Thanks to Phil Race at Leeds Met for the following;
The message below was sent last week by a DVC to all teaching staff…
“Over the past few years we have seen a significant drop in the use of Overhead Projectors (OHPs) and many sit idly in teaching areas gathering dust. We propose to remove all OHPs from teaching areas between June and August 2012. Therefore, by September 2012 all OHPs will have been removed from teaching spaces.
We appreciate that there may be some staff who still utilise OHPs especially for historical materials or items which may no longer be physically available”.
[The message continued by pointing out help available for colleagues who wished to ‘digitize’ old materials].
Phil invited obituaries for the humble OHP. Here is mine;
Goodbye Over Head Projector
Oh! Heavy Projector
Outstanding High Praise Of History Proceeding
Once, Happily People Owned Hundreds
Particularly Often Helpful Pedagogically
Openly Highly Prized, Only Hardly Perceived
Old Hand-Me-Down, Promptly Outmoded Hardware
Presently Obsolete, Hidden, Pre-Internet, Ontologically Humiliated, Powerless.
Our History, Ponder…
There’s an interesting and, I suspect, common debate going on at Bath Spa University at the moment, regarding the pros and cons of providing online feedback to students for their written work. Practices vary across the institution; every academic School has some staff members who use online essay feedback and others who provide feedback exclusively on paper (although our academic regulations require that all staff use Turnitin for plagiarism detection).
The arguments on both sides are easy enough to summarise. Those in favour cite timeliness of feedback, support for disabilities, higher takeup rate, staff time efficiency, student expectation, lower carbon footprint, legibility of feedback, increased wordcount and accessibility of feedback. Those against cite difficulty with the software interface, staff time efficiency, the learning curve required by staff to use it, physical issues using computers and displays, and the ‘academic freedom‘ of staff to defend pre-Internet working practices (of paper-based marking). Considering that this article is originally being written for a blog site (bathspaweb2.edublogs.org) about the benefits of e-learning, it’s no secret that I consider that the pros outweigh the cons. But my reasoning is not based on tech-evangelism – rather, it is because, like all of us, I have devoted a large part of my professional life to ensuring that my students have the best learning experience possible, and experience has shown me that online marking enables students to receive feedback that is more timely, relevant, extensive and clear than the equivalent paper-based method. Does this require academics to learn new skills? Certainly. Can it improve the student learning experience? I believe so.
This is not to say that all assessment feedback is better online. Feedback can and should take many forms; in my own formative and summative assessment I use face-to-face tutorials, group seminars and peer assessment, all using verbal protocols that would have been familiar to any 19th-century academic. But I also use Skype, Google talk, pdf annotations, Jing, Camtasia, Zotero, YouTube , emailed MP3s, Turnitin, Minerva (our VLE), and various blogs, sites and wikis. In each case the feedback tool, whether analogue or digital, is selected with the goal of giving students the clearest and most helpful feedback to support their learning. I personally abandoned paper feedback in 2003, initially for reasons of timeliness (emailing feedback to students was simply quicker and easier) and later for reasons of increased pedagogical benefit.
Let’s start with a scenario that will be familiar to anyone who’s ever marked a pile of paper essays. We dutifully annotate every paragraph, highlighting well known spelling/grammar errors such as possessive its, splice commas and providing notes to help students to improve academic citations. [This article is only being distributed electronically. If it were in paper form, the three hyperlinks in the previous sentence directing the reader to additional online learning resources would be unavailable]. At the end of a long, gruelling day (or week, or month!) of marking, we have a large pile of paper on our desks. We then pass these marked up essays back to the students – often some months later if it was a summer submission – or leave them in an office for collection. Sometimes students collect work and read the feedback, and sometimes they don’t. You only have to prowl the corridors of any building on any campus to find box files containing marked work that students have not collected. I know of one colleague who, at the end of a full marking/handback cycle, was left with 75% of the papers not collected by returning students, who had ‘moved on’, or for whatever personal reasons had no interest in reading the feedback. He was heartbroken – all his detailed and diligent work was wasted because the very people he was trying to help were refusing to engage with his preferred method of communicating.
Pedagogical research studies show that feedback is a vital part of the student learning experience, but the UK National Student Satisfaction Survey results consistently demonstrate that a large proportion of students are unhappy with the ‘frequency, timing and method’ (Holmes and Papageorgiou, 2009) of the feedback they receive from tutors. Online feedback is usually received more quickly by students, because they can read it without coming to the campus, or waiting until staff are available to return it. It can be accessed at a convenient time, and from anywhere, thus supporting distance learners, students with mobility issues, and students with families or day jobs. Pedagogical research supports these assertions. Bridge and Appleyard (2008) found in a comparative study of online vs paper submission that;
“88% of students reported a time saving and many reported financial benefits using online submission. 93% of students preferred having their feedback available online rather than printed and handed to them. Overall, students preferred online assignment management to postal or physical hand-in.” (Bridge and Appleyard, 2008)
And good quality online feedback can provide opportunities for additional learning beyond the limitations of paper marginalia. If a student’s essay fails to reference important academic literature in the field of study, our feedback can contain hyperlinks to further reading. If the essay makes a basic error of grammar, style or citation, we can provide hyperlinks to websites and articles that will enable the student to improve these areas for next time. I have a 500-word ‘rubric’ set up on Turnitin’s Grademark facility so that every time students misuse splice commas I can drag and drop a detailed explanation of how they can avoid making this error in future.
The other consideration is the demographic of our current and future learners. Over 90% of BSU students own their own laptop, and 100% have on-campus web access. Many primary schools now use a VLE for key stage 2, and most secondary schools provide online feedback of some sort through VLEs, including Moodle. Teachers throughout key stage 2 and 3 are setting up their own blog sites to support student learning and encourage online interaction. When these children become young adults and enter HE, we can speculate that an 18-year-old first year undertaking our assignments would be somewhat bemused – perhaps even unimpressed – to receive an A4 printout with handwritten comments, three months after hand-in.
But good quality e-feedback, just like good quality teaching, takes training, skills and experience to deliver. And ‘late adopters‘ (Rogers, 1963) are often left understandably confused by the array of options and the difficulties of getting started. The staff learning curve for a lot of e-learning tools – and I include our own Blackboard/Minerva solution – is far steeper than it should be. As academics we’re thrown in at the deep end with these tools, and the designers of the tools are often so preoccupied with adding features that usability suffers. And although we have some excellent staff training support in our universities, the interfaces should not be as difficult as they are to operate. No-one asks for training using Facebook or Google, because these companies have poured $millions into improving usability. Setting up a Turnitin assignment in the Grade Centre is unreasonably fiddly and complicated. This poor usability creates an apartheid between early and late adopters, with the risk that only the former may provide e-feedback to students. The result is that students become disgruntled that they do not get the same quality of feedback from all staff.
The challenges of software usability and staff IT literacy are very real barriers to students receiving good quality feedback. As assessors, there are two directions we can choose. If we consider that the benefits (to our students) are worth the effort, we’ll forge ahead and confront our difficulties as learners of a new ‘language’, even if the online tool is a bit clunky and difficult. If the learning curve is too great for us, we will resist, and will find a way to intellectualise disengagement – ‘academic freedom to mark however I like’, ‘I like the tangible feel of paper’, ‘I get RSI sitting at a computer’, ‘it’s worked for me for 20 years’ etc.
Let’s look at these arguments one by one. I suggest that the term ‘academic freedom’ may be being misused here. Our own UCU definition of the term covers five areas, all of which relate to the intellectual concept of academic freedom (and all of which I would defend as vehemently as the next colleague). None of them (nor any of the academic literature) refer to the freedom to choose the administrative method by which written feedback is delivered.
The ‘tangible feel of paper’ is a personal preference that doesn’t provide an observable student benefit, and in any case, staff and students can print online materials if they need to. As regards the ‘RSI argument’, physical issues connected with computer usage must of course be treated seriously by academics and organisations, and anyone with a disability of any sort should be – and is – supported in their role. Recently, a member of my team who suffered from back problems told me he was unable to sit at a workstation to deliver online marking, and needed support and advice. We provided him with a portable MP3 recorder and a short training course in how to upload audio files to the VLE. His students received online verbal feedback that was far more extensive than the paper based equivalent, and they made very positive comments about this perceived improvement.
The ‘it’s worked for me for 20 years’ argument may be self-centred rather than pedagogical, but it does provide useful evidence of the need for high-quality staff support. If academics have a responsibility to their students, so managers and institutions have a responsibility to their staff. Given that opposition to online marking is almost always expressed by those who do not yet have the skills to deliver it, there is clearly a staff training issue to be addressed. And this needs to be more than a one-off Friday afternoon showing a small group how to set up a TurnItIn dropbox. Generic ongoing IT literacy must be supported and maintained. In the digital age, communicative teachers need to be able to embed a video, operate simple content management systems, resize a JPEG, make pdfs, share collaborative documents, take a screenshot, store files in the cloud, manipulate a search engine’s advanced features, record an audio file, and most importantly, provide links to other sources of learning. And the challenge of supporting digital immigrants (by which I mean all of us older than about 35) will never be greater than it is now. 15 years ago it wasn’t an issue – students were expecting to receive paper feedback, and in any case the online tools weren’t good enough to provide a better alternative. 15 years hence it won’t be an issue – the majority of the teaching workforce will be naturally digitally literate, having been born into an online society. So the tension we see now, between early and late adopters, will naturally disappear as technology, staff literacy and student benefit combine. If you’re reading these words any time after, say, 2016, you’re probably wondering what all the fuss was about.
2012’s intake of students were born around 1994 and have only ever known a wired world, at home and at school. By contrast, most of us started our professional lives in a pre-Internet age, and have had to adapt our practices – as teachers and as learners – as new tools have become available. The Internet is a new communication tool for our society, enabling instantaneous transfer of information and ideas from one to many, from many to one, or from many to many. As academics we are professional communicators, and many of us are understandably excited by the current and future opportunities for better communication with learners and colleagues. But we’re learning a new language, and we must work together to ensure that our fluency is shared.
You’ll notice that this article isn’t Harvard referenced. Rather, it is hyperlinked. Harvard referencing was invented around 1881 as a system of enabling scholars to follow paper-based trails of information by providing enough metadata about a work to enable it to be located in a physical library. Most other citation systems predate the Internet. Hyperlinks were invented in the mid 1960s and are the primary method by which users navigate online. It may be interesting to speculate whether these long established citation systems decline as the same rate as the need to access information in its physical form.
The Online Learning Task Force (OLTF) last week published its report making various recommendations about the future of online learning in HE.
The OLTF makes six recommendations to HEFCE and government;
- Technology needs to enhance student choice and meet or exceed learners’ expectations
- Investment is needed to facilitate the development and building of consortia to build scale and brand in online learning
- More and better market intelligence about international demand and competition is required
- Institutions need to take a strategic approach to realign structures and processes in order to embed online learning
- Training and development should be realigned to enable the academic community to play a leading role in online learning
- Investment is needed for the development and exploitation of open educational resources to enhance efficiency and quality
The report speaks for itself, and, in my view (based on what I have seen at many Universities) it demonstrates how far behind the rest of the world Higher Education’s (still primarily face-to-face) activities have fallen.
I think this is symptomatic of the unique times in which we live. For the first (and only) time in history, we have a generation of educators (and senior managers) most of whose professional experience and training occurred mostly pre-Internet; conversely, we have a generation of learners (some of this year’s HE applicants were born in 1993) who have only ever known a wired world. Marc Prensky coined the phrases ‘Digital Natives’ and ‘Digital Immigrants’ to describe this generational divide. Although Prensky’s work has been rightly criticised for its poor research methodology and lack of supporting evidence, one thing at least is clear – that younger people generally spend more time online than older people (my own anecdotal experience of observing students and academics is supported by the research). Thus, parts of the HE sector are likely to be quite resistant to some of the OLTF’s recommendations – this has certainly been my experience in some staff training sessions.
To be fair to late-adopter HE teachers, evidence for student demand for online learning is inconclusive. Students clearly want part of their learning experience to be online, but not necessarily at the expense of ‘premium’ face-to-face staff contact. The OLTF report makes the following observations about student demand, based on NUS survey data;
- students prefer a choice in how they learn
- students expressed concerns regarding the ICT competencies of lecturers
- appropriateness of learning technology varies significantly from course to course
- at present, most students are self-taught in IT skills
students prefer to be regarded as partners in the development of online learning rather than mere recipients
This is not to say that all teaching should pander to student preferences; HE teachers are, by their nature, experts in teaching & learning, so just because a student may prefer a certain form of learning, this does not necessarily mean it is the most effective or sound pedagogical strategy.
However, it is clear that HE itself is partly demand-led; students choose courses, and all HEIs need to fill places. Thus, any university would be foolish to ignore student demand for online or blended learning, especially in the forthcoming higher-fees climate.
And, of course, there are some students for whom online learning is the only option (actually, I’m one of them, being a distance-learning PhD student at the moment). Yesterday I met an MMus Songwriting student (she was a distance learner, and we spoke during the residential week that forms part of this particular online programme). Here’s what she said to me – as verbatim as I can remember it;
“I have to say, studying this course online has great for me. What with the family and day job, I never could have afforded to give up a year and move to Bath. I waited years to find a Masters that I could study online – and this one came along at just the right time.”
(BSU Masters Distance Learning student, Feb 2011).
This example demonstrates that there are at least some students for whom face-to-face learning at a particular site is not possible. Of course, such a demand for distance learning is hardly a revelation – the Open University has around 168,000 students, almost all of whom are studying using a distance-learning model. Unsurprisingly, the OU is at the forefront of the development of online learning in HE (its Vice-Chancellor Martin Bean was part of the OLTF group).
So although the future for HE is almost certainly neither all-online nor all face-to-face, the learning (and recruitment) opportunities appear to suggests that the current balance between the two is changing – and Universities need to adapt fast.
The full report can be downloaded here, and is summarised by the HEFCE article below;
In my own PhD research I often undertake background reading on creativity-based research. With the imminent (and sad) demise of HE subject centres (our own in the Performing Arts being PALATINE) I’ve been looking through their materials to ensure that nothing useful gets lost when their website is taken down during mid-2011.
While trawling I found an excellent article about institutional strategy for e-learning, presented at the Creativity or Conformity conference 2007 in Cardiff. It addresses some of the challenges HEIs face when trying to harness the ‘Lone Ranger’ enthusiasm of early adopters of e-learning practices (including Web 2.0 tools – the focus of this blog). I’ve uploaded the document here just in case the original web source is removed. Interestingly, this is another example of the ever-increasing number of formal HE research papers that are freely available online (as much-discussed in this blog previously).
The first sentence of the abstract summarises the article’s perspective neatly; “The creative use of elearning technology is both fostered and retarded by higher education institutions”.
Taming the Lone Ranger: The Creative Development of Elearning Technologies within UK and US Higher Education Institutions (Whitworth & Benson, 2007) – download Word document.
Here below-pasted is the full text of the article (copyright retained by the authors).
Creativity or Conformity? Building Cultures of Creativity in Higher Education
A conference organised by the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy
Cardiff January 8-10 2007
Taming the Lone Ranger: The Creative Development of Elearning Technologies within UK and US Higher Education Institutions
Andrew Whitworth & Angela Benson
School of Education
University of Manchester
Department of Educational Leadership,Policy, and Technology Studies
The University of Alabama
Copyright © in each paper on this site is the property of the author(s). Permission is granted to reproduce copies of these works for purposes relevant to the above conference, provided that the author(s), source and copyright notice are included on each copy. For other uses, including extended quotation, please contact the author(s).
The creative use of elearning technology is both fostered and retarded by higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs can be classified as professional organisations, in which core workers (academics) retain considerable autonomy, but these organisations struggle to benefit from their creative energies in a wider sense. Mintzberg’s work shows that universities as a whole find innovation difficult. These large, mature organisations cannot simply reinvent themselves as “innovative” organisations.
One suggested approach to elearning innovation in professional organisations is what Bates (2000) has called the Lone Ranger model. But even Bates suggests this model will die out as HEIs’ use of elearning matures.
This paper uses three case studies of “Lone Rangers” to show how elearning innovation has been fostered and developed within HEIs. Our case studies exemplify different relationships between the Lone Rangers and their host organisations: Lone Rangers may be marginalised, may stay independent, or may accommodate themselves and their innovations to organisational needs.
Far from having been exiled, the Lone Ranger is alive and well—working, without institutional support, on the next generation of elearning technologies.
Keywords: Creativity, innovation, course management systems, higher education institutions, Lone Rangers, case studies.
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are institutions with an educational remit, but they are also workplaces, and organisations with an interest in innovation in a more instrumental, economic sense. No matter how creative the solution to a pedagogical problem, these innovations cannot flourish and spread in the absence of a sympathetic organisational culture. The subject of our paper is the relationship between elearning innovators and their host organisations. How do the creative activities of individual academics stand in relation to the hosting HEI?
INNOVATION or innovation?
Like all technologies, elearning is socially shaped (Williams and Edge 1996; Dutton et al 2004). And the possibilities for social action in an environment are constrained by extant technological infrastructures and the information flows they facilitate. The technology/ organisation relationship is therefore characterised by both social shaping and technological determinism: it is co-evolutionary (Andrews and Haythornthwaite 2007).
Co-evolution, however, can result in symbioses which are neither progressive nor creative. HEIs, like all large organisations, are quite resilient to change. While this can have benefits—there are huge capital investments in HEIs and technologies which should not be lightly discarded—Gooley and Towers (1996) characterise HEIs as “ocean liners”, difficult to turn or stop:
“…despite the intentions of enterprising (or perhaps deviant) individuals, the investment in infrastructure… tend[s] to maintain distance education towards the status quo…. We are not saying that education providers are change-averse… only that their organisational structures tend to contain the way that the new media are appropriated.”
This is a paradox for managers of HEIs. Any organisation has an instrumental, macro-level interest in innovation. Management gurus stress this so strongly that we call it INNOVATION, in upper case. The justifications are quantitative and economic: the impetus behind the development of new processes and products being the improvement of profit margins and market performance. INNOVATION literature appears in journals like the Harvard Business Review, and is targeted at executives and other senior planners. For example, Garvin (1993) bemoans the tendency to treat innovation as random or spontaneous. He suggests that managers need: a plausible, actionable and easy to apply definition; clear guidelines for management practice, not aspirations; and tools for assessing performance. Roffe (1999) focuses on the need for training and staff development, and Valcke (2004) on change management strategies. Irlbeck (2002), writing more specifically about HEIs, felt there was a lack of necessary leadership skills vis-à-vis elearning innovation, stating that “there is little education for the management of this field, which brings a peculiar need for the understanding of academic culture and mores, together with a need for excellent modern management skills that encourage creativity and marketing knowledge and skills”. All take a “strategic choice” (Child 1972) approach to INNOVATION, suggesting that a creative culture can be inculcated in an organisation through strategic management decisions.
However, responding to the challenge of elearning is not just a matter for institutional leaders. Learning is a necessary organisational response to change in any environment, but for organisations to be effective, learning must take place at all levels. It needs to be self-sustaining (Senge 1999), and self-critical (Argyris 1999). Yet macro-level, strategic INNOVATION may struggle to adapt itself to diverse contexts. Scientific knowledge can be abstract and generalised, but technological knowledge is always partly “micro-cognitive” (Bonaccorsi & Pammolli 1996). Technology is more “hands on” than science, often being developed through rough approximations and testing (Nightingale 1996), and always adapting to circumstance. INNOVATION risks retarding individual workers’ ability to experiment with, and thereby self-critically evaluate, new technologies.
The HEI context
INNOVATION may be a macro-level success factor for organisations, but we need to understand how it is also practised in their own workplaces by individuals responding to contextualised, quotidian situations. What are the specific contexts faced by micro-level innovators within HEIs? How do the micro- and macro-levels work together—or do they in fact cancel each other out?
Mintzberg (1989: 173-195) classifies HEIs as professional organisations. They are large and loosely coupled (Weick 1976), with a generally autonomous professional core, supported by a more hierarchical support staff. Gooley and Towers’ “ocean liner” metaphor (see above) has some credence, though Mintzberg observes (1989, p. 188) that “the professional organisation is, paradoxically, extremely stable at the broadest level and in a state of perpetual change at the narrowest one.” Pockets of innovation emerge frequently, and the literature is replete with accounts of them (e.g. McPherson and Nunes 2004). But dissemination of innovative practices is difficult. “Loose coupling” is evident in the distance between different academic departments, to the extent that—as we will see—departments can actively disassociate themselves from the INNOVATION goals of the wider organisation. Weick notes (1976: 2) that loose coupling can seem “sloppy” practice from a management perspective. Nevertheless, it is empirically evident in HEIs. Effective management responds to what is, rather than what should be present (Mintzberg 1989: 26-42); we can also ask why it is that despite loose coupling there are still “remarkable constancies” in practice across HEIs (Weick 1976: 1).
Educational innovations are as often produced by processes of negotiation (Cervero and Wilson 1998) and/or situated action (“on the ground” responses to educational problems – Suchman 1987, Carr and Kemmis 1986) as by planning or strategising. Education is less a “science” than a practice which must constantly update itself in the face of new challenges in specific situations (Carr and Kemmis 1986). Educationalists must learn about their work environment—its organisational structures and its technological infrastructures—if innovative solutions to pedagogical problems are to be found. Elearning solutions, whether developed through institutionalised INNOVATION or more “random” events, must still be adapted to specific contexts by individual teachers. This is (lower-case) innovation; but it is far from guaranteed that its results will fall into line with strategic INNOVATION.
Elearning accentuates the problem of how HEIs can respond to a rapidly changing environment. Heppell (2006) goes so far as to imply that elearning constitutes such a severe “disruption” to HEIs that it threatens their existence. In the face of such a threat, management literature would suggest HEIs have to INNOVATE: but what strategies are appropriate in this context? How can creative cultures emerge vis-à-vis educational technology, and how can these be linked with—and fed by—creative practices at the micro-organisational level?
The title of Bates’ Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders (2000) suggests it stands in the INNOVATION camp. Yet Bates does attend to the specific context of HEIs. They are distinctive organisational types in which “strategic planning” is not necessarily an effective way of securing staff support for elearning solutions (ibid: 55). Loose coupling means that dissemination of strategies can be poor, and they can be ignored by the autonomous professional core. Strategies are insensitive to the diverse contexts within HEIs, and rarely responsive enough in a turbulent environment.
As an alternative Bates suggests an approach whereby individual teachers are given small grants to encourage experimentation in innovatory pockets (ibid: 59-60). He calls it the “Lone Ranger” approach and claims it:
“can get a wide range of faculty started on using new technologies for the first time. … It can help faculty understand the potential of the technology and thus lead to innovative ideas about how to use the technology in a specific subject area… It avoids having to make difficult decisions about long-term investment in technologies that may prove ephemeral: ‘winners’ can emerge. Finally, it maintains the autonomy of faculty to decide on the teaching method that best suits them …. A laissez-faire strategy creates an environment that encourages experimentation” (ibid: 60, emphasis added)
In other words, he claims the Lone Ranger model can seed contextualised learning about technology at the micro-level, and successes can be fed back up to the macro-level. If he is right, this addresses the problem of synthesis between the two levels which, as noted, is where HEIs tend to struggle. So why then does he think this model will—indeed should—die out?
Bates goes on to describe several disadvantages to the approach (ibid: 60-3). Solutions tend towards the “amateurish”. Lone Rangers may overcommit to technical work (design, programming) better done elsewhere. Innovations are too context-specific; they cannot “scale up”, and the “not invented here” syndrome may create resistance to them elsewhere in the organisation. Dissemination of lessons learnt is poor. He continues (ibid: 66):
“Certainly there is a time in an organisation when the laissez-faire or Lone Ranger approach may be suitable, and that is when a university… is just beginning to commit to the use of new technologies. A laissez-faire approach combined with some cash grants spread evenly across the institution is a reasonable and often effective means of gaining buy-in from faculty and helping them understand the potential and requirements of using new technologies for teaching.
However… the laissez-faire approach is not a sustainable way to run an organisation that has made a fundamental commitment to using technology for teaching. It is too hit-and-miss. It wastes resources, ignores the experience and many lessons that have been learnt outside the higher education sector about how to design and develop creative media products and services, and above all fails to ensure high-quality technology-based teaching in any consistent or widespread form.”
We believe this opinion is flawed. Bates implies that a catalyst, such as funding, is required to kickstart innovations which comprise a micro-level “test bed” for the HEI’s INNOVATION needs. However, an HEI does not, once only, “commit to the use of new technologies” for teaching. Educationalists are, or at least should be, continually learning about their environment in a self-reflexive manner (Carr and Kemmis 1986). Technologies continually emerge and are creatively adopted by “Lone Rangers” to solve pedagogical problems. Innovators are in all likelihood already working in their professional capacity on solutions which the management of a loosely coupled organisation may not yet have noticed (see the case studies below). The question therefore becomes, how can top-down INNOVATION strategies and bottom-up situated action complement one another? How can individual learning provoke and sustain organisational learning (Senge 1999), particularly in the face of turbulent technological change?
Note also Bates’ phrase, “fails to ensure”. He acknowledges that HEIs are loosely coupled and contain diverse settings in which autonomous individuals try to solve day-to-day problems, but to then bemoan the inability to “ensure” consistent, widespread quality in such an organisation is contradictory. Bates acknowledges the empirical nature of HEIs, but seems to neglect its consequences—that is, loose coupling—and what this means for innovation.
We now present three case studies which illustrate the Lone Ranger experience. They are developed from data collected for a project, “Technology at the Planning Table: Negotiating Power and Interests in Course Management Systems” (Whitworth and Benson 2006). Space unfortunately precludes discussion of the theoretical and methodological basis of our work: the most significant influences here are activity theory (Engeström 1999) and the negotiation-based framework of Cervero and Wilson (1998).
We conducted interviews with elearning planners, instructors, assistants and developers working across eight online Masters’ programmes; four in UK universities, four US. At the time of writing, detailed coding of these qualitative data is underway to analyse the relationship between context and activity, and the subsequent impact of innovations. Limited space means we cannot reveal details of the coding, but in each case we draw on information about personal history, perceptions of organisational context, creative activities undertaken, and the interviewee’s perception of their impact. Although reports are subjective, we believe our data provide valid pictures of states of affairs within our case studies (Whitworth and Benson 2006). All personal, programme, and institution names have been changed.
These narratives do not show failure as such, but are far from being full successes from an institutional point of view, despite positive impacts on Lone Rangers at a personal level. This may seem to support Bates’ view that the approach cannot scale up. However, although our summaries are brief, they also suggest that his dismissal of the model is perhaps unfair.
Alby is a classic “Lone Ranger”. HeeHe innovated in elearning without direct financial support. From 2000-2005 he worked in the School of Computing of Northborough University, a large “redbrick” HEI in northern England, before joining a different university. He was part of a team called “ICT-Ed”, who developed ICT and information literacy skills in non-Computing undergraduates. Alby inherited a “primitive” HTML site on taking over a web design course in 2000. Over five years and three versions, he developed this into a site through which students could complete the course entirely online. He conducted research on the efficacy of the site, motivated by studying for the PGCLTHE qualification, but received no funds or other direct departmental support for this work.
ICT-Ed is an important source of teaching income for Computing, but carries no research prestige. As a social rather than computer scientist, albeit one with an interest in elearning, Alby was marginalised in his department—a department which was itself marginalised within Northborough, at least in CMS terms. This manifestation of loose coupling is highlighted in an interview (conducted after Alby’s departure) with Ed, head of Computing:
“Historically, in every Computer Science department in the world, there is an extremely sceptical view taken of e-learning, computer-based learning, computer-assisted learning, and predominantly, we don’t touch it.”
Northborough has an institutional CMS—itself developed by “Lone Rangers” in a different department—but Ed considers Computing’s own electronic infrastructure to be better matched to their needs. Loose coupling allows for this sort of autonomy, and resultant technological diversity (see also case 2 below), but can also detach innovations from strategic planning, even at the micro-level. Ed told us in his interview that ICT-Ed did in fact use the institutional CMS: actually, this was not the case. In many other types of organisation—and in the INNOVATION literature—this lack of knowledge about the creative technological activities of a “subordinate” would be considered an extraordinary lapse.
Note also the unplanned career progression here. As is common in HEIs Alby “grew into” his position, through teaching assistant work, rather than having been appointed as an experienced practitioner with specified skills. Alby did conduct self-critical enquiry into his own and his learning environments’ effectiveness, and has determined that he wants to continue using—and innovating through—CMSs and web-based teaching. But this will be in his new job. At Northborough, his marginal status cut off both his own career progression and the dissemination of his innovations. Ed noted that Alby’s innovations remained in use after his departure, but they remain cocooned in ICT-Ed; a marginalised team in a department which (in CMS terms, and through choice) is marginalised in Northborough.
We cannot dismiss the possibility that a suitable job might have arisen for Alby, but this is the sort of random factor that INNOVATION advice suggests should be better managed. Nor are we passing judgment on Northborough’s culture and treatment of “micro-innovation”. Nevertheless, Alby’s case reflects the difficulties HEIs have in identifying and supporting innovators and disseminating, if not solutions, then learning. Alby’s work brought him personal success – a “tenure track” position at another Russell Group university – but his innovations have at best been preserved at Northborough; it seems unlikely they will be further developed. Nor will Northborough directly benefit from his future work.
E-Tech is an online program which introduces practising teachers to educational technologies, hosted at the University of Arcadia (a large US state college). It contained online elements as far back as the 1980s, with email and bulletin boards used in a blended model alongside face-to-face monthly workshops. Though clearly innovators, in this period E-Tech received no direct institutional support: widespread online teaching was not, at that time, on any HEI’s agenda. However, in line with the Bates model, in the early 1990s Arcadia released funding to develop online teaching. Two interviewees, Terry and Niall, collaborated on a successful bid for these funds which enabled them to take E-Tech fully online.
According to Terry, Niall and current manager William, E-Tech was from the start a “laissez-faire” environment in which experimentation with technologies was encouraged. This springs directly from pedagogical needs: E-Tech’s students themselves work within diverse technological environments, and are encouraged to solve problems with reference to their own situations. Although Arcadia has an institutional CMS (WebCT), E-Tech does not therefore demand the use of particular elearning solutions. Only certain minimal standards (for example, consistent styles for web pages, specific logos) are expected.
However, most E-Tech faculty have recently adopted Moodle as a CMS. Quentin, the team developer, “discovered” it and disseminated his experience among other faculty: a process akin to Bates’ claim that “winners can emerge” from autonomous, self-motivated exploration of different elearning solutions. Independence is not compromised, however. Terry—who continues to teach on the program as an adjunct despite having moved to a managerial post in a different college—has resisted this change. He dislikes certain features of Moodle, such as the chat room, which he finds inadequate for his purposes. He also said that the move would reduce his “ownership” of his teaching environment. He therefore continues to teach his course using a self-created HTML site: only basic tech support and “proof reading” is required from the E-Tech support team.
We should therefore note that self-critical evaluation of teaching practice may result in a decision not to adopt an innovation:
“INTERVIEWER: If you had to develop another new course now, would you stick with the single clean website approach?
TERRY: I would. But it’s not for lack of knowing Moodle and… other tools…. I feel there’s too much there that I wouldn’t care or need to use, and therefore in a sense, it’s a bloated tool.”
Self-critical, autonomous work with elearning may therefore, in some ways, conflict with organisational INNOVATION. Yet for Arcadia to demand that Terry and E-Tech convert to WebCT would not only violate their academic integrity (both their professional status, and the teaching goals of the program), but might also retard later innovations. Interesting observations were provided here by Bob, who has executive responsibility for WebCT on this large campus. When asked whether he was comfortable that there remained departments at Arcadia who used different systems, he replied:
“innovation can happen in more dimensions when we have more flavours going on. And in general, resource is tight for supporting things of this nature at the campus level, so we tend to be utilitarian, and not creative. The units are more likely to be creative, and that’s to be encouraged…. Where we have problems is that when people come up with something that’s actually interesting, how do we aggregate that up to the larger enterprise, and I don’t think we have a good model for that.”
It seems that despite the fact E-Tech are not as self-consciously independent of their parent HEI in quite the same way as Northborough’s School of Computing, it remains the case that E-Tech’s work—originally seeded by “Lone Ranger” funding—has not really disseminated through Arcadia. Yet let us also note that some adaptations made by Quentin—as part of E-Tech’s autonomous, self-critical processes of enquiry—have been included in revised Moodle source code, and all E-Tech’s senior academics have published widely in the field of elearning (though we cannot cite for reasons of anonymity). We suggest that only the most crudely instrumental criteria for judging INNOVATION could view E-Tech as a failure.
EFL-1 are a UK online programme based at Middleton, another large redbrick member of the Russell Group. They recruit teachers of English from a global market. Like E-Tech, they were early innovators in distance learning, with mixed-media teaching having been offered since the 1980s. “Lone Ranger” funding has recently enabled EFL-1 to recruit former students as development assistants on the programme: some have subsequently become fully-fledged academic members of the team.
When Middleton adopted WebCT in around 2001, EFL-1 were one of the first programmes to make widespread use of it, but again, we heard evidence of micro-innovators rejecting particular campus-wide solutions. Felicity, the Programme Director, said:
“We stayed within WebCT for one year with certain course units only. Then came out, because we were unhappy with it. Went back to our own web pages, and then we’re back into WebCT fully fledged, have been for the last couple of years now, in a big development…”
Felicity and other interviewees used the term “cottage industry” to describe EFL-1. They have accommodated to the institutional VLE, but continue to work on new approaches within that environment—much along the lines suggested by Bob above. Having said that, Lex, another EFL-1 academic, called this “subverting” WebCT. For instance, they have worked on ways to exploit WebCT’s administrative support, while simultaneously trying to compensate for what they see as problems with the interface by designing their own web pages that are incorporated within the WebCT “shell”. This from Felicity:
“we have worked on finding alternative ways of making WebCT work for us… We wanted a menu system that was fewer clicks than we thought WebCT would allow us to do… In the end, Joanne [a development assistant] came up with a bespoke set of pages in Dreamweaver… So the index page has been fooled… the WebCT index page, we bypass that and have our own index page. And she designed these drop-down menus, because you can’t do drop-down menus in WebCT.”
Interestingly, Felicity specifically states that the main driver for innovation in EFL-1 is not funding, despite the fact that such money enabled someone like Joanne to be recruited in the first place. Rather, the main driver in her eyes is the educational problems they face in dealing with their diverse, global market, with students located in areas where reliable broadband access may not be available.
EFL-1 are autonomous, but they are not independent in the way of E-Tech or Northborough Computing. They are embedded into the CMS infrastructure provided by the university: not just the system itself, but sources of technical support and development advice. However, they remain responsible for their own adaptations of—and to—the system. As Bob noted in Arcadia, contextualised teaching situations like EFL-1’s are the best place to experiment with elearning. The question of whether their creative practice can “scale up” to the macro-level is not really relevant. Adoption of WebCT was a macro-level INNOVATION decision at Middleton. “Lone Ranger” funding was here used as much to adapt to INNOVATION as to produce micro-innovation—in fact the two levels now go hand-in-hand, through the feeling that this accommodation is under constant review. Lone Ranger funding therefore remained useful to EFL-1 even after their HEI, in Bates’ terms, “committed to the use of [a specific] technology in teaching”.
Three scenarios are apparent here, which we summarise as marginalisation (Alby), independence (E-Tech) and accommodation (EFL-1). The last seems the most progressive product of these “Lone Ranger” activities, but even here, EFL-1 have not adopted the campus-wide solution in an uncritical, and thereby uncreative fashion.
We suggest these narratives suggest a need for the continual provision of “Lone Ranger” funding within HEIs, despite Bates’ claim that the resourcing of elearning should have outgrown that model. In each case, innovation in elearning predated institutional attention to it, and there seems little reason to believe that further developments in elearning are already on the institutional radar. The production line has not halted: Ed observed that his department were engaged in work on techniques such as interface design, AI and Grid technologies which “in maybe 10, 20 years” would offer new possible elearning solutions. In fact, such developments may themselves result from Lone Ranger funding. Bates’ criticism of “amateurish” results is devalued by the fact that EFL-1’s CMS — WebCT— was noted by Bates himself (2000: 74) as resulting from such funding: an excellent return!
Dissemination of knowledge may often be poor and haphazard but here we need to look not at what Lone Rangers are doing but at wider organisational characteristics. If universities want to retain their ability, as organisations, to INNOVATE, creativity must bloom somewhere, despite pressures towards consolidation around single campus solutions. We learn about elearning best in teaching settings – which by definition, administrators and developers do not enter. Lone Rangers continue to work on creative solutions to the problems posed by new developments in elearning technology, and do so in ways which centralised, strategic planning cannot address. This situation has not changed simply because HEIs have moved into a more mature relationship with elearning: in fact they have only just begun to explore the possibilities of this technology. The very nature of HEIs requires a different approach to INNOVATION than is typical in the mainstream management literature. Attempts to override autonomy by imposing campus-wide solutions seem as likely to lead to “subversion” of the technology as adaptation to it: and even adaptation requires ongoing institutional support which is applied in micro-situations and is thereby sympathetic to context.
We would like to acknowledge support (financial and otherwise) from the Worldwide Universities Network and the British Academy, and also the help of our interviewees.
Andrews, R. and Haythornthwaite, C. (2007): “Introducing Elearning Research”, in Andrews, R. & Haythornthwaite, C. (eds): The Handbook of Elearning Research, London, Sage.
Argyris, C. (1999): On Organizational Learning, Oxford, Blackwell.
Bates, A. W. (2000): Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Bonaccorsi, A. and Pammolli, F. (1996): “Knowledge as a Product, Knowledge as a Process: Scientific-Technological Research and Organisational Forms” in Butler, J. and Piccaluga, A. (eds.): Knowledge, Technology and Innovative Organisations, Milan, Guerini e Associati, 15-35.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986): Becoming Critical: Knowing through action research, Geelong, Deakin University Press.
Cervero, R. and Wilson, A. (1998): Working the Planning Table: the political practice of adult education. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Child, J. (1972): “Organisation structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice”, Sociology 6(1), 1-22.
Dutton, W., Cheong, P. H. and Park, N. (2004): “The Social Shaping of a Virtual Learning Environment: The Case of a University-wide Course Management System”, Electronic Journal of e-Learning 2(1), 69-80.
Engeström, Y. (1999): “Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation” in Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R.. and Punamäki, R.-L. (eds) Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 19-38.
Gooley, A. and Towers, S. (1996): “Turning ocean liners: Managing interactive technology innovation”. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Proceedings of the Third International Interactive Multimedia Symposium, pp. 149-159. Perth, Western Australia, 21-25 January. Available online at http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-archives/confs/iims/1996/ek/gooley.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2006).
Heppell, S. (2006): Keynote speech delivered at The next generation: 13th Association for Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2006), 5 – 7 September 2006, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. Available as an MP3 from http://www.alt.ac.uk (last accessed 28 Nov 2006).
Irlbeck, S. (2002): “Leadership and Distance Education in Higher Education: A US perspective”. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 3(2).
McPherson, M. A. and Nunes, M. B. (2004): Developing innovation in online learning: an action research framework, London, Routledge.
Mintzberg, H. (1989): Mintzberg on Management: Inside our strange world of organisations, London, Macmillan.
Nightingale, P. (1996): “Transfer of Tacit Knowledge: Case Studies from the Pharmaceutical Industry”, in Butler, J. and Piccaluga, A. (eds.): Knowledge, Technology and Innovative Organisations, Milan, Guerini e Associati, 57-72.
Senge, P. and associates (1999): The Dance of Change: Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. London, Nicholas Brearley.
Suchman, L. (1987): Plans and Situated Actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Weick, K. E. (1976): “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems” in Administrative Science Quarterly 21(1), 1-19.
Whitworth, A. and Benson, A. D. (2006): “Mapping elearning: Visualising the negotiated social shaping of educational technology”. In Whitelock, D. and Wheeler, S. (eds): The next generation: Research proceedings of the 13th Association for Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2006), 5 – 7 September 2006, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
Williams, R. and Edge, D. (1996): “The Social Shaping of Technology”, Research Policy 25(6), 865-899.
[addendum – I’m delighted to say that Dr Typke has replied to the blog post personally, with a very interesting point about the development of Musipedia – click on ‘comments‘ at the bottom of the post to see it]
A lot of the posts on this blog have been somewhat one-sided, perhaps even evangelical. This is because I believe that there are serious strategic benefits to Universities and other large organisations of adopting ‘free’ web-based interactive services, rather than trying to source all their IT needs in-house.
But today I’d like to take a different angle on a much-rehearsed debate – the idea of democratically-collated knowledge, most famously exemplified by Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia arguments
I meet academics all the time who are not regular Wikipedia users, and many of them are critical of it because the very concept sounds absurd. To publish an article on which people rely for research, and to make it editable by anyone in the world seems anathema to HE’s methodology of peer review and serious scholarship. But this point of view misses two important characteristics of Wikipedia – firstly, it is not a primary source. Its policy states that entries should cite only verifiable and reliable primary and secondary sources. Secondly, to criticise it based on the potential for malicious damage is to misunderstand the basically altruistic nature of humans; the majority of people seem to enjoy sharing knowledge. Wilful sabotage takes place, of course, on Wikipedia as in physical textbooks (remember those rude pencil drawings in the margin of your teenage classroom copy of Hamlet?), and, this being the web, the online version is instantly published worldwide. But there is a critical mass of opinion that will prevent inaccuracy; try sabotaging an important Wikipedia page and you’ll see what I mean – it will revert to the accurate version within minutes, as a member of the community swoops in to heal the wound.
There have been attempts to compare online and print encyclopedias, notably the Nature survey earlier this year, and Wikipedia comes out fighting in these cases. But, just like a regular encyclopedia, it is not a one-stop-shop for research – it’s a starting point to get an overview of a subject, leading hopefully to investigation of the reliable sources it cites. Like all academics, I tell my students that Wikipedia is not a source in itself and should not be cited in research (indeed, Wikipedia’s own policy makes this clear). But unlike some colleagues, I do encourage students to use it in order to identify the reliable sources on which the article is based. Wikipedia works. It’s not the fount of all human knowledge, but it does link to it.
These arguments have been well rehearsed in the blogosphere, in the mainstream press, and even in scholarly research. But today, in the interests of balance, I want to discuss a site that falls down precisely because of its democratic, participatory online approach – Musipedia.
What is Musipedia?
It’s a website, founded by Dr Rainer Typke, that attempts to document and make searchable melodic themes from copyright and non-copyright musical works, mainly from Western/tonal music, covering the classical repertoire, popular song and jazz. Here’s the ‘About’ page from the site. Its philosophy is inspired by Wikipedia (although it is a separate organisation) in that it asks the worldwide community of musicians, musicologists and music-lovers to contribute melodies through various web-based interfaces, and then provides mechanisms for visitors to search its database for melodies. The site went ‘democratic’ in 2004 by adding any-user contributions and edits.
And, speaking as a music specialist, it’s very difficult to use. Entries are unreliable, the database is patchy (it includes some really obscure folksongs and omits some massive international pop hits), and it is musicologically underpowered in several ways, making no reference to harmonic context or bar placement, and suffering from an under-developed rhythmic engine (made worse by some contributor entries that contain no rhythmic information). This is not to criticise Typke – he is an eminent published academic with extensive knowledge of music information retrieval systems and some outstanding primary research. But I suggest that it is Musipedia’s Wikipedia-like contributor system that is its downfall.
The idea of a ‘melody dictionary’ is not new. Barlow and Morgenstern published their ‘Dictionary of Musical Themes’ in the late 1940s, and their database (of 10,000 Western classical themes) is now available online. This is much more reliable (than Musipedia), perhaps because of its non-collaborative nature; it was researched by individuals who had a clear overview of a particular musical canon, and more importantly these individuals had a particular level of musical literacy. It’s not flawless – like Musipedia, it omits harmonic context and rhythmic placement, but as a source of monophonic musical lines it’s perfectly usable. Personally I use it in songwriting dispute cases when I’m acting as a consultant to copyright lawyers – it’s a great way of calculating the statistical likelihood of particular pitch choices. And the updated/online version improves hugely on the original print publication because there is a playable MIDI file of each entry.
Musipedia, I suggest, is hampered because there is no measure of the musical knowledge of its contributors, and no quality assurance mechanism to ensure that entries are accurate (plus inevitable legal hindrances related to online music publishing and copyright). But surely one could say that Wikipedia suffers from the same lack of contributor-screening? Certainly, but in the latter case, there are enough suitably-informed people who can spot an error in an instant; the majority of those with an interest in a particular subject can (and do) error-trap Wikipedia articles. Musipedia is different; making contributions requires a certain level of subject-specific skill (aural pitch analysis, music reading etc) beyond the generic research skills of cross-referencing needed to contribute to Wikipedia. Musipedia’s input interface cannot differentiate between an experienced musician and a tone-deaf music fan, and the same problem applies to members of the online community who might error-trap entries by the latter.
For Wikipedians, a democratic approach has achieved a stable welfare state; but I suggest Barlow and Morgenstern’s benign autocracy is more successful than Musipedia’s hippy commune, despite Typke’s excellent architectural drawings for the squat. Hmmm – might have tortured that metaphor far enough now.
There’s a political parallel here in the UK; whatever one thinks of David Cameron’s Big Society arguments, some roles require specialist expertise and can’t be democratised. There are arguments in favour of self-appointed/untrained community religious leaders or even educators, but I’m sure none of us would want to be operated on by a community surgeon, or be a passenger with a community airline pilot. But I digress.
So we’re back to the gatekeepers debate. Wikipedia shows us that democratisation of factual knowledge seems to work – there are enough people in the know (who care enough) to outnumber the saboteurs, the ‘haters’ and the mis-informed. And the ignorant (I use the term in its non-pejorative sense) will mostly stay away from editing Wikipedia articles about which they have no knowledge. There is little incentive for anyone to make malicious edits to, say, an article about a DNA polymerase, and thus it is more likely that such an entry will be accurate because it will, by its nature, attract interested experts as editors.
Music is different. Everybody loves it, and everybody has an opinion about it. But to perform, compose, notate or analyse music requires a set of learned skills that are diluted, not multiplied, by mass democratic knowledge. And if we have no democratically effective mechanism of differentiating between accurate and inaccurate entries, the database’s integrity will suffer.
So I conclude, tentatively, that applying democratic principles to factual knowledge seems to be a recipe for accuracy. Applying them to technically challenging skills such as melody transcription doesn’t seem to bring the same benefits. It’s early days for Musipedia, and I really hope it succeeds, but its wikipedia-like strategy may just be its downfall.
Which is maybe why 99% of the songs on myspace aren’t so great. Sometimes you need gatekeepers.
This post is really just for BSU colleagues – it’s a Slideshare presentation given to staff by Clare Power about the recent BlackBoard ‘Minerva’ update. So not strictly ‘Web 2.0’ – but hopefully useful for many interested colleagues.
I ‘attended’ today’s OU conference (i.e. by logging on remotely using a web browser). AFAIK the conference was a first for the HE sector because the entire event was webcast live and archived (as well as Tweeted and blogged). Fellow geeks will be interested to know that we used Elluminate for real-time sharing of slides, audio and live conference chat, and the technology worked pretty flawlessly, with attendees from all over the world logging in live – I was one of 400 remote delegates (which represents quite a lot of CO2 if they had all attended in person…).
The fact that all the content was openly available on the Internet was in itself a significant gesture, but perhaps isn’t altogether surprising in the context of OERs, blended/distributed learning, increased remote working and a generally more web-literate scholarship community.
Many interesting questions arose, which I’ll try to summarise as a series of bullet points here;
- As any web user now has access to (some) information by a simple text search, how does this change the role of the academic teacher? Are we now informed aggregators as opposed to content generators?
- How practical is it for the HE sector (anywhere) to attempt to build web-based tools to compete with the likes of Google and Facebook – if our R&D will never be able to compete?
- Much online learning is moving from a ‘dot’ to a ‘slash’ approach i.e. the University no longer needs to own the top-level url for its content and institutions are increasingly relaxed about this (e.g. youtube.com/bathspauniversity or http://www.facebook.com/bath.spa.university ); what are the implications for the development of online resources to support T&L?
- What are the implications of the deliberate elitism (i.e. subscription model) of peer-reviewed journals contrasted with learners’ (and some international research communities’) expectations of open-ness? Is such closed learning under threat by ubiquity of information?
- Repurposing existing online materials (not just OERs but content from any source) is becoming an integral part of curriculum design – what implications does this have for staff recruitment/training/duties etc?
- How are student expectations changing in an all-you-can-eat information environment? How do we deal with ‘surface’ or ‘deep’ learners?
- How do we integrate multiple learning tools from different sources, including social networking? The OU have made a start with their Social Learn project – http://sociallearn.org/register/home
- HE’s traditional business models are based around geography, where learners attend in person; this is obviously still relevant for many subjects and learning styles, but as a learning model it predates the Internet. Has the web created different user expectations of access to learning, and are there implications for student ‘demand’ for HE courses?
Here are some relevant links;
- OU conference homepage (with Cloudworks interactivity if you wish to participate online)
- Twitter hashtag #ouconf10
- Long-form conference transcription
- Slides, videos and other resources
The conference continues tomorrow but I won’t be able to attend day 2 – I’m tied up with f2f meetings. One-to-one verbal interaction is still the way we humans communicate best, but it’s so darned inefficient…