Section 1

1.1 Background

As this century unfolds social change makes it necessary for our education system to be dynamic, adaptable and creative (Brighouse, 2000). It is accepted that over 60% of the jobs that pupils currently in our education system will be undertaking by the year 2010 have not yet been thought about. This requires education leaders who can be flexible and adapt to the challenges the future brings (NCSL, 2002). One of these challenges will be the continually changing pattern of learning. For example as online assessed courses are developed across the world, learners will be able to study at their own pace, in their own timelines and opt for those courses best suited to their needs from any number offered across several countries.

Powerful online tools can support learning programmes by combining pre-existing or purposely designed course content with collaborative online learning environments and reflective dialogue. Methods of communication using asynchronous online conferencing allow us not only to extend learning beyond the confines of traditional professional institutions but also allow a loosening of the traditional course's time restrictions. The online elements of programmes offered by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) were purposely asynchronous, enabling busy professionals to study at their own pace and in their own time.

Computer technology can be used as a conduit to deliver content (Information Delivery Technology) or it can help support the building of deeper understanding (Information Communication Technology) through participation and engagement (Heppell, 1999). How we use the technology, and the model of learning we adopt is vital in empowering learners to control and direct their own learning.

1.2 ULTRALAB's philosophy underpinning online learning programmes

Learning can only be truly successful when learners are fully engaged and able to explore their understanding by dialogue and negotiation with fellow learners. In doing this they test their learning, refine and develop it. Ultimately they control, own and pace their learning and its structure. This philosophy that empowers learners to control their own learning complemented the underpinning philosophy of the new National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH). The NPQH programme developed in 2000 was designed as a dynamic, flexible programme with an underpinning philosophy of constructivism and participation. The course enabled the learner to select areas of study, to be self-paced, and thus self-directed and to enable pragmatism to develop into a more reflective dialogue based on theoretical models of leadership.

Empowering learners is a key foundation in ULTRALAB's research philosophy, which is based on the work of Vygotsky and his notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in which the tasks and concepts that are still being developed are within a learner's ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). A learner progresses with concepts so that they move outside of the ZPD by dialogue with others and through self-dialogue. In both the NPQH and Certificate of School Business Management, the expectation is that learners will not only contribute through dialogue, but will reflect on the learning that takes place. In this sense both programmes fall into the constructivist model. Palincsar (1986) is most explicit in considering dialogue; It is the means by which learners are provided with scaffolded instruction. It is through this scaffolding that social learning takes place (Bruner, 1996)

In both the NPQH and Certificate of School Business Management, we have observed learners taking ownership of their learning through active participation in communities as they move from a model of dependence and structure to one of initiating and leading discussions. This progression has been apparent even in the smaller shared learning spaces on the NPQH programme where online teachers "set up" pre determined discussions. Learners soon take the lead role and have "driven" the conversation by initiating discussions that concern their direct professional development. At the same time online teachers have used their expertise to break away from structured tasks to develop community spaces to fulfill the needs of their group of learners.

This is a necessary process if online teachers and learners are to take control of the communities and a necessary process for disengagement of the facilitation team. This mirrors what happens in a traditional classroom, with the effective teacher allowing learners to take control of their learning.

We similarly observe that the role of the online "teacher" moves from directing to enabling online learners as they move from dependence to ownership. This confirms the model posed by Chapman and Ramondt (1998) and is underpinned by Vygotsky (1978).

When establishing the online element of programmes, it is essential to determine its purpose and how it fits in with the rest of the programme. To be effective, it must be seen as an integral part of the programme - both by programme designers and learners. By integrating all components, learners are more easily scaffolded to take ownership of their learning. Development of understanding in one component can be applied in another.

It is also essential to consider the role of the online "teacher". This is a phrase that does not sit happily with the concept of the self-directed learner, and is used here merely to distinguish it from the learner. Those employed or adopting this role of "lead-learner" will have a different emphasis on their work depending on the needs of the programme, the needs of individual and groups of learners and on the point reached in the programme. These emphases include:

These roles are not mutually exclusive. For the purposes of this paper, we shall use the term "online teacher" to cover them all.

1.3 Models of learning

Knowles' (1984) model of andragogy has four strands that, he claims, underpin adult learning. This model states that adults learn best when learning is

There is some confusion when e-learning is discussed, where interaction and communication are emphasised. We should be aware that communication is not collaboration, just as choice is not participation. Learners need tools which allow both communication and participation to take place as effective learning requires both (Vygotsky, 1978).

E-learning has become something of a panacea and the term itself is unhelpful, concealing as it does a variety of paradigms. Salmon (2002) identifies four models for the future development of e-learning:

Content: from the beginnings of distance learning programmes, the dissemination of content to remote learners has been seen by many to be the key objective - "content is king". The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, the resource needed to develop, store and maintain up-to-date content is huge. From large centralized servers through to armies of researchers ensuring that information does not become obsolete. The model also implies a top-down source of content.

This is in contrast to ULTRALAB's philosophy of iterative development of content. In engaging with online learning communities, learners are synthesising knowledge and reflecting on their practice. This leads to the generation of new knowledge for future cohorts to use as a resource for their learning. Consequently the set of materials used on programmes required to aid and guide learning will be less necessary. This knowledge, from those who are practitioners must be seen as carrying as much weight as the theoretical and academic resources traditionally cited as references. The strategies learners will require is guidance on discerning the quality and utility of available information, and how to use these materials rather than rote learning and recall.

Learning objects: another approach, popular in the debate on standards (Cabinet Office, 2002) is to divide the content, and the assessment, into small chunks - learning objects. Learners can have the appropriate object delivered to their desktop on demand. This again requires resource to develop the learning objects. It is very much emphasizing the delivery model of learning and the acquisition of bite-sized pieces of knowledge. It does not provide a framework for reflective learning based on practice. This paradigm is the one behind the development of managed-learning systems (MLS). These are being used in some NCSL programmes, including the Certificate of School Business Management pilot, alongside the community.

M-learning: learning anywhere, anytime. A viable option as technology moves on and one in which ULTRALAB is engaged in research (ULTRALAB, 2002). It places an emphasis on the technology, and this does not fit easily with developing programmes that are available to a mass audience, many of whom have had no previous experience of ICT as a vehicle for learning, and do not have access to the technology. ULTRALAB's research is into developing a micro-portal that may be accessed through conventional and mobile phone browsers.

Community: the theories of learning described above require that professional adult learners have an environment that allows for collaboration, social and reflective learning. Providing a community-based online space, with asynchronous activity, and appropriate facilitation, mentoring or tutoring provides for these dimensions. The use of such spaces allows the learners to develop their knowledge together, applying it to the real problems they face in their professional contexts. It does not pre-suppose that this knowledge is external to the learners, rather it provides a medium to synthesise and develop that which is already known.

Asynchronous conferencing in a community as a vehicle offers us entirely new opportunities to examine learning and to ignore these and concentrate on formalised assessment as a way to measure learning would be foolhardy. Formal assessment procedures carried out online measure little except recall, a written report of the course (or elements of the course) completed, or responses to a question bank about a course. For deep learning to take place reflection, which may lead to new insight, is required. Learning requires an examination of the process involved which enables an examination of knowledge and understanding, not simply to test online learner's ability to report or be tested on predetermined information. This is a fundamental philosophical position. It is summarized in table 1.1 below.

Managed Learning

ULTRALAB/constructivist model

Dissemination model

Participation model

student tracking so that enterprises have students enrolment cards

student tracking so that students can revisit courses taken in the light of their new learning

chat rooms where students can discuss with mentors                                      and/or experts immediate issues

chat rooms and a raft of asynchronous discussion tools where students can work with other students mentors and/or experts immediate issues

evaluation of courses offered

annotation of existing learning sites

assessment to evaluate learners' performance    

portfolio of work

skills management to allocate students to appropriate courses

skilled facilitation

Table 1.1 Philosophies of learning

ULTRALAB's considerable experience leaves us unequivocally wedded to the appropriate use of ICT as a means of communication and interaction between online learners and online teachers.

Image 1.2 Paradigms of learning

Coomey and Stephenson identify a paradigm grid for online learning and our philosophy is to aim for a learner-managed programme with open-ended tasks.

1.4 Community software: the tools required

In designing the community software used for the NCSL programmes, ULTRALAB has worked with Oracle in developing think.com. This software was, in turn, based on the design of Spinalot (Smith, 1999), community software used for the Learning in the New Millennium project run by ULTRALAB with Nortel, bringing secondary school students into learning communities with adults from business environments.

At the heart of the design are four principles:

Think.com provides a platform in which software tools enable learners:

The think.com environment continues to evolve and both ULTRALAB and NCSL are consulted by Oracle's design team to develop a generic, customizable space.

1.5 Theories supporting communicative and participative learning

The participation model views learning as a social process, involving both the active construction of new knowledge and the understanding, consideration, participation in and discussion about existing knowledge.

Within the use of community software there is no doubt that new knowledge is emerging. Within the NPQH programme of Virtual Heads the programme materials located on an external server are based on established knowledge. These could have an authentic flavour added by integrating the summaries of hotseat discussions that have taken place within think.com. These summaries and hotseats embody the emerging knowledge, provide case studies and scenarios which are based on the authentic experiences of senior managers in schools. These discussions are seen as relevant for those who accept that the knowledge resides in the experiences and expertise of the profession itself. We have noted that policy makers talking to NPQH learners initially feel that they are imparting knowledge only to find that learners themselves have much to offer in terms of their own research and become excited by the possibilities.

"The online learning community is the thin end of the wedge. I'm sure it will become a standard means for policy-makers to learn from experienced practitioners and to gather and disseminate best practice. The National College for School Leadership will lead the way, but government as a whole will follow. As we move into an era of transformation, policy success will depend on the capacity to learn from the front line." (Barber, 2000)

1.6 So why is collective learning so effective?

When participants collaborate, as they are encouraged to do in programmes like NPQH and the Certificate of School Business Management, they are involved in the active construction of knowledge which is combined with peer learning. This results in the development of different methods of problem solving and interaction and consequently results in motivated and considered feedback (Kaye, 1995).

"I can totally relate to feeling a sense of satisfaction at people taking on board staff ownership as mentioned by (name1) recently. It is so hard to appear non proactive in order to develop staff, at the same time ensuring progress is being made. I'd like to thank (name2) for his almost finite self appraisal in developing the selection process to recognise inspirational potential. Perhaps there are benefits after all linked to teacher shortage, more focused and allowing individualistic, not isolationist input...."

(Contribution in NPQH summary of learning discussion May 2002)

This consideration is especially emphasised where communication is asynchronous as in think.com. Empirical research demonstrates the strong positive effect of interactivity on learning (Bosco, 1986). Stafford in 1990 examined 96 learning studies which concluded that interactivity was associated with learning achievement and retention of knowledge over time (Najjar, 1995). Educational theory (Bruner, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) has long established that people learn material faster and have a better attitude toward learning material when they learn in a participative learning environment. It is this very participation that is encouraged when programmes use online communities, such as Virtual Heads and Bursars Count.

1.7 Research methodology

For this research report we use interpretive (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000) and naturalistic (Robson 1993) methods rather than quantitative research methodologies. In recent years, interpretive research has become widely valued as a research method because it collects qualitative data within naturalistic settings and can provide a depth of information often not available to quantitative research (Patton, 1990). Qualitative researchers do not believe that there is one objective truth but that there are multiple realities. These are accessed through observation and participant observation, case studies and written documents. Interview analysis is interpretive and relies on direct quotations from people about their experiences, understanding, feelings and opinions. Such observations provide detailed descriptions of people's activities, behaviours, actions and interactions as well as observable organisational practices. Written documents, such as quotations and excerpts from discussions, reports, learning journals and responses to open-ended questions are analysed (Patton, 1990).

The amount of participation can vary from the ethnographic (entering the world of the learner) to simply engaging in the learning context. Although participant observation has in the past required physical presence, it should be remembered that the community containing the researchers, online teachers and learners is online and asynchronous. Although not together in real time, all exist within the online community and can participate in the debates and discussions surrounding all stages of programme. The participative community has formed the basis for the iterative design and development of the community spaces.

Trinagulation of methods draws the source of the data from both qualitative and quantitative data. Data triangulation requires the cross checking of data from different sources (Patton, 1990). In this report, the data collected from a phone survey carried out on cohort 1 of NPQH in July 2001, an analysis of learning which took place in eight of the Virtual Heads hotseats and one of the longer discussions which took place on the Faith page in Virtual Heads provides the material for data source triangulation when combined with unstructured interviews, observations, focus groups and documentation.

To carry out this triangulation we carried out an examination of learning and developed a taxonomy that sought to measure learning on a continuum. This analysis was carried out manually rather than through using discourse analysis tools.

Discourse analysis tools are best used for content analysis as in any dialogue examination there is an ebb and flow of discourse and a mass of interpretative information, for example the relationship of one comment to another, the tone of the comments. Only by examination of the whole discussion can comments be classified. Even using this method it is necessary to understand that the approach is limited. To understand the process of the learning for the online learner examination of comments needs to be followed through with an in depth interview (in much the same way as a viva teases out the learning and new understandings). This is time consuming and not always possible as many learners will view this in-depth discussion, which has no benefit for themselves, as an intrusion on their time. We therefore recognise that our analysis will be limited.

1.8 Towards a taxonomy

In our analysis of learning we have developed two continuums which allowed us to measure learning. With regard to the hotseats taking place in programmes we have used the following categories for comments:

With regard to other discussions we used as a starting point Gilly Salmon's taxonomy (Salmon, 2000), which, developed as a model for business discussion, did not fit our learning outcomes. We therefore refined Salmons model to develop the following "Evidence of Learning Taxonomy"

     1.    offering ideas, resources, information, opinions, asking a simple question

     2.    ...and inviting critique of them

     3.    asking challenging questions (response or initiation)

     4.    articulating, explaining and supporting positions on issues (raising)

     5.    exploring/critiquing and supporting/challenging issues by adding explanations/examples or discussing and expanding others' ideas (feedback)

     6.    negotiating interpretations, definitions and meanings

     7.    reflection

     8.    new insight/ conceptual change/ re-evaluation/ synthesis

We also attempted to measure impact which we defined as proposing/ taking actions (change based on developed ideas). We would expect to find evidence of impact rarely. Many online learners are not in the position to make change happen even though they may be aware of the changes which need to be made.

Back to contents

 

 


heppell.net