Bob Fryer was explaining to me a particular conundrum he has been thinking about for a while and that is the ‘rhetoric’ surrounding the kinds of learners that the government and the captains of industry claim to want. Their wish list comprises things such as critical thinking skills (analysis, evaluation, problem solving…..), characteristics attributed to lifelong learners (intrinsic motivation, taking control of own learning…), and the ability to cope with an increasingly complex world where risk and uncertainty are becoming increasingly the norm.

However, when the surface is scratched it becomes apparent that as well as this wish list of competencies, there is also the desire to want someone who also possesses the knowledge that is the product of ‘traditional’ approaches to learning – that is subject knowledge. In short, what appears to be wanted is both new and old world knowledge.

Further, there is also an assumption lifelong learners will learn in such a way that support the espoused values of the dominant force in society at a given time. However, governments may find that this is not always the case!

So given that, what should learning in the 21st century look like? What does learning to be a critical thinker look like? How do we learn to thrive in an environment of uncertainty and risk? These questions are difficult to answer but are need to be asked if we are to move away from the glib statements that are currently made.

An example of what I think Bob was talking about is that of an Airbus A.330-243 airplane of Air Transat that ran out of fuel in mid air. Fortunately the pilot was highly skilled and experienced and managed to land the aircraft with no serious injuries and the only damage being 8 out of the 10 tires bursting.

In this instance, the pilot and co-pilot did in fact follow the laid down procedures in that they pumped fuel from the left wing tank to the right wing tank to correct a fuel imbalance between left and right main wing tanks. What they failed to work out, however, was that there was in fact a leak in one of the pipes and this lead to them pumping the aircraft dry of fuel.

So a experienced pilot thankfully possessing old world knowledge and skills was able to glide the plane to a safe landing. However the pilot was but left wanting in terms of new world thinking when it was most needed!

E-portfolio are at the heart of the lifelong learning agenda, that is allowing the construction of a portable e-portfolio that can accompany someone from pre-compulsory education, through school education, HE, and beyond. Thinking broad is essential, portfolios may include material produced in connection with work, school projects and assessments, a record of someone’s HE experience, perhaps digital photographs taken on holiday, etc.

The next important point to grasp is that e-portfolios need granularity. That is the ability to share different parts with different audiences for particular purposes. For example, a University undergraduate may author a reflective piece to share with their tutor. School age students may collaborate together on a project and then share this work on the www with the ability for other people to comment upon. Someone in employment may develop a personal development plan that they chose to share with a line manager. The list is nearly endless, but the key issues to consider are audience and purpose. Who am I authoring for and what is my purpose?

e-Poertfolio and weblogs have much in common as a tool for promoting reflective thinking. The difference, it is argued, is that e-Portfolio provide a greater degree of context enabling artefacts and reflections to be linked in a rich tapestry with a second loop of reflection to draw out the deeper learning. Weblogs focus is much more about the individual entry, although clearly can also be set in context by the degree of linking and using categories. Personally, I am not convinced that this is a significant difference.

Death by e-Portfolio, a real risk! This is a vexed question as the notion of e-Portfolios are founded on the ideas of personalisation and choice, and yet there is growth in compunction from HE on other institutions to develop e-portfolios. This could be for a range of reasons such as an institutions desire to have a QA audit of achievement. Tutors framing learning experiences that require individuals to have e-portfolios for assessment purposes.

Most advantageously however are e-portfolio that start from the learner and, disturbingly, in the conversations I have heard about e-portfolio this gets no more than lip service. There seems to be the view that if the technical issues are sorted (IMS standards, etc) then all will be well and learners will embrace e-portfolio like ducks to water. But why should they?

Sitting through a presentation on OSP2 and reflecting on what open source software (OSS) development means when projects are located in a particular institution. The tidal wave of e-portfolios activity is a welcome thing as it puts lifelong learning firmly in the vanguard. However, there is the risk here of new wave of e-colonialisation following on from the proprietary learning management systems that have imprinted a USA pedagogy around the world.

It seems inevitable that the learning philosophy, values and beliefs of the host institution will inform the development choices of project teams and any outside institutions and governments who put resource into such OSS developments. So beware, you might not get what you want!

Working on conceptualising the Ultraversity model and have taken a Venn diagram approach to try and encapsulate the major components and show how they interrelate. Like many models, it is an over-simplification and has flaws.

NB Ultraversity is a research project that offers a full time, undergraduate, workplace, research degree that is wholly online. The programme is 2 years old, has approximately 300 undergraduate students registered at Anglia Polytechnic University in the UK and will have its first small cohort graduating in 2005.

However, I wanted to encapsulate how the model works and then move on to explore (in a following Blog) what the characteristics of a ‘Balanced Learner’ might be that enables them to make the Ultraversity model work for them.

In Ultraversity, our pathway document aims can be simplified to three key elements:
- development of researcher critical thinking skills (evaluation, creativity, analysis, etc…..)
- development of what might be called EQ skills (critical self awareness, building interpersonal relationships, initiate positive change, etc….)
- subject knowledge and understanding (not just theoretical or propositional knowledge, but the ability to apply what has been learned)

At the heart of this model is the learner who is responsible for driving this personalised experience with the help of a learning facilitator (tutor/lecturer). The above model can also be seen as a representation of how we se the ICT technology supporting the learner in connecting with others and allowing them to express and evaluate their thoughts both internally and externally with different audiences.

Context:
This is the workplace and is where researchers undertake their research. It is important to recognize the pool of expertise that resides to a greater or lesser extent in their workplace. It is also important to understand that by developing the cognitive tools such as reflective practice and critical thinking skills researchers are able to define their subject and domain of expertise.

Connections:
These are made possible by the technology and encompass the communities of Ultraversity researchers (students), invited guest experts, learning facilitators, and a technical and administrative team. This is of course only part of the equation as researchers can access the ‘global’ online community through Blogs, email, forums, etc.

Knowledge:
The learner captures their knowledge in e-portfolios and in some instances in hard copy. There is an important distinction to be made between that which is captured for the purpose of assessment and that which forms part of the portfolio of learning where a researcher may reflect, collect artifacts, or store feedback that they have been given.