Developing Teaching and Learning Systems

Matthew Pittinsky and Stephen Gilfus (2000) put the success of Blackboard down to its simple but effective three tiered product strategy that forms the backbone of its operation.  These are:-

• Deliver easy-to-use, intuitive tools for instructors, students and administrators.
• Offer an effective suite of best-of-breed pedagogical tools, enabling true teaching and learning innovation on the Web.
• Provide scalability, integration, flexibility, and customisability and fulfill the mission critical need for an all-encompassing teaching and learning solution through enterprise capabilities.

2.b. What can it do?

Together with this three tiered strategy are three broad categories that the system is used for are:-

• The first is the Learning System, this is basically one big content repository.  Its main purpose is for lecturers to present a subject within a virtual learning environment. This is achieved by using the resources made available with e-books, audio-visual files, virtual simulations and above all, imagination!  The experience that the student should have when using this system should help to stimulate thought and ideas.  This goal is supported by the systems facilities on offer to the student that includes synchronous and asynchronous communication tools such as notice boards e-mail, chat servers, instant messaging and discussion groups for students to collaborate exchanging comments and ideas with each other as well as the course tutor.  Other helpful features include online tests and assessment engines to test and assess progress made.

• Secondly the Transaction Interface deals with the financial aspect of running a course.  With a fully secure EPOS system full integration of debit/credit/discount is possible. The following are just a few areas to benefit:-

• Courses and course-related items such as books, software and tools.
• Library systems that show when a books return date has expired together with the outstanding fine
• Network printing accounts

• The third and final area is System Interface.  This is the area of the system that fully integrates the institutes existing systems into the blackboard framework.  These can range from access security systems, student information systems to management and inventory systems.

The Blackboard system aims to give an institute a fully integrated system that is compatible with MIT’s [2002] current development of Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) way of thinking.  It does this by protecting its core code, but allows partners/clients flexibility in developing their own custom extensions using Java.

As Matthew Pittinsky and Stephen Gilfus (2000) mention, since Blackboards initial inception in 1997 its user base has grown to the present “…1000 live institutions, serving 3.5 million active users in more than 70 countries, generating more than 200 million page views per month.”  Quite clearly Blackboard is an idea that seems to be changing the education paradigm.

2.c. What learning theories are supported by Blackboard?

The whole range of learning theories is supported by Blackboard.  This obviously is dependent on age, motivation, objectives, present knowledge of the subject and information wanted.

For instance if the Blackboard resources where aimed at a young audience, say 6 to 16 years of age, this age group would fall into the pedagogical theory of learning group. Pedagogy as defined by the Salford University web site [2002] “literally means the art and science of teaching children.”  With pedagogical ways of teaching the assumed roles are the teacher is active and the pupil is passive.  This means the person learning is totally dependent on the teachers’ instruction, guidance and encouragement. They are doing it because they have to.  They have no, or little knowledge of the subject.  This would also mean that the learner would also fall into the mechanistic McGregors Management Philosophy, Theory X.

For the older audience in the age range upwards of 16 a whole different set of theories could be applied.  From the age of 16 onwards students are considered academically to be adult, and can make their own choices. Most adult learners are naturally goal-orientated.  Therefore the students would fall into the andragogy theory of learning group.  Andragogy as defined by the Salford University web site [2002] is “…the concept of a unified theory of adult learning.”  With androgagy there is a whole new teacher student relationship. Course notes and presentations can be posted on the Blackboard website, but how and when the resources made available to the students are used is totally up to them.  This type of learner can be seen in Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, namely self-actualisation.  These are people that are self-motivated and need little or no encouragement.  Whilst there are some occasions when the pedagogical theories would be used for teaching adults, such as people with learning difficulties, to the ordinary adult it could be perceived as being patronising.

As well as the above mentioned theories Blackboard addresses the behaviourist problems.  It does this by creating and arranging a website that’s use results in prescribed behaviours.  Cognitive and inquiry theory problems are addressed by the Blackboard webmaster creating a website that follows natural inquiry paths that are easy to follow.  Another important aspect to andragogical learning is the third-force psychologist aspect.  These are anonymous environments where the users become supportive and help each other to achieve their goals, and in some cases surpass them.

Whilst blackboard has many good qualities it would appear that it will only be used as an aide to lecturers rather than a replacement to the more tradition teaching institutes.  The exception to this would be people with logistics problems where attendance would be totally impractical.  There is no real substitute for the human element of face to face discussion and interaction.  The strengths of blackboard lie in its linking together of academic centers of excellence and the sharing of resources.

3

Personal reflection on learning

3.a. Thoughtful reflection on the module

When this module started I was somewhat apprehensive as to what to expect.  This was not helped by the confusion experienced in the first week where we had no lecturer and consequently no lecture.  When the lectures eventually started I felt confident because I suddenly realized I was in familiar territory.  This was largely due to the fact that I have already created a few websites in the past, although these were only information-based websites.

When I had a look at the DTLS module website, I found the navigation a little bit confusing.  The guidance our class had from the lecturer was “do not go home and print everything off that is on the website.”  This was due to the fact that it was designed to be a fluid updateable site with such things as notice boards and discussion forums.  These were to be visited frequently by the students on the course. However, there were some negative aspects to module.  Everyone had problems to some degree with the website, and I for one was relieved that I had printed the entire contents off for reference.

Details of the problems experienced with the DTLS module are as follows:-

• Some links did not work properly.
• At critical times such as Easter Bank Holiday, part-time students such as myself want to dedicate valuable time to using the website, only to find it inaccessible.  This probably was due to either the network being down, or the webmaster thought the Bank Holiday was a good time to update the website.
• It would have been nice to have more regular contact with the course tutor.  We tended to get guidance, such as the ‘Design for Disabled Users’ handout, towards the end of the module and after we needed it.

Once problems were overcome, I felt the contents of the website were good and of a high standard.  At first I did as the website suggested, just dipping into the pool of information as I wanted it.  I soon found that there was so much information that I organized my learning experience so that I could read everything.  By doing this, the fear of missing a key element to the subject dissipated and I felt I was getting the full picture of the subject.

This was a BIG module with a BIG fragmented assignment!  On the whole the module was pretty difficult because there were so many aspects to it.  The team had to:-

1. Write a proposal
2. Draw up a project management plan
3. Create a web site (HTML coding etc…)
4. Have intelligible content (something worth learning) on the website
5. Study for an on-line test
6. Join in discussion forums on-line with students from Stuttgart
7. Contribute to a substantial group essay
8. Write an individual reflective essay
9. Oh yes I nearly forgot! Whilst doing all this, read and learn about the subject whilst contributing to other work on the course

With the sheer volume of work mentioned above, and the problems stated earlier, I personally felt that there was an excessive amount of work expected from us for the given time frame.

3.b. Reflection and critique of the teaching and learning experience created

The website our team created was clear and concise as reflected in the questionnaires that we received back off the end-users.  Certain features like the calculator were praised.  Although there were a few problems experienced and criticized i.e. screen resolution, cascading style pages not used.  Both positive and negative aspects have been well documented in our group report.

Students giving feedback, mentioned lack of variety, but we did this deliberately so that there was a homogenous feeling of familiarity about the whole experience.  One of the main problems with some websites that have a large variety is that the user can soon become lost or over-faced with too many choices.

Other aspects of the website that were not considered but should have been, was to include design for disabled users.  This was largely due to the teams ignorance and lack of awareness of such groups’ problems using the Internet i.e. speech navigation would have been a good addition for the partially sighted.  Martin Poulter (2001) mentions the best way to approach this HCI way of design is to “Read aloud what you see on the screen.  Does it become clear what the page is for and how to get to related pages?”  Bobby (2002), would have been a good tool to verify disability compliance, it “warns you about aspects that may present a problem to disabled users.”

Overall we felt that the learning experience this team set out to achieve was on the whole, rather successful.  We achieved our main objectives, to target the right audience correctly, and have a true teaching and learning experience.

3.c. Evaluation of the process the team used

When initiating a teaching and learning website for a module like this, the first thing to think of is, what on earth do we choose?  There is just about everything to pick from.  With our team we sat down and had a discussion about the overwhelming number of subjects to choose from.  Eventually the number was whittled down to a few.  We ended up democratically voting for the favourite topic, which was ‘Simple Math’s’.

Once the subject matter was established, managing the project was the next priority.  Tasks were identified, and members of the team were asked what subjects they would prefer/feel comfortable with.  With this task achieved a project plan was drawn-up (see appendix 1), and milestones were set.  At first there seemed to be a little bit of a hiatus.  Members allocated the task of creating and coding the website skeleton did it rather quickly, this was due to the fact that we had already done a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) module and they were totally aware of how it should function, and what medium should be used.  However other team members had to research the subject (VAT etc…) and the theories before the website could have meaningful content.  This took time, and led to irritable comments from some team members that had to be defused.  It was not until the contents started to be produced that  ‘non-content members’ realised the magnitude of what we were trying to achieve in such a short time-span.

The main things members creating the content had to identify was:-

1. Target age group– Adult, 16+
2. User profile and theory to be used – Androgogy, Maslow, Tough, Rogers and MacGregor.  The main emphasis on the site was given to 'goal and learning orientated users' who would have a genuine interest in learning simple maths.  To this end they would have to be self-motivated and willing to learn.  Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' was considered important in that the need for self-esteem (gained from obtaining knowledge most of us take for granted) would be high.  Tough suggests that the main motivators for this are satisfying a curiosity, enjoying content and enjoying practicing.  The site and the test reflect this type of user within the (intentionally) limited scope of Simple Maths.
3. Problems to be set – Within Rogers experiential model he discusses the philosophy of how people learn and says they learn more effectively when they understand the reason for learning and it’s relevance to themselves.  To this end we not only wanted to explain how to solve a problem but also to set a test for user interaction, that would give feedback.

As soon as there was some tangible contribution from all the team members, everyone felt more comfortable.  At this stage we started to pull together as a team again.

3.d. Learning evaluation

Without self-motivation I feel that this module, as would most of the course, been doomed to failure.  It put the androgogy model to the test and I feel that each one of us, consciously or not, has learnt from it.

The team was highly motivated to produce a good piece of work at the start of the module.  After a couple of weeks self-doubt and negative thoughts about the module started to creep into the psyche of some team members.  As mentioned in the Salford University (2002) course notes, as soon as adults “…walk into an activity labeled ‘education’ or ‘training’, they are conditioned by previous school experiences to on their dunces hats of dependency, fold their arms, sit back, and say “teach me.”

It seemed that people who were used to the Pedagogy model of teaching minors get confused when given the freedom of the andragogy model.  They viewed the freedom, as a prison to which there was no way out, not thinking they had the key in their hand all the time.  This key being, research and the readiness to learn and explore rather than being spoon-fed.

I have learned a great deal from this module and totally identify with the androgogy model.  Personally, the module was as much about creating a website for teaching and learning as it was about understanding ones self-awareness of the subject.

References

1. Matthew Pittinsky and Stephen Gilfus, [2000], Blackboard Product Strategy & Vision White Paper on Building Blocks (B2) Initiative, Available at:- , [20/04/02]

2. MIT, [2002], Open Knowledge Initiative, , [26/04/02]

3. Martin Poulter [2001], Design for disabled users, LTSS, Issue 22, [08/05/02]

4. Bobby, [2002], available at

5. Salford University, [2001], Developing Teaching and Learning Systems Lecture Notes on Theory of Learning (2).  [03/05/02]

Appendix 1

Assignment Specification