Pontydysgu - Bridge to Learning Pontydysgu.org

I have always liked the apprenticeship model. At its best it provides authentic practice based learning and at the sme time develops an occupational identity for the learner.

At the beginning of February I am attending a conference in Vienna organised by inAp - the International Network on Innovative Apprenticeship. One of the papers I am co-presenting at the conference is entitled ‘Developing tools to support workplace competence development: e-Portfolios and apprenticeship’. I have always been interested in the potential of e-Portfolios for vocational education and training and in particular for apprenticeship. I will post a download of the full paper later this week (when I have finished the referencing etc.). In the meantime here is the key excerpt explaining why I think apprenticeship needs modernisation and how e-Portfolios can contribute to this.

Why modernise apprenticeship?
Apprenticeship is perhaps the oldest organisational form of education and training and has proved surprisingly resilient despite radical societal form. So why should we modernise it now?

The first current challenge to apprenticeship lies in the present industrial revolution based on digital technologies which is having a profound effect not only on production systems but on many aspects of society. Within enterprises we are seeing a rapid period of innovation with a shortening life cycle of products, new forms of production and new forms of organisation of production and the development of new materials and products. All these are leading to rapidly changing occupational profiles and requirements for competences, although obviously the extent of these exchanges varies greatly between sectors.

A further challenge to apprenticeship is the expansion of higher education and a consequent tendency for the prestige of apprenticeship to decline.

More significant, in the long term, may be the changing ways we are learning and developing and exchanging knowledge. Although the term knowledge based society is somewhat rhetorical, it does reflect a growing emphasis being placed on knowledge for innovation and product and process development. A major impact is the growing recognition of the importance of work process knowledge – applied knowledge in the workplace. Linked to this is a move form classroom or school based vocational learning to work based learning with an increasing emphasis on informal learning. Jay Cross claims that perhaps 85% of our learning is informal yet the major emphasis in education and training has been on the 15% that comprises formal learning.

There is also a growing recognition of the role of organisational learning and of the importance of building on the knowledge of employees. This of course, may include apprentices.
Finally – and perhaps most important – is the changing ways in which (not just) young people are using new technologies for learning and for developing and sharing knowledge. Of particular note in this respect are the use of social networks which transcend traditional work based networks and the impact of web 2.0 in facilitating the use of computers for creating as well as consuming information and knowledge.

In many ways these changes are good news for supporters of apprenticeship, particularly the increased emphasis on work based learning. Nevertheless, they present a challenge to traditional forms and organisation of training, signifying a move from knowledge and skills transmission models to more collaborative peer group forms of learning. We believe that the introduction of e-Portfolios can act as a transformative tool to build on the strengths of apprenticeship models of learning whilst at the same time modernising pedagogic processes.

What could e-Portfolios bring to apprenticeship

As we said in section 2 of this paper there are many different definitions of e-Portfolios. Our belief is that e-Portfolios represent primarily a transformative pedagogic approach. This section of the paper reflects that viewpoint.

1. Bringing together learning from different contexts

e-Portfolios have the potential to bring together learning from different contexts. This is particularly important for apprenticeships which in a dual system context have often suffered form a lack of co-ordination between school based provision and work based training. More important than administrative coordination is curriculum is curriculum and pedagogic coherence. E-Portfolios have the potential to link the content of learning from different contexts. This they can bring together practice (work based) learning and theoretical (school based) teaching. Furthermore e-Portfolios can provide for the recording of and reflection on informal learning – not just as a stand alone item – but in the context of other forms of learning.

2. Reflecting on learning

e-Portfolios can be a powerful tool for reflecting on learning. Jonassen, Peck and Wilson (1999) argue that ICT supported learning is only useful (effective and efficient) if learning is active, constructive, reflective, intentional, authentic (contextual and complex), conversational and interactive.

Active learning means that learners are actively manipulating their learning environment and observing the effects of what they have done. In this way, learners are responsible for the results of their learning.

Meaningful learning implies actions, but actions are not enough. Learners have to reflect on their actions and their observations. These reflections could or should lead to the integration of new experiences and ideas with existing knowledge or should at least leads to insight into what the learner has to learn (constructive learning). It is this combination of active and constructive learning which makes learning meaningful. Learning is not a result of just practice; learners also have to elaborate their knowledge and skills and create or construct new insights.

The authenticity of the learning environment not only leads to a better understanding of cases or principles, but also results in a better transformation of learning outcomes to other cases and contexts.

To make a learning environment authentic, it should include complex and open tasks, as well as simple ones. Like in the ‘real’ world or job-related practice, people work together and interact in order to learn, and solve problems. Cooperation between learners (both collaboration and conversation) is seen as important as a goal of learning as well as a mean of learning other content.

Within apprenticeship e-Portfolios provide a tool for reflection on authentic work based practices.

3. Recording and assessing learning

e-Portfolios can be designed to support a wide range of multi media applications. This is important for a number of reasons. Firstly many vocational learners are not confident in the use of text as a means of recording and reflecting on learning. And, in this context, it is interesting to see the rapid development of Web2.0 tools for exchanging a wide range of different digital artefacts including audio, video and photographs. Secondly for apprentices competence is often reflected in the ability to make and o things. Such competence can best be captured or recorded through digital artefacts rather than through textual explanation. Furthermore the ability to access an e-portfolio form a mobile device, PDA, telephone, digital camera, means learning can be recorded where it happens, in the workplace, rather than relying on subsequent recall.
This will in turn allow the development of authentic assessment practices, rather than relying on simple written tests which provide little indication of an apprentices competence. It could alo provide a basis for moving from assessment of learning to assessment for learning – to focusing on self and peer group assessment –and to formative assessment as part of the pedagogic process, rather than end testing as a summative procedure.

4. Lifelong Learning

There is a general understanding of the necessity of lifelong learning in order to deal with rapidly changing technologies and processes of production. E-Portfolios can provide the basis of a lifelong learning record. Furthermore data can be exported for use in different learning systems and learners can provide different views of their portfolio content for different purposes, including applications for jobs or for further education and training.

Once more, what is perhaps most significant is the process of learning, of on-going recording and reflection on activities and actions. This provides the basis for the much cited but rarely explicated lifelong learning competence.

5. Networking and communities of practice

E-portfolios allow learners to develop their own social networks and to share their work with peers. As such they can be utilised for group based and project based learning. At the same time the interconnectivity outside the classroom allows integration with wider dispersed communities of practice allowing apprentices to develop their identity as a skilled worker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Recognition of different modes of learning

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

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

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

4. Development of Competencies

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

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

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

5. Importance of opportunities for initial and continuing professional development

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

6. Importance of opportunities of opportunities to practice

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

7. Importance of networking

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

8. Partnerships

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

9. Reflection

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

10. Role of formal qualifications

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

11. Development of tools and platforms

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

12. Promotion of the Framework

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

13. Research and monitoring

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

14. Implementation

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

15. Governance and further development of the Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E-Learning und die soziale Gestaltung der Technik

Been meaning to blog about this for some time. Jenny Hughes forwarded me the link today so I have finally got round to it.

Why is the Scottish Chartered Teacher scheme so interesting.

Firstly it recognises that teachers can develop their career without leaving the classroom. In other words it values the activities of being a teacher, rather than in most systems where career advancement is based on becoming a manager.

Secondly it introduces a framework for Continuing Professional Development, based on professional values and personal commitments.

Perhaps most important is the the Chartered Teacher qualification is based largely on reflective learning and self evaluation.

The Standard has four key components:

a. professional values and personal commitments;
b. professional knowledge and understanding;
c. professional and personal attributes;
d. professional action.

The basic assumption is that the Chartered Teacher is characterised by four central professional values and personal commitments:

a. effectiveness in promoting learning in the classroom;
b. critical self-evaluation and development;
c. collaboration and influence;
d. educational and social values.

You can find out more about the Chartered Teacher Scheme on the Scottish Government’s Standard for Chartered Teachers web site.

The issue of digital literacy will not go away. And it reappears in strange forms. Every six months or so there is a surge of posts on teh Becata research list serve suggesting all kids should be taught to touch type. Fair enough - if I could type properly it would save me a lot of time in correcting errors. But I don’t really see the keyboard lasting much longer as the main form of talking to a computer.

Anyway, it has always seemed to me that one of the big challenges arising from the idea of digital literacy is the curriculum. I am quite bemused by curricula in general. Whatever research we undertake, whatever needs we show, the development of curricula seems to go on in a seperate and parallel universe. There was one project that I evaluated which greatly impressed me. Martin Owen was one of the project partners and his guest blog on this page earlier this week reminded me of the project. It was called i-Curriculum and it set out to research and develop guidelines for curricula for developing digital literacy. At least that is what I think the project was about. The official European project blurb says:

“The I-Curriculum framework is a set of guidelines that can be used by policy makers, teachers and other educators, the producers of digital resources, and students to check whether a project or lesson achieves the goal of enabling active participation in lifelong learning practices. This framework could help in the examination of current curriculum and learning design, locating the process within the demands of changing cultures and mapping educational provision onto the new demands of new contexts in which life, work and education interact.”

Central to the project is the framework.

“The framework represents a shift away from the notion of key skills. It looks at an activity as developing various skills related to digital literacies, the areas are:

• exchanging and sharing information; communication and collaboration
• researching: finding things out
• modelling
• working practices and attitudes.

Across each of these skill areas are three levels of curriculum activity:

The Operational Curriculum is learning to use the tools and technology effectively. Knowing how to word-process, how to edit a picture, enter data and make simple queries of an information system, save and load files and so on.

The Integrating Curriculum is where the uses of technology are applied to current curricula and organisation of teaching and learning. This might be using an online library of visual material, using a virtual learning environment to deliver a course or part of a
course. The nature of the subject and institution of learning is essentially the same, but technology is used for efficiency, motivation and effectiveness.

The Transformational Curriculum is based on the notion that what we might know, and how and when we come to know it has changed by the existence of the technologies we use and therefore the curriculum and organisation of teaching and learning needs to change
to reflect those changes.

There is implied inclusion of levels along the axis, but it is not the case that you need to study in an operational way before you become transformational. There is a real danger in making that assumption. If you start from the position that you are going to be transformational or integrative then you do not approach the acquisition of operational skills in the same way. If the curriculum is viewed in such a way that competence operations in themselves are the learning outcomes then teaching can be fairly mechanical – however, if the curriculum is designed to be transformational, the acquisition of the operational skills is needs driven,
intrinsic, secure in a model of transferability and almost taken-for-granted.”

If you are interested, FutureLab have a web page giving access to the final report. The report contains the following sections
Background - this section defines what is meant by digital literacy skills in this document, and how we can distinguish between levels of competency.

The framework - discusses the theoretical underpinnings of the matrix as well as presenting the matrix.

Case studies - three illustrative case studies taken from some of the partner countries that demonstrate how current practice can be considered using the framework as an assessment tool.

Conclusions and recommendations - this summarises the findings and recommendations for the EU with respect to the development of digital literacy skills.

The project web site also provides access to many of the projects working documents. Some of these are avaiable in Greek, Spanish and German, as well as English.

I have been trying to reorganize my feedreader and picked up this post from June from Jeremy Herbert’s Headspace blog. It quotes a post by Netscape founder Marc Andreessen about what he seeks in new hires:

DRIVE: “First, drive. I define drive as self-motivation — people who will walk right through brick walls, on their own power, without having to be asked, to achieve whatever goal is in front of them. People with drive push and push and push and push and push until they succeed.”

CURIOSITY: “Second criterion: curiosity. Curiosity is a proxy for, do you love what you do? Anyone who loves what they do is inherently intensely curious about their field, their profession, their craft. They read about it, study it, talk to other people about it… immerse themselves in it, continuously. And work like hell to stay current in it. Not because they have to. But because they love to.

ETHICS: “Third and final criterion: ethics. Ethics are hard to test for. But watch for any whiff of less than stellar ethics in any candidate’s background or references. And avoid, avoid, avoid. Unethical people are unethical by nature, and the odds of a metaphorical jailhouse conversion are quite low.”

I think this is interesting and would agree with much of it but it raises some questions. Firstly, I would add a fourth category:

“COLLABORATION. The fourth criteria is collaboration. The ability to work with others is a critical source of learning. Even more so the ability to collaborate is central to developing and sharing knowledge. Collaboration leads to informal learning, innovation and productivity. Collaboration includes listening and valuing other peoples opinions as much as putting forward one’s own.”

The problem is that even if new pedagogic approaches involve curiosity and collaboration for learning, when we seek to assess and certificate competences, these are not qualities we value.

Is it possible to develop new forms of assessment that value drive, curiosity, ethics and collaboration? Is it even desirable that we seek to measure such things? What is the relation between our measurement of general educational learning or vocational skills and knowledge and what might be called the soft skills highlighted by Marc Andreessen.

Technorati Tags: competence development, assessment

On a long trip around Romania and Poland – hence few opportunities to post here in the last few days. But, I have met many wonderful people and will come away with much to think about.

On Saturday I spoke at a seminar attended by the leaders of the Romanian students movement. Hope very much we will continue to keep in touch.

Monday I was in Constanta where I helped with a case study being undertaken as part of the European commission funded TT Plus project. The TT Plus project is looking at the changing roles and responsibilities of trainers. It is coordinated by my organisation, Pontydysgu, and has partners in six different European countries.

What makes the project especially interesting is that we are trying to develop new methodologies for comparative research. The main paradigm of comparative research, in education in Europe at least, has been to compare national studies – be it through surveys or case studies . We have borrowed from the computer world and are instead attempting to identify scenarios of practice and use cases (although these terms are difficult to define).

We are focusing not on functions and roles but on actual practice in providing training – whether or not the person is called a trainer. And we are attempting to look at practice from the perspective of different actors – including the trainer, managers and learners.

Rather than compare national studies we wish to identify different patterns in the scenarios of practice and use cases. Of course, practice will reflect national cultures. But we expect more in common between  scenarios of practice than differences based on country.

The scenarios of practice are based on case studies which is how I came to be in a cement factory in Constanta on Monday. Very interesting it was too. I will post the results fo the case study as soon as it is finished. For the moment, though, I just wanted to say a few comments about innovation. The cement factory, along with much of the industrial base in Romania, is old and in desperate need of investment. Much of the plant and machinery dates form the 1960s. If it was in the UK it would almost certainly be closed down on health and safety grounds – and in fact it is planned to relocate the plant outside Constanta because of new environmental regulations.

Not an obvious candidate for an innovation reward? Little modern technology. Basic products. But the innovation in maintaining and keeping such plant running is truly impressive. Monday I was talking to Paul, who used to be a ships engineer. He was telling me Romanian engineers were always on demand on cargo ships because they could mend anything. If a pump failed a British or German engineer would merely radio for a new one to be flown to the next port of call. The Romanians would fix the pump on the fly.

And such a tradition of innovation seems much closer to the ideas behind Web 2.0. We do not want shiny out of the box software – or even beautiful bespoke applications. Instead we need the electronic equivalent of the Romanian engineer, able to take what is available and make it work – hopefully adding value in the process. Such skills are very close to what John Seeely Brown has called bricolage.. Bricolage relates to the concrete and has to do with the ability to find something – an object or a tool, a piece of code, a document - and to use it in a new way and in a new context. This is exactly what is happening in the pre-digital world of the Constanta cement factory.

.

In the paper I published on the site last week, I talked about the present system of assessment being a barrier to the introduction of e-Portfolios and pedagogic innovation. I cited Richard Stiggins  who distinguishes between assessment for learning and assessment of learning.

There is no doubt which paradigm the UK follows. An article in todays Observer newspaper highlights the increasing problem of exma related stress for school students. “Unprecedented numbers of psychologists are now having to help pupils deal with the emotional strain - which can lead to sleepless nights, eating disorders and other illnesses”, they say.

The artcile goes on to say that Place2Be - a charity offering emotional support to primary school children - has seen a massive increase in the numbers of pupils approaching counsellors about exams.

“The charity runs a project called Place2Talk in 113 schools where children can post requests to see a counsellor into postboxes placed in the school buildings. So far 70 per cent of the children in the schools have asked for support.

Sheridan Whitfield, a manager for the charity in London, said children from the age of five were able to place requests for a chat into postboxes placed in the school. ‘Children are accessing it more for exam worries.’

The relentless pressure means psychologists are being called into schools at an increasing rate, according to Hill: ‘We are doing this in a way that we were not doing it five years ago.”"

This is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with education and learning. We need a concerted effort to develop and implement new forms of assessment - including self assessment, group assessment and peer assessment. We need to develop ideas about authentic assessment - where the process of work itself, rather than the endlessly spiraling test regime.

I am much taken by a comment by Scott last week: “…we have entered an era of connected media. Connected media does not contain interaction; instead content items are nodes in a network of connections that are the focus of interaction. The content is inside-out. The hot content today is not interactive - Flickr/Photobucket, YouTube, iTunes, RSS feeds all feature non-interactive content, yet the content is highly connected via layers of interlinked metadata (del.icio.us, technorati, recommendations, hyperlinks, comments…).”

Of course he is right. And it is pretty easy to understand the implications in terms of how we work and learn and in how we develop e-learning content. It is less easy to work out how it effects how we report on our work. On the one hand our work will not be in one place - it will be scattered across different media and on different web sites. Last year we started looking at some of the implications of this in a seminar called ‘How Dude, where’s my Data‘. NB I have finally got together a wiki documenting at least some of the outcomes of that seminar.

But students are still assessed largely on the outcome of their learning and in terms of their competence. Not - here are my connections - but here is something I have done and here is something I claim I can do. This is far less easy to document in terms of network nodes.

It may be that the e-Portfolios of the future will have to be based far more on process than merely outcomes - more here is something I claim I am competent to do and here is the interactions I have made which allows me to say this - rather than here is a thing I have made which allows me to claim I am competent.

I still feel that competence is a difficult concept pedagogically and am worried that educational technologists will see competence as a mere unproblematic taxonomy. This matters. If we are to develop and implement e-Portfolios - let alone Personal Learning environments - we have to get clear on these issues.

In the discussions I am having over e-Portfolios there is increasing agreement of the use of blogging type applications as a way of recording learning progress. There is also an awareness of the power of personal networks for peer feedback as an aid to reflection. BUT - and it is a big but - institutions and e-Portfolio providers still (naturally) want some way of representing achievement. How can we do this dynamically? Perhaps competence looks more like a tag cloud or a mind map than a ’skills journal’.

I’m increasing interested in exploring the use of social software for competence development. Of course i know of the problem in developing and agreeing on definitions. I like Sebastian Fiedler’s and Barbara Kieslinger’s assertion that:

…the concept of competence is a theoretical construct that refers to a human potentiality for action or its underlying dispositions.

Competencies acquisition and advancement

Why is this discussion so important? We are increasingly using social software for learning and knowledge development in dispersed communities if practice. But we have problems in understanding the relationship between ’subject’ based knowledge and competence as applied knowledge and between collective knowledge inherent within the communities if practice and the abilities or capabilities of individuals to use and apply such knowledge.

And I have written before of my worry that techies will see this as a trivial issue only requiring the construction of a simple (probably learning objective based) taxonomy.

Anyway I have developed a proposal for a symposium at the European Conference on Educational research in Ghent this September. The overview for the proposal follows.

Learners are discovering new uses of the technology for learning including instant messaging, file sharing, social networking and  blogging. A growing number of reports have documented how the so called net generation use computers in their everyday life.  As so often happens when confronted with something new, the reaction of the education systems is to control and to restrict it. Young people are told to turn off their mobile phones to go into their lessons on communication! The US government is debating a law banning access to social networking sites in educational establishments.

Of course it could be asked what this has to do with learning? To a large extent it depend on definitions of learning. If we say that learning is an activity which takes place within an institution and guided by qualified teachers, then of course it has little relationship. But if we take a wider definition of learning as purposeful activity which leads to changes if behaviour, then a great deal of learning is taking place.

But it is not just the appeal of communication which is drawing young people to these technologies. It is the ability to create, to share ideas,  to join groups, to publish - to create their own identities which constitute the power and the attraction of the Internet for young people.

The symposium will examine the use of social software for competence development.  Social software is used here in the meaning of software that lets people rendezvous, connect or collaborate by use of a computer network. It supports networks of people, content and services that are more adaptable and responsive to changing needs and goals. Social Software adapts to its environment, instead of requiring its environment to adapt to software. In this way social software is seen as overcoming “the absurd distinction between e-learning and knowledge management software” (Bryant, 2003).

Research  undertaken into the use of e-Learning in Small and Medium Enterprises has found little take up of formal courses. But there was widespread use of the Internet for informal learning, through searching, joining on-line groups and using email and bulletin boards. Google was the most popular application for learning. Age was not a factor.

The symposium which is based on work undertaken in different European projects is focused on research into practice int the use of social software in different contexts. The aim is to provide a rich picture of the different and changing ways in which people are using technology for learning with the aim of developing longer term implications of how new technologies can be used for competence development.

The paper by Graham Attwell and Ray Elferink present research into how social software can bring together different forms of learning for lifelong competence development. Sebastion Fiedler and Barbara Kiesinger look at the relation between domain specific teaching and comptencies in self directed learning. Alexandra Toedt examines how games based learning can develop competencies. Veronika Hornung explores the relevance of traditional educational research methods and concepts of didactical quality and whether they can be applied to the evaluation of technology enhanced learning scenarios. All the contributers will focus on different research methods and approaches for technology enhanced elearning.