The Innovating Pedagogy 2016 report. Now in Chinese.
Just back from a couple of trips to Luxembourg, where I was one of the team carrying out final reviews for the Lea’s Box and Eco projects. This was my third year reviewing Lea’s Box, but I only joined the Eco team for their final review.
Lea’s Box was ‘a 3-year research and development project (running from March 2014 to [January] 2016) funded by the European Commission. The project focussed on (a) making educational assessment and appraisal more goal-oriented, proactive, and beneficial for students, and (b) on enabling formative support of teachers and other educational stakeholders on a solid basis of a wide range of information about learners.’
Eco was ‘a European project based on Open Educational Resources (OER) that gives free access to a list of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) in 6 languages […] The main goal of this project is to broaden access to education and to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of teaching and learning in Europe.’
After talking about learning analytics at the BETT show, I was invited to write about them for the Public Service Executive magazine. The hard copy of PSE goes out to 9,000 subscribers, while the online version goes out to a database of 50,000.
This article provides a short introduction to learning analytics for people considering introducing analytics at their institution. It introduces six areas for action, and briefly outlines what needs to be done in each of these:
Areas for action
- Leadership and governance
- Collaboration and networking
- Teaching and learning
- Quality assurance
- Capacity building
New paper out in the British Journal of Educational Technology, co-authored with a host of people. Lead author Liz FitzGerald plus Natalia Kucirkova, Ann Jones, Simon Cross, Thea Herodotou, Garron Hillaire and Eileen Scanlon.
The framework proposed in the paper has six dimensions:
- what is being personalised
- type of learning
- personal characteristics of the learner
- who/what is doing the personalisation
- how personalisation is carried out
- impact / beneficiaries
Personalisation of learning is a recurring trend in our society, referred to in government speeches, popular media, conference and research papers and technological innovations. This latter aspect – of using personalisation in technology-enhanced learning (TEL) – has promised much but has not always lived up to the claims made. Personalisation is often perceived to be a positive phenomenon, but it is often difficult to know how to implement it effectively within educational technology.
In order to address this problem, we propose a framework for the analysis and creation of personalised TEL. This article outlines and explains this framework with examples from a series of case studies. The framework serves as a valuable resource in order to change or consolidate existing practice and suggests design guidelines for effective implementations of future personalised TEL.
FitzGerald, Elizabeth; Kucirkova, Natalia; Jones, Ann; Cross, Simon; Ferguson, Rebecca; Herodotou, Christothea; Hillaire, Garron and Scanlon, Eileen (2017). Dimensions of personalisation in technology-enhanced learning: a framework and implications for design. British Journal of Educational Technology (early view).
On 27 January, I travelled to Pompeu Fabra university in Barcelona for a meeting of the FutureLearn Academic Network (FLAN) on The Educator Experience. This was the first FLAN meeting to take place outside the UK and it was held at UPF’s Poblenou Campus. The event was organised by CLIK (Center for Learning, Innovation and Knowledge) and the members of the Educational Technologies section within the Interactive Technologies Research Group of UPF.
During the meeting, FutureLearn partners reflected on the impact and research possibilities of MOOC in the field of education. Sir Timothy O’Shea, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, gave the keynote speech, describing Edinburgh’s developing MOOC strategy, including the production of 64 online master’s courses.
I talked about our recent report MOOCs; What the Research of FutureLearn’s UK Partners Tells Us
If you have access to the FutureLearn Partners’ blog, a video of the meeting and summary notes of the sessions are available.
On 25 January, I presented at the BETT trade show on An action plan for learning analytics. If you would like to introduce learning analytics at your institution, where should you start? Drawing on recent studies that consulted experts worldwide, I outlined an action plan for analytics and identified the key points to keep in mind.
My talk formed part of the HE Leaders Summit, a section of the event that was designed to address some of the most significant challenges currently facing senior leaders across Higher Education.
Our latest quality enhancement report, MOOCs; What the Research of FutureLearn’s UK Partners Tells Us came out in late January 2017. The rport was co-authored with Tim Coughlan, Christothea Herodotou and Eileen Scanlon. It follows an earlier report on what MOOC research from The Open University tells us.
The report provides brief summaries of, and links to, all accessible publications stored in the repositories of FutureLearn’s UK academic partners that deal with research on MOOCs. Where these publications made recommendations that could be taken up, these recommendations are highlighted within the report. Full references for all studies are provided in the bibliography.
Studies are divided thematically, and the report contains sections on MOOCs as a field, pedagogy and teaching, accessibility, retention, motivation and engagement, assessment and accreditation, study skills, MOOCs around the world, and sustainability.
The report contains 59 recommendations that have emerged from the publications and each of these is linked to the research study that generated it.
MOOC priority areas
1. Develop a strategic approach to learning at scale.
2. Develop appropriate pedagogy for learning at scale.
3. Identify and share effective learning designs.
4. Support discussion more effectively.
5. Clarify learner expectations.
6. Develop educator teams.
7. Widen access.
8. Develop new approaches to assessment and accreditation.