Transcript The Higher Education Academy

The Academy Research Observatory –
‘Surveying the Landscape’ & update on
developments
Martin Oliver
London Knowledge Lab
& Higher Education Academy
Emails
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
More information at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research/observatory
Piloting site:
http://academy-research-observatory.pbwiki.com/
The Observatory
A service promoting and exploring the use of
practice- and research-based evidence to influence
policy and practice in teaching and learning in Higher
Education
Tools to enable access to evidence and syntheses of this
evidence (e.g. prototype repository and syndicated search,
wiki)
Spaces (real and virtual) to help communities explore
evidence-based practice and its implications for students'
learning
A work in progress
Initial proposal to HEFCE for an e-Learning Research
Observatory
Landscaping study
https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/display/hearoc
Judged to have wider relevance
A research observatory for Higher Education
e-Learning, Widening Participation, Employer Engagement
Other ‘strands’ may be added - although the strands may not be
explicit represented in the final structure
Overview of development
•
August 07 – July 08
• Scoping the Observatory
• Landscaping report for e-learning (exemplar
area)
• Generation of pilot resources and services
• Proof of concept piloted at Academy
conference
•
July 08 – July 09
•
•
•
•
Development phase
Pilots focusing on community engagement
Wider consultation
Promoted at Academy conference July 09
Phase
0
Phase
1
Phase
2, 3…
Landscaping evidence use in e-learning
Series of exploratory studies within e-learning
Beetham, Sharpe & Benfield
‘Landscaping’ consultation
Interviews with key informants
Survey (116 responses)
Follow-up interviews
https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/display/hearoc/
Yes, but…
Keen on single point of access; research reviewed,
evaluated and synthesised
Questions – e.g. how does this relate to other
Observatories…?
After that, great variability
“The impossibility of categorising respondents as
users, producers, policy makers or intermediaries for
research is in itself is an important outcome.”
HB: What kind of research or evidence should a research
observatory focus on?
I: Evidence that e-learning really works.
HB: What would that evidence look like?
I: It would need to show real improvements to learning outcomes,
across a large number of students. It would have to have
credibility and rigour.
HB: Can you think of an example of research evidence of that kind?
I: Not off the top of my head, no.
HB: So does this research really exist?
I: No, the observatory would have to fund it. OR Yes, it is out there,
the observatory will have to work really hard to find it.
HB: Can you think of a situation when evidence like this has really
changed people’s practice or understanding, in your
experience?
I: Well, the cynics always ask for evidence that e-learning really
works.
HB: Do you think that evidence, if you had it, would lead them to
change their minds?
I: No, they would find arguments against it from their own discipline
perspective.
HB: So what about people who are actually open to change?
I: They never ask for evidence. They ask for examples, especially
from their own subject area, and practical ideas. They are really
responsive to other people in their discipline who have tried
something and made it work.
Identified strategic choices, approaches and risks
Strong persuader or neutral observer? (Setting agendas)
Funder?
Push or pull communications?
Quality assured, selective research or evidence and examples?
Audience: researchers, intermediaries, practitioners or policy
makers?
Building authority or democratic knowledge? (Who can write?)
Central or local knowledge management?
Face-to-face or technology supported networks?
Building from this: choices and risks
Internal discussions about priorities, style, focus
Something that has to be revisited. Regularly.
Oakleigh evaluation report – the need for engagement with the
community; perceived as remote, authoritarian
Personal interests in people and how they make sense of
technology in their work
Risk assessment
Scoped scenarios; risk document based on report
Focus for discussion within project team meetings
However…
Impending ‘launch’ at Academy conference – determined initial
priorities
Pilot site for preliminary consultation
Building from this: e-Learning pilot
How do communities produce, share and use evidence?
QA/QE in e-learning SIG
Expert review about e-portfolios
Discussion about professional role (M25 Learning Technologists
group)
Open peer commentary on the national development programmes
Review processes, to identify approaches that may have
wider value
Feed these back to inform the development of the whole
observatory
Overview of lessons:
Resources provided for people were not necessarily
(ever?) taken up
Communities rise and fall
Expert review uninviting to others (useful, but not an
invitation to contribute)
Open peer commentary engaged invitees then
stopped
Building from this pt2: wider consultation
Inviting contributions from wider groups
Employee learning and widening participation communities
TLRP conference workshops
ELESIG meeting (Today!)
Case studies with communities (Heads of e-Learning Forum)
Input into specifying the Observatory; documented
cases of evidence generation and use
“Phases” – question of whether this is Phase 1, 2 or 3…
Building from this pt3: e-Learning projects
Small grants for research
Projects awarded, visited once, conclude by
generating reports
New model
Projects awarded, brought together, given technical
infrastructure (wiki, Ning)
Will be visited, encouraged to use Web2.0, brought
together mid-project and again at end
Wiki for Academy-funded projects
And what next?
New round of projects (provisionally)
Smaller-scale reviews
Special Interest Groups
Possibly projects about technology to support evidenceinformed practice
Emphasis on engagement (I hope)
Wiki-based reviews for open engagement
Social networks – finding people, not just research outputs
However…
Continued visibility of central resource
Yes, it’s a repository… but it’s not just a repository
If it’s just a website it’ll be pointless
Invitation to engage does not guarantee engagement
So…
The “hidden” agenda for this meeting:
ELESIG as a community of research/evidence
producers (and potentially, users too…)
An opportunity to support and encourage evidence
use
Documenting the process
Identification of some outcomes
• Available via the RO wiki (so you can edit it ’til you’re happy!)
What now?
Working from your experiences to influencing policy and
practice
Morning: generating messages from current practice
Afternoon: working with key messages
Task:
Claims you’d like to make based on what you’re
currently up to
The format
In tables…
1. Chat about what you’ve been up to
2. Jot down claims you’d like to make
3. Note, under each, evidence to support
them
Then…
4. Swap tables! Critique!
5. Return and repair to make claims robust