The Pedagogy of COSE Gill Smith 4.10.00 Following Visit to Staffordshire University

The Pedagogy of COSE – Gill Smith – 4.10.00 – following visit to Staffordshire University

[The points in italics have been lifted from the following article: http://www.unn.ac.uk/assessingenglish/practising.pdf which contains further information about a case study to develop assessment practice in order to improve student learning (in line with TQA /QAA Subject Review) using COSE.]

COSE is structured by constructivist pedagogical principles.

This school of pedagogy proposes that:  a student is an active learner who constructs – for themselves, though possibly aided by teachers - a personal base of knowledge and understanding.  The best way to help a student do this is to make them do something, i.e. encourage them to create a product for delivery to the teacher, peers or others (written, oral, etc).  The product is usually assessed but not necessarily traditionally i.e. it may be self-assessment so that the student has an indication of how they are progressing.  Tutors produce teaching materials which function as learning opportunities.  Being given the opportunity to create something increases the depth of learning in the student who produces the deliverable.

The COSE product itself:  Acts as a focus for learning  Allows tutor to create study environment which makes the relationship between assessment and learning activity explicit  Enables learner to view resources in the context of learning activity

Advantages for students:  Positions student as active learner while ensuring learning is fully supported by carefully prepared guidance material which is presented in a clearly structured framework  Student encouraged to recognize lint between the tasks assigned and the component key skills which will enable them to produce their own coherently argued essay, presentation etc.  Tutors required to install teaching materials in format that assigns a structured series of reading, writing, discussion activities  Tutors are always encouraged to think about their materials in terms of learning opportunities.

The above two emboldened points are the crux of the use of COSE since tutors cannot upload materials on an ad hoc basis – each piece of material MUST conform to the constructivist approach. Some tutors may find this helpful if they agree with this pedagogy. However, I think COSE would prove difficult to use if you didn’t want to think along these lines.

It seems to me that the Course Documents section of Blackboard could be seen as a filing cabinet drawer where tutors are able to upload and organise materials as they wish. COSE treats material differently as the filing drawer is already organised into sections: projects, activities, tasks, resources, advice - the important thing is that there is no miscellaneous section so you are bound to place your material into a prescribed slot. (For an example of this please see last two paragraphs on page 10 of http://www.unn.ac.uk/assessingenglish/practising.pdf )

In effect this means you provide a set of structured resources as opposed to “browsable” ones. Perhaps like the references/titles on a booklist that a student can access if they want and know how use them.

This sounds restrictive, however, the following tutor comments should be considered:  “It is easy to mistake giving a student information, for helping a student to learn”.  “Information put into COSE for information’s sake might as well not be there”.  IT resources need to be carefully linked to learning and teaching strategies to be of real benefit.  “The pathway of tasks suggested here [in one particular course not all COSE courses] invites the students to follow a linear process, tackling tasks and activities that increase in difficulty, but the student is able to pursue and review these tasks in any order they choose. Any attempt to outline methods for study can be criticised as being prescriptive. However, we feel that the benefits associated with suggesting strategies that students can use to develop understanding and assessment skills outweigh anxieties about prescriptiveness”

The above makes the assumption that today’s learners are not capable of generating their own ways of learning actively from online resource materials. The argument is that in HE today we see a far greater spectrum of learners who may not all share a common level of key skills so may not be equally equipped to cope with the switch from “spoon-fed” A’ levels to HE independent learning. Using COSE (with its inherent Constructivist approach) guides the student through the learning process and perhaps teaches them something about the process of learning, or for example of researching, applying critical thought then constructing an essay at the same time as learning the subject matter.

Students’ feedback:  “I’m all for this idea of COSE, the whole concept of the activities and tasks, how it was broken down, it really did help.”  “The activities (unassessed practice in Marxist criticism) helped because there was a list of points for us to think about, so you knew if you were on the right track”  “It helped me to plan the answers more precisely and systematically”  “The list of ways to analyse the text enabled me to be more methodical in my approach”.

In conclusion, it seems to be a choice between giving students information (whether that be online or through lectures) and assuming that they know what to do with it in order to be able to use it to the desired end or presenting the material in such a way that the learner is clearly guided as to how this piece of content is to be used within their framework of learning.

Of course, the wish to apply constructivist theory to a course does not exclude the use of a Resource- based VLE – you could organise your own materials in Blackboard in the same explicit way (although the indexing system in COSE does certainly make it easier to locate yourself within and navigate around the material.)

Tutors considering whether to use COSE or Blackboard need to ask themselves do they want to be constantly reminded to frame teaching materials as learning opportunities. Perhaps the obvious response is “No thanks” but interestingly at Staffordshire University (albeit a “new”- with a wider calibre of students - institution which is more L&T focussed as opposed to a Research Uni) many tutors who started delivering courses online using Lotus LearningSpace (Content-based VLE) two or three years ago are now seeing the benefits of COSE and are migrating their course material or developing new courses in COSE. In fact, the School of Science has decided to use COSE as their delivery platform for all their online material. Also interesting to note though that when Staffs licence with Lotus runs out they do intend to retain a Content-based VLE (possibly LLS again, or maybe Blackboard because of Pearson’s collaboration with both products); i.e. they do not intend having only COSE. In fact, they are planning to approve and support 3 approaches:  Content/Resource-based  Learner-centred  Generic WWW-based

All the evidence shows that it is COURSE DESIGN and SUPPORT that has the biggest impact on the quality of student learning experience using VLEs. Appendix 1: A Short Comparison of LLS and COSE at Staffordshire, by Mark Stiles (Staffs)

LLS COSE Overview Overview

LLS is a Notes based product. Tutors use Entirely based on Web technologies. All content is Lotus Notes to prepare and manage courses. HTML and media files. Tutors prepare content using Learners access course resources via a Web their preferred WWW editor (normally Netscape Browser and the Notes Domino server Composer, can be such things as MS Word). All other translates the resources to HTML (Web) format access by tutors as learners via Web Browser. on the fly as it is accessed. Content imported into system and organised using COSE editor. Organisation and Structure of Courses Organisation and Structure of Courses

Unit of Organisation and Delivery is a “Course” Unit of Organisation is a “Learner Group” to which - a collection of content structured using a content is assigned as and when required. Course Schedule to which other resources in the Course Media Centre are connected. Unit of Delivery is a “Learning Opportunity” which consists of one of three levels of remit with resources Students are enrolled on “Courses” and can and lower level or prerequisite remits attached. only view content in those Courses. Learners can also search and access all published material in the system. Ownership, Reuse and Sharing of Content Ownership, Reuse and Sharing of Content

All tutor content belongs to, and can only be Content is either private to the author(s) or (in the case edited by its author(s). Tutor content can of tutor content) published. include embedded and attached “external” format files, e.g. MS Word. Learners can make Private content can be shared by owning tutors or external format documents (e.g. MS Word learner selectively with any individual or group (or sub- essays) available to others via the Course Room group) of which they are a member. discussion. All content (tutor or learner) can include attached Tutors content not easily shared and reused “external” format files, e.g. MS Word. except by duplication. Built in QA mechanism for publication of content by Central “Web-Lib” of reusable multi-media tutors. files. Published content is described and searchable by Only Course Media Centre resources are keyword done to media object level by all registered described and searchable by keyword (by users and can be collected and reused by reference members of that specific course only) rather than duplication by both tutors and learners. Submission of Assignments (Essays etc.) Submission of Assignments (Essays etc.)

Documents produced by Learners can be shared Documents produced by Learners can be shared with with other learners, submitted for review or other learners, submitted for review or marking via marking via the Course Courseroom. COSE Sharing or Submission features.

Formal submission removes control from Formal submission adds submission front sheet, learner. removes control from learner, and emails submission Tutor can return comments and issue/record certificate to tutor and learner. Mechanism for easy grade within the system. reuse of learner work by tutors. Learners can access grades for marked Tutor can return comments and grade. No recording of assignments via Courseroom Portfolios grade within system. Collaboration Collaboration

Tutors collaborate by being co-instructors on a Tutors collaborate as required in Tutors groups and as specific course. co-managers of specific learner groups.

Learners collaborate informally in the Learners collaborate informally via private self Courseroom discussion and formally in managed peer groups. Learners collaborate formally Courseroom discussion teams. via tutor managed learners groups.

Tutors can make specific Schedule and Media All assignments sharing and communications private to Centre documents and assignments privately the specific group. available to specific teams. All groups can have any level of separately managed (and private) sub-groups. Communication Communication

Sophisticated threaded Courseroom discussion All groups have private notice boards for use by group facility. A discussion is private to the Course or managers. Team. Sophisticated outgoing email facility allow precise A discussion is part of the system and can be targeting of authors, tutors, individuals and groups. retained for future use. Learners cannot email other learners in groups to which they do not belong. No mechanism for having unthreaded discussions. Email received at users University email address. All outgoing subject lines automatically coded with group name, document title being queried etc. This allows received email to filtered into discussion groups etc. in recipient’s email client. If Execmail is used threads can be turned on and off.

As an external client is used to read email, discussions not retained within the system Other Features Other Features

Assessment manager for creating banks of short No MCQ feature. answer and MCQ questions. All learner activity tracked. A number of reports Can use these to create tests, self assessments, available to tutors. and surveys. Browser navigator means users position within content Marking of MCQs automatic. Grades retained is clear at all times. and organised within the system, and accessible by learners in Courseroom Portfolio. All WWW type content can be readily used.

Navigation of the system has some weaknesses - not obvious to learner where they are within the system at all times.

No in-built learner tracking - external LDC written facility available.

Incorporation of HTML and most other WWW features possible but not especially convenient.

Conclusions Conclusions

LLS will suit those wanting highly structured COSE allows extremely flexible and dynamic courses. Transfer of content input using Notes approaches, and is directly aimed at active, task driven format/editor is not easy to other systems. approaches. OT allows sophisticated structuring of Those wanting to have in depth “discourse” “learning opportunities” broken down into multiple activities will probably prefer LLS. LLS is sub-tasks. It allows learners to search for content pedagogically neutral and is the easier system outside their own course and view ALL published (not to implement a fairly traditional approach in. private) content. Tutors can easily search for and reuse Although LLS is powerful at discussion, any published content by any author (authorship is collaborative working is clumsier than in maintained). COSE is a more powerful collaborative COSE. Learners cannot look outside their own system, but those wanting threaded discussions aimed course for resources and tutors cannot easily at in depth “discourse” will probably prefer LLS both identify and reuse content of share content with for ease and because the discussions are held within other courses or tutors. Those wanting MCQ LLS. Submission of “written work” (files in external facilities should use LLS. formats such as Word, Powerpoint etc.) easier than LLS and safeguarded by certification at submission. Both systems allow easy incorporation of web- links and files in external formats. However if you want MCQ - use LLS. Appendix 2: Generic WWW vs VLE by Mark Stiles (Staffordshire)

Generic WWW COSE or LLS Overview Overview

Allows “total freedom” of technology used within Provide a more “managed environment”. the capability of the server and browser used. Much lower level of expertise needed to create many Dependent on available expertise for more complex types of content and facility e.g. handle of the more requirements. complex types of media; sophisticated sharing and annotation facilities; submission of assignments etc. Most complex features are labour intensive and “one-off” in the sense that they are not readily Provide a much more consistent interface for the transportable from one “application” to another. learner, albeit at the expense of some restriction of choice. Can be very useful for adding “new” features to courses in COSE and LLS, or for providing special Where extra facilities are needed, they can be front-ends to such courses, for example the “Off- developed using web-based approaches and added in, Campus” websites being developed by the LDC for particularly in the case of COSE. Distance Learning awards.

Organisation and Structure of Courses Organisation and Structure of Courses

Structure of “content” up to the designer. Requires Have some degree of inherent structure which the well developed course design skills. course designer must work within.

No simple way of restricting access by group Each provides sophisticated and easy to use access without significant web-programming effort. control.

This tends to make Web-based approaches “content” rather than “learner” centred.

Ownership, Reuse and Sharing of Content Ownership, Reuse and Sharing of Content

Content belongs to those with permission to write to Sophisticated control of ownership and precise that area of the server. control of sharing.

Learning server will have the equivalent of COSE COSE provides very easy reuse of content across “published content”. courses.

Complex control of “sharing” not possible without writing your own programs to do it. Submission of Assignments (Essays etc.) Submission of Assignments (Essays etc.)

Not possible without writing your own programs to Both systems provide mechanisms for submission do it. and feedback.

Collaboration Collaboration

Formal and controlled mechanisms not possible Both systems have built in and controllable facilities, without writing your own programs to do it. COSE especially so.

Both systems (with COSE 1.2) provide annotation facilities. Communication Communication

Via standard email, via bespoke features developed LLS has threaded discussions, COSE uses carefully using web programming or by add-on products. contextualised outgoing messaging and group notice boards. Other Features Other Features

MCQs via writing your own programmes or by LLS has fairly sophisticated MCQ facilities. buying in WWW-based assessment software. COSE 2.0 will provide MCQ facility.

COSE’s browser navigator means users position Not easy to ensure learner doesn’t become lost in the within content is clear at all times. content. COSE provides learner tracking No learner tracking . Conclusions

WWW approaches are attractive to those who want to “do their own thing” or need to create a “one-off” very different from the norm. Using such approaches to provide sophisticated learning management effectively requires the writing of programs to emulate features of COSE or LLS. This is not cost or time effective, COSE has cost over £250,000 to develop, LLS probably cost millions. Typically work done on Web-based approaches, whilst it can be very effective in the specific application for which it has been designed, is not easily reuasable in a new context or application.

WWW-based approaches are probably best used where an “open” approach is wanted or to produce features not available in LLS or COSE. COSE (and LLS to a lesser extent) will allow such “add-on” web-based features to be linked into content.

WWW-based approaches also are very useful to provide “front-ends” or “wrappers” to VLE based courses, such as those being developed for forthcoming Distance Learning awards.

COSE and LLS are designed to be managed and supportive environments and to provide a range of collaborative facilities which go far beyond normal web-content. With the world wide push into interoperability between VLEs and between VLEs and other components of the learning environment such as Digital Libraries and MIS systems, the balance between the flexibility but high production cost of generic approaches and the power and educational coherence (but higher “control”) of integrated learning environments is swinging increasing to the latter.