INSTITUTIONAL VLES – CAN THEY TEACH COMPUTING? John Traxler University of Wolverhampton Wulfruna St Wolverhampton WV1 1SB
[email protected] http://www.learninglab.org.uk/ and asynchronous), content presentation, activities (such as quizzes and multiple-choice questions, MCQs) and facilities that enable teaching staff to monitor and control student activity. They often have facilities that interface with the database systems that manage information about students (if they do, then they are strictly speaking, a managed learning environment, an MLE).
ABSTRACT Many universities and colleges, in the face of rising student numbers and diminishing resources, are adopting institutional virtual learning environments (VLEs). Whilst these are attractive for many areas of the curriculum, there are considerable problems in gaining staff acceptance and adapting the teaching of computing to use them effectively. This paper looks at some of the issues raised by the impact of an institutional VLE on a computing department at one typical new English university.
These systems, as exemplified by WebCT, are now increasingly being introduced into English higher education. Recent surveys [3] show most universities have acquired VLEs within the last three years and these are being used by a relatively small proportion of lecturers. English universities are now required to have a Learning and Teaching Strategy and deploying VLEs usually forms some part of this Strategy.
Keywords Teaching computing, VLEs, technology supported learning
1. INTRODUCTION This paper looks at the way in which a universitywide policy to embed a VLE across the university has been refined and implemented in a computing department in the face of some reluctance, scepticism and resistance. As such, it makes a small contribution to the literature of institutional change in higher education [1] and that of the diffusion of innovations [2]. It looks specifically at a policy to expand the use of networked-based software to support learning, particularly at the social and human dimension of that policy. This situation is now increasingly common but not widely documented.
3. WOLF AT WOLVERHAMPTON Wolverhampton University has had its own VLE, called WOLF, the Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework, for several years. This grew out of a project and a system called BroadNet developed by what is now the University’s DELTA Institute. WOLF is an integral part of the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy (see section 3.1) and is central to the University’s Technology Supported Learning (TSL) Strategy. WOLF is now commercially exploited by Granada Media as Learnwise and is a significant presence in both the FE sector and the West Midlands. WOLF functionality is conventional, consisting of tools to deliver and structure content, to support dialogue and discussion, to set and monitor tasks and activities and to check progress. WOLF also has a set of features that encourage its use and a personal information manager (PIM) and connects seamlessly to University resources particularly email. The attraction of WOLF to the University of Wolverhampton is the close relationship with developers and its interoperability with other university systems, for example student information systems and the library management system.
2. VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS IN UK HIGHER EDUCATION The network-based software systems in question are called Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). They combine the functionality of email, computermediated conferencing (CMC, both synchronous Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission. 3rd Annual LTSN-ICS Conference, Loughborough University © 2002 LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences
70
managements. Their Strategies were a reflection of all these factors.
3.1 CeLT and the TSL Strategy Whilst it is clearly sometimes difficult to separate rhetoric, stated policy and embedded practice, Wolverhampton University at an institutional and strategic level was probably amongst the “early adopters” in espousing technology supported learning (TSL). This took place around 1999.
Those Schools with externally funded developments in TSL or CAL continued them under the University TSL umbrella and avoided the costs of any ab initio engagement with WOLF. Those Schools with TSL enthusiasts on their staff nominated them as their TSL Co-ordinator and supported them to a very limited extent in developing WOLF-based modules.
The concrete outcome of the University’s growing awareness of TSL was the University TSL Strategy. This stipulated amongst other things that over a three-year (2000 – 2002) period all modules at level 0 and level 1 would “engage” with TSL, that the focus for TSL would be on-campus, that there would be no direct financial support from the University and that WOLF would be the preferred platform for delivering TSL. The University based its position on the argument that TSL would be a routine part of higher educational provision in the near future and consequently there was no case for extra support.
4. PREVIOUS PRACTICE IN THE SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND IT In the School of Computing and IT (SCIT) before the inception of the University’s TSL Strategy, the progress in TSL had not been co-ordinated at a School level and had largely been the result of individual experimentation. The majority of the School’s 70-odd lecturers supported their modules with material for reading or download on a personal or module web site. A much smaller number – normally just three or four - had developed their own network-based assessment software and one or two packed their module material onto CD-ROMs. There was only a limited use of bought-in or externally produced software. Some computing lecturers had some experience or contact with the BroadNet project and believed that WOLF and the network infrastructure might not be mature and robust enough to withstand any dramatic increase in traffic. They also felt that there were usability issues for both lecturers and students.
Each School would nominate a TSL Co-ordinator and would devise a School Strategy showing how the University’s Strategy would be operationalised. This would identify personnel, resources, support and time-scales and it would be annually reviewed. In general terms, the role of the TSL Co-ordinator would be to support and direct their School Strategy and to represent their School at a University-level planning group. In practice, different Schools gave the University Strategy differing levels of support. This was expressed in the resources and seniority afforded their TSL Co-ordinator. In addition, different TSL Co-ordinators had different conceptions of their rôle, ranging from managerial and policy-making to “hands-on” and technical.
5. DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR SCIT If the University’s Schools were placed on a spectrum from collegial to managerial, SCIT would be nearer the collegial end. In addition, the University and the School favoured an approach to implementing TSL that was “cost-neutral”. This meant that the SCIT TSL Strategy had to be, in the words of the then-Associate Dean, a “hearts and minds affair”.
Current statistics show the position of WOLF. There have been 8,164 different users since August 15th, 2001, 620 different WOLF topics are available for students, and 350 different WOLF topics are under development. In January 2002, 16% of WOLF use was at weekends; 22% of WOLF use was between 6 pm and 9 am; and the average time over 24,000 WOLF visits was 14 minutes
Furthermore, the School was aware of the technical difficulties (reliability and performance mainly) and grass roots resistance being encountered in other Schools and opted for a Strategy that was very modest and cautious and sought to support individual enthusiasts rather than coercing staff en masse.
3.2 Policy and Practice in the Schools The policy and priorities adopted by the Schools varied widely. These policies and priorities had to fit within the envelope defined by the University’s TSL Strategy. The Schools’ Strategies had to recognise that the Schools all started from very different positions in relation to staff IT skills, network infrastructure, QAA and RAE environments, access to external project funds, CAL experience and physical estate. The Schools also differed in their apparent enthusiasm for TSL; both in their rank-andfile staff and in their respective School
6. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGY IN SCIT The School’s Strategy adopted a tactic of concentrating on frequent and informal training followed up with technical support on demand. This was preceded by considerable exposure and debate 71
at the School’s training days. This quickly led to a situation where very few of the teaching staffed were untrained (on a system that was awkward but hardly technically demanding). The School also adopted a tactic of providing minimal information for each module within the WOLF framework in the hope that students would grow to expect support from WOLF and that lecturers would build on the foundations that had been provided.
6.1 Progress to Date In the two-and-a-half years in which the TSL Strategy has been in effect in SCIT, only a handful, perhaps 11 or 12 at any time, of modules have been converted to even a partial WOLF-based delivery. This has been largely due to individual commitment. These modules have included programming, HCI, professional skills, social and legal aspects, webbased systems, multimedia systems, systems development and RAD. The format and the emphasis have differed from module to module. Most used the presentation features to hold weekby-week notes and presentations and in one module, these had an accompanying voice-over. Several modules used the “chat” and “forum” facilities to encourage student discussion of assessments and revision. Most used the file store facility to act as a document repository. Most used the built-in email client, because of its “mail to class” facility but few used the facilities for monitoring student behaviour or performance. One module had a very comprehensive set of multiple-choice questions.
v.
Relevant, accessible exemplar modules
and
attractive
vi.
The School TSL conception of their rôle
vii.
Professional or funding body pressure
viii.
Concerns about ownership and visibility of content
ix.
Quality issues, the QAA, control over franchisees and remote sites
x.
Marketing, recruitment
xi.
Student perceptions of professional requirements; other forms of student demand
xii.
Instability of staffing, staff turnover, redundancy
Coordinator’s
This list is provisional and further work is underway to bring it into sharper focus. Any of the factors above can have a positive or negative effect depending on its exact nature and context. A smaller survey of new lecturers and WOLF trainees also showed pressure on time to be a major constraint on WOLF take up, whilst a companion survey discovered no clear or systematic conceptions of teaching in a survey of some 80 Wolverhampton lecturers [5].
8. FEEDBACK FROM COMPUTING LECTURERS A year into the University’s TSL Strategy and most lecturers in SCIT had been trained on WOLF but few of them actually used it. In order to understand and perhaps remedy this situation, the seventy-odd members of the School were mailed and asked to explain their views on the system. About half replied.
In some cases use of WOLF has been discontinued once the individual lecturer has moved on to other modules and in other cases the engagement with WOLF has been scaled down after the initial enthusiasm.
Many, but not all, were sympathetic to the idea of using WOLF,
7. THE WIDER PICTURE It is difficult to define or to measure the extent of WOLF usage, in terms of depth of engagement or numbers of users. It is likely that SCIT is not far ahead and not far behind the other Schools.
“I'm very much in favour of using WOLF in principle, and think it's more appropriate than using a public_html directory”
A larger research project [4] currently underway suggests that a number of factors influence Wolverhampton lecturers’ take up of WOLF. These include:
“I think it would be better to centralise the course material on WOLF rather than forcing students to visit my home page and navigate through my personally designed site.”
i.
The size of teams teaching on a module
ii.
The time and effort involved developing WOLF material
iii.
School culture, leadership
management
iv.
Access to local training and support
And also,
in
“I intend setting up stuff for [module] & maybe [other module] as I go along during the semester.” However, for many, lack of time prevented very much progress,
and
72
“the WOLF browser is not without its idiosyncrasies - the use of the back button often produces unexpected outcomes (and there is no 'forward' button)”
“absolutely no time” “lack of time to spend learning to use WOLF - not sure if it is worth the effort?”
Whilst others felt that the complexity of the system militated against small-scale usage,
“time consuming to set up.” “I haven't been put off using it (yet) - just haven't had the time over the summer (because of my PhD work) to set it up.”
“I find I forget how to do things between sessions using it and have to go back to the manual, which takes time.”
“Lack of time to spend learning to use WOLF - not sure if it is worth the effort?”
“I do relatively little teaching (though more hours than I am meant to). The time put into WOLF will only support one module so there is no spin off for me.”
“don't have sufficient time”
“I am worried about getting sucked into using too much time to enhance the modules rather than improve the efficiency.” A few lecturers complained about specialist features:
Some of these last responses also refer to a feeling that WOLF might be a risky investment of effort. Other responses, given later, make the same point. The shortage of time to develop material on WOLF could also be inferred from remarks about priorities,
“WOLF doesn't support features I need e.g. special symbols or fonts”
“[my] priorities are management” and perceptions of the School’s priorities:
“The lack of ease with which maths equations can be entered puts us off.”
“School management don't seem to make it a priority” WOLF was seen as taking unnecessary time,
“We don't seem to be able to cut and paste SPSS, MINITAB, SAS output into WOLF”
“WOLF involves too much routine file manipulation, uploading and updating.” And
“We would like to use Excel, SPSS software etc as a data tool but can't keep going in and out of WOLF to do this.”
“[I have] been putting a good deal of material on WOLF for [module]. I've done most of this at home and have to say it's not been without a fair amount of difficulty” One respondent asked for, “members of staff (admin) whose job entails routine uploading / file manipulation”
One or two lecturers had clearly misunderstood the University TSL Strategy. One said, “Do not impose it on us. If students wanted distance learning they would go to the OU”
Legacy material and existing use of the Internet was mentioned quite forcefully as a factor that deterred take up of WOLF: “already got lots of WWW material for modules.” And
Another issue was student demand: “there is no demand from students” “the group of students I used it with were not impressed with it. I realised that I would need to check the forum very often to make it work successfully so am planning to ask them to email their questions next time.”
“I have no need to use WOLF. The Internet is enough.” Several people felt that the cumbersome and inconvenient,
interface
was Both students and lecturers were conscious of technical problems: “WOLF is unreliable or/and slow, or so I've heard” and “WOLF is unreliable” And “it's been a pretty frustrating experience”
“If the environment was as easy to use as other tools – with more drag and drop and direct manipulation, and faster to get into than when I last used it I might feel it less of a hurdle to get over and more as support.”
73
And also, “lots of runtime errors!!”
“using WOLF would increase the volume off email queries from students” “I can't think of much it could do for me for [module], but am considering using it for tutorial grouping for tutors” “using WOLF will increase rather replace current teaching activities” “WOLF unnecessary imposes uniformity on my teaching” “I am hoping that the students will use the links to online journals I have provided with my WOLF topic”
[2] Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. (1962). [3] Jenkins, M. Management and implementation of virtual learning environments within Universities and Colleges. UCISA Teaching and Learning Information Group. (2001).
With some-one else requesting that the School, “Research users' opinions / experience / feedback to inform changes to the interface” A final response indicated that the School still needed to make a clearer case for WOLF:
[4] Traxler, J. Factors that Influence Take Up of an Institutional VLE by Individual Lecturers Preliminary Findings. Sheffield University: (2002).
“To get anyone to buy/use any new product there has to be a perceived benefit to the consumer (me) Thus, answer = ‘ What are the benefits to me?’”
[5] Trigwell, K., Understanding learning and teaching: the experience in higher education, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University, Buckingham (1999)
9. DISCUSSION We can summarise the reasons given for low take up of WOLF as follows: Student demand and feedback;
iii.
Technical problems, performance, reliability, interoperability;
Specialist support.
[1] Trowler, P. Academics Responding to Change. Society for Research into Higher Education / Open University Press. (1998)
“Time allowance to develop one module in WOLF as an experiment/learning experience for me”
ii.
v.
10. REFERENCES
One respondent needed,
Time, effort and priorities;
Pedagogy and legacy;
We can assume that purely technical difficulties will eventually be resolved. The School will probably find a format for technical, clerical and administrative support. Student demand must increase as performance, reliability and consistency improve. The problem of legacy must fade, as WOLF remains the institutional standard. The amount of effort required to author or reversion teaching material will always be high [6]. No lecturers raised the issue of teaching computing per se as an obstacle to increase use of WOLF but several (presumably more as other obstacles are removed) worried about the issue of teaching in general. This feedback combined with the data from wider survey paints an intriguing picture. Institutional VLEs will clearly challenge lecturers to work in new ways but it is far from clear what these new ways will be. This informal survey acted the prelude to a more formal study in other Schools. This study underlined these initial findings.
Finally, a small number directly addressed pedagogic problems: “Problem of thinking through appropriate use rather than use as a virtual knowledgebase.”
i.
iv.
[6] Marshall, I., Sampson, W.B. & Dugard, P.I. Predicting the Developmental Effort of Multimedia Courseware, Information and Software Technology, 36, 5, 251 – 258 (1995)
including fonts and
74
