BBC NEWS | Technology | Firefox browser for web 2.0 age: “

“A new version of the Firefox browser for the web 2.0 age is to make its debut on 24 October – 01:00 BST…it is believed to enjoy a 12-15% market share of the net browsing market globally…the browser had been developed with the demands for a rich web 2.0 age in mind

Major improvements include:
- a phishing finder that alerts people when they stray on to a site that tries to trick them into handing over login details for a bank or other valuable service.
- a spell checker that keeps an eye on every bit of text typed in almost any Firefox browser box be it in a web-based e-mail program
- an add-on that lets people post blog updates directly.”

Hopefully I will have more success with this as a blogging tool that with Flock which unfortunately never worked for me although it potentially offered much as a “social web browser”.

The Nesta Futurelab publication on Personalisation and Digital Technologies takes the approach of identifying a learners charter “setting out a range of potential entitlements for young people in a personalised learning environment”.

This approach is taken in response to an identified risk that learning technologies will be “easily navigable only by those with the relevant economic and cultural resources.” – in other words, we need to be proactive if we are to address the spectre of the digital divide.

The charter identifies four key areas:
1. choices (learner voice and choice)
2. skills and knowledge (curriculum)
3. learning environments (pedagogies and institutions)
4. feedback (assessment and recognition).

The paper rightly recognises the fact that “it is perfectly possible to use digital technologies to reinforce any manner of educational approaches”. I would argue that instinct of institutions are to control how and what students learn and seek to exploit the technologies as tools for compliance. In all this, the student voice tends not to be heard.

Digital technologies should be a counterforce and I would argue that a fifth key area should be added to the charter something along the lines of ‘learners in control of empowering technology’. If this isn’t the case, then institutions will impose a view of personalisation that far from knocking down the “walled garden” simply re-builds it albeit in a slightly different shape.

CMALT is the ALT C membership scheme that might be of interest to anyone out there working in learning technology. Its aims is to provide recognition and accreditation to individuals working in the filed of e-learning and in particular linking technical and pedagogical considerations.

The central tenet of the scheme is the definition of learning technology agreed within ALT. The other principles and values that inform the scheme are as follows.
1. A commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and learning.
2. A commitment to keep up to date with new technologies.
3. An empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms.
4. A commitment to communicate and disseminate effective practice.

ARU hosted an ALTC workshop at which one of my tasks (with a colleague) for the group was to identify how we might make a claim against the value “An empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms”.

We concluded that the 500 word claim from this section could look like:

- 2-5 foci per value
- the portfolio of evidence should be supported by reflective commentary identifying learning and changes in practice. The balance of reflective commentary against e-portfolio evidence, should, if anything be skewed towards the reflective commentary
- foci could come from areas that include:
- online website access validators (e.g. WebXACT)
- pathway validation documents
- ARU e-learning QA checklist
- national and university policies and strategies and how they relate to work submitted in the portfolio

An interesting group discussion was to what extent claims should be set in the wider context of theoretical and research knowledge underpinning learning technologies. There was no simple answer, however the group felt that it would be appropriate to locate claims within the broader debate around e-learning and learning technologies.

In addition to making a claim against each of the principle values, applicants must also identify a specialsist option against which they will be assessed. For me, personalisation of learning looks like an obvious specialism.

So will I complete my application? Yes I think I will. Personally, reflecting upon value 3 will I think be of professional value to me.

CMALT is the ALT C membership scheme that might be of interest to anyone out there working in learning technology. Its aims is to provide recognition and accreditation to individuals working in the filed of e-learning and in particular linking technical and pedagogical considerations.

The central tenet of the scheme is the definition of learning technology agreed within ALT. The other principles and values that inform the scheme are as follows.
1. A commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and learning.
2. A commitment to keep up to date with new technologies.
3. An empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms.
4. A commitment to communicate and disseminate effective practice.

ARU hosted an ALTC workshop at which one of my tasks (with a colleague) for the group was to identify how we might make a claim against the value “An empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms”.

We concluded that the 500 word claim from this section could look like:

- 2-5 foci per value
- the portfolio of evidence should be supported by reflective commentary identifying learning and changes in practice. The balance of reflective commentary against e-portfolio evidence, should, if anything be skewed towards the reflective commentary
- foci could come from areas that include:
- online website access validators (e.g. WebXACT)
- pathway validation documents
- ARU e-learning QA checklist
- national and university policies and strategies and how they relate to work submitted in the portfolio

An interesting group discussion was to what extent claims should be set in the wider context of theoretical and research knowledge underpinning learning technologies. There was no simple answer, however the group felt that it would be appropriate to locate claims within the broader debate around e-learning and learning technologies.

In addition to making a claim against each of the principle values, applicants must also identify a specialsist option against which they will be assessed. For me, personalisation of learning looks like an obvious specialism.

So will I complete my application? Yes I think I will. Personally, reflecting upon value 3 will I think be of professional value to me.