Vivien
I apologise for the misunderstanding. I was not implying that teachers in
the pre92s had less pedagogical training than in the post 92s, at least,
before they arrive in HE. The lack of, say, a PGCE or equivalent is common
across the whole sector, and such a qualification in *adult* learning is
even rarer. However, it is probably the case that more staff go through a
postgraduate certificate programme in post92s, though I do share Kathy's
opinion that the value of such an in-house programme - equivalent to one
third of a masters (where a PGCE is a full conversion 'masters') - is
probably not particularly great, but better than nothing. I think the
problem is that such programmes do not provide the *analytical/synthetical*
skills which a much longer programme would. When only 5 - 15% of school
leavers went to uni, this was probably not such a great problem - all these
kids were there because they had learned how to jump the hoops and could do
so regardless of the quality of the teaching. Today, that simply won't
wash, and I do not think that widening access will be successful unless the
professional *teaching* skills and academics' scholarly understanding of
education is addressed. If not, then these new students will get a bad
deal. But then, as the articles in the Guardian this week suggested, this
government appears to be actively encouraging a class divide, and a poor
deal for the widening access students may not really concern them, or HEFCE,
so long as the elite is well-funded and 'world class' whatever that might
mean - certainly not world class in access!
We cannot develop learning technologies without recognising the political
realities. And I'm a socialist - I think it is our duty as educationalists
to expand access at a cost which does not take resources away from more
needy causes - like pre-school education, care of the elderly etc. I think
technology can help enable this, and is a key reason why I am in the
business. Other developed countries have already reached participation rates
of 60%, so the argument that at 36% in England we have gone far enough is
simply nonsense!
Best wishes. It is nice to have a serious debate on a list for once!
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Networked Learning in Higher Education
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Hodgson, Vivien
Sent: 23 May 2002 13:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
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
