Introduction
Learner needs are fundamental to creating effective teaching material, and to the relationship between the learning technologist and the teaching staff and subject experts we work with.
My primary direct learners are the staff I collaborate with to create learning materials for a variety of audiences. Each new project requires me to judge the experience, knowledge and background of the person I’m working with so that I can tailor their support and guidance, and carry them through the development process.
I also teach a broader audience of students, most of whom I will never meet or interact with. The responsibility to get things right for them is paramount, and I am keen to ensure their needs are met and considered from the beginning.
Copyright & Plagiarism – Teaching Staff/SMEs
The copyright and plagiarism materials to support students and staff has historically been delivered via workshops, and the library wanted a way of presenting it online to provide information at the point of need, and reduce the number of queries for staff. The subject expert (SE) had a PowerPoint file and a short handout as initial material, and had no prior experience with learning design methods, so I adopted a flexible approach and tailored the support I provided to fit his level of comfort.
The first development area for the SE was to understand the basic principles of learning outcomes (LOs), constructive alignment and scaffolding (Biggs, 2011; Bloom, 1956). The SE wasn’t especially confident with learning new techniques and software. Through examples, discussion and providing graphic resources describing learning outcome construction, the SE was able to practice creating LOs that align with activities and assessment. Providing graphic representations may be more memorable, and takes advantage of dual coding, involving both the verbal and visual processing channels. The retrieval practice provided by actively completing the tasks improves both memory and the ability to generalise knowledge (Weinstein et al., 2019). We were then able to refine the initial list down to five concise and achievable LOs (see tabbed area below). The focus this work provided to the SE helped to narrow down content and identify meaningful activities.
- Recognize the crucial differences between plagiarism and copyright, know how to avoid the former and use the regulations on the latter to maximum effect in their own work.
- How the provision of clear referencing to all sources consulted, both within the main body of the work submitted and in any separate listing of sources is essential.
- Have gained a clear idea of academic honesty and academic misconduct
- Can clarify the meanings of academic misconduct – cheating and plagiarism and collusion
- Have been provided with information needed in order to be academically honest;
- Can identify and help attain the skills needed for academic honesty and good practice
- Will be able to successfully engage with third party materials and use them legally within their work without infringing copyright or being accused of plagiarism.
- Will understand how long copyright lasts, across all formats of material, and be able use such materials legally.
- Will know how to go about clearing third party materials for use in their own work.
- Will know how to recognize an “orphan work” and be able to construct a “diligent search”
- Can successfully find additional help and guidance within the university on both topic areas.
- Will know how to protect their own work from misuse or theft.
- Can see how the provision of clear referencing to all sources consulted, both within the main body of the work submitted and in any separate listing of sources is central to good academic practice.
- Can successfully find additional help and guidance within the university on both topic areas
- Recognise the differences between plagiarism and copyright, and the varying durations of copyright among different forms of material [knowledge]
- Identify various types of material, including “orphan works”, and how to construct a “diligent search” for rights holders. [knowledge]
- Describe the key aspects of academic misconduct – cheating, plagiarism and collusion, and how to avoid committing these serious infractions [comprehension]
- Determine the correct process for clearing third party materials for use in their own work, and how to protect their own work from misuse or theft. [application]
- Demonstrate how to use third-party materials legally within their work without infringing copyright or being accused of plagiarism. [application]
I produced a Rise resource (project page: developing digital learning collaboratively) that provides instruction on how to write for online learning using lessons from UDL, web usability, Plain English and the teaching presence element of community of inquiry to craft personal, engaging and understandable material (CAST, 2018; Garrison et al., 2010; Nielsen Norman Group, n.d.; Plain English Campaign, 2020). The SE found this helpful in bringing together his thoughts into a usable script, and appreciated being able to work through it in his own time. It also provided a way of familiarising him with the user experience of the software.
We built a full storyboard, incorporating regular knowledge checks, scenario-based questioning and case studies to incorporate retrieval practice and feedback (Weinstein et al., 2019). A template I introduced (Figure 4) scaffolds requirements for breaking down material into a storyboard, using labelled boxes and text-based prompts. However, the SE found this overwhelming, so I transferred and adapted the material onto the template, and explained my process to model its use. I then had him make comments and revisions (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020, p. 123). This allowed me to adapt the level of challenge for the SE to ensure that it was manageable (CAST, 2018) and should allow for future independent working. Flexing my practice around his needs was crucial to the success of this project.
The last step on his journey has been to learn the Rise software, for which a demonstration and tutorial was provided, with post-demonstration exercises to ensure he was familiar with a range of features. This was completed quickly and with confidence.
“Nicola encouraged me at every step to be brave and to think outside the box, and I’m eternally grateful that I listened to her as the whole experience allowed me to challenge my existing assumptions, embrace change and learn to use new software in a fully structured and supportive way”
Colin Theakston
Durham University Copyright Officer/Faculty Librarian
Interactive chemistry experiments – bring in student voices
The ICE project was initially conceived in summer of 2021, to create a series of resources to help students prepare for practical lab experience after the disruption caused by Covid-19. At that time, I was working with Litka Milian, Assistant Professor and two PhD students who were demonstrators in the department.
One of the challenges I faced as a non-chemist was understanding both the pitching of the material, and the nuances of the material itself. Our PhD students were invaluable at this early stage, but we quickly began to get bogged down in detail and I felt that getting greater learner involvement in planning and writing the content would be crucial if we were to produce the material students needed, address the right questions, and do so at a level appropriate for their prior experience and knowledge.
At this point, Litka and I decided to apply for a collaborative innovation grant to take the project further. The grant application was accepted, and we recruited two students in January 2022 – one second year undergraduate, directly in our target learner group, and a 1st year PhD student and demonstrator, who was closer to that target group than our other demonstrators.
Since the students have started working with us, we have been able to refine our plans and scripts and work in additional questions, tips and practice points to really tightly focus on student needs. We have also been able to use the closer relationship Jake (our undergraduate) has with his classmates to gather informal feedback. This peer relationship will help us to effectively test and evaluate our materials, as the student developers will be conducting focus groups and other evaluation activities; we hope that this will result in better quality feedback than if these sessions were led by teaching staff.
Radiology Community of Practice development – stakeholder consultation
The evaluation of this project formed the basis for my MA dissertation, which looked at the design of online community of practice (CoP) spaces. As a part of this project, a stakeholder group was set up and consulted regularly to ensure that the design and functionality of the site would meet the needs of radiologists. Consultation with this group enabled me to create a map of the typical learning landscape of a radiologist, and from this design a set of required affordances identified as critical. The maps can be reviewed in the tabbed area below as both images and text outlines.
The map shows the importance of discussion for comparing cases and interpretation, seeking advice from colleagues, and incorporating other methods of keeping up-to-date such as journal clubs. Time spent on professional development is important for improving skills and clinical expertise, teaching junior colleagues and keeping abreast of technological change. It’s also a key requirement for revalidation and mandated accrual of CPD points.
The use of the internet in the learning landscape was limited; it was felt however that this was an untapped resource, particularly for more isolated practitioners who may work as lone reporters.
The plan for the site demonstrates how this intelligence was used to inform the design of the site, hand-in-hand with principles of CoP theory (Pyrko, Dorfler, and Eden 2017; Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002).
Accessibility note: The text outline can be read on the next tab
Learning landscape
- Discussion
- Colleagues from other centres – keep informed about different practices
- Discussing cases is important to ensure safe practice and improve the level of confidence in reports, and allows sharing of expertise.
- Daily conversation with local colleagues
- This would be a big problem for isolated reporters
- Able to call up people they know to discuss but hard to share images so input would be limited
- Require support and access to learning tools and information
- Journal clubs
- Discrepant findings and interesting cases – discussed to improve quality
- Discussion is a core part of learning and of managing patients
- Discussion encourages debate and new ideas
- It helps to discuss areas outside of your specific area of expertise to maintain knowledge in more general areas you are still involved in
- Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTs) for discussion of cases with other clinicians
- Only really happens with people you know already or through conferences.
- Occasionally there may be external contact in the case of procedures or imaging we don’t do locally.
- Rarely discuss cases with other departments unless there is a specific specialist problem where we might contact a regional or national colleague
- We do review cases for other regions and UK sites..
- Required to attain CPD points by professional body
- Attained by attending conferences, reflections on training, writing and numerous other activities
- Can be acquired informally through producing evidence, for instance of reflection on practice
- May be allocated by RCoR on application by conference/course organisers
- Revalidation (5 yearly)
- Incorporates CPD evidence requirements
- Internet
- Searches for articles and online resources
- Not much online interaction
- Could be a valuable resource, especially for more isolated practitioners
- Used to record in trainee logbooks and filling out online assessments
- Online marking of scan reports submitted for assessment
- Time
- Most days involve development or learning to some extent, often reading cases online
- At least 6-8 hours per week
- Teaching
- A useful way of staying up to date as the thorough research required improves own learning.
- Career development
- Projects
- Research/writing/reviewing papers
- Committee participation
- Lectures and conferences
- Reading
- Journals
- Read on a regular basis
- Time pressures at work result in this being limited to spare time
- Much more time devoted to this as a junior doctor/trainee
- Journal clubs
- Incorporates a lead who reads a specific paper in-depth and then presents key points; other attendees have read the article and then take part in a discussion after the presentation.
- Technology developments
- Involvement in procurement process for new scanners requires development of understanding of new technologies
- Unusual cases
- Mentoring
- One on one mentoring as part of training
Accessibility note: The text outline can be read on the next tab
Site outline
- Dashboard
- Summarises recent site activity and provides easy access to contribution options, member’s Circles and support. This is the landing page for logged in users.
- Circles
- Allows creation and browsing of Circles (Groups). Each Circle has its own post wall, forums, and documents.
- Cases and reviews
- Case browsing and access to submission forms
- Document Library
- Ability to upload reference documents and materials for whole site availability
- Q&A
- A searchable database for questions and answers
- Profile
- Personal details and Kudos points
- Notifications and messages
- Personal friends, circles, forums, Q&A and documents
- Search
- For posts, people, cases, circles and other site content
- Sign up/log in
- Policies
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Use
- Statements covering patient confidentiality, data use, content moderation and professional conduct
- Participant Information Sheet
- Help Centre
- User manual, details of admin team and support request form
- Members
- Searchable list of users
References
Biggs, J. B. (John B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Open University Press. Bloom, B. S. (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive domain. Longmans. CAST. (2018).
Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002
Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How Learning Happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.
Nielsen Norman Group. (n.d.). Inverted Pyramid: Writing for Comprehension. Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved 19 November 2020, from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/inverted-pyramid/
Plain English Campaign. (2020). How to write in plain English. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/howto.pdf
Pyrko, Igor, Viktor Dorfler, and Colin Eden. 2017. “Thinking Together: What Makes Communities of Practice Work?” Human Relations; Studies towards the Integration of the Social Sciences 70 (4): 389–409.
Weinstein, Y., Sumeracki, M., & Caviglioli, O. (2019). Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide (1st ed.). Routledge.
Wenger, Etienne, Richard A. McDermott, and William Snyder. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice : A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.