Pontydysgu - Bridge to Learning Pontydysgu.org

I’ve been giving a bit of thought lately to digital identities and how those digital identities are shaped. And I stumbled on this paper written by Jenny Hughes and I (in trith more by Jenny than by me) and published in a book called ‘Vocational Education and training; culture, Values and Meanings’ edited by Eduardo Figueira. The book is probably long out of print - but I think soem of the ideas in the paper which basically explored borrowing tools from cultural science, to analyse education and training, warrant further exploration.. If you want to read more I have attached a word version of the full paper at the bottom of this post. Or if you just want an idea of what we are going on about here is an extract from the paper entitled ‘A possible cultural analysis of the functions of vocational education and training’.

1. To ARTICULATE the main lines of the established cultural consensus about the nature of the occupational sector(s) and the established sub-cultural consensus of the occupational sector about itself and its relation to the dominant culture.
For example, there will be a cultural consensus about “carpenters” based not necessarily on an external reality, but an intersubjective response based on the ‘myth’ of the carpenter. The myth will define such things as ‘who are carpenters’ (men, lower class), what carpenters do (work with wood), where they work (in the building industry) and a whole jumble of their values and beliefs and perceptions which could include ‘artisan’, ‘skilled’, ‘traditional’, ‘rustic’ and so on. Student carpenters as members of the culture will share these meanings.
Similarly, that subculture called ‘carpenters’ will also have a set of shared beliefs and meanings about itself which may be the same as, or different from, those of the dominant culture.
Carpenters will generate consensual understandings about defining themselves, for example, in terms of what they are not (not joiners, not cabinet makers). They will also share beliefs about what they need to know, do and understand to be a carpenter which is, to an extent, verifiable. On the other hand these shared beliefs may also extend to intangibles such as language codes, dress codes, defining relationships with other occupations.
So students of carpentry have to learn on the one hand the skills and knowledge needed to be a carpenter but they also have to learn what it means to be a carpenter.
VET, populated as it is by students and professionals who are simultaneously members of the dominant culture, members of a VET subculture and (usually) members of the ‘carpenters’ subculture is therefore a point of articulation in the sense of a joint and also a point of articulation in the sense of expressing or putting into words.

2. To IMPLICATE the individual members of the VET culture (whether teacher or student) into its dominant value system by exchanging status enhancing messages for the endorsement of that message’s ideology (as articulated in its mythology).
Participation in the VET process, for both teacher and learner, assumes a ‘joining –up’ or subscription process. This may be both conscious and unconscious. It may involve explicit initiation activities – for a student it may be filling out an enrolment form, for an apprentice it may be buying or being given a set of tools. The latter may become an almost ritualistic process with connotations which exceed the acquisition of the physical tools. Typically, new apprentices in the work place are often subjected to rituals which may be traditional and specific to that trade or workplace or more general, for example, being the butt of practical jokes. These rituals serve the same function as other rites of passage in that they convey a change of status and confer membership of the new culture.
By accepting membership, the apprentice or student ‘signs up’ to a new value system.
This concept of implication works in at least 2 ways:
The VET system, particularly at the stage of initial training, also serves the same function as an extended rite of passage. It changes the status of an individual from unskilled to skilled, untrained to trained, from not-a-carpenter to carpenter, from unqualified to qualified, from undergraduate to graduate and so on. Throughout the VET process cultural messages which reinforce the desirability of the changed (enhanced) status are constantly exchanged between those involved. The very act of participating in the VET process implicates those involved i.e. there is an outward sign that they subscribe to the validity of these messages (e.g. ‘Work hard’, ‘Do well’, ‘Pass exams’, ‘Get an A’).
ii) The VET system, as it relates to specific occupational areas, also transmits messages about the dominant value system in that occupational area. Using the same example, through the VET system, trainee carpenters will learn about the dominant value systems of the carpentry sub-culture (as explained above). However, it is not simply enough for them to learn this at an intellectual level but they need to learn at the level of lived experience. Occupational identity formation depends in large measure on the successful ‘implication’ function of VET.

3. To CELEBRATE, explain and interpret and justify the doings of the occupational cultures individual representatives in the world out there, using the mythology of individuality ‘to claw back’ individuals and the whole occupational subculture from eccentricity to a position of socio-centrality.
VET institutions and VET professionals often assume what is essentially a ‘public relations’ function on behalf of their particular sector. VET professionals involvement in conferences, seminars, open days, exhibitions and other similar events in which information about the social status, expertise and knowledge base of their sector is conveyed, performs this function at a surface level.
At a deeper level, the internal organisation of VET institutions into sectorally specific departments – or even monotechs – generates an organisational culture which reinforces sectoral identity and combats marginality. This has parallels in work-based VET as well as school based VET.
Take again the example of the ‘carpenter’ who, as an individual may also be brother, father, husband, citizen, sportsman and so on - identities which he shares with large numbers of others. The expectations, values and attitudes of the dominant culture with respect to these other roles are explicit and enjoy a high degree of intersubjectivity. In this context, to define oneself primarily as a ‘carpenter’ and see the world in general as a `carpenter` is eccentric. However, it is precisely this eccentric perspective which is legitimated, encouraged and reinforced within VET institutions.
Similarly , the VET professional who teaches ‘carpentry’ outside of his department, in the general VET culture or in the outside world is ‘a teacher’ or a ‘lecturer’. Within the building department or mono-tech institution, he reverts to being ‘a carpenter’.
It is also the function of VET to interpret and justify traditional practices and ‘ways of doing’ of the occupational sectors. Many of these practices may have (or have originally had) a logical basis but many are rooted in tradition and have become ritualised, contributing to the collective occupational identity of a particular sector.
That is students are not taught simply to be carpenters but are taught what it means to be a carpenter – how carpenters behave, how they think, how they see the world.
4. To ASSURE the occupational (and VET) subculture of its practical adequacy in the world by affirming and confirming its ideologies and mythologies in active engagement with the practical (and potentially unpredictable) dominant culture.
By this we mean the same ‘public relations’ function but within and between members of an occupational sub-culture rather than between that sub-culture and the ‘world-out- there’. This is the process of mutual reinforcement, of group identity, of self-congratulatory or self-justifying practices, codes of behaviour and shared meanings which are generated by the occupational sub culture about itself and which legitimate that sub-culture to itself.
VET is a key agent in reinforcing and sustaining this process.
5. To EXPOSE, conversely any practical inadequacies in the occupational and (VET) cultures sense of itself which might result from changed conditions in the world-out–there or pressure within the occupational (and VET) culture for a re-orientation in favour of a new ideological stance.
Most VET professionals would argue that a key task for VET practitioners is ensuring that their practices and curricula reflect the changing sectoral demands. However, the function of VET is not simply to respond in terms of content or methodology but, implicitly, it must reflect any change in the relationship between the occupational subculture and the dominant culture and represent any changes in the collective consciousness of the subculture.
Thus, VET can also be a key agent in changing the way an occupational sub-culture sees itself.
6. To CONVINCE the members of the occupational (and VET) culture that their status and identity as individuals is guaranteed by the culture as a whole.
Historically, this is probably the oldest and most important of VET functions and was central to the rationale of the Guilds and Craft Worker Federations. It was a key message transmitted through the traditional apprenticeship model and remains an issue for VET practice although arguably peripheral compared with those already discussed. Substitution of collectivism and the collective identity for individualism and a individual identity i.e. the Community of Practice becomes the source of meaning and occupational identity.
7. To TRANSMIT by these means a sense of cultural membership - membership of the dominant culture, the ‘world-out-there’ culture and their place within it the occupational culture or subcultures the VET culture itself.
This is a summative statement about the overall function of VET, synthesising the other six. A distinction is made between issues related to (e.g.) being a ‘carpenter’ (the occupational sub-culture) and issues related to being a member of the VET community of practice (trainee / student / learner / apprentice / teacher / lecturer). That is ‘learning what it means to be a trainee / student / learner / apprentice / teacher / lecturer is as important as learning what it means to be a carpenter.

You can download the full paper here: Culture paper

Ok - it is proobaly a bit late to be commenting on this. But Marc Prensky’s Digital Natives thesis is so widely cited it does warrant a quick re-examination.

Prensky says:

“Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a ’singularity’ - an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called ’singularity’ is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.”

Why do I think he is wrong? I do not think learners have changed. They still have experiences, opportunities, expectations, hopes, fears, ways of socialising .

Of course many learners do have access to powerful new technologies which help shape their experiences and expectation but was it not always so.. The technology which changed my life as a young person was central heating. Whilst previously the whole family would live in one or two rooms in winter because of the cold, now we were able to have our own spaces. Is that so different to what is happening now?

What is changing very fast is the environment and society in which young people learn and exchange ideas and knowledge. I am not sure if I would call that a ’singularity’ - I think more it is a feature of the deep and prolonged industrial revolution we are living through.. Our education systems reflect different forms of social organisation of capital. The ‘industrial’ schooling system evolved to meet the needs of societies after the first industrial revolution which developed around the factory system. It is not that “Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” but more that the education system no longer reflects the forms of society and the environment in which we live.

I recently greatly enjoyed reading an essay by my stepdaughter, Arddun Arwyn. Not quite sure what the title was but the essay was about ” the late Victorian civic project” to civilise the streets of Methyr Tydfil, then a fast growing iron town in industrialising South Wales and seen by contempory middle class observers as a den of lawlessness and immorality.

Arddun cites Croll who bases his analysis of the civic project in Merthyr on Michel Foucault’s theory that power is “dispersed through a range of complex social networks” and is not held by one dominant group in society.

Reading the essay, I got drawn into thinking about the parallels between attitudes towards the social networks of the streets of Merthyr and open social networks. In both cases attempts to control the open spaces are based on providing walled gardens and on promoting new ideas of private property. Anyway here are a couple of extracts from the essay - hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

“In the late Victorian era it is evident that there was a distinctive shift the meanings of ‘public’ and ‘private’ space and the activities deemed to be acceptable in these spaces. If we refer to court records from Merthyr in the latter part of the century we can see evidence that demonstrates this. A boy came before the courts for playing bat and ball in a Merthyr street, his mother in his defence explained that she herself had played in that street as a child and that there was no other places for children to play. Despite this the boy was fined two shillings for his misdemeanour. Similarly emigrants from rural areas of Wales were learned in the new codes of ‘private’ and ‘public’, which became so important in this era. A William Evans was caught playing quoits in a field belonging to the Dowlais Iron Company and was fined 5 shillings for causing ‘wilful damage’ to the company’s land. Evans explained to the court “‘he came from Cardiganshire, where they were allowed to play were they liked, and having only been in Dowlais for a week, he did not know he was doing any harm.’” Another case which underlines this point is that of two men who were discovered drunk and about to engage in a prize-fight, they walked free as the encounter took place on a privately owned field rather than in a ‘public’ space.

This shift in how the use of ‘public’ space was perceived had a profound effect on the most ‘public’ of spaces, the street.

Andy Croll argues that although the streets were the most ‘public’ and therefore ‘freest’ area of towns “the freedom that defined public space was heavily regulated, through codes and which distinguish between ‘civilised’ and ‘uncivilised’ behaviour”3 It became the battle of the ‘public’ to reclaim and regulate what they deemed to be ‘public’ space.4 Codes of street etiquette were in place to ensure that Victorian streets were an area of movement, silence and safety. This would prove problematic if we consider the function of the street to some members of the ‘public’. Martin Daunton’s work into working class areas has concluded that, when working class areas were re-built from courts and allies to open streets the usage of the street by these members of the public reflected their “boisterous and vibrant culture’ which had before been enacted in a ‘private’ area of the enclosed court. Andrew Davies, similarly argues that the street was an integral part of working class sociability.”

“The presence of a vibrant street culture as described by Martin Daunton, was a direct challenge to aspirations of movement, silence and safety ascribed to Victorian thoroughfares by those wishing to ‘civilise’ the streets. Another means of regulating behaviour and ensuring the aforementioned values were sustained was the trend by municipal governments and prominent members of society to provide areas were ‘rational’ recreation could be practised. If we consider Swansea as an example they is much evidence that demonstrates this shift in policy. In the years prior to 1870 municipal governments were reluctant to support schemes that would cost the ratepayers to initiate, however after 1870 the business community experienced a period of prosperity, which obligated municipal governments to provide a wider range of social services for inhabitants. The initiatives undertaken were usually in the form of parks and public libraries. “The Open Spaces Movement” endeavoured, under the leadership of William Thomas, to provide parks and playgrounds in areas of the town were there were “no facilities other than the streets and gutters in which to play.” Similarly the establishment of libraries and other such cultural centres i.e. art galleries, museums, was regarded as an important means of providing ‘rational’ recreation for the working man. The Public Libraries Act of 1866 and the work of campaigners paved the way for the establishment of Swansea’s public library and reading rooms in 1869. We see similar initiatives being completed in Merthyr under the patronage of the Ironmasters.”

The Guardian covers an interesting report: “MySpace 08: People. Content. Culture”.

Future Laboratory, who produced the report identified six types of MySpace user, say the Guardian, classifying 38% as “essentialists”, who primarily use social networking sites to stay in touch with friends.

“Just under a third, 28%, are “transumers” – those who follow new trends rather than make them.

Around 10% are “connectors”, who specialise in identifying and linking to cool content; and 5% are “collaborators”, who create events and projects online by teaming up with other users.

One in 20 MySpace users get their thrills from “scene breaking” – hunting down new bands and talent online and sharing that through the site; and 4% classify themselves as “netrepreneurs”, who use social networking sites to make money.”

I thought this was pretty cool stuff so tried to get hold of the report. No link to the original in the Guardian (they are very bad at that). Surprisingly few references on Google. Finally found a reference to the project on MySpace. Very strange - a sort of mash up between MySpace and a research site - I think they are trying to look trendy. But nowhere can I find the original report. The Guardian covers it in a blog article. But - unless I missed something - I suspect they have just rewritten a press release. No is it research, is it marketing or is it just hype.

Anyway this is what the “Future Laboratory” say about their rsearch on MySpace. Now at least they have put up something about what they are doing. And I suppose I am naive in wanting to see such work in the public domain. But it saddens me that important work on culture is now the preserve of the marketing people - not research.

“1) The research for PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB is due for completion by November 30th 2007
2) Any submissions can be made through the PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB MySpace page in the comments section or by mail
3) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB is searching for 10 case studies only, and will make a shortlist of possible candidates before deciding on the final 10
4) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB’s team of researchers will be responsible for choosing the final 10 case studies and hold the right to change or remove case studies from its report at any time
5) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB holds the right to approach and choose case studies even if they have not submitted themselves or been submitted by others
6) Chosen case studies will be asked to:
a) Answer a series of questions via email;
b) Take part in a short telephone interview with a PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB researcher;
c) Submit photographs, imagery, video files, MP3 files and examples of work to support the case study,
and d) Provide further contact details for possible future research
7) All successful candidates will have to sign a media release form to confirm permission that their name, work and imagery can be used in future media and press coverage for/by MySpace UK and Lexis PR
Candidates will receive £200 for their participation. This will be given to the case study upon the final delivery of the report and dependent on candidates complying with all terms & conditions
9) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB is part of trend research, insight and brand strategy consultancy The Future Laboratory, who have been tasked to create a bespoke report called ‘The voice of a generation’ on behalf of MySpace UK
10) MySpace will own the rights to the final report delivered by The Future Laboratory
11) MySpace and Lexis PR will use the report for internal and external use within their marketing, strategy and press departments.”

Pretty active debate on the Capetown Declaration on Open Educational Resources.going on through the Unesco OER list server.

And it has featured one or two good side lines.

This contribution from Francis Muguet is brilliant:

“Another example of the deficiency of the English language has been the suppression of the thou/you distinction as the result of a deep puritan psychosis that has been implemented in the language, and that English mono-speakers are carrying unknowingly until now.

It appears that if English wants to fulfill its role of a worldwide communication language, it must accept to be enriched with words in relations to concepts it is unable to render properly and concisely.

The fact that a native English speaker would have to make an intellectual effort to understand the word libre (although libre seems an understandable adjective corresponding to liberty… ) is not an obstacle, in fact this would be a good thing.

A statement in this Capetown declaration concerning Linguistic Diversity (and the right for everyone to be able to get a basic education in his/her mother tongue) would have been welcome.

No posts for a while as have been constantly traveling. Since I am now on my way to Utrecht for the final conference of the Bazaar project on Open educational Resources then it seems pertinent to comment once more on the debate over the Capetown Declaration on Open Content. Despite the declaration being drafted in a restricted community - and official comment being similarly restricted - it is heartening to see that an open discussion has emerged through the blogosphere and within the open content com,unity. That the community is able to organise such a debate is very encouraging and a sign of the increasingly mature nature of the community.

Stephen Downes - in an email to the UNesco list server on OERs, says:

“I understand the purpose of the use of the word ‘libre’, as the words ‘open’ and ‘free’ have certainly been appropriated by those who see learning content as something ‘given’ and not ‘created’ or ‘used’. And one wonders what the supporters of commercial reproduction of open educational content would say were such reproduction required to retain the format and structure of the original - no proprietary technology, no encoding or access restrictions, no DRM. What would they say were they required to make available genuinely free and ‘libre’ content in whatever marketplace they offered their commercial version of such content.

I understand the concerns about the use of the word ‘libre’ as being unfamiliar and foreign to some people. Perhaps we could offer a translation. Perhaps we could call such content ‘liberty’ content. Alternatively, I would also support a move to reclaim the word ‘open’ from those who now interpret it to mean ‘produced’ and ‘commercial’ and ‘closed’. I have always referred to the concept simply as ‘free learning’.”

Stephen’s contribution reflects the findings of the Bazaar project. Firstly, it is not just a matter of ensuring a Creative Commons license is attached to resources - although awareness of such licenses is of course important. OERS have to be available in a form which renders them usable for learning. Part of that learning may involve changing those resources. Formats do matter.

Even more critical is support for the processes of learning. There are many great resources openly available on the internet and an increasing number of free social software applications which can potentially support learning.

But there remain many barriers to their effective use for learning. One of the issues we have focused on in the Bazaar project is data ownership. Yes, Facebook is a great application for peer and shared learning. But Facebook denies users access to their own data.

Equally organisation and institutional cultures of teaching and learning inhibit sharing and reuse.

In the Bazaar project we have spent some considerable efforts in looking at the potential of Personal Learning Environments. I suspect our reviewers from the Commission find this strange. Why should a project on Open Educational Resource be concerned about PLEs. The reason is because we share Stephen’s vision of I want and visualize and aspire toward a system of “society and learning where each person is able to rise to his or her fullest potential without social or financial encumberance, where they may express themselves fully and without reservation through art, writing, athletics, invention, or even through their avocations or lifestyle……..This to me is a society where knowledge and learning are public goods, freely created and shared, not hoarded or withheld in order to extract wealth or influence.”

We see Personal Learning Environments as an important development in enabling such a vision - allowing learners to create and allowing sharing of knowledge and ideas as well as artefacts.

I ma in Vilnius for a meeting of the Fe-ConF project - Framework for elearning Contents Evalauation.

Despite the name it is a good project - a lot of thoughtful contributions.

I particularly liked the contribution from Minna Lakkala from the University of Helsinki who talked about the pedagogical design of technology enhanced collective e-learning. She referred to the sociolodical and epistomological infratstructures necessary for content sharing.

And - by serendipity - whilst listening to Minna a couple of emails arrived on the Becta list talking about cultures of sharing.

The first was from John Potter who said: “In a strand recently about web 2.0 it became apparent that in a culture where league tables are no longer published there are greater opportunities for sharing and innovation. Ewan McIntosh and the experience in Scotland seems to bear this out. Having schools in competition publicly in this way seems to inhibit all sorts of potentially useful collaboration and innovation. Tricia’s story seems to bear this out. Perhaps this and other pressures on teachers within the system really do make it difficult to share and to innovate and to examine what it means to be a teacher or a learner in 2007. ”

Nick Morgan suggested the additional factors regarding a willingness of share learning materials in Scotland:

“Professional shyness - many teachers arent confident enough of the quality of the resources they produce, and are happy to use their produce but reluctant to share it publically and thereby invite critical comment.

Â

Earning - A minority of teachers are at the other end of the spectrum, so confident about their own product that they won’t share it without payment being involved.

Â

Copyright - uncertainty about who owns the rights on the resources, or an instruction from their authority employers not to distribute. A common view: If a resource is produced on local authority equipment and in employers time, ‘it’ belongs to the authority and some authorities don’t see why they should let anyone else use those resources for free.”

Technorati Tags: Open content

The UK telecommunication regulatory body, Ofcom, have just published their annual report.

It is a substantial body of work and I have to admit I haven’t read it myself - relying rather on press and radio reports.

There seems to be much of interest in the report. For the first time women webusers have taken the lead in key age groups. At the same time an army of silver surfers has emerged and the over 65s are spending more hours online than any other age group, according to the Guardian.

Predictablyyoung people are spending more time on line, with growing use of social networking sites. This time spent appears to be at the expense of watching television.

Much of the BBC radio coverage was taken to the emergence of older people at heavier internet users than youth. Commentators speculated that this was due to the rise of internet commerce and to women using the web for social networking.

However, the preponderance of older users bares out the survey we carried out of the use of ICT for learning in Small and Medium Enterprises. We found older workers far more likely to use the web for learning than younger employees (albeit for informal learning rather than pursuing formal e-Learning courses). We speculated at the time this might be due to wider web access for more senior employees.

However, we felt, although could not proof, that older workers felt more at home using the internet for informal learning. Tomorrow I will have a look at the Ofcom report to see if it has anything to say about learning. But it remains my feeling that educational technologists have over-focused on developing learning applications and content for younger students and have failed to see the potential for extending and supporting lifelong learning and continuing professional development through the internet.

The term social networking also covers a multitude of activities. the radio reports tended to assume social networking as a leisure time activity - a replacement or chatting on the phone. Women do more of this than men, the reasoning went. I am unsure of this is true. But I would certainly suggest that much of the so called social networking is actually the use of social software for informal learning.

(more…)

This blog post from George Roberts fascinates me. I think we need to explore the relations and contradictions George raises far more carefully than we have to now.

“Oliver and Trigwell (2005) raise the Freirian question: education as the practice of freedom. The overt curriculum of the industrial era, the “3 Rs” was reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmatic. The covert curriculum, inculcated by early modern schooling was punctuality, tolerance of repetition and subordination: compliance with which was important for the functioning of capital intensive industry. Overt curricula are presented as being beneficial for all. Covert curricula benefit particular positions: dominant elites or their powerful oppositional forces. From this perspective the key affordances of e- learning, flexibility, community and individualisation are problematic. Against flexibility might be set a return to piecework and insecurity. Against community and team working might be set normalisation and a re-expression of hierarchies. And, against individualisation or personalisation might be set an increased tolerance to surveillance and a willingness to surrender personal information to anonymous, autonomous agents offering only predatory reciprocity. (Roberts 2004).”