The old models of programme delivery were based on information dissemination. This meant that information became dated, and so continual information updates were necessary. In the old model of NPQH for example, the materials to accompany the programme were supplemented by weekly updates to ensure online learners had the latest information.
Thus any online programme needs to be sensitive to, and respond to, change. Such change will come about during a learners' period of study. ICT enables this to be incorporated and enables the qualification to remain relevant to the needs of future leaders. Implicit in the new model therefore was the need to change the culture amongst tutors and course providers from one of using a static body of knowledge to a dynamic exchange of viewpoints supported by the latest evidence. This cultural change would then be transferred to learners.
The driving forces behind this radical rethink were not only political, but also educational. Anecdotally, the traditional course had a reputation for being disjointed from reality and perhaps, more fundamentally, hard to access aslearners were expected to travel to seminars (in some cases these were very remote) once every three weeks. It was also rooted in old educational theory (learning by receiving information). As the NPQH review process discovered many learners felt that tutors simply passed information to learners and expected them to comment and critique the information. Feedback on the old model emphasised the value for learners of meeting other learners and sharing views and ideas in the lunch, coffee breaks or pub after the course ended.
For the redesign of NPQH two key characteristics, collaboration and participation, require a more complex model than simply placing the content of units of study online, and the generation and transmission of content of knowledge. The value of these characteristics is supported by ULTRALAB's previous work on online communities (Talking Heads - communities of serving Headteachers, Chestnet - a community of health professionals). ULTRALAB has developed and researched the use of community for school students and adults as a vehicle for learning and for small and medium enterprises (Chapman and Ramondt, 1998). ULTRALAB believes this course delivery model without appropriate facilitation, collaboration and delight will not lead to the necessary increase in learning and engagement that will sustain the e-learning market that analysts envisage (Ramus, 2000). Internet based e-learning must add value to traditional methods, building on what works well in classrooms if it is to succeed.
The online teachers for all programmes are expected to be responsible for this scaffolding but this requires a change of philosophy. We have observed this change in both NPQH and Bursar tutors. Wenger (1998) has developed pedagogical theory to apply it in an online context. He states that learning is only possible when the acquisition of skills and behaviour is combined with the understanding of meaning. Thus the position of language and dialogue is central. By articulating a shared terminology, Wenger argues learning moves from the abstract to the concrete in the minds of the learner. This is one of the aims of the new model NPQH, and specifically the online element of NPQH, Virtual Heads. Learning in this way is a social activity.
To develop an online course with agility and flexibility provided a challenge. In designing the learning in NPQH, Pat Collarbone (2001) emphasised its reflective nature. The learning opportunities and activities are grounded in practice with prior assumptions, knowledge and understanding being tested with colleagues and fellow learners. She describes a double loop in which primary learning is then developed, reframed and reapplied. Learners reflect on their learning and on that of others in the first loop and then reflect again on the synthesized learning. In NPQH this second loop is most often manifested in the summative school-based assessment and tutor visits.
2.2 Development of online learning programmes
The new NPQH includes an online element which combines the programme materials and an online learning environment. The programme materials were put onto a dedicated web site. Learners were also provided with 32 paper based units that formed the primary content. The web site has been developed by ULTRALAB to eventually become the sole distribution channel of the content.
The content within the web site was produced by a dedicated team of writers led by Dame Pat Collarbone (Director of the London Leadership Centre). It was linked to an online learning community, Virtual Heads, facilitated by ULTRALAB facilitators. This community space also provides localised communities (online tutorial groups) in which NPQH tutors encourage and orchestrate meaningful debate between learners and give shape to the learning.
Access to the course materials was via a hyperlink from within Think.com communities. This allowed learners to use one ID and password (that used to access the community software) and emphasised to learners the importance placed on the community and discussion elements of the course because the online course materials could only be accessed by passing through the community space.
Hotseats are a tool, which enable learners and tutors to engage in dialogue with guest speakers. Until December 2001 at any one time there were two hotseats, each serving different needs. One guest was a subject expert, often a DfES policy leader; the aim here was to allow online learners to gain insights from those responsible for implementing policy and test their own understanding and context against a national picture. The other hotseat guest was a serving headteacher, providing online learners with a case study of another school and leader who is in some way an exemplar. The first hotseat guest in Virtual Heads was Michael Barber who wrote an article 'From Improvement to Transformation' and then answered questions. Other topics have included: Team Leadership and Teamwork, Governors as Critical Friends and Teaching and Learning. Guests have included Tim Brighouse, Dame Pat Collarbone and Gill Tween, a headteacher in her first year of headship. As we move into the third cohort, many hotseat guests are returning to run more sessions, and we are able to build on the previous summaries to develop the shared learning.
All hotseat discussions are summarised and archived by ULTRALAB facilitators, although the original links into the biography, starter article and hotseat are maintained in the summary to allow online learners access to the detailed conversations. Over a period of time these hotseats will constitute a considerable resource. The asynchronous nature of the hotseats means that high profile and busy individuals can reach a wider audience and contribute at a time and place convenient to themselves.
Greater democracy is emerging, triggered by the hotseats with policy experts and officials from the Department for Education and Skills officials. Policy amendment bears testimony to the fact that the dialogue with informed practitioners is proving invaluable in informing policy design and understanding. We are seeing a shift from Policy makers delivering policy to headteacher, to a consultative mode as the realisation is dawning that they are speaking to key informants within the profession who have a body of knowledge, which can be used to form and inform policy design. There is no doubt however that the increased transparency can also be very challenging to these experts.
A consistent approach was adopted in the national overarching space of Virtual Heads, few changes being made. From January 2001 the area contained a noticeboard, where both online learners and teachers could raise issues, links to documents and external sites (including the NPQH materials web site) and the hotseats.
As the number of hotseats increased the archive page began to expand and in December 2001 the page was restructured to link each hotseat to the relevant module. The rationale for this re-organisation was not only to aid navigation but also to clarify the link between all the online elements in the psyche of the teachers and learners.
The two specialist pages (faith and special schools) were added in September 2001 following a criticism in the TES that the new model NPQH largely ignored faith schools.
In February 2002, following the graduation of the first cohort of NPQH in January 2002 the NPQH graduates' page was established. This gave graduates a specific place in the community until they achieved headship and were thus eligible to join Talking Heads.
Finally, following navigation concerns expressed by participants, a graphic interface was added to the Virtual Heads' front page in April 2002.
After tutors had received their initial training they were invited to join the 'Good Practice' community. This space was where the ULTRALAB facilitators could communicate directly with all tutors. Advice on using the tools and examples of a Module Discussion Group and Summary of Learning Group were provided. Tutors could question the facilitation team, initially these queries were mainly technical but soon addressed other issues such as participation. Some regions also had their own tutor communities and so many tutors will have used these areas to further their professional development.
All learners were joined to a Module Discussion Area. These were designed so that discussion could take place with a large number of online learners. Discussions in these areas surrounded the four programme modules, were regionally based and managed, were cross phased and occur with approximately 54 fellow learners. These communities aimed to provide online teacher-led predetermined discussions (they were written into the modules and the expectation was that online teachers would, at least initially, transfer the questions into the community for learners) that were heavily focused on the specified activities within the units. It is in this forum that online learners were expected to share their pragmatic, school based experiences and online teachers were expected to enhance those experiences by drawing the online learners into a more reflective mode.
With Cohort 1 (January 2001 - January 2002) this largely failed in that the module discussion areas attracted very few participants. A number of reasons for this were evident and are discussed in section 5. As a result, when cohort 2 started in September 2001 the membership of the module discussion group was expanded to include learners in both Access and Development stages in each region, approximately 200 participants. It was also decided to open all discussions for contribution at the start of the course to allow participants to contribute when they were studying the unit, thus building the programme flexibility into community.
In Cohort 1, learners also shared a Summary of Learning Space with their tutors. These were set up by the tutors initially and this in itself created problems. Many tutors were unfamiliar with the technology. Some had received their training in November 2000 and had not reinforced that learning. In February they were expected to be able to have mastered the technology and be able to create communities with their learners. Many were unable or unwilling to do this and so learners were in effect coming on line for a tutorial only to find the tutor missing and no room in which to meet. Other tutors created the Summary of Learning Space from an inappropriate community and so there was little consistency between regions and tutors.
Some tutors preferred not to use the Summary of Learning Space and communicated with their learners by e mail which was time consuming and wasteful. There was little shared learning and no contact with other members of the tutor group.
Following pressure from the ULTRALAB facilitation team it was agreed to experiment with combining the summaries of learning of each online teacher, creating shared learning spaces of between 12 and 15 online learners with one online teacher. This shared learning space provided localised communities (online tutorial groups) in which NPQH online teachers encourage, stimulate and orchestrate meaningful debate between online learners and give shape to the learning.
The tutors could use their time more effectively because they could see at a glance who had recently contributed to their summary of learning and therefore could respond accordingly. Learners could see what the other members of their group were learning and they were able to comment. They could also see how their work was progressing compared with others in their group.
This smaller group is supported by some face-to-face online tutorials and online learners are encouraged to meet and visit each others schools. The online discussions here are focused on the learning that each online learner has recorded. It was anticipated that online learners will 'collect' comments, discussion points, questions and answers from other parts of the online environment that are relevant and key to their own learning and share these with their group. These form an online learner's summary of learning, which is shared and discussed on line with their online tutor and which is the principle record of the formative learning.
At the start of cohort 1 learners were encouraged to join together in groups of 5 or 6 and develop Learning Circles by creating online spaces. These were intended to replicate online the social and support network which develops when, following a seminar, a group of programme participants might join together at a local pub and discuss the seminar and their work informally.
There was little firm basis for these groups, membership being based on a couple of hours attendance at a formal meeting and largely the areas remained unused. This practice was dropped for cohort 2.
Despite additional refinements with cohort 3 (January 2002) the module discussion areas remain largely unsuccessful in terms of participation. The simplified model adopted by some online teachers, although appearing more attractive, has failed to generate a large number of contributions to discussion items. The Shared Learning Spaces (see section 3) run by the most charismatic and competent online teachers now appear to cover much of the module debate and in these cases a clear purpose for these spaces is still sought.
2.6 Certificate of School Business Management pilot
Learning from the lessons of 3 cohorts of NPQH the Certificate of School Business Management Pilot started with a number of agreements concerning structure. Participants had only 2 places in which they were expected to contribute, the overarching area, Bursars Count and their tutorial group.
From cohort 1 starting in February 2002 the communities have been both vibrant and engaging. Following the successful structure of Virtual Heads overarching space Bursars Count, with 125 members, has both hotseats and a noticeboard. The vibrancy is shown in that by April 2002 the community was on its third noticeboard. Already, 216 contributions have been made on these 3 noticeboards, ranging from:
"I'm here to Does anyone have experience of raising sponsorship for Specialist School status bids?"
to
"Am about to convert from LRM4 to FMS6 Finance module. My helpline isn't particularly mm........'helpful??'. Can anyone tell me how I enter unreconciled cheques from LRM4 onto the new system."
The community is used to prepare learners for the face-to-face events. Administrative information is provided as well as a hotseat for any questions that learners may have. They have to go into the community to find out information as they are not normally sent an e mail but are expected to go into Think.com for this purpose.
The programme of hotseats range from those who are policy experts on bursars and bursar matters, for example Nick Tomlinson of the School Workforce unit at the DfES, to existing experienced Bursars, for example a bursar from a High School who has been answering questions on: The Social, Political, Economic and Cultural aspects that contribute to the Education Enterprise. The programme of hotseat guests is structured so that a presentation is made at a face-to-face event, the slides from the presentation are made available to learners who are then able to ask questions in the hotseat. This gives learners more time to think about their questions and the guest can answer when convenient, this integration of the face-to-face meetings with the on line community is a welcome progression. The community is vibrant and friendly, learners sharing their experience and problems.
The tutorial groups consist of ten participants and an online teacher. Some tutors are encouraging their learners to share their learning journal with others in their tutor group and in these cases if has been useful. There is a purpose for the group and it saves tutor time because they only need to respond when a learner has made added some work to their learning journal. Again, the noticeboards are friendly, combining social and work related items.
| Back to contents |