mobile university: learning and teaching landscape

Editor's Notes

• #3: http://www.elearning.ac.uk/innoprac/institution/resources/boundaries.doc (2005) I like to re-visit this scenario (written back in 2005), and benchmark it against current practice. The scenario is a day in the life, where the student uses their mobile device to interact with peers and teachers, and interact, create and share content. Although the technologies discussed have dated slightly the learning contexts have not. They are still as appealing today as they were in 2005. However, a question I tend to ask myself is, how close is the vision of 2005 to the reality of 2010 and beyond?
• #4: So, the aims of this session are two fold, to look at the likely learning and teaching landscape in a mobile university, and see how this is being driven by our various agents of change. I’ve selected the year 2015. I’ve chosen a this date for a number of reasons, It gives a focus for the discussion. Something which is tangible, and something to work my narrative around. Otherwise I’ll likely scattergun ideas, while I’m keen to keep this very real. It is a reality check. I recently, presented at a technologies in teaching and learning in 2015 day at Northumbria University to a small selected group on key individuals. I was the third on the bill, and a very clear message from both Derek Morrison (HEA) and Lawrie Phipps (JISC) was a focus on mobile technologies. This seemed to resonant with a large number of people in the room. However, I kept struggling with the operational implementation of wide spread use of mobile technologies (our mobile university) when I looked at this through a University of Bath lens So, the conclusions I’ll be drawing will be a mobile university, and the learning and teaching in 2015, will be similar to soil creep. There will appear to be very little change, and what change there is will be uneven. However, does this mean you should leave now for an early lunch? I’d suggest no, the discussion will show that at the moment the traditional agents of change within a university are not focussed on creating a mobile university. If we were to get this alignment at Bath then the outcomes would be very different. The question I have for you is … based on your experiences and context, who would you encourage this alignment between the priorities of the major agents of change? So, to wet the appertite, what are learning and teaching opportunities in a mobile university?
• #5: Broadly, they can be divided into two; Remembering, the University of Bath is a very traditional, research led institution, where the vast majority of our teaching is undertaken face to face, and our assessment methods tend to be a piece of coursework (individual), and an unseen exam. Therefore, the e-learning blend tends to be around a content and support model (Mason) – where the learning environments provide access to news and announcements, and course support material (handbooks, lecture notes and links). There is relatively low levels of interest in using wikis, discussion boards and quizzes to support face to face courses. Consequently, the benefits of mobile learning outlined by Sharples et al., is not being incorporated in our current learning designs. However, it does not mean it is not starting to emerge within certain programmes.
• #6: How would I like you to interpret this? It can be used in a number of ways. It can be used to better understand the relationship between core services and pilot (non-core) services. Also, to help document the resource requirements as an institution scales up from pilots to services. Within the context of this discussion is gives a snapshot that an institution (such as Bath), has a large number of learning and teaching technologies being used and owned by central teams, faculties and departments. Some of which are core, some hosted on pilot servers and some externally hosted. The rich fabric is enhanced by some being web based and some not. As the title of this slide indicates this will give me a framework to order our discussion. Firstly, I’ll focus on the classroom technologies area where we are building up a head of steam around some very exciting new learning opportunities.
• #7: So, some success stories, or good failures. Lots of experimentation with the use of audience response systems to enhance the student learning experience. For me, this is a part of the vision of the mobile university for a face to face teaching institution. It aligns to the vision of the JISC 2005 scenario where the student is using mobile devices to interact, communicate, create, share, challenge their peers and lectures. I find the quote from Bernd really empowering, it highlights the appropriate use of low threshold technologies can result in an enhanced learning experience. So given emerging evidence of effective use in learning and teaching, and my love of this application. Is this the learning landscape of 2015? What will be the landscape of the mobile university, and how will staff and students be using it?
• #8: The next few slides will illustrate why we’ll continue to have a very uneven landscape. This refers to the core technologies quandrant in the Salmon model. Just taking these two services there are clearly different strategies and outcomes to promote a mobile university. It is worth noting, these two services are owned by “central services”, however, they are owned by different groups within central services.
• #9: When I adopt a similar approach when looking at the non-core area of classroom technologies, Then the message for me is this area is very much in a rapidly evolving stage, both in terms of the technology and the way staff and students are likely to use these technologies, Therefore, a watching brief is the most suitable way forward.
• #10: So, moving away from central services, will staff be agents of change with the use of mobile technologies in their teaching. This group is crucial for medium term change as they design their learning activities to effectively use the technologies, Betty Collis developed the 4 E’s Model. This can be applied in our context to identify the factors which determine if a lecture would use a mobile based learning activity. This is where we are discussing the new learning opportunities area outlined previously. The E’s are … I’ve highlighted two indicators of the likelihood of an individual making use of mobile technology in their learning designs The outcome is, at best this is steering the likelihood to be more use of e-learning tools, but not new opportunities offered by a mobile university.
• #11: The last (but not least) agent of change is students. These can be very effective agents of change. So firstly, are there obvious technological barriers to their engagement within a mobile university? I’d suggest this indicates no … they’ve relatively good spec’d devices which will allow them to create content, share content and communicate.
• #12: http://www.bathstudent.com/your-union/sabbs/vpeducation/ The next question is, as agents of change, are students exerting pressure for a mobile university? The answer is, currently … no.
• #13: Therefore, back to the question(s) raised at the start. Clearly, learning and teaching within a mobile university, and actually the delivery of a mobile university is going to be a very slow and uneven development at the University of Bath. The likelihood is the mobile university will be dominated by the use of mobile devices to do the same as desktop devices. Which will not be a driver to change the learning and teaching model, and therefore, not the way people design in technology enhanced learning. However, does this have to be the outcome? No, this is being determined by the fact neither staff nor students are driving the mobile university agenda. So, get these on board and the outcomes can be so very different ….