TEL/TIL

At the Alt-C conference at Warwick in September 2014, I had something of a transformative experience. I attended a number of sessions in which academics were presented, by nearly everybody who spoke, as the enemy. Project after project not living up to the expectations of its initiators was ascribed to the “failure” (quote) of academics to engage with Technology Enhanced Learning – if only those academics understood tech, the lament might be paraphrased, students’ learning would be enhanced. I have a stake on both sides of the fence, as an Academic Technologist working with IT Services as well as a proto-academic working as Teaching Fellow (Director of Student Experience) for the new Global Sustainable Development Degrees); and walking out of those sessions at Alt-C, I was conflicted.

After sitting through more than one meeting involving IT Services and other professional services at Warwick espousing the same mentality- the number of PhDs in the room seemingly irrelevant to this; I was increasingly vehemently siding with those presented as philistines, the “academics”. Saying that, there are aspects of using technology in learning which I wholeheartedly endorse, and technology should be A part of a teachers repertoire (to fit with their pedagogy). Some academics use jokes wonderfully in the middle of lectures or seminars; others can inspire with their voice; others can encourage students to work harder by building personal relationships; others set incredibly clear expectations and assemble wonderful resources; others ask interesting and engaging questions… I could go on for some time, and all of those could be reversed (bad jokes perhaps excepted). But the point is simple: technology is just one component of teaching, and not necessarily a positive one unless it is used well.

Yet the very language of “Technology Enhanced Learning”, and the conversations which predominate the wider field, suggest otherwise [note: this is not a critique of the PGA TEL, which has not suffered from the same tone of voice as the examples above]. They make technology, and its enabler the technologists, the active force in improving student learning – with teachers at best “taking it up” / “sharing practice”, at worst blocking. Nobody would say the same of rhetoric, relationship-building, resources, or question formation.

It’s no coincidence that the people’s whose work in using technology in teaching I admire (Kirsty Hooper, Michael Scott, Clare Rowan, to stick with Warwick examples) are engaging, passionate people face-to-face, the kind of people who communicate well, elicit interaction from others, and also think about their pedagogy… the kind who’d lead great seminars. The same could be said of those who pop to mind from outside Warwick, like Diane Jakacki (Bucknell), Michael Ulyott (Calgary), Jesse Strommell (better known as @Jessifer). Being a reflective pedagogue isn’t something that only happens online, in short.

So, it’s TIL (Technology IN Learning) which I’ll be addressing in the rest of this reflective piece, focusing firstly on things I’ve done in 2014/15 and how they did/didn’t aid student learning (which we could tie to the Rolfe 2001 what/so what / now what framework); then on TIL in general.[1]

Digital Storytelling as a form of assessment - project reflections

I was involved in three Departments’ attempts to introduce Digital Storytelling to the curriculum for their first year students. Of these, the one in which I was most closely involved, Making History for History students, was the worst example. Principally, that was because, by the point I was involved in discussing assignments, it was too late to change them – and rather than scrapping the idea of digital storytelling I decided to press ahead with a 10 minute digital story (which, in terms of word count, is the equivalent of a 10 minute podcast – but in terms of effort involved, is not). With a few notable exceptions in which students went above-and-beyond, the results were average: and I don't think students learnt as much about presenting ideas and thoughts through multiple media as I had hoped. If History is to continue incorporating digital stories, they need to think about word counts and video-length equivalence - as I relayed to the ongoing module convenor.

On the other hand, Classics' assignment was formative so could be tailored through the year; and Hispanic Studies had flexibility to change the assessment. Both resulted in three minute pieces and student commented on both the challenges and rewards inherent in putting a story together, engaging with a topic and producing a short piece as a result. The time limitation, combined with the addition of images/video and related media considerations, produces a piece which, as one student put it "could be equivalent to an essay if the individual was determined to put in the effort to create them". Short-cuts and the ability to throw a brief (narrative) story together were commented on by students; and as a result both Clare and Alison will be integrating the "storytelling" aspect more closely next year which they feel will help this.

As to my contribution: I spent too much time worrying about the details of software, assignment submission, whether we could get video files onto Warwick servers and make them available for marking (especially for Making History, with its 8 markers), and not enough on the assessment design in the first place. Both the length of the History assignment and the necessity of stressing the intellectual skills of condensing information and conveying narrative for the students in Classics and Hispanic Studies should have been sorted in advance. In the latter case, they will be for 15/16. Going forward, I will start with pedagogic problems, learning outcomes and assessment design - get them to a point I'm happy with them - and then work out how to make it work with Warwick's systems.

TIL & the PGA TEL

And 2014/15, in which half of my time was spent thinking about Digital Humanities in teaching, and I’ve been taking the PGA TEL, has acted to reinforce that. I’m yet to be convinced that using (insert technique here) increases student learning within an academic context. Student engagement, as self-reported, perhaps. Lots of side-benefits particularly outside of the full-time cohort at Russel Group universities, certainly. But learning, development, self-reflection, for students akin to the majority at Warwick, no – there’s nothing I’ve come across that has convinced me of a student benefit when compared to equally well-considered "non-technical" pedagogy, not even anecdotal stories.

And the PGA TEL course, I think, has reflected that. In that there’s nothing which would not have been better delivered, in terms of engaging me as a student, face-to-face or on paper (I don’t know how you feel the face to face sessions went in comparison to the online – would be interested to hear). But, had it been face-to-face, I wouldn’t have signed up. And there’s the rub, I think. TIL has inherent benefits for remote delivery and self-paced learning, and is adequate/decent/reasonable in engaging those students and encouraging them to learn remotely. It is more efficient at getting students though a course than face-to-face time. And, it is more easily measurable which feeds nicely into a management framework in advance of the TEF. But when it comes to delivery for full-time undergraduates at Warwick, TIL has no inherent advantages, its just another set of tools for the box. Indeed when @Jessifer tweeted that "Anyone with a policy about laptop use in class should also consider having a policy about pencil use." (here) he's not just saying that we should accept "new tech", but also that we need to think about the equivalence of stuff we don't even think about as tech at all:

The Future

The next thing I’ll be involved with in terms of TIL is designing the Global Sustainable Development programme, as Director of Student Experience and Director of Undergraduate Studies. Digital literacy will be a feature right from the outset – weeks 2-7 involve a Certificate in Digital Literacy (detail here for the Liberal Arts cohort), tied closely to the module the students will be doing at that time.

To give a couple of examples of technology use which I hope to work into the Global Sustainable Development curriculum: technology will help me engage students in collaborative research projects as part of Global Sustainable Development - collaborative writing and working is easier with new technology.[2] Perhaps more directly, using technology will help engage students to work-in-public in a critical manner.[3] This is something that will be particularly important as part of our Global Sustainable Development students’ lives: Whether they end up as part of an NGO or engaged in CSR, engaging audiences will be key to taking sustainable development into and beyond the workplace. Hence thinking about how to ensure students practice it as part of their degree(s), and assessing it if/when appropriate. Twitter is one medium for this – look at #CSR and #sustainability for examples. Hence, I’m designing an assessment in which students might choose to use twitter (detail here) - building on a recent course on teaching with twitter offered by Hybrid Pedagogy.