Reflecting on Development Project Feedback

Earlier in the semester, we were required to submit our proposals for our summer projects. This week, I received feedback from my supervisor on my submission. I felt this post would be an excellent opportunity to reflect on and analyse that feedback, and to outline what I have learned as a result.

The main piece of feedback presented was with regard to the amount of content I had proposed to include as part of the course I will be developing. My supervisor strongly advised me to reconsider the breadth of information I had outlined. They were concerned that I was both over-ambitious and that I wasn't adequately accounting for the length of the individual lessons which will make up each unit.

On reflection, I believe I likely erred on the side of including more content than necessary. I did this knowing that it would be a more manageable task to remove extraneous material rather than create additional content after-the-fact. Ultimately, I still feel that this is the case. I will be re-examining the volume of information I have proposed to include in these topics over the following weeks. I believe it will be advantageous having future content outlined, should I later realise my modules require more comprehensive tutorials (or indeed, should I wish to continue development of this resource outside of the scope of the summer project).

Another critical piece of commentary provided was about ethics. When I wrote the proposal, I suggested that I would include a user testing component to the development cycle of the course. I failed to take into account that this would require approval from the Ethics Board. This oversight was, in my opinion, caused by my lack of experience when it comes to conducting research. Being informed that ethical approval would be necessary for this aspect of the project is undoubtedly a valuable lesson to learn. I have yet to decide whether I will pursue the usability testing route. I am currently evaluating the work schedule to determine whether it would be feasible in practice. My initial thoughts are that (similar to including too much content in lesson outlines) it may be beneficial to go through the ethics process regardless of whether I eventually end up conducting the testing or not. I feel this would potentially be good experience to have should I continue in academia following completion of the MA. Furthermore, given that the Ethics Board meets monthly, it would be significantly more challenging to acquire approval later in the development process if it transpired that I could carry out the user-tests.

Finally, my supervisor expressed concerns about the schedule I had outlined. They felt I was being unrealistic with the volume of work I was aiming to do in tandem with other modules in the programme. Similar to the content issue earlier, I think this will benefit the final product. When I wrote the proposal, I underestimated the volume of work we would be undertaking in Semester 2. I now recognise that it will be impractical to adhere strictly to the work plan as set out in the proposal. However, the fact that I have each step laid out in chronological order - regardless of whether the suggested time-frames are ultimately delivered on - will surely be of help. I will be able to progress through the development in a logical order thanks to the steps I outlined in the schedule.

Getting this feedback early in the project cycle has, in my opinion, been very valuable. It has forced me to reconsider the approach I was planning to certain aspects of the task. It has made me aware that I need to be more conscious of my inexperience concerning the research element of development, and it has encouraged me to assess how I will proceed with new facets such as whether or not to obtain ethics approval.

Virtual Classrooms and Big Red Button

Virtual Classrooms were one of the main topics of discussion in EL6052 this week. A Virtual Classroom (VC) offers an opportunity for learners to participate in a course online while still retaining some of the experience of more traditional in-person education. Essentially, the students log in to a teleconference hosted by a tutor. Depending on the software, the tutor can then display a presentation, share their screen, use a webcam to show themselves to the class, split the class into smaller groups for individual discussions and a whole range of other features.

I have some personal experience with one such piece of VC software. For the past six months, I have been working with the University of Limerick's Information Technology Division as an e-moderator. This work involves signing into a VC and providing support to tutors and pupils for the duration of the class. As a result of this experience, I feel I have gained some perspective on the benefits and drawbacks of VCs. I have also obtained some insight into the challenges which arise with the specific technology which the University uses.

From observing these sessions, it has become clear to me that they offer significant advantages. They allow both tutors and learners to access a class from a location that is convenient to them as opposed to requiring them to travel to a central location. This benefit is particularly relevant to the course I work with as the students are all working professionals dispersed across the country. I have spoken with these students during my work, and they have invariably said that they find the sessions far more worthwhile than asynchronous online delivery of content, as the VC gives them the chance to interact with the lecturer and their classmates in real-time. They can collaborate and conduct discussions more naturally.

Of course, there are negatives to using VCs over face-to-face instruction. I have noticed that participation can often be lacking from some members of the classes. When one person is speaking, it appears to be difficult for another to interject in the same way someone may do in a physical space. This limitation leads to more enthusiastic learners tending to dominate discussions. Furthermore, when a session encounters technical issues, it can severely damage the pupils' experience. Be it background noise, faulty microphones or a dropped internet connections, VCs introduce an element of complication that does not exist in-person.

BigBlueButton

UL uses a piece of VC software called BigBlueButton (BBB). It is an open-source tool integrated into the University's Virtual Learning Environment, SULIS. Once teachers and students log in to SULIS, they access the VC through a section in the module's site. From there, they can participate in an online class as outlined already in this post.

Some of the critical features which BBB offers include:

• A public chat room where the learners can post messages during the tutorials to collaborate or ask questions.
• The ability to virtually raise a hand attracts the attention of the instructor.
• The trainer can assign the role of Presenter to a student. This role allows the student to control the slides displayed onscreen. With this feature, in-class presentations are conducted similarly to those that would usually take place in a traditional classroom.
• The class can be split into subgroups using the breakout session feature. This split allows the pupils to collaborate on or discuss a topic. These individual groups also facilitate greater class participation when the breakouts conclude, as groups can be invited to give feedback on their conversations.
• A "Shared Notes" section allows the pupils to share detailed notes with the class. This element has proven very useful following breakout sessions, as the notes taken by individual groups in their private rooms can be distributed to the entire cohort.
• The tutor can record the session for those students who may not be able to attend.
• The teacher can share their screen, play videos, create polls and share links to resources with the class.

These features allow a wide variety of instructional techniques to be used in the course of each BBB class.

I have not used BBB as an instructor or a student. However, my moderation work has exposed me to challenges with this software which I have had to overcome:

• By far, the most common issue that occurs is audio disconnecting. Usually, I resolve this issue by getting the affected party to go through the connection process again. However, on a few occasions, it was necessary for me to manually remove a student from the class after their sound dropped, as the system would not let them sign back into the room.
• BBB's breakout room system has a flaw in that it is not possible to randomly assign the class to breakout rooms and let students who drop out of a breakout session manually add themselves back to their designated grouping. This lack of functionality means the moderator of a class needs to manually re-add each student who may need it.
• Breakout rooms are also limited in that any notes taken in the sub-groups are lost when the allotted time runs out. This problem means pupils need to be careful to copy their work before time is up, which has led to some instances of lost material.

On balance, I feel that the positives BBB and other VC technologies offer vastly outweigh the drawbacks and challenges. VCs open access to courses to people who may otherwise not be able to participate. They provide an avenue for those learners who may traditionally have missed classes due to scheduling conflicts or lack of motivation to travel on a particular day. They offer unique opportunities for instructors to vary their teaching methods to engage their audience better and enhance their learning experience. In future, I would hope to see VCs more widely available in education.