Clearly can't deny any of this Chris but seems a slightly different issue to
the one I was taking exception to - which is that there is no
interest/understanding or whatever in pedagogy in pre 92 Universities which I
thought, rightly or wrongly was getting implied.
Getting back to the manifesto again I was thinking about the use of the term
community of scholars which Kathy also reminded us of. Not sure I find it a
term that sits easy but it does raise the question of what is a University in
this 'post modern' area and what kind of community do we consider ourselves to
be - who should the manifesto be addressing is reflected in this question for
me.
Best
Vivien
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris O'Hagan [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 May 2002 12:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
>
> Vivien
>
> I did say it was a big generalisation and that there were exceptions -
> Lancaster was itself a new university cast in a mould somewhat different
> form the big civics.
>
> However, to ignore that there are differences is simply to devise plans,
> strategies and structures inappropriate to many universities. In my
> experience this is usually disadvantageous to the post92s. Divisiveness
> already exists in some of the comments made by VCs of the pre92s about the
> post92s, and the funding arrangements which reward failure in widening
> access, but success in research - the pre92s get the money each time! I
> would love an end to divisiveness, but it is the elite who are pushing for a
> new binary divide, not the post92s. They prefer to maintain league tables
> which will always portray half of UK HE as below average, however good the
> sector as a whole, and however narrow (and varied) the differences between
> top and bottom.
>
> This is reality. The Matthew Effect: to them that hath it shall be given,
> and from them that hath not it shall be taken away. This way, divisiveness
> becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> Best wishes.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Networked Learning in Higher Education
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Hodgson, Vivien
> Sent: 23 May 2002 10:14
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
>
>
> Have to say it feels like a few unhelpful myths are being aired here - as
> someone who doesn't recognise at all the picture being painted in terms of
> my
> personal experience as an academic/teacher in my own University (Lancaster)
> and
> also my understanding of at least the experience of some of the people who
> participated in the ESRC seminar series responsible for developing the
> manifesto who of course came from both Post and Pre 92 Universities and
> included both academics and staff developers from both. Is it helpful to
> address the issues from such a potentially divisive perspective? Many of the
> points people are making about pedagogy etc. I agree with but this is not
> because I work a post or pre 92 Univeristy.
> Vivien
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathy Wiles [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 23 May 2002 09:24
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
> >
> > Hear, hear Chris! My experiences in a post92 institution, teaching a
> module
> > on ICT in learning and teaching within an ILT accredited PGCert revealed
> two
> > things
> > 1)Even when the teachers (the students of the course) had experience of
> > teaching or had passed previous modules in the course, their understanding
> of
> > pedagogy was surprisingly lacking
> > and
> > 2) that teaching pedagogy through ICT seemed to make the subject
> accessible
> > to them- it was the only module in the certificate with a 100% attendance
> and
> > submission rate!
> >
> > Having struggled extremely hard to have the module included and being
> > questioned rigourously by the external members of the course validation
> group
> > (who worried that we were teaching a skills module), I can assure you that
> it
> > was not an easy module to pass.
> >
> > As Chris said, being in a Post92 institution meant that as an IT Trainer
> and
> > a Librarian, the course team was supported by management and accepted by
> > those on the course. I don't imagine that we would have been in a Pre92!
> >
> > e-learning is a vehicle to inform teachers about pedagogy, and it is not a
> > different or new pedagogy. Certainly in post92 institutions it is often
> the
> > centralised support staff who are tasked with delivering this staff
> > development to academics, and in my experience the centralised support
> staff
> > had the greater understanding of pedagogy, thanks largely to programmes
> like
> > Edulib and the fact that many have postgraduate certificates in education.
> > That is why their (our) role should be made explicit in any manifesto.
> And
> > if the pre92s don't understand it or like it, perhaps its time to leave
> them
> > behind rather than bend reality? It comes down to the cliche that just
> > because you have extensive knowledge of a subject does not mean that you
> can
> > teach. Understanding of pedagogy is not something that you can acquire by
> > standing alone in front of a class. You may be able to acquire it through
> > observation of peers and you can certainly acquire it by being taught and
> > putting what you have learned into practice. As e-learning is one of the
> key
> > drivers in staff development, it is logical that it should be the vehicle
> for
> > pedagogy for all learning and teaching. Or am I a dreamer?
> > Kathy
> >
> > Kathy Wiles [log in to unmask]
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Senior Adviser tel +44 (0)1904 754561
> > LTSN Generic Centre
> > The Network Centre
> > Innovation Close
> > Heslington
> > York
> > YO10 5ZF
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris O'Hagan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 22 May 2002 17:09
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
> >
> >
> > 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
|