Suchergebnisse

Introduction The generally positive and conflict free version of the future portrayed in the FutureLab 'Only Connect' World suggests that students, at least, will be familiar with a democratised, collaborative, dispersed, asynchronous and digitised learning landscape. However, teaching staff with their experience of conflict between researcher and educator identities along with university systems supporting them are less prepared for this world. This paper reports on the experience of converting a face-to-face Master's course to a wholly online, distance learning (DL) course largely following the Open University DL model but based on using and creating open educational resources (OER). The original course was an MSc in social research methods and had been running for 17 years, but it needed to reach a wider recruitment market. Two key aspects of this conversion were that many of the teaching team were not experienced in teaching DL, and that the changeover was not a special project, with special funding, but a run-of-the mill course development. The development was taken through the standard university approval process but as a fully DL development it had to meet two specific criteria: the QAA DL precepts and our university DL regulations. Both, to varying degrees, assume that the course development and/or the course delivery will be undertaken by fully experienced staff. The teaching team was overwhelmingly a research active and research focussed group of academics and thus well qualified in the subject matter of the course, but although many had taught the previous, in-person Master's for many years, they had little demonstrable experience with DL. Methods This dilemma was addressed using a mentoring approach. An academic from another subject area in the school, who already had experience of leading a DL course was brought in to assist the team. Both he and the lead technical support had formal DL qualifications and this met the formal university validation criteria. The academic worked with another teaching team member (who is a NTF and has experience of technology based and distance learning teaching) as key facilitators/mentors to the remainder of the teaching team. In addition, the technical support team helped with the creation of the OERs we needed and in running the webinar and discussion software we were using. There were several key tasks: 1. Convert existing face-to-face curricula to OER based DL versions 2. Find, appraise and adapt existing OER materials 3. Create new OER materials 4. Develop teacher skills with DL pedagogy and associated tools 5. Develop open access web pages for the OER materials and closed VLE pages for registered students. Two pilot modules were offered in Jan 2014 and the student experience was evaluated using a range of learning analytics, including a number of in-depth interviews. Results Initial curriculum development/conversion was undertaken using an Australian design system. One of the mentors undertook this conversion for one module and other module leaders followed the model to ensure consistency in teaching approach. To develop teacher skills in DL software and pedagogy, we ran a series of staff development sessions, and used the two pilot modules to modify our pedagogic designs and to disseminate DL teaching skills more broadly. Attendance at and scheduling of these sessions was problematic and in some cases we had to resort to distance learning approaches to the skills development. OER materials were mainly videos and one mentor had considerable experience in making them. He advised other teachers on the options and the pedagogic focus of the OERs. Some teachers were reluctant to appear in person in these OERs and this was addressed by a combination of screen capture approaches and the use of already existing OERs – fortunately common in the areas concerned. Discussion A key tension in this development was between the research active and research focus of the teaching team and the need for the teachers to acquire new skills in both software use and in distance learning requirements. The individualistic focus of the researchers was often at odds with the collaborative, connected and communal needs of DL. Consistency in curriculum design helped here as the teachers could easily adapt their modules using the model. In the case of skills acquisition, the two pilot modules were crucial. This diminished the initial load on the mentors whilst technical and pedagogic experience was built up and it enabled the establishment of guidelines for good practice in OER production, curriculum design, DL pedagogic practice and in the software use on a relatively small scale to start with.

In the last twenty-five years there has been a significant alteration in the student experience in the UK. In the early 1980s it was rare for students either to fail to take exams or produce assignments on time or for them to fail to complete the degree they had begun. Now a significant proportion of students who start a programme of study withdraw before completion and this 'attrition' has become a particular problem for some universities and for the higher education funding bodies. This article reports the results of a project that conducted qualitative, depth interviews not focussed so much on finding reasons for having left, but rather on the experience and biography of those facing problems and thus likely to consider leaving or being forced to leave. A particular focus of this approach was to investigate a different dimension of the issue: student motivation for studying. Adapted from the source document.

Policy and practice in child welfare and protection has been significantly influenced by public inquiries or commissions which follow highly publicised child tragedies. Whilst there has been considerable comment on the final reports, there has been little research on the evidence gathered for such inquiries. Large amounts of testimony are collected which are increasingly available on inquiry websites. Such evidence offers new forms of readily available data about professional practice across a wide range of topics. Suggestions are made about research methods and search functions, and links to some sites provided. However, the data must be understood in the context in which it was produced.

So wie die Gesellschaft sich durch neue Technologien verändert und verändert wird, so ändert sich auch die Art und Weise, wie qualitative Forscher und Forscherinnen (welche) Daten erheben und wie sie diese analysieren. Der folgende Aufsatz skizziert diese Entwicklung entlang der in der vorliegenden FQS-Schwerpunktausgabe veröffentlichten Beiträge.
Die Verbreitung von Video- und Bildtechnologien bedeutet, dass Bilder und Illustrationen zum einen als Datenmaterial, zum anderen aber auch als Erhebungswerkzeuge verwendet werden können. Da Audio- und Videodaten nun immer häufiger auch digital vorliegen, werden außerdem neue Arten der Datenverarbeitung und -analyse möglich. Die parallele Entwicklung des Internets bietet zusätzliche Möglichkeiten der Datenerhebung und neue Kontexte, die untersucht werden können. Dies wirft die Frage neu auf, wie Forscher und Forscherinnen welche Daten erheben, verarbeiten, analysieren und veröffentlichen.
Digitale Technologien haben auch die Voraussetzung für neue computergestützte Analysemöglichkeiten geschaffen. Heutzutage ist eine Reihe von Analyseprogrammen erhältlich, die infolge der gewachsenen Nachfrage ständig erweitert und verbessert werden. Hieraus erwachsen neue Herausforderungen, angefangen beim Erlernen der weiterentwickelten Programme bis hin zu Fragen der Datensicherung, des Datenaustauschs und der Datenanalyse.
Die Popularität von computergestützten qualitativen Analyseprogrammen (CAQDAS) ist nicht gleichzusetzen mit deren unkritischer Akzeptanz. Die Frage, inwieweit CAQDAS selbst qualitative Analysen zu leisten vermag oder ob die Programme lediglich der eigentlichen Auswertungsarbeit assistieren, ist ein Thema, das seit einiger Zeit diskutiert wird. Ein Dialog über neue Technologien ist in diesem Zusammenhang von großem Interesse, da Weiterentwicklungen durch sie denk- und ausführbar werden.

In a recent paper, Martyn Hammersley has identified a variety of approaches to the teaching and learning of qualitative research methods (QRM). 1. The craft approach. Typically, learning by a relatively small number of postgraduate students 'at Nellie's knee' by a form of apprenticeship with the senior researcher with whom they were working 2. The professional approach (especially a concern to do a professional job and to meet ethics guidelines) 3. Bicoleur – the post-modern/constructivist approach. Use any methods that are to hand and learn by doing such approaches. All three, he suggests, reject the procedural approach to learning QRM, i.e. learning through set of explicit stages and activities, even though this is the approach that both government and students want. To some degree these are responses to a crisis in the teaching of QRM. In the past, insofar as it was taught at all, QRM was approached using the craft/apprenticeship model. However, now, QRM are taught at undergraduate level and to very large numbers of students. So that approach is no longer tenable. At the same time, there has been a revolution in QRM which has introduced a large range of approaches and techniques and undermined any consensus about what are the key methods that should be learned. In response to these changes in the last 20 years there has been an enormous growth in the number of texts and guides written about QRM; initially with a focus on data collection but now complemented by a number of volumes on qualitative analysis. However, there is still an unaddressed need. Many of those learning about analysis still desire to see the fine detail of how researchers undertake the analysis and make decisions about coding etc. In some ways what they want is the kind of detailed advice and information learners in the past would have got as apprentices to their supervisors. The REQUALLO project (HEA funded) is designed to address this need and to deliver the information created by e-learning Reusable Learning Objects (RLOs). This paper will argue that this approach helps the dilemmas identified by Hammersley in a number of ways. 1. Materials are close to the experience that would be gained from the coaching/apprenticeship approach. Researchers are interviewed and theorists speak for themselves. 2. It promotes comparison – case to case, subject by subject, allowing students to see how explanations are created. 3. Includes procedures – steps to go through – but these are moderated by examples of how, in reality, researchers adjust/modify/use serendipity/creativity to modify what they actually do. 4. Each RLO contains some assessments/tests/exercises. This provides the kind of frequent feedback students would have got in the apprenticeship approach and it can be repeated as many times as the student wants. It is an example of learning by doing rather than by definition. 5. The granularity of the RLOs mean they are flexible and can be used in different philosophical/methodological contexts.