 afternoon. I will say a lot to talk about the ABC Learning Design Method and also this thing I call the App Methodology. It's a bit of a double axe so I'm going to just intro it, I'm going to pass it over to Clive in a second just to say what I am so I'm a faculty learning technology leader I always only joined a rwy'n gweithio'r unrhyw i'r ysgol i'r Llyfrgell, a'r ffwrdd ymgyrch yn ymgyrch. Rwy'n gweithio'r 10 o'r ffrwng ymddangos, yma'r ffacodi a'r ffacodi eich bod o'r rhan o'r gweithio. A'r rhan o'r rhan o'r gweithio'n dda i'r ffacodi a'r ddechrau ar gyfer ymgyrch, ac rwy'n gweithio'n dweud ymddangos, ac rwy'n gweithio'r ddechrau ar gyfer ymgyrch a'r ddych chi'n ffasgol a'r dwyloedd. I have a natural fit in there. So I can help tailor the stuff on the ground that we need to do with what we're trying to do, with what digital education offer and provide. I have to work very much across different areas. So I work with Arena, which is Clive's area, which is an academic development unit. I work with ISD, digital education, but primarily I work with academics. So my role is to work out exactly the best way to use a technology like Moodle and the Moodle Activities and Resources in a specific context. So I'm going to talk about a Fordence theory and the app methodology in a bit, but first off, I'm going to pass over to Clive. He'll talk about the ABC learning design method and what that is. Right. Thank you very much, Rich. Okay, so thanks to everyone who's staying to this sort of like-laster parallel session. And as a reward, we're going to show you not one, but two different methodologies which are going to help the design of your courses and make them so much better. So the two are ABC and APT. Rich is going to talk about APT and I'm going to talk about ABC. Has anyone heard of ABC before? Oh my goodness, well that's really nice. So ABC is a... Yeah, come on. Oh, it can move around. Freedom now to move around. So ABC is a method that we developed in UCL about five or six years ago and it's really taken off really well. We've used a lot in UCL, but also it's... I wouldn't say it's gone viral, that would be an exaggeration, but it's been quite popular in other universities around the UK, around Europe, research universities, colleges, schools and so on. And if you don't know anything about it, it's based on the workshop. So what we do is we bring academic colleagues, teachers and whatnot. We bring them round the table and we get them to design their courses. Oh sorry, hello. We get them to design their courses and their modules as a group. So the whole point of it really is to get teachers to speak into teachers. And we use the workshop, I'll show you how the workshop works in a second, but the most important thing is it's this idea of people want to gather creatively and discussing things and discussing their teaching. It's something that teachers don't probably do enough of and we can get people in and they work round a programme or a module or a course. And they would do it really quickly. Do it about 90 minutes maximum, sometimes you can do it quickly. So we use it for modules for courses, for MOOCs, for non-credit bearing courses and so on. It's been really successful, I think, partly because it's based on a theory. Rich will talk a little bit more about it. One of our lecturers, one of our professors, Professor Daniel Laura-Lard from the Institute of Education in UCL, she has the conversational theory, which we'll explain in a second. So I think part of the power of it is very, very simple, but behind it is this kind of theoretical approach, which makes it much more robust. She's got the right thing there, and I think it's all I can say there. So it's taken off, and I think for two reasons. One, it works. So almost everybody, everybody, most people have used it. It kind of works for engaging the academic sector, to have this pedagogical conversation, to have a proper design. So in UCL we're a big Moodle user. 50,000 students have been using Moodle for a decade, probably more. But if you look in our courses, our Moodle courses, a lot of them are fairly dull, a list of files and stuff like that. We're getting better, folks. We use templates and checklists and stuff like that, but it's still quite a lot in there. So what we're trying to do is think more about activating learning. So the students are more actively engaged with Moodle and with the VLE. So kind of everybody wants to do that. We've got this method of really helping people to think about that. And it's kind of spread around various parts of the world. So as I say, it works. But the other thing is that it's free. So I think that's a great part of it's popular. OK, you can go down on these little cards if you've got a card. So you or Ellie can go on there. You can download stuff. We've got about 15 different languages as videos. You can watch me and my colleagues sort of talking about how it works. And so you could go back to your office tomorrow and then Tuesday you could run a workshop if you want. But getting back into contact with us if you do so. And if you want to do another translation likewise. So this is a theory. So when we're working with our colleagues, our academic colleagues, we don't talk about theory. We're not going to do that, obviously. Let's scare them. But what Diana did was she kind of mapped out the sort of adult learning and as a sort of ginormous conversation which identified these six types of learning that are embedded in that. So there's acquiring. It's where the students kind of read stuff and look at videos and all that sort of thing. Inquiring, which is like when the students are researchers. They're researching into the domain. So they're looking at data, documents, designs, all that sort of stuff. Producing is what they produce for, mostly for teachers to be honest, for assessment. You know, they're producing, they're articulating their knowledge. Practising is where they learn how to do the discipline. So that could be field work and clinical work or teaching or whatever you're doing is part of the discipline. You're working with that and you get some feedback from your teachers discussing and collaboration are the kind of group aspects of it. Discussion is articulating your ideas in a group and collaborating is working together as a, working together as a, I feel for a common task. So if we think there's a lovely teacher, there's a lovely student and there's all the students working together. So there's three things coming together. So it's a very simple model. But what we do is we get people to design courses using, this is originally face-to-face, using these card sets. So if handed out little cards, oh, last one's gone. Can you imagine the little cards you've got? Each card represents one of the learning types and what people do is use that like a little lego, a little set of lego to build up this learner journey through their courses, okay? Teachers really get to it really quickly. It's not really a bit of a problem. You get this design and then you think about where's our assessment going to be, where's the feedback going to be. It gets a kind of discussion going about what's the student journey through there. And you can think of these learning types as different types of engagement with students in order to get through the course and reach the learning outcomes. So the product is a design. Normally the designs are quite linear, things you'd be doing the first week, second week, but there's some really nice ones as well. This is one of circular design, sort of spiral curriculum type thing, where the students go through, through a curriculum cycle, okay? And each time they're using, each of these things, some collaboration there, there's some discussion going there and down here is a production that they're producing something for assessment. So part of the exercise on the face-to-face one anyway is we do, they can go and turn over the card and if you've got one in the card you can turn over and you'll see there's various activities and the teachers can identify which activities you're going to do. So these are quite generic. It's not middle specific. We do have a middle specific version, but it's quite generic. But it's sort of like identifying what type of learning, what type of activities you want the students to do. And you can identify things like these are all the stars, assessment points and other things we can do in there. So really since the pandemic, most have done this online. We've done it using Jamboard, am I allowed to say that? Google product? Because it's really good. Go and Mural and Padlet and Excel and Word all sorts of different things using the same kind of principles just depends what you're comfortable with. We quite like the visual style of Jamboard. So that's what we do. And just a last bit for me is so if you think about this it's sort of like just we're just trying to design the learner journey. So you're not going to get, in my view, you're not going to get a great moodle course unless you know what the learner journey is. So this is the first stage. The second stage is what technology, in our case mostly moodle, what we're going to do in order to enable that journey and to support that journey, to make that really happen. So we've got a number of tools we've developed as part of ABC. Let's check this. That was nicked off some colleagues in Belgium who did that one. That's quite nice. We've got this tool wheel or app wheel where you've got moodle activities and they're mapped against the various learning types. And we've got this pretty horrible looking table as we did during the pandemic. Again, just to help people think about as you're going towards the technology what is your pedagogy rationale. So these are kind of okay but they're a bit clumsy. Unfortunately at this point Rich has now stepped in with a fantastic idea which is going to show us. Yeah. So yeah, so this is why I joined UC on chat with Clive, remember us, and I've been working on this thing, pedagogy and technology as I call it. The alignment of pedagogy and technology. So I'm pretty straightforward why I use the word apps there. Obviously it is an acronym but at the same time I like the word apps. It is a word in English at least that's short for appropriate. I use the example there of the wine and cheese because for me we kind of know this. If you like your stilton then you might have a glass of port with it. It's the right kind of thing to have it if you like goat's cheese maybe you like a sweet white. I mean these things aren't rules, they're not regulations, you don't have to have a wine with a particular cheese. But we kind of know these things are more appropriate. There's something that's a match, they kind of go together. So that's what this thing is supposed to do but it was a product from my doctoral research I was doing in this field. I was actually working originally on authentic assessment and we did a long project with a gysg. They're a funding body in the UK, but they give us a lot of money to invest in authentic assessment and we were faced with a challenge there to sort of how to build technologies to support authentic assessment because that's a tricky thing to do as well. So the methodology came out of that and this is what it kind of tries to do which technology is most at. It's a semi-rigorous blend, it's a mixed methods approach so it's a bit quantitative, it's more rigorous than other techniques that I've seen out there so far. But it relies on this definition of affordance. That was basically the main subject of what I was working on, affordance theory. I know affordance has had a rocky ground in many disciplines. It's been adopted by other people. If you don't know affordance, I'm sure many of you probably do. I won't ask you to raise hands because I think most people know the word affordance. It's big in ed tech, let's face it. But that's Gibson's original thing which I have no problem with. I've been studying it for like 10 years. I think I've read everything you ever wrote. A lot of people, affordance has been corrupted in some ways by multiple uptake in different disciplines. It's lost this connection that it lives in space. It lives between people and the world. Too often people apply affordance to objects on the right there rather than where it probably sits in the middle. It's about context and need. We have different needs depending on where we are in space. A chair is always a classic example. If I'm tired and I need to rest, I can sit down on a chair. But if I want to reach someone on a high shelf, I can use a chair as a stool. Completely different affordance, same logic. Different needs. That's an easy way of demonstrating the link. I redefined it before once in my work. What I can refer to is transaction possibilities. I noticed a bit of a mad slide. I'll try and explain it. You've got my little character staring into space. Staring into time is what the idea is. Often affordances describe as this action possibilities thing on the left, which I think is massively simplistic. It seals affordance just how you can act in a moment. It seals it in a moment in time. It isn't very helpful. Then you've got the HCI approach. Human-commercial-hutra interaction. I used to do a lot of this. I'm very familiar with how they use the word. They are interested in the word is interaction. They want to know how something can be turned. How something can be twisted, shoved, pulled. How a scroll bar moves up and down. That's their focus. They worry about this interaction. My argument is what we're really interested in here is transaction. As educators, what we're interested in is change. People have used that word quite a lot over the past few days here and there. We're interested in what will change when we do something. We're looking into the future at a conscious of something we'll get back from an interaction. This idea of transaction. I think this word was close to Dewi's heart. In his last paper he wrote, he had a trilogy of action, interaction and transaction. From his perspective, transaction was the ultimate thing we're trying to work towards. I think the conversational framework is all about this idea of transaction. About how things transact between individuals and the environment. That's this new idea of affordance, which powers behind the app methodology. The idea is a three-fold really. It's quite simplistic. You basically choose a theoretical framework. When we were working on authentic assessment, we designed a six-dimensional mode of authentic assessment. I've done this for secondary schools as well in the UK. For that, we used the teaching standards from the UK government, which every teacher has to comply to. That was another framework. For UCL, we're using the conversational framework. It's very well researched and very robust. What you have to do is you have to try and summarise the transaction possibilities using ten keywords in each case. Then you can effectively rate. Now we've got this blend of quantitative and qualitative. We can actually rate technologies based on a theoretical framework of how effective they will be to support each one of these learning types. What you end up with is that, which I know is another Nazi spreadsheet, which isn't what you were supposed to use, but this is the product behind the scenes, as it were. This is my matrices. On the left, I know you won't be able to see it, or I've got all the activities and resources in Moodle. I should say, this is from UCL perspective. We don't have a big blue button in there, for example. It's the key ones we use at UCL. On the top, you've got the learning types. Each one has got ten keywords. We've got, say you take inquiring, I've got things like explore, interpret, investigate. You're picking keywords to describe the transaction possibilities of that learning type. It's quite a hard thing to do this. I pour through the books, I look at work from people at Clive and others, to try and summarise, just in these action verbs almost, the things this thing provides or finishes from an affords perspective. You think they're all quite similar, collect, collate, but actually they're really not. If I'm just collecting something, I'm just gathering or putting it in a pot. But if I'm collating something, there's a subtly more element in that. I'm actually making some kind of distinction as I collect to say this lives here and this lives here. These words may sound simplistic and the same, but actually when you try and do this if yourself you sit down and do it, it's kind of hard to actually rate each one in this case. But you do get this powerful spreadsheet eventually. Then you get these. This is the idea of the tech trumps. This is what Clive has said. The ABC approach is very hands-on. It's a workshop. You're trying to do things together in a room and shuffling a learning design into place and then trying to fold in tech trumps. You can have it as physical cards. I've got a few packs I've printed at home. Which everyone wants to come and grab and be late so you can have a look at what it looks like in physical form. Of course they summarise the affordances of each one of these moodle activities and resources that relates to the conversational framework. Down the ABC learning design method. Now if this fires up a browser it might launch a website. And they also can have them digitally as well. This is the first time we've talked about this. Clive and I have always been working this the past few months. This isn't touch sensitive, is it? No. So you can scroll down and browse them on web. You can hover over these and get more detail on the various things they are. You can have a summary of the ones that are just more powerful for each one of these learning types in turn. So that's what it is. Before I finish I just wanted to one more thing we realise as we were doing this as we were running through this process was what it revealed about these activities and resources and about moodle. So if you look at the really strong contenders I want to come across really strongly on all the learning types. H5P, well that's probably actually because H5P has lots of different activities within it. So it's actually, I probably need to expand that and rate each one individually. That's probably where I get such a high score. But the wiki, actually think about it, the wiki can do loads it's great for discussing, it's great for production for collaboration, it's a really strong part maybe a bit underused. But maybe a bit, it's complicated but it has massively powerful from this perspective. Similarly perhaps the weaknesses and this has been talked about and stuff I've been today and maybe elsewhere. I didn't intend it to reveal any weaknesses within moodle, I just ran my process and this is what it said. Perhaps not that surprising that we know moodle is not particularly strong on collaboration and practising, you know the weakest one is the collaboration area. I mean we use zoom and teams pretty much at UCR to collaborate we wouldn't be thinking of using it there. But I was curious to this throughout this kind of result. In my databases they came out ten on production which I was surprised to see as well. But I was pleasantly surprised because I know my chemists use them massively for formative assessment. They've been doing lots of science experiments at home so they've been cooking basically in Covid and getting the students to send results in and share all their data into massive data sets hundreds of students, hundreds of data sets and they've been sharing and learning from each other using the databases as a formative assessment tool. So it was kind of nice to see this confirmed that this is a direct tool for assessment in terms of using database. Okay, that's it from us. Like I say, we've just started working on this. We're interested if analysis is using ABC and whether they like to kind of work with us on this. There's some links there to some of the key resources we talked about today. Next steps for us, we're going to be expanding this because at the moment this is the moodle tools we're going to fold in here zoom and teams and office and portfolios and all the rest of stuff we do and then hopefully extend it to UCL a learning tool. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thanks Richard and Clive. That was really interesting. We will open up for questions if anybody has a question. Yes. Did I see someone? No. I actually was interested in understanding what happens from here. So how long does it take educators once you've done this collaborative work? Do they quickly adopt? I can imagine for them there's quite a lot of time investment in redesigning their courses or rebuilding them. There's been a big change in UCL that we've got people like Rich who are working in the faculties with our academics. So what we try to do now is when we do this design process is to try to bring one of the rich type people along. So they can kind of look after the development side as they go through the redesigner courses. But we still need that kind of tool set that Rich has got because a lot of our academics do it themselves. I mean there's only a small number of actual program developers. But for us, from my perspective anyway, the important thing is to help our colleagues to really redesign and design the courses. Think about that kind of pedagogical journey and from that we can use various types of tools and approaches. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to discuss yesterday's as well, so I was really looking forward to this. I'm Ioana from UNESCO IAP. I'm a learning designer and we have been practicing the ABC learning design with our colleagues for I think four years now, five? Four? Yeah. And we've taken it further because for us development is also important, so to shorten things. For me the question is one which maybe I will reach out and find out more about how you came up with the numbers per like, yeah, how did you make that happen also because what I noticed as a designer that and sometimes we use the methodology and everything the implementation is very different because we discuss about the activities and then how you write the instruction how you use the activity and I've seen so many variations within a discussion for example that the way a teacher does it can reach a certain level because the question has like and then another one does it and it's an amazing collaborative space and they use it for production even so to me it's not necessarily the tool but it's also like the design and the pedagogy behind and how you will implement it that makes a huge difference so I've seen for example the forum being used for production for collaboration and I have seen it used only for retention so my question is like do you need this effect your scaling did you take everything into account like how much anyway it's yeah I know maybe a complicated question thank you all very important and very challenging questions yeah the rating the numbering is hard I say when I'm doing it try and do it collaboratively because I have more eyes on it so you can to really think you have to know your context very well you have to know exactly what a discussion one can provide because there's so many details and there's so much change in it to decide whether or not it provides some of those keyware things is hard but it just takes time and thought to be honest but to answer your second question I think what this highlights more than anything to me especially when I was doing a secondary education it was the last big one I did of this it produces more than one card so when you were looking using the cards together I have 52 cards in the education pack for secondary school teachers and then something clicks within them it's the idea of need to spot what's going to be useful to you and then you might see that and say oh that's the one for me and someone else will say oh no that's the one for me and that's brilliant because that's what we're trying to get to we're trying to get to that point of a sunny that like world moment and I think that's the power of this it's kind of changed you up down that thought process at the right moment you're primed with the right possibility from one of these apps because I often find when I've done it before with teachers that they'll see something they've vaguely heard maybe what's that but they might have been using messenger or vice versa and they suddenly see how it would be useful in their context to have that primed plugged in at the right point if that makes sense Thank you, I think we've got time for one more question Hi my name is Winopoli Bair from University of Montreal I'm the head of the teaching and learning centre we've been using ABCLD during the pandemic we have been developing well two entries like excel sheets in order to guide the technology called choices I find your work amazing but my question is this we have teams we have other integration and our teachers use a lot of external tools as well as Moodle so how feasible would you see that you could use your methodology to grade tools that integrates with Moodle as well as external tools Yeah well we can certainly work with other tools I mean the tool wheels that Clive's been working on they're already there because the methodology is quite firm in terms of those characteristics the key words that describe the third learning theory the dimensions of learning theory it's quite easy to rate nothing else and add it to your pile I mean the teachers pack is mostly third party apps for example because teaching education is much more loose we've got ed puzzle in there and all sorts of weird things Just to add to that you saw on earlier slide the tool wheel that's sort of like all the kind of apps now we've got huge versions of that but every app you could ever want but actually the more useful ones is what's relevant for your particular institution what do you support and in the app wheel the core things are things which are supported well within the university and then there's things out there which you might use maybe mentee or something you might use it might use it not but I think that's important it's almost kind of restricting if you like the choice to say these are the things we really support if you want to go crazy and do some really interesting thing you've found exactly some kind of new app or something you want to do that's fine but we can't really support you very far in that we'll be interested in your experience but we can't help you so I think it's sort of like aligning it up to what's available within your institution