CSCS Leeds Met hypermedia.doc

Leeds Metropolitan tech-supported learning environments case study

 

 

This Case Study has been authored by Stuart Hirst who can be contacted by e-mail

 

Explanation and further information

 

The course/module delivered was called Hypermedia Authoring Systems. This elective module was studied at level 2, by students who wished to increase their skills in being able to develop multimedia web sites which potentially included sound, video and animation (as appropriate). These students were, typically, studying for a degree in Business Information Management, Business Information Systems or Business Information Technology and had already completed modules which developed generic skills in Web Site authoring and development.

 

1. Why did you use this e-learning approach?

 

 

In previous year deliveries, there had been 1 hour lecture and 1.5 hours lab time. I wanted to integrate the more formal theory with its practical application and so chose to lose the lecture time and be allocated 2 hours lab time per group within the module cohort. The labs were equipped with a networked PC for each student to use and 1 PC for use in teaching. This was both networked and had projection facilities for all students to view screen content.  I wished to move to an approach more akin to “coaching”.

 

 

Describe what you wanted to be able to do and how you did it, and give details here of factors which were influential in your decision-making, for example:

 

The Learning Outcomes to be addressed were that "on completion of the module each student should be able to":

 

1. critically evaluate, assess and recommend appropriate software and authoring tools in order to provide an appropriate multimedia development environment in a range of contexts;
2. understand the theoretical underpinning of digitisation of audio and video and timeline-based animation;
3. demonstrate the ability to combine multimedia components to produce a coherent multimedia Web site;
4. research content and subsequently design, develop and implement a multimedia Web site suitable for intranet and/or internet use in order to support and complement an organisation’s requirements;
5. manage the production lifecycle (specification, design, evaluation) in the context of a realistic environment.

 

 

Students had found it difficult to demonstrate their application of theory and so the learning design was intended to integrate formalised lecture theory with its application and more clearly support students in formative feedback. The assessment was a practical project on a subject of the student’s choice (but subject to academic approval).

 

The university currently has WebCT Campus Edition as its VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) but is in the early development stages of utilising it to complement face-to-face teaching in what many call Blended Learning. I wished to explore how face-to-face teaching could be effectively blended with online support from our VLE and begin to use complementary facilities and approaches in what might be termed more accurately an MLE (Managed Learning Environment). Given that all face to face contact with students was to be in labs equipped with networked PCs and these students were computer and web literate, the opportunity existed to explore this new environment to ascertain the benefits and difficulties.

 

The departmental requirement for minimum use, by staff, of the VLE was that they should provide module description and assessment requirements on-line. There was no policy, even institutionally, concerning how WebCT should complement the face-to-face teaching and learning. At best, it was a place where staff placed PowerPoint and Word files and there was no thought that use of e-Learning might provide Learning and Teaching opportunities which had never existed before.

 

There was no strong pedagogical design implicit in the development of the delivery of this module. It was already the case that the assignment was intended to assess the learning outcomes. I had an awareness of Gilly Salmon’s methodologies concerning on-line discussions and activities and this was to be a test of proof of concept. Given the students had weekly face-to-face contact, this always provided opportunity for problem resolution if it occurred.

 

• The university had neither centralised nor localised support in the form of Learning technologists or Instructional Designers.
• There was no guidance available to staff concerning Web Site Design methodologies
• If any staff member invested time in VLE development, it was essentially their own with no other benefits outside teaching their module.

 

 

2. What was the context in which you used this e-learning approach?

 

 

At the time of module delivery, Leeds Metropolitan University  had approximately 38000 (16000 FT/22000 PT) students. There were 6 faculties on 4 campuses with 16 schools and 3100 staff. Essentially, this is a face-to-face, vocational, campus university. This module implementation took place within the School of Information Management which had 1100 FT/500 PT students. WebCT history was:

• January 2001 –administrator appointed

• May 2001 – version 3.1

• Sept 2001 – version 3.5 (trial courses online)

• September 2002 - 3.8 Campus edition

• September 2003 - 4.0 Campus edition

 

 

The course, Hypermedia Authoring Systems was in it’s third year of delivery and was now well established. Typically there were about 60 students in each annual cohort and all were computer literate. I had been module leader since course inception with either one or two colleagues supporting lab based support. Recently, student motivation had been seen to be decreasing and attendance becoming a problem at lectures. The challenge of this e-Learning approach was that there was little innovative activity elsewhere in the university with which to compare. Design, implementation and support would be totally my own!

 

 

3. What technologies and/or e-tools were available to you?

 

 

Within WebCT I could deploy:

 

Assignments, Calendar, CD-ROM, Chat, Compile, Content Module, Discussions, Glossary, Image Database, Index, Language Selector, Mail, My Grades, My Progress, Organizer Page, Quizzes/Surveys, Resume Course, Search, Self Test, Single Page, Student Homepages, Student Presentations, Student Tips, Syllabus, URL, Whiteboard.

 

However, none of this seemed satisfactorily integrated. I decided to use Dreamweaver as an html authoring tool to completely change the WebCT interface and use a metaphor for delivery of the learning journey. That of a sailing ship (the Titanic to be specific). (The only reason that Titanic was used was the availability of copyright free materials from "Encyclopedia Titanica" website). The intention was to give the students an impression of time and space. The WebCT tools would be mapped onto a graphical representation of the First Class Deck of the ship and over the period of 12 weeks of module delivery, the homepage would be changed and other features introduced to represent the passage of time on the voyage. Other packages for multimedia development were also used (Photoshop, etc.)

 

The initial homepage in week 1 looked like this:

 

 

 

 

4. What was the design?

The design was intended to emphasise the collaborative and communication tools whilst providing a repository of resources which would have, in the face to face situation, be delivered in lectures. Within the first week, students engaged in a formative assessment in the form of an electronic jigsaw. Once completed, there were hidden images of endangered animals. Each member of the group had to choose one, research it on-line and create a single webpage providing information about their chosen topic. The whole group had to submit an integrated website for all their chosen animals. This provided an excellent revision opportunity on their use of Dreamweaver and year 1 topics.

 

 

Ultimately, I was the only one creating my design but I used the students as a regular sounding board for reaction and direction.

 

I consciously attempted to draw from the Gilly Salmon model of e-moderating and support of discussion groups but had no previous experience of this. The learning activities were designed to provide students with opportunity to test their technical skills through formative feedback before implementation within their own individual project. All students, throughout their development phase, were viewable by their peers. This provided unexpected competitive impetus and seemed to encourage the students to be more innovative in their exploration of the technology.

 

 

If you wish to take a look at the module (already stripped out of a lot of the student detail to preserve privacy <CLICK HERE>. No password or User Id required).

 

 

5. How did you implement and embed this e-learning approach?

It was important to provide students with information at all stages of implementation. Before starting the on-line module they were told:

 

Important information

I am trying an alternative approach to teaching Hypermedia Authoring Systems during 2003.

I hope it is successful but if, at any time, you do not think it is working please let me know.

Stuart

Overview of WebCT for this module

This is a module with a practical emphasis. Lecture attendance in previous years has sometime been problematic. This year, therefore, there is only one lecture session in week 1. During this first week you should ensure you have:

1. Collected all handouts from the lecture: module guide, Dreamweaver revision, Fireworks and Flash lab work, Fireworks and Flash reference manuals
2. Collected the supporting CD-ROM from Grange help desk (it includes all module content, useful software and examples of student work from previous module deliveries)
3. Familiarised yourself with this module in WebCT and ensured access from both on and off campus (if you are likely to use it like this)

---

An existing problem with WebCT is that only registered students of a module can see its contents. I have solved this problem by placing all HAS content (lecture and lab materials) at a URL on the LMU intranet:

http://www.lmu.ac.uk/local/ies/im/people/hirst/has/

& made links to content and downloadable materials from within WebCT. You are therefore accessing 2 servers (WebCT & LMU intranet).

If you do this from off-campus, you will be prompted for a UserId & password again as soon as you access Module Content or Resources from the WebCT Course Menu.

As a general rule:

1. Access to content is from the Course Menu (which you will find on the left hand side of this WebCT module)
2. Access to interactive materials will be through the Titanic Deck "A" - Plan
   • Introductions
   • Discussions
   • NoticeBoard/Calendar
   • Milestone and Assignment submission
   • Module Review
3. I hope to generate a sense of student community in which the expectation is that the interactions will also be between students and not just from lecturer to student

 

Evaluation was continuous through weekly face-to-face conversations. However there was an end of module review and a simple anlysis of the final result achieved in a students marked assignment correlated with their level of engagement (measured by VLE tracking of discussion posts and reading of others)

 

 

 

 

Any anticipated problems or challenges in implementing this e-learning approach did not really materialise other than to remark on the massive amount of work that it took me to manage and implement this.  I have never subsequently done this to this level of VLE engagement and would only consider this if the university were to provide adequate support in the form of instructional technologists and/or educational advisors. Even the management of directed discussions was time consuming  but I've learned a lot about the need to integrate this effectively with the flow of other module activities:

 

 

 

 

 

6. What tangible benefits did this e-learning approach produce?

 

 

 

A subset of results is reproduced here:

 

Student Achievement (their final marked grade) did not seem to be appreciably increased compared to previous deliveries of the module when much less use was made of e-Learning in the blend of teaching.

 

User ID	Attendance/10	WebCT Hits	Items Read	Items Posted	Assignment Topic	% mark	Penalties yet to be applied
c3020637	5	727	317	14	A Sports Company	54	0
c3012827	4	630	321	16	The Game of Pool	64	0
c3030902	P/T	30	7	0	Heavy horses: The Suffolk Punch	---*	0
c3028015	7	512	304	20	21st century Music & Culture	89	0
c3014631	4	405	163	16	History of Pakistan	74	0
c3037342	3	115	62	3	Alcohol: Educating the Motorist	24	-35
c3004123	3	227	117	2	Drug Abuse	---*	0
c3022525	9	753	293	26	Parenthood	68	0
c3016732	9	338	169	17	The Roots of Black Music	45	0
c1187492	P/T	205	40	3	The Electricity Industry	43	0
c3006318	9	366	149	20	Computers: A social commentary	79	0
c3000903	9	645	319	24	Understanding Hinduism	54	0
c3002391	9	559	282	15	The Supernatural	53	0
c1190030	P/T	380	207	8	Choices for the Asian Bride	---*	0
c3014788	6	185	35	3	Ancient Egypt	54	0
c3022675	7	531	231	22	Smoking & Health	56	0
c1205248	6	537	315	16	Hindu Gods	49	0
c3016200	4	137	320	13	Impact of ICT on Primary Schools	52	0
c1205385	9	540	284	22	War & Terrorism	47	0
c3029384	9	405	259	16	Kenya: Culture & Wildlife	60	0

 

However student feedback indicated that they liked this approach and these are some of their comments.

"The things I liked about this module were:

• This module is very interesting and very practical. It helped me improve my practical skills. The teaching methods were excellent as well has the resources to help me complete the milestones within the module was good.
• I liked the fact that the module enables students to understand and learn how to create animation for websites as well as the theory behind it
• Being able to work practically on hands with the pc's and not just all theory work based on lectures and tutorials, as i think you learn more when you can actually work on the project you are doing.
• the use of the different software packages available fro web development
• Very "hands on" approach. Am able to work at my own pace without getting out of my depth. Help was always on hand to assist me in any problems.
• The way that the assignment spec was clearly structured. The available help. The way that the marks for each assignment have been received ASAP.
• I like working on Dreamweaver and fireworks therefore this module was really good for me to enhance my skills and i have learnt a lot.
• the chance to learn new things such as flash.
• It was very interesting, as I learnt a lot of new skills which I wouldn’t have even known about. The multimedia aspect of the course was very interesting for me as learning flash and fireworks taught me vital skills that I will need for my career.
• Learning how to use flash and fireworks in creating a website. Also the practical element of the website design an implementation
• Interesting web authoring packages; No lectures; Able to work at your own pace; Useful demonstrations in practicals;
• The hands on experience available. Help was always available."

 

I think that, whilst e-Learning has the potential to enhance the student learning experience, it seems that an unmotivated face-to-face student will become an unmotivated on-line student. There was marginal improvement in the pass rate. What did improve was apparent student satisfaction in the learning process. For me, as a staff member delivering e-learning as a blended component of the overall learning and teaching experience, I have been very enthusiastic and my interest in teaching pedagogy was reawakened as I first got to grips with e-Learning and began to integrate it into my teaching.

Unfortunately this enthusiasm has begun to wane. I attribute this to the fact that I do not perceive that my university has an appreciable strategic view of the worth of e-learning and is not investing in any resources to support staff who may not have web development skills. I once was an e-learning champion but I find that it is becoming impossible for many to follow.

Moreover, there is a significant perception within the university, amongst senior staff, that e-Learning is a way of saving money and that materials on-line need little support once developed.

 

7. Did implementation of this e-learning approach have any disadvantages or drawbacks?

 

 

Use of e-Learning could only be capitalised on if there was an opportunity to completely rethink module delivery. For this delivery it was not an afterthought but completely integrated into the design of the module. It provided a flexibility for teaching which I had not experienced before and fitted in well with a coaching style of delivery in which students had bite-size chunks of new knowledge, demonstration was given of how to apply it, they applied it to a problem of their own choosing, feedback was given of their performance and this was set within a broader appreciation of how all these “milestone” jigsaw pieces fitted together when they had to produce their own assessed assignment.

I do believe that my efforts were a little Heath-Robinson in their implementation and would have benefited from a much more rigorous approach to design. I now feel that the Constructive Alignment approaches expounded by John Biggs may have a lot to offer in effective design of learning delivery once assessment has been aligned to learning outcomes.

 

 

However, this module received some of the best end of module student review comments I have had, so they obviously liked it. When the whole module had been completed and assignments submitted, this was the final homepage just before reopening of the WebCT module to give student Feedback: