By Dave Morrison. Research Assistant, LEAF Project
In this post I’d like to give an academic perspective on new learning technologies: the good, the bad, and the ugly. First I should confess that before coming to academic development I was a software developer (many moons ago). Perhaps that can help me shed a light on dark corners of finding and implementing new technologies. Perhaps I’ll just confuse folk.
My search for learning technology comes from my work on the Leading Enhancements in Assessment and Feedback project (LEAF). The project details are unimportant; the bottom line is that the research led me to look for two technological solutions for improving student feedback: something that let markers deliver feedback electronically, and something that could store this feedback automatically for students. Those sound simple enough, most academics can probably name a programme or VLE that does one or both. But there is a lot more to these simple goals once we dig into what really needs to happen to make them work (and keep working), enough more that each goal on its own could easily be a funded 1-2 year project. The complications also come from different directions, which are not always in close contact (though increasingly they are). On the one hand there are staff needs, desires, and concerns (or outright resistance). These are academic development issues. On the other there are technology implementation and maintenance issues such as interoperability with existing VLEs (Moodle, Sharepoint, etc.), costs, third party support, and sustainability: learning technology issues. Then there is the combined issue of user interfaces, which can only be addressed effectively by technologists and developers together (in as much as this remains a real division that is).
With LEAF I was looking for something that could input feedback at the front end, either prior to or as part of Moodle, and something that would output feedback at the back end, either from Moodle or in some other way. Indeed, Moodle became the first hurdle. Some staff swear by it, some avoid it like a plague. Either way, the existing Moodle interfaces for entering student feedback are not likely to inspire any converts. From an academic development standpoint this is a brick wall. If the plan is to convince staff across the university to adopt a new technology it must look appealing, functional, and easy to learn. At the student facing end things were no better. Moodle stores all records by module, not by student, so a back end solution for automatically storing feedback portfolios from Moodle was out of the question.
The next stage of LEAF is focused on either finding or creating new tools outside of Moodle that can deliver the feedback solutions needed. This is no small task though. Each subject, indeed each marker, has their own approach to feedback. A good feedback entry system has to allow for these in a way that will somehow reduce marking time, not increase it. Such a system also needs to be compatible in some way with Moodle, in order to integrate with the rest of the course resources for students. At the other end the broad and varied types of feedback entered by staff ideally needs to be output to students in a consistent and easily readable format (the second biggest request from students, after feedback timeliness). This suggest that either some kind of software-based conversion needs to take place, or the user interface for the feedback entry needs to offer many different ways to enter the same data.
Getting the feedback to a student-centred storage system is the next problem, and one Moodle cannot accommodate at this time. Potentially the input system could interface with Moodle, but also store the feedback itself and output to a student database. First this database must be secure, so that only the students and their advisors have access. Second it needs to be separate from any subject or college, but also fed into simultaneously by all of them so that students can get feedback from each course they take in one place. Without this, there is no point in even perusing the project. Finally, it needs to have its own appealing interface, useful functionality, and hands-free operation or students will simply ignore it. This has been the case with Mahara in recent attempts to implement portfolios there. Something that stores the feedback automatically, whether students look at it or not, but which also offers them useful information at a glance so they have a reason to look, is ideal.
So entering feedback electronically and storing it for students has a lot more moving parts to it may seem at first. But where there is a will (and time and resources) there is a way. The benefits are too great to be ignored, so we forge ahead to find the solution.