Whenever I visit a new place for the first time I'm always a little anxious about whether I'll be able to find it okay. My first visit to the OU Cardiff centre was on 1 November. I shouldn't have worried; the moment I left the train station and turned right I could see the Open University logo. I even manage to find my destination without having to resort to a googlemap.
My reason to visit Cardiff was to attend what would be my second SD4ST event (staff development for staff tutors). I blogged about my first SD4ST event a number of months ago which took me all the way to Gateshead where the focus of the two days was research (and how to fit it into the role of a staff tutor). This event was all about motivation and inspiration.
I was particularly attracted to this event since I remember reading that it would involve some theatre. A number of years ago (either three or four - I forget!) I attended an associate lecturer development event that was held by the South East region. I remember being ushered into a very large room where the chairs were arranged in a circle. I have memories of being taken out of my comfort zone by being presented with drama workshop exercises which included words like zip and zap. The overwhelming feeling that I left the East Grinstead workshop was being a little puzzled about how on earth I might be able to use some of the stuff I had just witnessed to add a little more 'zip' into my own tutorials.
The Cardiff SD4ST event was being partly organised by the same tutor who ran the associate lecturer staff development event, and I was looking forward to it. Just like my last SD4ST post this one is intended to act as a simple record of what happened during the day, but it might be of interest to my fellow Open University staff tutors.
The first session of the day was very traditional but it set the scene very well for the rest of the two days. We were asked to split into equal groups and asked to consider the factors about what made up a good tutorial, writing our views on a big piece of paper.
Our group came up with a set of words and phrases which I managed to quickly scribble down, both on the flipchart page and in my notebook. These were: student centred, friendliness, knowledge of module, good structure, enthusiasm, flexibility, ability to connect things together, personal approach, supportive atmosphere and clarity of expression.
After the groups returned, there was a quick plenary discussion and each sheet was blu-tacked to the wall to act as physical reminders of our discussion.
After a short break we were led into a room that had a configuration that I remembered my AL development event several years ago: the chairs were arranged in a circle! We were told that three actors would act out a scene from the start of a telephone tutorial that went badly wrong. I have to admit, it was very bad... Not the acting, I mean; that was very good! What we were shown certainly didn't create a very good impression and if I had been a student I would have been suitably bewildered.
When the scene had come to an end it was replayed where we were then asked to stop the scene and take over the scene to offer a correction. An illustrious education staff tutor from the London region took up this challenge! Other staff tutors were then encouraged to jump in to the tutoring seat to lead the tutorial to a successful conclusion whilst at the same time reflecting carefully on what was happening.
Towards the end of the first session we were given a further question (or challenge) to think about, which was: how to make a good tutorial better and generate a 'palpable buzz' (a phrase that generated quite a bit of debate towards the end of the two days).
The next session of the day was all about Elluminate. It very soon became apparent that there was a big difference in how this asynchronous tool is used by different module teams. For some modules it was compulsory, but on others it was not. After a bit of discussion we were then treated to recordings of two different Elluminate sessions.
The first recording was from a sports and fitness module, and the second was from a languages module. My own reflection on this was that there were very big differences in how the different sessions were run, and some of the differences come from the differences in the subject matter.
One of the most powerful elements of Elluminate is its whiteboard. It enables you to create very visual activities and share concepts that would have taken a thousand words to explain. The language activity that we were shown was truly multi-modal: learners could listen to other students speak to the words that were on the whiteboard and connect different words and phrases up using lines.
Other Elluminate tools, such as the polling function, can be used to quickly gather opinions and relate to materials that may be presented on a whiteboard slide. One of the challenges lies with making activities interactive especially when the connection between the Elluminate moderator and the participant is distant and the emotional bandwidth afforded by tools such as Elluminate is lower. I remember some discussions about barriers to participation and the use of the emoticons to assess 'happiness' (or should I say, whether participants are fully engaged).
One of the biggest 'take home' points of the day lies with how Elluminate might be used in a team teaching scenario. One of the things I've heard about Elluminate it is it is very hard work to keep track of everything that is going on: there's voice, text chat and (potentially) stuff being drawn on the whiteboard. If there are two moderators, one can be taking care of the text chat (or some of the other tools), whilst the other can be responding to the audio channel.
I remember from my own Elluminate training in the South East region that Elluminate moderators are more producers than tutors. Moderators are producers in the sense that they produce a session by choosing an appropriate mix of the different tools that Elluminate offers. The notion of a producer remains firmly stuck in my mind. For me, it's an analogy that makes sense.
Creativity in face to face tutorials
On the second day David Heley gave a similar version of the workshop he prepared for regional associate lecturer development events. I'm not going to describe it in a lot of detail since I won't be able to do it justice.
A couple of thing stood out for me. The first was how the physical space of the room was used. Space can be used to identify different opinions and present different characteristics. The idea of a 'spectrum line' can be used to enable participants to think about where they stand on a particular opinion; two sides of the room being opposing views. We were then asked to use our imagination by imagining a map of the world on the floor of the room, and then asked to stand at various locations. It was very thought provoking: kinaesthetic learning is both fun and engaging (in my opinion, but perhaps that might be a reflection on my own learning style).
One thing that stood out for me was the idea of using 'broken powerpoint', i.e. you ask participants what is on a series of imaginary powerpoint slide as opposed to simply giving your own powerpoint. This seemed to work really well and I've been wondering how I might be able to use it in my own interaction design tutorials. Another related thought that can to my mind was to have a my tutor group create their own powerpoint which might be helpful for both revision purposes and also for those who may not be able to attend a particular session - I've not tried it out yet, but the 'broken powerpoint' activity has certainly got me thinking!
David made the point that the aim of his workshop isn't to encourage participants to use everything but instead to consider how to use parts of it, or even to use some of the ideas it contains as sources (or vectors) of inspiration. That was exactly how I used it when I attended a couple of years ago. As a result of attending David's session I gradually managed to incorporate a small amount of role play. Doing this wasn't easy and certainly took me outside of my comfort zone, but I think that was a good thing.
After some lunch and a preparatory discussion we returned to our drama room and were then presented with another semi-improvised vignette which seemed to be about poetry. There was some discussion about the kind of feedback that might have been offered, after which the episode was then replayed.
Towards the end of the day we were paired off and given a role play challenge which related face to face tutorials. I won't say too much about this other that it was quite good fun: I certainly learnt a lot from that exercise. It was really interesting to see so many different topics of debate emerge from a series of short scenarios.
A couple of years ago I attended an accessibility and human computer interaction event (please bear with me with this: there is a connection!) The aim of the event was to introduce a science council project to 'the public'. I mostly expected to get more of an understanding of different technologies and how they might be applied, but I was surprised to see how drama was used to teach students to understand the perspective of users of interactive devices (such as phones and computers). It was a really interesting approach.
During the day, we were given a premier of a short film (just in case you might be interested, the video that is mentioned in this earlier post can be viewed through a YouTube link). At the end of the film we were able to ask the actors some questions (who remained 'in character') about their experience of using technology. All these goings on reminded me of some aspects of our SD4ST event.
For me, there were a couple of things I got out of the event. The first was the principle that there are so many different ways of doing things. I sometimes get into a habit of using technology to help to do stuff. Whilst tools such as powerpoint and the digital resources that you can create using them can be useful in terms of sharing information with others (through digital spaces such as the VLE), a face to face tutorial offers a richer way to explore and engage with module material.
The other point was the use of drama emphasised the importance of considering and carefully thinking about different perspectives. I like the connection that theatre encourages practice reflection, and at the same time can permit the exploration of different topics, themes and subjects.
I mentioned technology, and this is the third 'take away' point: the use and mastery of asynchronous tools such as Elluminate (and how to connect their use to module materials in an effective and engaging way) will undoubtedly continue to be a subject for further discussion and exploration.
Congrats to the organisers, Janet Hanna, Annette Duensing, Martin Rhys, David Heley and the three forum theatre actors. All in all, a fun (and useful) event!