Hi
There are differences in where power and influence is held between pre92
universities, which tend to be more federalised, and post92 which tend to be
more centralised. So any strategy is going to have to reflect such
differences - which I think makes change more difficult for the pre92. It
is after all the more managerialist, centralised, post92s which have made
most progress on equal opps for women academics and managers - driven
top-down. There is no chance of such changes bottom-up, because the vested
interests at the bottom tend to be male.
If we turn to e-learning, the centralised institutions tend to be better at
organising cross-institutional support. The 'possession is all' attitudes
in departments in pre92s means that support staff are spread inefficiently,
have little career opportunity, or cpd, and consequently there is a weak mix
of skills locally. But such possession and control will not be surrendered
at any cost to 'managerialism' and centralisation. This is a big
generalisation and there are exceptions in both pre and post92s - but I have
overall found it true.
Also, I have found senior managers in many universities are not open to new
ways of strategic thinking - they believe they have already got it right,
and it just needs a bit of tinkering round the edges. The TLTSN which was
charged with promoting strategic awareness and change in learning
technologies only really had any success with HE colleges. Universities
were too arrogant, and very aware of 'pecking order' - one simply doesn't
take consultancy from an institution lower down the food chain, does one?
Deeper still, we have the problem that staff in HE are generally untrained
as pedagogues and have very weak abilities to analyse a teaching/learning
situation. Technological methods of delivery really do expose such
weaknesses - and in public! One shudders to think what goes on in the
hemetic environment of the lecture theatre and seminar room. At Derby we
have found that technology actually drives greater pedagogical awareness
among those who really want to make it work - skills they take back to the
conventional f-t-f classroom. Staff have actually made this observation.
I do not think we can talk just yet of technology demanding a *new*
pedagogy. That may yet come, but it is still distant. What we have is
universities confronted with pedagogy *per se* perhaps for the first time in
their existence. That is very tough for them.
So I have this small hope that educational technologies may at last result
in a more pedagogically aware workforce. As the pre92s will resist any
notion of compulsory professional qualification in teaching and learning
until the crack of doom (and that crack may yet come for them;-) this is our
best hope of upskilling academics for the moment, I believe. And the new
methods really do require skills - not extraordinary skills by any means -
but a good portfolio of teaching skills, more than most teachers have unless
they have had a varied teaching carreer, and the ability to analyse a
teaching/learning situation, which comes from education/training,
scholarship and experience.
This is demanding. But what is surprising here is that teaching in HE has
been treated in such *undemanding* ways up to now, not that it has suddenly
got more demanding!
Chris O'Hagan
-----Original Message-----
From: Networked Learning in Higher Education
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Amanda Riley
Sent: 22 May 2002 16:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
Vivien, it sounds to have been a very interesting talk, particularly in
how it encourages recognition of the changes in power structures that are
necessary.
In distance education, which in on-line form has many common issues with
e-learning, there was an interesting contribution a few years ago from
Moore and Kearsley (1996, p 193), who put the following view:
"Most educational and training institutions share three significant problems
in introducing [distance education]:
1. A long-established academic culture that holds a firm view of teaching as
an individual's act in a classroom.
2. Power to change the system is held by senior faculty and administrators,
most of whom are satisfied with the system that gave them power.
3. A rich array of technological and human resources is dissipated in a
system
of faculties, divisions, and departments, each of which guards its own
interests."
I think the need for a powerful internal 'champion' in moving such changes
forward in each case is very considerable.
Amanda
On Wed, 22 May 2002 12:00:25 +0100 "Hodgson, Vivien"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I attended a very interesting lecture last night by Lucy Suchman on
Re(con)
> figuring relations - human and machine and I found much of what she was
> speaking about very relevant to this discussion - not least the points she
> was making about projecting on to the machine the rationalist humanist
> view of the human. During her talk she looked specifically at what
> software agents are doing from this perspective and how they and other
> 'intelligent' technologies achieve results that are both conservative and
> reproductive of current social practices. In a sense this is the issue for
> me. Sure we need to deal with the practical issues of the infrastructure,
> enrolling students onto online programmes and all the things discussed in
> the article recommended by John but how conservative and which
> social/educational practices are being reproduced in what we offer?
> Incidentally she also spoke of how the actual work/labour involved in
> the development of intelligent technology/environments gets obscured and
is
> invisible as are the people who do it. Was an interesting talk.
> Vivien
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jenny Ure [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 22 May 2002 11:16
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
> >
> > John Casey's recommended article fitted our context to a T -
> reingineering > education inevitably seems to involve reenigineering the
> institution that > supports it. Unless this is already underway, and
> strongly championed for > some other purposes, the requests for new online
> registration procedures etc > on which success will depend are going to
> take too long, and generate > serious opposition.
> > > There is an interesting parallell in organisations making their
> services > web-accessible through e-business prtals and so forth.
> Typically the > technology is designed without a real understanding of how
> this will change > the natire of the business processes, and the roles of
> those who manage > them. It is then stalled as it becomes apparent that
> the business processes > need to be overhauled to fit this new medium, or
> take advantage of new > opportunities Staff start to register objections
> to incompatabilities with > their business needs, or lobby for
> changes(more redesign!) they prefer. > Typically this involves more delay,
> more money, more complex redesign and > growing dissatisfaction and
> political intrigue.If this sounds > familiar........
> > >
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Casey {Information Servic
> <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:48 AM > Subject: Re: Networked
> e-learning manifesto >
> > > > Hi Folks
> > > I have been following the discussion in silence - agreeing with much
of
> > what > > has been said.
> > > > > Some of you may be interested in this article about the unexpected
> effects > > of elearning activities on institutions - might be useful. It
> has > certainly
> > > accorded with my experience of elearning so far as a designer and
> support > > worker, and has given me useful ammunition to fire at the
> asssorted > > carpet-baggers and snake-oil salement that seem to inhabit
> the elearning > > bubble.
> > > > > http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue24/virtual-universities/
> > > > > "Theory and Practice of the Virtual University" Neil Pollock &
> James > Cornford report on UK universities use of new
> > > technologies > >
> > > All the Best > > John
> > > > > John Casey
> > > Instructional Designer / Multimedia Developer > > Dept. of Film and
> Media > > University of Stirling
> > > FK9 4LA > > Tel:+44 1786 466224
> > > Fax:+44 1786 466855 > > e-mail:[log in to unmask]
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > From: Jenny Ure > > > Reply To: Networked Learning in
> Higher Education > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:41 am
> > > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > Subject: Re:
> Networked e-learning manifesto > > >
> > > > > 'diverted' into these admittedly very important practical aspects
> and > > > away
> > > > from > > > > some of the underlying beliefs and educational
> philosophy that is > > > reflected in
> > > > > the manifesto. > > > >
> > > > In reply to Vivien - > > >
> > > > I think most people would share the underlying philosophy hence the
> lack > > > of
> > > > controversy! > > > My concern was that people developing these
> systems focus initially (as > we
> > > > did) on > > > the underlying educational needs, only to find no-one
> has planned in > > > advance
> > > > for a budget for the > > > additional computers, support staff,
> training etc, and the experience of > > > Canadian Universities
> > > > outlined by Tony Bates underlines this as a factor in the failure
> of > > > netowrked technology to meet expectations in some quarters.
> > > > > > > (PS I am neither technical nor practical as my ex colleagues
> (KW?) > > > will attest - but have been forced to recognise the impact of
> such > > > practical
> > > > factors on the > > > educational potential of these systems in other
> projects) > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by
> > > charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information
> may > > be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee
> indicated > > in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message
> to such > > person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to
> anyone > > and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
> is > > prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy
> this > > message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please
> advise > > immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet
> email > > for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other
> > > information in this message that do not relate to the official > >
> business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither > >
> given nor endorsed by it. > >
----------------------
Amanda Riley
Flexible Learning Co-ordinator
Unit for Regional Learning
Keynes College
University of Kent
Canterbury CT2 7NP
Tel: 01227 823663
www.ukc.ac.uk/url
|
