Pontydysgu – Bridge to Learning

I am a big fan of Mr. Downes. Usually I agree with what he says. But I think Stephen has called this one wrongly. In a comment in OL Daily on my post on last weeks open seminar on Edupunk Stephen says:

“In the 1980s, punk was replaced with what became known as New Wave. New Wave was a lot like punk, except that the artists were so dirty, untrustworthy, and disreputable. It represented, to many, the co-opetion [sic] of this movement. So when I read “Martin is seeking to open up the VLE and apply the ideas of edupunk in an institutional context [and not as] as subversive or a challenge to the establishment but rather as a way of enhancing the teaching and learning environment,” I want to call it N-Ed Wave or some such thing. Talking Heads. Human League. Soft Cell. Oh gawd. Say it ain’t so.”

I am not convinced about the movement from punk to New Wave. But as I said in my original article, we need to establish edupunk as having a meaning in its own right. The music analogy is getting stretched and has limited further purchase.

But coming back to Stephen’s comments about what Martin Ebner is doing, I disagree. Edupunk is about doing it yourself, about opening up educational technology to the users. And that can take many forms of activity. In a previous Evolve seminar on Personal Learning environments. In a CETIS presentation on Personal Learning and Web 2.0, Scott Wilson acknowledged the challenges posed by Web 2.0 to institutions. They could he siad, ignore, co-opt through embracing and extending or could invert though contributing and extending. Institutions should move:

• From hosting to consultancy (HE no longer an ISP or corporate IT provider)
• From closed to open ethos: on content, systems, processes
• Adding value to the Internet, not duplicating functionality with added control mechanisms

Individuals could contribute:

• Our information – data, research, publications, content via open web APIs
• Our expertise
• Our offerings and products
• Our role as facilitators, guides, and trusted source

Martin Ebner is working within Graz University to contribute and extend the use of Web 2.0 for learning . And for me that is certainly within the Edupunk ‘tradition’. In a great post entitled ‘Learning to Love the term Edupunk‘, Frances Bell says she realises that that she has “missed a dimension that Chris Sessums captures in his response to a blog post on a previous Edupunk sessions

“Edupunk embodies this notion of educators as artists, those who intentionally trace and explore traditional boundaries and human expression. The edupunk meme signifies more than just a tart phrase pasted on the media landscape. To truly understand its meaning, you have to live it.”

That is really important, to capture the creative outlets that an edupunk approach offers to teachers and other learners.  I am prepared to live it, and am privileged to work with students in higher education who are negotiating challenging boundaries in learning, work and society.”

Jim Groom has also been posting a series of articles showing how the edupunk idea can be practised in education.

The disucssions on edupunk have the potential to evolve a new idea and vision of education and of the uses to technology for learning. That means not just talking but acting. Acting in collbaoration, acting as individual researchers and acting within institutions. As Frances Bell says: “Edupunk is only the beginning.”

A silly term, a fad, middle aged white male educational technologists at play? Edupunk has been called all of those but it won’t go away. Why is that? Because edupunk defined by Jim Groom as ” An approach to teaching and learning practices that results from a do it yourself attitude….inventive teaching and inventive learning” sums up the direction in which many of us which to see technology used in education.

This week saw the final of the spring series of open web based seminars organised jointly by the UK Jisc funded Evolve network and the German EduCamp organisation. And, appropriately enough the subject was edupunk.

There were two very different takes on the edupunk movement by the presenters. Martin Ebner from Graz Univeristy started by quoting Antonio Fumero who said “It’s not about matching traditional models with existing tools any more; it’s about developing a brand new pedagogical modal and implementing the next generation web environment upon it. He contrasted the goals of creativity, individuality and collaboration to the “closed castle of the university.”

Martin said universities need edupunks. But rather than radical preaching, Graz has adopted a practical strategy of trying to open up the university VLE and learning support systems to allow students and staff to use their own tools for creating and consuming content. Martin said the “learning environment of the future has to support the individual learning needs of the learners….has to  support the lecturers as well and …has to consider the web as [a] communication and collaboration environment.”

Steven Wheeler from Plymouth University had a more radical approach – or at least he would have if his university network hadn’t closed him out of the Elluminate platform used for the seminar. On his blog he explained what he would have said:

1. “Edupunk is a philosophy deeply rooted in the belief that educators can ‘do it themselves’, and use tools that are open, ‘free’ and non-proprietary. It’s a movement against the commoditization of learning and against corporate profiteering. It is not just about selecting open tools and technologies. It is also about the freedom to choose the methods of teaching that are open and student centred. I would even go as far as to claim that Edupunk teachers should be challenging the curricula they are required to teach, and especially the assessment methods that are imposed from on high. These are the structures that constrain education and stop learners from achieving their full potential.
2. Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and in particular Learning Management Systems (LMSs) contribute toward restrictive practices in education and constrain both learner and teacher to operate within a model of learning that is institutionally beneficial, but does little for the learner themselves. VLEs are generally difficult to use, with far too much effort needed to be put into understanding how the system works, to the detriment of the time and effort spent actually learning.
3. An exemplification of Edupunk philosophy is the rise of the personal learning environment (PLE) in which the learner selects his/her own tools and technologies to apply in formal and informal learning. Typical PLEs will incorporate a social networking service, reflective and collaborative tools, e-mail and a mobile device. I use a mashup of wiki (shell to aggregate all tools and provide a collaborative space), blogs (reflective tool and mind amplification space) and Twitter (microblog to update and inform and also to receive ideas and contact from others with a similar interest to me). I also use my wireless laptop and iPhone as communication/end tools.
4. Edupunk is more than ‘do it yourself’. It is also a counterculture against corporate control and exploitation of learning, and brings the punk band (the teacher) closer to the audience (learner group). It is unashamedly anarchic and harks back to the concept of ‘deschooling society’ first proposed by Ivan Illich in the 1970s. Illich famously argued that we don’t need funnels (directional learning through institutional control) but webs (multi-directional, hyperlinked learning that can be tailored by the individual to her/his own needs). Rhizomatic approaches to learning fall into this kind of philosophy.”

This is interesting. Both Martin and Steve embrace the idea of edupunk. Both are supporting the introduction of Personal Learning Environments. But whilst Steve sees edupunk ” bricolage, anarchy and subversion and a challenge to the establishment” and the VLE as contributing to restrictive practices,  Martin is seeking to open up the VLE and apply the ideas of edupunk in an institutional context. He does not appear to see it as subversive or a challenge to the establishment but rather as a way of enhancing the teaching and learning environment.

Could it just be that the idea of edupunk is now becoming part of the mainstream and as it does different strategies will emerge? Is it also possible that edupunk is becoming a (valuable) concept in itself without the need to be viewed as an analogy to the punk music scene of the 1970s. I hope so.

If you want to listen to the debate the Elluminate replay of the seminar is available on line.

I am speaking at the Plymouth elearning conference on 23 and 24 April. Steve Wheeler asked me to produce a summary of my presentation for the conference publication.

This was a problem. Firstly, I am bad at writing summaries. Secondly, I never know quite what I will say until I say it. But finally I have sat down and written it. I quite like it. I think it provides a summary of the different ideas around which we are centring our work at Pontydysgu.

Social software, personal learning environment and the future of education

The presentation  will look at the impact of recent developments in social software and the possible impact on education.

The origins of the word curricula, coming from the Latin word    ‘currere’ – a running race, a course or career can be contrasted to the origins of the word learning coming from the old Gothic word ‘Gleis’, meaning to tack, to follow and to find a path, the Gothic ‘leis’ which means to know and the the old English ‘learnien’ – to get knowledge.

Our education systems and institutions have been based around the original idea of curriculum, with winners and losers, the
same starting point and same finish point for all participants and with progression being seen as
a straight line between the two. Above all our educational institutions have been developed around the idea of homogeneity.

Such an idea of homogeneity was reinforced by the first industrial revolutions which led to the expansion of a schooling system to develop the skills needed by the workforce in a production economy.

The introduction of social software allows the exploration of different  learning pathways, and learning through exploring, wandering and funding the way.  Social networking tools allow learners to make connections, to  take individual choices about the direction of their learning within personal learning networks. Learning is based on bricolage – on making creative and resourceful use of whatever materials are to hand, regardless of their original purpose.

Teachers and trainers have a new role as mentors and guides to scaffold and support learning.

In terms of the future development of educational technology we need tools to help explore pathways, develop connections and to take control of own learning. This is turn requires a greater degree of engagement between developers, educational technologists and practitioners.

Education systems need greater flexibility to provide learners with their own space, to work at their own speed and at their own level, to define their own knowledge areas and make their own connections. Institutions can take the first steps in this by unlocking their resources and opening up their VLEs, by providing more and different ways of accessing services and by focusing IT support on services rather than systems.

The emergence of the Personal Learning Environment (PLE) is an important  step in this respect. PLEs can provide tools to help learners make and sustain connections, to help learners organise, scaffold and take responsibility for their learning and to manage and handle learning content. PLEs can also provide tools for recording and representing and sharing the learning ‘bricolage’
.

The emergence of new patterns and forms of learning based on social software provide a great opportunity to extend learning opportunities and to embed learning in every day work and living. At the same time it poses a challenge to educations systems and institutions who no longer have a monopoly on knowledge development and transmission.

Pontydysgu is happy to be a sponsor of BanglaCymru. The charity’s web site explains their aims.

“Bangladesh, according to United Nations statistics is Asia’s poorest country, and more children are born with cleft lip / palate here than in any other part of the world. It’s estimated that five thousand children are born with this condition in Bangladesh annually but only half of them are treated because of lack of funds and medical provision. So many of these are living lives of shame, isolation and scorn mainly due to ignorance and superstition. The operation we offer changes their lives dramatically, not only visually, but also emotionally, socially and economically.

The aim of BanglaCymru is to offer treatment for these poor unfortunate children, to raise awareness about the condition and what can be done to correct it and to offer help in the form of advice, information and treatment in their own locality, especially for those who cannot afford to travel. Our ultimate hope is to create our own self-sufficient and autonomous medical team and establish ‘cleft’ medical centres in outlying areas of Bangladesh.

The medical co-ordinator is able to negotiate the best financial deals when organising the operations. Each operation costs only 100 GBP (130 takas). Not a penny goes on administration, and the only costs are the bank charges and the maintenance of this website.”

I was sent an (unasked for) email about a new journal. Academic spam. But there was an article I was interested in. And so instead of consigning the email to my spam box (as I should have) I followed the link – only to get this message.

Aaah. Why bother sending me this information if it is not open for me to read. The policy of closed journals is one which has lasted too long. It is time for change </end rant>.

Monday 6 April sees the last of our spring series of open online seminars, organised by the Jisc Evolve project together with Educamp Germany.the seminar is at 1800 UK time, 1900 CET.

And appropriately enough, this seminar is on Edupunk, featuring presentations by Steve Wheeler and Martin Ebner.

You can participate by logging into the Elluminate site – just put in your name, no password required.

• “Edupunk is an approach to teaching and learning practices that result from a do it yourself attitude.” (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edupunk)
• Why and how far students should be involved in the developing process  of courses?
• Are Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) standard tools for Edupunks?
• Which limitations do current educational systems increasingly reach and how can those be resolved?
• How can an individual and self dependent learning be fostered stronger by students?
• Does e-teaching and e-learning need a pedagogical apprenticeship?

More about the seminar here.

I attended a workshop on ‘Pedagogical innovations in new ICT-facilitated learning communities’ organised by the IPTS in Seville earlier this week. And very interesting it was too.

Sadly, though, the IPTS had nots et up a dynamic site for the workshop. No problem. We qyuickly agreed on #ipts as the hash tag for the five or six of us addicted to Twitter.

And Grainne Conole hacked together a site on the UK Open University’s alpha Cloudworks software in about ten minutes (I am very impressed with Cloudworks – if you haven’t already, give it a look).

There were extremely interesting presentations by Kirsti Ala-Mutka and Etienne Wenger. I am not great at taking notes at meetings (and was busy twittering anyway). But Grainne put together this excellent summary of Etienne’s presnetation, taken from the Cloudworks site.

Learning in practice – a social perspective, Wenger’s Community of Practice (CoP) theory. Four aspects

1. Community – Where do we belong?
2. Identity – Who are we becoming?
3. Meaning – What is our experience?
4. Practice – What are we doing?

Who are our students and how do they know who they are and how they are placed in society?

Original communities of practice theory was developed before the emergence of the web

Meaning and meanfulness are a key component of the theory BUT its about developing meaning making in the real world, situated nature of learning is crucial

There is a real issue in terms of educational systems validating informal learning – there is a real tension between vertical vs. horizontal learning. This tension is not resolvable – we need to live with it and understand the paradoxes and contradictions.

Complex inter-relationship between: space, time, locality, practice, boundary crossings between different practices. For example trainee doctor in the hospital in one practice, translation of this experience into ‘evidence for assessment purposes’ needs to then be ‘validated’ by auditors in another community of practice.

One of the trends in the perfect storm of web 2.0, communities in the 21st century which emerged around the time that CoP was developed was that organisations in the nineties were struggling with what it means to be a knowledge organisation? Some looked to CoP theory as a means of trying to address this.

At this time knowledge management was 10% technology 90% people, but much of the discourse was on the technologies but it was harder to understand the human dimensions and what this meant in terms of connections, collective understanding, etc.

Core and boundary learning
What are the implications of a theory like this for professional educational?

Think of a body of knowledge as a curriculum whereas in reality it is a system of inter-connected practices, have a set of different practices which are producing the body of knowledge which define what ‘teaching’, ‘nursing’, ‘mathematics’ is.

Therefore ideally the education for a nurse or teacher would be to find your place in that landscape of practices, to find your identity. If we think along these lines we will need to rethink our educational practice – we put too much emphasis on the mechanics of learning rather than on the development of meaning making.

A complex landscape – modes of identification
Process of identity formation

1. Imagination – how do we imagine ourselves? Imagination as an image of the world such as it makes sense of who I am
2. Engagement -
3. Alignment – way you express your belonging to the community, what you do and don’t do as part of belonging to a community
4. How does learning exist as an experience of being in the world?

First storm was organisations (both businesses and governments) trying to create horizontal communities so that they can learn from each other etc

Second storm – emergence of the web and its potential impact, but this was very much aligned with the CoP practices – a Perfect storm – peer to peer interactions, development of practices etc. The web has changed the landscape for understanding community and identity

Trends shaping technology and community – a learning agenda

• Fabric of connectivity – always on, virtual presence
• Modes of engagement – generalised self-expression, mass collaboration, creative re-appropriation
• Active medium – social computing, semantic web,, digital footprint
• Reconfigured geographies – homesteading of the web, individualisation of orientation
• Modulating polarities – togetherness and separation, interacting and publishing, individual and group
• Dealing with multiplicity – competing services, multi-membership, thin connections
• New communities – multi-space, multi-scale, dynamic boundaries, social learning spaces

In this video Jisc Emerge Project co-ordinator, George Roberts, explains the ideas behind the Emerge project and discusses how to facilitate online communities of practice.

As a member of the project team I have greatly enjoyed being involved with Emerge. However,there is an English language saying: “All good things come to an end.” And sadly the JISC Emerge project has come to the end of its funding period.

In the abstract of a forthcoming publication we explain “The Emerge project aimed to support the development of a sustainable community of practice (CoP) in the area of emerging technologies for education. This comprised individuals, groups and funded projects whose focus was around the use of social tools and services for enhancing learning and teaching. The Emerge project team developed a range of existing social software tools and practices to facilitate the needs of the emerging CoP. Seven critical phases of activity were identified during the life-cycle of the Emerge project and the CoP that grew around the JISC Users and Innovation programme. Each of these phases, from initial engagement to building for sustainability, required different support mechanisms and approaches. In response, the Emerge team adopted an agile approach to community support – adapting the tools, services and activities that were offered over time to meet emerging community needs. Our conclusions suggest that it is possible to identify a range of benefits and likely outcomes to deploying social networking and social media tools to scaffold community emergence. However, the form and patterns of interaction that develop across a community over time cannot be approached prescriptively. There is a need to be sensitive to the dynamic and changing needs of the community and its’ processes and meet the changing demands for meaningful social and collaborative spaces. This impacts on the type and form of the tools and services that need to be made available to the community. Deploying an iterative and agile model to scaffold the community is a key factor to active participation by its membership and the successful development of community identities. In this way it is possible to define and support a community centre which anchors distributed practice in a manageable and accessible way.”

For now, the Emerge project web site has been suspended, although public posts may still be searched and accessed. A new Emerge Reports site also provides access to the products of the project. As George Roberts says in an email to Emerge site members “One key message from our analysis is that a community has many modes of participation. It would be a mistake to assume that the presence of a website indicates either the presence or absence of a community. There is a network of people who have been very active in creating the Users and Innovation Programme and the Emerge community. This network of people persists. Discussions are ongoing concerning how this network might make its presence visible on the Internet or if a site similar to this one might be required.”

My personal view is that there is a space for such a network or community presence, based on the exchange of practice in Technology Enhanced Learning. How such a presence can be facilitated, governed and resourced is another issue.

In the meantime, my thanks to George and all the other members of the team what have made working on the Emerge project so interesting and enjoyable.

Also many thanks to Dirk for a magic editing job on this video.

It has been a hectic two weeks. I have lots of updates for this site in progress. One thing I have been working on is bids for the EU Lifelong Learning programme. And for this round of funding calls they issued an electronic form programmed for the Adobe 9 reader. Full marks for trying. But of course there were bugs. Quite a few. A friend of mine contacted the help line over one of the bugs he was encountering. And this in the wonderful reply he received.

“Where there is only 1 partner recorded for the affected workpackage (Part F.3) you will need to add a second partner row, enter the desired lead partner number in that second row and then delete the first row (the original lead partner). You should then save the form, close and re-open it. This will reinstate the Lead partner header that was lost when you deleted the original lead partner.

If you already have more than 1 partner recorded in the affected workpackage (part F.3), then add the partner you want to be the lead partner as a new row (if they’ve not already been added * ).
Then delete the partners above the new row STARTING WITH the original lead partner.
Once you have deleted these partners you will be left with your new lead partner at the top of the list.
Save, close and re-open the form to reinstate the header.
Re-enter the deleted partners as required.

(* If the new lead partner is already in the list then you just need to delete the partners above it, but still starting with the original lead partner. And you will still need to save, close and re-open the form to re-instate the header.)”

Got it now!