4.0 Wider Context: Legislation, policies and standards

I have broken this section into two parts. The first concentrating on accessibility considerations, and the second on the direction in which Jisc are pushing e-Learning in the UK.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) sets the legal requirements surrounding accessibility and websites. From 2000, the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) have policed these requirements, publishing a Code of Practice in 2002 and again in 2006. Despite these measures put in place, a survey in 2004 by the DRC found that 81% of websites did not meet basic W3C accessibility guidelines. Arguably, this is a very complicated landscape to successfully navigate.

My own experience may be illustrative of why there has been a lack of progress in making websites accessible. In my role, it was important that I was aware of the legal requirements in terms of accessibility and ultimately it was my responsibility that project websites conformed. However, I do not have a specific and detailed understanding of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and in my work role could realistically have no more than a general understanding of issues surrounding frames, images, and the use of colour to convey information, etc.

This problem was recognised by the DRC and in 2006 a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) was published in collaboration with the British Standards Institution (BSI). The PAS sets out a process for the commissioning of an accessible website and in so doing gives those commissioning work a set of principles and processes to apply when dealing with website developers. These include ensuring that those building the site have appropriate knowledge and skills, are the processes for accessibility testing are clearly defined, and how to ensure ongoing maintenance and development doesn’t result in accessibility degradation. Ensuring that appropriate quality assurance and reporting mechanisms are in place by those commissioning websites, would I believe have a significant impact on accessibility.

The Jisc Effective Practice With e-Learning - good practice in designing for learning guide, 2004 (see review) makes for an interesting read. It is an attempt to distill down the findings from research into e-learning since 2003, when the Jisc e-Learning and Pedagogy research strand began.

The document seeks to provide a framework for colleagues to “reflect upon the value of e-learning” which it does well providing we maintain a critical eye as in my view there are some omissions and wrong emphasis in parts.

Firstly, I applaud the approach of putting the focus firmly on learning and the designing of planned learning experiences, not the technology itself. The language of “designing for learning” with terms such as ‘intended learning outcomes’ brings a greater degree of focus to the planning of an appropriate student learning experience.

However, I believe that the flaw in the document is that it approaches e-learning as something separate from good teaching and learning practice. The starting point for the document is the question “What is e-learning?”, I would argue a better question might be, What supports effective learning? and then address this from both the student and teacher (used advisedly to encompass the role of the tutor, coach, mentor, etc) perspective.

More recently, the phrase learning ecology’ (George Siemens October 17, 2003) is being used to describe an holistic approach that sees the technology as an enabler, that is as a means of connecting and making links between information and people. We must also not forget the use of technology as a tool to support cognitive processes (modeling, etc) and as means for greater expressive and communicative power. These points are not new to the Ultralab way of thinking.

Figure 5 Jisc Report Summary

The diagram (fig. 5) is included in the summary of the Jisc report (2003). I believe that that there are two areas that are given insufficient attention.

First is the lack of an explicit recognition of the role of the facilitator/lecturer/teacher in the learning process itself. This is not just as the ‘instructional designer’, but as the mediator of learning. It is not sufficient to plan a programme of learning without an ongoing interaction with the learners and there is much evidence of the importance of the relationship building between the and the learner. At the heart of the HE learning experience should be the development of a critically reflective learner. Without the modeling of aspects that contribute to this such as critical reflection, challenging of assumptions, testing of ideas, discussion of analysis, etc.

An excellent discussion of some of these issues is given by Brockbank and McGill (1998) Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education, OUP) and we could also look to Laurillards conversational model (1993) Rethinking University Teaching .

The Hefce model shows effective practice as an outcome of factors that contribute to the learning activity, but does not show the actions of the ‘teacher’ as part of the model. This is a potentially significant omission as the values, beliefs, and teaching and learning philosophy of those teachers will heavily influence the learning experience.

Secondly, I believe that there is a lack of emphasis on assessment in the model presented. Although it was mentioned often in the document I do not think it was addressed in sufficient depth. The assessment process must be well thought out if it is not to end up being the ‘tail that wags’ the teaching and learning dog! Unless this is addressed in terms of both the products for assessment and the purpose of the assessment, then e-learning or any other form of learning is not as effective. For example, is it appropriate to have the majority of assessment by the essay or examination, or should we be thinking about the opportunities offered by approaches such as e-portfolios and Patchwork Texts (Winter, R., 2003)?

So why is there not a strong emphasis on this in the Jisc report? Could it be that there is still a view that the technology really is the answer to everything and that if we get the infrastructure and processes right, then deep learning will follow as a matter of course?

It could be argued that the role of the facilitator and the need for formative and other forms of assessment is implicit throughout the report. Personally, I do not think that this is sufficient as the changes that are identified as being required by the Hefce Strategy for e-Learning represent a paradigm shift for HE. That is a change to an agenda of learner personalisation and choice, access through workplace learning, and making the rhetoric of life-long learning a reality.