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