1. Disrupt or co-opt? The role of a pedagogic planning tool in promoting effective design for learning Liz Masterman Oxford University Computing Services Marion Manton Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford

2. Overview Planning as a response to disruption Phoebe “show and tell”  Background and design rationale  Development methodology  Quick tour of Phoebe The tool in context  Issues and their resolution at the theoretical level

3. Disruption as a driver to (re-)planning “E-learning is often talked about as a ‘trojan mouse,’ which teachers let into their practice without realizing that it will require them to rethink not just how they use particular hardware or software, but all of what they do.” (Sharpe & Oliver, 2007, p. 49) “It fundamentally made me think about what I actually do in the class. … The VLE really made me think about ‘how am I going to project what it is that I give to a lesson when I’m face to face on this screen?’ … Usually I don’t have to plan my lessons, I just go in and do it … What it brought me back to was the actual lesson plan, you know, like when you first started off … it was like that all over again.” (School teacher)

4. The problem space: disruption seen as threat “Technology-reticent” practitioners:  Lack of awareness or interest  “Technophobia”  Lack of time to explore (esp. if part-time or hourly paid)  Aversion to risk inherent in experimentation  Fear of being supplanted  Incompatibility with institutional model of learning But pressure to engage with digital technology  From above Implementation of VLE Use of technology as a criterion in performance assessment  From below Student expectations How to engage the technology-reticent?  Institutional staff-development initiatives…  …mediated by pedagogic planning tools

5. Enter the pedagogic planning tool… =Where the individual practitioner starts getting to grips with technology and exploring its implications An emergent genre:  JISC Design for Learning programme (2 projects), DialogPlus, ReMath  Guide teachers through the construction of plans for learning sessions that make appropriate, and effective, use of technology Pedagogic planning:  Concept of “lesson” alien to HE  Pedagogy “embraces an essential dialogue between teaching and learning” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 2)

6. The Phoebe project JISC Design for Learning programme May 2006-February 2008 Builds on research-based investigation of “generic” tools used for planning Aim:  Enable teachers in post-compulsory education to develop their confidence and skills in designing technology- mediated learning experiences

7. The design challenge “Maybe it’s going to be difficult to develop a single software tool kit that suits everybody’s preferences for planning learning (paper based, software or a mixture of both!) and maybe it could be useful to develop flexible software tools that support teachers through the ‘process’ and stages of designing for learning…” (Teacher in HE)

8. Design philosophy Principles  Propagate effective practice to a wide audience  Allow option to use familiar planning tools Rationale  Learning Design tools in limited use; output XML  Successful IT projects build on users’ work, not force them to adapt

9. Informant design methodology Involve representatives of the e-learning community where their contribution will be of the most value (Scaife & Rogers, 1999) Practitioner-informants: requirements gathering, scenarios of use, initial design  5 Higher Education  2 Further Education  2 Adult & community learning, work-based learning JISC Experts’ group: confirmation of design decisions Becta and HEA: embedding, sustainability

10. The Phoebe prototype Phase 1: proof-of-concept tool Open source, built on wiki technology Supports planning for individual learning sessions Context of use  Initial teacher training  Staff development Functions  Guidance, advice and examples  Planning a learning session

23. The tool in context: issues Staff development and teacher- training context validated by reviewers and informants Yet continuing dilemma: how to engage technology-reticent practitioners… …for whom disruption is not a welcome message  Adopt a theoretical perspective

24. The tool in context: a theoretical perspective Activity Theory and expansive learning (Engeström 1987, 1999)  Linking of the individual and the social  Historicity Object and motive: the need to work on a problem space to achieve an outcome

25. The tool in context: planning as an activity system Outcome Pedagogic plan + other resources needed for the learning experience Subject(s) Teachers, learning technologists Object The learning experience being planned Tools Community Department, college/university, subject interest groups Rules Curriculum, timetable, institutional strategies and policies Division of labour Planning / advising / supporting Transformation Cultural: concepts, templates for plans Technical: computer, pen & paper

26. The tool in context: expansion thro’ contradictions Development driven by contradictions  Within the activity system  Through interaction with other activity systems Encounter with a “culturally more advanced object and motive” (Engeström, 1987) :  Design for learning Current practice Design for learning

27. The tool in context: D4L as “culturally advanced” “The process by which teachers – and others involved in the support of learning – arrive at a plan or structure or design for a learning situation” that strikes “an appropriate balance between e-learning and traditional modes of delivery” (Beetham and Sharpe, 2007, p. 7; JISC, 2004, p. 11) Focus on sequences of activities carried out by active learners Design as rational and systematic and creative Design for: acknowledges the contingent (But NB people can design for learning without explicitly “doing” D4L) A perspective, not a methodology

28. Towards co-option Development through:  Reflection on irrupting activity system  Appropriation of more advanced models and tools  Implementation of new model D4L as a creative response to challenges of new technologies but genetically connected to predecessor activity Acknowledge connection and build on it:  Identify and capitalise on emergent D4L traits in current practice Hence co-opt the technology-reticent into a community of D4L practice BUT acknowledge that entrenched perspectives may persist and must be accommodated