Moodlemoot 2016 –
How can decentralising teaching
materials in Moodle amplify the tutor
voice and enhance student
engagement? Practical experiences
from an online theatre studies
programme at a small specialist HEI
Jayne Richards – Programme Director,
Theatre Studies Online
David Matthews – VLE Development Manager
Introduction
RBC’s online Theatre Studies programme was designed in 1996 as correspondence course - in 2008 we transferred
from paper to DVD and in 2010 moved towards online delivery.
Our initial uses of Moodle allowed us to create an electronic storage space and a portal for submission and feedback.
Correspondence mode = andragogical model of learning.
We need to embrace not only new technologies but new pedagogical approaches to higher education per se.
Beginning with Moodle we had to consider:
•
•
•
its pedagogic function and opportunities for improving “equivalence” and / or “parity” with the campus-based
programmes;
creating flexible pedagogy [Ryan and Tilbury 2013] championing the part-time / distance route through HE:
promoting learner empowerment, creating future-facing education, decolonising education, emphasising process
and transformative capabilities, crossing boundaries and social learning.
how Moodle’s claims of “promot[ing] a social constructionist pedagogy (collaboration, activities, critical reflection,
etc)” be achieved in practice?
In this presentation we will explore some of the ways engaging with Moodle has encouraged us to explore new
directions and challenge some of our previous assumptions about stakeholder engagement and best practice.
Phase 1
Curating learning materials within a central space makes it easier for students to move between items.
In the first instance, each module page showcased the core learning materials and included links to course documents and submission portals. We also added
direct links to the College’s Learning Resources Centre thus widening range and access.
Forums were added but in the first instance these were not formally embedded in the learning process.
Pages were too heavily set out so much remained “below the fold” and were ungainly to navigate.
Content was largely text based and managed centrally.
Our first phase uses of Moodle simply re-presented our correspondence style materials in a virtual format. This model of learning generates a linear journey
where feedback loops are limited.
The tutor has no control over content other than to assess students’ written responses to it.
It would be inappropriate to attempt to make comparisons with the wide range of learning activities and experiences campus-mode students enjoy but this phase
was clearly a development both technologically and pedagogically from correspondence mode.
assignment
and feedback
• learning
materials
assignment &
feedback
• learning
materials
• learning
materials
assignment
and feedback
assignment
and feedback
• learning
materials
• learning
materials
assignment
and feedback
Assignment
and feedback
• learning
materials
• learning
materials
assignment
and feedback
Role of teaching and learning materials
Correspondence mode ?
Online Mode ?
The impact on the tutor
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The key move in Phase 2 was repositioning the role of the learning materials. In
•
correspondence mode materials assumed
almost “biblical” importance.
The specialist tutor became the nexus of each module taking ownership and control by
introducing their own supplementary material.
This promotes negotiated learning and significantly sharper focus on the function of activities,
strategies for learning and the range of uses of specific online learning tools.
We embedded greater flexibility for individual learner types by adding “viewing” and “listening”
materials as separate “rooms” which the module tutor could populate and develop.
The composition of the module and indeed the learning experience became more fluid and
responsive to the needs of not only individual learners but the module group – and tutor.
Tutors had a means to build in project-based, case-based, problem-based as well as product
based learning through developing activities.
In addition, thought was given to how students might navigate the programme and visualise their
journey. It is essential not to assume familiarity with processes but to “help people learn “how to
learn.” [Roseburg].
As with all technologies users evolve their modes of engagement through use.
From a developmental perspective, Moodle, in and of itself, provides a technical standard or
baseline that is common to staff and students.
In adopting a responsive skin for the VLE, we sought to acknowledge the growth in ownership
and usage of a variety of devices among students. Whilst reaching toward “device agnosticism”
[Marcotte, 2010], we still acknowledge that Moodle behaves better with some desktop browsers
than others. Current web design trends appear to favour scrolling rather than clicking and
layouts with modular card-style design [Oliver, 15]..
College’s
central
resources
written
resources
learning
Materials
Tutor
links to
online
resources ,
RSS Feeds
visual
resources
The impact on the
Student
While there needs to be a clear programme-level aims for using
Moodle how individuals choose to arrive at these goals will be
singular to them.
Focussing on skills and reflection means the learner is constantly
auditing their progress and identifying practices that work for
them.
By learning how they learn, students are demonstrating and
regulating their own behaviour. Moodle and web-based learning
promotes opportunities for student-led unstructured projects as
well as tutor-led structured group activities.
The singular processes of navigation promote focus on students’
individual “identity and authenticity” as central to their learning
experience. [Cambridge, 2010].
e-learning per se is becoming more personalised as apps are
developed and possibilities of using Moodle via mobile systems
increases. [Kukulska-Hulme and Traxler, 2007].
Students spend the much of their learning time working
independently and Moodle allows them to engage with their
studies regardless of whether or not they are home or on the
move.
Learning can be decentralised but coalesce: not through a locked
down terrain of activities but by encouraging sorties into new
territory. In this sense the software has become a key aid to
creative and autonomous study.
Making better use of College and online resources through
Moodle has contributed to the growing visibility of online students
Developments in portability have increased opportunities for
chunked learning. As an online and responsive delivery
mechanism, Moodle has also amplified the currency of the
programme.
P
e-portfolio
software
Webinars
College
central
resources
Written
resources
Learning
Materials
Tutor
Links to
online
resources ,
RSS Feeds
Visual
resources
The impact on the Administrator
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10 years ago = still sending out materials and receiving assignments by post. Today, electronic delivery via Moodle means that
updates and amendments to core materials can be completed over the course of the year and a new set of module pages
generated in the back ground ready for release.
Adding flexible material = limiting the scale of the core materials that administrators need to deal with. As a result of
decentralising, the programme is become increasingly bespoke - as individual to the specific cohort as for attendance mode
courses.
Submitting assignment via Moodle has improved submission rates significantly and the formality of the written receipt seems to
encourage a disciplined approach.
Moodle also makes it much easier to address problems as they arise, e.g. a student who has uploaded the wrong file can be
assisted immediately. Compare this with the student who sends the wrong document through the post.
There are efficiencies to be made through online working: no need to drag paper files around or put off completing coursework.
Employing Moodle’s user engagement statistics we are able to take a proactive stance on student support.
New technologies act as an enabler and a leveller by creating a tangible environment – shared by others.
Our use of Moodle, from a web design perspective, has improved: we think more carefully about what should appear, how and
where. Establishing College-based “minimum standards” for Moodle has helped in this regard, as has general organic sharing of
good practice.
Meanwhile Moodle itself continues to improve (e.g. the current file picker) and ways e-learning per se is becoming more
personalised as apps are developed and possibilities of using Moodle via mobile systems increases.
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Using Moodle or any other form of e-software needs to have clarity of pedagogical purpose that extends beyond the technical
skills needed to engage with the system as an interface. It is important to focus on what it does rather than merely what it is and
emphasise the responsibility of all stake holders in contributing to this.
While goals towards key outcomes need to be clearly specified for all stakeholders by using Moodle the complex feedback loops
generated by sharing and exchange between users ensures that its collective function will evolve to meet specific needs.
Attention needs to be paid to the “value-added” offered by e-technology [Light et al]. Not only does TEL place emphasis on
process rather than product, its a-linearity and evolutionary nature creates hypertexts which encourage “multifarious ways of
thinking” essential to the nature of degree-level learning.
Students spend the bulk of their learning time working independently and Moodle provides a means by which they draw their
studies together. In this sense it becomes a key aid to autonomous study. Recent year-on-year completion statistics for the
programme are at 98% - on a par with our full-time programmes and 46% above those of the Open University [Simpson].
The facility TEL has for sharing work with others generates an openness to processes of study and forms a discreet level of peerto-peer learning which has yet to be explored more fully by the programme team. This is most clearly evidence in tasks set
around crowd sourcing and use of the forums.
There will always be comparisons to be made between what is possible through actual participation and what virtual participation
can offer. Similarly, with the social dimension of learning in mind, neither Moodle or e-conferencing are not a simple solutions to
removing the distance for distance learners. These considerations raise questions as to whether there is any purpose in
attempting to create parallel “campus-style” experiences for online students or whether such attempts simply draw attention to
characteristics of difference and perceived loss. Students choosing the distance route do so because of the advantages it offers
them for flexible learning.
Input
reading
Tutor
responses
Performing
Person
variables
Case
based
Learning
materials
Product
based
Learning
modes
Curating
Project
based
Task
variables
Tutor
Resources
Journals
Challenging
Teaching
platform
Contextualising
Learning
platform
Moodle
Administration
Presentations
Managing
gateway
Web quests:
Tutor designed
structured
Preparing
Administrator
Peer
learning
Web
learning
Monitoring
Solo learning
Web projects:
student designed
unstructured
Research
based
Supporting
Forum
activities
Guiding
e-portfolio
software
Research
Scaffolding
Strategy
variables
Coursework
Reflection
Testing
Metacognition
Crowd
sourcing
Problem
based
Tasks and
exercises
Practice
based
Webinars
Negotiated
learning
Archiving
Practical learning
Group learning
Organising
Bibliography
Agnes Kukulska-Hulme and John Traxler, “Designing for mobile and wireless learning” in Helen Beetham and Rhona Sharpe, Re-thinking
Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).
Bates, Simon, et al, “How Design of Online Materials Can Accommodate the Heterogeneity in Student Abilities, Aptitudes and Aspirations.”
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 2, 2007-8. Pp 3-26. Gloucester: Park Place Press. 2008.
Beetham, Helen and Rhona Sharpe (Eds.). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning. London and New York:
Routledge, 2007.
D.S. Chappell & J.R. Schermerhorn, “Using electronic student portfolios in management education: a stakeholder perspective.” Journal of
Management Education, Vol. 23, pp.651-662.
Marcotte, Ethan. “Laziness in the time of responsive design”. Opening keynote: Generate NYC, 2014. Available at
https://teamtreehouse.com/library/opening-keynote. [Accessed: 28.2.16]
McLinden, Michael. Flexible Pedagogies: part-time learners and learning in higher education. [Flexible Pedagogies: Preparing for the Future].
York: HEA, 2013.
Oliver. “12 key web design trends for brands”. Available at http://www.oliver.agency/en/news/12-key-web-design-trends/ [Accessed: 28.2.16]
Penn Light, Tracy, Helen L. Chen & John C. Ittelson, Documenting Learning with e-Portfolios: A Guide for College Instructors (San Fransico:
Jossy Boss, 2012).
Rosenburg, Marc J. e-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Rowntree, Derek. Preparing Materials for Open, Distance and Flexible Learning: An Action Guide for Teachers and Trainers. London: Kogan
Page, 2002.
Ryan, Alex and Daniella Tilbury. Flexible Pedagogies: New Ideas.[Flexible Pedagogies: Preparing for the Future]. York: HEA, 2013.
Levine, S.Joseph. Making Distance Education Work: Understanding Learning and Learners at a Distance (Michigan: Learner Associates, 2005).
Simpson, O. Centre for Distance Education, University of London. Email correspondence with the author, 2013.
“Either this is going to be boring or very
good. My guess/hope is very good, I'm
curious in how decentralising actually
enhances engagement”...
Moodlemoot anonymous peer reviewer
[email protected]
[email protected]