Tag Archives: higher education

Social exclusion and digital Britain


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 27 April 2009

Amongst all the heat surrounding Australia’s move towards being a broadband nation [with the project cited as “nation-building”], and the UK Government’s attempts to lever the same in its proposed UK broadband network, I came across Helen Milner’s slides on Digital Inclusion The Evidence from the April 2009 National Digital Inclusion Conference in London [thanks to @joannejacobs].

Milner highlights how socio-economic groups DE, those with poor education and low educational aspirations, alongside older people and those with low technological confidence, are marginalised and excluded from the benefits of technology, that include:

She also re-focused my thinking about how marginalisation and exclusion from a broadband, networked world is reinforcing the indicators of poverty that include high-levels of children, pensioners, disabled-adults, single adults and those in social housing, and where low levels of parental educational attainment are still impacting on child poverty. In turn this impacts on our ability to engage more people with technology to help more people lift themselves out of poverty because “the other resources available to the family are also important” [ Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Consultation response: ‘Ending child poverty: Making it happen’] in helping to achieve this aim. These other resources include meaningful access to technology.

For Universities to make a difference this means allocating resources to generate local engagements with schools and colleges and community groups, to ensure that social capital is valued and enhanced within communities. It also demands targeting low income and aspiration groups, not necessarily in order to manufacture or create demand for HE programmes, but because it is the right thing to do for institutions that might look globally but which are rooted locally.

Helen Milner reminds us all that universites have a powerful role to play in bringing forward projects that enable communities to utilise technologies for capacity and capability-building, as well as for community development. They should be able to affect policy but as importantly also practice, and as well as looking to Government for policy, ideas and financial frameworks, they should look to communities for voluntary activism and local engagement with social justice. This is more than the engagement of specific HE-based research and development departments or institutes, and is a core responsibility of Universities, who are perfect partners as schools and community groups attempt to raise performance and aspiration, with technology-enhanced activism at the heart of the matter.


Digital inclusion, education and the future of the web


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 6 May 2009

I recently blogged about Social exclusion and digital Britain, focusing upon how Universities should be engaging in partnerships with local communities, in order both to enhance learning literacies that are facilitated by technologies and to help create spaces within which those communities can empower themselves.

Having attended a lunchtime paper on Digital Citizenship, hosted by our LGRU and delivered by Karen Mossberger from the University of Illinois, I’m now convinced that this is more vital. In particular, Karen highlighted how the indicators of poverty also impacted digital citizenship, access to IT and broadband, and information literacy. She highlighted the disenfranchisement of poor neighbourhoods (in Chicago in her studies) and poor minority groups. However, much of her work focused upon a Web1.0 view of the world, with analysis of (PEW-based) data from pre-2003. The technological world has moved on so much more since then, with a focus now upon emerging issues like:

  • Social networks and networked literacy;
  • Mobile technologies;
  • Organisation of niche or issue-related associations, and communities of practice; and
  • Semantic web and cloud computing, that affect the management of networks and content.

Engaging with these emergent issues, the work carried out by NGOs like Amnesty and Oxfam is at once participative, devolved, deliberative, and activist to different people, who are able shape and personalise their involvement within different associations. This personalisation helps build communities of practice that stand beyond local and national government, and exists as a participative activity for different people in different ways. For instance, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs can all be used in conjunction with an organisation’s own website or portal to arrange, report, disseminate and organise. The National Digital Inclusion conference recently kept non-attendees up-to-date using the Twitter hashtag #ndi09, whilst HopeNotHate use their own portal, linked to mobiles and email, to organise electoral activism across the whole East Midlands.

These new ways of working do not necessarily engage the technologically, culturally or politically disenfranchised, but they do offer new models for building social capital and civic engagement. Of course there is scope for those in power to use digital participation to maintain their own traditional agendas. This is witnessed by Number 10′s YouTube channel, and the use of digital data to monitor environmental protesters. This paradigm is also evident in The Future Internet: Web 3.0 presentation hosted by the Learning Technologies team at NUI Galway, which focuses upon how the web and our use of it can enable business and the economy. The danger is that it offers no new ways of working, just ways in which extant companies can gain efficiencies and market themselves to new audiences. There is no radical or progressive hope here.

Perhaps a more hopeful view for the future internet is building social capital and social enterprise, and enabling new communities of practice to grow. This is especially the case for education, where new ways of working and engaging with the emergent issues noted above offer hope for a newer, more radical pedagogy that is built around personally meaningful access, enquiry, mentoring, decision-making and action. This is framed by a promise of enhanced social [educational] capital and our ability to nurture new communities of inquiry. These stand against attempts by established organisations, including lecturers and Universities, to lever old ways of working into the use of new technologies and the new communities of practice that emerge.

These issues need to be addressed in light of the demands for flexibility in curriculum design and delivery, alongside, and not separate from the need for more active engagement with digital inclusion agendas. We have the spaces to discuss issues of power and control, participation and civic responsibility, and these can be led by Universities, as part of an engagement with students, voluntary groups, social enterprises and business. I’m just not sure that a traditional analysis of education, inclusion and the future of the web, focused on traditional models of engagement, development and participation, are relevant or helpful. In inspiring social and educational inclusion, we need are more progressve, radical evaluations, visions and proposals.


What I’d quite like from HEFCE is transformational leadership


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 11 July 2009

Caveat: Before we get started on this I’m not saying that HEFCE don’t lead already. The HEFCE Strategic Plan frames an enabling environment for encouraging devolved institutional approaches, flexibility of mission and dynamism in delivery.

At the Heads of e-Learning Forum meeting at he HEA in York yesterday, HEFCE Policy Officer Alan Palmer, opened up a discussion of what HEFCE should do about the implementation of its Technology-Enhanced Learning Strategy. HEFCE itself, and this was reinforced by other speakers during the morning, highlight efficiency, enhancement and transformation as major outcomes. What was not recognised was that these are also drivers for institutions, as education providers, social enterprises and businesses, when seen as part of a bigger vision and blueprint for change.

Two elephants were *outed* early on. The first was the economic crisis and its impact on funding, with HE likely to be asked for £180 million of savings in 2010-11. The second was the apparent migration of terminology within the relevant departments towards on-line learning, with an implied view that this might be cheaper. In managing the issues that arose around these two elephants Alan used the phrase “What HEFCE won’t do” five times.

The first issue, primed a discussion about detailed stuff that might lead to some efficiencies, and which might catalyse some transformation in educational practices, namely creative commons and copyright, open educational resources, managing student [lack of] mobility etc.. This point ties into the second issue as it appears that there is a view that we can simply do things better or more cheaply on-line. Didn’t I read that in 1997? However, to lever the economic or investment gains that are being mooted does not simply require e-Learning Champions or Educational Developers to see how technology can save the day. In fact the discussion, which is doomed to revolve around issues of revenue and capital rather than social justice, requires a focus on what institutions are for and why.

I recently blogged “Towards a radical manifesto? The Impact of Web 2.0 on HE” and, whilst accepting the damaging impact of digital divides and learning illiteracy, I argued that the most crucial element of the recent Committee of Inquiry’s report was that the “inertia of any established [HE] system [is]… unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. The next generation is unlikely to be so accommodating” about its HE experience. Pre-HE developments like Building Schools for the Future and the EYFS are critical markers for Universities that demand vision, leadership and transformation of how HEIs achieve.

If we are serious about meeting the needs of future learners, and in enacting efficiency, enhancement and transformation as major outcomes, then Universities need a proper reappraisal of their strategic plans, in order to make sense of the bits-and-pieces of change surrounding Web 2.0, OER, personalisation etc.. This requires that strategic managers look at service restructuring, rather than the silos into which Corporate Directorates ossify. This then demands that a vision drives a blueprint for how the organisation will operate in terms of its people [contracts, professional development, workloads etc.], organisation [linked to the management of those primary services], technologies [insourced, outsourced, driven by the cloud, CMS-related] and the information that it needs and manages [from its key current and future stakeholders].

Without this kind of institutional visioning and transformation, asking Heads of e-Learning what should be done to implement HEFCE’s TEL strategy is a redundant operation. At best it buys some time to think about possible restructuring of the curriculum, without ever thinking through how students, staff and local communities can be empowered.

So in answer to Alan’s question of what should HEFCE do, two things are needed. Firstly, demand that institutional strategic managers are serious about transformation as a driver for empowerment. Enhancement is all-well-and-good, but education should empower people and has be written into vision statements and blueprints for change. The Welsh Funding Council’s “Enhancing Learning and Teaching through Technology: a Strategy for Higher Education in Wales” nudges Welsh HEIs in that direction and HEFCE should be stimulating discussion and leadership on this issue. The TEL strategy offers an opportunity for taking a step back, when evaluating what a blueprint for 21st Century HE might look like.

Secondly, in the face of Universities being tied to Lord Mandelson under the latest reshuffle, there is a desperate need for leadership in the support of teaching across the sector. The Guardian highlighted this in its comment yesterday “Eduction, Education, Education“, with the fear that the Government would focus upon research intensive Universities that are perceived to be captains of industry or drivers of the economy and squeeze those for whom teaching is the thing. Refashioning our collective view of teaching and learning in HE, to promote an agenda for progressive pedagogies that recognises the needs of the range of 21st Century learners, and sees HEIs as social enterprises as much as businesses, demands leadership from us all. In lobbying governments, this demands active leadership from HEFCE.


Our post-digital priorities: overcoming the neglect of the tutor


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 1 July 2009

A number of national research reports and position statements have been published recently, which impact technology-enhanced practice across the sector. These include:

  1. JISC, Thriving in the 21st century: Learning Literacies for the Digital Age, http://bit.ly/u1Wrb
  2. DEMOS, The Edgeless University http://bit.ly/10pd2r
  3. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [DBIS], Universities set to go online for millions, http://bit.ly/2lr0S
  4. Report of an independent Committee of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students’ widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies [CoI], http://bit.ly/J1JMf .
  5. Revised HEFCE strategy: Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology, http://bit.ly/JikvC
  6. DCFS and DBIS, Digital Britain: Final Report, http://bit.ly/wdRgb

From the Revised HEFCE strategy, DMU is engaging with how technology-enhanced learning [TEL] can reinforce and extend its distinctive brand, in particular focused on the impact of the learner of the future, personalised learning and business flexibility, on both the business case and service provision. The development of a blueprint for TEL, and the concomitant investment and professional development implications, is central.

In engaging with these issues it is critical that HE is able to make decisions based upon the impact of developments in other areas of statutory and non-statutory education. The reports noted above highlight that HE doesn’t exist in a social or educational vacuum. Whilst current work on evaluating learner experiences helps shape and enhance current practices, future-proofing and planning demands engagement by the sector with progressive pedagogies being embedded in primary education. In particular the Rose Review of the Primary Curriculum and the Early Years’ Foundation Strategy enable HE practitioners to develop a manifesto for the future.

  1. Sir Jim Rose, Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum, http://bit.ly/2eBjX
  2. Becta’s contribution to the Rose Review, http://bit.ly/FOHEp
  3. DfES, Early Years’ Foundation Strategy, http://bit.ly/a0tkK

Pedagogically, Rose and the EYFS frame enabling environments within which structured play, risk-taking and decision-making can take place. There is a developmental focus on the learner taking personalised ownership of the learning pathways s/he wants to follow, framed by a mentoring approach by more experienced others. The addition of ICT as a core competency or “literacy” alongside numeracy and traditional literacy, elevates technological autonomy and agency [what tool to use, when, how and why]. The emphasis on the professional development of teaching teams also shapes or scopes a move towards technological transparency, or engagement in what might be termed a post-digital world.

The ramifications for HE of both a societal and educational move towards high-skilled digital and post-digital practitioners demand attention. In particular, there is a very real danger that we fetishise the learner voice at the expense of the needs of our teaching teams, and that an educational divide between staff and student capabilities, flexibility, autonomy and post-digital agency becomes unmanageable for institutions. In terms of fetishising the student voice, I mean, broadly the extravagant trust, fixation or reverence that is at times shown to it as a concept, without demonstrating the concomitant impact on other stakeholders. The wordle cloud for all the releavnt HE-related text from sources 1 – 6 above is shown at: post-digital HE. The focus on the learner and technology is stark. As is the potentially disastrous, limited focus on staff and staff teams. Whilst the reports all focus on the need for professional development, there is little concrete that is actually presented. At DMU this is now a core focal point, with a key frame-of-reference made by the Committee of Inquiry.

The world [students] encounter in higher education has been constructed on a wholly different set of norms. Characterised broadly, it is hierarchical, substantially introvert, guarded, careful, precise and measured. The two worlds are currently co-existing, with present-day students effectively occupying a position on the cusp of change. They aren’t demanding different approaches; rather they are making such adaptations as are necessary for the time it takes to gain their qualifications. Effectively, they are managing a disjuncture, and the situation is feeding the natural inertia of any established system. It is, however, unlikely to be sustainable in the long term. The next generation is unlikely to be so accommodating and some rapprochement will be necessary if higher education is to continue to provide a learning experience that is recognised as stimulating, challenging and relevant.

The themes arising from an analysis of the reports [1 – 6] are noted below, with key developmental areas. These will form the spine of our approach to technology-enhanced learning for a post-digital world at DMU.

  1. Enhancing our learners’ [post-]digital literacy through our services and curricula [focus on services, curriculum, pedagogic roles, literacies]
  2. Enabling learning environments that frame personalisation of experiences [focus on services]
  3. Developing services that enable students to manage transitions, progression and attendance [focus on autonomy, pedagogic roles, services and progression]
  4. Reappraisal and extension of professional development [focus on pedagogic pedagogic roles, reward and recognition, literacies]
  5. Developing flexible approaches to the curriculum [focus on informal learning, affiliations, business, personalisation, DL]
  6. Extending a distinctive institutional culture and brand [focus on the business case, services, affiliations and open access]

Google, Microsoft and HE: outsourcing the student and staff experience


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 13 August 2009

The issue of outsourcing technology-provision is emerging as a major issue for higher education managers. I know outsourcing has been around for a while – institutions have outsourced data networking and equipment maintenance since the year dot. Moreover, SOAS and Glasgow Caledonian outsourced email to Google in 2007. However, it’s only now that our institutional managers are grappling with the issue of student email provision, and as a result have to recognise the cultural and managerial implications of outsourcing the student and staff experience.

Outsourcing the student and staff user experience is what a pact with, for instance, Google, implies precisely because a Gmail implementation opens up possibilities and pressures for implementing the rest of the Google suite, and thereby changing the face of institutional communication and interaction. The impact on the core business of an institution will be seismic. Whilst such a pact may offer up opportunities for wider associations and networking, it also threatens those areas of an institution that may need to be closed (e.g. data management and processing for awards).

Outsourcing a technological solution has implications: for service provision; for data protection, privacy and confidentiality; for levering institutional, technological extensions [in Google’s case a burgeoning set of apps that have affordances for learning and teaching, rather than simply email]; and for institutional visions/blueprints of learning and teaching, especially where users can opt-in or out. It is critical that we recognise for whom this is being done and why.

There are a number of issues then in the migration of a major technological solution like student email to, say, Google.

  1. The first is the nature of the risk assessment that has been done, linked to the full business case. In fact, is there a full business case that focuses less on cost savings and more on real value? The key focus should be on the relationships between staff, students and resources within appropriate learning communities that are open and/or closed to the institution, programme, or individual. How are these best organised and supported? Outsourcing on cost alone should be a non-starter, although it seems that this isn’t always the case.
  2. Implementing, for instance, Gmail opens up opportunities for extending the rest of the Google suite that includes recent changes to iGoogle, Google Reader and Google Wave. This impacts any proposed blueprint for technologies that support an institutional vision/ethos, and which also engages non-institutional networks or communities. This has to be properly assessed by key local stakeholders in-line with their needs, rather than jumped on because students feel Google is sexy, shiny and better. Moreover, where new services have pedagogic implications, this impacts our development not only of existing tools, but critically our engagement with, development of, and support for academic and support staff. What will the services that we provide for staff and students look like, so that neither group are left behind?
  3. Oxford have argued that Gmail is not a viable solution for them for staff email given privacy and confidentiality issues. With the amount of shared group-work and collaboration needed by staff and students, delivering dual systems is not an option in their context. Given that other potentially-shared Google services are available, it is critical that both students and staff are engaged in a planned way, in order to avoid opening up a digital divide in the services are offered to support learning and teaching. That deliberation has to be set within an institutional culture that may be at once open and/or closed, and which frames decisions about data or relationships that need to be held in-house.
  4. There is a very real risk that managers are bedazzled by identification with, for instance, the Google brand, and new developments like ‘caffeine’. Google has been criticised over privacy, copyright infringement, hacking, censorship, DRM etc.. Hence the value-set of any association or affiliation needs to be deliberated properly across all institutional stakeholders. Anil Dash’s excellent piece on “Google’s Microsoft moment” asks whether Google is moving to a position where it is “favoring what’s convenient for [its] own business goals” rather than that which matters to its real-world users. He goes on to add that “The era of Google as a trusted, ‘non-evil’ startup whose actions are automatically assumed to be benevolent is over”. Most tellingly of all, he states that Google’s “protestations of ‘but it’s open source!’ are being used to paper over real concerns about data ownership, and the truth is that open code doesn’t necessarily imply that average users are in control”. We are not yet at the point of transition to the university of the people, where there is no need for closed positions. There are bigger issues here that impact local, educational user engagement, set within validated and purposeful institutional cultures.
  5. A final issue here is that of openness. Dave Cormier argued at OpenEd09 that open educational resources, including tools and contexts, are often not open for creation or re-creation or re-formation, and at best they are simply static and accessible materials. By focusing institutionally or within a community upon one service or set of services, we are in danger of excluding or marginalising by locking people into or out of specific ways of working. Empowered decision-making about relationships, technologies, services and resources demands contexts that scale choices for learners (for instance in safe, free-ranging environments). Cormier argues that the personal processes involved in learning and in engaging with communities are complex and messy. If he is right then decisions need to be made about institutional openness and engagement with shared resources, services and toolsets by a range of stakeholders, not just those who operate in isolated pockets.

This all needs clear planning with key stakeholders, with a clear rationale developed for any link with Microsoft, Google or whoever, which is based around institutional need and an institutional blueprint. Managers need to know for what issue(s) outsourcing is a solution – a technology or service or organisational change or cost saving? Why this technology and why now? What are the dis-benefits?

The implementation of, for instance, gmail is not neutral. It opens up possibilities for new technological developments. Those developments are also not neutral – they impact the management of identities, services, staffing, organisation, processes, data etc. at a range of levels, from the personal to the institutional. Some of these issues are raised by the JISC Legal Tutor Guide to Web 2.0, and again impact this debate.

Now it may well be that Google supplies solution for some of the things for which Universities need social media. I use Google services both personally and to manage the information/communication needs of a Homeless Hostel for which I am a Trustee, and I am very happy to do so. However, our Trustees have risk assessed this decision in terms of our data and resources, their management and the critical nature of our work. I see merit in an affiliation with for example Microsoft or Google, in terms of personalisation, scale and flexibility. However, there are huge cultural, curricula and working ramifications in any proposal to outsource an element of local practice to such an organisation. This is, I believe, a risky strategy that needs proper deliberation, so that institutions are not just pawns in on-going business battles.


Social media mores and cultures, and the role of higher education


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 27 August 2009

Two “events” have crossed my radar in the last week that have made me think about educators’ responsibilities for enabling a good-enough socialisation of students as they enter higher education. This is critical given the importance of HE for developing independent, associational and deliberative decision-making and actions by students, and also given the proximity of the start-of-term.

1. @Aggerscricket vs Will Buckley

This summer’s coverage of The Ashes [bear with me – I’ll get to the point] saw a growth in the use of Twitter, either by punters tweeting using the #ashes hashtag or by following commentators like Jonathan Agnew [@Aggerscricket] or David Lloyd [@bumblecricket] or cricketers like Graeme Swann [@swannyg66]. This enabled cricket lovers to keep in-touch with both information, in terms of what was going on at each test match, and expert opinion, alongside framing communication around specific issues.

One outcome was an emerging conversation between songstress Lily Allen and Agnew that ended with a discussion on Test Match Special on Radio 4/5Live Sports Extra during lunch on the Saturday of the final, Oval Test match. At least it would have ended there, had Will Buckley not written a piece in The Observer that stated that Agnew’s relationship with Allen had appeared “pervy”. Agnew subsequently used Twitter to “out” Buckley and to get the apology he wanted, levered through the power of the crowd, which commented on Buckley’s piece [usefully using the fact that “Comment is Free” in The Guardian and The Observer] and used email to pressure The Observer Sports Editor. Agnew declared: “What an eye-opener this has been for all… to the power of new media. It is here and will change the way news is responded to, in particular. This showed what twitter can do.”

The message: firstly, don’t print spiteful things, think about whether what you have to say is kind, true and necessary; secondly, social media is a powerful tool for engaging users – why and how it is used is morphing, and this has implications for socialisation, deliberation and our cultures.

2. Inappropriate use of Facebook and Twitter

A *news* item came across my desk that focused my thinking about privacy issues in social media. It concerned a new sexual relationship between two *friends* on Facebook. Details ended up on each other’s Facebook walls, which was then screen-captured by a mutual *friend* and went viral via Twitter. One of the couple felt ashamed that these statements were public within a localised friendship group, let alone the mortification that would follow when it went worldwide. This person did not understand how the wall worked or how privacy settings in Facebook work.

The item arrived on my Twitter feed, with one of those who re-tweeted it stating to me that “I thought it was funny; and I saw that it had just gone up on Digg ”, the implication being that others were forwarding it anyway so he might as well do so. What a mean, thoughtless and salacious response this was. My discomfort in this approach was matched by a fellow Twitterer who noted “everyone else was doing it? Seriously? You think that’s an excuse? Cliff. Jump. Would. You?”

The message: firstly, do you really have to print or forward spiteful things? Think about whether what you have to say is kind, true and necessary; secondly, how individuals engage with rules and settings, and cultural norms within social media matter. Whether we like it or not some users need and deserve our help and common humanity.

These two issues have implications for our approach to socialisation in HE. New students, many of them unsure of their place in the world, are coming into a very different, independent-yet-networked learning space, from those which they are used to. Part of the role of HE should be to engage these users in a discussion around the ways in which social media can be used and about how they can ensure their own safety. In part, this connects into the broader debate about the death of the VLE and the rise of the PLE. My own take on this is that whilst a radical manifesto that supports personalisation is needed for developing pedagogies for HE that are fit-for-purpose, we need to help our learners make good-enough decisions about tools, rules, signal-processing and approaches. This may involve structuring and closing down some learning in contexts within which they can free-range, but it also involves negotiating with them shared rules of engagement.

Defined environments for learning, built around or including a VLE or PLE, are unique to each learner based on their learning aims. These environments are fused from personal associations that are both formal and informal, and that use social media to process rule-based signals into action. Illich rightly argued that education was owned by an individual when s/he became a self-aware actor, and he also argued that the questions individuals are empowered to ask coupled to the socio-technical tools available to them, supports her/his personal emancipation. Social media, in whatever form, afford tools for encouraging individuals to associate with each other in contexts that support doing, questioning and re-conceptualising. However, this is risky because we have to make decisions about how we and our data are used and represented on-line.

HE ought to be a space in which norms, rules and cultures can be discussed safely, in order that co-operation and emancipation are enabled. This is important because HE has a duty to help make the world a better place.


Forget the technology and focus on the human


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 2 September 2009

I recently commented on the work of the 52 Group on post-digital futures. They argued that “We are moving towards a postdigital age where the tools driven by the microprocessor are common to the extent to which they will no longer be noticed”. This aligns with the view of Russell Davies that: “There are a lot of people around now who have thoroughly integrated ‘digitalness’ into their lives. To the extent that it makes as much sense to define them as digital as it does to define them as air-breathing. ie it’s true but not useful or interesting.” As educators, learning technologists, managers, our hang-ups about tools and technologies, trends and horizons, risk deflecting us from meaningful conversations about learning and teaching, and personal/social empowerment.

In fact, conversations about people, communities, associations and outcomes ought to be central to our discussions around the role of higher education. Technology should only ever be secondary. It is unfortunate that, according to the 52 Group, “the speed of the change [to a digital, Web 2.0 world] has left us with the mistaken belief that social change was somehow ‘created’ by the digital rather than simply played out on a the canvas of the digital.” This is important because digital and analogue tools offer possibilities to focus conversations around issues like: agency; emancipation; involvement; enterprise; and democracy. The key is integration into user-defined environments with a focus on the human.

We need to open up a space for deliberation around a vision for HE, in terms of what our institutions stand for and what our curricula look like. From there we can begin conversations about the processes, procedures, technologies, organisation and information that we need to support that vision. Educational technologists and practitioners need to shift the discussion away from tools towards the types of learning/pedagogic spaces that are good-enough to help staff and students make appropriate decisions and take action.

An element of this deliberation is the extent to which students and their/our perceptions of technologies should be driving the agenda. It can be argued that students and technologies are too fleeting and transient in their lifecycle/existence within HE to drive decision-making about sustainability agendas or effective pedagogic practice. They are important indicators of possibility within a system [HEI], but they offer much short-term variation and uncertainty within that system [HEI]. Decisions should be made about technologies, services etc., in order to manage uncertainty as it trends, but not to second-guess its management based on immediate whim.

Balance in the system demands that we align meaningful data from both students and technological horizon-scanning, with the strategic role of HEIs, and their visions, cultures, subjects and staff. The latter are more grounded and secure in anchoring institutional planning for sustainability and capability-building than either the latest technology trend or the technological expectations of current students. HEIs need conversations with students about practices, in order to empower those students to negotiate decisions about technologies as one strand of a conversation with staff about their curriculum. We risk skewing the debate over the purpose and future of HE if we base strategy and implementation either on the primary authority of the student as service user/client [validated by the NSS], or on reductionist/populist technological solutions, neither of which can anchor deliberation.

One risk is that a prevalent or dominant view of technology, in terms of what is and isn’t *enabled*, is validated above wider academic ownership and innovation. We also risk focusing on the shiny and the new, or what’s just over the horizon, rather than thinking about how trends can be embedded within an enabling environment, in order to offer flexibility going forward. Rather than a contested PLE-VLE debate, which fetishises tools and services, we desperately need to re-focus our thinking on developing both curricula and a vision for HE with staff and students, that are fit-for-purpose beyond 2010. As a result we may ditch the digital to debate the implications of a post-digital view.


Technology-enhanced learning: the emergence of ideology?


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 9 September 2009

ALT-C 2009 is billed as “in dreams begins responsibility”. The first day got me thinking about responsibility linked to rights and roles within a shared value system. This was amplified by the main messages that I took from Michael Wesch‘s keynote. Wesch highlighted the work of Charles Taylor on The Ethics of Authenticity and the emergence:

  1. of self-centred modes of self-fulfillment; and
  2. of the apparent negation of all horizons of significance.

Wesch went on to note that these two outcomes of late modernity led to disengagement and fragmentation amongst the citizenry, with individuals flocking together over specific issues rather than aggregating in persistent blocks.

This view of flocking for a purpose maps onto public policy research into associational democracy, where deliberation over issues occurs within and across associations of apparently fragmented people or groups,  and where affiliation may become a powerful connector. The work of Bauman on liquid modernity and Barnett on the need to rethink the relationship between the institution and the individual informs this complexity of this debate, as fragmentation and disengagement loom.

This view of 21st century HE is messy and complex. It aligns with both the DEMOS report on The Edgeless University, which suggests that Universities have to rethink their roles, values, and purposes, including their affiliations, and the recent SOMUL working papers, which develop the concept of parallel universities existing within the same physical and virtual space. To reiterate, the headlines here are: that managing and living within 21st century HE is messy and complex; that our working roles are messy and complex; and, that our responsibilities are messy and complex.

Wesch went on to talk about his teaching and learning strategy trying to overcome a “participation gap” between his students and his curriculum, and therefore him. The value I take from this is the power of relationships that enable learners to define themselves. New media are important because they offer the opportunity to build new relationships and ways of working, and thereby, in Barnett’s terms, to become themselves as an agent in the world. This is crucial because it aligns with the work of Winnicott on the value to the individual of an enabling environment where s/he can be held whilst making sense of the world. This act of holding is based on trust and engagement within a secure space, that is engaging and not fragmented. Both the environment and the relationships have to be good-enough to enable the individual to make sense of themselves and what they feel and want to achieve.

This is important beyond ALTC 2009 because the responsibility is for individuals at all levels within an institution, or a society, or an association, to be good-enough in their relationships to enable others to decide and act, within a set, or sets, of shared values. This accepts a range of desires, hopes, confidences, expertise etc across an institution, with that institution able to hold the individual whilst s/he makes sense of her/his place in it.

The institution’s ability to hold its associates, affiliates, staff, students etc. is tricky. However, this demands that it configures its services, technologies, information, policies around a vision of what it stands for and what it intends to do in the world. All other conversations are secondary to this, even if every university is trying to do and stand for the same thing. We still need a set of ideas that we are responsible for and can take action around. In short we need an ideology for HE, in an age when we allegedly run the risks of disengagement and fragmentation that atomise our needs and experiences.

The impacts debates for learning technologists, or e-learning co-ordinators, or heads of technology-enhanced learning because these people have the responsibility to enfranchise those they support in-line with a meaningful vision. All else, from discussions of progressive pedagogies to the technologies that support them, from how to frame enabling contexts for learning to the information we need to make decisions and the policies that are in place to govern those decisions, is secondary. In fact the clear danger is that with no ideology we become reductionist in our view of technologies, and that we predetermine the tools we will prioritise and sell based on personal whim or fragmented context. The allied danger is that we are determinist about why this tool works and that one does not. This carries over into the discussion over VLE-PLE where concepts like marginalisation, participation, democracy emerge but are not deliberated. We then risk the twin dangers:

  1. that we declare the PLE to be democratic and inclusive without assessing whether it disempowers some people, and the VLE to be controlling without appraising how it enables. One risk is technological dogma; and
  2. that we negate the very flexibility to which we claim to aspire because we close down certain avenues.

In fact, it may be that technologies are both transient and transitional in their use within and beyond curricula, for individuals and groups, as they gain and lose utility. A tool or toolset is useful where it enables me to achieve something in a specific time and increase my self-awareness and move on. However, the lack of proper deliberation over values, ideas and ideologies damages our debates over responsibility.

Technologies then amplify other more critical issues around:

  1. ideology and what we stand for;and
  2. power and control.

Technology changes nothing without a reappraisal of the “why” of HE. The responsibility of learning technologists or educational developers or heads of technology-enhanced learning is to work with senior managers on their vision for their institution, and to align technologies to that vision. Otherwise all we do is chase the next new tool or toy or trend, whilst perpetuating the mythology that innovation is stifled by large institutions and their administrators and that we are somehow better placed if we are counter-cultural.

A central element of this is to engage with Wesch’s view of the flock, and the development of a new localism that aligns tools and approaches to the needs of local communities or associations of practice. These local groups might be module teams or programme cohorts, or networks of e-learning champions, or departmental staff or faculties. An institutional ideology that enables localism augments the view of parallel universities, and of the local needs that so often pervade devolved institutions. In turn this demands flexibility in the deployment of technologies and our engagement with staff or communities of practice. Managing this flexibility demands that those responsible for technology-enhanced learning ask why, rather than how, and begin a deliberation around the ideologies they are confronting or supporting or enabling.


I wanted to study under him: can this be post-technical?


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 11 September 2009

I had a great conversation with a friend this morning about the JISC Greening ICT programme. I was asking him how he got interested in this whole area of work – he works in our important Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development. In explaining his journey he noted that one tutor had inspired him through his dedication to deliberation, and his commitment and action. My friend made the wonderful statement that he “wanted to study for longer under him”.

The notion of studying *under* someone rocked my thinking because it highlights an environment that can be “covering” or “shielding” or “holding”, and that is safe and secure enough to enable a learner to become her/himself. This covering or holding will take different forms at different times. I argue elsewhere that:

Wesch went on to talk about his teaching and learning strategy trying to overcome a “participation gap” between his students and his curriculum, and therefore him. The value I take from this is the power of relationships that enable learners to define themselves. New media are important because they offer the opportunity to build new relationships and ways of working, and thereby, in Barnett’s terms, to become themselves as an agent in the world. This is crucial because it aligns with the work of Winnicott on the value to the individual of an enabling environment where s/he can be held whilst making sense of the world. This act of holding is based on trust and engagement within a secure space, that is engaging and not fragmented. Both the environment and the relationships have to be good-enough to enable the individual to make sense of themselves and what they feel and want to achieve.

I think this is important in light of some thinking around the term post-technical, and how and where we hold learners whilst they develop the emotional, technical and cognitive skills they need to become themselves. Ian Truelove delightfully argues that we need to define an approach that sets the right “tone for learning”, and this is amplified by Ed Summers in his inkdroid blog:

“We make a mistake, I believe, when we fixate on particular forms and technologies, taking them, in and of themselves, to be the carriers of what we want either to embrace or resist.”

This then connects into our current debate over the VLE-PLE. What types of environments do we need to provide in order to hold our learners. Can this be linked to spaces that are free-ranging? I tried to outline some thinking about this linked to participation in learning, but it is time revisit this, in light of the simple statement that “[I] wanted to study for longer under him”.


Thinking about 2015: some issues for HE and EdTech


Posted by hallymk1

*Originally posted at Learning Exchanges on 16 October 2009

I heard the excellent and inspiring Keri Facer at a JISC Curriculum Design and Delivery Programme event on Wednesday. There were three areas that made me sit up and think.

The pre-HE learner and their context

Keri described some recent work on the pre-HE learner and their context that is highlighting:

  • the impact of ”play” in its many forms;
  • the cultural context outside school, and the role of mentors or coaches rather than experts, who can engage learners individually or as members of social groups in developing their engagement with digital technologies in order to adapt it to their needs; and
  • sources of frustration, lack of skills and lack of opportunity that separate many other learners from the benefits of the same new technologies.

Keri went on to discuss an *idealised* view of children born in 1997, who would enter HE in 2015. She argued that the value of schools often existed in their ability to offer spaces that develop maths and critical literacy/evaluation, alongside safety, routine etc.. She also raised the issue of children having dual identities, between home/personal and school/performance/delivery. However, schools offer technology that is not the same as home technology, reflecting the fact that in the debate around personalisation and curriculum design and delivery, disconnections or dislocations might be amplified.

This may also be impacted by socio-economic differences, social justice and inclusion agendas. What does it say about our society if children and learners of any age or background get left behind? We do well to reflect on that term “left behind” because it points towards abandonment.

A recent summary of OfSTED reports on the importance of ICT noted that pupils’ achievement in ICT was good in over half Primary Schools, but that children in secondary schools were not being stretched; rather a consolidation of skills was the norm. Whether further collaboration between schools and pupils, in distributing the development of personalisation and engagement with ICT would shake things up to develop higher-level evaluative skills, is a moot point. This does have implications for learners entering HE.

However, the development of skills that frame agency, autonomy and decision-making is perhaps more pressing give the availability of alternative models for information gathering and *schooling*, like 5min.com, 12sec.tv, school of everything, home-schooling and Steiner education. The value given by coaches, mentors and teachers is now vital throughout life. Keri pointed to the huge demographic changes that are shifting towards an older and longer-lived population. At issue here is how a homogenised view of a Google generation within institutions tallies with a demand for later-life education, and intergenerational learning, and a focus on personalisation. These tensions then need to be squared with the implications of social learning.

A curriculum for human-machine relations, and a focus on the Self

One intriguing point Keri raised was our need to get used to working and living alongside machines, and outsourcing some activities to machines. She mentioned “a curriculum for human-machine relations”, and this got me thinking about a mash-up between Asimov’s 3 Laws of Robotics to provide governance and an approach for developing an integrated, educating self. I argue for the latter because one thing that Web 2.0 or the read/write web screams at me is who am I? What do I stand for? Who is my Self?

I need to do more work integrating Bloom and Winnicott with Illich, Wenger and Barnett, in order to make sense of this for my Self. In part this is because we have the opportunity [which might also be a risk over overload and #brainfail] to know more stuff about more stuff. The key is integrating this stuff within a secure self, as well as within a secure space. This becomes more resonant for me in the context of discussions around the development of a personal cloud. I interpret this to be a space, context or frame-of-reference that enables the learner to exist, learn, be and do. It is organised around the learner and not the HEI/organisation. A secure Self can then engage with this development. How do our curricula enable this to emerge?

Challenging economic narratives

Keri’s final point focussed upon addressing the challenges to the education and knowledge economy narrative. She highlighted how a polarisation of workforces may be in-train, with high and low-skilled workers and outsourced systems/services impacting the ability of specific individuals and groups to develop autonomy and make decisions. Keri asked “how does education respond”? This made me think about the value of education beyond the economy and beyond the formal economy – to focus upon collaboration and local social engagement, and demonstrating values of social enterprise.

She left us with 3 big questions that all JISC projects need to grapple with. Moreover, we need some collective aggregation of the outputs of our projects to see whether there are ways forward for the sector in addressing them.

  1. What sorts of relationships between people are we encouraging? What are our negotiated roles/responsibilities in a differentiated curriculum and beyond? Should we migrate our focus to coaching and mentoring? Who gets left behind if we do?
  2. What sorts of knowledge/understanding do these learners need to be effective agents in society?
  3. Can the curriculum work for a mixed demographic, with some networked, mobile learners, operating in information-rich environments and preparing for highly-polarised workplaces? If not how do we respond?