Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given at the SUILCoP event on 29th April 2009. The presentation covers the BRUM project and re-usable learning objects in general. It also covers issues surrounding sharing learning material.
Citation preview
Designing RLOs for Information Literacy: The BRUM Project
Nancy Graham April 2009
BRUM – Part One
Background and outline of project What is a ‘learning object’?What is ‘good’ design?What about pedagogy?How do we test our RLOs?
BRUM – Part Two
What can we learn from good practice?
Creation vs. re-useSharing – time for a CoP? Information about existing material
Background to BRUM
Birmingham Re-Usable Materials
Externally funded
15 RLOs to support information literacy
Engagement with academics and students
What we did
15 RLOs
3 x Captivate demos
3 x Turning Point quizzes
3 x audio guides
3 x audio/visual recordings 3 x Choose your own
Adventure PowerPoint
http://www.is2.bham.ac.uk/blasst/brum.htm
What we did
10-20 hours per RLO
Other librarians got involved
Steep learning curve!
Problems
What the academics thought
Academic ‘buy-in’
Time – theirs and yours!
Role of librarians
Sage on the stage culture still pervades
What the students thought
Pre and post questionnaires
Focus group
“I’ve been thinking for ages about how to get the best out of eLibrary and now I’ve seen these RLOs, I’ve learnt loads.”
“if it wasn’t for this meeting today I
would never have found these, and
wouldn’t have even imagined that this type of thing existed.” “these need more
promotion”
What is a learning object?
What makes a learning object
‘re-usable’?
What is ‘good’ design?
Granularity Generic and adaptable Using familiar technology/software Meaningful metadata Flexible
Granularity
Generic and adaptable
Using familiar technology/software
Meaningful metadata
Flexible
Background to BRUM: SPIRE
Wikis
Communication tools (instant messaging, social networking)
Creating content (blogs)
Background to BRUM: SPIRE
Organising information (Bloglines)
Keeping up to date (RSS)
Social tagging (del.icio.us)
Can be aggregated
Re-usable and re-purposable
Self-paced, interactive
Self-contained
Flexible use
RLOs
Design attributes of RLOs
“Mash ups”
Re-usable and re-purposable
Self-paced, interactive
Embeddable
Accessibility – want to log on anytime,
anywhere
Students
Attributes that appeal to students
Pedagogy
Link to learning outcomes
Learning styles
To test or not to test?
Technology vs. pedagogy
Text vs. interaction
How do we test our designs?
Student assessment and feedback Academic feedback Colleague feedback Objective peer review (Merlot)
Where’s the good practice?
CILIP sub-group IL page – starting point Merlot – evaluation criteria Cardiff – excellent examples NDLR – community of practice SMILE – example of re-used material
Creation vs. re-use
Creation
Pros Complete control and
ownership
Specific to institution
Understand context
Cons Can be time-consuming
Duplication
Silo working
Re-use
Pros Save time
Use existing good practice
Avoid duplication
Cons Can be time-consuming!!
Nothing ‘fits’
No context
No or restricted persmissions
Other re-use issues Quality assurance
Metadata (discoverability and relevance)
Repositories vs. silos
Sustainability
IPR
Sharing
Cultural changes
OER (JISC projects)
Common goals?
A community of practice?
Further information
IL RLO Share wiki: – http://ilrloshare.wetpaint.com
Project blog:– http://brumproject.blogspot.com
Project web-site– http://www.is2.bham.ac.uk/blasst/brum.htm
Nancy Graham [email protected]
