Micro-, meso-, macro-levels of TEL


I’ve recently been thinking about TEL in the context of quality assurance and enhancement (QA and QE), partly inspired by trying to establish some TEL standards for learning design. It occurred early on that which standards might be appropriate depends very much on the level of practice you’re concerned with.

The theme of the next EDEN conference in Genoa is “Exploring the micro, meso and macro: Navigating between dimensions in the digital learning landscape”. The three levels of micro, meso and macro encourage different views of practice which are extremely helpful. But what do these levels mean?

Fortunately, the three levels can be made to apply to all types of products and services - making illustration easy. Consider your phone; it consists of many features (operating system, camera, storage capacity, etc) that combine to form a single product (your mobile phone), which operates within a given context (the 4G network of your telco). Or, your car; again, a collection of features (brakes, steering system, engine) combining into a single product (your car), designed to operate within a given infrastructure context (roadworthiness for public roads). In each case, micro features combine into a single meso product, designed to function in a macro context.
  • Micro - individual assets, features and benefits.
  • Meso - conglomeration of micro elements into a single product, service or deliverable.
  • Macro - context of practice and experience.

0274
Which lens works best?
nachans, www.flickr.com cc
TEL practice can be thought about in the same sense: 
  • At the micro level, specific learning assets or learning opportunities become the focus: How do we measure the quality of our video assets? What is our alternative for visually impaired students? What represents a good MCQ?
  • At the meso level, a full course or module is in focus: Have we set a consistent workload for students? How well does assessment match learning outcomes?
  • At the macro level, issues of organisational compliance are in view: Which VLE and online systems do we use? Are they fit for purpose? Are they well supported across the institution? Are we compliant with the requirements of accrediting agencies?
This only considers TEL in the sense of learning design. Actual technologies might also be considered using the same framework: 
  • Micro - specific features of VLE or learning systems. 
  • Meso - the overall student experience of all learning systems. 
  • Macro - hosting, support and administrative systems. 
The approach is very helpful for discerning quality indicators from different perspectives. All three levels provide useful insight into overall TEL practice, from those involved with creating individual learning assets through to those selecting and managing overall technological solutions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A further update to "Reading and studying from the screen"

Image
Elevator tale: Like the previous post " An update to "Reading and studying from the screen " updating my 2016 paper " Reading and studying on the screen ", this post surveys various articles not previously considered. This time ten articles released subsequent to mine and a further thirteen not included are considered. The additional articles help to portray a much richer series of nuances to what it means to read on-screen and how comparison studies between on-screen and print reading might be furthered.  Image: Hobbies on a Budget, https://www.flickr.com/photos/62030038@N02/ Earlier this year I posted an update to my 2016 article in the Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning " Reading and studying on the screen: An overview of literature towards good learning design practice ". The article considered much, but not all, of the scholarship at the time related to how on-screen education might be advanced in the face of student preferenc
Read more

On AI in Ed

Image
I'm presenting a paper at next week's EDEN conference in Barcelona , on the topic of ethics for AI in education. In researching the paper, I took the time to get up to speed with some of the latest ideas. I read Frankish & Ramsey's Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence and Boddington's Toward a code of ethics for artificial intelligence to ensure a good foundation on top of some article and internet research. Let me begin by saying that there is a HUGE array of literature already developed on the subject of AI in education (AIED). A regular AIED Society international conference generates substantial proceedings and there is at least one dedicated journal (the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education ), ensuring that momentum is ongoing. In considering how AI might be applied in education it’s helpful to think about AI in terms of weak and strong forms. Weak AI is based on acting intelligently and the automation of specific ta
Read more

Into cognitive theory: Making it stick, How we learn, and more smudging

I recently finished reading Make it stick  by Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roedigger III, and Mark A. McDaniel, published 2014 by Harvard University Press. The Kindle version is available here ; a summary version is also available on Kindle here . What I like about the book is summed up in this paragraph: Much of how we structure training and schooling is based on learning theories that have been handed down to us, and these are shaped by our own sense of what works, a sensibility drawn from our personal experiences as teachers, coaches, students, and mere humans at large on the earth. How we teach is largely a mix of theory, lore, and intuition. But over the last forty years and more, cognitive psychologists have been working to build a body of evidence to clarify what works and to discover the strategies that get results (p.7).  The difference is between common sense (likely a projection of our own preferences!) and evidence when it comes to promoting effective learning. Without giv
Read more