I would say that we have more common ground than otherwise. I find your
comment about not being in control of technology a little scary but apart
frok that have little to argue with. My original posting was aimed at the
FE sector where people have felt pressured into buying VLEs. There budgets
are tighter than those in th HE sector and like it or not they have to cut
their coat according to their cloth. With VLE licences being renewed
annually it seems somewhat wasteful if it just sits on the system with no
one using it. This has caused a number of colleges to give them up after a
couple of years.
Having a learning strategy in place before you buy your VLE helps to stop
this happening. If you know what you are going to use it for you can make a
more informed choice and get things up and running much quicker. I also
make my living from educational technology and am anxious that peoples
expectation of the technology is still higher than the technologies ability
to deliver. In trying to encourage a more reasoned approach to educational
technology I am trying to lessen what is known in marketting terms as the
trough of dissilusionment.
Ken Smith
ILT Specialist
RSC South East
Work: 0118 967 5451
Mobile 07814 023986
http://www.rsc-southeast.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Virtual Learning Environments [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Rachel Ellaway
Sent: 08 January 2003 08:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Who needs a VLE? - compromises abound
What I was trying to get to was the idea that there is a cyclic and
iterative relationship between the adoption of a technology to meet
perceived needs (as you quite rightly state) and the actuality of its
use and development. There is still a gulf (although narrowing)
between learning and the appropriate educational technology that will
facilitate it. Selecting this or that device or platform is always
going to be a compromise decision based on the 'best fit' between
device and the context it is going to be deployed in to. The lack of
'magic bullet' technologies and the need for compromise means that we
will inevitably either change the teaching to fit what is available
or seek other means to achieve our ends.
Furthermore paraphrasing Etienne Wenger - learning cannot be
designed, it can at best be designed for. There can be no direct
causally linked learning created simply by using a given technology.
Learning is inherently human; done for, by, to and with people. A VLE
is simply a prosthesis that lets us do more things, different things
or things differently but it will always be a 'blended' approach. As
such, planning learning as mediated by a technology is also going to
be a compromise. Maybe the issue is one of tolerance. If learning
design and the technology to facilitate is done at a fairly low
tolerance then maybe these issues are less significant?
Indeed, we should analyse and plan before you buy. But we will also
inevitably change once we have bought and start using a technology.
We will discover what actually can and cannot be done and indeed what
we might want to do. This informs the next cycle of planning and
implementation and so on.
Returning to the non-neutrality of technology, every tool, device and
system will be invested with the conceptual and philosophical
perspectives of its commissioners and builders - and indeed those of
the medium through which it is delivered. For instance a VLE will be
structured around the conception of its builders regarding how
education should be organised, what tools you should have, what roles
are supported, the language used and what is important and what is
not. Furthermore the affordances of the operating system and browser
will also constrain what can be done and how it will be presented to
the user. I cannot agree that we are in real control of technology.
Yet again we compromise and take a path that maximises what we wish
and minimises what we do not. The most absolute control we have is
the 'off' switch.
<soapbox>Although this probably sounds like a negative perspective, I
am very much in favour of technology in education (it is my
livelihood after all). But I also think that we need to be more
critically aware about our relationship with our tools and the way we
allow them to shape us and our world. </soapbox>
Rachel Ellaway
MVM Learning Technology Section
The University of Edinburgh
==============
>a)
>I do not recall even implying that Technology was neutral the fact that it
>is not was actually my point. I would say that university style
>learning,being asynchronous and resource based,is more suited to VLE
>delivery than is the case in colleges. I did not advocate that people use a
>balance sheet approach I simply suggested that it was the learning that was
>important and that one should plan the learning and then buy the technology
>that helped you deliver it. The option of buying the technology then
working
>out what you could do with it seems to me to be somewhat unprofessional.
>
>b)
>Being a humble Engineer, I have difficulty separating point a from point b.
>I agree that the way we teach is limited by what facilities we have but we
>are in control of what technology we use. We surely buy the technology to
>suit the teaching methods that work best.
>
>Ken Smith
>ILT Specialist
>RSC South East
>Work: 0118 967 5451
>Mobile 07814 023986
>http://www.rsc-southeast.ac.uk
***************** List information: *****************
Remember - replies go by default to the entire list.
Access the list via the web on http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html
The Ferl VLE Focus Area is at http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=76
To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave vle
***************** List information: *****************
Remember - replies go by default to the entire list.
Access the list via the web on http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/vle.html
The Ferl VLE Focus Area is at http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=76
To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with the message: leave vle
|