Sneak Peek into the courseware development...
Transcript of Sneak Peek into the courseware development...
Sneak Peek into the courseware development model built for teachers at CUHK for enhancing teaching and learning
eLFA 2016@ Shanghai 2016.06‐13‐15
Background• Our Team
– eLearning Team, Academic Support Division, Information Technology Service Center, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
• Our Service– Provide Consultation, Courseware Development, Facilities and Equipment Rental Services, etc.
• Project Title– Development of a practical model to support teachers at CUHK to create courseware for enhancing teaching & learning
• Project nature– 50% Research vs 50% Practical
• History– CUHK started eLearning Courseware Development (CD) since 1990
• Difficulties – Past courseware is difficult to maintain or update– Long Development Time, etc.
• Challenges – New Pedagogy & Change: MOOC, Flipped Classroom, Mobile Learning, etc.
The Model• Tackle current problems• Based on the existingmodelsa. Bloom’s Taxonomy Identify the learning goal
b. Dick & Carey Model Courseware
Development and Evaluation
• Flexible and Adaptive• Easy to follow• Practical
Bloom’s Taxonomy CreatingEvaluatingAnalyzingApplying
UnderstandingRemembering
Dick & Carey Model
IdentifyInstructional
Goal
WritePerformanceObjectives
DevelopCriterion
Referenced Tests
DevelopInstructional Strategy
Develop & Select
Instructional Materials
Develop& ConductFormativeEvaluation
ConductInstructional Analysis
IdentifyEntry
Behaviors
Develop& ConductSummativeEvaluation
ReviseInstruction
Project Timeline
Phase 1 (Aug 2014 ‐ )
•Existing CD practice review•Literature Review •Both H/W and S/W Tool Selection•Call of Tool Pilot
Phase 2(Oct 2014 ‐ Feb 2016)
•Monitoring on‐going project•Courseware development and tool consultation•Courseware development support service•Pilot run on Model
Phase 3(Feb – Apr 2016)
•Tool Evaluation (Interview w/ pilot users)
Phase 4(Apr – Jun 2016)
•Training and promotion of selected tools•Model and workflow promotion
Existing Courseware Development Practice Review
1. Interview with eLearning Development Team
2. Prepare a survey for all teaching staffs (electronic)
‐ Lots of valuable inputs‐ Focusing on sharing of past CD project development experiences working with teachers
Phase 1 (Aug 14 ‐ )
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
‐ FAILED as very low response
Failed to directly collect data from teachers
Phase 1 (Aug 14 ‐ )
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Call for H/W & S/W Tool Pilot
Phase 1 (Aug 14 ‐ )
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Time EffortTool Selection
Tool Selection
Achieve Learning outcome
Achieve Learning outcome
LearnLearnUseUse
3 “easy‐to” Criteria
For both hardware and software
Phase 1 (Aug 14 ‐ )
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
3 Major Support Areas
Pilot Users
Tools
Knowledge
Resources
Phase 1 (Aug 14 ‐ )
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Input from teachers (e.g. needs and problems) collected directly through:
• Tool introduction briefing sessions• Face‐to‐face consultation (before project start)• Status review meetings
(during development)• Project review meeting (after completion)
?
?
ii
?
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Problems Identified• Lengthy development• Big • Difficult to maintain/update• Huge demand on teachers’
devotion and commitment• Gap – teachers’ perception
vs students’ actual needs
• Inefficient communication b/w production team and teachers
• Lack of Instructional design advice
• Lack of guidance for resource estimation
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
?
Model Revisit (1)• Modularization
– Break it small– Easier to maintain & update, flexible to re‐sequence and fit actual learners’ needs
• Agile Software Development– Use agile methodology to speed up development
• Devise formula for resource estimation
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
New Model ‐but, is it feasible?
Draft Model of Courseware Development in CUHK (Date: Sep, 2014 )
Problems Revisit (1)• Lengthy development• Big • Difficult to maintain/update• Much Huge demand on
teachers’ devotion and commitment
• Gap – teachers’ perception vs students’ actual needs?
• Huge demand on Inefficient communication b/w production team and teachers
• Still Lack of Instructional design advice
• Lack of guidance for resource estimation
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
?
Model Revisit (2)
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Characteristic of Courseware Development for CUHK (Date: Oct, 2014 )
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Draft Model of Courseware Development for CUHK (Date: Oct, 2014 )
Model Revisit (2)
Problems Revisit (2)• Lengthy development• Big • Easier Difficult to
maintain/update• Much Huge Demand on
teachers’ devotion and commitment
• Gap – teachers’ perception vs students’ actual needs
• Less Huge demand on communication b/w production team and teachers
• Capable of providing Still Lack of instructional design advice
• Capable of providing Lack ofguidance for resource estimation
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
?
Additional Challenges• CUHK 2016 – 2020 Strategy• MOOC• Flipped Classroom• Mobile Learning, etc.
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Additional Challenges (1)• Elearning‐wide
– Call for Micro‐module (微單元, a.k.a. Micro‐learning) Courseware Development Proposal to support flipped classroom
• Our Team provides support, consultation and promotion
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/eLearning/vod/web/mmvideo.htm
Additional Challenges (2)• ELearning‐wide
– Establish Center for eLearning Innovation and Technology (a.k.a. ELITE) on 21 Feb, 2016
• To support Micro‐modules Courseware Development• Our Team assisted the establishment, preparation work and equipment advice
http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/clear/elite/
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
About ELITE Facilities• Self‐recoding Studio• Chroma‐key Studio• Multi‐purposes Open Area
– Preparation, attend training/ consultation and post‐production.
• Interactive Digital Whiteboard
Services• Audio Recording• Video Recording• Media Post‐production• Instructional design
consultation
Operated by The Centre for Learning Enhancement And Research (CLEAR)
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Model Revisit (3)
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
Draft of Characteristic of Courseware Development Model (Date: Feb, 2015 )
Legend
Learners Teachers InstructionalDesigners
CoursewareDevelopers
MultimediaDesigners
Problems Revisit (3)• Shorten Lengthy development• Big • Easier Difficult to maintain/update• Much Huge Demand on teachers’
devotion and commitment (But, teachers can decide how to devote on development, but can’t skip at the beginning of development)
• Shorten the gap – teachers’ perception vs students’ actual needs
• Less Huge demand on communication b/w production team and teachers
• + Easy to collaborate with production team
• Capable of providing Still Lack of instructional design advice
• Capable of providing Lack ofguidance for resource estimation
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 2 (Oct 14 – Feb 16 )
Phase 1
?
Courseware Development Model for CUHK
Draft Model of Courseware Development for CUHK (Date: Dec, 2015 )
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1
It’s not about the tools, It’s all about idea, workflow & process
Current Status• The model
– Not finalized yet– Continuous review and improvement of CD process– Flexible and Adaptive
This is a starting & Not the end
Way Forward• Our plan is to
– Promote the model to our teachers at CUHK– Keep finding good tools– Recruit pilot users– Provide training – Fine tune our model
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1 Future
Additional take‐away (1)
Some Our Works
Storyboard vs Final Product
Storyboard vs Final Product
Storyboard vs Final Product
Storyboard vs Final Product
Additional take‐away (2)
Feedback from teachers
Feedback from Tools Evaluation • Total 18 interview invitations are sent• 12 teachers or staffs accept our interview
Phase 2
Phase 4
Phase 3(Feb – Apr 16 )
Phase 1
Tool ID Avg. Score(Max.: 5)
H1 4.70
H2 3.34
H3 4.00
H4 2.75
Tool ID Avg. Score(Max.: 5)
S1 3.91
S2 4.00
Some Quotes from Interviews• Did the tools (S1) help your courseware development? How do they
help?– Yes. Video Editing is good. User Interface is simple. Screen Capture is easy and
quick, even though I didn’t have any video editing experience, I can pick up the technique very quickly.
• Do you have any other feedback related to the tools (S1) that you would like to share with us?– Software introductory course or workshop is highly‐recommended– Training course may help me to get use of other features of the tools
Phase 2
Phase 4
Phase 3(Feb – Apr 16 )
Phase 1
Case Sharing by teachers • In the first semester, the length of Micro‐Module videos is about 15 mins for
Year 3 and 4 students. They watched videos at home and discussed in class (Flipped classroom) but very poor feedback from my course evaluation
• In my second attempt (2nd Sem.), I trimmed down the length of videos to 5‐10 mins for mainly Year 1 and 2 students
• I taught more advanced knowledges on class and showed how I can apply those taught theories (in real life) as well
• I also used online animation software to create a teacher character to guide the learners via the video lecture and illustrated the ideas with Cantonese narration
• Since I used a lot of animations and images to illustrate the knowledge and got good feedback from Course Evaluation
Phase 2
Phase 4
Phase 3(Feb – Apr 16 )
Phase 1
Case Sharing by teachers • Generally, I need around a week to prepare content from the current society or worldwide issues, four days to complete the animation and two days for video editing and production for a 6‐10 min micro‐module video.
• Total: 5 + 4 + 2 = 11 days
Phase 2
Phase 4
Phase 3(Feb – Apr 16 )
Phase 1
Q&A?
?
?
How to get feedback from teachers?
• Good Timing• Cordial and relaxed way
– Face‐to‐face session,
• Know their desire and let them to share
Other Tools or Skills (Non‐H/W nor S/W)• Round Table‐Read for voice recording• Storyboard for video lecture and interactive courseware
development• Video recording techniques and tricks• Simple Calculation for Courseware Development
– (Moseley, Sue and Valverde, Raul (2014) A Cost Model for E‐learning projects in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 14 . pp. 93‐116. ISSN ISSN: 2340 ‐ 5058)
• Interaction and Levels Selector– Levels of Interactivity in Best Practices in Instructional Design for Web‐based Training by LearningLink, the department of labor’s (US) portal
• Evaluation Selector– Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1
Levels of Interactivity
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1
Storyboard for Video Lecture and Interactive Courseware Development
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1
Simple Calculation for Courseware Development
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1
Media in the Courseware AmountNumber of screens (X1)Images (X2)Audio clips (X3)Interactions (X4)Animations (X5)Video (X6)
Formula of calculating the number of man days by Regression Model= 32.13‐0.07 *(X1) + 0.26*( X2) + 0.13*( X3) ‐ 0.03*( X4) + 0.86*( X5) ‐ 7.81*( X6)
Moseley, Sue and Valverde, Raul (2014)
Comparison of Calculation Accuracy
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4 (Apr – Jun 16 )
Phase 1