Phoebe: Web 2.0 Technology to Support Innovation and Collaboration Among Teachers Aim of the Phoebe project To build an online pedagogic planning tool that enables teachers in post- compulsory education to develop their confidence and skills in designing effective learning sessions (lessons). By “effective” we mean learning sessions that:  Are motivating, enjoyable and productive for both students and teacher and  Make appropriate use of technology (or even none at all). The Phoebe approach Our approach was based on the belief that a pedagogic planning tool should:  Fit teachers’ existing pedagogical approach while opening up the opportunity to develop it in positive ways and  Make acceptable demands on their personal resources This led us to focus on a tool that propagates the principles of effective practice to a wide audience, by allowing them to explore new ways of teaching and learning while still having the option to plan with their familiar tools. References Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human- Computer Interaction Research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Masterman, L., & Vogel, M. (2007). Practices and processes of design for learning. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 52–63). London: Routledge. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., & Davies, M. (1997). Designing For or Designing With? Informant Design for Interactive Learning Environments. In CHI '97. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems. (pp ). New York: ACM. Informant Design Informant Design involves the input of various representatives of the e-learning community at the specific stages of the project where their contribution will be of the most value (Scaife et al., 1997). We recruited 9 practitioner-informants from HE, FE, ACL and work-based learning to provide input into the design of Phoebe and to act as sounding boards for our ideas. From individual preliminary interviews we constructed a number of scenarios of practice in order to build an understanding of representative contexts in which the pedagogic planner might be used, and thus make informed decisions about its content, structure and functionality. We then fed these into the Activity Theory analysis. We also conducted a consultation activity with the JISC Pedagogy Experts’ Group to find out i) what components teachers take into consideration when planning a learning session, ii) what terminology they use for these different components, and iii) how they move among these components when creating a plan (see picture). Activity Theory Activity Theory is “a philosophical and cross-disciplinary framework for studying different forms of human practice as development processes, with both individual and social levels linked at the same time” (Kuutti, 1996, p. 25). It enables us to study simultaneously the practice of individual teachers and the institutional context within which they work, and to balance the interests of both. Representing the task of planning a learning session as an Activity system (see below) draws attention to the relationships among those components and enables us to analyse these relationships in terms of:  Enabling factors that promote successful accomplishment of the activity  Contradictions, or misfits that inhibit successful execution. This analysis helped us to make key design decisions and to determine to what extent introducing a novel pedagogic planning tool might (a) resolve conflicts and enhance existing practice, and (b) exacerbate existing conflicts or give rise to new ones. Eliciting design requirements: The design requirements were derived from a combination of an “Informant Design” methodology and an Activity Theory analysis of outcomes from an earlier investigation into the “generic” tools used for planning: the Learning Design Tools project (Masterman & Vogel, 2007). Planning as an activity system Outcome Pedagogic plan + resources needed for the learning session Subject(s) Teachers, learning technologists Object The learning session being planned Community Department, college/university, subject interest groups Rules Curriculum, timetable, institutional strategies and policies Division of labour Planning, advising, supporting Transformation Tools Cultural: D4L concepts, templates for plans Technical: computer, pen & paper What did our informants tell us? “One of the main benefits of technology is that it offers an opportunity to think/talk about teaching and learning: teaching in a more interesting way, thinking about how students learn.” Change comes when individual practitioners open themselves up to exploring new approaches: “If [a] lecturer is interested in moving their teaching forward, for me that is the start.” Discussions about introducing e-learning are a dialogue between experts: the e-learning adviser and the tutor: “I have to work with that expertise and knowledge… Listen to them and then say ‘try this.’’’ Even so, the community must play a central role in encouraging innovation across an institution: “It comes out of networks of people who are interested in teaching.” “…teams of people, where the strong carry the weak along with them.” Implementing the Phoebe pedagogic planning tool: Key design principles Dual function:  Provide a tool for planning an individual learning session.  Offer general guidance on the effective use of technology in teaching and learning, backed up by specific examples and case studies. Context of use:  Support staff development (initial teacher training and CPD), yet also offer a guiding hand to the “lone enthusiast.”  Provide a stimulating and useful planning environment for those who are already skilled in the activity.  Make the tool available to individual communities to customise to suit their local circumstances.  Enable plans to be shared within and across institutions to disseminate innovation and good practice. Technology:  Build the tool using open-source wiki technology. Phoebe as a source of guidance Phoebe helps users to match tools to suitable learning activities and vice versa, and provides overviews of different pedagogical approaches including instructional design, constructivism and inquiry-based learning. Eventually, each “page” of guidance will provide access to case studies, example plans and other additional resources. The community dimension of Phoebe, which will allow content to be adapted to local needs and preferences, was praised by a participant in the evaluation of Phase 1: “I like the proposal of Phoebe supporting communities of practice rather than being left open ended. Its use could then be introduced and supported by an informed person who is a trusted or significant others for non-informed members.” Phoebe as a planning tool: Phase 1 A “wiki within a wiki” enabled users to create and co-edit plans in free-form text, supported by context-sensitive guidance that would itself be editable by individual communities. The value of this guidance was noted in the evaluation of Phase 1: “[I have] not come across anything that does that type of thing before, things that people do need to think about but don’t always do it.” Phoebe as a planning tool: Phase 2 Feedback on Phase 1 from practitioner-informants and other evaluators suggested that (a) the “guidance” role of Phoebe predominated over its usability and usefulness as a tool for creating plans, and (b) users needed a more holistic view of their plans. We have addressed these issues in Phase 2 by enabling users to adjust the relative proportions of the guidance window and planning area, and to expand and collapse their view of the plan. Although this has meant departing from the wiki technology, the wiki “spirit” of collaborative creation remains a key design principle. Liz Masterman, Oxford University Computing Services Marion Manton, Oxford University Department of Continuing Education Funded under the JISC Design for Learning Programme, May 2006-February 2008