Using Teams for a COMP-PLETE distance learning experience Cecilia Goria and Sally Hanford, University of Nottingham In this contribution, a pedagogical model based on sense of community, participation and openness will be discussed as highly significant in shaping a distance learning educational experience and the role of Microsoft Teams as hub for communication, collaboration, and increased productivity will be presented. The model, named COMP-PLETE, took shape inside a professional development programme designed following the guidelines delineated by the cognitive and experiential approaches to course design (Toohey’s (1999) typology); it promotes a combination of constructivist and experiential learning to define the role of content knowledge, teachers, learners and their interactions. The outcome of COMP-PLETE is a highly participatory model for online education which, based on the synergy between community, openness, multimodality, participation, personalization, learning, experience and technological-enhancement provides an academic experience that empowers the learners to act as agents in determining personal learning goals, in shaping the community of practice within and beyond the boundaries of the programme and in informing the content and structure of their studies. In this scenario, the functionalities offered by Microsoft Teams play a key role in supporting COMP-PLETE’s pedagogical goals. Teams bridges the geographical gap between our distance learners and the institution by creating a dynamic learning environment which fosters connections, communication and participation, strengthening, as a result, the learners’ commitment to the programme. The development of COMP-PLETE will be outlined and discussed and suggestions will be advanced for building technology-enhanced strategies to ensure the sustainability and transferability of the model. The role of Teams in achieving COMP-PLETE’s goals will be illustrated.

1. ICERI 2019, SEVILLA
Cecilia Goria & Sally Hanford
University of Nottingham, UK
Using Teams for a COMP-PLETE online learning experience

2. OVERVIEW
•MA in Digital Technologies for Language Teaching
• COMP-PLETE: outline
• COMP-PLETE: Participation & Community
• Practical implications
• Teams

3. 3/21
Professional Development Programme
Entirely online, 2 year
part-time
For language teachers who
wish to explore the use of
technologies to update
their professional role, as
a career move or personal
interest.
Diverse student body

4. •Feeling of isolation
•Tension between personal, professional and course
commitments
•Tension between institutional requirements and
aspect of 21st century learning, e.g. social engagement
in the open.
RATIONALE

5. COMP-PLETE is a
multimodal learning
experience in which learners
are active participants in
determining their personal
learning goals, in shaping an
open community of learners
and in building on their own
individual and shared
experiences to inform the
content and structure of the
programme. In practice, this is
achieved by exploiting the
affordances of participatory
technologies.

6. COMP-PLETE is a
multimodal learning
experience in which learners
are active participants in
determining their personal
learning goals, in shaping an
open community of learners
and in building on their own
individual and shared
experiences to inform the
content and structure of the
programme. In practice, this is
achieved by exploiting the
affordances of participatory
technologies.
Conversational Framework (Laurillard: 2012):
Acquisition: listening to a lectures, podcasts, videos
Inquiry/Investigation: going to the library, searching online
Practice: practical tasks + feedback
Production: showing their work
Discussion: exchanging of ideas
Collaboration: producing something together
(Puentedura:2006)

7. Community: A
community in which
Social, Cognitive and
Teaching presences
(COI) are the vehicle to
nurture cohesion,
creativity, identity, and
participation (CIF)
Openness: Open
connections, open
curricula, open
dialogues, open
teaching, open
content (PLEs)
Multimodality:
multimodal
representations of
content
knowledge
Participation: central
feature to the learning
experience; student-
centred approach which
enables students to
shape content and
structure of their
learning
Personalisation:
learning that is
personally relevant
to students’
professional
context and
academic interests
Learning: consistent
with the
Conversational
Framework –
Acquisition,
Investigation,
Discussion, Practice,
Production,
Collaboration.
Experience:
students
experiences are
brought into the
programme;
learning from
personal and
shared experiences
Technological-
enhancement: use
of web 2.0 tools to
achieve
pedagogical goals

8. COMP-PLETE
quality and nature of the learning experience
Participatory Pedagogy
Community

9. COMMUNITY AND PARTICIPATION
http://http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/GetMediaBytes?mediaReference=id171089&phf=5

10. Community of Inquiry: the framework posits that
knowledge construction online happens at the intersection
of social (ability to project socio-emotional traits into the
community) + cognitive (construction of meaning through
communication) + teaching (instruction and design)
presence (Garrison et al. 1999).
Community Indicator Framework: the framework (Galley
et al. 2014)
identifies four fundamental aspects of community
experience: cohesion, the ties between individuals and the
community as a whole; identity, how individuals perceive
the community and their place within it; creativity, the
ability of the community to create shared artefacts and
knowledge; and finally participation, the ways in which
individuals engage in activity.(Konstantinidis A. & Goria C. 2017)
COMMUNITY & PARTICIPATION

11. “[…] an approach to learning focusing on student-centred learning,
emphasizing the value of enabling learners to be part of creating both
content and structure.” (Andersen & Ponti 2014)
Through Pedagogical technologies – learners transform from producers
and creators to co-producers and co-creators, as members of a
community – Pedagogy 2.0 (McLouglin and Lee 2007, 2008)
A “shift from instructor or institution-controlled teaching to one of
greater control by the learner” (Siemens 2008) for which participatory
technologies, or Web 2.0, are one of the driving forces.
PARTICIPATORY LEARNING

12. Shared tasks (Padlet, mindmaps) – SOCIAL P.; IDENTITY; COGNITIVE P.; CREATIVITY
Webinars (Adobe Connect) – TEACHING P./COHESION; COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY
Readings, Tasks, Forum discussions (Moodle) – TEACHING P./COHESION;
COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY; SOCIAL P./IDENTITY
Chats (Kakao Talk, Teams) – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY; TEACHING P./COHESION
Social events (Padlet, virtual worlds parties) – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY
Twitter open chats – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY; TEACHING P./COHESION
Dissertation talks (Adobe Connect presentations) – COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY
Group work; peer feedback – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY; COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY
Non-hierarchical relations; dialogic approach; role shifting – TEACHING P./COHESION
In practice: Activities and Technologies
Production, Collaboration
Discussion, Inquiry
Production
Acquisition, Discussion
Discussion, Inquiry, Practice
Discussion, Collaboration
Acquisition, Discussion

13. Shared tasks (Padlet, mindmaps) – SOCIAL P.; IDENTITY; COGNITIVE P.; CREATIVITY
Webinars (Adobe Connect) – TEACHING P./COHESION; COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY
Readings, Tasks, Forum discussions (Moodle) – TEACHING P./COHESION;
COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY; SOCIAL P./IDENTITY
Chats (Kakao Talk, Teams) – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY; TEACHING P./COHESION
Social events (Padlet, virtual worlds parties) – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY
Twitter open chats – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY; TEACHING P./COHESION
Dissertation talks (Adobe Connect presentations) – COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY
Group work; peer feedback – SOCIAL P./IDENTITY; COGNITIVE P./CREATIVITY
Non-hierarchical relations; dialogic approach; role shifting – TEACHING P./COHESION
In practice: Activities and Technologies
Production, Collaboration
Discussion, Inquiry
Production
Acquisition, Discussion
Discussion, Inquiry, Practice
Discussion, Collaboration
Acquisition, Discussion

16. •What is it?
•How does it work?
•Our experience
•Pros and Cons

17. •Keep it simple to start with
•Explore one feature at the time
•Do not assume students know
how to use it

18. Supports the shaping of our community
Plays a central role in the
implementation of COMP-PLETE
Helps address challenges of distance learning
TO CONCLUDE…

19. THANK YOU
cecilia.goria@nottingham.ac.uk
sally.hanford@nottingham.ac.uk

20. References
Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: challenges and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2),
234-249.
Galley, R., Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2014). Community indicators: a framework for observing and supporting community activity on Cloudworks.
Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.680965
Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Goria C., & Konstantinidis A. (2017) Implementing openness in a private online course, theory, practice and reflections. Paper presented at Eurocall
2017: CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions, 23-26 August 2017, Southampton, UK.
Konstantinidis, A., & Goria, C. (2017). Cultivating a community of learners in a distance learning postgraduate course for language professionals. In
Salomi Papadima-Sophocleous, Linda Bradley, Sylvie Thouësny (Eds), CALL communities and culture – short papers from EUROCALL 2016 (pp. 230-
236). Dublin Ireland: Research-publishing.net.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge.
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0
era. Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2007. Retrieved from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/46128/
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy
using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. (2006) Online at: http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning.
http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm