Assembling the heterogeneous elements for (digital) learning

Category: cquLearningHistory

Evaluation of Webfuse course site feature usage: 2006 through 2009

In a recent post I messily wrote about the start of the process of evaluating the use of Webfuse for my thesis. This post takes the ideas/process from that post and applies it to the course websites produced by Webfuse from 2006 through 2007. The data in here is in a similar time frame to the work being done by Col and Ken on their indicators project.


The basic idea is to use the categories proposed by Malikowski et al (2007) as a way to examine the level of feature usage within the Webfuse course sites from 2006 through 2009 (or as much as 2009 that has completed). The following diagram is adapted from Malikowski et al (2007) and it summarises their five categories and also gives an indication of the level of feature usage they have found in their survey of the LMS/VLE literature.

Malikowski Flow Chart

Webfuse is the web-based e-learning system that is the basis for my PhD and some description of that is available here. Most of the course sites hosted on Webfuse are not password protected – you can see the latest list here

Two of the Malikowski et al (2007) categories are excluded in the following set of findings because:

  1. All Webfuse course sites transmit content.
    The creation of a Webfuse course site automatically includes any and all course content that is in a fairly standard, accessible digital format.
  2. Webfuse doesn’t support CBI.
    Webfuse doesn’t pretend to offer any form of computer-based instruction of the type required by Malikowski et al (2007).


(*: The 2009 academic year is currently half way through the second of three terms. The 2009 numbers will increase.)
Category 2006 2007 2008 2009*
Number of course sites 304 262 229 178
Class interactions 67.1% 95.4% 98.3% 97.8%
Evaluating students 38.1% 58.7% 65.1% 61.2%
Evaluating course 96.7% 97.7% 53.3% 38.2%

Questions and observations

A misc. collection of questions and observations arising from the above:

  • Webfuse has created a set of results very different from the norm.
    According to Malikoski et al’s (2007) lit survey interactions and student evaluations are moderately used (in the range of 20-40% of courses) and evaluating the course rarely used (i.e. hardly ever used or mentioned). The following highlights some of the differences.

    In the above the level of interactions is approaching 100%.

    At times, evaluating the course, rarely ever used, is approaching 100% usage.

    Evaluating students is at levels twice that reported in Malikowski et al (2007)

  • In 2007 through 2009 what are the less than 5% of course sites that don’t have interactions doing?
  • The levels for communication (approaching 100%) is higher than that reported for Blackboard (46% in 2006 and up to 61% for T1, 2009).
  • The levels for student evaluation (around 60%) is more than double, sometime three times, that for Blackboard (no more than 20%).
  • Strong need to include in this framework some level of usage of each feature.
    The almost 100% adoption, at times, of interactions and evaluating the course, are almost certain to hide something very troubling. Yes, the course site provides that functionality. However, how much has it actually been used? There’s a need to establish some sort of measure of how much each feature has been used to provide a more useful insight into what is going on.

You can lead a horse to water…

The approach to course sites embedded in Webfuse was that there was a default course site structure. That structure would be created and filled in with information automatically. This would give academics an almost complete course site to modify. Over time, increasingly the course sites were simply copied from last term to the next, edited and used by students.

Even with an almost automated process minimising the work required of the academics, I feel there was a fair bit of limited or inappropriate use. Yes, there may be a class mailing list of discussion forum, but how often did the academics use it? I believe/feel (something that needs to be tested) that a lot of academics simply didn’t engage with these features. Either they didn’t have time or they didn’t have the inclination. For a number, I think it was a case, for a number of reasons, of minimising workloads. Perhaps it might have also been a lack of knowledge.

Problems with minimum standards

As mentioned previously my current institution is adopting a set of minimum standards for course websites. A specification of the components that all course websites must have, as a minimum. I’m not a fan of the idea and the findings here further encourage those negative thoughts.

The Webfuse default course sites were essentially a set of minimum standards that were automatically created for the staff member. Even created automatically, I feel that large parts of these course sites were not supported/used by academic staff.

What do you think is going to happen with a set of minimum standards that the academics actually have to implement? i.e. with the move to Moodle, it appears that the staff will have to do the work to construct the course sites. They have to do the work to implement the minimum standards set by someone else.

Is that going to increase the quality of learning and teaching?


Malikowski, S., M. Thompson, et al. (2007). “A model for research into course management systems: bridging technology and learning theory.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 36(2): 149-173.

Prescription, adaptation and failure around improving univeristy teaching

The following post and its content has been shaped by (at least) three separate influences:

  1. My on-going attempt to establish some ways of thinking about how you effectively support the improvement of teaching within universities – currently going under the label of “reflective alignment”
  2. A post by Damien Clark that attempts to integrate some of my ramblings into his own thoughts.
  3. The article by Knight and Trowler (2000) that I’m currently reading entitled “Department-level cultures and the improvement of learning and teaching”.

Lightning McQueen

I’ve found the Knight and Trowler (2000) article particularly good because it has expressed and explained quite effectively a number of points that I believe currently make most institutional attempts to improve teaching less than successful (Yes, there’s a good chance that confirmation bias plays a significant role here. But then I think I’m right šŸ˜‰ ). In this post, I’m hoping/planing to focus on the following points:

  • Prescription – why most institutional approaches to improving teaching generally rely on prescription and why this is always destined to fail.
  • Adaptation – how whatever “innovation” is introduced into a social setting, especially one like a university and the practice of teaching, will be adapted by the participants both negatively and positively. Importantly, a suggestion that institutional leaders need to forget about proscribing the negative effects and instead focus on encouraging the positive. Not to mention the need to more effectively engage with context and ignore “best” practice.
  • Improvement is a journey, not a blueprint – where I’ll try and outline the foundations of an alternative approach to improving teaching.

In the last section, I’ll also explain why I’ve used a photo of a Pixar movie character at the start of this post.


Damien writes in his post

It occurs to me that prescribing any particular learning theory (such as constructive alignment) is not the answer

Absolutely, this is the problem I have with most of what is practiced around improving teaching at universities, it seeks to make prescriptions. This is one example of what I label within the reflective alignment idea as “level 2” knowledge, which is defined as:

  1. What the management does.
    This is the horrible simplistic approach taken by most managers and typically takes the forms of fads. i.e. where they think X (where X might be generic skills, quality assurance, problem-based learning or even, if they are really silly, a new bit of technology) will make all the difference and proceed to take on the heroic task of making sure everyone is doing X. The task is heroic because it usually involves a large project and radical change. It requires the leadership to be ā€œleadersā€. To wield power, to re-organise i.e. complex change that is destined to fail.

When applying “level 2” knowledge about improving teaching it is typical for a small group of folk to go away, identify based on their expertise and perspectives what the solution is and then prescribe it for everyone else. Where everyone might be the program, department or the institution. You can see this quite often when there are headlines like “All students will complete at least one online course”, “All courses in our medical program use Problem-based learning”, or “All courses will have an online presence”, or even worse “All courses will have an online presence that consists of A, B, C and E with an option of F”.

Paul Ramsden – an example of “level 2” knowledge

On of the interesting aspects of the Knight and Trowler (2000) paper is that they offer a criticism of Paul Ramsden’s work. This is the first criticism of that work I’ve heard (which may say more about the breadth and depth of my reading) and one that resonates strongly with the point I’m trying to make here. It also appears to criticise the idea of “transformational leadership”, which I’m also not a fan of – two birds one stone, perhaps.

Knight and Trowler (2000) argue that Ramsden’s (1998) suggestions for improving teaching illustrate the perspective of a leader that prescribes a solution with little focus on how it will be received by the academics that will be required to adopt it. They give an example to illustrate this

Ramsden suggests that departmental leaders establish a student liaison forum where students can meet staff over lunch to canvass ideas and creative options for better teaching and learning. Such an event would be a desirable effect, rather than an achievable cause, of departmental change. In practice, in the departments most in need of change such a proposal would be met with a mixture of resistance, avoidance, coping or reconstructing strategies related to staff and studentsā€™ interpretation and reception of such an idea and its underpinning assumptions. The same is true of most of the rest of Ramsdenā€™ s proposals, such as forming groups of staff interested in working through key texts on teaching during their lunchtimes or encouraging peer observation of teaching by being the first to be observed.

This resonates strongly with me and my experience. Just last year I saw an attempt at “forming groups of staff” fail after a couple of meetings. And I see this all the time with the “prescriptions” that are rolled out by institutions.

The prescription approach ignores the findings from work on workarounds (Ferneley and Sobreperez, 2006), shadow systems (Jones et al, 2004) and task corruption. It ignores that nature of academics and teaching process.

Most importantly and pragmatically, it does NOT work. Knight and Trowler (2000)

Likewise, attempts to improve teaching by coercion run the risk of producing compliance cultures, in which there is `change without changeā€™ , while simultaneously compounding negative feelings about academic work

Of course, there’s a neat research project in finding empirical evidence to back that claim up. It might go something like this:

  • Take a look at all of the attempts to improve teaching at an institution or two, three..over a certain time period.
  • Categorise those approaches based on the level of prescription.
    e.g. how far removed from the coal face academics was the prescription decision made? What type of participation did coal face academics have in preparing the prescription? e.g. were they “consulted” (and then ignored) about what they thought of the idea? Were they involved heavily from the start? How different is the prescription from current practice?
  • Determine how successful those prescriptions have been.
    First criteria would be, “is it still being used?”. The second criteria could be, “How is it being used?”. i.e. find out whether or not academics are working around the prescription. Lastly, “What impact has the prescription had?”.

Adaptation – why prescription fails?

Why do I think this approach fails? Well, there are the empirical results arising from my observations. Observations of prescription after prescription fail either through lack of use or task corruption. There are, however, also theoretical reasons and/or beliefs about the nature of teaching, academics, universities and how to effectively enable change. The following covers one particular area around the importance and inevitability of adaptation.

The importance and ignorance of place

The Ps Framework: a messy version

In the Ps Framework I have identified “Place” as the environment in which it all takes place. It is the foundation. The nature of the “Place” (or the context) in which teaching takes place is an essential influence on what is possible and what happens. Importantly, there is also the idea that “Place” is unique. The institution I work for is different others. The departmental culture you belong to is different from the one I belong to.

Knight and Trowler (2000) suggest

Yet how this is done will vary from context to context. Case studies of actual innovations such as the Rand Change Agent Study (1974-78) have confirmed that the need to achieve mutual adaptation of the innovation and the context is one important component of successful innovations

There are many related perspectives, including Gonzalez (2009)

Factors arising from the context within which the staff member is teaching also proved to influence the approach finally adopted

Not to mention the Trigwell framework (2001) I’ve used repeatedly.

So what has this got to do with the failure of the prescription approach to improving teaching? Knight and Trowler (200) quote Fullan

… one of the basic reasons why planning fails is that the planners or decision makers of change are unaware of the situations that potential implementers are facing. They introduce changes without providing a means to identify and confront the situational constraints and without attempting to understand the values, ideas and experiences of those who are essential for implementing any changes. (Fullan, 1991, p. 96)

Academics are knowledge workers

How do you think academics react when a prescription is made that illustrates little or no understanding of the constraints within which they operate? Let’s take a little test of interactivity and have a poll. Go on, interact.

View Poll

Perhaps it’s no surprise which of the above options I believe to be somewhat unlikely. One reason I think this is that I believe academics are knowledge workers. As knowledge workers academics have considerable autonomy about how they perform tasks and often can and do resist the imposition of new technology and changes to routine. Which links to and is informed by Drucker’s views of knowledge workers “Knowledge workers own the means of production. It is the knowledge between their ears. And it is a totally portable and enormous capital asset.”

Knight and Trowler (2000) suggest

Creating an environment in which lecturers feel that they have control over their teaching, that teaching is valued and that they have room to take chances, has been found to assist in the move towards a student-focused approach which leads them towards deep learning and significant conceptual change.

Senge (1999) offers a view on the impacts of a prescriptive approach to change

Top driven changeā€¦do(es) not reduce fear and distrust, nor unleash imagination and creativity, nor enhance the quality of thinking in the organization

Inevitability of adaptation

Arising from the view of academics and knowledge workers, the importance of context and more generally the social shaping of technology literature it is inevitable that any innovation or prescription will be adapted as it is adopted. Response to change in academic contexts always produces unintended results (Meister-Scheytt and Scheytt, 2005), outcomes are unpredictable and fuzzy (Knight and Trowler, 2000). In part because “human agency means that there is choice and that actions can be taken to maximise work satisfaction in the face of structural changes” (Knight and Trowler, 2000).

People, particularly academics when it comes to teaching, will modify how a prescription operates. Partly in an aim to “handle” the prescription but also, importantly, because introducing a change in a context will generate new experiences and new insight that will shape the system, its culture and expectations. Perhaps for good and perhaps for bad.

Improvement is a journey, not a blueprint

So what’s the solution? Knight and Trowler (2000)

We suggest that learning organisations require learning managers: managers who are reflective practitioners and who apply their analytical skills to the important activity systems with which they are engaged, and develop with other staff appropriate, contextualised, strategies for change. Fullan (1993) reminds us that change is a journey, not a blueprint. Journeys are usually engaged in with a specific destination in mind, but the one reached may be significantly different from that originally envisaged and there are usually as many reasons for going as there are travellers.

Making great time, rather than having a great time

My eldest son has a growing fascination, along with many kids his age, with animation, and in particular movies from Pixar. Over the weekend, after much badgering, he received a copy of Cars. In that movie one of the characters has the line

Cars didn’t drive on it to make great time. They drove on it to have a great time.

The prescription approach is an example of teleological design. Teleological design places an emphasis on the destination, not the journey. Ateleological design reverses that.

I’m suggesting that improving teaching requires a much more ateleological approach. In attempting to explain the difference my co-authors (Jones, Luck et al, 2005) and I came up with the following

An analogy involving how to plan an overseas trip can provide a more concrete example of the differences between teleological and ateleological design. The extreme teleological approach to such a trip involves taking a package tour. Such a tour has a fixed, upfront plan designed by a group of experts, with little or no knowledge of the individual traveller, to appeal to a broad cross section of people. The extreme ateleological approach involves the traveller not having a fixed plan. Instead the traveller combines deep knowledge of her personal interests with a growing contextual knowledge of the destination to make unique choices that best suit her preferences and quickly modify her journey in response to unexpected events.

Knight and Trowler (2000) combine Weick and Fullan to arrive at

As Weick (1995) has observed in his analysis of organisational sense-making, aims are often elucidated after action, which suggests that the progress of change is more likely to be successful when it follows the path of `ready, fire, aimā€™ rather than the more usual `ready, aim, fireā€™ (Fullan, 1993, p. 31).

It’s more than that

So, do you just let each individual academic embark on their own back-packer journey of teaching. Doing what they want, when they want? No, that’s not what I’m arguing. Even with the back-packer analogy above, being an effective back-packer requires/is improved by an infrastructure that:

  • Improves/expands the travelers knowledge of the potential paces to visit.
  • Provides the necessary resources for the traveler to reach those places.

At this stage, I’m going to stop trying to extend this to a description of a solution. I’m stuck in a writer’s block and this post is already too long. Pick this up later.

Departmental leadership?

Knight and Trowler (2000) argue that

cultural change for the better can occur when the focus of leadership attention is at the level of the natural activity system of universities: the department or a subunit of it. However, cultural change has to be collaborative and is therefore unpredictable. Managers work in rather than on cultural contexts and their most important skills revolve around perceptiveness towards and analysis of these contexts

The build on this to suggest that middle managers – department heads – and how they lead are an important contributor to the quality of teaching. In particular, their use of approaches that “support the backpacker”.

I’m not convinced that the department-based approach is all that effective. I’m not sure there is an appropriate level of diversity within such groups to ensure a broad enough selection of destinations for travel.

I’m also not convinced that Knight and Trowler’s (2000) emphasis on leadership, especially that of middle management, is the full story. It continues the emphasis on Level 2 knowledge about improving learning and teaching (an emphasis on what management does) and also assumes that what a single individual does (the leader) is the complete story.

For me, the entire system, its processes and polices has to be focused on what the teacher does. On providing the infrastructure that provides the teacher with (at least) the two points introduced in the last section.


Ferneley, E. and P. Sobreperez (2006). “Resist, comply or workaround? An examination of different facets of user engagement with information systems.” European Journal of Information Systems 15(4): 345-356.

Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London, Cassell.

Gonzalez, C. (2009). “Conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching online: a study of lecturers teaching postgraduate distance courses.” Higher Education 57(3): 299-314

Jones, D., S. Behrens, et al. (2004). The rise and fall of a shadow system: Lessons for enterprise system implementation. Managing New Wave Information Systems: Enterprise, Government and Society, Proceedings of the 15th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Hobart, Tasmania.

Jones, D., J. Luck, et al. (2005). The teleological brake on ICTs in open and distance learning. Conference of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia’2005, Adelaide.

Knight, P. and P. Trowler (2000). “Department-level Cultures and the Improvement of Learning and Teaching.” Studies in Higher Education 25(1): 69-83.

Meister-Scheytt, C. and T. Scheytt (2005). “The complexity of change in universities.” Higher Education Quarterly 59(1): 76-99.

Trigwell, K. (2001). “Judging university teaching.” The International Journal for Academic Development 6(1): 65-73.

Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to Lead in Higher Education. London, Routledge.

Patterns for e-learning – a lost opportunity or destined to fail

In the following I reflect on my aborted and half-baked attempts at harnessing design patterns within the practice of e-learning at universities and wonder whether it was a lost opportunity and/or a project that was destined to fail. This is written in the light shed by the work of a number of other folk (Google “patterns for e-learning”), including the current JISC-emerge project and, I believe, the related Pattern Language Network.

I think I’ll end up contending that it was destined to fail and hope I can provide some justification for that. Or at least that’s what I currently think, before writing the following. Any such suggestion will be very tentative.


Way back in 1999 I was a young, naive guy at the crossroads of software development and e-learning, I was wondering why more academics weren’t being innovative. Actually, the biggest and most troubling question was much simpler, “Why were they repeating the same mistakes I and others had made previously?”. For example, I lost count of the number of folk who tried to use email for online assignment submission in courses with more than 10 or 20 students. Even though many folk tried it, had problems and talked about the problems with additional workload it creates.

At the same time I was looking at how to improve the design of Webfuse, the e-learning system I was working upon, and object-oriented programming seemed like a good answer (it was). Adopting OOP also brought me into contact with the design patterns community within the broader OOP community. Design patterns within OOP were aimed at solving many of the same problems I was facing with e-learning.

Or perhaps this was an example of Kaplan’s law of instrument. i.e. patterns were the hammer and the issues around e-learning looked like a nail.

Whatever the reason some colleagues and I tried to start up a patterns project for online learning (I’m somewhat amazed that the website is still operating). The why page” for the project explains the rationale. We wrote a couple of papers explaining the project (Jones and Stewart, 1999; Jones, Stewart and Power, 1999), gave a presentation (the audio for the presentation is there in RealAudio format, shows how old this stuff is) and ran an initial workshop with some folk at CQU. One of the publications also got featured in ERIC and on OLDaily.

The project did produce a few patterns before dieing out:

There’s also one that was proposed but nothing concrete was produced – “The Disneyland Approach”. This was based on the idea of adapting ideas from how Disney designs their theme parks to online learning.

I can’t even remember what all the reasons were. Though I did get married a few months afterwards and that probably impacted my interest in doing additional work. Not to mention that my chief partner in crime also left the university for the paradise of private enterprise around the same time. That was a big loss.

One explanation and a “warning” for other patterns projects?

At the moment I have a feeling (it needs to be discussed and tested to become more than that) that these types of patterns projects are likely to be very difficult to get to work within the e-learning environment, especially if the aim is to get a broad array of academics to, at least, read and use the patterns. If the aim is to get a broad array of academics to contribute to patterns, then I think it’s become almost impossible. This feeling/belief is based on three “perspectives” that I’ve come to draw upon recently:

  1. Seven principles for knowledge management that suggest pattern mining will be difficult;
  2. the limitations of using the Technologists’ Alliance to bridge the gap;
  3. people (and academics) aren’t rational and this is why they won’t use patterns when designing e-learning and

7 Principles – difficulty of mining patterns

Developing patterns is essentially an attempt at knowledge management. Pattern mining is an attempt to capture what is known about a solution and its implementation and distill it into a form that is suitable for others to access and read. To abstract that knowledge.

Consequently, I think the 7 principles for knowledge management proposed by Dave Snowden apply directly to pattern mining. To illustrate the potential barriers here’s my quick summary of the connection between these 7 principles and pattern mining.

  1. Knowledge can only be volunteered it cannot be conscripted.
    First barrier in engaging academics to share knowledge to aid pattern mining is to get them engaged. To get them to volunteer. By nature, people don’t share complex knowledge, unless they know and trust you. Even then, if their busy…. This has been known about for a while.
  2. We only know what we know when we need to know it.
    Even if you get them to volunteer, then chances are they won’t be able to give you everything you need to know. You’ll be asking them out of the context when they designed or implemented the good practice you’re trying to abstract for a pattern.
  3. In the context of real need few people will withhold their knowledge.
    Pattern mining is almost certainly not going to be in a situation of real need. i.e. those asking aren’t going to need to apply the provided knowledge to solve an immediate problem. We’re talking about abstracting this knowledge into a form someone may need to use at some stage in the future.
  4. Everything is fragmented.
    Patterns may actually be a good match here, depending on the granularity of the pattern and the form used to express it. Patterns are generally fairly small documents.
  5. Tolerated failure imprints learning better than success.
    Patterns attempt to capture good practice which violates this adage. Though the idea of anti-patterns may be more useful, though not without their problems.
  6. The way we know things is not the way we report we know things.
    Even if you are given a very nice, structured explanation as part of pattern mining, chances are that’s not how the design decisions were made. This principle has interesting applications to how/if academics might harness patterns to design e-learning. If the patterns become “embedded” amongst the academics “pattern matching” process, it might just succeed. But that’s a big if.
  7. We always know more than we can say, and we will always say more than we can write down.
    The processes used to pattern mine would have to be well designed to get around this limitation.

Limitations of the technologists’ alliance

Technology adoption life-cycle - Moore's chasm

Given that pattern mining directly to coal-face academics is difficult for the above reasons, a common solution is to use the “Technologists’ Alliance” (Geoghegan, 1994). i.e. the collection of really keen and innovative academics and the associated learning designers and other folk who fit into the left hand two catagories of the technology adoption life cycle. i.e. those to the left of Moore’s chasm.

The problem with this is that the folk on the left of Moore’s chasm are very different to the folk on the right (the majority of academic staff). What the lefties think appropriate is not likely to match what the righties are interested in.

Geoghegan (1994) goes so far as to claim that the “alliance”, and the difference between them the righties, has been the major negative influence on the adoption of instructional technology.

Patterns developed by the lefties are like to be in language not understood by the righties and solve problems that the righties aren’t interested and probably weren’t even aware existed. Which isn’t going to positively contribute to adoption.

People aren’t rational decision makers

The basic idea of gathering patterns is that coal face academics will be so attracted to the idea of design patterns as an easy and effective way to design their courses that they will actually use the resulting pattern language to design their courses. This ignores the way the human mind makes decisions.

People aren’t rational. Most academics are not going to follow a structured approach to the design of their courses. Most aren’t going to quickly adopt a radically different approach to learning and teaching. Not because their recalcitrant mongrels more interested in research (or doing nothing), because they have the same biases and ways of thinking as the rest of us.

I’ve talked about some of the cognitive biases or limitations on how we think in previous posts including:

In this audio snippet (mp3) Dave Snowden argues that any assumption of rational, objective decision making that entails examining all available data and examining all possible alternate solutions is fighting against thousands of years of evolution.

Much of the above applies directly to learning and teaching where the experience of most academics is that they aren’t valued or promoted on the value of their teaching. It’s their research that is of prime concern to the organisation, as long as they can demonstrate a modicum of acceptable teaching ability (i.e. there aren’t great amounts of complaints or other events out of the ordinary).

In this environment with these objectives, is it any surprise that they aren’t all that interested in spending vast amounts of time to overcome their cognitive biases and limitations to adopt radically different approaches to learning and teaching?

Design patterns anyone?

It’s just a theory

Gravity, just a theory

Remember what I said above, this is just a theory, a thought, a proposition. Your mileage may vary. One of these days, when I have the time and if I have the inclination I’d love to read some more and maybe do some research around this “theory”.

I have another feeling that some of the above have significant negative implications for much of the practice of e-learning and attempts to improve learning and teaching in general. In particular, other approaches that attempt to improve the design processes used by academics by coming up with new abstractions. For example, learning design and tools like LAMS. To some extent some of the above might partially explain why learning objects (in the formal sense) never took off.

Please, prove me wrong. Can you point to an institution of higher education where the vast majority of teaching staff have adopted an innovative approach to the design or implementation of learning? I’m talking at least 60/70%.

If I were setting the bar really high, I would ask for prove that they weren’t simply being seen to comply with the innovative approach, that they were actively engaging and embedding it into their everyday thinking about teaching.

What are the solutions?

Based on my current limited understanding and the prejudices I’ve formed during my PhD, I believe that what I currently understand about TPACK offers some promise. Once I read some more I’ll be more certain. There is a chance that it may suffer many of the same problems, but my initial impressions are positive.


Geoghegan, W. (1994). Whatever happened to instructional technology? 22nd Annual Conferences of the International Business Schools Computing Association, Baltimore, MD, IBM.

David Jones, Sharonn Stewart, The case for patterns in online learning, Proceedings of Webnetā€™99 Conference, De Bar, P. & Legget, J. (eds), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, Oct 24-30, pp 592-597

David Jones, Sharonn, Stewart, Leonie Power, Patterns: using proven experience to develop online learning, Proceedings of ASCILITEā€™99, Responding to Diversity, Brisbane: QUT, pp 155-162

"CQU Learning" – early days of a Second Life island

The purpose of these posts is to provide a bit of a history of the origins and development of the CQU Learning Second Life island and the initial steps into 3D MUVE’s for learning and teaching. It’s also to encourage a bit of reflection on why and what is happening as well as to make open the ideas, discussions and experiences we’re having for the wider CQU community (and others) if at all interested.

If you have any questions, let me know and/or feel free to add your comments down below.

Access to the island

Until the island is somewhat organised we’re restricting access to any interested CQU staff member. If you’re a CQU staff member and would like to look at the island here’s what you need to do

  • Get yourself a Second Life account/avatar.
  • Become familiar with using Second Life – at least a little.
  • Email me your avatar’s name.

I’ll add you to the group that can access the island and let you know.

Current state of the island

The island has been available to a small group of four or five people for about a week. We’ve all been doing some initial playing around with what can be done in Second Life in terms of building and playing with objects.

When a Second Life island is created there are four basic templates to choose from. The following is an aerial view of CQU Learning at the moment. The white area towards the top left corner is a “mountain” in the middle of the island. The landscape drops away from the mountain down towards the ocean.

Overview of CQU Learning Second Life Island.

The entry area

Initially the island was bare. It’s somewhat simple to add vegetation and other simple objects. The first step we did was to create the entry area. The place most folk enter the island. Including some initial “branding” as CQU. Here’s the current look of the entry area.

Current view when entering the CQU Learning island.

And of course, in a virtual world it can be dark. That’s why there are a few lights sprinkled around the entry area. Here’s what it looks like at night.

The entry at night

And yes, we’ve added a bit of CQU branding to welcome folk to the island.

The eventual plan is to add various teleport devices, signs and other forms of guidance to help folk find other locations on the island.

Ignoring first life in Second Life

There are various, fairly essential components of the real world that do not have much of an effect in Second Life. Little things like gravity and the weather don’t really exist. Consequently there is actually no requirement for buildings in Second Life to be built on the ground or to have a roof.

Here’s a simple building placed on the CQU Learning island. You can just make out that we’ve used the roof for something else not traditional. There’s a whiteboard, couch, bookcase and a tree located on the roof of the building.

A floating house

When you get down to it, there is actually no real reason why you need buildings at all within Second Life. The various bits of furniture could be placed just about anywhere.

On the roof

What’s next

In becoming more familiar with the environment there are a range of tasks left to do including

  • Start using these spaces for gatherings.
    How many folk can gather in one place before there are problems? Both technically with the Second Life platform but also in terms of the quality of the experience and subsequent outcomes.
  • See if different sorts of spaces enable different outcomes?
  • Play around with scripting of in world objects to enable them to respond to folk
  • Experiment with the capability of in world objects to communicate with outside web pages, particularly for the purpose of drawing “live” CQU information into the island.
  • Experiment with the creation of machinima.
  • Experiment with the creation of sculpted prims and other advanced content creation
  • Start developing an idea of the different types of pedagogy that make sense within a 3D world
  • Start thinking about how to do a bit of “urban planning” with the island.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén