Designing flexible learning opportunities through a non-linear collaborative process

Employment Relations, School of Management, RMIT University, Australia.

Keywords: Higher education, teaching and learning, online learning, interactive communication technology.

Article style and source: Peer reviewed, original ultiBASE publication.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Student centered learning and teaching and technology
• A collaborative design process
• Example 1 - Designing an interactive learning experience
• Example 2 Designing a fully on-line course
• Conclusion
• References

Abstract

The challenges facing academics who seek to design innovative experiential on-line learning opportunities for students using interactive communication technology (ICT) are significant. Not only is a new approach to learning and teaching required, but also new technical skills are needed. This paper seeks to explore a design, development and production approach that will result in the creation of innovative learning opportunities through ICT. Two examples of recent processes in which the author has been involved are presented, and based on these experiences, the author concludes that a collaborative non-linear design approach is the most effective, especially in assisting the participants to cope with the ambiguity required to allow innovations to emerge. back

Introduction

Academics face many challenges as they attempt to provide students with innovative, experiential learning opportunities. These challenges are multiplied when the on-line learning environment is considered. I have argued elsewhere that a more collaborative approach than the traditional individual academic approach to the design and delivery of teaching is required (Jones 2001). However, what has yet to be explored is how such collaboration will manifest itself. This paper seeks to explore a design, development and production approach that will result in the creation of innovative learning opportunities through ICT. back

Student centered learning and teaching and technology

Under traditional teacher-centred educational pedagogy, the academic-as-teacher [1] was totally responsible for design and delivery of courses with librarian assistance provided to assist students with related research. Teachers generally designed courses based on their knowledge gained from research, with their delivery reliant upon their oratory supported by visual representations.

Under this teaching pedagogy, ICT is used principally to provide students with written notes that the teacher would otherwise deliver verbally. This broadcast model (Jones & Creese 2001) presents design challenges, as written material needs to be presented in a different way from the spoken word. This has led to the growth of the profession of Instructional Design (ID) which typically involves prescriptive phases of analysis design and development and implementation and evaluation in a linear sequence (Dick & Carey 1996). In this scenario, the teacher provides content to the ID who prepares it in a more easily readable form and hands it to the production unit.

A student-centred approach to learning requires a different approach in which the teacher becomes a guide, coach, motivator, facilitator and co-ordinator of learning resources. This requires the academic as teacher to create a "context of learning which encourages students actively to engage in subject matter" (Ramsden 1992:114). In this environment the student becomes an active 'doer', presenting, analysing, questioning, judging, and combining ideas and information against an argument in order to solve problems and construct ways to develop knowledge (Ballard & Clanchy 1997). This requires the academic as teacher to design the educational experience as a two-way interactive and reflective process. This model recognises the role of the teacher is to present students with conceptual knowledge (content knowledge and generic capabilities), constructed from the teacher's perspective, and then reflect on the students' performance. Students, on the other hand, are encouraged to contribute their own conceptual and experiential knowledge and to reflect upon and adapt their actions accordingly. The link between the two occurs through discussion and interaction between teacher and student.

Learning and teaching activities for a student-centred learning process requires a more complicated designing process that enables students to contribute their knowledge to the learning environment. This has resulted in more attention being given to designing experiential learning exercises such as case studies, role-plays, and real-world events presented through film and video (Jones 1999; 2000). It has led to group activities and assessment projects that encourage consideration of peer knowledge (Biggs 1999), to action-based learning and research projects (Cherry 1995), and finally, to the use of work-integrated learning in which students are either placed on 'work experience' programs or are asked to reflect on theory in terms of their work experience.

ICT provides the opportunity to augment the experiential face-to-face (F2F) learning environment with on-line learning opportunities (Jones & Richardson 2002). Laurillard (1994) identifies three principal technological tools for use; computer-mediated teleconferencing that provides the opportunity for increased two-way interaction and negotiation between teachers and students, computer-based simulations that provide a stimulating environment in which students can adapt, reflect and discover as they interact with the real-world, and finally, the use of integrated technology to multi-link students to audio and visual databases provided by the teacher.

However, designing and developing interactive, experiential learning opportunities presents significant challenges. The teacher has to understand how the technology can be used (Reid 2000), and what new skills they require. Collings (1999:5) argues that while academics have the knowledge and skills required for teaching or 'real work', they do not have that required for 'articulation' or "the work involved in negotiating the development and use of information technology infrastructure and designing and organising new ways of teaching". Laurillard (1994:21) states that teachers need to have skills to facilitate the "knowledge preparing, supervising and de-briefing the multimedia assisted learning, and providing students with interactive access to large text and audio-based learning". The teacher requires the assistance of a wide range of expertise - instructional and graphic designers, audio, visual and computer experts, research, resource and IT legal experts (Toohey 1999).

Thus no matter what the educational pedagogy, in order to use ICT as a learning tool, there is need for academics and technical experts to collaborate as a team in designing, developing, and producing on-line learning activities (Kandlbinger, 1999:2). This is discussed further in the next section.

A collaborative design process

In discussing the experience of the process of design and develop of course material for distance education at the Open University in the United Kingdom Gerrard (2001:579) outlines the team process thus:

all decisions on the structure of the course and module content are collegiate. These academics are assisted by media producers, educational technologists, designers, editors and administrators, but the actual academic development is entirely in the hands of academics.

Despite the recognized need for a collaborative team process, it is acknowledged that the reality of developing a collaborative culture is not be easy. This is especially so in university teaching as academics, steeped in a culture of freedom and autonomy, find it difficult to work with technical experts who are more likely to be bound by concerns about effective and efficient technical process, costs and resource implications than educational pedagogies (Jones & Creese 2001). As Kandlbinger (1999:2) states "each of these fields has a different conception of what the computer is for, bringing little common ground to planning or decision-making".

The extent of this difficulty will vary, however in all cases, as academic autonomy is reduced by the need for detailed plans, some resistance can be expected. There may be less resistance in a teacher-centered approach in which IDs simply translate the spoken word into a written context. In this case a structured, linear project-managed approach may be appropriate. However, a student-centered approach requires more design and planning and lends itself less to a linear project-managed approach as exercises and activities that parallel real-world activities are designed. This latter process requires encouraging ideas to emerge in an organic way over the life of the design and production cycle. It requires closer collaboration between the teacher and the various technical experts in order to encourage an exchange of ideas and concepts out of which innovative ideas emerge. Finally, it requires some understanding of the objectives of the teacher and the abilities and limitations of the ICT tools. In order to explore a process that will address these requirements two examples of recent design, development, and production processes in which the author was involved are presented for discussion. back

Example 1 -Designing an interactive learning experience

Within the School of Management at RMIT the author is the academic responsible for a post-graduate course in negotiation, mediation, and advocacy skills. The course has been designed according to a student-centered educational pedagogy with experiential negotiation exercises that aim to develop participant skills through reflection on, and analysis of, the process and outcomes of participant negotiations. In 1999, in collaboration with the Business Faculty Education Media Unit (EMU), I designed, developed and produced a video training package of an industrial dispute with the intent of providing a more real-life experience of the dispute (Jones 1999; 2000). Through this experience I recognised two major things. First, in order to use technology effectively as an educational tool there is need for academics to work closely with technical, instructional, and graphic design, experts. Second, the younger generation of learners has much higher expectation of interacting with technology than many older academics. This was clearly expressed by a student who, after viewing the video, stated "but we can't click". This experience proved to be valuable when I came to design a more ICT interactive learning opportunity for students as explained below.

Stage One - Design, development and production phases

The negotiation, mediation and advocacy course is underpinned by a company designed as a Situated Learning Environment (SLE) (Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989) in which students are 'virtually' employed in a series of restaurant outlets. In this environment students are required to negotiate a number of employment related issues. In 2001 I decided to experiment with an on-line component of the restaurant as a Virtual Situated Learning Environment (VSLE) using the university's Distributed Learning System (DLS) to present a more 'real-life' experience.

My first step was to approach the Manager of the EMU. He suggested that we build a company website as the repository for all of the information about the company and issues that students are required to negotiate. The format of the website was to be atypical of existing company websites. It was important that the 'look and feel' (or graphics and navigation) was equal to, or better than, that of the real company website.

Given the innovative nature of this project, the design and development process that was established was fairly fluid, with no timelines and a vague notion of what the finished project would look like. After looking at other company websites and considering the requirements of the negotiation exercises, I rewrote the material and provided it to the Manager EMU. He then arranged for this to be translated into a website by a web authoring expert who undertook all web production, translated the written material from the site map into Hyper text Markup Language (HTML), and developed the web navigation based. At the same time, graphic designers incorporated the environment I had designed into the company website. Figure 1 summarises the first step of the collaborative process. back

Figure 1
Cross-Functional Discussion

Once the website was complete the next step, as shown in Figure 2, was for the Manager EMU to approach the Faculty IT legal expert (copyright, company law) to discuss any possible legal problems. It was here that the first major problem occurred as she discovered that the name I had chosen for the VSLE actually belonged to a real company. Although this had not caused a problem when the company was in a paper form, presenting it as a website, even 'hidden' within the RMIT DLS, presented potential problems. Accordingly, the name of the VSLE had to be changed. Despite a seemingly minor change this caused considerable rework for the web-authorising expert.

Figure 2
Cross-Functional Discussion

The next step was to identify possible hyperlinks for students to resource material. I produced a list of possible links to relevant websites and a list of journal and book articles. Providing the on-line links to these resources required discussion, as shown in figure 3, between myself, the Business Faculty IT legal expert, the ID and the resource librarian, to determine what resource websites needed to be accessed and what legal access agreements existed. This caused a second delay in the project as copyright permission for references was checked and copyright permission sought.

Figure 3
Cross-Functional Discussion

Stage Two -Delivery phase

Following completion of the production of the website, I turned my attention to how I could use it as a 'live site'. This stage occurred in parallel to the F2F delivery of the course. I approached the School's Information Technology Project Officer (ITPO) who suggested that there were several communication tools in the DLS that I might consider.

This second stage demonstrates a more collaborative relationship, as demonstrated in Figure 4 between myself, and the ITPO that enabled us to experiment with interactive activities and to share knowledge about my educational aims and the technical capabilities of the ICT. The process was lateral rather than linear and involved us working together and encouraging each other as ideas emerged that added further interactive activities.

First, she introduced me to the Announcements tool that would enable me to send communication to all students (acting as employees). This would enable me to create a further 'real-world' environment by sending out company newsletters, union produced material, and professional practice activities. We worked together over several months starting with me first providing her with MSWord documents that she would translate to HTML and post as announcement.

Second, she introduced me to how to use the communication tool to enable greater student involvement by providing students with opportunities to communicate 'virtually' using the DLS tools This had several advantages. First, students who were geographically separated could meet. Second, as the 'instructor' I could observe discussions and add ideas. Third, there was a written record of any discussion that could be 'hidden' from general view but open to students and thus it provided the opportunity for students to use the discussion for later reflection purposes. Throughout this process mutual respect for the other's expertise enabled us to 'play' and experiment with further innovations (Jones & Creese 2001).

Figure 4
Collaboration

In summary, the design, development, production phases of this project suffered from a number of factors. First, the process was linearly structured with collaboration limited by a separation of functions, and a lack of opportunity for the participants to develop a collaborative, holistic approach. This resulted in rework and inefficiency that could have been avoided if a more holistic and inclusive collaborative team had been established at an early stage of the project. Second, insufficient time was spent on enabling the various participants to discuss and try to understand the requirements of each others' tasks The second, delivery, stage was more collaborative, more experimental and less subject to a preset managed process, thus allowing ideas to emerge organically. My lack of familiarity and knowledge about the way the ICT tools could be used to engage students in experiential activity was overcome by a collaborative approach between the ITPO and myself which allowed us to experiment and 'play' with ideas for innovations and lead to more ideas emerging.

Example 2 Designing a fully on-line course

Based on my experience in producing the VSLE, when later in 2001 the School of Management was asked to design and develop a fully on-line course entitled 'Managing the Networked Enterprise' for a group of E-Business post-graduate students, I was asked to become the academic leader for this project. As the course was being offered for the first time in F2F mode, and it required a highly interactive student-teacher relationship, it was decided, in the first instance, to videotape the more formal lecture sessions. I had done this in an earlier experiment with the Manager EMU and it had provided some useful footage for video 'grabs'. It was hoped that this would provide a copy of the teacher-student interactions that could be transcribed plus video 'grabs' that could possibly be used to break-up the written words. In the end, this was not as successful as has been supposed as the student-centered, interactive nature of sessions created difficulties in transcription and required a complete rewrite of the material, especially for the purpose of on-line delivery. Indeed the time taken by both myself and the ID appointed to assist in developing this course, to rewrite and re-order the transcribed notes served to limit our time available to design and produce a VSLE to ensure a more student-centered learning environment. This is explained below. Furthermore, only after the multimedia unit had spent considerable time producing a number of interactive diagrams related to the content material did they find that, after consulting the IT Legal expert, that the original diagrams were protected by copyright.

In parallel to the rewriting of the transcribed notes, and based on our experience, the Manager EMU, myself, together with the academic who had delivered the course F2F, and the ID, established a small team to scope the project and set time lines. It was in this meeting that the innovative design work began to occur. We agreed to design a VSLE to which professional practice activities and assessment would relate. This VSLE would be built as an international company to provide a common industry base for the geographically separated and culturally diverse students (the course was to be offered globally). The ID produced a project map (see Figure 5) that modularised the content, demonstrated the underpinning of the VSLE, and identified the links to professional practice and assessment activities. This project map also provided the linear sequencing of tasks required for the design process

Unfortunately, despite the enthusiasm of the team members, the time taken to prepare the written material, together with the timelines imposed for the project, resulted in there not being sufficient time to produce the VSLE. This mean that the delivery of the project was limited to a more teacher-centered approach dominated by the provision of content to students, with limited opportunities for student participation. This resulted in all participants in the design process being frustrated at their inability to produce a more innovative interactive opportunity, as well as those in charge of the overall process who had not been part of the design process, being frustrated at what appeared like a lack of completion.

In summary, the model developed for the design, development, production and delivery phases of this second example was a mixture of a linear production phase, although some lateral thinking occurred in the collaborative team. The lateral, functionally separated process caused problems that, through externally imposed timelines, produced a less than satisfactory outcome for the participants.

Concern at the teams apparent lack of focus on externally imposed time lines led the Manager of the On-line Learning Unit to present a more explicit linearly influenced project management model (see Figure 5). This model established formal lines of communication between the various technical experts and the academic through the centralised 'Online Teaching and Learning Unit'.

Figure 5
Model of Interactions

However, based on further experience in another project (see Jones, Atkinson & Toohey 2002) this model was developed into a more integrated, collaborative process (see Figure 6). This second model supports a more dynamic collaborative relationship aimed at a common goal of "shared understanding for a flexible learning environment" (Jones, Atkinson & Toohey 2002). It establishes a dedicated team coming in and out of the various development phases on an as-needed. This meant that the process became more "lateral rather than linear, and the courseware development passes through the hand of the entire team as a mixed group of experts, rather than from one group of experts to another" (Jones, Atkinson & Toohey 2002:3).

Figure 6

However the model still suffers from a separation of functions and tasks, and a linear sequencing of stages rather than a more emergent collaborative team approach. This led the author to propose a more integrated collaborative model as shown in Figure 7. This model presents the collaborative design, development and production process as a series of interlocking concentric circles within a larger concentric circle. This is done to illustrate a more dynamic model that allows for continuous improvement. The model has a number of important characteristics that separate it from a project management approach as follows:

• First, a collaborative cross-functional team needs to be established. The aim of this team is to explore ideas for design and delivery of innovative learning opportunities by sharing their expertise in the use of ICT in facilitating the identified educational pedagogy. Thus the collaborative team process differs from a project team that simply aims to develop a pre-set outcome by each expert contributing their technical knowledge to a preordained outcome.
  
• Second, the team needs to take a holistic approach, with processes leading to the desired outcome focussed more laterally than a linear project management approach.
  
• Thirdly, the project plan is collaboratively determined as a means to identify interconnections between parts, rather than a means to identify stages of completion. This plan should be sufficiently flexible to encourage organic, emergent ideas, rather than constrain ideas by a strict linear process.
  

Figure 7
Model of Collaborative Integrated Design, Development and Production Process for
On-line flexible learning opportunities:

back

Conclusion

This paper aimed, by presenting a number of examples in which the author has been engaged, to explore approaches to the design, development, production and delivery of learning activities that will result in the creation of innovative learning opportunities using ICT. The examples show that a functionally, structured linear project management approach can not only be less efficient but can also stifle sharing of expertise aimed at innovative outcomes. On the other hand, a more collaborative, holistic, process in which participants are encouraged to sharing their knowledge and expertise, is not only more efficient but also encourages participants to experiment with ideas and to cope with ambiguity. It is contended that this more collaborative approach will lead to new ideas emerging over the life of the design, development, production and delivery cycle. This model requires further testing, especially as it still leaves open the question of how to create a supportive culture that will encourage academics and technical experts to work together. Research has started on this (see Jones, Jones & McCann 2003), but further research is required. back

References

Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1997), Teaching International Students, IDP Education, Deakin ACT.

Biggs, J. (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University, SRHE and Open University
Press, Buckingham.

Brown, J.S.; Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989), 'Situated cognition and the culture of
learning, [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 18(1), pp.32-42, Jan.-Feb. Retrieved
November 11, 2001, from http://www.astc.org/resource/educator/situat.htm.

Cherry, N. (1995), Developing Reflective Practice, unpublished doctoral thesis, RMIT
University, Melbourne

Collings, P. (1999), 'sustaining academics' agency in determining work practices in
information technology-mediated teaching and learning', Proceedings HERDSA Annual
Conference, Melbourne, July 12-15.

Dick, W. & Carey, l. (1996), A Systems Approach to Instructional Design, (4th Ed.), Scott
Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Gerrard, C. (2001), 'Promoting excellence in distance education - a TQM led approach',
Integrated Management - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on ISO 9000 and
TQM, Ho, K. & Donnelly, M. (eds.) School of Business -HKBU Paisley Business School &
Authors: 578-583

Jones, D.; Atkinson, L. & Toohey, M (2002), 'Ateam-based approach to the production of
online courseware (case study), Proceedings ASCILLITE Conference, December.

Jones, S (2001), 'Collaboration - a threat to academic autonomy', Proceedings ASCILITE
Conference, Meeting at the Crossroads, Melbourne Dec:299-306.

Jones, S. (2000), 'Politics, power and persuasion ? documenting a drama for students - the
1998 waterfront dispute', Australian Screen Education, (22) Autumn:.80?88. Originally
presented as a paper at the International Documentary Conference, November 1999.

Jones, S. (1999), 'Avoiding the spider, how to use technology to achieve collaborative
education, Proceedings Annual HERDSA Conference, July 13-15, Melbourne.

Jones, S; Jones, D; and McCann, J. (2003), 'Designing and producing effective e
learning opportunities - moving from cross-functional teams to Communities of
Practice (CoPs)', Proceedings Conference on e-Learning, RMIT, Melbourne,
November.

Jones S. and Creese E, (2001), 'E-education: creating partnerships for learning',
http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/online/creese1.htm.

Jones, S. and Richardson, J. (2002), 'Designing an IT-augmented student-centred learning
environment', Proceedings Annual HERDSA Conference, Perth, July.

Jones, D (2002a), Course Map-Internal mimeo, Business On-line RMIT.

Kandlbinger, P. (1999), 'Valuing collaboration in design for the world wide web: a creative
team approach', Proceedings HERDSA Annual Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July.

Laurillard, D. (1994), 'Multimedia and the changing experience of the learner', Proceedings:
Asia Pacific Information Technology in Training and Education Conference and
Exhibition:19-25, June 28-July 2, Brisbane, Apitite.

Ramsden, P. (1992), Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London.
Reid, A (2000), 'The web, knowledge management and universities', Ausweb 2K, 6TH Annual
World wide conference.

Toohey, S. (1999), Designing Courses for Higher Education, The Society for Research into
Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham. back

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the input into the projects of Jenni Armstrong, IT Project Officer, School of Management; Deborah Jones Team Leader Educational Design Unit, Anne Lennox Co-ordinator Copyright Management Service and Rod McCrohan; Team leader Multimedia Production Online, Teaching and Learning Unit, Faculty of Business; and Jackie McCann, Consultant designer.

Figure 8

As distinct from the academic-as-researcher (henceforth termed the teacher)

About the authors

Dr. Sandra Jones
Assoc. Prof. Employment Relations
Director HE Programs
School of Management
RMIT University
Melbourne, Australia.

Email: sandra.jones@rmit.edu.au