The Sharing Vision

Prompted by the visit to Belfast we decided it would be a good idea to formally examine our (Leeds met) sharing philosophy regarding LOs. As this hasn’t been previously represented I also thought it might be a good idea to model pre and post sharing with regard to the repository. Again I have fallen back on adapting UML case studies to visualise these processes. Generally these are read from top to bottom connections show potential decision points, where either, both or none of the following process may be undertaken. Actors represent roles or systems playing a role within a process.

 

To facilitate this development I cornered our repository officer Nick Sheppard and did a short interview. I doubt there will be time to do a full transcription of this but it did give me some insight into past and future aspirations for the repository and the workflows surrounding it. I’m uploading three of the four intended workflows now, in case time runs away, with evaluations are my top of my agenda at the moment.

 

Pre-repository shows some learning content being packaged as a learning object using such applications as Course Genie and eCat. Similar to Belfast theses were often used within the VLE. The predominant process was the creation of content and storage on personal or shared drives. Conversations between colleagues were the main driving force for sharing; this resulted in direct hard drive access for the resource, link sharing or a hard copy being reciprocated, depending on the nature of the content and storage facilitated by the tutor.

 

The current state of affairs, extracted from the conversation with Nick, again has some strong links with Belfast. As we are still discussing the various issues regarding general public release of Leeds Met learning objects, all current upload and potentially any search and download, request go through the repository officer. The repository is as yet not ready for general institution-wide access, with only small pockets currently populating it under Nick’s guidance. One of the most difficult tasks regarding this filtration through one team is the back and forth communication required to gain complete metadata particularly. This is particularly prevalent when checking the copyright of repurposed learning objects.

 

The vision is to enable individuals to upload and download from the repository as part of their natural content development process. To enable this, the repository needs to be accessed from what ever personal work point an individual chooses to use. This is my simplistic version of this vision with and emphases on as few and seamless connections to as many interfaces as possible. I’m sure others including Nick will add to and comment on this to give it a more robust appearance.

 

The final and missing diagram, I’m currently extracting form Nicks interview, tries to capture the perceived next step…..

Current sharing

Pre-Repository

The Vision

Reporting on Belfast Metropolitan College Visit

Although I originally planed to do a day by day account of our visit to Belfast Met I decided that this would not give a coherent and clear view of the workflows that they have developed. Also Nick has already voiced the more personal aspects of the visit, so I won’t be repeating them here. The following report discusses the creation, use and sharing of learning objects. Overall there is a strong culture of learning object use which has been supported by a dedicated team both technically and artisticly. As Nick has pointed out in his post, there is little metadata creation. The primary reason for this is that currently there is no real need for it at Belfast Met. Learning objects are repurposed form subscription repositories or the internet and placed within the VLE for immediate use. Bespoke creations are listed for general perusal but no formal repository has yet been required. This is very different form the culture that is developing at Leeds met and is most likely given to the different natures of teaching at FE and HE. However it has proved an insightful counterpoint to the problems we have faced and the solutions we have been developing.

 

Workflows, scenarios and use cases

Other than catching up after the computer crash I have been working on the prototype design, which will be released next week. Just have a few more code tests to do to make some of the more intricate bits are going to work. Focused on a client-side applications to start with which should transfer to web services with a minimal of code generation. The client-side applications will make mass user testing easier, theoretically less technology to go wrong.

 

I have also been doing some more use case diagrams from the workflows and scenarios various project members have written. So far I have diagrammed Meg’s podcasting workflow which is nice and straightforward and the use case model was built fairly quickly. Its interesting to see how it compares to the more specific scenarios/models developed back in September. They are focused on different user groups and specific software. The new one is more general that takes into account all the stages that need to be considered to complete any type of podcast (I have used wordpress’s AnswersLinks here let me know if you think this is a good idea?). I have numbered each so it can be related back to the original workflow and you can see where I have made changes to the logical flow. However order is not necessary a consideration in this type of development, except where there are obvious prerequisites.

 

Stuart’s scenario encompassed both organisational concerns as well as podcast LO development scenario. This also depicts a specific means of presenting podcast material via a student discussion. I have dived this into two diagrams. The first use case presenting the organisation considerations that need to be taken into account when moving a team into the realms of podcasting as a means of teaching. The second use case depicts the podcasting process and considerations for presenting a student discussion.

 

I think the organisational concerns are an interesting issue and could be worked into some form of formal guidelines. The Web2Rights workshop on Monday will add the legal aspects and I will focus my questions around podcasting and repository issues.  I have one more set of use cases to produce, based on the repository workflows from Jill. Once this is complete it might be a good idea to compare all the workflows/scenarios concerning LOs and podcasting. As well as the repository workflows against the repository report to identify issues for further exploration.

 

Use case Diagrams of Podcasting and Learning Object Production

Having analysed the data from the podcasting scenarios we have developed initial use case diagrams capturing the processes described by the users. A high-level diagram was developed identifying the overall process and decisions a user is required to consider. Some of the process are specific to our editing application iMovie, but can be applied to other editing processes.

From this, specific scenarios were modelled to show the changes required, for the user, in the decision process:

• How a podcast can be used to deliver material in preparation for a tutorial.
• Recording a lecture for student reference
• Creating persistent materials for instruction and advice, with student input

A second set of scenarios were developed by an eCat tutor. These were more closely focused on the production of learning objects by lecturers and other staff. A high-level diagram was produced showing the processes and decisions of producing a learning object using the eCat system. We then used the scenarios above to examine the differences in requirements between an experienced lecturer and a lecturer at the start of their teaching profession.