Following on from comments made recently and by in particular both Martin and
Kathy - I would like to say as a personal response that I think the point about
the view of students being missing is important - the manifesto was as it
happens offered in an early manifestation to a group of students and that was
extremely helpful and I did put it up on our own discussion spaces at Lancaster
at the same time as putting it on to the NL list to see what our 'students'
made of it and although  I did suggest they might want to join this list they
have also been adding their own thoughts in the discussions spaces we share
together. I suppose the question that Kathy's comments leaves me with is what
is the best way of ensuring the learners voice is more visible in the manifesto
than seems to be the case at the moment.

On the non academic partners that Martin raises - the same question almost
arises for me as some who contributed were themselves in staff developement and
learning support roles. Certainly in my own experience it is simply not
possible to engage in NL without the support of learning and technical support
staff. On the other hand again speaking personally I have become increasingly
aware that we don't so much need 'support' from librarians but to work much
more closely with them to ensure both we and our students benefit from what
they can offer in a networked learning environment particularly when easy
access to libraries are not available to off campus students.

As I am typing this I am wondering a little about whether it is good to get
'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. This is a comment to myself as much as anything as I don't think
I felt either Martin of Kathy or other people who have commented were not
addressing these aspects as well as the practical ones. .

Also I recall someone during the launch suggesting we need to be more demanding
of policy makers and tell them what we want - which I found quite challenging
in itself. Need to leave it there for now.
Best to all
Vivien


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Wiles [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 May 2002 10:38
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Networked e-learning manifesto
>
> I would also like to endorse Martin's comments viz the inclusion of academic
> and technical support staff.  It has been my experience (as an IT Training
> manager and staff developer in C&IT) that it these personnel (it was me and
> my colleagues in my institution) who are often tasked to implement the
> sytems, strategy and support that enable e-learning in  the first place
> (typically, academics and their departments only become engaged with
> e-learning once these have been put in place).  The wealth of experience and
> depth of knowledge about the pedagogy and the practicum of e-learning accrued
> within this body of staff must be recognised explicitly in the manifesto.
> I would also like to endorse the previous view that students are missing from
> the manifesto, a comment I made at the launch.  It is crucial to the success
> of the manifesto that students also endorse it, and I would propose that
> student views are sought and included before it is taken further.
> Best wishes
> 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: Martin Lewis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 19 May 2002 21:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Networked e-learning manifesto
>
>
> Vivien, David et al
>
> This reponse to your invitation to comment on the manifesto comes
> from a librarian rather than an educationalist.  But read on...
>
> 1.  Non-academic staff involved in supporting learners of all types
> can get confused by both the vocabulary and the educational
> theory, so the Manifesto is valuable as an overview of what
> networked learning is and aspires to be.  The language is
> accessible and concise, and this makes the Manifesto deserving of
> wider dissemination and discussion outside academic departments.
>
> 2.  This may be predictable, but it would be good to see more
> engagement in the document with the roles of non-academic
> partners in the learning process.  The statement in the preamble
> that "the academy is above all a community of scholars" has a
> rather exclusive ring to it, though I think I see where you're coming
> from.
>
> 3.  Networked learning creates opportunities not only for new forms
> of communication (section 4) but for new partnerships between
> teacher, tutors and those responsible for learner support.   Issues
> such as - what access will leaners need to the external knowledge
> base?  how will we engineer that access into VLEs?  who will
> manage rights clearances where externally produced materials are
> used?  how do we deliver the information seeking and handling
> skills that networked learners need?  how do we design and provide
> effective reference support? depend for their resolution on effective
> collaboration not only between learner and tutor, but between both
> of them and an array of support staff including librarians and
> learning development professionals.  If we don't set out to create
> this partnership, we risk failure to live up to learners' expectations,
> and recriminations down the line between professional colleagues
> ("we can't get our library/computer centre to support networked
> learning").  There are some resource issues here, too, which may
> be rather prosaic for exploration in a manifesto but which might
> perhaps be acknowledged a little more explicitly.
>
> 4.  John Gundry's comment about where networked learning "fits
> in" strikes a chord.  Do you see networked learning applicable only
> at the whole programme/course level, or can it be used to
> complement other learning models within a programme, for
> example so that individual modules or assignments can be
> delivered to on-campus students as networked learning
> experiences?  If so, should the definition reflect this?
>
> 5.  Section 5 is entitled "The need for a networked e-learning
> policy".  Do you mean insitutional or national (UK) policy?  As this
> section comes closest to talking about resources and
> partnerships, might it be better to talk about "the need for a
> common set of values for networked e-learning" and simply
> suggest that relevant policies, which will always be written in
> widely varying local contexts, should seek to reflect these shared
> values?
>
> 6.  Finally, where do networked learners do their networked
> learning?  At home? In the workplace?  These scenarios are easy
> enough to understand, since they cast the networked learner as
> distance learner.  But if networked learning happens on campus as
> well, in the situation where courses/programmes may contain
> embedded NL experiences of variable extent, do universities need
> to create appropriate physical spaces for leaners?  (the answer to
> this, I'm sure, is yes; and it's not something that many universities
> are yet doing very well).  Should this need for physical learning
> environments be reflected in the manifesto?
>
> I hope these comments are, on the whole, helpful.
>
> Regards
>
> Martin Lewis