Open University’s CALRG Conference 2015 – Notes Day 2 #calrg2015

CALRG Annual Conference   16 June 2015

Day 2 Paper Presentations:

Jennie Lee Building, Meeting Room 1

This is a semi-live blog of Martyn Cooper’s notes from Day 2 of the OU’s Computer and Learning Research Group’s annual conference in 2015.

9:30-9:45 Opening remarks Patrick McAndrew – IET Director (not blogged)
  Session I – Chair: Rebecca Ferguson
9:45-10:15 Eileen Scanlon

Collaboration and interdisciplinarity in Technology Enhanced Learning Research

  • I am an educational technologist – what is that?
    • – Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) (EU term)
    • – eLearning (also widely used)
  • Missionary zeal about working in TEL
  • Educationalist think they are teaching computer scientists about the real world
  • Computer scientists think they are teaching educationalists how to use computers “properly”
  • The trials of interdisciplinary work! E.g. even a term like “scenario” means different things to different disciplines
  • Need mediating artefacts – e.g. diagrams giving high level system view and function specification
  • The challenge of where to publish when undertaking interdisciplinary work and still score points for the REF (UK National Research Assessment Exercise that takes place every 7 years or so)
  • Are you really interdisciplinary? – It is hard to work this way however necessary and rewarding.
  • Eileen – shows photo of an EU project team and highlights the range of disciplines represented
  • Working with mutual respect even if have to suspend disbelief and work with the methods of another discipline
  • What is the difference between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary – suggests it is that new knowledge results from the collaboration specifically
  • When you start to look at the complexity of the infrastructure around TEL – bricolage (a tinkerer who works with the tools)
  • TEL is more than research informed products
  • Strategic Research Investment (“OpenTEL”)
  • The OU is investing in this area and in IET among other units – giving funding for additional PhD studentships.
  • Working with colleagues in KMi, Science, NPL, ….
  • Invitation for project ideas for interdisciplinary work to exploit this investment
  • Eileen will be continuing work on interdisciplinarity working with Josie Taylor (former Director of IET) who is returning as a consultant

Brief question time 

10:15-10:40 Mark Gaved, Iestyn Jowers, Gary Elliott-Cirigottis

Makespaces: distributed design studios for distributed design students?

  • A new project – it started yesterday!
  • Interdisciplinary project
  • Manufacturing is changing – globalisation – companies need to move quickly
  • EPSRC – call for “Re-distributed manufacturing”
  • Royal College of Art talks about “Makerspaces”
  • Easier to ship “bits” (digital data) than wood of steel
  • Project draws a network of involved parties together
  • Makespaces – e.g. community workshops with 3D printers as well as traditional wood/metal working skills and tools, knitting and fabric work, …
  •  Work towards personal goals, towards employment, …
  • The OU’s interest is that they teach design and need access to such facilities so that students can build prototypes
  • Informal and formal learning
  • Students have different objectives for their learning and therefore different objectives for accreditation
  • Students very interested in soft-skills
  • Design Dept. has small workshop where students can send in designs over the Internet and have prototypes manufactured
  • Project conducting a feasibility study
  • Working with workshops in Glasgow (MAKLAB) and Milton Keynes
  • Project objectives; 1. Identify key challenges; 2. Investigating models of collaborative learning and 3. Exploring forms of accreditation
  • 2 workshops this summer, the first at MAKLAB the second at the OU around accreditation
  • Case Studies – Students will design a full-sized chair and get it manufactured
  • Thinking about technical skills and communications skills

Brief question time 

10:40-11:05 Shailey Minocha, Steve Tilling, Tom Argles, Nick Braithwaite, David Burden and James Rock

Pedagogical advantages of 3D virtual field trips and the challenges for their adoption

[I am flagging as a live blogger so no notes made of this presentation] 

11:05-11:30    TEA/COFFEE
   Session II – Chair:Beck Pit
11:30-11:55 Annika Wolff

Smart tourists: Using mobile technology to close the gap between physical and conceptual neighbourhoods across cultural points of interest

  • Or “Mobile Technology to Support Tourism”
  • Museum  narratives:
    • – regions within the museum with a  thematic coherence
    • – temporal relationships
    • – conceptual path based
    • – notion of conceptual proximity
  • City Narratives
    • – things are more haphazard (cities have developed organically)
    • – physical coherence (you visit the place that is closest but not necessarily thematically related)
    • – e.g. Shakespeare and Stratford upon Avon but people also visit things not related to Shakespeare
  • Mobile devices can support tourist by:
    • – location services
    • – personalised tours and advise
    • (but people don’t necessarily want to be told where to go!)
    • – propose conceptual tour guide
      • how are things within the city related to each other (but no directive as to where to go)
  • Studies:
    • – 4 Square data – next venue checking data used to create
      • Bath, York and Stratford upon Avon (finding walking distances from Google Maps)
      • People have fairly predictable behaviour – usually nearest place next
      • Next phase to investigate conceptual coherence
    • – Control study (in Ambient Lab) investigating how guides effect behaviour
      • Virtual tour guides using QR codes
      • Preliminary results – 15/20 chose linear route; wanted to know how places were related; wish list for relationships
  • Summary:
    • – Physical and conceptual paths don’t align in city tours
    • – Tourists want to know how places are related but don’t necessarily want (or benefit from) following a physical coherent route
    • – Can be supported in discovering a city’s narratives through a conceptual tour guide

Brief question time 

11:55-12:20 Trevor Collins

Enabling innovation in technology-enhanced learning through co-research

[This presentation not noted because I had business elsewhere in the university]

12:20-12:45 Andrew Brasher, Ann Jones, Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, Mark Gaved, Eileen Scanlon, Lucy Norris

Designing and evaluating incidental learning

[This presentation not noted because I had business elsewhere in the university]

12:45-13:10 Mark Gaved, Richard Greenwood, Alice Peasgood

Location triggered language learning using beacons

[This presentation not noted because I had business elsewhere in the university]

13:10-14:00    LUNCH
   Session III – Chair:Liz Fitzgerald
14:00-14:25 Bea de los Arcos, Rob Farrow, Beck Pitt, Martin Weller

Building Understanding of Open Education: An Overview of the Impact of OER on Teaching and Learning

  • OER Hub – The Hewlett Foundation funded
  • Do people use OER differently than other online materials?
  • Data:
    • – Quantitative and qualitative used is dialogue
    • – 20+ surveys
    • – 60+ interviews
    • – Large-scale survey- 7498 respondents from 182 countries
    •  – 11% declare a disability
  • Does OER improve student performance and satisfaction?
    • – 40-50% respondents think yes
  • To what extent does “open” make a difference?
    • – 80% educators adapt OER to their needs
    • – 38% create their own resources
    • – but only 15% share them online with an open licence
    • – 27% have added a resource to a repository
  • Strong evidence that educators more reflective about their teaching when using OER
  • 60-70% students and educators think OER saves students’ money
  • and 45-50% think saves institutions money
  • 89% students us OER because it is free

Brief question time 

14:25-14:50 Lucy Norris, Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, Andrew Brasher, Ann Jones, Mark Gaved,

Eileen Scanlon, Jan Jones

Conducting a field trial in Milton Keynes: Lessons from the MApp

[This presentation not noted – cigar break!] 

14:50-15:15 Chris Douce, Dave Mcintyre and Jon William

TT284 Web Technologies: The tutor’s experience

  • Module teaches something of the “magic” behind the WWW
  • 4 Blocks from basics of HTML to Web Architecture, Mobile Content and Applications, and Managing Web Development Projects
  • Case studies based on running (as a sport)
  • Objective – to understand the tutor’s experience
    • – to identify their challenges
    • – to understand the connections between the different module levels
  • Methodology
    • – interviews with 14 interviews – but the tutors wrote the interview questions
    • – (had underestimated how hard qualitative research is!)
  • Initial findings
    • – “they would not shut up!”
    • – two types of students – little experience and lots of experience
    • – opportunity to develop skills in practice based computer programming – debugging, coding, algorithms,control structures, etc.
    • Block 2:
      • Javascript, PHP, SQL
      • Regular expressions
    • Not enough context about PHP (i.e. content management systems)
    • Mobile app tool (AppInventor) “an unnecessary diversion”
    • OU Live – differences of opinions and experience
    • In Manchester there is a cluster of Tutors working together
    • Using OU live to demonstrate code – shared screen
    • Using OU Live to record videos (how tos)
    • “Difficult to get students speaking” to each other – tactic stay silent or have an opener
    • iCMAs could be helpful
    • Generally like the tutor notes
    • Module teams really responsive

Brief question time 

15:15-15:35  TEA/COFFEE
15:35-16:00 Session IV – Chair: Canan Blake

Chris Edwards, Maria Luisa Perez Cavana

Improving language learning and transition into second language learning, through the Language Learning Support Dimensions (LLSD)

[This presentation not noted because I had business elsewhere in the university]


16:00-16:25 Elaine Thomas, Leonor Barroca, Helen Donelan, Karen Kear, Jon Rosewell

Diverse approaches to using online ‘studio’ based learning in Open University modules

[This presentation not noted because I had business elsewhere in the university]

16:25-16:45 Summary and End of Day 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s