Research Study on the Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities Martin Oliver, UCL/IoE

Project team Martin Oliver, project manager Steven Blakemore (Stoke on Trent College) Stephen Bostock (Keele University) Grainne Conole (Southampton University) Tom Franklin (Franklin Consulting) Allison Littlejohn (Strathclyde University) Patrick McAndrew (Open University) Lou McGill (Strathclyde University) Rhone Sharpe (Oxford Brookes University) Jan Smith (UCL)

Project outcomes Not just long reports but things that people can use (Sarah P) A typology of resources, tools and approaches that have been used – Resources include case studies, articles, guidelines, reports, etc. – Tools include learning design tools, VLEs, etc. – Approaches include development practices such as mentoring, networking, formal consulting and professional development Recommendations for the design and delivery of programme outcomes

Context for the outcomes It will be the task of the Research Study (practitioners) to determine which of these outcomes – and other conceivable instantiations of e-learning models – are most usable in practice by practitioners. – Implies that the reports and recommendations will need to include value judgements (cf. RMs report) Assumption: Most practitioners, in HE and FE at least, are working in similar organisational contexts, supporting groups of learners with similar educational backgrounds, to meet a limited number of accredited outcomes – This assumption will need to be explored as part of our descriptive work

Context for the outcomes It is the task of the Research Study (practitioners) to explore which aspects of the learning situation are most significant to practitioners, and in particular which aspects need to be made explicitly available for planning, adaptation, reflection and evaluation [… The intention is] to support practitioners in these specific activities, and […] not pretend to be a global description of learning, suitable to all purposes and perspectives. – Implies: (1) A best stab at being useful (2) some modesty about what we will be able to achieve

Context for the outcomes Some clarity about things were not doing: – …a standard list of features relevant to practitioner choice, a standard means of representing variability of those features […] and some additional means of representing different contexts.

Project overview Initial overview report on resources, tools and support services (RS) – by Easter Extended reviews (drafted by May 10 th ) on – Resources (AL, SBl) – Tools (GC, SBl) – National services (TF, SBl) – Institutional services (MO, SBl) Typology report (PM, LM, SBl)

Project overview Mid-term project meeting – Confirm typology report within team – Prioritise gaps from extended reviews – Plan empirical work Empirical work (SBl, Sbo, JS) – Consultation via JISCs links – Consult on typology – Consult on findings (form will depend on what weve found!) – Extend reviews Production of final recommendations

Incidental outcomes Not just long reports… …but some of these are inevitable Outcomes necessary for the projects work, additional to the formal (required) outputs – Final project plan (for project use) – Preliminary report – Set of four reports (resources, tools, national services, institutional services)

Inter-relationship with the Models project Feed in to that project – Documenting what people do with existing theories, guidelines & tools should help inform design of that projects outcomes – Typology may be useful in expanding the glossary and/or structuring part of the tool output Feed in to this project – A developed understanding of effective practice (RM) – Models & theories are an example of resources; when identified these will be useful to include in extended reviews – Glossary and recommendations for effective practice can be considered in the reviews – The output tool (whatever form it takes) and guidelines are also tools that could be referred to… time permitting

Consultation with experts This meeting – Check the credibility of this approach – Identify any major gaps early on Next meeting (mid-May) – Present preliminary review – Present draft extended reviews – Discuss & identify changes, gaps etc. – Identify priorities for empirical consultation phase Final meeting (June) – Presentation of typology report – Presentation about the empirical work – Discussion of draft recommendations