This is the third in a series of posts aimed at organisations and educational institutions who wish to overhaul existing distance and blended learning programmes.

Assessment

According to the Assessment Reform Group, a task force set up by the British Educational Research Association, formative assessment or “assessment for learning” is a key tool for raising achievement. Improving learning through assessment depends on the provision of effective feedback to learners and a recognition of the profound influence assessment has on motivation — learners need to learn how to assess themselves and understand how to improve (ARG, 1999).¹

Although assessment for learning is increasingly accepted in schools and had been at the heart of the tutorial model of Oxford and Cambridge, most resource-strapped universities have seen formative assessment decline in recent years. However, for distance learning programmes, formative assessment becomes even more important: with little or no face-to-face contact with tutors or facilitators, carefully designed assessment and feedback on assignments are key motivators and indicators of progress (Gibbs and Simpson, 2005).²

Gibbs and Simpson have suggested conditions for supporting learning effectively through assessment. Summarised, these are:

Tasks:

• A sufficient number of assessed tasks must be provided for learners to capture sufficient study time.
• These tasks must be engaged with by learners, orienting them to allocate appropriate amounts of time and effort to the most important aspects of the course.
• Tackling the assessed task must engage learners in productive learning activities of an appropriate kind.

Feedback:

• Sufficient feedback must be provided, often enough, in enough detail and in a timely manner (i.e., while it still matters to learners and in time for them to pay attention to further learning or receive further assistance).
• The feedback must focus on learners’ performance, on their learning and on actions under their control, rather than on the learners themselves and on their characteristics.
• Feedback must be appropriate to the purpose of the assignment, its criteria for success and to learners’ understanding of what they are supposed to be doing.
• Feedback must be attended to and acted upon by the learner.

It is becoming increasingly evident that assessment is a fundamental part of a learning intervention and should not be treated as an afterthought.  Learning activities within programmes can be created as opportunities for formative assessment and establish a feedback loop as key motivators.

¹ Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. University of Cambridge School of Education. http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/tlrp/arg/AssessInsides.pdf

² Gibbs, G, and Simpson, C. (2005). “Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. (pp. 3-31)

Please share your own experience with assessment and feedback.

In the next post, I’ll tackle active online participation.

Posts in this series:
1. Updating Learning Programmes I: 10 First Principles
2. Updating Learning Programmes II: Assumptions that form obstacles (DL in HE)
3. Updating Learning Programmes III: Assessment
4. Updating Learning Programmes IV: Active online participation
5. Updating Learning Programmes V: 7 Recommendations

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike

Nancy Weitz

Nancy is Director at Architela and specialises in internet strategy, collaborative learning and user-centred design

Website - Twitter - More Posts

This is the second in a series of posts aimed at organisations and educational institutions who wish to overhaul existing learning programmes.

Assumptions that form obstacles

There are often assumptions about teaching and learning embedded in university courses and programmes that can create obstacles to real innovation and change, especially for Distance Learning.  These assumptions are best laid bare in order to understand if they are valid and shared by everyone involved in programme design and delivery.

Often assumptions that get in the way of positive changes are silent legacies, inherited from historical conceptions of educational processes and subtly passed on to students who in turn learn to assume that “this is the way things are”. While the course designers and administrators may be open to new approaches, the teaching staff might be surprised by and resistant to the level of change required by them.

These tacit assumptions often include an emphasis on:

Content over process

This assumption holds that text and other materials that make up the content of the course are of primary importance, and students will take these away and learn them. We do not need to worry about the way students learn what we give them: it is their responsibility as adults to deal with this themselves.

Transmission over shared knowledge-building

This assumption holds that teachers, tutors and course designers are the founts of knowledge and students are there to absorb what they teach, memorise facts and ideas found in the textbooks and get steered towards correct answers. Students bring little or nothing of value to the course that might benefit either the content or the processes of learning.

Individual over group learning

This assumption, especially true in the Humanities disciplines, holds that learning has always primarily been about individual study. The lone student toils away in his or her room and only rarely interacts with other students. Learning is about listening to the teacher, reading texts and writing reports and essays, both of which are done alone and with maximum quiet concentration.

Independence over support

This assumption holds that DL requires a special type of student who can learn on his or her own without needing support beyond the rare contact with a tutor or programme coordinator to clarify a detail. It is a sign of weakness to ask for support, which might show the student to be unfit for the programme.

+++++

In reality, studies* show that:

Process requires as much attention as content

The way students learn is as important as what they learn. There is no single right way to conduct university education, and many factors surrounding the subject, the students and the environment will fit some processes better than others. A range of different processes can spark and retain interest and provide a wide variety of students with at least some ways of learning that they prefer.

Students bring a wealth of knowledge to a course

Shared knowledge-building helps to motivate and interest students and to bring improvement to programmes. Students are able to work with prior knowledge and push that further in practical and effective ways. Shared knowledge-building is a dynamic process that allows for immediate change and adaptation of programmes that may otherwise limp along until a formal review calls for revision of published materials.

Group learning motivates and engages students

Similarly, group learning offers new ways for students to work with knowledge, learn from each other and push themselves further than the materials or their own readings will allow. Group learning bolsters students with peer support and working networks. It also opens up the possibility for new and creative assignments that may model the kind of teamwork they experience on the job.

Distance Learning can provide high standards of programme support

Gone are the days of reliance on telephones and letters for contact between students, tutors and programme support teams. Online communities offer virtual classroom spaces and allow Distance Learning to take advantage of some of the best features of face-to-face learning, such as tutor-student contact. Poor tutor contact can stem from lack of clear expectations, training and/or remuneration for tutors – things that have nothing to do with learning and which have no place being embedded in the design of a programme.

* Vermunt & Verloop, 1999; Gagne, 1970; Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Jacques & Salmon, 2007

I’m sure there are other assumptions that create obstacles— please help by offering more from your own vantage point.

In the next post, I’ll tackle some of the issues surrounding assessment.

Posts in this series:
1. Updating Learning Programmes I: 10 First Principles
2. Updating Learning Programmes II: Assumptions that form obstacles (DL in HE)
3. Updating Learning Programmes III: Assessment
4. Updating Learning Programmes IV: Active online participation
5. Updating Learning Programmes V: 7 Recommendations

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike

Nancy Weitz

Nancy is Director at Architela and specialises in internet strategy, collaborative learning and user-centred design

Website - Twitter - More Posts

This is the first in a series of posts aimed at organisations and educational institutions who wish to overhaul existing learning programmes.

10 First Principles

According to Paul Ramsden, “all aspects of teaching in higher education should be driven by the changes in understanding we want to see occur in our students” (Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 1992: 130).  The same is true for organisational learning — even moreso, as the goal is concentrated on quite specific outcomes.

With any anticipated major change to a programme of study, it is imperative to go back to first principles and re-examine the purpose for the programme, the learning aims and objectives, tacit assumptions about learning embedded in the programme, and the assessment practice resulting from these.  We must make sure that these are still valid and worthy of driving the outcomes of the programmes.

Honest answers to the following questions should guide programme change:

1. Why should learners learn this subject?

What will it do for them personally and professionally? What will it do for the organisation? Are we being altruistic, or selfish, or balanced? Is this a box-ticking exercise to satisfy some management imperative further up the chain? Is this a historic or traditional holdover (“we’ve always done this”)? Or is there a real value? How does this subject overlap with other subjects?

2. Who are we targeting for this programme?

Are we serving this group with what we offer them? Have we matched the right subject to the right people? Have we articulated our ideal learner? If so, are we reaching them? If we haven’t set an ideal, who do we think we’re teaching? What do we know about our real learners?

3. For what specific aims and objectives do we ask learners to strive?

Have we set out specific aims and objectives? If so, are these reasonable, valuable and consistent with the purpose? Are these clearly articulated to the learners? How do we measure whether these objectives are valid and whether they’ve been met? Assessment, pass rates, learner evaluation, all three? (More on assessment in a later blog post.)

4. What prior knowledge do we ask learners to have when they begin the programme?

Have we pitched the programme right? Do we know what learners should already know? Is this realistic? Do we know what they really do know? What do we do if they’re missing prior knowledge? What do we do if they know more than we expected? How do we make the learning worthwhile for everyone on the programme?

5. What content will provide the basis for learning?

How is the learning content chosen? How is it prepared for the methods of delivery and engagement we want to use? Who is responsible for this and how well-prepared are they to follow through?

6. What methods and tools will we ask learners to use to engage with the content?

Have we done some research and considered a range of options made possible by interactive media? Or are we in default position only offering the two traditional transmission methods: reading and lecturing?  Have we deliberately matched the delivery and engagement methods to the types and subjects of learning? Do learners have sufficient knowledge, access and instruction to use these effectively? Do we have sufficient knowledge and experience to guide them?

7. What theories and models of teaching and learning undergird the design of the programme?

Are we basing our choices and decisions on specific educational theories and models?  Are they appropriate? Do we have the knowledge and experience to put them into practice effectively? Are we flexible enough to modify our ideas if things don’t go as planned without creating a disaster?

8. What is the best way to support learners in reaching these aims and objectives?

What kind of expertise and support are we employing in our programme: demonstrators, lecturers, teachers, tutors, facilitators, mentors, coaches, peers, administrators? How will they interact with the learners? (How) will the learners interact with each other? What kinds of support will be available, from whom, what methods and how often? Are all support staff and experts experienced with the methods they need to use to perform their roles?

9. Do we have sufficient resources?

Are our plans and ideas realistic? Have we asked for assistance from any available Learning Support staff? Can we get grants, awards, external funding or budget enhancements to support our monetary needs? Do we have the manpower to enact the changes and to facilitate the new version of the programme? Can we re-deploy and re-train people from other areas? Is this sustainable? Have we explored low-cost and time-efficient alternatives?

10. Do all stakeholders have buy-in?

Has everyone with a stake in the success of the programme been consulted or informed (as appropriate) about the planned changes to the programme? Is there support and goodwill from all quarters? Does anyone critical need special attention to bring them round or allay their fears?

11. Why are we updating this programme? (Thanks to Dan Roddy)

What are our motives for change? What is the cost of not updating compared to the cost of implementing change? How much change is really necessary to be effective now and in the future?

These are 10 daunting but crucial first principles that need to be reviewed and addressed before any major change is initiated to an existing learning programme.  I’m sure there are others — please help by offering more from your own vantage point.

Posts in this series:
1. Updating Learning Programmes I: 10 First Principles
2. Updating Learning Programmes II: Assumptions that form obstacles (DL in HE)
3. Updating Learning Programmes III: Assessment
4. Updating Learning Programmes IV: Active online participation
5. Updating Learning Programmes V: 7 Recommendations

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike

Nancy Weitz

Nancy is Director at Architela and specialises in internet strategy, collaborative learning and user-centred design

Website - Twitter - More Posts