Archive for the ‘Wales Wide Web’ Category

Open Content, the Capetown Declaration, the Bazaar Conference and Personal LearninG Environments

December 13th, 2007 by Graham Attwell

No posts for a while as have been constantly traveling. Since I am now on my way to Utrecht for the final conference of the Bazaar project on Open educational Resources then it seems pertinent to comment once more on the debate over the Capetown Declaration on Open Content. Despite the declaration being drafted in a restricted community – and official comment being similarly restricted – it is heartening to see that an open discussion has emerged through the blogosphere and within the open content com,unity. That the community is able to organise such a debate is very encouraging and a sign of the increasingly mature nature of the community.

Stephen Downes – in an email to the UNesco list server on OERs, says:

“I understand the purpose of the use of the word ‘libre’, as the words ‘open’ and ‘free’ have certainly been appropriated by those who see learning content as something ‘given’ and not ‘created’ or ‘used’. And one wonders what the supporters of commercial reproduction of open educational content would say were such reproduction required to retain the format and structure of the original – no proprietary technology, no encoding or access restrictions, no DRM. What would they say were they required to make available genuinely free and ‘libre’ content in whatever marketplace they offered their commercial version of such content.

I understand the concerns about the use of the word ‘libre’ as being unfamiliar and foreign to some people. Perhaps we could offer a translation. Perhaps we could call such content ‘liberty’ content. Alternatively, I would also support a move to reclaim the word ‘open’ from those who now interpret it to mean ‘produced’ and ‘commercial’ and ‘closed’. I have always referred to the concept simply as ‘free learning’.”

Stephen’s contribution reflects the findings of the Bazaar project. Firstly, it is not just a matter of ensuring a Creative Commons license is attached to resources – although awareness of such licenses is of course important. OERS have to be available in a form which renders them usable for learning. Part of that learning may involve changing those resources. Formats do matter.

Even more critical is support for the processes of learning. There are many great resources openly available on the internet and an increasing number of free social software applications which can potentially support learning.

But there remain many barriers to their effective use for learning. One of the issues we have focused on in the Bazaar project is data ownership. Yes, Facebook is a great application for peer and shared learning. But Facebook denies users access to their own data.

Equally organisation and institutional cultures of teaching and learning inhibit sharing and reuse.

In the Bazaar project we have spent some considerable efforts in looking at the potential of Personal Learning Environments. I suspect our reviewers from the Commission find this strange. Why should a project on Open Educational Resource be concerned about PLEs. The reason is because we share Stephen’s vision of I want and visualize and aspire toward a system of “society and learning where each person is able to rise to his or her fullest potential without social or financial encumberance, where they may express themselves fully and without reservation through art, writing, athletics, invention, or even through their avocations or lifestyle……..This to me is a society where knowledge and learning are public goods, freely created and shared, not hoarded or withheld in order to extract wealth or influence.”

We see Personal Learning Environments as an important development in enabling such a vision – allowing learners to create and allowing sharing of knowledge and ideas as well as artefacts.

How to support learning by trainers?

December 6th, 2007 by Graham Attwell

Before I got involved in all this ICT supported learning stuff, I spent a lot of time working on qualifications for the initial and continuing education of teachers and trainers – mainly in vocational education and training. Last year I was pursuaded to launch another project on this subject – this time about the training of trainers. The project is called TTPlus. And I am very glad that I did.

One of the benefits of coming back to a subject after a break of several years is that it allows you to review how your ideas have changed. Whereas in the past I had focused on formal courses and qualifications, and formal job descriptions, now I was more interested in informal learning and in how learning and professional development related to practice. TTPlus is a European project and has a great group of partners from Germany, Greece, Portugal, the Netherlands and Austria.

We all trust each other – and instead of the usual project meetings devoted to too much reporting of activity undertaken and much to much administration we have been able to get into the methodology and content of our project.

If you want to find out more go the the project web site.

One of the outcomes of the project is a Framework for Continuing Professional Development. The challenge for me is how to relate such a framework to practice and how to make a framework genuinely open, rather than merely a progression ladder through formal learning.

Below is my first attempt at such a document – written together with Philipp Grollman and Eileen Luebcke. You can also download the full document which explains the outcomes of our case studies into the practice of trainers.

We are still working on the Framework and on how such a Framework might be implemeted but I would be very happy for comments on the draft from any readers.

The basis for the Open Framework for Continuing Professional Development for Trainers in Europe is that the Framework must address all those concerned with training and learning. This includes trainers – both full and part time – but also employers and enterprises, sector organisations, trade unions, regulatory bodies, regional economic bodies, examination and certification organisations and local, regional national and European governmental organisations.

The Framework is designed to be inclusive and flexible. It is designed to support trainers and organisations in developing, promoting and facilitating opportunities for professional development. It is based on voluntary commitment to both implementing the Framework and monitoring progress towards that implementation.

1. Recognition of the importance of trainers in facilitating learning and the role of learning for individual competence development and organisational development

The Framework for the Continuing Professional Development of trainers is based on the recognition of the importance of training for the development of individual competencies and lifelong learning for individual employees and organisational development within enterprises.

2. Recognition of different modes of learning

The Framework recognises the different ways in which people learn and develop competence. This may include participation in formal full or part time training, externally or in the workplace, but it also includes informal on the job learning and self study. The Framework recognises that trainers may have a role in supporting all these different forms of learning.

3. Recognition of role different people play in training and learning

The Framework recognises that many different people play a role in supporting learning. These include full and prat time trainers but also those who support others in learning as part of their job for instance through he induction of new staff. They may also include those responsible for the design and development of computer supported learning or those who facilitate professional networking.

4. Development of Competencies

The Framework recognises the broad range of competencies required of trainers. These include:

• subject or occupational competences
• didactic competences
• organisational competences
• Interpersonal competences

Opportunities for professional development should allow trainers to develop all of these competences.

5. Importance of opportunities for initial and continuing professional development

The Framework recognises the importance of both initial and continuing professional development for the effectiveness and quality of training. The Framework is based on an individual commitment by trainers to their own professional development, a commitment by enterprises to providing opportunities and supporting professional development and a commitment by other organisations to supporting and recognising that professional development.

6. Importance of opportunities of opportunities to practice

The framework recognises the importance of opportunities to practice. It commits organisations to providing varied opportunities for practice as part of professional development.

7. Importance of networking

The Framework recognises the importance of networking – within companies, between companies and in broader Communities of Practice as a means to professional development. It commits organisations to facilitating participation within networks and communities for trainers.

8. Partnerships

The Framework recognises the importance of partnership in recognising professional development and in providing opportunities of that development to take place. such partnerships may include employers and enterprises, sector organisations, trade unions, regulatory bodies, regional economic bodies, examination and certification organisations and local, regional national and European governmental organisations.

9. Reflection

The Framework recognises the importance of reflection on practice as a key element in professional development. Thus it advocates the prevision of opportunities for reflection through peer review and mentoring and though the promotion of activities and tools for recording reflection including diaries and (e)-portfolios.

10. Role of formal qualifications

The Framework recognises that although many trainers have no formal qualification in training and may not wish to acquire such a qualification but for others the achievement of a formal qualification may play a role in their learning and may offer them opportunities for professional advancement. Thus commitment to the Framework includes the development and recognition of relevant and flexible qualifications, forms of assessment and evaluation which recognise practice and access to such qualifications.

11. Development of tools and platforms

The Framework recognises the importance of appropriate tools and platforms for networking between trainers, for the exchange of experiences and practice and for monitoring opportunities for professional development. The Framework will promote the development and use of such tools and platforms.

12. Promotion of the Framework

For such a Framework to be effective, it will require widespread dissemination, promotion and adoption. Framework signatories will be committed to such activities.

13. Research and monitoring

Research has an important role to play in supporting the development and implementation of a Framework for professional development. This includes research into the context, role and competences of trainers, monitoring of progress in implementing professional development opportunities and critically, providing example of effective and innovative practice. The Framework will support and disseminate such research.

14. Implementation

It is recognised that the Framework cannot be imposed by regulatory or legislative means. Instead the Framework is based on voluntary adoption. Such adoption involves a commitment to implementation of the framework, whilst recognising flexibility in the different ways this may be undertaken, to transparency in the measures undertaken and in monitoring, reviewing and reporting on progress in implementation.

15. Governance and further development of the Framework

As an Open Framework, no single organisation can own or govern the Framework. However, it is proposed that appropriate bodies at European, national, regional and sector levels should undertake to co-ordinate the adoption and further development of the Framework. We will propose further ideas on how this might be undertaken.
TTPlus_Framework

Comics and Projects

December 5th, 2007 by Graham Attwell

searchinpage_11

Projects are central to the development of new ideas and applications for learning and technology. Projects allow us the space to try out new ideas and the time and opportunity to explore and share those ideas. At least in theory. In truth we spend too much time chasing money, in matching our ideas to what policy makers and funders want and in filling in endless report forms. But, it goes with the territory.One thing I think we are woefully weak at it making the results of our projects available. Yes, we have our conference papers. and we have the project web sites, complete with partner logos and PDF downloads of reports. But far too seldom is the work presented in a way that the ideas are accessible or is there an engaging narrative of what we did and what we found out and how it might be used by others.Pontydysgu are not brilliant at this. But we have been thinking about the issue. One thing we decided to do was to present a brief overview of all the different projects we are engaged in, together with links to project web sites and resources.

That section is now live on our web site, althoigh there is still some data to add. And at some time, I will try to turn some of the less transparent project descriptions, lifted from project applications and web sites, into some more convincing texts.We have also been looking at how to use multimedia to present our ideas – through podcasts and videos and slideshows. More recently we have been developing comics. Adrian Puscuta, our intern student form Bucharest has shown a real aptitude for this work. The first two of his Comic Books – ‘Searching, Lurking and the Zone of Proximal Development’ and ‘Personal Learning Environments – What they are and what they might be useful for’ are now on line in the Multimedia/Comics section of the site.I’d be interested in what you think. I like Comic books because of the power of the pictures and text together to construct a narrative. When I make a presentation I try to tell a story – the Comic Books are the nearest way I have found of telling those stories in an asynchronous media.

Show that you share (again)

December 4th, 2007 by Graham Attwell

gaberlin

Neat photo from On-line Educa – thanks to Peter Himsel who took the picture and thanks to Online Educa and to Peter for releasing under a Creative Commons attribution license.

It seems strange to me but I am still finding people who don’t know about next weeks Bazaar event – Show that you Share taking place in Utrecht on Friday 14 December. It is free and there are still places left. If you would like to come just email me or Raymond Elferink. Full details can be found on the Bazaar Web site.

And if you need more details to be convinced here is the draft programme.

The conference is based on five main themes:

  • Hey Dude, Where’s my Data? On data security, privacy and sustainability
  • Social Software, Tools and Content Creation
  • OERs and the Culture of Sharing
  • Interoperability and Metadata and OERs
  • PLEs, ePortfolio’s and Informal Learning

We were also concerned that the event would be participatory with spaces for participants to present key ideas and work in progress.

Our proposal for the structure of the meeting is as follows:

9:30 Coffee and Registration
10:00 Session 1: Introduction to themes – Graham Attwell, Raymond Elferink, George Bekiaridis and Ineke Lam
11:00 Session 2: Workshops and round tables –

  • Social networking services & social search – led by Josie Fraser, EdTechUK, UK
  • THINKing and UNDERSTANDing the internet – led by Helen Keegan, Salford University, UK
  • Building an infrastructure for lifelong competence development – led by Wolgang Greller, Open University, NL
  • Each session will last 30 minutes with participants rotating between different round table / workshops

    12:30 Lunch break (lunch will be provided for participants)

    13:30 Session 3: workshops and round tables

  • Developing Open Educational Resources – led by Marco Kalz, Open University, NL
  • The use of wikis and open architecture spaces to promote a culture of sharing – led by Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth, UK
  • Creating and sharing Open Educational resources – led by Veronika Hornung, Salzburg Research, AT
  • Each session will last 30 minutes with participants rotating between different round table / workshops

    15:00 Session 4: Open Space – conference participants present their ideas – posters / 5 minute presentations

    15:30 Drawing it together – what have we learnt – where do we go next

    16:00 Drinks

    Open education and the Cape Town Declaration

    December 3rd, 2007 by Graham Attwell

    Like Stephen, I am usually the first to support any iniative around Open Content. And I am a great fan of the OECD Open Educational resources project. But like Stephen, I also have serious reservations about the Cape Town open Education Declaration.

    Stephen says” First, the document promotes a view of learning rooted almost completely in the educational system. We do not get any sense from the document that students can or should learn on their own, or that this movement is even for students at all. The focus in on educators sharing with each other.
    “Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational resources on the Internet, open and free for all to use. These educators are creating a world where each and every person on earth can access and contribute to the sum of all human knowledge.”

    “There is no sense of the possibility, much less the desirability, of this development being fostered by, for the benefit of, people other than educators. I would like to think and hope that we all are creating this world. I would like to think that the tradition of “sharing good ideas” is something that all people, not just educators, have in common.
    More significantly, dividing the world in this way almost immediately creates practical problems. The document tells us that the open education movement “is built on the belief that everyone should have the freedom to use, customize, improve and redistribute educational resources without constraint.”

    This significantly limits the domain of knowledge under discussion, as it contemplates only “educational resources”. Oh! What a far cry from the rather more laudable objective of Wikipedia: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.”

    Second, and related, the document fosters a particular culture of learning, one where content is provided and licensed by content producers, and then consumed in a particular way by learners…..”
    The long simmering debate over the future of education came close to the surface in discussions at Educa Online Berlin. On the one hand there was Andrew Keen, ranting against the freedom to create open and shared knowledge, allowing “monkeys with typewriters” to have the audacity to put forward their own ideas and even more so for others to recognise these ideas. Keen blames this on a Silicon valley culture dominated by anti authoritarian ex-hippies. In truth Keen wants knowledge to be privatised, a commodity to be judged for quality by the market. Such a move would represent an extension of capitalism. and that extension of capitalism into the learning sphere was only too clear in the commericalism of the conference exhibition. This was not an exhibition about learning but an exhibition displaying commodities for sale.

    The alternative vision – which I tried to outline in my speech – is that of extending the movement towards openness, the movement which allows users to produce as well as consume, the movement towards learners being able to control their own learning environment – extending that movement so that learners themselves can shape the total learning environment. And that means recognising the different contexts in which learning takes place, recognising different forms of learning and above all recognising and valuing these different forms and contexts of learning. That of course represents a challenge to those institutions that have assumed they have a monopoly on learning – the universities and research institutes. that is not to say that universities and schools have no place in the future – neither am I trying to deny that formal learning can be important and appropriate.

    But this is just the reason why it is so important that The Capetown declaration gets it right. There is a debate going on on the Unesco list serve over the declaration. But this mainly seems to be centred on whether we should use the term ‘libre’ or ‘open’. To me that is not the most important issue. Far more important is a vision of learning in the future. And to extend access to lifelong learning for all we need new visions, visions that go beyond commercialisation and beyond the present schooling system.

    The Future of e-Learning

    December 3rd, 2007 by Graham Attwell

    Whilst at Online Educa Berlin, I was interviewed by colleagues from the Swedish Learning Space on the future of e-learning. I visited their stand later. amongst the usual frenzy of commercial stands, all desperately trying to sell bits of technology which looked depressingly alike, it was a pleasure to find thoughtful people willing to spend time discussing ideas.

    Anyway you can watch the video on the Swedish Learning Space web site.

    e-Learning and the Social Shaping of Technology

    December 3rd, 2007 by Graham Attwell

    If you are interested in the ideas behind my presentation at Online Educa Berlin, I have written several papers around the theme of Web 2.0 and Personal Learning Environments.

    One was posted in a previous entry on the Wales Wide Web here.

    A more in depth exposition of the ideas is contained in a paper called ‘E-Learning und die soziale Gestaltung der Technik’ – “e-Learning and the Social Shaping of Technology”. I am trying to find an English version of this paper. for those of you who can read German here is the introduction to the paper and a link to a download for the full paper.

    Der Diskurs um die “Wissensgesellschaft”, so wie er seit mittlerweile vier Jahrzehnten in der wissenschaftlichen Öffentlichkeit geführt wird, war von Beginn an mit technikoptimistischen Annahmen verknüpft. Dabei haben in der Frühphase des Wissensgesellschaftsdiskurses die Sozialwissenschaften und die technisch ausgerichteten Wissenschaften wie Ingenieurswissenschaften oder Maschinenbau eine zentrale Rolle gespielt (Bell 1973). Während die technischen Anwendungswissenschaften mühelos nahezu jede Idee in die Praxis umzusetzen schienen, versprach man sich von den Sozialwissenschaften die Expertise, Gesamtgesellschaften so effizient steuern und planen zu können, dass selbst die kapitalistische oder real-sozialistische Verfasstheit der sozialen Einheiten eine untergeordnete Rolle spielte (Richta & Kollektiv 1972; Touraine 1972). Dieser technikoptimistische Zug hat sich bis heute gehalten, allerdings in stark modifizierter Form. Es sind nunmehr weniger die Wissenschaften selbst als die Potenziale der technisch vermittelten Medien, die die Fortschrittsprojektionen nachhaltig anregen. Eine überragende Bedeutung besitzt die Schlüsseltechnologie Computer im Zusammenhang mit dem Medium Internet. In dem vorliegenden Beitrag soll es um eine besondere Variante der Fortschrittsprojektionen gehen, die mit dem Computer und dem Internet verbunden werden: um das elektronisch gestützte oder elektronisch basierte Lernen, das so genannte E-Learning.
    E-Learning ist eine relativ neue Technologie, und daher steckt auch die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung mit diesem Thema noch in den Kinderschuhen. Dennoch gibt es mittlerweile eine umfangreiche Literatur zum Thema, und Lernen mittels neuer Medien wird zunehmend als eigenständige Disziplin anerkannt. Die überwältigende Mehrheit der einschlägigen Studien, und zwar sowohl die affirmativen/optimistischen wie die skeptischen, ist jedoch, bezogen auf die Technologie selbst, deterministisch, d.h. befasst sich nur mit deren Potentialen und Auswirkungen auf Bildung und Lernen, anstatt auch umgekehrt die Einflüsse des Lernens und Lehrens auf die Technik ins Auge zu fassen.

    Der vorliegende Aufsatz geht von der Annahme aus, dass sowohl die Technologien selbst als auch ihre Anwendungen durch politische und soziale Prozesse geformt werden. Wenn Lernen ein sozialer Prozess ist, dann muss jede Überlegung über die Entwicklung und die Auswirkungen des E-Learning und seiner Technologien auch die sozialen, ökonomischen und kulturellen Prozesse und Diskurse mit einbeziehen, welche an der Entwicklung und Implementierung der neuen Technologien im Bildungsprozess beteiligt sind.

    Dieser Aufsatzgeht davon aus, dass drei dominante Diskurse die Entwicklung und Implementierung des E-Learning geprägt haben, nämlich zunehmende Warenförmigkeit und Privatisierung von Bildung sowie drittens ein verkürzter Diskurs über lebenslanges Lernen, welche ihrerseits wieder auf allgemeineren Diskursen rund um Globalisierung und die Privatisierung des Wissens basieren.
    Der Artikel beinhaltet zum einen eine Auseinandersetzung mit verschiedenen Konzepten des E-learning, aber auch mit Konzepten des informellen Lernens, so wie sie sich im Diskurs über E-learning finden lassen. Ferner wird auf Ergebnisse empirischer Forschung zurückgegriffen, die im Rahmen internationaler, EU-finanzierter Projekte erfolgte. Diese Diskurse werden im folgenden nachgezeichnet um anschließend an einigen Beispielen zu zeigen,wie sie die Entwicklung und Anwendung von E-Learning-Technologien in den jeweiligen Anwendungsfeldern beeinflußt haben.
    Die Entwicklung des Kapitalismus und kapitalistischer Gesellschaften jedoch stellt sich widersprüchlich dar, nämlich als dialektischer Entwicklungsprozess und als (Klassen-)Kampf. Obwohl also bestimmte Diskurse die derzeitige Periode des Kapitalismus sehr wohl dominieren und auch die Entwicklung der E-Learning-Technologien geprägt haben, gibt es alternative und widersprüchliche Trends. Einige Kommentatoren verweisen etwa auf das E-Learning als eine Technologie mit potentieller (sozialer) Sprengkraft. Außerdem mehren sich die Hinweise darauf, dass die Lernenden selber die Technologien in anderer Weise und für andere Zwecke als die ursprünglich vorgesehenen benutzen. Zur Illustration dieser Entwicklung werde ich auf die Ergebnisse einer von der EU-Kommission finanzierten Studie über den Gebrauch von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien beim Lernen in kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen zurückgreifen. Abschließend wird der Aufsatz der Frage nachgehen, wie sich diese neuen Gebrauchsweisen von Technologie auf Bildung im digitalen Zeitalter und Möglichkeiten des Engagements in einer zivilen Gesellschaft auswirken könnten.

    E-Learning und die soziale Gestaltung der Technik

    Web 2.0, social software and Personal Learning Environments

    December 2nd, 2007 by Graham Attwell

    Thanks to all of you for your kind comments about my keynote presentation at Online Educa Berlin. Here are the slides from the presentation. Coming soon – the video and two papers – one in English and one in German explaining the key ideas on which the presentation was based.

    plugin by rob

    • Search Pontydysgu.org

      Social Media




      News Bites

      Cyborg patented?

      Forbes reports that Microsoft has obtained a patent for a “conversational chatbot of a specific person” created from images, recordings, participation in social networks, emails, letters, etc., coupled with the possible generation of a 2D or 3D model of the person.


      Racial bias in algorithms

      From the UK Open Data Institute’s Week in Data newsletter

      This week, Twitter apologised for racial bias within its image-cropping algorithm. The feature is designed to automatically crop images to highlight focal points – including faces. But, Twitter users discovered that, in practice, white faces were focused on, and black faces were cropped out. And, Twitter isn’t the only platform struggling with its algorithm – YouTube has also announced plans to bring back higher levels of human moderation for removing content, after its AI-centred approach resulted in over-censorship, with videos being removed at far higher rates than with human moderators.


      Gap between rich and poor university students widest for 12 years

      Via The Canary.

      The gap between poor students and their more affluent peers attending university has widened to its largest point for 12 years, according to data published by the Department for Education (DfE).

      Better-off pupils are significantly more likely to go to university than their more disadvantaged peers. And the gap between the two groups – 18.8 percentage points – is the widest it’s been since 2006/07.

      The latest statistics show that 26.3% of pupils eligible for FSMs went on to university in 2018/19, compared with 45.1% of those who did not receive free meals. Only 12.7% of white British males who were eligible for FSMs went to university by the age of 19. The progression rate has fallen slightly for the first time since 2011/12, according to the DfE analysis.


      Quality Training

      From Raconteur. A recent report by global learning consultancy Kineo examined the learning intentions of 8,000 employees across 13 different industries. It found a huge gap between the quality of training offered and the needs of employees. Of those surveyed, 85 per cent said they , with only 16 per cent of employees finding the learning programmes offered by their employers effective.


      Other Pontydysgu Spaces

      • Pontydysgu on the Web

        pbwiki
        Our Wikispace for teaching and learning
        Sounds of the Bazaar Radio LIVE
        Join our Sounds of the Bazaar Facebook goup. Just click on the logo above.

        We will be at Online Educa Berlin 2015. See the info above. The stream URL to play in your application is Stream URL or go to our new stream webpage here SoB Stream Page.

    • Twitter

    • Recent Posts

    • Archives

    • Meta

    • Categories