Working with the Virtual Campus Project: TLT2782 End of Project Report

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 2 Working with the Virtual Campus

1. Introduction
This report summarises the findings of a collaborative project undertaken by the Centre for Research in Education at Birmingham City University, the University of Wolverhampton with the regional OLASS contract holder for the West Midlands, The Manchester College. The project, funded by LSIS, aimed to develop a sustainable regional knowledge transfer partnership to develop innovative, context grounded digital-pedagogies for the offender learning sector. Drawing on action research methodologies and using a multi-layered approach to data collection and analysis the project worked with prison educators to make best use of the new prison based virtual campus.

2. Project aims
The overarching aim of the project was to develop a sustainable West Midlands knowledge transfer partnership to develop innovative, context-grounded digital-pedagogies for the offender learning sector. A group of prison educators were recruited from across regions prisons to undertake small scale action research projects in their settings with a view to stimulating creative use of the affordances of the new prison-based virtual campus for teachers across the sector. The specific objectives of the project were to: develop a sustainable regional knowledge transfer partnership in digital-learning pedagogies for the offender learning sector between HE, FE and the West Midlands prisons that will inform and influence local, regional and national debates; use action research methodologies to develop contextualised digital-pedagogies for the offender learning sector and new knowledge about digital-learning in secure settings; develop learning opportunities for learners in secure settings that address the fragmented nature of offender learning and support progression to employment; embed innovative approaches to evaluation; develop new knowledge in a nascent, as yet unchartered field: the use of digital and e-learning technologies in secure educational settings; inform the design of initial teacher education and continuing professional development programmes in the region.

3. Intended Outcomes
The planned outcomes of the project were to: train 10 Champions in prison education settings across the West Midlands to support teachers to exploit the affordances of the newly launched Virtual Campus innovatively and creatively by drawing on cutting edge research in other sectors. Champions will evaluate and disseminate their work to the wider community;

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 3 Working with the Virtual Campus
develop an open access web-based e-resource for prison educators to be shared regionally and nationally. This space will support the development of a regional, and eventually national, e-community for prison educators to sustain on-going dialogue and development; produce and disseminate new contextualised knowledge about in the potential for digital approaches to promote offender learning and support transition to reintegration and employment will be developed and disseminated.

4. Learning with technology/digital literacies

Participants were introduced to key debates from the research literature about learning in the virtual environment. This included an overview of issues, for teachers and learners, associated with learning with technology (see appendix 1), the concept of digital literacy (appendix 2) as well as more specific input on the IT and digital experience of the prison community. These ideas framed the content and discussion of workshops and the design of the projects that emerged.

5. Project Design & Methodology

The project operated at a both a macro and micro level. At the micro level small action research projects were undertaken in individual prison settings by teacher researchers working directly with the Virtual Campus and at the macro level the project research team undertook a global analysis of the research process and outcomes of the micro projects to feed in to the synoptic summary detailed below. There were four strands to the project design; Development, Action Research, Evaluation and Dissemination In the Development strand participants attended a workshop in which they explored new methodologies in digital and e-learning and the affordances of the Virtual Campus. These sessions were intended provide the practical and theoretical knowledge participants would need to go on and design their action research projects. In this phase the Reflect web folio was developed and populated by the project team. In the Action Research strand participants were introduced in a workshop context to an action research framework. This framework was underpinned by Carr & Kemmis notion that Action research is simply a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out (1986: 162) and encouraged participants to work through Stringers (1999, 2007) three stage process of intervention: Look - building a picture and gathering information. When evaluating we define and describe the problem to be investigated and the context in which it is set. We also describe what all the participants (educators, group members, managers etc.) have been doing.

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 4 Working with the Virtual Campus
Think interpreting and explaining. When evaluating we analyse and interpret the situation. We reflect on what participants have been doing. We look at areas of success and any deficiencies, issues or problems. Act resolving issues and problems. In evaluation we judge the worth, effectiveness, appropriateness, and outcomes of those activities. We act to formulate solutions to any problems. (Stringer 1999: 18; 43-44;160)

Teacher researchers then with a member of the project team either through a face to face meeting or by correspondence to design and implement their own project focusing on any aspect of prisoner learning and employability appropriate to their setting. The project took an iterative approach to Evaluation which began at the outset of the project with a base-line report produced for each setting prior to the first workshop. An evaluation blog attached to the web-folio was launched at the first session input and two additional workshops to provide face to face support provided additional opportunities for evaluation. This evaluative data, gathered through the blog, final reports and notes taken by the project team at each of the meetings feed in to the discussion below. The outcomes of the project and the final report will be disseminated at the regional Learning and Skills Network event on 13th July and at the International conference of the European Prison Education Association in October 2011. The project team will also present the macrofindings as an academic paper to be submitted for publication.

6. Participants and micro-projects

All prisons, working with The Manchester College within the region were invited to join the project. This included Birmingham Brinsford Drake Hall Featherstone Hewel Long Lartin Rye Hall Shrewsbury Stafford Stoke Heath Swinfen Hall Werrington

Each of the prisons listed were represented at least one of the meetings and contributed to the discussions and evaluations. However the project resource covered only the cost of workshops and follow up meetings and not teacher release time. In addition the representative from one setting resigned from his post at the mid-point of the project. These factors combined with Ofsted inspections and the pressures of staff workload in some settings meant that not all prison representatives completed the whole process all though all were engaged at some point in the process and contributed to the discussions that informed the direction and shape of the projects and the macro findings outlines in this report.

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 5 Working with the Virtual Campus
Representatives were drawn from various roles within prison education teams and of the 15 nominees (some prisons had more than one) 7 were tutors, 4 were managers and 4 were Learning Support Practitioners (LSPs). Final project reports, or equivalent outcomes were submitted by colleagues representing 7 of the participating institutions and focused on the following locally identified issues. Brinsford - Virtual Campus Research Project Margaret Pickersgill & Val Barber Drake Hall VC usage and satisfaction, Tony Cleary & David Grice Hewel How effective is the VC in helping prisoners with resettlement at HMP Hewel, Richard Catford Rye Hall Implementation of the VC (RH are not yet using VC), Jeremy Ley Shrewsbury Assessing the VC and creating an action plan for launch, Caroline Morris & Nicola Parsons Stafford How does ICT literacy impact upon the VC project and what measures can be taken to improve equality of access?, Paul Astley Stoke Heath Development of a Learning to Learn higher level skills module in collaboration with a local HEI (and potential progression provider), Bill Meah Issues were identified and agreed as an outcome of whole group discussion about what was felt would be useful and productive to the project community and newcomers to the VC. The micro-reports for these projects appear in the appendices to this summary report.

7. Findings
This section draws on the micro reports and the evaluative data collected throughout the process to draw conclusions about

7.1.

Context and structural issues

All but one of the settings included in the project had the VC as part of the pilot role out and the project team had anticipated therefore that the level of staff expertise around and learner engagement with the VC would be significant and as such that tutors would be project ready. The initial participant recruitment and benchmarking meetings however revealed very different patterns of participation. Although all settings had had VC installed this seemed to have been essentially a technology driven start-up and one over which education staff (managers and tutors) felt very little ownership. The questions raised and frustrations aired at the first input session at which VC capabilities were demonstrated suggested there was little understanding or awareness of the breadth of technological affordances offered by the VC and that colleagues felt subject to rather than constituting of the way VC might be integrated in to learning activities. Key issues were raised at this early stage by colleagues who were often frustrated or over-wrought in their expression of their concerns. Issues raised by the group included the following contentions: the VC was not well integrated in to education and was identified as separate and often physically apart from the spaces and places of education activity; a lack of integration meant that tutors and managers had few opportunities to explore the VC and were struggling to see how it was different to traditional learning modes i.e. what works where and how it added value;

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 6 Working with the Virtual Campus
the content was insufficiently high quality in terms of the learning opportunities provided for students and activities were not differentiated; the content lacked variety; teachers lacked insight into how the VC might be populated or content developed; there was a lack of clarity about who owned content and how it might be developed and teachers were unsure who to influence and how; teachers noted poor quality and limited content, although better in some areas such as catering and at the outset it was felt around re-settlement; How VC learning was managed in practice who led the teaching?

These thoughts, feelings, concerns and questions framed the first two events with teacher researchers often apologising for seeming negative in their outlook. However most were keen to develop their own learning and had taken on the project in addition to their existing workload responsibilities. Entries to the blog following the first meeting were optimistic and forward looking: I'm quite new to offender learning and was employed as an LSP at HMP Stafford back in November to project manage the VC. I hope to gain a lot from this, im lacking in support here and would appreciate some peers to work with. I'm not going to rant on 'cos really I'm determined to be positive. Looking forward to the next meeting Of necessity this meant that the project evolved in a slightly new, but important direction and rather than action-based research interventions focusing on the development of existing activity it was quickly realised that micro projects would need to explore the infrastructural issues raised by the teacher researchers which were perceived as barriers to VC development so as to identify the steps that might need to be taken in order for colleagues to see new possibilities for the VC. The action research model was therefore adapted to become investigative rather than cyclical with a central synoptic outcome in the form of findings and recommendations.

7.2.

Barriers - structural, Organisational & Technical

There were a number of structural issues that participants reported that were perceived to mitigate against sustained and successful engagement with the VC. These can be categorised as organisational and technical. Technical issues centred on connectivity and access. Securing a sustained and reliable connection and gaining access for learners was a primary barrier in most settings, it was not unusual for the VC service to be disconnected due to an unpaid bill and for this to take some time, sometimes weeks to be rectified. But the most repeated systemic frustration was the process of logging learners in. Concern focused on two key issues, confusion over log in pages the learner and guardian pages are reported to be insufficiently distinct so that learners regularly experience the frustration of being locked out when they are in fact attempting the wrong log in page. And where log in details are forgotten by learners it can be very difficult in a secure setting to get access re-set particularly where telephone access is both physically limited and security restricted. Tutors also expressed frustration about the lack of

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 7 Working with the Virtual Campus
synchronicity between lesson start times, 8.40 and XMA help-line support which doesnt start till 9am meaning a 20 minute time delay if learners fail three log on attempts and need to be re-instated on the system. The studies suggest that the compounding of these issues results in tutors (Evaluation meetings, Hewel study 90% of students, 25% of staff experienced difficulties with log ins) and students (Drake Hall) losing interest in working with the VC. Protocols associated with Guardian/advisor role were also reported to lack consistency. Responsibility for guardianship/advisor is understood at the level of individual tutors and responsibility vested as such. An unintended consequence of this is that advisor activity is not always systematically or systemically sustained and as such breaks in advisor workflow for example by leave can disrupt the flow of learning activity of individual students. Examples of this were reported at Hewel and Drake Hall where respondents reported receiving information about jobs after the closing date or not receiving replies at all (in the case of a member of staff on sick leave). Several respondents asked whether it would be possible for an autoreply to be generated once a message had been received and read or that messages could be forwarded to a proxy advisor in the event of advisor absence. Organisational issues related to the siting of the VC and the limitations imposed by the particularities of the regime in particular settings. As outlined above in most cases the siting of the VC had been taken by technical or prison management staff rather than by tutors or education managers. As such thought had not always been given to how the VC would be accessed by learners, the kind of work that might be engaged in and how this would relate to their wider educational development or practice. This consequence of this is that the VC is too often located in a space with limited learner access or that does not readily cohere with the everyday practices of planned learning i.e. in a discrete classroom or on a particular wing. One calculation in regard to the use of VC in an open prison setting where it not in an open access area suggested that with 8 machines in a single room, with 3 slots a day over 4 days made possible only 96 learner interactions with the VC in a single week. In another setting only 5 sessions per week were available for VC activities as the room in which it was sited was timetabled for a range of other activities in the other slots. One micro report noted that the saving facility is not always available resulting in students being unable to save and return to their work. Later discussion at the evaluation workshop suggested this was not an isolated experience and has serious implications for the kind of learning experience that the VC offers, this is discussed in more detail below, and the attractiveness of the medium for both tutors and students. This combination of technical and organisational issues meant that the VC was often seen as a high risk resource to timetable learning around. This was particularly evident a youth offender setting, Brinsford, where education activities were not always co-located in a single block where security protocols did not permit education staff to escort prisoners from one education space to another section/building of education to another and where prisoner allocation to learning had to be notified at least a week in advance. However the findings of the report from Drake Hall womens, prison where the VC is provided as a drop in facility, also noted that the early experience of technical difficulties by initial cohorts of learners established an expectation of technical failure that spread virally throughout the prison impacting significantly negatively on usage.

7.3.

Barriers Readiness to Learn

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 8 Working with the Virtual Campus
The review of literature undertaken above (see for example Alliance for Digital Inclusion) indicates that the digital competency and confidence of many prisoners may ill equip them to take to access and engage in learning through a medium like the VC. There is little evidence that the VC infrastructure or support package offers provision for induction of learners with limited ICT or digital experience and orientation is a local activity Virtual Campus Business Process Guidance (Meganexus, 2009:8) prior to the accessing the facility, the local establishment/learning provider should ensure that learners have been suitably assessed to use ICT. The level or nature of assessment is unspecified and it is unclear whether the assessment should relate to security or learning. As such no sector standard has emerged for the assessment of readiness to engage with the VC nor is there a content package under development. One micro project took a small, quantitative case study approach to explore VC readiness in the context of a sample of 80 learners in a category C prison, split equally between vulnerable and mainstream prisoners. The findings are interesting in that they both concur and deviate from the literature. A response to the question of ICT experience found that: 53% described themselves as having little or no ICT experience, rising to 62% in the 35+ category In the mainstream population this rose further to 80%

However asking students to report their everyday experience of ICT use from Facebook to consumption of pornography revealed interesting and unexpected patterns of skills and experience suggesting more nuanced competencies and capabilities for example of the 40% who reported having little experience 87.5% reported experience of using MySpace or Facebook. The micro-report goes on to suggest that the nomenclature around VC might be adjusted to chime with the existing experience of learners the VC at that particular establishment has been renamed the outside-in-zone to better describe the role of the VC in the learning process.

7.4.

Models of Learning

There is much evidence to suggest that the VC is current used primarily as a repository for information or for quick check surface learning such as the short multiple-choice test tools available in the study skills area. The VC currently has no tools that will support reflective or reflexive work or that encourage iterative approaches to learning in some settings this is further exacerbated by reported problems with the save facility. Resources tend to be characterised by linear, individually accessed learning items modelled on traditional printbased pedagogical dynamics. Conceptually this mode of learning is very different to the more expansive learning experiences (Engstrom) that are possible within digital spaces and as such limits the learning to content missing opportunities for skills and wider cognitive development. As Lanham argues Digitally literate people are quick on their feet in moving from one kind of medium to another ...know what kind of expression fit what kinds of knowledge and become skilled at presenting information in the medium that their audience will find easiest to understand (Lanham 95:198) and work with the VC currently misses the opportunity to develop these sort of skills, aptitudes and values with learners so that they are able to understand and use information in multiple formats from a wide variety of sources

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 9 Working with the Virtual Campus
when its presented via computers...to assimilate...evaluate...and reintegrate (Gilster in Pool 1997:6). Crucially if the VC is to prepare learners for participation in the digital world outside the prison walls they must be ready to recognise that digital environments require participants not only to behave in new ways but to realise that the new forms of literacy they will need to be successful are: Made of different stuff screens, pixels, digital codes Facilitated differently mouse instead of pen Multimodal words/images/audio/animation (from Lankshear and Knobel 2006)

7.5.

Roles and professional development

The studies raised many questions about who facilitates the virtual campus, what sort of teacher education or pedagogical training have they had and their relationship with mainstream teaching. One LSP expresses his confusion about the lack of clarity in his role description:my official title is LSP, although this doesnt seem to reflect my role, with the majority of my time spent co-ordinating the VC. I am solely responsible for the development of the VC [in my setting] so this means: Maintaining the security and integrity of the system, vetting potential students, inductions, monitoring security breaches; The upkeep of the server and user account management; Working with staff to encourage their use of the VC and potentially incorporating elements of it in to their schemes of work; Facilitating and developing OU openings courses through the VC; Working with other agencies to provide a co-ordinated response to the resettlement needs of inmates; Providing advice regarding courses in our department and progression

The role of the learning support assistant in the management and facilitation of learning through the VC is unclear suggesting a general lack of clarity about the purpose and function of the VC in curriculum more generally. LSAs and teachers might benefit from a greater clarity about how LSAs are supposed to work with the VC and greater consistency and agreement across institutions might improve practice and open up opportunities for collaboration and practice sharing.

7.6.

Content

One micro study explored tutor perceptions of content material (Brinsford), whilst another (Stafford) considered a tutor content wish-list. A third (Hewel) surveyed staff and student usage of resettlement as there was a perception across the participant group that this was an area of the VC that was most heavily populated and most frequently accessed an indication perhaps of efficiency and effectiveness. A fourth study (Drake Hall) explored student perceptions of content in the context of an open-access setting where students were freely able to access the VC. This combination of projects offered an interesting opportunity to compare and contrast the views and attitudes of students and tutors.

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 10 Working with the Virtual Campus
The findings from Hewel and Drake Hall offer an insight in to how content is viewed and valued. At Drake Hall womens prison 33 learners were asked to rate the 13 elements of the skills aspects of the VC (Very poor Very good with the option to report not used) in relation to their own experience/usage. The provided 429 pieces of data. Of these 188 were reported as poor or very poor, 113 were rated ok (middle of range) and 105 were deemed to be good or very good. The CV builder emerged as the most useful positively ranked (all 32 responses good/very good, 1 not used), follow up discussions suggested that respondents felt that this was because CV building is undertaken in conjunction with an advisor. The popularity, measured by frequency of use, of CV building was also reported at Hewel, an open prison where learners are preparing for resettlement although 60% of users also reported that they were dissatisfied with the CV building process. No learner there judged the resettlement material to be either extremely or even fairly helpful and 70% judged the VC as no help at all and 30% as not very helpful. The three studies of staff perceptions of content pointed to few highlights. At Brinsford interactive whiteboards in the classrooms were felt to provide better resources which are easier to access and as a result tutors did not choose to prioritise or ring-fence time to familiarise themselves with campus content. At Hewel 96% reported that they were unlikely to make future use of VC material in their teaching, with 57% reporting that VC resources have added some limited value to their teaching and 43% claiming no benefit. Staff rarely judged resettlement resources as higher than adequate (60%). Staff dissatisfaction with the resettlement content seemed to be compounded by a perception amongst staff of the futility of job searching through the VC with only 1 learner having been credited with securing a job via the VC since December 2010. Whilst we would want to exercise caution in making broad judgements about these case studies, they were small numbers of they are indicative of strong feeling amongst some staff and learners of the validity of VC and its potential impact as a tool for learning. The ownership of content was the subject of much discussion in the evaluative workshops. Few tutors had what they called a definitive list of possible content or were aware of how to populate or customise their local version of the VC. There was little awareness of any protocols or procedures in relation to content management or enhancement. The focus of discussion of the VC as a resource centred very much around the idea of the VC as a repository for learning objects that might be marshalled much like worksheets or any other traditional classroom artefact. Through this lens tutors, and students, tended to rate resources poorly finding them generic, untailored to the needs of particular groups and undifferentiated. Rarely did tutors or students see the VC as an opportunity to engage in new processes, interact with others or make new connections. The single example of this evidenced in the project was the job application process, however this was tempered by issues about expectation and as such value the learning in this process was to perhaps unplanned and unintended (hidden curriculum) that is to say that what students learned was perhaps something quite negative about the currency of their skills, experience in relation to their positioning as ex-offenders in a highly competitive marketplace. The VC tended to be seen as most effective and most highly valued when used in conjunction with teachers or tutors providing face to face support/interaction. What this suggests is that tutors and students have yet to be convinced that the VC adds a new challenge or dimension to the teaching and learning process and that it does not, as currently configured provide new

10

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 11 Working with the Virtual Campus
ways of doing, being or working that add value to the existing, familiar, what works dynamics of practice.

7.7.

Working as a community of practitioners

Data collected throughout the project both through the blogs, seminars and workshops suggest that teacher researchers valued the opportunity to come together to share experience, ideas, frustrations and sometimes to find solutions to problems and concerns. The project findings make a strong argument for the value of a sustained, regional communities of practitioners to take forward work with the virtual campus so that problem solving, content development, champion usage, expertise building, myth busting and exploitation can be collective conceits and to avoid re-inventing the wheel as one participant described it.

8. Recommendations
We take a broad definition of pedagogy not to mean the instruction of children but in the broader androgogical sense to mean the structuring and patterning of teaching and learning to enable reflective and reflexive learning what Engstrom might call expansive learning. Giving due consideration to all the issues identified above will be central to evolving a meaningful pedagogy around VC. In particular we would like to draw out the following recommendations as being central to the successful development and integration of the VC. Organisational issues: - There is a strong argument to suggest that Education teams should be involved in the siting of VC help to overcome some of the practical barriers and obstacles - Log in needs to be easy and intuitive - Different colour log in pages for staff and students would overcome confusion with log in and help to prevent students being locked out of VC Learning: - Working models of learning implicit in curriculum design need to be explored and expanded to make the most of the affordances of the virtual campuses and to ensure that the skills that are developed not only keep pace with the demands of the modern workplace but enable learners to participate confidently in the increasingly digitised environment on release. - The distinctiveness of the VC offer must be well established amongst students and tutors Staff Development: - Greater clarity is required about the role of colleagues facilitating learning, the kinds of training, aptitudes and values they need to be able to demonstrate - CPD for all teaching staff must take account of recent theoretical thinking about teaching and learning in virtual and online environments Readiness and learner support: - Learners must be ready to learn through the VC and time and attention must be given to the induction and orientation process. A standard process that pooled experienced and ideas might be a good starting point for this and could form a basis from which

11

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 12 Working with the Virtual Campus
local, contextualised support might build. A questionnaire for example that prompted a reflective engagement with prior skills and experience Learners are more likely to embrace new approaches to learning technology if the medium of delivery (in this case the new technology) is reliable, responsive, intuitive and they if they have realistic expectations about how it will enhance their learning and what it is able to deliver Links to progression and beyond gate services should be clearly signposted from the outset The role of the advisor should be consistent and interactions with advisors must be appropriately timely and centrally managed Launch and delivery are vital make sure it works in the way you want it to before you launch it!

Content:- Content should follow pedagogy - Resources should encompass tools as well as objects - The definition of resources needs evaluating and expanding to shift understanding away from a model of accumulation and mastery to doing and being i.e. what do I need (objects and ways of doing) to achieve x or y? - Content might be best developed through a dynamic project-based model, teachers working with e-developers to develop the tools and resources that promote learning that works in their context Evaluation - On-going evaluation of usage by tutors and students as part of the everyday of practice development is vital. This should feed in to cross inter-institutional development and discussion - Early wins and success stories should be shared and celebrated.

9. Conclusions
The project was very ambitious given the realities of tutor experience at the chalk-face. However the work has cleared the ground for further developments by bringing to the fore the barriers that might need to be addressed and overcome in order to improve and embed the VC as an everyday element of prison education. What stands out from the findings is the commitment and enthusiasm displayed by participant teacher researchers about the possibilities for learning with technology in the prison setting. Teachers researchers demonstrated a substantial appetite for professional development around VC and digital learning and were open and excited about rethinking and restructuring their pedagogical practice. Given the right infrastructural conditions, meaningful professional development and some sense of input into and ownership of the development process teachers have the potential to become key players in the successful integration of the VC into the everyday of prisoner learning.

10.Next Steps and Value Added

The project team were invited by The Skills Funding Agency to present the findings of this project to the National Content Steering Group for the Virtual Campus in June 2011. As a result of this The Manchester College and The Skills Funding Agency have commissioned a further project to take up the recommendations and to roll out a pedagogy development programme, led by the project team, across the English prison estate.

12

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 13 Working with the Virtual Campus

13

Centre for Research in Education - Birmingham City University 14 Working with the Virtual Campus

14