Using Cloudworks to Support OER Activities

This report forms the third and final output of the Pearls in the Clouds project, funded by the Higher Education Academy. It focuses on evaluation of the use of a social networking site, Cloudworks, to support evidence-based practice. The aim of this project (Pearls in the Clouds) has been to evaluate the ways in which web 2.0 tools like Cloudworks can support evidence-informed practices in relation to learning and teaching. We have reviewed evidence from empirically grounded studies surrounding the uses of web2.0 in higher education and highlighted the gap between using web2.0 to support learning and teaching, and using it to support learning about learning and teaching (in an evidence-informed way) (Conole and Alevizou, 2010). We have reported on findings from a case study focusing on the use of Cloudworks by a community of practice - educational technologists - reflecting upon, and, negotiating their role in enhancing teaching and learning in higher education (Galley et al., 2010). The object of this study is to explore and evaluate the use of the site by individuals and communities involved in the production of, and research on, the development, delivery and use of Open Educational Resources (OER)

A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education

This review focuses on the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. It provides a synthesis of the research literature in the field and a series of illustrative examples of how these tools are being used in learning and teaching. It draws out the perceived benefits that these new technologies appear to offer, and highlights some of the challenges and issues surrounding their use. The review forms the basis for a HE Academy funded project, ‘Peals in the Cloud’, which is exploring how Web 2.0 tools can be used to support evidence-based practices in learning and teaching. The project has also produced two in-depth case studies, which are reported elsewhere (Galley et al., 2010, Alevizou et al., 2010). The case studies focus on evaluation of a recently developed site for learning and teaching, Cloudworks, which harnesses Web 2.0 functionality to facilitate the sharing and discussion of educational practice. The case studies aim to explore to what extent the Web 2.0 affordances of the site are successfully promoting the sharing of ideas, as well as scholarly reflections, on learning and teaching

Searching Data: A Review of Observational Data Retrieval Practices in Selected Disciplines

A cross-disciplinary examination of the user behaviours involved in seeking and evaluating data is surprisingly absent from the research data discussion. This review explores the data retrieval literature to identify commonalities in how users search for and evaluate observational research data. Two analytical frameworks rooted in information retrieval and science technology studies are used to identify key similarities in practices as a first step toward developing a model describing data retrieval

Twitter in the collaborative classroom: micro-blogging for in-class collaborative discussions

While small group discussion during undergraduate classes is an important pedagogic strategy, there are two primary concerns for instructors how to monitor the conversation that goes on within groups, and how to ensure that ideas that emerge within the groups become part of the classroom discourse. In this paper, we describe a design-experiment conducted in two sections of the same undergraduate education class, exploring the use of Twitter, and a shared display of the Twitter-chat, to address these issues. We describe three iterations of the use of Twitter in the classes, and our reflections on how it influenced the teaching experience. Data from student surveys indicates that students had minimal experience using Twitter for academic activities prior to participation in this class and that they felt Twitter was a valuable tool to support their in-class learning activities. The teaching team found that the use of Twitter kept students on task and focused on the activity, but expressed some concern about the depth of engagement with ideas during the task

Multilevel analysis in CSCL Research

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2011). Multilevel analysis in CSCL research. In S. Puntambekar, G. Erkens, & C. Hmelo-Silver (Eds.), Analyzing interactions in CSCL: Methods, approaches and issues (pp. 187-205). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7710-6_9CSCL researchers are often interested in the processes that unfold between learners in online learning environments and the outcomes that stem from these interactions. However, studying collaborative learning processes is not an easy task. Researchers have to make quite a few methodological decisions such as how to study the collaborative process itself (e.g., develop a coding scheme or a questionnaire), on the appropriate unit of analysis (e.g., the individual or the group), and which statistical technique to use (e.g., descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, correlation analysis). Recently, several researchers have turned to multilevel analysis (MLA) to answer their research questions (e.g., Cress, 2008; De Wever, Van Keer, Schellens, & Valcke, 2007; Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, & Broers, 2007; Schellens, Van Keer, & Valcke, 2005; Strijbos, Martens, Jochems, & Broers, 2004; Stylianou-Georgiou, Papanastasiou, & Puntambekar, chapter #). However, CSCL studies that apply MLA analysis still remain relatively scarce. Instead, many CSCL researchers continue to use ‘traditional’ statistical techniques (e.g., analysis of variance, regression analysis), although these techniques may not be appropriate for what is being studied. An important aim of this chapter is therefore to explain why MLA is often necessary to correctly answer the questions CSCL researchers address. Furthermore, we wish to highlight the consequences of failing to use MLA when this is called for, using data from our own studies

Unpacking dimensions of evidentiary knowledge and reasoning in the teaching and learning of science

https://repository.isls.org/bitstream/1/601/1/273.pdfPublished versio

The Design Discourse of Professional Instructional Designers

The design discourse of professional instructional designers (IDs) exposes the inner workings of instructional design because collaboration is integral to instructional design practice. Despite the importance of collaboration, there has been little examination of the collaboration in Instructional Design and Technology (IDT). To examine IDs’ collaboration, I examined the design discourse of IDs in design meetings with clients through a content analysis of their discourse. Analysis revealed areas of design expertise that frequented those discussions. I collected audio recordings of five discussions between one or more IDs and a client. Overall, six IDs and five clients participated in this study. A codebook of 16 codes provided ten codes of design discourse that appeared in the data and six subsequent codes that emerged as discourse management strategies. Among IDs, the most prominent type of design discourse was problem solving. When aggregating design discourse types, discussions surrounding problems, users, and tools were the three most frequent types and accounted for almost three-fourths of the design discourse of these designers in these discussions. Further analysis of the design discourse types revealed that precedent and user experience were the most complex areas of design discourse, suggesting that expressing precedent and user experience are advanced design skills. An analysis by gender revealed that male and female IDs focused on different areas of design discourse in practice. Female IDs focused on user experience and problem solving while male IDs concentrated on problem solving and tools. These findings have implications for how learners in IDT are trained, how design expertise is recognized, and how the design process is understood

Researching Across Two Cultures: Shifting Positionality

Embodied and creative research methods provoke honesty, emotion, and vulnerability in participants, which add to the richness of the stories they tell and are willing to share. The positionality of the researcher is less of “interviewer” and more “co-producer” or participant in a dialogue. Visual and creative approaches invite participants to share in ways in which they are not able or willing through words alone. The data and outputs they produce, with film, art, or objects, can in turn affect those who see it more than written text and need to be analysed and disseminated along with more traditional transcripts, articles, and presentations. In the context of investigating sensitive issues such as those around embodied identity, these methods, which use embodied methods to explore embodied research questions, may feel the most appropriate. These approaches lie along the boundary of therapy and research, asking much of researchers who are unlikely to have received therapeutic training or ongoing support. Due to this deficit, the researched may find that their experience is not held or contained in a way that the content would demand. Similarly, the data themselves lie on the boundary of art and research, in that they can be seen as more than a tool to facilitate reflection, but as artifacts in their own right. What are the implications in this scenario? Where should we position ourselves and our work along these boundaries? Who holds the space for the researcher and the researched if both are made vulnerable