Open University’s CALRG Conference 2015 – Notes Day 3Findings: #calrg2015

CALRG Annual Conference   17 June 2013 Day 3: Paper Presentations Jennie Lee Building, Ambient Lab
9:30-9:45	Opening remarks – Canan Blake
	Session V– Chair: Ann Jones
9:45-10:15	Helen Farley Making the Connection: eLearning and mobile learning for prisoners Project working on for the last 18 months Prisons are overcrowded Education reduced recidivism When  back in the work released prisoners will have to deal with the digital world Australia all time prison population high 34,000 Increasing number from non-English speaking backgrounds Asylum seeker Aboriginal prisoners 4% population but about 27% prison populations So project puts emphasis on Aboriginals Prisoners have no access to the internet and limited access to computers Have been offering education into prisons for about 25 years Use a Moodle based Learning Management System and eBook readers Restricted devices because of security concerns – leads to time consuming systems support etc. The prisoners like the dictionaries on the LMS for their Scrabble contests Can now send 2-3 DVDs to the prison educational centre to update server software EEE – eLearning, Empowerment and ??? Reverted to hard-book copy because not allowed to use eBook readers but then prison authorities suggested using tablets In 2012 44% tertiary students could not access the internet Project Scope – Also now in Victoria and Western Australia (with interest from other states) – Funded by Australian Government – Aboriginals half as like to finish year 12 school education – Now can been invited into a women’s prison Technology designed to be robust and easily maintainable Important after the project that everything does not just fall over Self marking quizzes, games, etc. but not blogs Now narrowed spec down to one laptop, one tablet and 1 notebook Moodle does not run well on the notebooks to introduced a HTML layer It’s not easy – system and processes are complex to ensure life after the project Now have an off-line authoring environment Course development environment deposits content into a repository – developed a compiler for this so isolation from internet maintained Educational officer can download courses for their institution It’s not just about the technology Looking at English for academic purposes courses – just a 10 week course so ok for prisioners with short sentences  Diplomas: – Arts – Business – Science Looking at incorporating OpenLearn courses Problems: – copyright – prejudice High level endorsement from the University and the Government Authorities Issues of getting funding for prisoner related work – so style it as not internet users on funding bids Brief question time
10:15-10:40	Anne Pike What makes the difference? Understanding the interactions and experiences of ‘at risk’ learner [This presentation not blogged]
10:40-11:05	Annie Bryan and Lisette Toetenel Designing for inclusion: Supporting disabled students at the OU Why design for inclusion? – OU’s mission – Equality Act (2010) Increasing number and proportion of disabled students (> 18,000, 14% in 2014) Legislation is a limited driver Beginning of a journey Increasing online curriculum Online deliver may or may not be more accessible – e.g. OU Live is problematic for many disabled students Satisfaction and pass rates are lower for disabled students Learning Design – should have a big impact if takes into account accessibility (provides visualisations that help analysis for access issues) SeGA (Securing Greater Accessibility)  – a cross university programme to embed good practice for inclusion in business as usual processes Method: – looked at all modules (200+) will accessibility information Analysed SeAM (end of module survey) data Findings: – modules in development might not yet have considered the accessibility issues 49 modules had Accessibility Guides – only 29 Accessibility Guides had specific information for the module concerned SeAM analysis – students value several key things: a supportive tutor special exam arrangements comb bound books … Module materials need to be provided in a wide range of formats Learner needs must be anticipated in the learning design – This aligns to the (mostly American) term of Universal Design It is difficult to measure how increasing number of disabled students is impacting on practice [Seale 1996] Brief question time
11:05-11:30	TEA/COFFEE
	Session VI – Chair: Doug Clow
11:30-11:55	Martyn Cooper Learning Analytics and Accessibility – what can be done and pragmatic considerations [I can’t live blog my own presentation but here is a link to the slides instead] Learning Analytics and Accessibility: http://www.slideshare.net/martyncooper/learning-analytics-and-accessibility-calrg-2015-mc
11:55-12:20	Jenna Mittelmeier, Bart Rienties, Denise Whitelock The Role of Culture in Student Contributions to an Online Group Learning Activity [This presentation was not blogged as I had to be elsewhere on campus]
12:20-12:45	Ann Jones Informal language learning with mobile technologies: reflections on three recent studies [This presentation was not blogged as I had to be elsewhere on campus]
12:45-13:10	Ann Grand, Richard Holliman, Helen Donelan, Peter Devine Linking research and practice: the evolution of “the snakes and ladders of social media” Defining the problem – what do we mean by engaged research? What does “public” mean? A definition that applies across the institution. Used the EDGE tool to identify the issues (a categorization of levels of engagement) Idea of an Open Research University (Profs. Eileen Scanlon and Martin Weller in IET) People start with a blank piece of paper Open/Digital/Engaged – Venn Diagram Are social media work for researchers? Should they work for researchers? The answers to these differ across the university – some parts have no digital presence at all!!! There are so many social media tools Describe an activity a public engagement with research – Very few units identified social-media as part of this Ideal types: – The fully wired – The unconvinced – The experimenter Throw away remark – “Let’s do a board game” -> The snakes and ladders of social-media You sit around, facing each other and talk and play Did a blog post about the game and then other’s got interested in it Used in PhD student workshops; public engagement ambassadors workshop; research Councils The game is a conversation tool Also work across a team to produce online resources – e.g. what is a a digital identity? Research and Scholarship Unit were not on the Web! Brief question time
13:10-14:00	LUNCH
	Session VII – Chair: Simon Cross
14:00-14:25	Katy Jordan Characterising the structure of academics’ personal networks on academic social networking sites and Twitter [This presentation was not blogged because it is not possible to convey the social-network diagrams in text.]
14:25-14:50	Anne Adams and Gill Clough The E-assessment burger:  Supporting the before and after in e-assessment systems [I was not present for this presentation.]
14:50-15:15	Tim Coughlan Creating Structures for Engagement with Open Knowledge: Interpreting the links between art and location in the ArtMaps project [I was not present for this presentation.]
15:15-15:40	Lucia Rapanotti, Canan Blake​, Jon Hall Enriched student context in online professional learning Not a research project but a perspective on evaluating a pedagogical approach Context: – Postgraduate professional computing courses – Students already in a rich context – let’s make use of it – Part of the evaluation of the learning occurs within their professional context – Module on Software Development M813 (there are two other modules as well) – Wide range of learning theories, principles, techniques for software development – Learning organised around fundamental software lifecycle [Diagrammatic overview of the course] M813 Evaluation Questions:  – To what extent does the rich context matter? Use specialised forums Data from formal assessment Tracking the leading-edge Organisation and Scope of the Forum: – Students discus privately with their tutor the sort of context they are in – Determine if their proposed project is suitable – Narrative ideas Analysis of the narratives: – We now know the sort of enterprises the students come from (not previously collected this data) – Many diverse sectors covered – 90% use real organisations with 80% being private – Usually students choose their own projects – 62% pass but completion rate high – pass rate not as high as wished for but consitant with similar modules Qualitative data: “Loved the project”; “Helped me to identify sloppy practices”; … One negative one: “Useless for me” “This is good in theory but it does not work in practice” – useful feedback to revise the course Does the new assessment model work? How is online learning working in this context? Consider the collaborative learning aspects of the course 100s of messages in dozens of threads Looking for evidence that they are making use of their professional learning in their group forum interactions Labour intensive research but no better (automated) way [Examples from the forums given] “Are real programmers a dying breed?” Initial categories of interactions: Greetings Like or don’t like Links Professional experience or work context Discussion of justified opinions … Going to follow Kerchner’s framework to look at affordances and other aspects in future work Big data but qualitative Much more to do! – But need to provide evidence that the modules are effective. Appeal for help from the “experts” in the audience Discussion – Could you use NLP methods to code the forums Coding (of forum posts) is a negotiated discourse A programme can go wrong very quickly Forum threads evolve Even in human coding need to work with more than one person doing the coding to get accurate/consistent coding Identify critical incidents (automatically?) then analyse in depth by human assessment [End of conference presentations]
15:40-16:00	TEA/COFFEE and Close of the Conference

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

Notes from CALRG Conference 2014

The Computers and Learning Research Group (CALRG) at the Open University (UK) has an annual conference.  Today and tomorrow is the 35th such conference.  This post is my notes on the presentations I attend (unfortunately I can not make them all).  There is a conference Twitter feed with hashtag #calrg14.  A temporary conference website is at: http://sites.google.com/site/calrg14/ with a link to the programme.

CALRG Annual Conference Day One – June 10 2014

Discussant: Prof Rupert Wegerif, Exeter University

9:30-9:45 OPENING NOTES

Patrick McAndrew (Director of IET) – Own experience over 16 years as an induction to the university.  A catch-up point.  Today the theme is mostly on Open Education.

Session I – Chair: Doug Clow

9:45-10:15 MOOCs, Learning Analytics and Higher Education: Perspectives on a recent study leave visit to the USA
Eileen Scanlon

• The Americans sometimes slightly hallucinate our experience of Ed Tech
• First stop – ACM Conference on learning at scale (single track)
•  Bestthing-keynotefromChrisDide, of Harvard. – “Newwineinnow bottles”
  • It is not about the platform but what you do on the platform
  • Use of metaphors from film
  • Going big requires thinking small
  • Micro-genetic studies of online learning
  • People had forgotten all the learning science previously done
• DistanceLearningOERs and MOOCs (Eileen’s presentation at conference)
  • The Open Science Lab
  • Edinburgh experience – professional development of surgeons
• Next stop Berkley (Invitational Summit of 150 people)
  • Impact on residential campus based universities
  • Relying on schools of education to measure student learning
  • ReflectiononEDX platform
    • Transforming the institution (MIT in this case)
    • Learn about learning
    • E.g. required physics course – group learning – lot of use of online assessment
    • Comparison of performance in MOOCs of those taking residential course versus those not
    • Drown in information if Google assessment of EDX
  • Simon initiative at Carnegie Mellon
    • AI and Cognitive Tutors
    • Broader than the institution
    • Global learning council
    • Spin out company called “Cognitive Tutors”
    • Individualized instruction seen as gold standard for education
• Then visited Stanford
  • TheLytics Lab (Learning Analytics)
    • Using learning science with open educational delivery
    • Moving from fragmented approach to systematic improvement of this type of pedagogy
    • CSCL (conversation) ->MOOC space
    • Scale of work in Stanford on MOOCs is staggering
    • Still individual academic driven
• Then various other conferences
• Future Learn Academic Network
  • Originally 26 partners now expanding and going more global
• ESRC proposal on future of higher education
  • Partners: OU, University of Edinburgh, Carnegie Mellon, Oxford University

10:15-10: 45 Squaring the open circle: resolving the iron triangle and the interaction equivalence theorem
Andy Lane

• Visual Models
  • How visualization can help with understanding/sense making
  • They can equally conceal
  • The Iron Triangle – sides: Scale, Quality, Cost
    • If one dimension changed significantly it will compromise others
  • John Daniel – open distance learning could break the iron triangle
  • Interaction Equivalence Theorem (EQuiv)
    • See: http://equivalencytheorem.info/
  • Supply-side vs demand-side (what about the students?)
  • Adding a circle of success to the iron triangle
  • A student centred iron triangle
    • motivation, preparation, organisation
  • A student centred Interaction Engagement Equivalence Theorem

10:45-11:15 Exploring digital scholarship in the context of openness and engagement
Richard Holliman, Ann Grand, Anne Adams and Trevor Collins

See: http://open.ac.uk/blogs/per

• Public engagement with a research mandate
• Research councils fund catalysts
• An “ecology” of openness
• Action Research [Lewin 1946]
• The Edge tool
• How do we find ways if assessing where staff are and then support them?
• Research Questions
  • What methods and technologies are researchers using to: make research public, make public research, enable the public to collaboratively research (citizen science)?
  • how do researchers conceptualize the role of students?
  • …
• Scholarship reconsidered
  • discovery
  • integration
  • application
  • teaching
• Awareness / Responsibility / Sustainability
• Institutional strategy for open, digital and engaged scholarship
  • What should we try to change?
• Types of researcher: the fully wired; the dabbler; the brave trier; the unimpressed
• “The Open Scholar is someone who makes their intellectual projects digitally visible …”
• Policies / Procedures / Practices

[The remaining  session of Day 1 I was not able to attend but the programme in included here]

Session II – Chair: Ann Jones

11:30-11:55 The OpenupEd quality label: benchmarks for MOOCs
Jon Rosewell

11:55-12:20 From theory to practice: can openness improve the quality of OER research?
Rebecca Pitt, Beatriz de-los-Arcos, Rob Farrow

12:20-12:45 Open Research into Open Education: The Role of Mapping and Curation
Rob Farrow

12:45-13:10 Strategies for Successful MOOC learning: The Voice from the World Record Breaker
Bernard Nkuyubwatsi
Session III – Chair: Rebecca Ferguson

14:00-14:25 The role of feedback in the under-attainment of ethnic minority students: Evidence from distance education
John T.E. Richardson, Bethany Alden Rivers and Denise Whitelock
14:25-14:50 Evaluating serious experiences in games
Jo (Ioanna) Iacovides
14:50-15:15 Social media for informal minority language learning: exploring Welsh learners’ practices
Ann Jones
15:15-15:30 TEA/COFFEE
Session IV – Chair: Inge de Waard
15:30-15:55 What students want: designing learning to optimise engagement in digital literacy skills development
Ingrid Nix and Marion Hall
15:55-16:20 Recording online synchronous tutorials to support learning
Pauline Bloss, Elisabeth Clifford, Chris Niblett and Elke St.John
16:20-16:45 Open Education needs Education for Openness: a dialogic theory of education for the Internet Age
Rupert Wegerif
16:45-17:00 Discussant – Rupert Wegerif
and CLOSE

CALRG Annual Conference – Day 2 – June 11 2014

Session V – Chair: Mark Gaved

9:40-10:05 ‘nQuire-it’: The design and evaluation of a mission-based web platform for citizen inquiry science learning
Christothea Herodotou, Eloy Villasclaras- Fernández , Mike Sharples

Notes from this presentation lost in the ether 😦

10:05-10:30 3D Virtual Geology Field Trips: Opportunities and Limitations
Shailey Minocha, Sarah-Jane Davies, Brian Richardson and Tom Argles

• Can do things unable to d in a real field trips – e.g. drape maps over mountains, see geological cross sections
• Us Unity 3D Game Engine to build a 10km x 10km area mapping and imaging the real world (around Skiddaw, England)
• Can pick up rocks and examine under microscope
• Includes a chat facility for tutor group communication
• Leave these tools out of the application so as not to compromise the immersion
• Addresses accessibility with transcripts and full keyboard only access
• Able to “fly” and “teleport” (on a real field trip a lot of time wasted travelling between sites)
• Avatar based environment
• Students use a paper based notebook as they would in the field
• Integrate the virtual microscope (existing facility) but now contextualized learning
• Cloud server can handle up to 500 students at one time

10:30-10:55 Juxtalearn: From Practice into Practice
Anne Adams and Gill Clough

• Large EU project
• Driver – not enough taking science and technology at school – employment implications
• Science and Technology engagement through “creative performance” and reflective learning”
• Threshold concept (TC)
  • Where students find challenges
  • When they get it it is transformative
  • Irreversible – not readily forgotten
  • Integrative – brings concepts together
• Learning Pathways and Threshold Concepts (different ways from introduction of concept to internalisation of it)
• Develop understanding through creative video making
• Tricky Topic Tool
  • Teachers identify tricky topic
  • Teachers create an example
  • Teachers write down student problems
  • Teachers fill in Taxonomy (linked to student problems)
    • e.g terminology, intuitive beliefs, incomplete pre-knowledge, …
• Taxonomy scaffolds quiz creation
  • Tool to facilitate this
  • Integrates detailed feedback to the student
• Demo

Session VI – Chair: Anne Adams

11:15-11:40 Citizen Inquiry: From rocks to clouds
Maria Aristeidou, Eileen Scanlon, Mike Sharples

• Citizen Science + Inquiry based Learning -> Citizen Inquiry
• Inquiring – Rock Hunters (Initial Study)
  • 24 participants
  • 12 rock investigations
  • discussion and feedback on chat and forums
  • Data collection – questionnaires, System Usability Scale [John Brooke, 1986], …
• [Note taking interrupted]

11:40-12:05 Imagining TM351 – Virtual Machines and Interactive Notebooks
Tony Hirst

• TM351 – New Level 3 30 point module on data
• Two new things:

1. Virtual machines (to overcome the diversity of machines being used by students)

• Interfaces increasingly browser based
• Virtual box installed on student machine and browser used as interface
• Virtual machine can be on cloud server – then can use on a tablet

2. Notebook Computing

• Literate programming / reproduce-able code or research
• Code should be able to be read as an essay (self documenting) – read well to human and executable by the machine
•  Can’t reproduce data analysis from traditional academic papers – reproduceable research includes the tools to enable this
• Using IPython
• Corollary to spreadsheets
• Task orientated productivity tools
• Cells
  • write text
  • uses “mark-down” simple text based mark-up
  • other cells contain python code
  • e.g. the software creates the table – avoids errors in production and editing
  • similarly with maps and paths
• IPython server in VM – interface in browser
• Exploring using OpenDesignStudio so students can share and critique each others code in executable form (see: http://design.open.ac.uk/atelier-d/cdi1.htm)
• Example shown

 

12:05-12:30 MASELTOV – mobile incidental learning services to support language learning and the social inclusion of recent immigrants
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme, Eileen Scanlon, Ann Jones, Mark Gaved

•  Using smart phones to support language learning
• Addressing those with low educational level and from different culture
• Incidental learning approach
• MApp: a range of services
  • Field local mapping
  • Social network
  • Information resources
  • Translation
  • Navigation guide
  • Language learning
  • Serious game
• These are separate apps but integrated in the platform
• High penetration of smart phone among target audience
• Technology uncertainty period
  • Many purchase phone ahead of travel
  • Android phones most popular
  • May have multiple phones
  • Seek out free WiFi
  • Word of mouth expertise highly valued
• Howdowe enable transition from problem solving to reflective learning?
  • relating immediate situation to broader context
  • Feedback and progress indicators
    • Study planning and goal setting
    • Indicating completion
    • Supporting sense of community
    • Building confidence
    • Gamified approach
    • Quizzes
• What evidence that this approach to language learning is effective?
• Are there clusters of tools use?
• Demo

12:30-12:55 Knowledge Transfer Partnership: Booktrust and the Open University
Natalia Kucirkova, Karen Littleton, Teresa Cremin and Laura Venning

• Ongoing project started this year
• KTP-objectives:
  • Extending book trust work on promoting reading for pleasure
  • Contribute to digital literacy
  • New knowledge and understanding of digital technologies and the opportunities they provide
• Synergy of two organisations
• Looking at books created on iPads (created by children or parents using words and images)
• The ability to search for meaning is enhanced by creating stories
• Book Trust:
  • Charity founded in 1920s
  • Encouraging reading for pleasure among children and families
  • Run book gifting programmes
  • Book-start – packs delivered by health visitors and via libraries
  • Reception year programme
  • Now seeking to develop the digital side of their work
  • Undertake research on reading habits and how reading contributes to peoples’ lives
  • Reading Habits survey 2013-14
    • 76% said reading improves their lives
    • More regular reading in higher socio-economic groups
    • Those encouraged to read aas children go to to be active reader and pass this on to their children – inter generational affect
    • 76% preferred physical books
    • 29% using ebooks
    • 56% think internet and computers will replace books in next 20 years (bias to younger audience)
    • Report available on web site (http://www.booktrust.org.uk/usr/library/documents/main/1576-booktrust-reading-habits-report-final.pdf)

Session VII – Chair: ?

14:00-14:25 Flipped teachers’ views of the impact of open practices on students
Beatriz de los Arcos

• Flipped teacher – move the instruction online more discussion and analysis in class
• Help with “homework” given by experts
• Survey of OER use by teachers and how impact on students
• “I do not treat this curriculum as mine – it belongs to the class and the world”
• http://sites.google.com/a/byron.k12.mn.us/stats4g
• Example of a learning activity on Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales – kids turned in 82% of homework on time
• OER enables new ways of teaching and learning
• How do we measure the success of the flipped model?
  • A lot of teachers respond to do with student motivation and engagement
• Most teachers informally adopt OER practice (e.g. uploading to You Tube) but don’t know about CC licenses etc.
• Does flipping with OER give a better “flip” than working with closed resources?

 

14:25-14:50 The pedagogical design, user profile and evaluation of a Mobile app to teach beginners’ Chinese characters
Fernando Rosell-Aguilar and Kan Qian

• Examples of tones in Chinese where same syllable means different things – but context means in practice mistakes not significant
• About 10,000 characters in common use with typically 12 strokes
• No space between characters to denote separation of words
•  Stroke order is important – but this also aids memory of characters – in Chinese primary schools they would chant this
• Pinyin (Roman letters) is used to teach pronunciation because no correspondence between character and pronunciation
• Grammar very simple (no past or future tense) – verbs stay the same – no plural singular
• Rationale
  • To provide an aid to learning
  • To raise profile of the introduction to Chinese course
  •  To fulfill KMi objective to produce revision aids
• Pedagogical design
  • Bite-sized learning
  • Progressive Learning 20 lessons must be taken in order
  • Integrating writing, listening, reading and vocabulary
  • Gaming feature
  • Personalised learning
• 4 Sections
• Challenges of working with App Developers
  • What can be done with what desired
  • Timing issues
  • Technical affordences vs pedagogy
• User profile and evaluation
  • More males than females (unlike other modern languages more males than females study Chinese)
  • Median Age 30-39
  • 91.9% describe themselves as beginners
  • 75% learning Chinese informally
  • Why learn Chinese:
    • Personal interest
    • Family ties
    • Non-Chinese living in China
    • Business use
  • False expectation of ability to learn fluent Chinese from app
  • App rated positively 86% very good or good
  • Good ratings for learning to write but better for learning to recognise characters
  • 82% app as additional to other learning but 18% using it as their main resource
• Conclusion
  • Met objectives towards a large degree but no evidence of people using the app then signing up for the course
  • Varied mix of users (gender, age, etc.)
  • Android version limited character set iOS more comprehensive
• App Chinese Characters First Steps – http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/chinese-characters-first-steps/id441549197?mt=8#

14:50-15:15 Models of Disability, Models of Learning, Accessibility and Learning Technologies
Martyn Cooper

My presentation so not noted but slides are available on SlideShare at: http://www.slideshare.net/martyncooper/models-of-disability-models-of-learning-accessibility-calrg2014

 

Session VIII – Chair: Canan Blake

15:30-15:55 Computer-marked assessment as learning analytics
Sally Jordan

• Using in iCMAs in teaching since 2000
• Ellis (2013) assessment often excluded from learning analytics but this is “stupid”
• Assessment give deep information about learner engagement
• Analysis at the cohort level
  • Look at questions that student struggle with (from hard data not student opinion)
• Example of graphic illustrating number of tries students take to get correct question answer in a maths assessment
• Look are reasons for repeated wrong answers
• Measuring student engagement – “750 students used my iCMA”
• iCMAs in formative use exhibit those that just click on it but don’t engage (about 10%)
• WhendostudentsuseiCMAs?
  • Strong bias towards cut-off dates
• Length of response to short answer questions – if say a word limit students tend to write near to that limit (see it as a hint)
• Student engagement with feedback – comparisons between students and comparison between modules
• Generally students do what they believe their teachers want
• Engagement with computer marked assessment can be used as a proxy for deeper behaviour
• Transcend the testing paradigm and see assessment for learning not assessment of learning

15:55-16:20 Open Essayist: Opening automatic support for students drafting summative essays
Denise Whitelock, John Richardson, Debora Field, Stephen Pulman

• The SAfeSEA Project, see: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/safesea/
• Present summaries of students essays back to students to facilitate their reflection
• Not tell students what to write (or what is right)
• Identifies Intro, Main Section, Conclusions, Keywords
• Generates different visual representations of the essay – one research question is what representations the students find most helpful
• Nodel graphs represent repeated notions
• Marked contrast between highly marked and low marked essays
• Nodes closer together in the better essays – vector length represents the connectivity between sentences
• In 2014 made available to students on MAODE, University of Herts and British University in Dubai
• Non-native speakers expressed found it very helpful
• A lot of students do not see how a computer system could help them with their essays

16:20-16:45 Findings from a survey of undergraduate use of mobile devices for OU study
Authors: Simon Cross, Graham Healing, Mike Sharples

• ePedagogies of handheld devices
• Document and analyse the patterns of use of OU students
• Align with other surveys – e.g. OU Student Survey
• Becoming a longitudinal study
• Modules like a Lego set – what students do with it may be different than intended and may be influenced by the technologies they use
• 82% students mobile phones, 50% tablets, 37% e-readers 8% none of these
• 30% bought tablet for OU study
• 16% bought e-reader for OU study
• Evolving data set – resource for future research
• Insights for module development
• Evolving survey instrument
• Evolving analytical framework
• Technology barriers -> learning barriers

16:45-17:00 CLOSE

No discussant today – shame because I like this feature of CALRG Conferences.

Why Educators Need to Know Learning Theory

I highly recommend the following blog post on Learning Theory: Why Educators Need to Know Learning Theory.

Personalisation for Accessibility (EU4ALL)

An animation illustrating the principles of personalisation for accessibility. Produced by the EU4ALL project in 2011.

JISC Digital Festival 2014 – Notes Day 1 (Cont…)

The other presentation I attended on day 1 of the festival was that given by Prof. David de Roure of the  University of Oxford.  He spoke on “Big Data for the Social Sciences“, which I hoped would be relevant to my own work on Learning Analytics.  This blog post is my notes from his talk.

How does technology get used in research?

-> What is this new “big data” and what does it tell us?

• Big data does not respect disciplinary boundaries
• Data has been around a long time
• There is a lot of “hype” around big data that has led to inflated expectations of it
• Can consider 2013 as the year we sort to define big data and 2014 the year we begun to use it effectively
• It is big data because of both the velocity and volume of the data being generated
• “Data deluge” is now a phenomenon across the disciplines
• In the past analysis moved from the universities to business, now it is from the business world to the universities.
• There is  huge unsatisfied demand for “data scientists”
• Mores Law vs The Big Social

• We use digital tools because it is the ecosystem – Research 2.0
• What is the relevance of Social Science to Big Data?
  • We need to think through the implications
• RCUK’s definition of “big data” is: big enough that we can’t deal with it as we did before
• Why do we want it?
  • To do things in new ways
  • To do new things
  • e.g. Twitter data – we can look at the evolution of social processes in real-time
• We need the expertise of those from classical Social Science
  • e.g. food vs consumption
  • can obtain new data from new sources (e.g. supermarket loyalty cards)
• We can use different data sets to correlate
• Real-time uses of big data, e.g. Twitter
  • spread of infectious diseases
  • riots
• Visualisation can lead to better analysis
• Underpinned by available infrastructure
• Wikipedia is an example of  a social medium
  • behaviorally it is socially constructed
  • different in different countries/languages

— end —

Internal project proposal: Learning Analytics for Disabled Students in STEM subjects

I am currently working on an internal project proposal: Learning Analytics for Disabled Students in STEM subjects (LA4DS-STEM). Hopefully it will run from April – December 2014.

The LA4DS-STEM project will review the potential of Learning Analytics in higher education, specifically in STEM, and with an emphasis on supporting disabled students and facilitating accessibility enhancements.

Learning Analytics is defined as the measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimising learning and the environments in which it occurs.  The LA4DS-STEM project will specifically explore the following STEM application areas for Learning Analytics. A key output of the project will be an external funding bid for a larger-scale collaborative project. The work of LA4DS-STEM will inform pilots in this project. Provide envisaged benefits are confirmed, this should lead to enterprise level implementation within the OU and across HE.

The findings of the LA4DS-STEM project will be disseminated, firstly throughout the Science and MCT faculties, then to the wider university. External dissemination will highlight the OU’s lead in this field.

JISC Digital Festival – Notes (Day 2)

I have spent most of the morning interacting with reps of the various exhibitors here.  Now to rest my legs I have settled down in Hall 1 for the keynote by  Sugata Mitra, Prof. Of Educational Technology at Newcastle University.

Notes from Keynote

Sugata was the originator of the ‘Hole in the Wall Experiment‘. He plans to review the last 15 years of work and review trends.

The hole in the wall experiment

ATM like computer  in a hole in the wall. They (the slum kids in New Dehli) did not know English and the interfaces were in English. Street children were browsing within 6 to 8 hours and teaching each other.  Conclusion groups of children left with a computer would reach the level of the average office secretary in the West in about 9 months. [Video shown of this work].

The children’s achievement of their proficiency happened because not despite of the absence of an adult teacher/supervisor.  After 4 to 5 months the teachers reported that their English was much improved. Discovered they were using a search engine to find quality content and copying it down on to paper. Question – why we’re they copying down the right things?  They seemed to know what they were writing.  Then gave them educational objects.  Working in groups they seemed to be able to locate the right information and select it.  Groups of children could reach educational objectives of their own if they wished to. People supposed that when got to in depth learning or skills acquisition they would need human intervention. However, could not find the limits of this learning.

In England turned the hole in the wall upside down. Created the chaotic environment of the hole in the wall inside the clasroom with just a few computers. Made up some rules: free discussion and free movement allowed. In period 2008-2010 this led to the descriptor of self- organising learning events. E.g. For 7 year-olds “why is a polar bears coat white”.  Given the the choice between a hard and easy question the children opted for the harder questions. They were able to do GCSE questions about 6 to 7 years ahead of time. Called these Self Organising Learning Environments (SOLE).

In other countries around the world similar results.  C.F emergent phenomena or self ordering or spontaneous order in the Natural Sciences.  Tested limit of this method in Southern India. Research Question: can 11 year-olds learn the process of DNA replication?  Experiment was a failure but the students self studied why DNA replication sometime went wrong causing disease.  Pre and post testing showed those working 10 years ahead of their time. Used a non scientist and the method of the grandmother.  Using an older adult to stand behind and encourage.

[Slides: Schools in the cloud]

Constructing 7 pilots trying to level the playing field in primary education comparing India with UK.

Q&A

Experience with older students?  – Used to think method applied to ages 6 to 14 but beginning to show that it is not restricted to this. Experiences reported with 16-18 year olds, in FE and he is using SOLE approaches in his university courses.

Random Quotes from JISC Digital Festival 2014

Here are a few random quotes I noted down while at the JISC Digital Festival 2014 in Birmingham this week. Apologies for when I didn’t note who said them.

Academics need to stay on top of the analytics movement and not get pushed around by it!
[Anon]

A related to the above:

How does technology get used in research -> What is this new “big data” and what can (can’t) it tell us?
[Prof. David Rowe, Oxford University]

From a different perspective:

Research and Teaching have now diverged at the Universities
[On Twitter]

From the presentation by the originator of the “Hole in the Wall Experiment!:

Children will learn to do what they want to learn to do!
[Sugata Mitra, Prof. Of Educational Technology at Newcastle University]

I will add to these as I review the archived talks that I did not attend which you can do by going to: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/events/jisc-digital-festival-2014-11-mar-2014/expert-speakers

Notes from JISC Digital Festival (Day 1)

I attended the JISC Digital Festival in Birmingham, UK.  This blog post is a set of notes from Day 1 (11-March-2014).

Keynote – Diana Oblinger (CEO Educause)

“Why are we still talking about this digital stuff?”

It is about 25 years since we moved from the analogue world to the world of society, education and work being based on digital computing technologies. But we still use the term “digital” because either we see it as something special or we get concerned about “man vs machine”.  It is not just about digital – it is about demographics. In US only 17% of learners are traditional college students. Many are now studying as adults who may not have previously had a positive educational experience.  This changes what we need from education and “how” we deliver that education.

Engagement

When you are engaged you learn better – leading to the hypothesis that face-to-face is always the best solution. But face-to-face often just presents text on a screen (a board or projector screen). However, digital technologies allow greater interaction between students and between them and data about what they are  investigating. We want to promote deep learning and develop skills through practice.  In these online practice environments not only is there student activity but there is data coming back from the students’ interaction. When have massive amounts of data can begin to realise the long-held goal of personalised learning.  This can lead to adaptive learning systems.

Student Empowerment

There are different types of students.  Two example profiles:

1. ROI Skeptics – not sure education will be worth the effort; external barriers; lack of vision; juggling work and family etc.
2. Highly motivated students who always expected a college (university) education

Students need help with their complicated lives to be able them to give education the right priority. Case management – dealing with the student holistically; early alert programmes (for e.g.) have significant and lasting impact. Some students are blissfully unaware that they might be at risk of failing the course. Here lies a potential for learning analytics. However, beyond that teachers need support on how to deliver those messages to the student, e.g. mobile phone text message? (BTW 43 words seems to be about the right length of message.)

Too much choice can be the enemy of student success if they choose courses they are not prepared for or at too high a level for where they are in their studies.  (C.F. consumer choice problems).  Software tools are emerging to address.  Example shown of a tool for students and their advisers as they seek to support them and their choices.

Alternative Models

IT in education can spawn over complexity and disorientation.  Interconnected elements:

• Mission
• Market
• Margin

Part of this is coming from outside our institution – e..g. MOOCs; large-scale commercial educational providers.  Many customers (students) feel they are over-served by the traditional university system. Now a big puss on competency based education – prove you have particular skills irrespective of where you acquired them.  However, current IT systems just focus internally to the educational establishment.

Time is an opportunity cost.  Example “Direct to Degree” from University of Kentucky, enabling students to rapidly acquire a degree and reach their employment goals. If students never go to campus where do you provide their support? Another example from College for America that provides the support in the workplace. Can be low-cost models – e.g. 1 student completed degree in 3 month at cost of $1,350.

There is lots yet to do in the digital environment.  Need to design from the digital and with man & machine not man vs machine in mind.  A great frontier for all of us.

Three questions:

1. What does it take to exceed expectations in this digital world?
2. What capabilities (personnel, budget, skill) are required to deliver the value from IT?
3. How do we optimise for a digital future??? – Answer yet to be told!

 Image credit: http://www.livebinders.com/play/play/759398

Response and Reflections on keynote

Prof. Paul Curren VC at City University

Was in a situation of ailing IT and with many mismatch between demand and supply issues.  (Here the focus is on education not research or admin. but had to address all three). How to develop a personalised experience for the students and enable academic staff to give the support they want to provide?  Further, how do we enhance the educational experience? How can we do this in the context engendering a community experience. City has multiple campuses now.

Trying to achieve a clear vision (2016) of where wanted the university to be.   Investing in academic staff, IT and estate.  Focused on having sector leading IT areas in education.  In 2010/11 large IT service, 142 IT staff, £ 14.6 million budget.  But, very devolved, often software developed in-house and not fully documented and big problems occurred when staff move on.

Formulated a strategic plan with projects each under a PVC.

• Engaging IT services around the student (e.g. brought in Moodle, Office 365) and organised around the concept of “The One City”.
• Sourced commodity from external suppliers
• Now spending less on IT, less staff but more junior staff at the coal-face and less IT managers
• Standard high quality equipment in the student spaces
• Listened to what students, staff and professional services members wanted
• Moved core services to a central base in London

Where are we now?:

• The student registration system now stabilised
• Monitor student access to Moodle to check on student engagement (reduced drop out rates)
• Early initiation to ensure things were scalable and multi-platform (including mobile to enable work while travel)
• Provided easy access to student records
• Using the big providers (e.g. SAP) linked to increasing in-house skills
• IT staff now viewed differently – previously seen around their skill base (e.g. UNIX) – now seen around their relationship management and knowledge of integrating systems

Challenges for staff:

• Academic staff need to move seamlessly between a “digital” and “real” world – provided a lot of training
• IT staff – understanding their new role around the user/systems integration – again investment in training
• Outsourcing and agreeing the boundaries

Conclusions

• On a journey
• Downtime reduced
• Student Satisfaction Scores with IT increased

Martyn’s reflections

The key points that stood out for me from these two linked presentations were:

1. We need to accept digital as being here and now and move to a “Man & Machine” mindset and not a “Man vs Machine” one
2. Systems integration is key and outsourced systems are often the cost-effective way to go
3. IT support staff need to see their role as focussed on the users (students, academics, admin staff, management) not on a particular area of technology that forms the core of their skill set
4. It’s a ‘win-win’ situation of better services at lower cost that is achievable this way

A personal reflection from me:

The IT systems should be the servants of the educational, support and management processes not the other way round!