Pontydysgu – Bridge to Learning

This year’s Leonardo@Ars Electronica 2010 symposium focuses on the dual issues of interdisciplinary research in art, design, science and technology as well as relevant models of PhD degree studies. It is organized as a public event for media and art educators, teachers and researchers to take place on September 6 at the University of Art and Industrial Design, Hauptplatz 8, 4020 Linz, A&B rooms (see here for venue). The symposium is coordinated by Nina Czegledy, Leonardo/ISAST and Dr. Daniela Reimann, KIT, in collaboration with Prof. Dr. Angelika Plank, University of Art and Industrial Design, Linz and in conjunction with Ars Electronica. Please find below the preliminary program:

10.00
Welcome. Prof. Dr. Angelika Plank, Head Departments of Art Education and interim of Media Design /Teacher Training Program, University of Art and Industrial Design, Linz

10.15
Greetings: Representative of the Federal Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture

10.30
Welcome: Nina Czegledy on behalf of Leonardo/ISAST

10.40
Introduction: Educational research and new models of knowledge transfer.
Nina Czegledy, KMDI University of Toronto, Concordia University Montreal

11.00 DI Christopher Lindinger, Ars Electronica Futurelab, Visiting Professor Media Design/Teacher Training Program, University of Art and Industrial Design, Linz Future Elevation

11.30 Dr. Daniela Reimann, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology KIT, Institute of Vocational and General Education, KIT-focus “Humans and Technology”, researcher, and consultant of the Media Design/Teacher Training Program, University of Art and Industrial Design Linz:
Crossing the borders of arts, science and technology in education

12:00 Prof. Dr. Jillian Scott, Head Head, Karmen Franinovic, The Zürich Node of
Plymouth University in the Institute of Cultural Studies, Zürich University of the Arts
- www.z-node.net

12.30 Lunch Break

13.30 Dr. Lanfranco Aceti, Associate Professor, Contemporary Art & Digital Culture Sabanci University, Istanbul, Artistic Director and Lead Curator ISEA2011, Istanbul:
Transmediation of content and people across disciplines: The challenges of hybrid teaching and Hybrid Students.

14.00 Karen Lancel, artist and educator, HKU Utrecht, Academy Minerva, Groningen
currently developing a policy paper on practice based PhD studies. New parameters
for an online practice based phd.Case study: TELE TRUST

14.30 Michael John Gorman, Founding Director of Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin:
The Art-Science Interface and the public face of the research university: Lessons from the first two years of Science Gallery at Trinity College Dublin”

15.00 Open discussion.

15.30 Closing Remarks

16.30 end of session

Symposium Abstract
An increasing need is manifested to develop new curricula informing innovative qualifications, new job profiles in the field of media design research and education, that is design inspired research, and design strategies including a research approach.
Working towards a sustainable convergence between educational research in design, science and technology remains a burning issue. The introduction of new forms of art practice and design at the intersection of media, arts, science and technology requires the introduction and application of distinguished qualification for educators. Yet in several European countries PhD degrees are not yet available in media arts and interdisciplinary studies.

What kind of new art genres are being developed by artists’ creative use of mixed media technologies, visual culture and communities and what is their impact on education? How is design research and education being embedded in the new modular curricula structures? What are the most effective elements of curricula to educate artists as well as art teachers for the future? Media design today is not only a means for research, but also an overall approach towards research shaping new possibilities opening up through design, design research (Laurel, 2004) as well as learning through (game) design (Kafai, 1994). The artistic aspects of interaction have been gradually explored and implemented within the framework of Interface Culture by Sommerer and Mignonneau (2008). An emerging tendency towards research orientation can be also observed as a broader trend in the field of arts and design. Interactive media art is blurring disciplines and has been reflected as a means to trigger and inspire creative processes in education (Reimann, 2006). The tool of design as social intervention is also becoming a hot topic for scholarly research as well as applied studies.

The changing media and art education institutions require an interactive debate on the conditions and evaluation criteria for developing new models for institutional networks and qualifications that allow implementing the media arts across curricula structures. Thus the symposium investigates through international presenters and open discussion the increasingly important issues of interdisciplinary research and higher teaching qualifications, including the initial art and design teacher training programs.

Aims and objectives:
To inspire an open discussion by educators and the public on burning issues towards developing an international dialogue.

For updates please access the Ars Electronica Web site here or the Web site of the Media Design Teacher Training @ the University of Art and Industrial Design for program details.

Please find the Web site of Ars 2010 here at:

One of the most cited reasons for the limited success in introducing new pedagogies for the use of technology for teaching and learning – and indeed for the lack of technology use on education – is resistance by teachers. Various reasons are cited for this – most often it is their own lack of ability and confidence is using technology. however, much of the evidence for this appears to be anecdotal In the last few years there has been more systematic research under the banner of ‘teacher dispositions’.
In her study, In-service Initial Teacher Education in the Learning and Skills Sector in England: Integrating Course and Workplace Learning (2010) Bronwen Maxwell says “dispositions, which ‘develop and evolve through the experiences and interactions within the learner’s life course’ (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2003), are influential in teacher learning (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2005). They are largely held unconsciously and ‘are embodied, involving emotions and practice, as well as thoughts’. : She points out that teachers in the sector have different “prior experiences of education, life and work, begin teaching at different ages and stages in their careers, and hold differing beliefs about education and training, so bring differing dispositions to participation in their course and workplace.”
Maxwell (ibid) point to a well established research base evidencing the significance of prior knowledge, skills and dispositions towards work and career on engagement in workplace learning including for example Eraut (2007) and Hodkinson (2004) and a strong evidence base that “attests to the strength and resilience of school trainees’ beliefs, which together with prior experiences strongly influences their approaches to practice and their ITE course (Wideen et al. 1998).”
Haydon, (2008) why with the same ‘input’ in Initial Teacher Education courses, do some students make much more progress than others in their use of ICT? “Is it about teacher dispositions towards technology or learning styles and approaches?”
Haydyn suggests there is evidence of changing attitudes by teachers to the use of ICT in the UK Citing surveys that several years ago suggested negative attitudes and teacher resistance to ICT he says “more recently, research has suggested that the majority of teachers have positive views about the potential of ICT to improve teaching and learning outcomes; one of their main concerns was finding time to fully explore this potential (See, for instance, Haydn and Barton, 2006). (Haydon, 2008).”
One of the issues is why teachers appear to use for their personal use but less so for teaching and learning (OECD, 2009). This is born out by UK reports that teacher use ICT widely for lesson planning but far less so for teaching and learning (Twidle, Sorensen, Childs, Godwin, & Dussart, 2006).
The OECD (2009) report similar findings with new teachers in America, confident with the technology and using it for lesson preparation but less for teaching and learning than more experienced colleagues.
Twidle, Sorensen, Childs, Godwin, and Dussart (2008) found that student teachers in the UK feel relatively unprepared to use ICT for pedagogical practices and ascribe this to their lack of operational skills with computers.  One of the reasons for this was the students‘ lack of
But this is contradicted by Bétrancourt (2007) who claims that there is no correlation between student teachers‘ technological competencies and their pedagogical use of ICT. (OECD, 2010)
Vogel (2010) talks about the need for :engagement “conceived as motivation – enthusiasm, interest and ongoing commitment – on the part of an academic teacher to explore the potential of technologies in their practice.”
Vogel quotes Land (2001) who summarised these kinds of person-oriented approach as:

• romantic (ecological humanist): concerned with personal development, growth and well-being of individual academics within the organisation
• interpretive-hermeneutic: working towards new shared insights and practice through a dialectic approach of intelligent conversation
• reflective practitioner: fostering a culture of self- or mutually critical reflection on the part of colleagues in order to achieve continuous improvement

Vogel says “good practice in e-learning is context-specific and impossible to define.” She is concerned that professional development practices have been driven by institutional and technological concerns. Instead she would prefer Argyis and Schon’s (1974) approach to overcoming the divide between espoused theories or beliefs and theories in use or practice:
“Educating students under the conditions that we are suggesting requires competent teachers at the forefront of their field – teachers who are secure enough to recognize and not be threatened by the lack of consensus about competent practice.”
Vogel refers to Browne (2008) who undertook a survey of technology enhanced elearning in Higher Education in the UK. They found that where there was “less extensive use of technology-enhanced learning tools than [the] institutional norm”, this was often because of the perceived irrelevance of TEL to the learning and teaching approach.
Interestingly, where there was more extensive use than the norm, this was primarily attributed to the presence of a champion, who could represent the value of TEL to colleagues..
One of the issues related to teachers disposition appears to be that of time. As long ago as 1998,  Conole and Oliver (1998) said that the demands of technology enhanced learning on time had already been recognised for many years.
Another issue may be the way in which technology is introduced into schools and colleges. Often this is through projects. However the Jisc funded Flourish project suggested that a ‘project’ is not necessarily the best method for introducing a change on this scale. “Staff perceptions of a project mean that they are cautious and unwilling to be the test case, especially when they are taking time to document their own development. There have to be tangible and immediate benefits to engaging in this new way of working.”

References to Follow

The introduction of technology Enhanced Learning into institutions or the workplace implies change. This can be difficult to manage. senior and middle managers complain of resistance by staff to change. Many teachers I talk to would like to use more technology for tecahing and learning, but are frustrated by what they see as organisational inertia or the lack of management backing for change.

My colleague Jenny Hughes, has recently written a chapter called ‘Introducing e-Learning – getting started’ to be published in a forthcoming e-book series. The chapter looks at practical steps to introducing e-learning from the position of a senior manager, a junior manager and classroom teacher. As ever we would be grateful for your feedback on this first draft. Does it make sense to you?.

Introducing e-learning – getting started

If you want to introduce e-learning methods into your organisation the way you go about it will be largely determined by the position you hold. We have considered how you may approach it firstly as a senior manager (e.g Head of HRD or a VET school principal) then as a middle manager (e.g a training officer or section leader) and finally as a classroom teacher or trainer.

Senior manager

Before you even consider introducing e-learning, ask yourself why you are doing it – what problem are you trying to solve with it and what do you want to achieve?  Just as important, how will you know that it has been achieved? What are your targets? Over what time period?  Change needs to be measurable.  ‘Introducing e-learning’ is just not specific enough! Do you want to install a complete learning management system including computerized student / trainee tracking, a repository of materials and course content or would you be happy if a handful of creative teachers or trainers got together and started experimenting with social software tools?

• Consult early and consult often – if you force change on people, problems normally arise.  You need to ask yourself which groups of people will be affected by your planned changes and involve them as early as possible. Check that these people agree with it, or at least understand the need for change and have a chance to decide how the change will be managed and to be involved in the planning and implementation. Use face-to-face communications wherever possible.
• Try to see the picture from the perspective of each group and ask yourself how they are likely to react. For example, older staff may feel threatened and have no interest in adopting new technologies.  The staff who teach IT often consider that e-learning is really under their remit and resent the involvement of other staff in their ‘territory’.   Another very sensitive group will be your IT technicians. They can make or break your plans by claiming they ‘cannot support’ this or that and raising all sorts of security issues and other obstacles.
• Although you may be enthusiastic about e-learning try not to be too zealous – this is not sustainable in the long term. The idea is to convey your enthusiasm and stimulate theirs rather than hard selling e-learning. If you do, people will nod their acceptance then completely disregard it thinking this is yet another of those initiatives that will go away in time. Change is usually unsettling, so the manager, logically, needs to be a settling influence not someone who wants to fire people up with his own passion thinking this will motivate them.

• Think carefully about the time frame. If you think that you need to introduce e-learning quickly, probe the reasons – is the urgency real? Will the effects of agreeing a more sensible time-frame really be more disastrous than presiding over a disastrous change? Quick change prevents proper consultation and involvement, which leads to difficulties that take time to resolve.
• Think about the scale. Are you going for a top down approach which may be standard across the institution and include a Learning Management System and a Learning Content Management System? Or are you going to stimulate small scale explorations in the classroom with a few interested teachers and try to grow e-learning organically?
• Avoid expressions like ‘mindset change’, and ‘changing people’s mindsets’ or ‘changing attitudes’, because this language often indicates a tendency towards imposed or enforced change and it implies strongly that the organization believes that its people currently have the ‘wrong’ mindset.
• Workshops, rather than mass presentations, are very useful processes to develop collective understanding, approaches, policies, methods, systems, ideas, etc.
• Staff surveys are a helpful way to repair damage and mistrust among staff – provided you allow people to complete them anonymously, and provided you publish and act on the findings.
• You cannot easily impose change – people and teams need to be empowered to find their own solutions and responses, with facilitation and support from managers. Management and leadership style and behaviour are more important than policy and sophisticated implementation  processes and. Employees need to be able to trust the organization.
• Lead by example – set up a Facebook group as part of the consultation process, use a page on the organization website to keep people up to date with planned changes, use different media to communicate with staff, make a podcast of your key messages and publish it on YouTube

John Kotter, a professor at Harvard Business School has designed the following eight step model, which we think is really useful so we have included it in full.

• Increase urgency – inspire people to move, make objectives real and relevant.
• Build the guiding team – get the right people in place with the right emotional commitment, and the right mix of skills and levels.
• Get the vision right – get the team to establish a simple vision and strategy, focus on emotional and creative aspects necessary to drive service and efficiency.
• Communicate for buy-in – Involve as many people as possible, communicate the essentials, simply, and to appeal and respond to people’s needs. De-clutter communications – make technology work for you rather than against.
• Empower action – Remove obstacles, enable constructive feedback and lots of support from leaders – reward and recognise progress and achievements.
• Create short-term wins – Set aims that are easy to achieve – in bite-size chunks. Manageable numbers of initiatives. Finish current stages before starting new ones.
• Don’t let up – Foster and encourage determination and persistence – ongoing change – encourage ongoing progress reporting – highlight achieved and future milestones.
• Make change stick – Reinforce the value of successful change via recruitment, promotion, new change leaders. Weave change into culture.

Middle managers

As a middle manager, in some ways you are in the most difficult position if you want to introduce e-learning methods in your classrooms or workplace as you have to convince both those above you and below you. Convincing senior managers is usually fairly easy to start with if you present them with some concrete benefits of using e-learning in a specific context and tell them that in the first instance it will not cost anything. For example, telling management that you are going to get your first year building apprentices to set up a wiki around new materials or record their work experience on a blog and that there are no cost implications is very unthreatening whereas announcing that you are going to introduce e-learning across your department is going to raise all sorts of concerns.

The important thing is that once you have done something, share the success stories with your senior managers – get them to listen to the podcast your apprentices made or invite then to join your engineering students’ Facebook group.  This reassures them they made the right decision in allowing you to get on with it and actively engages them in the process. It is then much easier asking for extra money for a vid cam to improve on the audio podcasting than it would have been without any concrete outcomes.

A lot depends on how familiar your senior managers are with e-learning technologies and pedagogies and whether they are promoting it, indifferent or actively against the ideas.

If they are lacking in knowledge, one of your jobs is to educate them and the best way of doing this is to do some small scale stuff (such as the things suggested above) and show them the results. Make a clear, simple but well produced slide presentation explaining what you want to do and the benefits it will bring. Don’t send it to them as an email attachment – upload it to Slideshare and send them the link. In this way you are ‘training’ your managers in the use of e-learning -  don’t miss an opportunity!

If you do need extra resources, set out a clear proposal showing what is capital cost (such as hardware) and what is recurring revenue cost (such as broadband connection). Make sure you cost in EVERYTHING (see list above) – there is nothing designed to infuriate senior management as much as a proposal that is deliberately under-costed to increase its chances of approval then to find out after implementation has started there are extra costs which, if not met, waste the rest of the investment. Of course, this is true of any proposal but investment in e-learning seems particularly prone to escalating and ‘hidden’ costs.

When it comes to dealing with the people below you, the same rules apply as those set out for senior managers. To these we would add one or two specific ideas.

• Begin with a grass roots approach
• Start where you have most chance of success. – Find out who in your section or department is interested in e-learning or is confident about using ICT. Encourage and ‘grow’ these people and make sure you reward them in some way. (This could be a few hours non-contact time to develop some e-learning materials or chance to go to a training course, conference or visit. )
• Talk about the successes at staff meetings.  Most people will see e-learning as yet more work for which there is no payback – you have to motivate them in some way.
• Find a vocal group of beta testers
• Don’t set strict rules – encourage exploration and experiment
• Create opportunities for staff to look at e-learning being used effectively. This could be visits to other VET schools or training centres, (real or on-line), YouTube videos or practical training sessions – the best are those where they leave with e-learning ideas or materials or other products that they can use immediately in their classroom or work place.
• Encourage staff to join in on-line forums or open meetings about e-learning. If they are not confident to start with, it is perfectly OK to ‘lurk’ in the background occasionally. www.pontydysgu.org is a good site for finding out about on-line events for trainers

• Hold informal training sessions and encourage the use of microblogging as a back channel during training
• Constantly monitor feedback and make changes as needed
• Communicate the stories behind e-learning e.g How did social software start? What made Twitter happen? Will Facebook survive?

Teachers / trainers

If you are an individual teacher or trainer it can be very daunting trying to introduce e-learning into your teaching if you are working in an organisation where there is no experience or culture of e-learning. You cannot change this easily from your position. The best way of influencing things is to just try something out in your own classroom. You are definitely better starting off with some simple web 2.0 based activities as these have no cost implications. Choose this activity carefully – think of any objections that could be raised, however ridiculous. For example –

A Facebook group? – Facebook is banned or even firewalled because staff and trainees waste too much time on it.

A skype video interview between a group of apprentices and a skilled craftsman? – IT support section will not let you access Skype, (which uses a different port, which they will have closed and will not open for ‘security reasons’)

Sharing bookmarks using del.icio.us ? – the students will use it to share porn sites.

An audio podcast may be a good start if you have enough computers with built in mics and speakers or access to a mic and a recording device like an i-pod. Setting up a group wiki around a particular theme is also difficult to object to. Another possibility is to get trainees blogging (For detailed instructions on how to do all this, look at the Taccle handbook)

If you are lucky, you may find that your managers are just glad that someone is interested and give you the freedom to operate. There are very few who will actively prevent you as long as it does not cost them time or money, although you may find that some other staff have a negative attitude.

From this base you can gradually build up a small informal group of like-minded teachers to share ideas or swap materials.  A group of teachers will also have more influence. Make sure any positive outcomes are disseminated, preferably show casing trainees’ work.

One good way of doing this is to print out a list of guest log-ins and passwords to anything you are working on (e.g a wiki) or the url to web pages where your trainees are publishing work. Add a brief explanation and stick it on the wall as well as routinely sending it by email to other staff in your section ‘for information’. This has the double benefit of keeping what you are doing transparent and also makes some people curious enough to click on the hyperlink.

Invite other teachers along to your classroom when you know you will be using e-learning or invite them to drop in to your group meetings.

You will also need to introduce the idea of e-learning to your trainees.  Although many of the younger students will need no convincing, it can be difficult with older workers who may have a very fixed idea of what constitutes ‘training’ or ‘learning’.  Make sure that the first time you introduce a new application to a group that you allow enough time to explain how the technology works and time for them to familiarize themselves with it using a ‘test’ example before you start. For example…”let’s all try setting up a wiki about things to do with Christmas  / the World Cup / the best pubs in …” before you get onto the serious stuff.

This post continues this weeks mini series on new pedagogies for tecahing and learning. This is based on work I am doing for a literature review.

I have been particularly interested in some of the work on digital literacies. The notion of digital literacies has been around for some time, but, at least in an Anglo Saxon context, has tended to be dominated by narrow skill set definitions. Such thinking has not gone away - Learn Direct offer a entry level Digital Literacy certificate based on

• Computer Basics
• The Internet and World Wide Web
• Productivity Programmes
• Computer Security and Privacy
• Digital Lifestyles

And Microsoft’s First Course Toward Digital Literacy claims to  teach absolute beginners to computing about what a valuable tool computers can be in society today, and the basics of using the mouse and the keyboard. The interactive, hands-on lessons will help novices feel comfortable manipulating the mouse and typing on the keyboard (is this what Bill Gates is referring to when he says the Internet will displace the traditional University in 5 years).

But at the same time there has been some more advanced thinking on the meaning of digital literacy, based in part on new understandings of the mulitmodality affordances of Web 2.0 and in part on research into the way young people are using the web.  There is growing evidence that young people have difficulties in interpreting and making judgements and meanings about online materials, be they text, hypertext or multi media. A third influence on this wok is the expanded idea of the importance of design as a means of communication in the wider social environment of Web 2.0.

The wider understandings of Digital Literacies is leading in terms to a move away from narrowly defined skills training towards an exploration of pedagogies in teaching and learning using technologies. I am particularly interested in a pedagogic model developed by the New London Group as long ago as 2000 and represented in the UK Teaching and Learning Programme’s recent publication entitled Digital Literacies (although sometimes a little dense this is well worth reading). The New London Group put forward four components of pedagogy:

• Situated Practice, which draws on the experience of meaning-making in everyday life, the public realm and workplaces;
• Overt Instruction, through which students develop an explicit metalanguage of design;
• Critical Framing, which interprets the social context and purpose of Designs of meaning; and
• Transformed Practice, in which students, as meaning -makers, become designers of social futures.

(Cope and Kalantzis, 2000, p. 7)

What is missing from this model is a social dimension around collaboration. But the model is strong in  its focus on the new social realities engendered by technologies. It is the need to be able to understand and critique those social realities which should inform the development of new pedagogies.

Gazeta wyborcza opublikowała niedawno artykuł Jeffreya Rosena pod tytułem „Sieć. Bez przebaczenia“, w którym autor opisuje problem prywatności w sieci i przytacza przykłady na to, jak negatwywne konsekwencje mogą mieć ślady cyfrowe pozostawione w internecie. Na przykład uczelnia w USA odmawia dyplomu studentce odbywającej staż nauczycielski w liceum, która wstawiła na MySpace swoje zdjęcie w pirackim kapeluszu z kubkiem w ręku, podpisane “pijany pirat”, albo 66-letniemu kanadyjskiemu psychoterapeutcie odmawia się dożywotnio wjazdu do USA na podstawie opisu eksperymentów z LSD  sprzed 30 lat.

Pytania stawiane przez autora w tym kontekście to m.in.:

„Jak żyć w świecie, gdzie internet wszystko rejestruje i niczego nie zapomina, gdzie wiecznie zapamiętana będzie każda fotka, każdy wpis na Twitterze czy blogu, wszystko, co piszemy my i co piszą o nas?“

„Czy pracodawca naprawdę powinien znać  uaktualnienia naszego statusu na Facebooku?“

„Jak kontrolować tożsamość w sieci, która niczego nie zapomina?“

Autor opisuje kilka możliwych rozwiazań (1) technologicznych, (2) ustawodawczych i (3) etycznych i zadaje pytanie, które z nich okażą się najbardziej skuteczne.

Opisywane rozwiązanie technologiczne to m.in.:

-  Zasadę anonimowości przeszukiwań po dziewięciu miesiącach (usuwając część adresu IP), np. Google

-  Nie przechowywanie żadnych identyfikowalnych danych osobowych, np. przeszukiwarka Cuil

- Ustanawianie limitu od minuty do 30 dni, po którym znikają sms-y on z telefonów nadawcy i odbiorcy, pn. TigerText.

- Technologia Vanish, powodującą samozniszczenie po określonym czasie elektronicznych danych.

Opisywane rozwiązania ustawodawcze to m.in.:

- Nowe przepisy, które pozwoliłyby korygować konta internetowe i zmieniać zapis w sieci, np. koncepcja “bankructwa reputacyjnego”, które pozwoliłoby wyczyścić konto i umożliwić “czysty start”.

- Automatyczne analizy reputacji takie jak pomiar statusu towarzyskiego, wiarygodności i przydatności zawodowej.

- Wprowadzenie zakazu zwolnienia bądź odmowy zatrudnienia z powodu dopuszczalnych prawem zachowań w czasie wolnym od pracy, np. na Facebooku, w ramach zakazu dyskryminacji z powodu zachowań po godzinach pracy.

- Wprowadzenie ustaw zobowiązujących portale do usuwania fałszywych i obraźliwych treści.

Opisywane rozwiązania etyczne to m.in:

- Normy społeczne oparte na szacunku i ułatwiające wybaczenie i puszczenie w niepamięć wzajemnych cyfrowych grzechów

- Strategie ekonomiki prywatności, np. uświadomienie sobie, jakie są świadome i nieświadome kompromisy towarzyszące decyzjom o ujawnieniu bądź ukryciu danych, albo rozważania o korzyściach z dzielenia się z innymi informacjami

- Strategie “emocjonalnego powiadomienia”, np. antropomorficzna ikonka, która patrzy na użytkownika z wyrzutem, zanim kliknie “wyślij”

Inne ciekawe informacje z artykułu to:

-       Biblioteka Kongresu USA zapowiedziała, że będzie przechowywać całe publiczne archiwum Twittera od 2006: URL

-       O roli społecznego zapominania w książce “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age”: URL

-       Projekt “Diaspora” jako reakcja na upublicznieniu prywatnych profili użytkowników Facebooka: URL

-       Kampania EU “Think B4 U post” na temat bezpiecznego internetu: URL

-       Firma Reputation Defender zajmująca się ochroną wizerunku online URL

A jakie jest Wasze zdanie na ten temat? W jaki sposób możemy chronić naszą prywatność, bronić naszej reputacji w sieci? Może znacie jeszcze jakieś inne rozwiązania? Które są skuteczne? Porozmawiajmy o tym!

More thoughts on the literature review I am doing on initial training and continuing professional development of teachers on the use of ICT for learning and particularly looking at pedagogic approaches to using technology for teaching and learning.

There is quite a lot of literature on teachers in general schools and some papers and reports on professional development for university teachers. However, there seems to be a big hole when it comes to vocational teachers.  As Phillip Grollmann says “teaching in vocational education has often failed to be acknowledged, despite its significance, ubiquity and its assumed contribution to the welfare, maintenance and progress of society.” And research into vocational education has also always been the ugly sister in educational research. Of course, one answer would be to say the issues regarding the use of technology are just the same as in general schools. But I don’t thing they are.

Grollmann  points out that vocational colleges often have an extended role in supporting innovation and learning at a regional level as well as providing continuing professional development for employees, often related to the introduction of new technologies.

There is a very considerable issue in terms of the domains of knowledge required by vocational teachers. Besides explicit knowledge and practice (for example, pedagogy , knowledge and teaching of subjects) and formal knowledge of the education system and the educational establishment,vocational teachers require implicit knowledge of their occupation (practical experience in work and teaching, vocational pedagogical skills, etc.).

In other words, vocational teachers have a dual identity, an identity as a teacher and an identity as a skilled worker in their own vocational or occupational field.

That dual identity is based on the vocational nature of the curriculum they are teaching. And this effects the use of technology for learning.

Just as in general schools or universities, technology is being used in vocational schools as part of the pedagogic process. And equally this is leading to issues of new pedagogic approaches to tecahing and learning. But at the same time technology is a core part of the focus of vocational programmes. And technology is being used differently in different occupations. So teachers need to know how to use technology to teach about the use of technology in an occupation. In a period of very rapid technological change this poses a challenge. How can vocational teachers keep up to date with their own vocational occupation. And how can technology best be used to learn about technology in an occupational context.

Lars Heienneman has suggested to me that the issues of culture and occupational identities and important here. He suggests that in Germany where the idea of ‘Beruf’ remains strong and vocational teachers are generally held in high esteem, they have a higher level of identity with their occupation, and thus expect to continuously update their occupational skills and knowledge. In the UK, where in general vocational teachers are not held in such high esteem, there is less identification as a skilled and competent vocational practitioner and thus a bigger problem in terms of  modernising practice.

I am not totally convinced. But there appears to be no research on this. Or am I missing something. If so please point me in the right direction.