Digital Literacy – An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief

recommendationsfinalcropped150-768x951
A new Horizon Project Report from NMC focuses on how classroom instruction/education can create digitally literate students (and by default staff).

NMC Releases Horizon Project Strategic Brief on Digital Literacy

“While institutions have become more adept at integrating emerging technologies, our survey data revealed that there is still a lot of work to be done around improving digital literacy for students and faculty,”

#EDCMooc – the view from the other side

By Hilary Griffiths

Now the dust has settled I thought it might be useful to post some thoughts on our EDCMOOC experience. Once a week educational technologists, students and academics had the opportunity to meet for a coffee, and to reflect on their experience of participating in a MOOC – these are some of the thoughts expressed during those meetings.

Only two or three of the group had participated in a MOOC before so it’s perhaps unsurprising that the most common reason for participation cited in the first meeting was curiosity – what exactly is it like to be a student on a MOOC?

The general impression after week 1 was one of feeling overwhelmed – both by the range of tools participants were directed to use, the percieved lack of explicit direction or course structure, and the amount of “noise” in the environment. Some participants struggled initially to make sense of how they were expected to use the tools (which were things like Facebook, Google +, and Twitter as well as in MOOC discussion fora.) One participant cited the fact that they didn’t want to have to sign up to Facebook or Twitter but through the ensuing discussion it became clear that given the number of participants you didn’t need to use all of the suggested tools, but could pick a couple you were most comfortable with and still get a good experience of the course.

It was interesting that the participants cited noise as adding to their feeling of being swamped by the MOOC – the sheer amount of information being uploaded, commented on, communicated, microblogged and hyperlinked to was overwhelming, especially if you arrived in a discussion or activity area some time after it had started.  Given the participants use a range of ways to filter and organise the information they receive in their life outside the MOOC, it telling that at least initially they did not seem to apply the same strategies within the MOOC.  Generally better ways to filter and surface activities was seen as key – along with some way of allowing late arrivals to jump in to activities  without having to wade through masses of information, for example a daily digest of key discussion board conversations to allow later arrivals to contribute to the current conversation more easily.

A concern from a current undergraduate student was the perceived lack of validation of her learning. Was she learning what she should be? Was her understanding correct? In the absence of feedback from the MOOC academics the student was relying on a validation by peer consensus in a course where a lack of academic rigour characterised many of the contributions.

My perception was that those who had the most enjoyable and engaged experience of the  MOOC engaged early and managed to form small, self supporting groups which helped reduce information overload and the lack of a present academic by filtering information, alerting group members  to things they may have missed and also offering feedback on their learning. Groups offered a way to move beyond the experience of the central discussion boards,  often characterised by a lot of posts but not a great deal of dialogue,  into an area where participants could start to develop a sense of the experience and expertise of the people they were communicating with. One benefit of the MOOC use of external social media like blogs and twitter are that these conversations can continue after the course has finished.  A final suggestion was that perhaps we should lobby for some kind of advisory service for students to consult before they sign up for a MOOC – MOOCAS anyone ?

Applying the Mumford method to report-writing

Philosopher Stephen Mumford has developed a process for writing academic papers, known as the Mumford method. It involves producing a summary of your argument in a very particular format, using this summary when speaking (both as notes for yourself and as a hand-out for the audience), refining it after feedback each time you present, and eventually writing up. It’s been used by professors through to a-level students and always sounded like a convincing idea.

I decided to try it out when working on a recent internal report on Open Education at Bristol, in collaboration with my colleague Jane Williams, and it worked well. We initially produced a handout, roughly in the format Mumford describes. After several iterations of this handout we used it as our plan for the final briefing paper.

Although we started with the Mumford method instructions, I made some small refinements for the slightly different circumstances. My summary was:

  • single-sided
  • landscape with 4 columns of 10pt text (as the points being made tended to be relatively brief)
  • sub-divided into section headings (these did not neatly fit with the 4 columns but that was fine)
  • produced in Google Drive to allow collaboration (this involved using a table for the columns – a little fiddly but workable)

We used this handout both for meetings with individuals and when presenting the paper at larger meetings for consultation, and it was very effective as an aid to discussion.

I was tasked with writing up and found I could relatively quickly write up the report based on the outline (which I had talked through many times by this point). Each of the four columns produced almost exactly one A4 page of relatively spare prose, more than I had anticipated. But the argument remained very clear and it was extremely easy to produce a summary of the key points, drawing almost directly from the handout. It’s definitely something I’ll use again.

Things we’ve been reading about

Things I’ve read in the last week:

Disrupting ourselves: The problem of Learning in Higher Education by Randy Bass.

If you have a spare 10 minutes read this article – it may offer a different perspective on the nature and causes of disruptive innovation in higher education.

ECAR study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology 2012 report

The findings included in the most recent ECAR report echo some of the priorities of our TEL strategy; the importance of supporting students to use their own mobile devices on campus, the need to use existing technology better (rather than “better technology”) and a focus on blending TEL with face-to-face teaching are all present. Interestingly in this US study staff  are decreasingly perceived as lacking the skills needed to use TEL effectively by their students.

Report on the 2012 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning by Ucisa.

The Ucisa survey offers a rare glimpse into longitudinal data on TEL activity in post-compulsory education in the UK.  Some things are surprising e.g.  the decline in the perceived importance of local “champions” to promote TEL and  separate e-Learning strategies to define and shape TEL provision.

Less surprising is that the top ranked drivers for TEL are:

  1. Enhancing the quality of learning and teaching
  2. Meeting student expectations.
Key factors in encouraging TEL development:
  1. Availability of TEL support staff
  2. Central university and departmental senior management support.

—Access to tools (2nd in 2010)  and availability of local champions (1st in 2008 and  2003) are no longer key  for TEL development. (Hilary)

 

 

Smart pens for worked examples – a new case-study

By Suzi Wells

There’s a new case study on our main site: worked examples using smart pens in biochemistry. As part of our e-pens pilot project, Gus Cameron in Biochemistry has been providing animated-PDFs with audio commentary for his students, showing how to work through questions.

The pens have proved easy to use and the materials well-received by students. It’s unfortunate that the PDFs produced are, because of their audio content, strictly-speaking not standards compliant. But they work fine in Adobe PDF viewer, which is freely available and standard for computers at Bristol. I’m not sure we’d recommend them to create a bank of re-usable learning materials but as a quick and easy way to create just-in-time materials, especially containing diagrams or notation, they seem very good.