Models for Learning (Mod4L) Final Report: Representing Learning Designs

The Mod4L Models of Practice project is part of the JISC-funded Design for Learning Programme. It ran from 1 May – 31 December 2006. The philosophy underlying the project was that a general split is evident in the e-learning community between development of e-learning tools, services and standards, and research into how teachers can use these most effectively, and is impeding uptake of new tools and methods by teachers. To help overcome this barrier and bridge the gap, a need is felt for practitioner-focused resources which describe a range of learning designs and offer guidance on how these may be chosen and applied, how they can support effective practice in design for learning, and how they can support the development of effective tools, standards and systems with a learning design capability (see, for example, Griffiths and Blat 2005, JISC 2006). Practice models, it was suggested, were such a resource. The aim of the project was to: develop a range of practice models that could be used by practitioners in real life contexts and have a high impact on improving teaching and learning practice. We worked with two definitions of practice models. Practice models are: 1. generic approaches to the structuring and orchestration of learning activities. They express elements of pedagogic principle and allow practitioners to make informed choices (JISC 2006) However, however effective a learning design may be, it can only be shared with others through a representation. The issue of representation of learning designs is, then, central to the concept of sharing and reuse at the heart of JISC’s Design for Learning programme. Thus practice models should be both representations of effective practice, and effective representations of practice. Hence we arrived at the project working definition of practice models as: 2. Common, but decontextualised, learning designs that are represented in a way that is usable by practitioners (teachers, managers, etc).(Mod4L working definition, Falconer & Littlejohn 2006). A learning design is defined as the outcome of the process of designing, planning and orchestrating learning activities as part of a learning session or programme (JISC 2006). Practice models have many potential uses: they describe a range of learning designs that are found to be effective, and offer guidance on their use; they support sharing, reuse and adaptation of learning designs by teachers, and also the development of tools, standards and systems for planning, editing and running the designs. The project took a practitioner-centred approach, working in close collaboration with a focus group of 12 teachers recruited across a range of disciplines and from both FE and HE. Focus group members are listed in Appendix 1. Information was gathered from the focus group through two face to face workshops, and through their contributions to discussions on the project wiki. This was supplemented by an activity at a JISC pedagogy experts meeting in October 2006, and a part workshop at ALT-C in September 2006. The project interim report of August 2006 contained the outcomes of the first workshop (Falconer and Littlejohn, 2006). The current report refines the discussion of issues of representing learning designs for sharing and reuse evidenced in the interim report and highlights problems with the concept of practice models (section 2), characterises the requirements teachers have of effective representations (section 3), evaluates a number of types of representation against these requirements (section 4), explores the more technically focused role of sequencing representations and controlled vocabularies (sections 5 & 6), documents some generic learning designs (section 8.2) and suggests ways forward for bridging the gap between teachers and developers (section 2.6). All quotations are taken from the Mod4L wiki unless otherwise stated

Providing behaviour awareness in collaborative project courses

Several studies show that awareness mechanisms can contribute to enhance the collaboration process among students and the learning experiences during collaborative project courses. However, it is not clear what awareness information should be provided to whom, when it should be provided, and how to obtain and represent such information in an accurate and understandable way. Regardless the research efforts done in this area, the problem remains open. By recognizing the diversity of work scenarios (contexts) where the collaboration may occur, this research proposes a behaviour awareness mechanism to support collaborative work in undergraduate project courses. Based on the authors previous experiences and the literature in the area, the proposed mechanism considers personal and social awareness components, which represent metrics in a visual way, helping students realize their performance, and lecturers intervene when needed. The trustworthiness of the mechanisms for determining the metrics was verified using empirical data, and the usability and usefulness of these metrics were evaluated with undergraduate students. Experimental results show that this awareness mechanism is useful, understandable and representative of the observed scenarios.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Providing behaviour awareness in collaborative project courses

Several studies show that awareness mechanisms can contribute to enhance the collaboration process among students and the learning experiences during collaborative project courses. However, it is not clear what awareness information should be provided to whom, when it should be provided, and how to obtain and represent such information in an accurate and understandable way. Regardless the research efforts done in this area, the problem remains open. By recognizing the diversity of work scenarios (contexts) where the collaboration may occur, this research proposes a behaviour awareness mechanism to support collaborative work in undergraduate project courses. Based on the authors previous experiences and the literature in the area, the proposed mechanism considers personal and social awareness components, which represent metrics in a visual way, helping students realize their performance, and lecturers intervene when needed. The trustworthiness of the mechanisms for determining the metrics was verified using empirical data, and the usability and usefulness of these metrics were evaluated with undergraduate students. Experimental results show that this awareness mechanism is useful, understandable and representative of the observed scenarios.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Usable Security: Why Do We Need It? How Do We Get It?

Security experts frequently refer to people as “the weakest link in the chain” of system security. Famed hacker Kevin Mitnick revealed that he hardly ever cracked a password, because it “was easier to dupe people into revealing it” by employing a range of social engineering techniques. Often, such failures are attributed to users’ carelessness and ignorance. However, more enlightened researchers have pointed out that current security tools are simply too complex for many users, and they have made efforts to improve user interfaces to security tools. In this chapter, we aim to broaden the current perspective, focusing on the usability of security tools (or products) and the process of designing secure systems for the real-world context (the panorama) in which they have to operate. Here we demonstrate how current human factors knowledge and user-centered design principles can help security designers produce security solutions that are effective in practice

Usability and Trust in Information Systems

The need for people to protect themselves and their assets is as old as humankind. People's physical safety and their possessions have always been at risk from deliberate attack or accidental damage. The advance of information technology means that many individuals, as well as corporations, have an additional range of physical (equipment) and electronic (data) assets that are at risk. Furthermore, the increased number and types of interactions in cyberspace has enabled new forms of attack on people and their possessions. Consider grooming of minors in chat-rooms, or Nigerian email cons: minors were targeted by paedophiles before the creation of chat-rooms, and Nigerian criminals sent the same letters by physical mail or fax before there was email. But the technology has decreased the cost of many types of attacks, or the degree of risk for the attackers. At the same time, cyberspace is still new to many people, which means they do not understand risks, or recognise the signs of an attack, as readily as they might in the physical world. The IT industry has developed a plethora of security mechanisms, which could be used to mitigate risks or make attacks significantly more difficult. Currently, many people are either not aware of these mechanisms, or are unable or unwilling or to use them. Security experts have taken to portraying people as "the weakest link" in their efforts to deploy effective security [e.g. Schneier, 2000]. However, recent research has revealed at least some of the problem may be that security mechanisms are hard to use, or be ineffective. The review summarises current research on the usability of security mechanisms, and discusses options for increasing their usability and effectiveness

Usability testing for improving interactive geovisualization techniques

Usability describes a product’s fitness for use according to a set of predefined criteria. Whatever the aim of the product, it should facilitate users’ tasks or enhance their performance by providing appropriate analysis tools. In both cases, the main interest is to satisfy users in terms of providing relevant functionality which they find fit for purpose. “Testing usability means making sure that people can find and work with [a product’s] functions to meet their needs” (Dumas and Redish, 1999: 4). It is therefore concerned with establishing whether people can use a product to complete their tasks with ease and at the same time help them complete their jobs more effectively. This document describes the findings of a usability study carried out on DecisionSite Map Interaction Services (Map IS). DecisionSite, a product of Spotfire, Inc.,1 is an interactive system for the visual and dynamic exploration of data designed for supporting decisionmaking. The system was coupled to ArcExplorer (forming DecisionSite Map IS) to provide limited GIS functionality (simple user interface, basic tools, and data management) and support users of spatial data. Hence, this study set out to test the suitability of the coupling between the two software components (DecisionSite and ArcExplorer) for the purpose of exploring spatial data. The first section briefly discusses DecisionSite’s visualization functionality. The second section describes the test goals, its design, the participants and data used. The following section concentrates on the analysis of results, while the final section discusses future areas of research and possible development