Evaluating empowerment and control of HE e-learning in a secure environment

With the increased spread of HE distance learning into a wide variety of contexts it is important for us to understand the factors involved in its successful deployment for students. E-learning has a great potential to support effective and empowering HE distance learning (Wilson, 2007; Adams, 2005; Hughes, 2005). However, within two secure environments, prisons and health service, the factors involved are complex. This paper reviews HE e-learning technology perceptions within these two contrasting contexts from 225 students' and stakeholders' perspectives. Previous research has detailed literature limitations on obtaining students' perspectives of e-learning (Conole et al, 2006). These limitations are compounded when other stakeholder perceptions are not integrated (Sun et al, 2007; Adams et al, 2005; Millen at al, 2002). This paper developed and applied an e-learning framework for student and stakeholder perceptions. This social psychological framework, is based on previous practice based e-learning studies and is used here to synthesise two large-scale case studies. The framework focuses on three concepts learner Access (e.g. learning design, technology design, physical access), Awareness (e.g. of resources, their usage and support for e-learning tasks) and Acceptability (e.g. trust, privacy, aesthetics, engagement). Students' and stakeholders' perceptions identified high levels of students' empowerment through e-learning whilst still requiring a further pedagogical tailoring and an awareness of support. However, serious problems within these contexts have identified blocks to e-learning through stakeholders perceptions and fears of acceptability (i.e. issues of risk and trust). Ultimately, through understanding competing perceptions and needs within these complex environments we can support the effective technological development, pedagogical design and deployment of e-learning systems

Security and Online learning: to protect or prohibit

The rapid development of online learning is opening up many new learning opportunities. Yet, with this increased potential come a myriad of risks. Usable security systems are essential as poor usability in security can result in excluding intended users while allowing sensitive data to be released to unacceptable recipients. This chapter presents findings concerned with usability for two security issues: authentication mechanisms and privacy. Usability issues such as memorability, feedback, guidance, context of use and concepts of information ownership are reviewed within various environments. This chapter also reviews the roots of these usability difficulties in the culture clash between the non-user-oriented perspective of security and the information exchange culture of the education domain. Finally an account is provided of how future systems can be developed which maintain security and yet are still usable

JuxtaLearn DELIVERABLE Report D3.5 Service scenario documentation

The purpose of Deliverable 3.5 is to provide guidelines to creating juxtaposed performance, particularly to advise non-drama teachers on what to do and how to manage performance in stage 3 of the JuxtaLearn process. Building on pedagogies of threshold concepts and juxtaposed learning, it explains the performance steps, orchestrating learning through participative video making and story making with peers. It provides guidance for teachers, offering resources that include suggested lesson plans and example timings. Thus, in the absence of a shared touchable with JuxtaLearn software, it suggests a practical additional and alternative to using the software of WP4 touch table

Virual world users evaluated according to environment design, task based adn affective attention measures

This paper presents research that engages with virtual worlds for education users to understand design of these applications for their needs. An in-depth multi-method investigation from 12 virtual worlds participants was undertaken in three stages; initially a small scale within-subjects eye-tracking comparison was made between the role playing game 'RuneScape' and the virtual social world 'Second Life', secondly an in-depth evaluation of eye-tracking data for Second Life tasks (i.e. avatar, object and world based) was conducted, finally a qualitative evaluation of Second Life tutorials in comparative 3D situations (i.e. environments that are; realistic to surreal, enclosed to open, formal to informal) was conducted. Initial findings identified increased users attention within comparable gaming and social world interactions. Further analysis identified that 3D world focused interactions increased participants' attention more than object and avatar tasks. Finally different 3D situation designs altered levels of task engagement and distraction through perceptions of comfort, fun and fear. Ultimately goal based and environment interaction tasks can increase attention and potentially immersion. However, affective perceptions of 3D situations can negatively impact on attention. An objective discussion of the limitations and benefits of virtual world immersion for student learning is presented

Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups

With fast changing technologies and related human interaction issues, there is an increased need for timely evaluation of systems with distributed users in varying contexts (Pace, 2004). This has led to the increased use of questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups in commercial usability and academic research contexts. Questionnaires are usually paper based or delivered online and consist of a set of questions which all participants are asked to complete. Once the questionnaire has been created, it can be delivered to a large number of participants with little effort. However, a large number of participants also means a large amount of data needing to be coded and analysed. Interviews, on the other hand, are usually conducted on a one-to-one basis. They require a large amount of the investigator’s time during the interviews and also for transcribing and coding the data. Focus groups usually consist of one investigator and a number of participants in any one session. Although the views of any one participant cannot be probed to same degree as in an interview, the discussions that are facilitated within the groups often result in useful data in a shorter space of time than that required by one-to-one interviews. All too often, however, researchers eager to identify usability problems quickly throw together a questionnaire, interview or focus group that, when analysed, produces very little of interest. What is often lacking is an understanding of how the research method design fits with the research questions (Creswell, 2003) and how to appropriately utilise these different approaches for specific HCI needs. The methods described in this chapter can be useful when used alone but are most useful when used together with other methods. Creswell (2003) provides a comprehensive analysis of the different quantitative and qualitative methods and howthey can be mixed and matched for overall better quality research. Depending on what we are investigating, sometimes it is useful to start with a questionnaire and then, for example, follow up some specific points with an experiment, or a series of interviews, in order to fully explore some aspect of the phenomenon under study. This chapter describes how to choose between and design questionnaires, interviews and focus group studies and using two examples illustrates the advantages of combining a number of approaches when conducting HCI research

A qualititative approach to HCI research

Whilst science has a strong reliance on quantitative and experimental methods, there are many complex, socially based phenomena in HCI that cannot be easily quantified or experimentally manipulated or, for that matter, ethically researched with experiments. For example, the role of privacy in HCI is not obviously reduced to numbers and it would not be appropriate to limit a person's privacy in the name of research. In addition, technology is rapidly changing – just think of developments in mobile devices, tangible interfaces and so on – making it harder to abstract technology from the context of use if we are to study it effectively. Developments such as mediated social networking and the dispersal of technologies in ubiquitous computing also loosen the connection between technologies and work tasks that were the traditional cornerstone of HCI. Instead, complex interactions between technologies and ways of life are coming to the fore. Consequently, we frequently find that we do not know what the real HCI issues are before we start our research. This makes it hard, if not actually impossible, to define the variables necessary to do quantitative research, (see Chapter 2). Within HCI, there is also the recognition that the focus on tasks is not enough to design and implement an effective system. There is also a growing need to understand how usability issues are subjectively and collectively experienced and perceived by different user groups (Pace, 2004; Razavim and Iverson, 2006). This means identifying the users' emotional and social drives and perspectives; their motivations, expectations, trust, identity, social norms and so on. It also means relating these concepts to work practices, communities and organisational social structures as well as organisational, economic and political drivers. These issues are increasingly needed in the design, development and implementation of systems to be understood both in isolation and as a part of the whole. HCI researchers are therefore turning to more qualitative methods in order to deliver the research results that HCI needs.With qualitative research, the emphasis is not on measuring and producing numbers but instead on understanding the qualities of a particular technology and how people use it in their lives, how they think about it and how they feel about it. There are many varied approaches to qualitative research within the social sciences depending on what is being studied, how it can be studied and what the goals of the research are.Within HCI, though, grounded theory has been found to provide good insights that address well the issues raised above (Pace, 2004; Adams, Blandford and Lunt, 2005; Razavim and Iverson, 2006). The purpose of this chapter is to give an overview of how grounded theory works as a method. Quantitative research methods adopt measuring instruments and experimental manipulations that can be repeated by any researcher (at least in principle) and every effort is made to reduce the influence of the researcher on the researched, which is regarded as a source of bias or error. In contrast, in qualitative research, where the goal is understanding rather than measuring and manipulating, the subjectivity of the researcher is an essential part of the production of an interpretation. The chapter therefore discusses how the influence of the researcher can be ameliorated through the grounded theory methodology whilst also acknowledging the subjective input of the researcher through reflexivity. The chapter also presents a case study of how grounded theory was used in practice to study people's use and understanding of computer passwords and related security

Effectiveness of mobile learning across various settings

This paper reviews three ‘mobile learning’ projects to understand the nature of and extent to which learning is enhanced and facilitated by the inclusion of mobile technologies in the different teaching/learning activities that were carried out. Reviews will be taken from a number of projects; Mobile Learning in Informal Science Settings (MELISSA),Mobile Clinical Learning and Out There in Here (OTIH) projects. Melissa was a European project dealing with a range of learning systems. The Mobile Clinical Learning project investigated the potential of learning resources provided in Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and the ways in which clinical learning within two comparative health care institutions can be supported by using small handheld computers. OTIH is seeking to support collaborative remote experimentation where learners work together in different contexts. Within these projects a range of mobile devices (e.g. smartphones, laptops, ipads) were used to allow a broader understanding of a changing mobile device landscape. The research literature suggests that learning opportunities are more likely to arise in environments where interaction is facilitated. By reviewing these projects we are able to identify elements that are facilitated by mobile technologies and explore ways that learning is supported

Police Knowledge Exchange: Summary Report

[Executive Summary] This report draws on research commissioned by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and the Home Office to investigate cultural aspects of knowledge sharing across the police service. The research reviews literature and police perceptions to identify the enablers and barriers to effective knowledge exchange and sharing within and between police forces and police partners, including the public. Data were collected from 11 police forces; 42 in-depth interviews/focus groups and 47 survey responses. The literature-guided analysis identified four core research themes: who, why, what and how we share. Detailed findings are presented in the full report; this summary report presents the core research findings. Recommendations from this study will inform the next phase of activity for the Board. The research identified that cross-force, cross-organisation, national and international sharing relies on a culture supporting individuals who have an independent and reflective sharing approach. A key enabler to police sharing is that, regardless of police rank and role, they all have a strong collaborative nature, through a deep motivation to share, that benefits the wider social community. This collaborative nature is driven by processes that reveal reciprocal benefit and safe sharing, as well as how to effectively ‘get the job done’ and foster professional learning. A key barrier to police sharing is a strong hierarchical culture that does not encourage the independent nature of sharing. Whilst police officers and staff act independently within the confines of their prescribed roles, they rarely independently share beyond this. This hierarchical culture means that innovations in sharing are often initiated or approved top-down and tied to leadership. Hierarchical structures are seen to support a competitive culture combining concepts of risk aversion and blame. The hierarchical culture is also perceived as providing poor clarity on what is of value to share and how to effectively share. There are two key recommendations to overcome this barrier: one long-term and one short-term. Long-term: ‘Become independent sharers’ by changing the nature and culture of the police to encourage this independent nature, so that specific sharing barriers are effectively solved by individuals. Professionalising the police and working collaboratively with academia are steps towards this long-term goal. Short-term: ‘Guide and authorise independent sharing’ by using the hierarchy to scaffold/support and direct police towards effective and approved sharing approaches. This will show the police, through the hierarchy, how and why this independent sharing nature is safe, effective and valued

Police Knowledge Exchange: Full Report 2018

[Executive Summary] This report was commissioned to explore the enablers and barriers to sharing within and between police forces and between police forces and partners, including the public. This was completed from an interdisciplinary review of international literature covering sharing, knowledge exchange, learning and organisational learning. The literature broke down into four main factors; who, why, what and how. An introduction to the literature is presented with ‘Who’ is sharing which considers both personal identity and different institutional issues. The ‘Why’ literature covers issues of cultural and community motivators and barriers. The ‘What’ segment reviews concepts of data, information and knowledge and related legislative issues. Finally, the ‘how’ section spans face to face sharing approaches to technologies that produce both enablers and barriers. A series of 42 in-depth interviews and focus groups were completed and combined with 47 survey responses . The aim of the interviews, focus groups and survey was to show perceptions and beliefs around knowledge sharing from a small sample across policing in order to complement the findings from the literature review. The survey was adapted from a standardised questionnaire (Biggs, 1987). The Biggs questionnaire focused on what motivated students to learn and how they approached their learning. Our adapted survey looked at what motivated police to share, and how they approached sharing. The responses showed a trend, across the police, towards a motivation for sharing to develop a deeper understanding of issues. However, the approaches and the strategies they used to share with others, which were primarily driven by achieving and surface approaches (to get promoted and get the job done). According to Biggs (1987) this could leave them discontented as they never progress to a deeper understanding of issues. Scaffolding sharing within the police through processes that are clearly defined, effective and valued could help to overcome these issues. Within the interviews and focus group findings a similar structured approach to sharing was adopted. Within the ‘who’ section some key aspects around personal relationships, reciprocity and reputation were identified. The ‘why’ the police share was one of the largest discussion points. Not only was there a deep motivation to solve key policing issues there was an approach of reciprocity. Police sharing was deeply motivated to support ‘good practice’ in the prevention and detection of crime. However, a sharing barrier was identified in the parity of value given to different types of knowledge for example between professional judgement and research evidence knowledge. Sharing was achieved when there were reciprocal benefits, in particular with personal networks or face to face sharing which was noted as ‘safe’. Again, this was inhibited by misunderstandings around the ‘risks’ of sharing, frequently attributed to data protection legislation; producing cautious reactions and as an avoidance tactic to save time and effort sharing. However, a divide was noted between technical users and those who avoided any online systems for sharing; often due to poorly designed systems and a lack of confidence in how to use systems. The police culture was identified as being risk-adverse, and competitive due to multiple factors, a lack of supported time to share, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reviews and promotion criteria. The result was perceived to be a poor cultural ability to learn from mistakes and a likelihood to repeat errors. A set of strategic recommendations are given and include the use of a sharing authorised professional practice for HMIC reviews, sharing networks and training. A further set of operational recommendations are given such as; sharing impact cases for evidence based practice, data sharing officers and evaluating mechanisms for sharing. This full report is supported by the Police Knowledge Exchange Summary Report 2018 which gives an overview of the findings and recommendations

Evidence Cafés and Practitioner Cafés supported by online resources: A route to innovative training in practice based approaches

Current radical changes in the Police service internationally and in England and Wales are being driven by movements to adopt an Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) approach to policing. However this poses a challenge as early adopters have experienced resistance to EBP, a relatively unknown, and more importantly misunderstood approach for policing (Sherman, 2015). This resistance is not limited to police with international research highlighting implementation issues for evidence based medicine (Altman, 1996; Fairhurst & Dowrick, 1996; Murphy and Adams, 2005), evidence based management (Adams & Sasse, 1999; Rousseau, 2012), and evidence based teaching (Beista, 2007, Perry & Smart, 2007; Adams & Clough, 2015). One reason is the lack of training in EBP, which is coupled with recent concerns over the general quality of training and level of professionalism within UK police organisation (Davies et al, 1996). There have been international initiatives aimed at increasing learning around evidence based practice (Rousseau, 2012; Hall and Roussel, 2014). Some UK police forces have adopted approaches from other domains to counteract these problems (e.g. champions, enquiry visits). Mapping clear pathways that link training, experience and evidence-based practice is crucial to developing the capacity for an evidence-based workforce. This paper presents evidence from recent research that used Evidence Cafés and Practitioner Cafés connected to online resources as a route to increase understanding and awareness of evidence based practice amongst frontline police officers. Evidence Cafés are coordinated by a knowledge exchange expert with an academic and a police practitioner who facilitate the translation of research into practice. This paper presents evidence of the benefit and limitations of these events. Analytics and learning analytics of events’ online resources also provide insights into these approaches and identify triggers for increased engagement across a wide geographical context