The new Learning with Technology Masters will be delivered entirely online from next September and we are currently struggling with decisions about what technology to use. The Institute for Educational Cybernetics where I work is also home for the CETIS service (funded by JISC), one of its aims being to contribute to future thinking in the field of learning technology.

The challenge for the IDIBL project is trying to implement a learning technology solution that takes advantage of this thinking, but that also contributes to the development of the University of Bolton’s strategic development of e-learning provision. In this exercise, we are not concerned with information systems and processes that contribute to wider management of learning activities such as recording of results, admissions, collection of fees, etc. There is an argument that these two dimensions cannot be separated, but for now we want to focus on the learning experience and not allow other factors to restrict choices.

In my mind we face a three way conundrum of trying to enact the CETIS analysis of the likely developments of learning technology in HE, the practical issues facing the ‘real world’ position of the University of Bolton, and an approach that will provided a great learning experience for students based on past experience, but with little or no chance of being widely replicated elsewhere.

What is certain is that our approach will be informed by the overarching principle of personalisation and choice wherever possible within the constraints we find ourselves under. Possibly the three positions can be characterised as:

1. Are we inquiring into the extremes of what may be possible? Web2.0 zealots might argue that we shouldn’t be using and university hosted software at all, paid for services, or proprietary software of any kind. Internet services that are readily available can provide all that is required; all it takes is a movement in mind-set to achieve this;
2. Are we plotting a possible route forward for the University of Bolton? Current Bolton learning and teaching provision is based around WebCT with supporting technology such as SITS. Although few would argue for this to be the only approach, there is a strong support for platforms such as Moodle which offer some of the advantages of a Web2.0 in that it empowers staff and learners, but could be characterised as a development or second generation VLE rather than a new approach;
3. Are we developing a low risk approach that we are confident best supports the learners? This would be based on the successful experience of the Ultraversity project and would use ‘free’ web services, open source, as well as proprietary software – this blueprint already exists!

Our difficulty in plotting a way forward has, I think, being compounded by not agreeing our primary purpose to start with. Once we do this, then the technological choices will be constrained by that choice and our key requirements are pretty simple:

• hold community discussions between staff and students
• have collaborative, private and public work-spaces
• provide course resources – published to the www is good
• submit work that can be verified for date and completeness
• monitor participation and ‘attendance’ – for the purpose of making interventions for those experiencing difficulties

Thinking outside of discipline areas and subject benchmark statements for university level education can be something of a challenge - see the HEA paper Interdisciplinarity: A Literature Review by Angelique Chettiparambil Rajan for a discussion of the arguments.

In developing our inter-disciplinary approaches we have arrived a position of identifying thematic areas of work activity as a potentially useful approach.

For example, the government Every Child Matters strategy requires that organisations that impact upon children, hospitals, schools, police, voluntary groups, etc. to work together in the best interests of the children they serve.

You find where download mp3 music on perssonal computer, You need mp3 music download for ipod mp3 player

Given the above, a work-based degree that uses an inquiry-led approach to learning requiring the learner to identify the issues and opportunities in their work as a focus for their inquiry and then draw upon relevant subject discipline content would seem to be a strong candidate for the idibl framework approach.

This is just one such themed example, others that we are pursuing energetically with our work on the IDIBL project include Regeneration, and Learning with Technology.

The notion of themes comes from a recognition that however much we value inter-disciplinary learning we need an articulated rationale of why a group of students would chose to learn together through the medium of an online community.

Although benefiting from exposure to fellow students from different work contexts, focus of study, etc. community models of learning and arguably networked learning approaches have a greater chance of success when stronger ties or bonds can be developed between learners. I would argue that having a common theme of study helps with this.

In practical terms, our open module framework will allow us to readily develop new courses with different themes as demand is identified.

Have a look at the page below, when you get there it will take a few seconds to orientate yourself. Therapeutic, hypnotic, mesmerising or plain old depressing - take your pick!

Hefce scheme encourages businesses to co-fund students:Higher Education Funding Council for England to support government policy of getting businesses to co-fund students with up to £105m over the next three years

(Via Education Guardian).

At the same time Hefce confirm that the “controversial proposals to withdraw £100m of funding for people studying equivalent or lower degrees (ELQs) over the next three years will go ahead.”

For idibl, this might be an opportunity to help fund deliver of our online, inquiry-led, work-based degrees around themes rather than subject discipline. The hot themes at the moment being around regeneration and the Every Child Matters agenda.

The ‘father’ of Pattern Languages is the architect Christopher Alexander. In the 1970’s he became concerned about the way in which the design process of living spaces had changed from one whereby those who live and use the buildings, streets, parks, etc. were primarily responsible for their design to one dominated by architects, town planners, and other professionals.

He developed the idea of a structured template where “Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.” (Alexander et al., 1977).

Combined together, individual patterns produce a Pattern Language. For Alexander, this approach was a way of capturing what it was that we used to do well in urban design (some time in the distant past) and at the same time empower those who live in the spaces to influence their development.

More recently, other professions, particularly developers and programmers have adopted a patterns approach - this is a good introduction from Alexander.

Taking this a little further, Richard Millwood, Ian Tindall and myself have attempted to develop a pattern language for Online Communities of Inquiry. It is our intention that the patterns should be readily understood by all who participate in the community of inquiry or support its development in some way - learners, teaching and support staff as well as invited guests to the community. We believe that full potential of pattern languages may be unrealised if there is a dislocation between different groups of users. They are designed to open up the debate between the different interested parties as to how tools and approaches could be further developed and improved.

This diagram shows our ‘high order’ Pattern Language and these are a couple of example patterns - ‘Nurture Online Community’ and a loweer level pattern of ‘Working Together’. Other patterns still to be constructed will include those for, retention, hotseats, asynchronous, conversations, learning sets. etc.

The trick is to find the right balance between too many patterns so that the language will be over-complicated, and too few patterns at an abstract level so that there is not sufficient detail for them to be implemented and understood.

Try this out - send yourself a mail message inviting you to a meeting. In the body of message in the middle of some text include the meeting time and date something like ‘Thursday 12th February 12pm – 2pm. On receipt of the message you will find that Mac Mail recognises the pattern as one that might be a date that you wish to add to iCal. Even better, someone might invite you to a real meeting:^)

Similarly, if there us a contact information such as an mail and phone numbers it offer the opportunity to add this to your Mac Address Book.

Rather than simply say ‘I am impressed about this new feature in Mac Mail for Leopard’, it strikes me that these small technological innovations make a real contribution to our productivity, as well as making life that little bit easier…

Computer skills ‘undervalued’:Computer skills are still undervalued in the UK board room, software giant Microsoft claims.

(Via BBC News | Business | UK Edition).

“A solid working knowledge of productivity software and other IT tools has become a basic foundation for success in virtually any career.”

Arguably Bill is only part way there… The idibl project based in the Institute for Educational Cybernetics would argue that the application of online technology to knowledge creation, sharing and organisation of activities is a given in present and future society. Citizens and professionals need an explicit conceptual knowledge of online technologies, rather than a tacit operational knowledge, in order to be most effective as technology change continues.

Institute for Educational Cybernetics - top floor only:^)

Reflecting on the Jisc Cetis conference and trying to distill my key learning I remembered the Gordon Brown Arctic Monkeys gaff.

When in response to a question from a journalist from New Woman magazine, he said of the Arctic Monkeys on his iPod it “really wakes you up in the morning”. Subsequently put on the spot by a mens magazine he failed to name a single track and was forced to admit he was more of Coldplay man really aka middle of the road soft indi-rock.

This takes me onto Universities and Web2.0 and the whole raft of cool social software applications. Do I really want my university to try and be cool by appropriating these technologies or would I rather that they remain somewhat dour but trustworthy and effective in what they do?

The argument is made that teaching staff need to ‘go where the students are’ (YouTube, facebook, etc.) if they want to be relevant and effective educators. However, this somewhat ‘false’ adoption may have just the opposite effect as we in fact appear shallow, fickle, untrustworthy, etc. Back to Mr Brown…

What we really need to do is identify the ‘added value’ that the institution offers to students in this fast changing technological world. This may well require staff to use new and different technologies, but it shouldn’t be characterised by a ‘headless’ rush into the fashionable technologies of the day.

An initial analysis of a recent survey of 10 online facilitators, who are technologically capable and experienced, indicates that the adoption of new technologies at a reasonably steady pace resulted in tremendous pressure for them in integrating it with their teaching practices and reported corresponding difficulties for their students.

Some university staff will feel comfortable using the new technologies and will be readily able to integrate it into their teaching practices, others will not or will take a long time to do so. Very diverse practices will and have emerged.

This doesn’t really matter so long as everyone, students and university staff alike, have a clear understanding about what the added value that the institution brings is and expectations of staff and student responsibilities are aligned.

PLEs and the institution: “Given a lot of recent comments we really have to elaborate the set of connections between what an institution offers and what individuals manage. I’ve tried to put some of how I think this should work in a diagram (as usual).” (Via Scott Wilson’s Workblog).

What I like about the model provided by Scott (see below) is that it offers a practical way forward for risk averse institutions (all of them!) who wish to move towards a model of the learner taking increasing responsibility and control of their learning. The important aspect in this respect is the identification of a “Course coordination space” that is used to ‘glue’ the learner experience together in different units of organisation.

This is, I believe, important for three reasons. The first is that it offers the opportunity for a ’safe’ place for those who are less confident with learning and the use of technology to support this. Important in the recruitment and retention stakes.

Second, it offers the opportunity for core interactions around which a larger ‘community of learners’ can develop and grow. This is, I believe, an important aspect of a university education. In the foreseeable future, if we place all our faith in the development of the PLE I think we will be disappointed.

Third, it is a space that we can expect course staff can comfortably inhabit (I have high expectations) and offer some level of agreed service to students however this is defined.

Lastly, although it would add another level of complexity, some thinking about how a students workplace fits into the mix is also required.

Scott Wilson, Nov 2007

Estelle Morris: Education should not be based on untested theories: Estelle Morris, the chairwoman of the strategy board of the Institute for Effective Education at the University of York, explains the ethos behind it. (Via Education Guardian).

I remember attending an event at which Marilyn Leask (then head of Effective Practice and Research and Dissemination of the TDA) made the observation that “the big challenge for education is what evidence is there to base changes in practice - a key concern is that changes are based on evidence not anecdote!” She went on to make the case for a “systematic review of the huge body of research evidence out there by the practitioners and researchers working collaboratively to work on projects that are well grounded and substantial. Small scale research does not provide the evidence required on its own, but if co-ordinated and combined with rigorous methodology it can contribute significantly to the knowledge base.”

On the face of it, this announcement about the Institute for Effective Education at the University of York is good news as its focus is on evidence based approaches to learning and teaching.

However, I am not so sure why it takes an American professor to head up the university bearing in mind the gulf in educational philosophy and practice between the two countries. Should we be concerned at the ’scientific’ approach being adopted?

“The Institute, which will be both international and independent, will create a hub of evidence for education innovation by using innovative approaches and scientific evaluations similar to those in medicine.

Led by Professor Robert Slavin, a distinguished researcher from Johns Hopkins University in the USA. He has an established reputation for conducting rigorous experiments on co-operative learning (where children work in structured teams to help one another to learn), comprehensive school reform, literacy, mathematics, and English as a second language.”