I’m embarking on a research process that will look at institutional change and personal transformation amongst heritage educators. It is likely to be a four-year process that will explore the current state of education across the heritage sector in the UK, the influences on educators in this unique and colourful sector, and the impact that digital heritage, digital technologies, and digital epistemologies are having on individuals and their practice. Identity transformation is a difficult thing to measure; there are so many variables, so many factors that can impact on individuals in so many unique and personal ways. This fascinating field, one in which only an interdisciplinary perspective, and non-judgemental and open-minded approach, and the willingness of subjects to share, is likely to yield considerable insights. The extent to which Heritage Education can be analysed through a ‘Communities of Practice’ approach, through the use of interpretive repertoires, or through the theoretical lenses of transformative learning or activity theory, is yet to be seen. I look forward to sharing this research through this online space at a hearing the views of others. As a doctoral program it will have its own pace, its own problems, challenges, obstacles, boundaries and opportunities. But it seems appropriate that work looking at how digital spaces, new epistemologies, new models of interprofessional practice and emerging expectations of our heritage institutions might be researched effectively should be shared as much as possible along the way.
‘How can Museums and Heritage Institutions bring in external live content in order to enhance visitors’ experience of in-gallery objects?’
The MCG website now has profiles of the projects moving forward from the LIVE!Museum Project. My favourite (I’m biased because I am on the development team) is I, Object.
Whilst all the projects are concerned with enhancing the on-site museum experience I, Object examines how the ‘web’ (in its broadest sense) can enhance the character of the object. Because the encounter with an object in a gallery should be a special experience, informational layers must add to, rather than detract, from that experience. This project seeks to reassert the “relevance of the object, its enduring significance and its contemporary relationships to in-gallery and other experiences”.
The research question, and one now being developed into a funding proposal, is ‘How can Museums and Heritage Institutions bring in external live content in order to enhance visitors’ experience of in-gallery objects?’
“What is imagined is an object-centred network that generates live content drawn from within, and beyond, the site itself in such a way as to enhance the visitor’s experience of in-gallery objects”.
A proposal for workshops associated with devleoping the conceptual fraemework for his project are being discussed so hopefully we can benefit from a wider community imput into the idea in the next two or three months.
Version 1.2 of the SOLE ‘Toolkit’ has been uploaded today and a number of support videos (linked to from within the workbook) have been loaded onto http://www.YouTube.com/theSOLEmodel channel.
The original intention of the SOLE Learning Design model and its associated toolkit was, and remains, to embed academic professional development support ‘inside’ a learning development ‘tool’ and to embody good practice.
This isn’t as simple as it sounds but I have to say I’m enjoying the attempt. The SOLE Model (Student-Owned Learning-Engagement Model) was first mooted at the end of 2009 and previewed at DEANZ in Wellington, NZ in April 2010. In July 2010 it was presented as a work in progress at the LAMS European Learning Design conference and a cloud floated on www.Cloudworks.ac.uk.
The response has been interesting, such a simple tool (Excel!) but an easy one to use, and for some, well suited to their approach. For me, the issue has been about producing a tangible product that the student will see, and potentially manipulate. That the student can see, and engage with the learning design is, I think, significant.
Version 1.2 of the SOLE ‘Toolkit’ has been uploaded today and a number of support videos (linked to from within the workbook) have been loaded onto www.YouTube.com/theSOLEmodel channel. The inclusion student feedback on time spent, the inclusion of Intended Learning Outcomes on each student view, and the development of significant guidance and advice on each element of the model makes me feel Version 1.2 is ready! But, there is more work to be done on the advice and guidance in particular and I am considering how that may link in time to pages here on WordPress. I would like if possible to keep it very much ‘self-contained’ within the toolkit but user feedback may change that.
Serendipity perhaps. Yesterday I found myself looking at an article by James Davies (2006), ‘Dialogue, Monologue and Soliloquy in the Large Lecture Class’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 19 (2) 178-182) which wonderfully articulates the difference between large class teaching delivered for, and to, an audience and the ruminations of a speaker in their own world on stage. Last night on the BBC Magazine website there was then a wonderful 4 minute clip of actor/director Samuel West describing the different manner in which that Shakespeare’s famous soliloquy from Hamlet “To Be or Not to Be….” might be performed. The two sit beautifully together as a little staff development package for academics, and I for one intend to use them that way!
Back in August I attended a ‘sandpit’, brainstorming workshop at School of Museum Studies, University of Leicester. This was the second of three such sandpits forming the LIVE!Museum project, led by Dr. Ross Parry at Leicester’s Museum Studies. LIVE!Museum (more detail on the Museum Computer Group website) is an AHRC / BT funded initiative, led by Parry, to create viable research projects exploring ‘live’ content.
On the 14th September we held the Research*Mart, a ‘final stage’, drawing together work from 3 earlier ‘sandpits’. Details will appear on the Museum Computer Group site in due course. There were some 40 people present from curators and conservators, to academics and researcher, commercial museum designers, sound designers, software developers and educators. It was a thrilling day, but having contributed to early discussion of ‘SmartSpaces’ and ‘LiveTAG’, my passions definitely lay with ‘I, Object’ (possibly to be renamed) which explored the idea of the individual museum object or artefact being made ‘live’. The project seeks to explore the idea that the object can ‘draw in’ live content about itself, its semantic relationships, and its contemporary relevance in response to visitor interaction.
The educational opportunities, for learner (visitor) directed and initiated meaning making are significant and we know have to work out where the funding for this interesting work might come from.
The chapter was based on earlier work, mostly by Kevin and Theo Kuechel, with the (then) QIA and a variety of colleges in Further Education. The project explored the synergies between the DiAL-e Framework and the GloMaker. We haven’t followed that work up but the GloMaker tool caught my attention again with conversations at the 2010 European LAMS and Learning Design Conference in Oxford last month and I’ve been exploring. I have created a new DiAL-e ‘pattern’ file for GloMaker2, editing the XML template to provide a DiAL-e ‘process flow’ to GloMaker. I’m impressed by the ease of use of the tool now, but less so by the two existing default patterns. Will be interesting in the coming weeks to see if DiAL-e patterns make sense to others. Will share them here and at the GloMaker community wiki in due course.
It’s been a rather hectic summer personally. Arriving back from New Zealand in mid July I have been organising all the personal issues that go with a 12,000 mile move and starting a new job. My new role at the London School of Economics and Political Science is with the Teaching and Learning Centre and is concerned primarily with helping to support, develop and deliver of the in-house PGCertHE.
I’m looking forward to getting into my own research, and writing again with Kevin Burden as well as extending the work of both the SOLE Model and the DiAL-e framework over the next few years. The LAMS Learning Design conference in Oxford in July was inspiring but there is a lot to do to reorient my own understanding to fit the work of the UK sector. I have had a lot of interest expressed in SOLE since Easter, and have begun exploring the opportunities of the GloMaker tool to provide DiAL-e framework learning patterns so there will, once I’m settled be more resources and more activity here on WordPress.
With thanks to colleagues form the GradDip Primary programme at Massey University who yesterday provided some great feedback, comment and criticism on the Student-Owned Learning Engagement model. I presented briefly the SOLE model and explained the underlying rational and then showed the ‘rough’ version of the excel workbook that constitutes the ‘toolkit’.
The toolkit (see ‘pages’) is in some respects rather simple but appears to have captured the imagination of the group and as such was a spur to further development. So after incorporating some minor amendments I’ve taken the plunge and have released version 1.1 to the world! I have also created a shirt YouTube video to explain the basic structure and plan to develop some other resources soon.
The following brief video presentation was prepared for a Course Team workshop to introduce the SOLE Model.
The following brief video presentation was prepared for a Course Team workshop to introduce the SOLE Model.
The SOLE model is intended to be developmental, evaluative and descriptive. It is borne out of a desire to make the learning design process transparent to students, to encourage staff to share ‘patterns’ of learning with each other and to provide a basis for self-evaluation and development of specific learning designs. The model is not concerned with the design of specific learning activities but rather the appropriate balance between the different modes of student engagement anticipated.
The model does not prevent an academic scheduling four hours contact time a week and delivering a didactic lecture, but it would illuminate clearly that that was the approach being undertaken. Likewise, the model in and of itself does not prevent staff from reproducing an identical pattern of learning every week through a paper or course, but again, the models’ associated toolkit would make that process clear.
The SOLE model is not prescriptive and it is possible for teams to change and modify any aspect of the toolkit to suit their needs. The intention however is to provide staff with a model of effective practice such that one might be concerned about the quality of the student learning experience if the model illustrated a consistently ‘unbalanced’ approach.
One would anticipate that the visualisation generated by the toolkit would reflect a pattern of learning that differ from paper to paper, and from week to week. One could anticipate for example that in the first week of an undergraduate paper there would be significantly more ‘teacher-centeredness’ than in the twelfth week of a postgraduate paper. The visualisation will differ; the patterns can be expected to reflect different levels of engagement.
Centrality of Biggs Constructive Alignment
It is no coincidence that the model places the intended learning outcomes (ILO) at the centre. In each constructively aligned paper the pattern will be different because the learning outcomes, the assessment designed to illicit evidence of attainment and the patterns of teaching required to support that process will each be different. The SOLE model is precisely that, a model not a template. The model can, and should be adapted by staff to suit their particular approach to learning. It should reflect the nature both of their discipline, students existing context and the specific teaching environment.