Monthly Archives: July 2005

Pelican learning

pelican.jpg
I have been reflecting on the differences between professional learning and professional development and what this means in a professional learning community, an immerging e-Pedagogy, and the characteristics of an individual that ‘learning organisations’ will increasingly value.

Professional development can be characterised as a ‘disempowering’ model of learning that takes the responsibility away from the learner and places it in the hand of the trainer. Courses are offered that individuals either subscribe to or are required to attend. This trainer is expected to ‘deliver’ knowledge through programme of learning activities. Frequently, the programme does not directly address the needs of the learner, is not available at the time that it is required, and is not contextualised in the work setting – in short it lacks relevance and authenticity.

Professional learning can be characterised as an ‘empowering’ model of learning that sees the learner as the heart ‘driving’ the process. Learning is not confined to schools, universities, and other organisations (although it may include this), but takes place both formally (courses), through action inquiry (work focussed learning), these could be at work (reflecting on daily practice) and through work (learning activities with a specific intention), over a cup of coffee in discussion, or perhaps reading a magazine on the bus. The list is nearly endless, but the common factor is the learner taking responsibility.

When we move away from the individual and start to think of communities there is a great deal of literature to draw upon. Two theories that have informed my thinking areCommunities of Practice (CoP) and Activity Theory. Put simply (apologies for being reductionist), both recognise that a significant component of learning is social interaction, but CoP with a community focus and Activity Theory with a focus on the object or problem at hand.

This is an interesting distinction, whereas the strength of a CoP is the ‘community knowledge’ continually developing through a process of repeated negotiation of meaning through social interaction. This knowledge is passed on in a way that is analogous to an apprentice model. The strength of the activity theory model is in bringing a diverse set of individuals together with different experiences and backgrounds to share and apply their knowledge to a particular instance and hopefully generate a creative spark that creates new knowledge and understanding.

Some interesting research into voluntary online learning communities by Trewern (2005, Computers in NZ School March 2005) builds on work by Collis (2004, ICCE conference, Melbourne 2004) that seeks to understand the different groups of online communities in terms of CoP and in particular the notion of ‘Peripheral Participation’. Collis identified three groups:

  • I know (non-participant group)
  • I know what the community knows (read only participant group)
  • I contribute to what the community knows (contributor)

    For Collis, the label ‘I Know’ was significant as it described the group’s perception about what they know about their work role – namely everything there was to know!

    However, Trewern identified a significant ‘learning exchange’ between the minority contributing group and reading group in the online community and the larger non-participant groups in the workplace. In effect, those who chose not to participate in the online community were in fact doing so vicariously through conversations with the contributors and readers of the online community.

    Trewern’s research identified that many non-participants offered their lack of understanding about how an online community could afford them an opportunity to learn as a reason for not participating. To what extent this was a genuine lack of understanding about how to use online learning communities specifically, or because, for whatever reason, they didn’t adopt a professional learning stance is a good question.

    Professional learning communities as a concept have been around for some time offering a model by which groups can collectively move forward in their work.

    This article on Professional Learning Communities neatly summarises their history and encapsulates the key ideas as:

  • supportive and shared leadership
  • collective creativity
  • shared values and vision
  • supportive conditions
  • shared personal practice

    The link between extension from an individual professional learner and someone who participates in a professional learning community and the CoP theory is clear to see.

    Drawing these threads together, it might be that what is starting to immerge is a new e-Pedagogy that rests more than ever on the individual’s ability to take responsibility for their own learning but also for the learning of their colleagues. Understanding how online technology can offer opportunities to:

  • work as professional learner
  • work as a part of a professional learning community
  • consciously deploy an understanding peripheral participation for a wider impact on organisational learning
  • draw into the community people from divers backgrounds to help spark original thought

    What value should an organisation place on someone whose beliefs, values and practices draws upon elements taken from the list above?

  • Cliff Richard

    ichat.jpg

    Just noticed when talking to Jed (he pointed it out) that when I am playing music on iTunes and logged into iChat then after my name on the buddy list is the title of the song and name of the artist that I am listening to (assuming that your iTunes has this information in your catelogue of music). I didn’t select anything to make it happen, but this seems very cool to me. I am not sure that there is any purpose, but it could be a credibility risk to any closet Cliff Richards fans out there who are also using iChat!

    Does the proliferation of open source hold back software development?

    ketchup_bottle.JPG

    I have been thinking about this question, but have no evidence on which to base my supposition that the growth in open source software initiatives may be holding back software development. Two large and really succesful OSS initiatives are Linux and Apache and they have been around for quite some time with a loyal band of developers.

    What if though at the same time that Linus Torvalds was building his community two other champions of OSS also started to develop an operating system. Would the competition for developers have spread the wise and the best across projects to such an extent that none of them progresses as far or as fast as Linux has today?

    I was prompted to this thought after an extensive surf of e-portfolio options and resultant impression that I am left with of the ‘primitive’ solutions available. In many ways we have actually taken backward steps from projects that were using bespoke software in the late 1990’s early 2000’s (such as think.com ) in that:
    a) the pedagogical philosophy of the software is often unsound
    b) the tools available are crude and not user friendly

    Could part of the problem be that there just aren’t enough talented developers to support all of the current and growing number of OSS developments? So as well as OSS initiatives driving a wide range of new technologies, they are also inadvertently making it less likely that

    An online learning scenario for HE?

    The software choices faced by the Ultraversity project have vexed Jonathan Furness and myself for a considerable time now, and the diagram above illustrates where our current thinking is. The main points to grasp is that we will be adopting a web services approach using open source software (OSS) and other free software where we can. We aim to stitch this together using RSS and LDAP technology where possible, and where we can’t we will rely on individuals developing a ‘conceptual’ model of what we are trying to do.

    In what we are attempting, there is nothing particularly new as the ideas around OSS and web services have circulated widely for quite some time. However, It is worth adding that without a bottomless pit of technical resources (we don’t have that) that this is an ambitious approach for us to take. It is also worth adding that an approach that doesn’t have a predominance OSS wouldn’t seem to make any sense at all.

    One of the issues that interests me is why we find it so hard to make these decisions, and I would make a link between this problem and what Beck characterises as “The Risk Society”. Since the latter third of the 20th century, Beck sees us living in a society that is characterised by inherent uncertainty. This society is differentiated from first an agrarian society followed by an Industrial age that gave way to a society as we know it today characterised by “globalisation, the individualisation of the experience, the questioning of expert systems, and the burden of identity construction” (M. Gabe 2004).

    The difficulties faced by Ultraversity when deciding what technology choices to make provides a useful lense through which to examine and perhaps start to understand how the rules and assumptions that govern our decisions are changing in responses to the ideas of Beck and the factors identified by Gabe.

    Ultraversity believes in championing empowerment of researchers. A part of this for us this means the appropriation of technology (using for their own and possibly unintended purpose) to take control of their own futures as lifelong learners by exercising the right to choice and personalisation of their learning.

    However, in practice Ultraversity struggles to accommodate this desire and I would argue that in a large part this is because it is operating within the confines of a 20th century University system that was built on a certainty derived hundred’s of year of practice and which no longer holds true.

    Some of the constraints are:

  • regulations that enshrine absurdities such as arbitrary word limits for assessment products in an age of multimedia
  • Interpretations that administrators, support staff, and ‘teachers’ apply that reflect their own values, beliefs, and philosophy, and own experience of HE and learning – the baggage we all carry!

    A combination of the constraints identified above and our responsibility to provide online services that will enable student researchers to undertake an inquiry focussed degree with online community at its heart strongly influences our thoughts and choices. Our natural desire is to seek technological solutions that place Ultraversity in control of the learning experience reducing the level of uncertainty as much as possible – we are cautious by nature!

    This is ultimately, I believe, doomed to failure as it is clinging to the old paradigm of certainty where in reality the future will hold increased levels of uncertainty. For example, how do we reconcile the need to have assessments from remote students delivered to the faculty office in hard copy by a set time and date? Increasingly the reality is students building websites, using weblogs and other technology to work collaboratively on ‘real life’ issues offering assessment products that don’t fit into a neatly packaged report that can be handed in!

    The pace of technological developments around web services is rapid as is the increasing sophistication of Ultraversity student researchers both as they progress through the degree, but more significantly as entrants who increasingly have broadband connections and use the www and the services it provides as a part of their daily life.

    Ultraversitie’s technological aim must be to provide robust, but also innovative services that enable student researchers to study successfully. However, it is commonly accepted that schools cannot now match the sophistication and choice of hardware and software that many pupils experience out of school, but that they do still need to offer the best they can so that a level of entitlement for all is reached.

    The increasing sophistication of student researchers and the web services and other tools they chose to use will increasingly outstrip that which Ultraversity can offer. This isn’t a race we can win nor should we even enter it, but we do however need to retain a strong sense of entitlement for all, and recognise that there will be an increasing gulf between those student researchers who develop a sophisticated personal e-pedagogy including the appropriation of the technology and those who struggle.


    So what do we do?

  • Where possible we ‘hard wire’ the ‘entitlement’ services into a portal to take advantage of single sign-on authentification and the exchange of data between systems
  • We encourage student researchers and learning facilitators (lecturers and tutors) to ‘soft wire’ web services together. By this I mean negotiating and agreeing the use of other web services in ways that are sensitive to each other’s needs
  • Challenge regulations and practices that are not designed for the 21st century learner
  • Realise that increasingly students will vote with their feet and move towards relevant education away from the irrelevant
  • Brill Live8 leraning object

    live8.gif

    Brill Live8 BBC learning object.

    Amazing value, a totally free learning objects like the one from the link above from the BBC that could be at the heart of a whole programme of learning. Resources with this kind of information used to be quickly outdated because they were bound into a book. With this LO and the footage that is currently around on the Web and TV, etc. any Geography teacher worth their salt could set up a delightful and relevant learning experience at the drop of a hat!

    And what if the BBC made this available to re-purpose? Students and teachers alike could manipulate the data and images to help them express their own analysis and interpretations.

    e-Portfolio thoughts

    Over the past few weeks I have met and talked with many people about e-Portfolio and the main points I have learned are:
    - very few if any institutions have demonstrated the possibility of data transfer
    - institutions (and perhaps the standards) should focus on hard data, like names, ages, qualifications, etc.
    - although the standards are now in place there seems to be very patchy adoption of e-Portfolio although the QAA requirements for Records of Achievement and Personal Development Plans are driving in this direction
    - hard data should be augmented by a statement of achievement authored by the learner and possibly one authored by a tutor/teacher; this could be as simple as a PDF document
    - rich data should be left out of the interoperability equation for the foreseeable future as mapping between different practical and philosophical approaches makes interoperability issues extremely complex
    - the best way to ensure that data is accessible in the future to learners is to provide a repository of artefacts with the facility to export this in an accessible format so that individuals can at a later date access and re-use whatever they need
    - e-portfolio presentation, representation, and viewing permissions should rest with the portfolio author at whatever age. Young children and vulnerable groups will need advice and support on how best to exercise this right.
    - there is a huge tension between different stakeholders around the purpose of e-portfolio; for assessment and evaluation, lifelong learning, as social software, as a management tool….
    - giving credit for activities is one strategy to get students to undertake portfolio activities (such as PDP), although making the activities relevant and delightful should be the primary strategy
    - there is much political rhetoric about e-portfolio and lifelong learning with very little understanding about the implications about statements and promises being made