told. Guidelines are guidelines not standards and as such need ongoing discussion be dynamic and continually evolving.

The other speaker was Professor Fred Lockwood, a very experienced academic in the field of open and distacne learning. I went to hear his talk at the university about quality and distance education. I recorded part of the talk and had his permission to use it, though he did seem bemused that anyone would want to listen to it.

In his talk he made several interesting points in the way of questions about what we do in distance/flexible learning. Reading between the lines and through his humour it was clear to me that he thought the university was deficient in many areas – he had just conducted a review of their distance programmes and was helping them with a distance learning strategy.

The points which I identified with were:
1. Learner needs and how important it was to pay attention to them.
2. The need to conduct developmental testing with realstudents and reward them with free fees for such courses, with new flexibly offered courses. Even something as a textbook recommended by a lecturer can be unsuitable in the opinion of the students. This is rarely done at OP.
3. Too much information was a common problem so that students who were expecting to study for 5 hrs a week ended up getting increasingly more stuff to read and hand in until they could end up studying well over the 5 hrs per week. In Fred\’s words, \”good value for money getting 35 hrs a week of study…\”

I brought Fred back to OP to speak with a small group (in the Council room with tea) including some managers and people from EDC and other parts of OP which was good. We had an informal discussion and some good points came out e.g. open courseware. Looking out for the learners – part-time, lifelong learners etc. It was a useful session but I wish I\’d asked him to chat about developmental testing so the managers could have got the message.

Fred has also asked me to contact him about putting together a book proposal for something from NZ and across countries too for the Open and Flexible Learning series. Not sure whn I\’ll have time to do anything, but it would be good to coordinate something and collaborate to write a chapter.

Quality is very important in not only attracting students but also in helping with retention. Quality starts before students enrol (18% lost before they \”register\”) and should continue all the way through with the resources offered, access, teacher support/facilitation and should meet learners\’ needs. 

Unfortunately in the model we appear to be adopting, online and product is being pushed which is shoving us along the inflexible rather than the flexible path. If we were truly to meet learner needs, we would adopt a truly flexible model where learners negotiate their content and their assessments and the way they learn. We are trying this to some extent with the Design course.

The highlights were hearing Tom Angelo (University of Victoria) speak again and seeing him in action using interactive methods in a big lecture theatre. The man is magic…and he gets the audience to think and do!

Kathleen Weigert, Georgetown University USA was intriguing when speaking about justice. She asked us to define justice and then talked about three kinds of justice – commutative (fairness in exchange), distributive (allocation and how things are shared), social (contributive – contribute to common good and remove barriers e.g. education).

My definition was: \”Doing the right thing to serve the needs of people\”. She mentioned the importance of policies in institutions matching their practices, and whether the mission statements in our organisations had included statements about justice. I was interested in the Community-Based Learning programme she teaches in where students undertake community-based work to complement their academic learning. For example, students taking courses about homelessness actually work in the community with people experiencing homelessness.

Another speaker, Bland Tomkinson, spoke about the integration of interdisciplinary topics, sustainable development and global citizenship. Although he wasn\’t a particularly receptive speaker when I approached him afterwards, and and there wasn\’t any discussion about his topic, he had some good ideas. I will have to read his conference paper.

The first workshop on Teaching Philosophy (Elaine Laflamme) was partially useful in that it made me think about to which category of teacher I belong – my result from the inventory is that I am a humanist, progressive teacher.

I also found Robert Aitken\’s presentation about using audio journaling techniques with students very relevant – he believes that people think while they talk so the audio recordings demonstrate more thinking about the process whereas written journals tend to be censored and the actual process is rarely documented. The session I was particularly interested on metacognition was presented by someone who didn\’t know the subject very well, a co-author, so I will have to read the paper.

It was also good to meet up with friends and colleagues from my past biology life, and find out about Rob Wass and his research topic of looking at the Zone of current development (ZCD) and how it moves to the zone of proximal development (ZPD) during study in Zoology.

The podcasting and vodcasting workshop was okay, particularly because I was able to promote Leigh\’s courses. A little bit was covered on good practice so this was good. A bit gobsmacked to talk to someone who was planning to record biology lectures and put them up on Blackboard. Good for review I suppose. but the idea of taking them down if people stop coming to lectures is ludicrous. surely the measure would be if students liked them and actually learned better.

And the worst presentation by far had to be Gerrie Jacobs and his Powerpoint Karaoke. some good messages about integrity and credibility but too many flashy bits and not enough substance. good lessons for what not to do to an audience.

There were some very good posters – eportfolio at Massey university in an engineering programme, Rob\’s research study about Learning in the Zone and another one about pharmacy and experiential learning in the curriculum. I also got a couple of free books – one on Curriculum transformation and disability: Implementing universal design in HE and effective tutorial teaching. The former book also had a poster about their work. Oh yes the workshop where L Meyer used a questioning instrument to stimulate self-questioning was very useful. Qs such as how, why etc matched with other words which could be attached to a statement about a topic to get a class to generate their own questions to go away and research and think about. we had to throw a dice and choose the words which matched each number. The game aspect instilled a bit of fun, and the class shared the questions they came up with.

The next step is to look at some of the conference papers, especially the sessions I missed because of the flexible delivery operations committee inaugural meeting – papers on transformative learning – a subject close to my heart.

The facilitator presented on the situation in Australia. Main points were:

• competency-based apprenticeships
• qualifications recognised across Aus
• maximum flexibility in system – impacts on quality
• grow private training orgs with effective competition
• school-based apprenticeships
• RPL – want to improve uptake
• industry wants to control knowledge base – web 2 does not fit
• training providers not keeping pace with rapid technological change – important
• costs, flexibility and access
• need training to meet needs of lifelong learners – skills shortages, shiftworkers, contractors, mature learners, just-in-time and to suit learners
• need to build capability – respond to physical and online environment
• changing role of education and training

• more of the following:
• distributed networks
• social networking
• blended and flexible models
• facilitation driving pedagogy not instruction
• innovation
• market changes e.g. full employment

• competency-based apprenticeships
• qualifications recognised across Aus
• maximum flexibility in system – impacts on quality
• grow private training orgs with effective competition
• school-based apprenticeships
• RPL – want to improve uptake
• industry wants to control knowledge base – web 2 does not fit
• training providers not keeping pace with rapid technological change – important
• costs, flexibility and access
• need training to meet needs of lifelong learners – skills shortages, shiftworkers, contractors, mature learners, just-in-time and to suit learners
• need to build capability – respond to physical and online environment
  changing role of education and training

• more of the following:
• distributed networks
• social networking
• blended and flexible models
• facilitation driving pedagogy not instruction
• innovation
• market changes e.g. full employment
• Less occurrence of the teacher teaching many.

Overview of pressures on the NZ tertiary education sector can be seen on the concept map (to be loaded).

Facilitator talked about Australian Flexible Framework and how we could have links with Australian projects. Learnscope and Knowledge tree online journal. eLearning networks project is running a September Online Event: Tapping into Resources for E-learning 6 – 8 September 2006

Digital information literacy is also called fluency, and I like the definition I found on the 21st Century information fluency project website.
This site also has micromodules – small tutorials about information literacy.

Digital Information Fluency (DIF) is the ability to find, evaluate and use digital information effectively, efficiently and ethically. DIF involves knowing how digital information is different from print information; having the skills to use specialized tools for finding digital information; and developing the dispositions needed in the digital information environment.

As well as the definition there is a useful diagram.

Therefore in a module geared up to help users gain skills in digital information literacy, the following needs to be covered:

• Language and the meaning of terms used for digital searching e.g. subscription-based and free networked datasets, networked information – abstracting and indexing services, full-text material and digitised collections, access points, interfaces, search syntaxes
• Terms used for digital material e.g. learning objects, resource-based, multimedia etc
• Range of interfaces for accessing digital information – databases, datasets, electronic libraries, Internet, other multimedia – problem-solving so users can navigate sources and understand their scope
• Formats of digital information – text, audio, video, images, blogs, wikis etc.
• Portals, search engines, RSS feeds, subject gateway – catalogue, or directory, of internet resources e.g. OMNI Examples of several subject gateways via the OMNI website plus Internet tutorials on how to find information effectively and Internet detective.
• Resource Discovery Network (RDN) and web collections and sub-collections e.g. JISC collections
• Digital repositories e.g. OSLOR, Aeshare, Australian Flexible framework toolboxes
• FOSS (free and open source software) – examples relevant to information literacy e.g. Diigo ( a web-based annotating tool), blogger, google etc.
• Digital tools for searching – search engines, subject directories, gateways etc.
• Data sets e.g. Citation Index, databases, data centres
• Examples of online resources e.g. NZ National library, British library online gallery – world\’s oldest printed book \”Diamond Sutra\”, wikipedia
• Publishing on the web, digital publications
• Intellectual property and options for copyright – creative commons, JISC models, copyright licensing Ltd.

This module will need to be linked to search strategies, evaluating and ethics modules.

We did this after we finished the second presentation to research forums at both the polytechnic and the university (21 August and 24 August) to inform people about the evaluation processes which have taken place over the first year of the project. In particular, the presentations were to inform audiences about the findings of the research evaluation project – Real use research evaluation of an online essay writing module: In formation literacy eLearning modules project. The audiences at both venues were relatively small with approximately 15 at each event.

Brainstorm of ideas for the next phase of evaluation
1. Which modules from phase one do we need to test for usability?

• Business report – scheduled for 1 September 0800 – 1000 in computer lab H517. M and I and myself plus D has volunteered to help as well. This could be usability testing and not part of the research project.

• Science report – will not be used in class this year, but could be randomly used by second year students if they are referred to it by their lecturer. R wants to customise the module for first year students using the online editor. Then integrate it in the first year biology course in 2007. This would be ideal for the research project. Also D to get Rosemary to review the module for the Science Investigation – expert review.

• NZ Information Sources

– review Leitesha and Joseph modules, also review modules with Learning Centre students and staff at university and polytechnic – usability testing.

2. Which modules to be investigated as part of the research project?
Depending on the research design, expert review and use of the online editor for customisation could be incorporated in the research. Also real use with students in class and critique of the modules by users early October). Observation, focus group interviews (record and transcribe) and questionnaire testing of usability will still be used as methods for collecting data when in real use. Also a feedback blog could be set up for participants to add their feedback. Staff who participate in customisation of the modules would be asked to keep a log of the process, and be interviewed in a focus group. This would comprise case study research.

• Science report – as above.
• Essay writing

– M wishes to customise this module for a foundation course.

• Digital Information Literacy

– expert review & consultation – FLNW** conference visitors – this module and others.

• Maori & Pasifika

– expert review & consultation – ongoing consultation

• Ethics – expert review & consultation – copyright expert
• Searching – expert review
• Evaluation – expert review
• Springboard (introduction to IL) module – expert review

Need to make modifications to the questionnaire (remove irrelevant features), information sheet and consent form. Also the feedback sheet onThe next phase for the Analysis and Evaluation Group for OIL (online information literacy) eCDF project was brainstormed today.

We did this after we finished the second presentation to research forums at both the polytechnic and the university (21 August and 24 August) to inform people about the evaluation processes which have taken place over the first year of the project. In particular, the presentations were to inform audiences about the findings of the research evaluation project – Real use research evaluation of an online essay writing module: In formation literacy eLearning modules project. The audiences at both venues were relatively small with approximately 15 at each event.

Brainstorm of ideas for the next phase of evaluation
1. Which modules from phase one do we need to test for usability?

• Business report – scheduled for 1 September 0800 – 1000 in computer lab H517. M and I and myself plus D has volunteered to help as well. This could be usability testing and not part of the research project.

• Science report – will not be used in class this year, but could be randomly used by second year students if they are referred to it by their lecturer. R wants to customise the module for first year students using the online editor. Then integrate it in the first year biology course in 2007. This would be ideal for the research project. Also D to get Rosemary to review the module for the Science Investigation – expert review.

• NZ Information Sources

– review Leitesha and Joseph modules, also review modules with Learning Centre students and staff at university and polytechnic – usability testing.

2. Which modules to be investigated as part of the research project?
Depending on the research design, expert review and use of the online editor for customisation could be incorporated in the research. Also real use with students in class and critique of the modules by users early October). Observation, focus group interviews (record and transcribe) and questionnaire testing of usability will still be used as methods for collecting data when in real use. Also a feedback blog could be set up for participants to add their feedback. Staff who participate in customisation of the modules would be asked to keep a log of the process, and be interviewed in a focus group. This would comprise case study research.

• Science report – as above.
• Essay writing

– M wishes to customise this module for a foundation course.

• Digital Information Literacy

– expert review & consultation – FLNW** conference visitors – this module and others.

• Maori & Pasifika

– expert review & consultation – ongoing consultation

• Ethics – expert review & consultation – copyright expert
• Searching – expert review
• Evaluation – expert review
• Springboard (introduction to IL) module – expert review

Need to make modifications to the questionnaire (remove irrelevant features), information sheet and consent form. Also the feedback sheet on the OIL website needs to be modified to collect feedback. If we add an information sheet and include the consent on the questionnaire, then people critiquing the modules of the OIL site could be included in the research project.

• Expert review will also be obtained re ANZIIL standards.
• Notify college research office about changes in methodology – information sheet, consent form, questionnaire, research design.

Methods for disseminating modules

• Add OIL link to institutional websites
• Training in online editor – introduce mid-September with Terry Stewart eCDF project – inhouse group training first from 4 September when usernames and passwords issued.
• Google not picking up site.
• ITPNZ, DEANZ, FLLinNZ, eLearning Directors notified

**FLNW = Future of Learning in a Networked WorldThe next phase for the Analysis and Evaluation Group for OIL (online information literacy) eCDF project was brainstormed today.

We did this after we finished the second presentation to research forums at both the polytechnic and the university (21 August and 24 August) to inform people about the evaluation processes which have taken place over the first year of the project. In particular, the presentations were to inform audiences about the findings of the research evaluation project – Real use research evaluation of an online essay writing module: In formation literacy eLearning modules project. The audiences at both venues were relatively small with approximately 15 at each event.

Brainstorm of ideas for the next phase of evaluation
1. Which modules from phase one do we need to test for usability?

• Business report – scheduled for 1 September 0800 – 1000 in computer lab H517. M and I and myself plus D has volunteered to help as well. This could be usability testing and not part of the research project.

• Science report – will not be used in class this year, but could be randomly used by second year students if they are referred to it by their lecturer. R wants to customise the module for first year students using the online editor. Then integrate it in the first year biology course in 2007. This would be ideal for the research project. Also D to get Rosemary to review the module for the Science Investigation – expert review.

• NZ Information Sources

– review Leitesha and Joseph modules, also review modules with Learning Centre students and staff at university and polytechnic – usability testing.

2. Which modules to be investigated as part of the research project?
Depending on the research design, expert review and use of the online editor for customisation could be incorporated in the research. Also real use with students in class and critique of the modules by users early October). Observation, focus group interviews (record and transcribe) and questionnaire testing of usability will still be used as methods for collecting data when in real use. Also a feedback blog could be set up for participants to add their feedback. Staff who participate in customisation of the modules would be asked to keep a log of the process, and be interviewed in a focus group. This would comprise case study research.

• Science report – as above.
• Essay writing

– M wishes to customise this module for a foundation course.

• Digital Information Literacy

– expert review & consultation – FLNW** conference visitors – this module and others.

• Maori & Pasifika

– expert review & consultation – ongoing consultation

• Ethics – expert review & consultation – copyright expert
• Searching – expert review
• Evaluation – expert review
• Springboard (introduction to IL) module – expert review

Need to make modifications to the questionnaire (remove irrelevant features), information sheet and consent form. Also the feedback sheet on the OIL website needs to be modified to collect feedback. If we add an information sheet and include the consent on the questionnaire, then people critiquing the modules of the OIL site could be included in the research project.

• Expert review will also be obtained re ANZIIL standards.
• Notify college research office about changes in methodology – information sheet, consent form, questionnaire, research design.

Methods for disseminating modules

• Add OIL link to institutional websites
• Training in online editor – introduce mid-September with Terry Stewart eCDF project – inhouse group training first from 4 September when usernames and passwords issued.
• Google not picking up site.
• ITPNZ, DEANZ, FLLinNZ, eLearning Directors notified

**FLNW = Future of Learning in a Networked WorldThe next phase for the Analysis and Evaluation Group for OIL (online information literacy) eCDF project was brainstormed today.

We did this after we finished the second presentation to research forums at both the polytechnic and the university (21 August and 24 August) to inform people about the evaluation processes which have taken place over the first year of the project. In particular, the presentations were to inform audiences about the findings of the research evaluation project – Real use research evaluation of an online essay writing module: In formation literacy eLearning modules project. The audiences at both venues were relatively small with approximately 15 at each event.

Brainstorm of ideas for the next phase of evaluation
1. Which modules from phase one do we need to test for usability?

• Business report – scheduled for 1 September 0800 – 1000 in computer lab H517. M and I and myself plus D has volunteered to help as well. This could be usability testing and not part of the research project.

• Science report – will not be used in class this year, but could be randomly used by second year students if they are referred to it by their lecturer. R wants to customise the module for first year students using the online editor. Then integrate it in the first year biology course in 2007. This would be ideal for the research project. Also D to get Rosemary to review the module for the Science Investigation – expert review.

• NZ Information Sources

– review Leitesha and Joseph modules, also review modules with Learning Centre students and staff at university and polytechnic – usability testing.

2. Which modules to be investigated as part of the research project?
Depending on the research design, expert review and use of the online editor for customisation could be incorporated in the research. Also real use with students in class and critique of the modules by users early October). Observation, focus group interviews (record and transcribe) and questionnaire testing of usability will still be used as methods for collecting data when in real use. Also a feedback blog could be set up for participants to add their feedback. Staff who participate in customisation of the modules would be asked to keep a log of the process, and be interviewed in a focus group. This would comprise case study research.

• Science report – as above.
• Essay writing

– M wishes to customise this module for a foundation course.

• Digital Information Literacy

– expert review & consultation – FLNW** conference visitors – this module and others.

• Maori & Pasifika

– expert review & consultation – ongoing consultation

• Ethics – expert review & consultation – copyright expert
• Searching – expert review
• Evaluation – expert review
• Springboard (introduction to IL) module – expert review

Need to make modifications to the questionnaire (remove irrelevant features), information sheet and consent form. Also the feedback sheet on the OIL website needs to be modified to collect feedback. If we add an information sheet and include the consent on the questionnaire, then people critiquing the modules of the OIL site could be included in the research project.

• Expert review will also be obtained re ANZIIL standards.
• Notify college research office about changes in methodology – information sheet, consent form, questionnaire, research design.

Methods for disseminating modules

• Add OIL link to institutional websites
• Training in online editor – introduce mid-September with Terry Stewart eCDF project – inhouse group training first from 4 September when usernames and passwords issued.
• Google not picking up site.
• ITPNZ, DEANZ, FLLinNZ, eLearning Directors notified

**FLNW = Future of Learning in a Networked Worldthe OIL website needs to be modified to collect feedback. If we add an information sheet and include the consent on the questionnaire, then people critiquing the modules of the OIL site could be included in the research project.

• Expert review will also be obtained re ANZIIL standards.
• Notify college research office about changes in methodology – information sheet, consent form, questionnaire, research design.

Methods for disseminating modules

• Add OIL link to institutional websites
• Training in online editor – introduce mid-September with Terry Stewart eCDF project – inhouse group training first from 4 September when usernames and passwords issued.
• Google not picking up site.
• ITPNZ, DEANZ, FLLinNZ, eLearning Directors notified

**FLNW = Future of Learning in a Networked World