Dissemination

General

In planning our project, we had envisaged dissemination as the final act when we would sum up our progress, display our wares and astonish our colleagues. More practically, we could not see how to find time simultaneously to implement duo and to broadcast what we were doing. It came as a surprise, therefore, to find that hardly had we begun, people were inviting us to talk to them about our activities, even to write up 'case-studies'. What, at this stage, could we possibly offer? We were not researchers, certainly not authorities, and could hardly hold our novice attempts up as samples of 'best practice' ....

Having demurred at our first invitations, we soon realised that such modesty (and fear for our professional pride) was somewhat misplaced in the subject contexts. In attending events as an audience, we found that, while the e-energies, imagination and expertise of some English colleagues came as a revelation, we were also learning a good deal from fellow beginners -- and even from those who had never logged on to a VLE. The kinds of discussions we were having in our own project meetings were, in fact, just the kinds of exchanges that would prove productive when we met colleagues from elsewhere.

The lesson (as preached by all project guides) is that dissemination can be exploratory. We have learned far more through talking to colleagues and reflecting on our various works in progress, than through any abstract instructions. Shaping presentations has not only rapidly honed our general IT skills, but has helped us to focus on and highlight particular strands of the project; lines of interest, themes and narratives have become clearer. All this has fed back into and shaped our ideas. In short (as we are always advising students), we've learned through experiment, risk (of a kind) and dialogue.

Above all it has helped that even our most rudimentary efforts have always been greeted politely--the English Studies e-learning world is not yet a competitive academic forum. Our audiences have been sympathetic, kind and encouraging; and we have realised that even the least well-attended events can turn out to be exciting and enjoyable. Although we have met many highly sophisticated and experienced practioners, they have always conveyed the impression that our own activities are worth something. Even the most inspirational presenters at the English C&IT roadshows are not always themselves working among colleagues who share their particular enthusiams; and one of the unexpected pleasures of the project has been in feeling that we are helping to contribute to a larger collegial enterprise. Similar discussions across faculties in our own university, virtual and actual visits, and, as time went on, our own virtual hospitality, have reinforced this sense of community.

Primed by the project, we have also become aware of fellow interests in colleagues hitherto known to us only for their academic research; and taking part in the occasional e-discussion at a specialist literary conference has proved surprisingly refreshing and invigorating. Conversations about structuring and using a VLE always leads immediately, with English colleagues, into conversations about the nature of the subject, the modes of communication, the rationale and structuring of our modules, even into the details of reading specific texts. All this can give new twists to more conventional discussions, and lead to fresh insights.

Signpost:

'Dissemination' need not be only for experts and for stellar best practice. Even modest practice is sometimes worth sharing. Although you feel a complete VLE amateur, you might well have an angle on the subject and experiences that can offer something to discussion; you will certainly learn more yourself and, if feeling discouraged, be re-enthused by hearing of other people's efforts; and you will probably do as much as (or more than) the glossiest presentations to help even less advanced colleagues picture some of the day-to-day 'English' possibilities for the system.

top

Main activities (2002-ongoing)

I: In the department

i. Other colleagues: all project members have continued to introduce duo to other colleagues individually, demonstrating the basics to get them started, and offering follow-up support when needed. This has proved to be the most manageable form of help. (The short group demonstrations we offered proved hard to fit into the department's schedules; as the staff survey shows, most English colleagues have seen individual ad hoc demonstrations as more convenient than booking themselves on a centralised course.)

ii. Creating materials: we have also sourced, created, or helped colleagues to create duo materials (e.g. slides, banners, group pages, uploading text documents).

iii. Departmental website committee: duologue project team's discussions and development of duo helped to prompt and fed into the formation of a departmental web committee, chaired by Dr Robert Carver. (It became urgent to differentiate between the functions and purpose of the intranet - duo - and the public departmental web-site.)

top

II: In the university

i. Presentation - 'duo showcase': Pam Knights, 'Nothing Flash: Word(s) through duo', at 'duo showcase: a week of good practice', a Learning Technologies Team series of lunchtime events, University of Durham. 23- 26 June 2003. This presentation led to productive discussion with colleagues from a diverse range of departments, from Business Studies to Modern European Languages.

ii. Exemplar material for other departments: in training sessions for other departments across the university, the Learning Technologies Team used some of our sites to suggest ideas to other departments for enlivening their own modules (e.g. the music department were shown the Edith Wharton site to look at the use of images).

Our staff survey also fed back into the structuring of questions on the university-wide duo questionnaire.

iii. As duo guinea-pigs: members of the project also accepted invitations from the Learning Technologies duo team to try out new features (e.g. on Blackboard™6) or to test out new forms of staff questionnaire, discussed and disseminated by LTT members at IT conferences and events.

iv. University review: our sites were visited by members of the university academic quality team, by senior management in the faculty and by an external reviewer, as part of the Department of English Studies' revalidation review in November 2003. Our most developed duo modules received enthusiastic praise in the review report.

top

III: In the subject community

i. Presentation - UK Blackboard Conference: Pam Knights, Getting into Texts', at 3rd UK Blackboard Conference, 'My Institution: Sharing Good Practice', Durham, 16-17 December 2002.

ii. Presentation/workshop- University of Teesside: Robert Carver and Pam Knights, 'Beginning Blackboard' (demonstration and discussion) with colleagues in the departments of English and Design, University of Teesside, 9 April 2003.

iii. Presentation at LTSN English Subject Centre International conference, 'The Condition of the Subject': Robin Dix and Pam Knights, 'The Duologue Project', Senate House, London, 19 July 2003.

iv. Sample items: Pam Knights, posted on LTSN English Subject Centre, 'Learning Link', May 2002.

v. Presentation - Enhancing Online Discussion: Pam Knights, LTSN English Subject Event, University of Glasgow, 5 December 2003.

vi. Miscellaneous -

1. DfES e-Learning Consultation Event and focus groups:
Pam Knights accepted an invitation to attend this debate on the proposals on the DfES e-Learning Strategy document: 'Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy', Sheffield, 1 October 2003. We have also been receiving invitations to participate in various focus groups, e.g. Workshop on ICTs in teaching and learning (City University, June 2004).

2. Ongoing: we have also demonstrated project materials to individuals from a growing number of universities - e.g. Northumbria (Childhood Studies), Royal Holloway (English), East Anglia (English); and Pam Knights has shared project experiences with colleagues at NTFS and FTDL conferences, November 2002, May 2003, November 2003, February 2004, May 2004; we have also hosted individual visitors to some modules (e.g. Edith Wharton / Children's Fiction).

3. In process: some of the 'reading' activities will feed into further presentations and articles (e.g. Symposium on 'Developing the Independent English Students' - Chris Hopkins' and Matthew Steggle's English Subject Centre mini-project at Sheffield Hallam University; Pam Knights's activities being further developed in her National Teaching Fellowship project: TRAC: Textual Reflection: from Adult to Child, and in the 'MEDAL' FDTL5 project consortium, headed by Northumbria University).

Satisfying as all these activities were, combining implementation with dissemination remained a problem and teaching commitments prevented us accepting all invitations. (e.g. It was disappointing not to be able to attend the English Subject Centre events - timed for mid-week- in London, October 2002, and the general project day in Glasgow, 4 Dec 2003, let alone the invitations for conferences in Cuba, Hawaii, Florida, or Sydney. We would have had to have been enjoying very large-scale funding indeed to be able to make time for all the opportunities that the project opened up. Sadly, funds that released us each for the equivalent of an hour a week for about 20 weeks did not quite run to this level.)

Overall, however, meeting other colleagues and exploring a new common language within and across subjects and disciplines has remained one of the most satisfying aspects of the project.