update – flexible learning forum April 18, 2008

I thought I might try and get down some reflections on the session at The School of Art last week before they leave my head forever…

It was a good session with a good turnout – I have 26 people who signed the e-mail list, but i think there may have been a couple more people there who didn’t. And that I know of – there were at least 11 different Schools/departments from the Polytechnic there…so it’s nice to know that there is some solidarity to what we’re doing, and it’s spreading wider than one area. I do think that a lot of those people were either from the School of Art or on the networked learning e-mail group already though…

The session

As it was the first time all these people were in the same room together I was quite keen myself to see what would happen! I hoped that people would bring up some topics and move themselves into areas they wanted to pose questions about or solve. I’m not sure this happened exactly, and I think I could have worked harder to make the session more dynamic…BUT i remind myself that it was good to lay the ground and just get introductions from everyone and their ideas/projects and that I was only facilitating and not leading…As bossy as I am I don’t want to be running any new initiative…(who has the time?!)..but I am happy to be part of a group that makes things happen.

Anyway some topics covered:
School of Art Digital Literacy Project – brief overview
Introductions
iPod project from the cookery programme (in development)
Elluminate: Problems with students not engaging
Digital Literacy, rather than learning software (This was a discussion that popped up a couple of times during the session and for me it’s a fundamental point of understanding before any digital literacy project can happen.)
Context Driven projects versus Generic Resources. (Arguments made for both sides of this. e.g. the School of Art Digital Literacy course is context specific, although the learning resources are generic. This has been seen as necessary to engage the understanding of the learners undertaking a BFA.)

Conclusion
Overall people were keen for something to happen next but perhaps at a bit of a loss as to what that could be. I suggested that everyone keen to stay in touch (assuming it was everyone in the room!) could get themselves on the networked learning e-mail group and continue discussions there – it doesn’t appear to me that there are too many people ‘talking’ on that list who didn’t come to the session anyway. I’m about to invite people from the session to do just that, but I want to get a consensus from the people who started that group first. I know there are some people not keen on the idea from a practical point of view and they’re suggesting either another e-mail group or or space to collaborate in. I can see the thinking behind this. BUT it’s hard to have that discussion without everybody communicating in the first place?!
Also – I am aware that some people are already asking for collaboration and as it has been in the past – smaller groups of people working on similar projects, so it may continue in the future. Perhaps we are only widening the network of interested parties at the moment?
Another idea from Leigh and David are to hold regular presentations/session showcasing someone’s project each time. I was hoping that people would do this more at the session last week…
Leoni is writing up her notes from the session so I’ll add anything I have missed (which I am sure is plenty!)

ttfn

Digital Literacy Roundtable Event at the School of Art, Otago Polytechnic April 7, 2008

Hot on the back of a new course featured here on wikieducator; (Digital Literacy taught to all year one and two BFA students), Prof. Leoni Schmidt has organised a Digital Literacy Roundtable at the School of Art for this coming Thursday. This is great news, and something that I think many people at Otago Polytechnic have been thinking and wanting to do for a while, but we’re all so busy getting our projects of the ground, teaching, (and often fighting with the technology?) that it all seems a bit impossible to sit in the same room and chat… Well hopefully that will change this Thursday and we get an opportunity to develop some good habits around our teaching and learning, together at OP.

Info about the session below:

There will be a Digital Literacy Roundtable this coming Thursday (10th April) at 3pm, hosted by the School of Art. I will be facilitating the discussion but would very much appreciate input from anyone interested, with an aim to addressing polytech-wide issues, focusing on ‘Digital Literacy’. We hope to allow and enable discussion around the following points:

- success stories! What are you involved with that’s going particularly well? Or what have you seen around you that’s going well? e.g. Phil Kerr’s blog?
- technologies What software/hardware are you working with and how is it going? Are there commonalities? (e.g. wikieducator) Can we/should we build on this?
- challenges… Are there obstacles in your way that are stopping your digital literacy projects, learning and teaching? How can we start to address these?
- projects? Do you have a project you would like to share, promote, get feedback on? e.g. Scope: Flexible Learning
- collaboration I think collaboration can be discussed across most points in this agenda, but let’s think specifically about what collaboration we can facilitate and where there are real needs to do so. Should we be looking for industry partners? Other institutions? Are we doing this already?
- moving forward Are there practical next steps that we can take to help each other’s projects, and enable more digital literacy at OP?

I’m really looking forward to this Thursday’s session, and I hope that by getting lots of us in the same room at the same time, we can develop our projects, learning and teaching in this area.
Please note that we hope to run from 3pm to 5pm, and will be in room P201, Leith Block, School of Art.

See you on Thursday! Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me before then if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.

Warm Regards, Rachel

What did I think of the DFLP course? March 6, 2008

Listen to my thoughts HERE!

cheers, rachel

Group Meeting January 31, 2008

FOR DISCUSSION AND ADDITION! 

Models/Inspiration:
 ART 214: Intro to Time-based and Digital Media interesting class blog set up and incorporating student posts. (Do we set up a class blog and is it just for the lecturers to access/post assignments etc. or would it be collaborative with the students? If not, would students set up their own blog?)
Designing for Flexible Learning Practice | Otago Polytechnic Blog example of a staff only blog that posted class disucssions, assignments, comments etc. and included a timetable/calendar and links to class participants blogs..
UPDATE – EVEN BETTER: dESIGNING FOR fLEXIBLE lEARNING pRACTICE wiki | oTAGO pOLYTECHNIC  Thank you to Leigh Blackall for pointing out that the Flexible Learning Practice no longer uses the blog as previous post, but has moved onto a wiki format…It would appear that this has more freedom and is easier to use than the blog format which can have quite restrictive templates…in fact – i am itching to get onto wikieducator and get started! Thanks EDC!
Here’s another good example by Otago Polytechnic…and here’s the info about its origins.
Link to Important Readings Specifically the Siggraph and Danny Butt papers.

Reading List for students(and staff!):
Creative Review Blog (UK)
Window: Scene//Electronic Art, New Media and Culture (NZ)
Wired Magazine – Listening Post: Sound Blog
Wired Magazine – Compiler: Software/Technology Blog
Wired Magazine: Art Blog

Training: Useful sites to send students to for back up help and/or homework/self-directed assignments.
www.lynda.com
www.russellbrown.com
www.webmonkey.com

Programme (content|timetable|assignments)
12 weeks
1234 | Rachel | Project 1 | assignments…
5678 | David | Project 2 | assignments
9,10,11,12 | Rodney | Project 3 |assignments

QUESTIONS: what are our aims? what skills do we want the students to have when they emerge?
——–
FYI

this paper (FA111001 Fine Arts Core Studies 1) is a Level 5, compulsory paper for 20 credits. This means there is a total learning time of 200 hours (100 taught hours, 100 self-directed)

however, this paper is made of three components of which Digital Literacy is only 1, making its component 33hours taught time, 33hours self-directed. (IS THIS STILL CORRECT – THIS IS 2.75 tth/WEEK for 12 weeks…?)

Core Studies 1 is then followed by Core Studies 2 in the first year of the BFA, and then Core Studies 3 + 4 in year 2 which are both level 6, compulsory papers and all are 20 credits as above.

WE NEED TO DISCUSS: 

PAPER DESCRIPTOR: (FROM 2007)

• GENERAL AIM AND RATIONALE : “To provide students with:
  • a project-based study of the principles of studio experimentation and research in the fine arts
  • an introduction to the key historical moments, theories and artworks in the modernist era
  • an introduction to key methodologies in research and documentation
  • extended experience in the key methodologies of drawing, in particular drawings’ relationship with research
  • an introduction to The Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the visual arts
  • an introduction to the ways in which material and conceptual exploration may be integrated in the field of visual arts
  • an introduction to digital literacy in a range of digital programmes“

 I would like to DISCUSS the following rationale, which are a breakdown of the above (but not already in the paper descriptor):

• an understanding of fundamental principles and professional issues relating to digital literacy
• an understanding of core hardware and software components and their potential application in the visual arts
• an introduction to practical skills in image, sound and time-based digital media software with an understanding of their relationship to contemporary arts practice

LEARNING OUTCOMES:(taken from the paper directive): “At the completion of this paper students will be able to:

• Think critically
• demonstrate research skills in response to a brief
• demonstrate an understanding of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and how they apply in an arts context
• use a range of digital programmes and understand their relation to and usefulness for art and writing processes
• select and use appropriate methodologies for studio and theoretical research
• document studio work
• document research
• use the internet as a research tool
• save, record and present information
• use contemporary digital documentation practices
• have gained experience in drawing the human figure, drawing from life in 2d and 3d
• understand and be able to use perspective
• make maquettes
• practice reflectively
• work co-operatively
• communicate effectively

ASSIGNMENTS?

Project 1
- start a blog which will act as a workbook for this course (all following assignments should be uploaded to your blog for assessment)
- join a newsfeeder and subscribe to the resources recommended by the programme
- join the class e-mail group and post an interesting article/internet find/video etc at least once during the project (1) and comment on at least 3 other posts during the project (1)
- del.icio.us tags? (e.g. http://del.icio.us/tags/flexiblelearning)
- learn how to scan an image/or other document…
- learn how to use an online photo gallery to upload images to link to, or find images to use  (e.g. flickr, photobucket, picasa)
- learn how to make basic image manipulations in Photoshop (e.g. crop/rotate/size…other)
- what is file resolution/are file formats suitable for images/and why?
- then work out how to do the same edits in another image manipulation software (e.g. free software such as GIMP/Picasa)

Main Project (1) 
-to work in groups
-to curate an online exhibition from ‘found’ and created images (only images?) centred round a chosen/given (?) theme…
-to present the exhibition online in an appropriate format
-to post a link to the exhibition on your blog
-to post a written evaluation of the exhibition choices and results on your blog including an evauation of the experience of working in a group

Lectures/Workshops
- Copyright, Creative Commons Licensing, IP
- Electronic Art?
- socially networked world?
- Beginners Photoshop
- Scanning
…..

i’m tired, can’t wait to start discussing these things…

Infrastructure | Applications | Environment November 27, 2007

I noticed this Technology Fundamentals Programme that the Otago Polytechnic Diploma in Interactive Multimedia Development (IMD) deliver to their first year students. Their are many crossovers to the Digital Literacy Programme we are thinking about in the School of Art, but interestingly their emphasis is on the computer components and software, before any ethical or contextual issues are addressed. We are looking at working these similar ideas in the opposite direction.

Also of note is their use of the words Infrastructure, Applications and Environment…do these relate to Access, Interpret, Create? I believe they do!

Presentation November 8, 2007

Access | Interpret | Create November 7, 2007

 I have been alerted to another group of researchers at Otago Polytechnic who are looking at building resources for “Digital Information Literacy“
Their work so far is held on this wikiversity page

We had a meeting this week about the development of Core Studies 1 – Digital Literacy and discussed the impact of this information on our course design and vice versa.

I believe that we can add to this resource and use parts of it in our teaching, and for our students to access.

We really liked the words: ACCESS | INTERPRET | CREATE
(far better than our effort in a similar vein – aquisition, application, development…rubbish!)

We see these words as integrated throughout the paper, but that the emphasis of each area will be more or less depending on the stage the student is working at, with the idea that towards the end, as they have learnt more skills, they will be creating, more than aquiring new skills (access)

I attempted to put this into a table/image of sorts (access_interpret_create.pdf )against our 5 core areas of curriculum, to try and show that as one progresses through the papers (1-4), although you are doing some of each core, to begin with, you are doing more accessing and less creating, more of core area 1 and less of core area 5. And this turns around as you progress to the opposite ends of the scale.

Our main point of difference is that we need to quickly relate the digital literacy skills and knowledge to visual arts practice and teach skills most suitable to potential arts practice, so our paper veers towards this strand quite quickly and works to include more generic digital literacy information with specific arts related digital practice.

Response to Matt Thomson’s Evaluation October 31, 2007

I responded to Matt Thomson’s evaluation plan on Blackboard, but in doing so found out a few things that I will now consider for my own evaluation. This has been a good exercise for that reason. (p.s. Matt’s original evaluation plan isn’t on his blog yet, but hopefully it will be soon.)
Below is my response.

Hi Matt,

I thought I would respond to your post – I see that it is similar in many ways to mine, so it’s quite difficult to look at  in this way… I thought I would focus on your points of difference, and in this way, expand my own learning.
———————–
You discuss using triangulation as a methodology for collecting and analysing data. In his book Doing Qualitative Research, David Silverman makes a concise and clear analysis of the pros and cons of doing so. He argues that many qualitative researchers believe that triangulation provides more reliable results than any single method, but warns against some of its pitfalls. He suggests that its success may depend on your analytical framework (Silverman, 2005) and should you choose to work in this way you set out the following, clear guidelines:

• “Always begin from a theoretical perspective or model
• Choose methods and data which will give you an account of structure and meaning from within that perspective (e.g. by showing the structured contexts of the interactions studied.)” (Silverman, 2005)

He surmises the chapter with a preference for the single method:

“It is usually far better to celebrate the partiality of your data and delight in the particular phenomena that it allows you to inspect (hopefully in detail).”

I feel that because in this instance,  you would be analysing different parts of your overall design and working with different groups of people that triangulation may be the most suitable choice of methodology, as long as you have in mind the ways in which you might analyse the diverse data it yields during the evaluation stage.

Later on you discuss what methods you would use to collect your data, and similar to my own evaluation you have turned to the some of the OP methods already in play, and that are readily available to us, such as BB, and paper questionnaire forms. I wonder, if in light of the complex nature of triangulation, that there is some way of streamlinging these methods so that they are easily referenced, or as Silverman suggests, you agree on a set framework for analysis before deploying any of them.
I also wondered about  taping, visually, or aurally, any focus groups you might get together in order to keep data for analysis. I believe that this is problematic in itself, as people can feel uneasy faced with such permanent technologies, adn don’t feel as free to speak. However, a note take may be impartial, framing what is recorded to favour one outcome or another, (without intention!) and therefore not allowing your data to be left open to different types of interpretation, in light of some of your other results.

One thing that occurs to me, is that I find it can be difficult to get students to fill in (endless) questionnaire forms. This of course depends on many things: the individuals in the class; the time of year; the way you ’sell’ it to them. I have been looking at Learning Contracts as a potential method to work with some of our students who can often feel a little disenfranchised between year 2 and year 4 of the BFA. This is a  transitional year, where the students are encouraged to be self-directed with the skills they have so far learnt, developing both their practice and their own ability to co-ordinate that development. In Using Learning Contracts in Higher Education, Laycock and Stephenson state that “there is much evidence from student, teacher and employer testimony that involving students in the design of their own programmes of study improves the quality of their learning, increases motivation, promotes understanding of fundamentals and focuses student attention on the wider relevance of their studies.” (Laycock and Stephenson, 1993) I propose here that this could be a possible methodology for structuring focus groups that involces the stakeholders that you mention above.

Once again, I hope that this provides you with some more information that will help with your evaluation process. I think that your evaluation plan is strong, reliable and well-rounded, and importantly has a good balance of investment/reward. Good luck with the course!

 

—————————
REFERENCES:
Silverman, D. Doing Qualitative Research Sage Publications, London (2005)
Laycock, M., and Stephenson, J. Using Learning Contracts in Higher Education Kogan Page, London (1993)

Evaluation Plan October 26, 2007

How will you evaluate the success of your new course design?

I see the evaluation of the new course design as one that has started already. Everything from the start of the analysis for the need for the course, its learners, its context, its technology and resources has been thought about, researched, reflected on and evaluated. I believe this gives it a strong backbone. Further evaluation such as pre-moderation before the course goes live and meetings and discussion with stakeholders will take place to ensure that the course is in-line with the Paper’s Aim and Rationale and Learning Outcomes. As we see this paper as a core to all the other subjects that students may go on to Major in later years, it will be important to have the feedback of those studio lecturers both before the course goes live, during and after as /if they notice a difference in the abilities or understanding of their students.
Post delivery of the first run of the course, student feedback and results will also be used as an indication of successes and areas for development.

Who will you ask to review your design before it goes live?

- The lecturers involved in the drawing and art theory sections of the same paper will be asked to meet to discuss the design of the digital literacy component.
-the Head of the School of Art will also be asked to be part of this group.
-it would be great to get the students who have just completed the BFA year 1 without this course (that we view as essential to their core learning) to discuss their own opinions of it. (could this be a possiblea conflict though of learning they think they may have missed out on?)

How will you monitor its success as you use it, and at the end of the first offering?

-success during the paper will be monitored formatively by lecturers who will:
-meet regularly to discuss how the paper is going
-ensure that students are on task and not struggling, or finishing tasks too quickly
-get informal feedback from the students about this, and ensure there is an open forum for students to make comment in this way

-at the end of the paper, success will be measured through:
-Otago Polytechnic questionnaires filled in by students
-a formal discussion group with students
-student results
-meeting of the lecturers from the whole paper

What criteria will you use to judge its success?

-have students achieved the learning outcomes as shown in the submission of their assignments?
-have students responded positively to the course content, the course lecturer(s)

How will you gather your data?

-questionnaire (a more comprehensive questionnaire will be created than the standard course one that specifically engages answers about this course)
-comment forum (possibly Blackboard)
-discussion forum (possibly blackboard and face-to-face, which may be recorded for future study)
-student marks/statistics

What will you do with the information obtained?

The information obtained will all go into the re-development of the course for both the second run and into the later papers that stem off from this one in the student’s next 18 months. Lecturers developing the materials will meet to discuss and rigorously assess the effectiveness of the structure, tasks, theories and practicalities of the course delivered, and implement ways in which the course can be improved to enable further learning.

Implementation Plan October 26, 2007

My implementation plan can be found here.

I chose to use Google Page Creator, as it is a software that I very minimally visited last year but never really developed anything substantial out of. I wanted to have a chance to develop a real project with it to see if I could push its potential…