Wales Wide Web is Graham Attwell’s main blog. Graham Attwell is Director of the Wales based research organisation, Pontydysgu. The blog covers issues like open-source, open-content, open-standards, e-learning and Werder Bremen football team.
You can reach Graham by email at graham10 [at] mac.com
Last week I was at the final event of a series of six workshops on the training of teachers and trainers. The workshops were organised as part of a policy consultation exercise by the European Commission, who regard the training of teachers and trainers as a priority area in terms of economic and social development.
Whilst leading to interesting discussions and interchange between researchers, policy makers and practitioners in different European countries, there was only limited agreement over what measures should be taken. The lack of agreement reflects, I think, major changers in education leading to a series of dilemmas.
firstly the move towards lifelong learning is resulted in more and more people having some responsibility for the learning of others as part of their jobs. They will often not identify themselves as trainers. And at the same time the opportunities for professional development and learning in different contexts are becoming braider, especially through the internet. Indeed one issue which perplexed participants as the workshop was just who should be considered a trainer.
Some at the workshop wished to introduce more regulation as a means of professionalising training and raising quality. But others pointed out that this would only really help professional full time trainers - those already with access to opportunities for professional development - and that with the increased use of the internet for learning, it would be impossible for any one nation state to regulate trainers.
There was also some discussion on the differences between vocational teachers and trainers. It was pointed out that whilst they often worked in very different contexts, both groups were responsible for the learning of others. Were the differences in job designation just a construct of our education and training systems? And with learning moving outside the institution could such constructs be maintained in the future?
On the whole there was some consensus that learning would take place in wider contexts in teh future and would tend to become part fo everday living and work. But on the issue of how within that scenario to provide support and professional development for thsoe responsible for supporting the learning of others, the workshop particpants remained puzzled. More on this issue in future posts.
June is the month of meetings and i seem to have been in meetinsg for ever. Just a short few hours break before the next ones start so time for a quick bog entry.
This morning I received an email from Effie Law from the University of Leicester, UK/ ETH Zürich, Switzerland.
“Dear Graham,” she said, “I am now working … to develop an evaluation framework on widgets. In the meantime, we have identified several conceptual issues that your rich expertise and experience in widgets can help us resolve them.
May we ask you to kindly complete the following mini-survey for us.”
I love a flattering email as much as anyone else but I am afraid Effie seriously over rates my expertise. But she did conclude her email by saying “Please forward this message to those whom you think should respond to this survey as well”. So I am forwarding it to you, my blogreaders, in ther hope some of you can shine light on the questions Effie asks. Please just reply below and I will pass all answers on.
Here are the questions:
Q1. Questions about Portlets
1a) Please give your definition of portlets
1b) Please list specific characteristics (=attributes, properties) of portlets
1c) Please list specific features (=functionalities) of portlets
Q2. Questions about Widgets
2a) Please give your definition of widgets
2b) Please list specific characteristics (=attributes, properties) of widgets
2c) Please list specific features (=functionalities) of widgets
Q3. Please tell us, what do YOU consider as the major differentiator(s) between:
3a) Portlets and Widgets? (cf. Wikipedia on Web widget)
3b) Widgets and Java Applets? (cf. W3C Widget requirements)
Q4. Please share with us YOUR ideas how to evaluate:
4a) Portlets?
4b) Widgets?
Regular readers of this blog will know I have been much concerned lately with how we organise research in technology enhanced learning, and particularly with the organisation of the various seminars, conferences and publications associated with academic research. One issue that has bothered me is the gap between the radical pedagogies we often propose and the actual practice of the ways we organise our own learning. A second is the difficulties frequently encountered by post graduate researchers, because of the interdisciplinary of Technology Enhanced Learning research, problems in defining and developing methodologies and the too frequent problem of finding adequate supervision and support for their work.
Last weeks IATEL conference in Darmstadt was a breath of fresh air in this respect. The conference on ‘Interdisciplinary approaches to Technology Enhanced Learning’ was organised by the DFG Research Training Group E-Learning. As the introductory handout said: “As a direct consequence of such an interdisciplinary approach, the conference format will not be defined by a preponderance of presentations and papers. In separately moderated and creative discussion forums one is able to examine and work towards a common understanding of the issues at stake. such an approach should also enable an assessment of how and to what extent the idea of interdisciplinary research is sustainable: whether it simply brings forth an only loosely fitting framework, or whether it evolves into a truly encompassing project that leads to results, insights and solutions which go beyond the simple sum of the individual trajectories.”
I was in the group looking at learning in networks and it truly was a fascinating discussion (many thanks to the moderators).
I came away thinking about three issues. The first is the tension between how people are using technologies for living, working and learning outside institutions and institutional practice in TEL (I was dubbed a ‘real world devil’ !!). The second was the need to bring together ‘design’ and TEL. Why the scare quotes? In this context ‘design’ is an English translation of the German word ‘Gestaltung’ which I would tend to translate as ’shaping’ - the idea that technology - and in this context Technology Enhanced Learning - needs to be shaped by users. In other words we need to move beyond adaptive systems to systems and technologies that learners can themselves adapt to their own purposes and learning. The third issue was the relationship between Technology Enhanced Learning and its impact on education with the concept of ‘Beruf’. ‘Beruf” is very difficult to translate - there is no equivalent English language world. I would suggest the easiest way to understand it is in relation to the debates over the meaning of competency which in the UK and Anglo Saxon countries such as the Netherlands tends to be seen as the ability to perform to a set of externally defined standards, but in Germany is taken to mean the internalised ability of an individual to act. But please, German speakers, feel free to elaborate in the comments. Thus education is seen not just as aiming towards higher skills and knowledge for employment but as having more holistic aims in terms of value in itself.
I am still thinking about the ideas from the conference. And the work will continue - one outcome for the project should be a book and I am happy to have been invited to participate in writing this.
HI Graham,
Without a doubt the handout introduction was very nice 
and glad to hear you time there was worth it.
There is something I am missing or I haven’t finish to understand or I am confuse about when I hear comments in TEL, educational technologies, or similar regarding its use. Let me explain:
For me our “digital technology” is a tool. I consider it a second order tool, because for its existence a complex set of knowledge in hardware and software needs to be present. That is independent of the knowledge that an individual (user) should have in order to use the tool. In addition, is worth to say, this tool is evolving in “real time” thanks to the effort of “n” individuals (this is more evident when we talk about internet for example). In brief, a digital tool is not a simple tool, even if it is a tool.
Now, I wonder what do you mean with “systems and technologies that learners can themselves adapt to their own purposes and learning.”
I have on clear that we, humans, adapt to anything (except to be hungry). But are we assuming that a part of a world population has to adapt to a tool which actually is produced and defined by a population sector that has the “know how”. Then some individuals should adapt while “few” individuals define the tool where they will adapt to. This part is a bit tricky….
Then, who has to adapt to what? users to the technology? the technology to users? a bit ambiguous for me, especially because neither the users nor the technology are static, both are in constant evolution, then… what are we actually seeking?
As another topic, of course that observe how people is using the technology is KEY, but actually we are at the time where we should go beyond that. To understand why are they using it I found it more relevant. For my short experience in this field, I have realized that each individual presents different reasons and motives that make him/her adopt a digital technology. That reasons can be fundamental in the adoption of the tool and how they use it.
If I am saying this is because I am a lover of technology. But literary scares me when the technology is put in the center of everything. Technology is just a tool.
As I said I am confuse at the moment.
Keep us posted!
- Carolina
(1)
(6)
(14)
(26)
(5)
(4)
(12)
(11)
(2)
(27)
(31)
(1)
(24)
(151)
(9)
(36)
(5)
(9)
(1)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
(8)
(1)
(1)
(3)
(10)
(1)
(7)
(1)
(35)
(5)
(22)
(30)
(39)
(5)
(4)
(14)
(1)
(1)
(40)
(15)
(27)
(62)
(3)
(46)
(8)
(22)
(1)
(60)
(2)
(58)
(33)
(24)
(15)
(3)
(11)
(1)
(5)
(4)
(1)
(8)
(1)
(1)
(4)
(2)
(14)
(89)
(38)
(4)
(1)
(48)
(21)
(13)
(1)
(1)
(31)
(16)
(422)
(1)
July 2nd, 2009 at 18:42
Thank you Graham for this quick summary. As one of those who were involved in the organisation of these Consultation seminars I find it useful that you draw attention to tensions and contrasts. Indeed, it would be difficult to compress the results of the workshops into one single message.
Concerning the countries and organisations that are involved, some are looking at institutional reforms and formal structures. Others try to reach a more future-oriented way to combine new learning concepts, new facilitation approaches and wider settings of networking (in working life or in civic society). In this respect the scenarios for professional development may have different time horizons and different implications.
From this perspective I find it essential that the participants from different parts of Europe tried to join in common discussion in spite of different starting positions.
Graham promised more on this issue in future posts. I hope that we can also have some discussion on the Consultation seminar group blog.