CREATING ONLINE LEARNING RESOURCES FOR SCHOOLS ON MODERATE

CREATING ONLINE LEARNING RESOURCES FOR SCHOOLS ON MODERATE BUDGETS MA conference 2011 Brighton 3 Oct 2011 Helen Ward (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) Martin Bazley (Martin Bazley & Associates)

Martin Bazley & Associates BBC / Public Catalogue Foundation Your Paintings project Consulting on user interface Consulting on online survey User testing

Martin Bazley & Associates Ford Madox Brown Work schools interactive with embedded video Consulting on content and user interface User testing (classroombased) (Also worked on redevelopment of main website)

Martin Bazley & Associates Development of small to medium sized museum websites Using Word. Press, Content Curator or similar low cost, flexible CMS, working with web developer associates

Martin Bazley & Associates Training Writing for the web Developing online resources Planning online audience research and impact assessment Video for the web Podcasting – planning, production, promotion Social media Etc: ‘anything digital’

Increasing cost and complexity Image(s) + caption(s) Key question(s) / short activities These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets Zoomable images Video Interactive More complex functionality First two can be done quite easily The others will mean investment of money and /or expert time Two case studies: 1. with interactive 2. with video Most useful for teachers Elements of online learning resources

Part of the University of Oxford (est. 1683) Key Collections: • Western Art • Eastern Art • Antiquities/ Archaeology • Coins and Medals • Casts Reopened in 2009 after major redevelopment

What did teachers want and what could we offer? What did teachers want? • Information to help plan a visit • Resources to support pre and post visit classroom activities What could we offer? • No budget, but in house ICT expertise Education web pages 2007 • Improved website navigation http: //www. ashmolean. org/ education/resources/ • A structure to allow easy searching of carefully selected resources • ‘New’ content by repurposing old materials • ‘Quick wins’ eg zoomable images

Example 1: Brighton Then & Now whiteboard interactive • Funded through Take One… Picture project • Repurposing an existing activity • Focus on interactive element – buying in expertise not available in-house • Opportunity to review and improve content • Opportunity to involve local teachers Brighton Then and Now screenshot http: //www. ashmolean. org/ education/resources/resou rces 2011/interactives/Brig hton/Brighton. html • Time consuming (attention to detail important), but great results! • Attempts to create interactives in house less successful

Take One Picture interactive: pros + An ‘interactive’ resource often seems more attractive. + Offers a richer experience around each painting. + Activity is closely guided, so can be used even by inexperienced teachers.

Take One Picture interactive: cons - Relatively expensive to produce. - Quite limited in application – teachers cannot adjust to suit their needs. - Because most images / assets are ‘wrapped’ in Flash, this type of resource is sometimes less findable via Google etc.

Example 2: ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ learning package • Funded through AHRC grant - small component of bigger project • Starting from scratch - defining concept very time consuming • Opportunity to work closely with local school on in depth project • Heavy demands on education staff time – (esp Joint Museums Art Education Officer) ‘Through Ruskin’s Eyes’ screenshot http: //educationonline. ash molean. org/ruskin/ • Opportunity to try out new approaches eg video clips • Resulted in ‘solution’ for education staff to create teaching and learning packages (requiring minimal help from busy ICT team)

John Ruskin resource: pros + Provides images, videos and straightforward activities that students or teachers can use in their own way. + Less expensive to develop + More likely to be found via Google etc.

John Ruskin resource: cons - Does not have the ‘wow’ factor of an ‘interactive’

Overall comparison TOP: approach quite well defined so easier to see the potential. More constrained. Ruskin: more specialist audience so more in depth activities. Working with partners creative but increases complexity.

your content curriculum (find a match) Learning activities Learning outcomes (find a match) Does it match your audience’s specific needs? If so TEST - and then amend Check Developing a learning resource: iterative review

Increasing cost and complexity Image(s) + caption(s) Key question(s) / short activities These are the first things to provide, and do not require high levels of IT expertise or investment Background teacher notes / pupil activity sheets Zoomable images Video Interactive More complex functionality Video can be done quite easily and cheaply. Zoomable images too. The others will mean substantial investment of money and /or expert time Most useful for teachers Elements of online learning resources

‘What have museums ever done for us? ’ The main value added for teachers working online is selection of suitable material with learning activities and outcomes in mind Focus resources on editorial, evaluation and testing rather than technical functionality

Reflection How can you create effective learning resources on a limited budget? What are the quick wins for teachers, in online provision? How do you build a case for investing in the development of online resources?