Work @ TAFE

Just in case you followed a link hoping to find information about creating your own blog, I thought I should quickly add some info!

The site that you’re currently viewing is really just for logging (and reflecting on) my own professional development, so it’s not interesting reading , but it may be useful to see how a blog can be used for your own professional development.

BUT, to create your own Blog that looks way more interesting than this one, travel over to Google’s Blogger.com and get started in three easy steps! They even provide a whole bunch of great-looking templates for you to choose from. (Thanks to Leigh Blackall and his presentation on OpenSource software for pointing out how much the Blogger service has improved!)

If you do create one, send me a link or a comment so I can add a link here!

As second semester 2004 is drawing to a close, I find myself experiencing (yet again) the frustration of “last-minute learning” in my Web Design class - and I want to do something about it for next semester.

The problem

The more I think about it, the complete process of designing and implementing a website for a client is really only learned during the last few weeks as the students race to get their Client site finished before the end of semester. It’s during these weeks that the first real Client Documentation is prepared, Information Architectures are designed for the first real situation, MS Project Plans are created for the first real project etc. I think this is due to the linear fashion with which we currently teach all the material (with practical assignments and workshops along the way of course!), until towards the end of the semester when students focus primarily on their client projects. But I’m wondering whether a more iterative learning cycle would be more effective and perhaps more student-centred… for example…

Gene, who teaches parts of the course with Jude and me, came up with the great idea at the end of last semester of using some of the modules that she facilitates (Instructional Design / communications) as a “mini” client project, giving students a small taste of the whole project cycle before their major assessment - their real client project. We tried this approach this semester and I think it worked well for the scope that we gave it: students got a taste of a mock client interview and both Gene and I were able to assess most students on their HTML/CSS/Instructional design skills early in the semester. Yet I think I missed the opportunity to use this mini project as an introduction to the complete web design lifecycle (for example, I could have also introduced information architecture, documenting the design, performance testing, accessibility testing etc.)

The idea

Jude and I had a chat the other day about the possibility of a more iterative (or cyclic?) learning process for the students, where they go through the complete lifecycle two or three times during the semester (this was probably Gene’s original idea!). For example,

1. during the first 2-3 weeks while learning the fundamentals of XHTML and CSS, we could begin the first mini project: planning, designing and implementing our own website. This mini project would include everything from a small MS Project plan, a (brief) information architecture, design, documentation, implementation, performance and accessibility testing.
2. During the implementation phase of the first mini project, we could begin the planning and interviews for the second mini project: the instructional design site. Again going through the complete lifecycle (perhaps in more depth or with more restrictions on accessibility/performance?)
3. During the implementation phase of the second mini project, students could begin the planning/interviews for their actual client project - again going through the whole lifecycle (but this time, hopefully on their own).

Of course, as new skills are learned, students would be (hopefully) updating and maintaining their own websites.

But that’s too much work!

… I hear you saying! And perhaps it is impossible to do this without packing more work into an already bulging course - which I want to avoid at all costs. But perhaps it is possible to do without increasing the workload. For example, we could provide strong scaffolding (in the form of templates) for the documentation, project plan and testing cycle for the first mini project, so really students would be filling in the blanks while learning the ropes. Some of the scaffolding could then be removed for the second mini project and finally taken down completely for the final client project. Similarly, the first mini-project would just introduce many of the techniques/skills without going into much depth, the second could build on those and introduce more depth, while the client project would ideally contain little new learning (probably impossible in practice).

I think this structure would enable us to continue developing the self-paced learning strategies that we’ve used this semester and may even enable further flexibility in terms of blended delivery (once the scaffolding/templates and other resources for the mini-projects have been created/updated).

Any comments or criticisms? Can you see any other ways that this might be helpful or unhelpful for the modules that you teach? Or, if you are a student, does the problem description above fairly describe the situation you are now in and do you think this iterative structure would have been helpful or unhelpful for your learning?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

Attended a great workshop/training day at Nepean TAFE yesterday called “Learning for the Future” as a part of the Networking 2004 conference.

The day started with a talk by Richard Neville (entitled “Engaging the Future”) that pulled a few interesting thoughts together about the future of technology, kinda looking at the effects of globalism, the acceleration of technology and sustainability. Although I’ve already been told to “get out of my silo” for saying this, I’ll say it again: I was a bit disappointed that he didn’t put just a little bit of effort in to talk about the future of education and learning. But it was interesting non-the-less

Then there was a talk by the Alan Morrison from the NSW Ambo service demonstrating how they’ve been using flexible delivery within their training programs. This was also interesting to see such a different application of online learning. I was particularly interested in the emphasis Alan had on the need for online socialisation before interaction and - more importantly - knowledge construction can be viable online.

Microsoft then had a quick explanation of their own focus in education, majoring on their Learning Gateway integration tool. Really it didn’t seem to add any value to a custom integration suite for a Uni or othe Educational institution… only seemed to lock you in to using MS technology - both software and hardware (see the Solution overview for Microsoft’s Learning Gateway). Given that most LMSs are using standards-based technologies (XML-RPC or SOAP) for integration, I can’t see the the value that Learning Gateway can add. None-the-less, I got the guys card so I can find out more…

But by far the most interesting session for the day (am I biased?) was a workshop by Leigh Blackall entitled: Using Free and Open Source Software to Create Free and Open Courseware. Guess I was just excited to find someone else more enthusiastic than me about the possibilities of Open Source software and Open Courseware in TAFE!

One of the learning goals that I want to set for my own Professional Development is to develop a greater awareness and understanding of the learning standards.

The two that seem to be most frequently mentioned are SCORM (from ADL) and IMS Learning Design. But these beasts seem bigger than Ben Hur to the uninitiated (me!)… so I’m going to explain what I understand so far, with the knowledge that there might be lots of misunderstandings and gaps at present!

Firstly, from what I understand, SCORM is not actually a standard, it is itself a reference model that encompasses a bunch of standards from different organisations such as ADL, IEEE and IMS. Phillip Dodds, one of the founders of SCORM, says:

In early 1999, I drafted the first version of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model as a way to integrate and “connect” work from other organizations.

SCORM seems to be most focussed on the packaging of learning content into discrete learning objects that can be shared and re-used in different environments. Furthermore, SCORM allows complex directed learning experiences to be designed through the complex sequencing of the content, depending on learner progress.

IMS Learning design, on the other hand, seems to combine the roles of participants and facilitators, together with the available resources, to focus on learning activities. Or perhaps the difference is better expressed by the focus on the process of learning, as opposed to the learning content. In a discussion on a Moodle forum, Michael Klieb says:

But, organizing activities rather than content is the main difference to “content aggregation models” for learning objects like SCORM and IMS-Content-Packaging. Organizing activities of teachers and learners in group (= class) is the “unique selling point” of IMS-LD.
IMS-LD: Stop thinking about putting together resources for learning, start thinking of the learning process.

So, my question is, are they mutually exclusive? Can Learning Design be integrated into a reference model similar to SCORM, or is SCORM inherently based on a single-user e-learning experience, as opposed to Learning Design’s multiple user interactive blended-learning focus? Guess I’ll need to do more research to find out