Pontydysgu – Bridge to Learning

Ten wpis jest zainspirowany dzisiejszą dyskusją na temat microlearningu w ramach kursu #opco11 na Twitter.

Temat tak zwanego microlearningu (czyli “mikro-nauka”) i microcontentu (czyli “mikro-treści”) poruszany jest w głównie w odniesieniu do Web 2.0 i mobile learning.  Nowe formy komunikacji, nauki i pracy, które są w dużej części wynikiem stosowania nowych technologi w codziennym życiu, sprzyja powstawaniu takich miniaturowych form nauki i przekazywania treści.

Szczególnie narzędzia Web 2.0 pozwalają potencjanie każdemu użytkownikowi na tworzenie takich mikro-treści, czyli małych porcji, które można skonsumować niezależnie od pierwotnego kontekstu, w którym te treści powstały (zastrzeżenie: oczywiście na poziomie zależnym od dostępu do technologii i kompetencji niezbędnych do stosowania ich). Takie tworzenie własnych treści w małych porcjach (które żartobliwie można by nazwać  “przekąską na wynos”, ale tylko żartobliwie, bo nie chodzi tu tylko o konsumpcję, ale też produkcję treści) może nabrać różnych form, np. mikro-treścią może być wpis na blogu, komentarz do tego wpisu, tweet (z linkiem do dalszej lektury) na Twitterze, albo krótki film do nauki wsadzony na YouTube.

Mikro-treści są więc w pewnejj części treściami generowanymi przez użytkowników, czyli tzw. “user-generated content”. Ale nie zawsze – są też placówki edukacyjne i firmy, które zajmują sie profesjonalnym tworzeniem micro-treści, np. W ramach szkoleń pracowników albo do celów marketingowych. Mikro-treści i mikro-nauka w połaczeniu z Web 2.0 tworzą kulturę “zrób to sam”,  której każdy może być autorem treści przeznaczonych do nauki i innych celów.

Jakiś czas temu ukazała się na ten temat moja publikacja, w której przedstawiłam koncept microlearningu jako strategię profesjonalnego rozwoju w 21 wieku. Moim zdaniem microlearing umożliwia produktywne wykorzystanie czasu i uczenie się w przerwach, np. podczas podrózy do pracy, w poczekalni u lekaża, w domu po pracy.

Oczywiście jest to tylko dodatkowa forma nauki, która nie powinna powstrzymywać ludzi od przeczytania książki albo brania udziału w dłuższym szkoleniu. Microlearning może byc stosowany sam w sobie, np. kursu w formie małych porcji tekstu lub ćwiczeń na smarfona albo jako uzupełniający element, np. dodatkowe nagrania audio do pogłebienia wcześniej poznanych tematów na iPoda albo webinar wprowadzający w temat przed szkoleniem na żywo. Możliwość kombinacji i formatów technicznych jest tu bardzo duża.

Charakterystyczna cechą mikro-treści jest to, że są one oczywiście krótkie, ale też luźno ze sobą powiązane, tzw. każda porcja może istnieć sama w sobie, musi mieć sens sama w sobie, czyli być koherentną jednostką. W przeciwieństwie do typowych kursów, które budowane są hierarchicznie (najpierw musimy nauczyć się czegoś, aby móc przejść do nastęnego poziomu), mikrolearning polega na tym, że każda mikrotreść może być dowolnie używana przez uczącego się. Z dydaktycznego punktu widzenia interesujące jest to, jak planować krótkie mikro-aktywności wokół takich mikro-treści, np. kolaboratywne pisanie krótkich tekstów (np. streszczeń, raportów) albo komentowanie krótkich nagrań audio/video (np. feedback, własna opinia, ocena).

Na koniec polecam kilka pozycji z literatury angielsko- i niemieckojęzycznej (w kolejnosci alfabetycznej):

• Buchem, Ilona/Hamelmann, Henrike. (2010). Microlearning: a strategy for ongoing professional development. eLearning Papers, 21, September 2010
• Hug, Theo (2007). Didactics of Microlearning: Concepts, Discourses and Examples. Waxmann.
• Kaufmann, Catherine (2006). Microlearing and (Micro)Didaktik. Micromedia eLearning 20 Gaining the Big Picture Proceedings of Microlearning Conference 2006 (2006)
• Lindner, Martin (2006). On Macromedia and Microlearning. ALT-C 2006 Research Paper.

As long ago as 2001, I was contracted to undertake a study of private- public partnership in Greece. This was not into PPPs as then being implemented by the UK Blair government, but rather at looking at partnerships between private sector organisations, academic and research institutions and the State for research and development and innovation.

My conclusions were fairly stark. Far from helping boost research and development in Greece, EU policies as designed to support R and D in the rich north European economies were distorting R and D in Greece and actually inhibiting innovation.

I was looking again at the report yesterday and much of it seems to be still relevant today, especially for those seeking to understand the Greek economic collapse.

Below I provide the conclusion to the report. The whole report can be downloaded from the link at the bottom of the page.

“That there are problems in developing collaborative research and development in Greece is without question. At a policy level these are summed up by the evaluation report on Structural Funds in Greece for the period 1994-1999:

• Lack of co-ordination between the bodies in charge of public research and those in charge of private research
• Gap between Universities and enterprises
• In  many regions there seems to be a lack of co-ordination of the science and technology policy between departments of industry and departments of education
• In some regions there is overlap and inadequate co-ordination between national and regional measures
• There is little involvement of the regional RTDI actors, private sector in particular, in policy planning.

Morgan draws attention to the issue of  the quality of the institutional setting as one of the main reason for  regional underdevelopment. Certainly there are problems in co-ordinating policy and in bureaucratisation of government in Greece. The development of science parks has been held up for a number of years due to lack of poli9tcvical agreement. The politicising of policy advisors and of the civil serviced militates against continuity in policy and development, and to an ensuing lack of the confidence required for investment. Whilst it would appear to be true that there is a lack of competence and know-how amongst regional administrations, the centralisation of the Greek system does not allow the development of such pools of competence and experience.

Equally it is easy to blame the lack of private sector investment from Greek companies on the failure to develop an entrepreneurial and research culture.

However, this overlooks a number of basic issues. The structure of Greek industry is atypical within the EU and much more akin to that of the southern Mediterranean countries – such as Turkey, Cyprus, Tunisia and Morocco see Table 2).

Table 2 Size-class structure of European enterprises by Country, 1995.

Source: EIM Small Business Research and Consultancy, European Observatory for SMEs, 1996

The small number of large companies are largely inward investments. Research and development for these companies is usually located in their ‘home’ state, rather than in Greece. Neither do they build up networks for research with local small and medium enterprises. The Greek economy is predominantly agriculture and services based and is dominated by micro enterprises. However, the structure of EU funding is designed to support industry and commerce in north Europe with a completely different industrial and economic structure. This would not be so serious a problem if it was not for the almost total reliance on structural funds to support research and development activities. One of the most surprising policy issues is that all the major Greek political parties have allowed the EC to dominate policy so completely.

There has been considerable discussion of the problems of what are somewhat euphuistically referred to as the “Less Favoured Regions”. The outcomes of those discussion are summarised in the Table below.

Source: Landabaso, 1997.

Most of these problems apply in Greece – although it is notable that venture capital appears to be relatively easily obtainable.

The question is how to overcome these problems and whether the present European structural policies are adequate and suited to the needs of the Greek economy.

Morgan (1999) points out how university departments from relatively new universities, for example, which do not have a long tradition of university-industry collaboration, use new funding to strengthen research activities which do not always reflect the needs of the regional firms.

He also says that the regional firms, often small, family-owned and competing among themselves in relatively closed markets, do not have a tradition of co-operation and trust either among themselves or with the regional R&TD infrastructure, particularly universities, In short, the regional innovation system in these regions does not have either the necessary interfaces and co-operation mechanisms for the supply-demand matching to happen, or the appropriate conditions for the exploitation of synergies and co-operation among the scarce regional R&TD actors which could eventually fill gaps and avoid duplications. In this situation, investing more money in the creation of new technology centres, for example, without previously co-ordinating and adapting the work of existing ones, risks further distorting the system.

In this situation reliance on state funding is almost inevitable and should not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. However the critical issue is whether public funding is being used towards a strategy of sustainable and indigenous development and how that funding is planned, administered and evaluated.

Sofouli points out the contradictions in the use of European funding and the rigid guidelines which appear to be designed for the industrial systems of north Europe. There are frequent conflicts between the development aims and funding and the rulings on competition. Even where it is agreed that the granting of funding will not break competition rules, the need for official approval causes long bureaucratic delays.

More fundamentally micro enterprises are unable to raise the match funding required by many of the structural funds, whilst the infrastructure and skills for new networks does not always exist.

It could also be argued that the EU funding through development projects is focused towards technological and industrial  development, rather than enhancing the service sector which is far more important in Greece. Patiniotis (2001) is critical of what he sees as the technological determinism inherent in European funding and development policies.

The underlying justification for present policies lies in a direct link between research and development activities within the industrial economy and the innovation which is seen as critical to future economic growth and to unemployment. Yet it can be argued that Greek companies are nothing if not innovative. However, research and development tends to be brought in from abroad utilising the extensive Greek Diaspora. However, the emphasis in the structural programmes on demonstration projects  prevents the use of many funds to support accessing technology from abroad.

It is interesting to note that Greek universities do have very extensive links with other European and international institutions. The relatively high education levels are also an issue as is the very high levels of business start ups and company creation, linked to the availability of finance capital.

One sector which has been acknowledged for innovation in Greece is the Information technology industry. However, what is interesting here is that most companies in this industry throughout Europe are small or micro industries (European IT Observatory, 2001) and that in Greece this sector is almost entirely focused on software services rather than production. However even here new programme for the development of the new economy which aims to provide seed capital for the establishment of small companies in the ICT sector is being impeded because the programme regulations require those very same companies to provide match funding – in other words to provide the capital that they lack in the first place (Sofouli, 2001). Sofouli goes on to say that the need for approval of new research projects by EPAN – the Greek office for competition is holding up innovation.

A further issue is that of geographical location. Greece is often referred to as being a peripheral economy. This raises the question of peripheral to what. Certainly the structure of the economy is peripheral in terms of the north European industrial economy. Equally Greece is geographically peripheral within the European Union. However within its own traditional spheres of influence and trade – in the Mediterranean and as the gateway to the Bosphorus, Greece is anything but peripheral.

More thoughtful research is need to develop policies which can promote research and development and innovation through PPPs in Greece and as to how European policy is formulated and implemented. This is not just a question for Greece – or the other so-called ‘Less Favoured Regions’. With the planned expansion of the EU the Greek economic structures will cease to be isolated and may well represent a model for the new Member States in The European Union.  However, in order to undertake this task a major policy weakness needs to be addressed. This is the issue of evaluation. Our research suggests that present evaluation polices and practice – based on the requirements of the European funding programmes and focused on summative systems evaluation – are inadequate. This is not to denigrate the purpose and intent of the present evaluation regime in ensuring public value for money and contract compliance – nor to question the methods being used. But the data presently being collected and the tools for analysis do not provide policymakers – in Greece and in the EU – with sufficient  information or knowledge to develop the policies so evidently need to support innovation with the Greek economic and social system. Neither do they provide researchers with the basic information needed to undertake more fundamental research into development processes in an economy and society such as Greece. Finally the present evaluation regime is not providing the formative evaluation and feedback so desperately required by project promoters and developers and fails to provide the arena to capitalise on present development and experiences.

In conclusion why does Greece have a flourishing culture of start up enterprises and economic activity despite all the problems outlined above? Nikitas Patiniotis (2001) suggests it lays with the people themselves:

“The Greek people are innovative and take risks – especially in terms of time. Money is always short and is controlled by the government. Most companies are started by one or two people. Greek SMEs use family  resources. The biggest indigenous company in Greece is Intracom which was started 15 years ago by one person. Risk taking in Greece is a survival technique.” “

You can download the full report here.

The latest figures for Facebook are interesting. Facebook appears to have had fewer monthly active users at the start of June than at the start of May in the US, UK and Canada — at least according to one data source — even as it has grown bigger than ever worldwide. this could suggest that the market is by now saturated or even that people are moving on.

My own take is that whilst Facebook has alienated significant numbers of people with rampant commercialism and a cavalier attitude to privacy this is probably only amongst early adopters and the tech community. More important is the growth of more niche social networking applications.

Although Linkedin can hardly be described as niche, it is interesting to see the growth of Linkedin Groups and the high level of activity – at least in the groups of which I am a member.

I suspect people are increasingly separating out their presence (and digital identities) in different social networking applications and communities. And whilst size may be good, in terms of income the ‘professional’ social networks may turn out to be more sustainable and profitable tin the long term.

Interesting then to see the launch of a professional networking application for Facebook. In the last few weeks i have had some tens of messages saying:

“I’d like you to join my professional network on Facebook.

Graham – it’s professional networking with friends and friends of friends on Facebook. Feels like it can be very valuable to us.”

The messages come from a Facebook app called BranchOut. Given they all had the same wording I ignored them, but thinking about this blog post I did have a look. But once more I was put off by the privacy or lack of it. Although the video from BranchOut makes a big point that they will not access your photos, it asks for permissions to your wall, to all of your friends and demands an email address to send mail.

I guess once they have your friends list, they are auto spamming with messages such as above. Although once more this may result in rapid growth, I doubt it will do much for their reputation.

Linkedin may be a little staid and boring. But at least it seems to have evolved sensible privacy rules.

I think this will be critical for anyone trying to break into the social networking market.

I participated in a workshop on Open Educational Resources at the EDEN2011 conference in Dublin last week. OER was high on the agenda at the conference, referred to by a number of the keynote speakers and also the subject of several papers and workshops.

the workshop I attended was organised by the OPAL project. OPAL – the Open Education Quality Initiative – funded by the EU and supported by UNESCO – is attempting to develop a guide and benchmarks on open educational practices. It is focused on institutional change and the guideline is designed as a maturity model which allows organisations to position themselves according to the degree of maturity for each of a number o individual dimensions of open educational practices identified by the project.

The discussion at the workshop was lively and interesting. One focus was the language of the guide with participants feeling that more still needed to be done to explain what OERs and open educational practices were.

Grainne Conole in her introduction to the workshop had posed a series of questions including why there appears to be so limited reuse of resources and secondly how we can guarantee quality.

I am not so convinced by the assumptions here. the idea that there is limited reuse of resources is based on the lack of posting of amended resources to OER repositories. But that doesn’t mean they are not being used. I suspect many, many teachers do use OERs and naturally edit and change them to suit their own practice (although the prevalent PDF file format does not make that easy). However it is not part of their culture to repost the changed version to a repository. Does this matter? On the one hand not if OERs are being created and used – although obviously institutions, authors and funders would like to know what impact their work is having. One the other hand one of the ideas behind OERs was to create an ecology of learning materials with use, reuse and sharing playing a key role,. But I suspect benchmarks will not help us in this. The main issue is the culture of sharing. Even here I don’t think there are major obstacles. However we need workflows and spaces which make the sharing as easy and natural as sharing music.

And here is the rub. Whilst I guess most people share music it is often illegal. And one participant in the workshop raised the issue we never dare talk about. The problem, he said, is that teachers constantly download, change and reuse educational resources. they rarely check the license conditions. If it is on the web it is fair gain. And in telling people they should only use resources licensed for free use, we are in danger of being seen as the internet cops – telling people what they cannot do rather than helping them use resources for learning.

That is a big question. I like the approach of OPAL to open educational practices. But I am not so sure about benchmarking and maturity models (what senior manager is going to admit that their organisation lags behind?). Instead I think we need to continue very basic work on making it easier for teachers to produce OERs and share them. It will take time, but even over the last five years there has been massive progress.

And I wonder if we need to open a wider political debate on the efficacy or educational resources which are not open and who benefits form such practices.

Pontydysgu is planning to launch a German language web site. A beta version of the site is planned for August with the launch in September. Judith Seipold will be editor of the site. If you are interesting in becoming a guest blogger or contributing in any other way please contact Judith Seipold <pontydysgu [dot] de [at] googlemail [dot] com>.

Jisc have published two new online wizards to make publishing Open Educational Resources easier,  particularly when there are multiple licences involved.

Amber Thomas, programme manager at JISC, said,  “These are really useful tools for aiding the remix of creative commons licensed content. The wizards are very simple to use, and we hope they will be useful to many people.”

The wizards navigate through the licence compatibility issues which arise when blending Creative Commons (CC) licensed resources into open educational resources.

They have been created for use by JISC-funded open educational resources projects, but it is anticipated that they will have to be applicable to other projects throughout the creative industries internationally.

Prodromos Tsiavos, England and Wales Project,  Legal Project Project Lead, Creative Commons UK, said,  “These tools allow users of the CC licences to make quick, easy and accurate decisions as to when and how to use multiple combinations of the CC licences. They reduce the complexity of copyright law and empower the end user by reducing the need for external advice when licensing copyrighted material. CCUK strongly supports this collaborative work and believes it will substantially contribute to the re-use, utilisation and proliferation of CC licensed content.”

The wizards can be accessed on the web2rights web site.

The Personal Learning Environment Conference 2011 programme has been published. The conference takes place in Southampton from July 11- 13 and features keynote presentations from Cristina Costa, Scott Wilson, Riina Vuorikari and Les Carr.

On Monday 11th there are two pre-conference workshops:

• The Awareness and Reflection in Personal Learning Environments workshop
• Challenges of Designing and Evaluating Usability and User Experience for PLEs (U2X-4-PLE)

I Can Copy from wreckandsalvage on Vimeo.

As Jim Groom says, rather than talk about copyright and digital media, I would rather just watch this brilliant video by wreckandsalvage. Enjoy!