Forum LAMS Lounge Forum: Re: Re: Thoughts from users at the University of Sheffield

By: Robyn Philip

[ Reply | Forward ]

I think one of the key issues underpinning this debate is the mental model that teachers bring to the use of LAMS.

If you think of a LAMS’ sequence, as I did initially, as a tool for constructing a whole program of work, then its limitations and lack of flexibility in terms of moving back and forth are immediately evident. I tended to construct sequences that were too long and too complex. LAMS doesn’t work like WebCT, Moodle or Blackboard etc, and it wasn’t created to be like one of these systems. A single LAMS sequence is better for a discrete set of connected activities – as student-centred as the author wants to make them.

Once I began thinking about LAMS as a tool that I could use to link and enable smaller activities, I started to see where the system came into its own.

For example, in a face to face tutorial I am preparing, which combines LAMS activities and traditional in-class activities, I will at times be didactic and give students information and instructions (set up the learning context), then set them to freely undertake their own work, often co-creating original resources that will be shared in some way with the whole class. For some of these activities I will expect students to go back and revise their answers before sharing with others. Other times we will just move on, without re-editing, but using that previous work as a basis for reflection and further conceptual understanding. You can use LAMS to help facilitate this tutorial model online or in a blended setting. The trick is not to think that you can do everything in LAMS (version 1 or 2).

Being able to move around more freely in LAMS will be great, and branching will be a very useful feature. But I think that by conceiving of each LAMS’ sequence as a tool for smaller activities you get far more out of the system. The best way to understand this is to see student-centred, student driven examples in use.

Posted by Robyn Philip

By: James Dalziel

[ Reply | Forward ]

Thanks Robyn - seeing LAMS as a "module" level planner, rather than a "course" level planner is a really important observation. (NB: By "planner" I mean "plan and run")

I wish we had a better word for "module" - that is, a discrete component of a subject/unit/course that might go for a class/lesson, or for a week over several classes/lessons (or online over a week or more for distance education), or a similar period of time suitable to the context (eg, a half day workshop in corporate training). Part of the difficulty is that different types of education (university, K-12, etc) think of this thing ("module") differently, and have different words to describe it as well as different scheduling patterns for classes (or their online equivalent).

For some educators, the defining characteristic of a module is that it addresses a particular learning objective (or outcome or competency). This works well in some contexts, but in others you are always addressing a range of learning objectives (eg, subject specific content for the module, as well as more generic skills like problems solving, communication skills, etc), which makes it difficult to make the module = learning objective link hard and fast. Personally this ideea doesn't work well for me, but I know it is important in many other contexts.

Another key element of focusing on modules (rather than whole courses) is the potential for sharing and re-use - my sense is that it is rare that an educator would replicate an entire course from another educator (if it were shared), but re-using a single module (or potentially a number of different modules shared by different educators) is more likely. This has always been one of the key drivers behind the way LAMS was designed.

Posted by James Dalziel