1. Communicating Learning Online:
Will we ever get the conversation right?
Presentation to the iBEE conference, September 2016
Julie Clarke
Programme Leader: MSc Construction, Surveying and Housing

2. The Conversational Framework
Laurillard (1999) stated:
the learning conversational framework needed to be made explicit;
while recognising that it does not remain static.
As classroom teachers we have ongoing dialogues about learning with our students
together we frame and reframe that conversation.
Do we apply the same conversation to our interaction with distance learners?
used the conversational framework as a tool through which to critically reflect on our DL delivery
In 1999 Laurillard looked at the relationship between the learner and the organisation offering the learning and attempted to aid our understanding of the importance of setting in place a conversational framework, that needs to be made explicit to all and that we recognise that it changes over time as all participants (teachers and students) engage with the learning itself.
In the traditional context of the classroom (especially the tutorial, seminar or workshop) we frame and reframe the conversation through interaction, dialogue and non verbal communication – through this we adapt the process of learning when what we are doing does not work as expected for that group or that individual – and in doing so enhancing the learning process for all.
We have begun to ask ourselves at Northumbria do we have the same conversational framework in our interaction with distance learners and in order to answer that question we are using the conversational framework as a tool to critically reflect and develop our understanding of our online learning processes

3. Reflecting back MSc pathways developed in 2006
Surveyed students formally at key stages – 2008 & 2016
Informal feedback solicited throughout
Ongoing recognition that despite innovations we were not meeting student expectations
We began developing and then delivering our suite of DL MSc Surveying and Construction pathways in 2006 and I (Julie) have (has) been involved since their inception in terms of module delivery and the development of the student support framework and I am (Julie is) now Programme Leader.
We apply the University’s module and programme evaluation framework to our DL programmes as part of the annual evaluation cycle, hold virtual staff – student programme committees, and solicit informal feedback
BUT response rates are traditionally poor, it is difficult getting reps together online and utilising informal feedback to inform module delivery varies amongst staff
We do recognise from this, that while perhaps a bit tough on us, we do not always meet student expectations.
For us this feedback, such as it is, raises questions about the value of time fixed prescribed points of evaluation and feedback as opposed to ongoing evaluation not just in terms of overall satisfaction BUT
That the conversational framework is applied as a concept in such a way as to ensure the dialogue is ongoing, is ongoing across all modules, is about the learning process itself, as such has no end points but a series of check points through out the learning process itself and allows change
So while we have to overlay institutional frameworks they should not prevent us being more responsive

4. What were the issues in delivering a meaningful conversation?
2006
paper based knowledge transfer, stand alone tasks, no variation in format, dialogue through discussion boards.
2008
findings indicated students wanted more diverse and interactive learning materials – so….
2016
findings showed while interaction was still of prime importance to students their focus had changed to communication/dialogue.
2006
Paper based, formulaic knowledge transfer; when the discussion boards were poorly utilised we ‘blamed’ the students; we attempted to create an interaction through a residential focused on the assessment but there was variable attendance and, to be honest, variable delivery in terms of the quality of the interaction/support students received - but students welcomed this as their only opportunity to engage in a dialogue
In 2008 the students clearly stated that their understanding of the conversational framework and ours had diverged (although not in those words)– they wanted more diverse and interactive learning materials
So we used different technologies such as camptasia and, more recently, panopto in an attempt to address this – but the emphasis was still heavily on knowledge transfer – for the majority of modules it was still a process of putting the papers online and waiting for the assignments to come in.
Our 2016 survey showed that while we were getting better at delivering a more interactive learning experience (again not across all modules) the focus for the students was on the lack of ongoing communication and dialogue throughout their process of learning
Raised the issue for us about how we replicate that classroom dialogue that happens on a daily/ weekly basis on campus in order to ensure a deeper learning experience for our DL students
We need to understand the process of learning as experienced by our DL students in its entirety and make changes as the learning process progresses to ensure we are having that ongoing conversation

5. Issues for consideration in order to get the conversation right
Understanding what we mean by a conversation is shared by all participants
Conversation has to start at or before induction
Ongoing, interactive process of learning and being open to change
Staff development and support
Sharing the experiences
Technology as support not a substitute for the conversation
So as delivers of on line learning what do we need to consider in order to get the conversation right:
Shared understanding is a great deal more complex than a learning contract on the programme home page
The institution’s perspective frames the conversation at the higher level – they commit the resources or indeed do not
Do all teaching staff share an understanding but more importantly buy in to the conversation at a programme and module level – if not variable experience will reduce not only the quality of the student learning experience/outcome but will also impact on institutional outcomes – retention, results, recruitment etc
Making sure the students know what to expect in terms of our delivery and their involvement in their own learning at the outset, what it will look like on their programme of study and what they can expect in terms of our responsiveness to their changing needs
While we may state explicitly at induction what the learning process will entail – interactive materials, virtual tutor groups, asynchronous discussion boards/blogs, social media platforms for informal student engagement, face to face guidance via skype etc – as teachers, through an open and ongoing dialogue with our students, we need to be open to change as the learning process progresses not just at the end and importantly we need to be open and responsive to individual learning needs – remember changing how your delivery when the students aren’t quite getting it in that classroom seminar
Staff development and support is crucial to this process – but what exactly does that entail? Yes training and support around the technology but also understanding how DL students learn, what are their expectations and how can we meet them; sharing experiences of what works well and applying them – this includes us as teachers learning from our students as well as each other; engendering a culture of dialogue and responsiveness through change.
Technology is a mechanism to support the conversation so we need to avoid getting ‘carried away’ with technology for it’s own sake – I’ve (julie’s) done it
But for me getting the conversation right, and it may be that actually getting it right is not an end in itself but that it is the process itself that is more important, stands or falls on the commitment of the institution and the buy in of all of the teaching team.

6. References
Luarillard D (1999) A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the ‘Learning Organisation’ and the ‘Learning Society’, Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 16:2,