Transcript of "Policy forest for learning without frontiers"
Learning Without Frontiers Policy Forest Nigel Ecclesfield Fred Garnett Learner-Generated Contexts Group http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LWF-policyforest January 10/11 2011
Purposes Explore this conference’s views and preferences regarding various technology policy approaches in education in light of technology’s transformative potential Identify preferred policy orientations in different researcher and practitioner communities by combining results from different conferences. Compare these policy orientations with current educational policy initiatives in the UK including “Harnessing Technology”
Why are we doing this? Education policy should be a mix of politics, learning and technology Politics should determines the system structure and validate outcomes Learning should provide purpose and processes Technology should support & enable these We have provided a range of statements concerning politics, learning and technology in education so that we can gauge what mix this audience thinks is appropriate to its vision of education
Learning Without Frontiers What Policy statements would best reflect our vision of; Learning Without Frontiers http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LWF-policyforest
Connected Policy Forest Survey Step through the 11 statements of the survey (reflects 11 ‘levels’ of education) Select that statement which most accords with your vision of education You can also write in an alternative policy statement for each question of you wish.
Results from previous events Most preferred options Learning a mix of informal, non-formal & formal Teachers as multi-skilled learning co-ordinators Adaptive Institutions respond collaboratively to learner needs Least preferred Ministers determine national education policy Formal National Assessments
Why are we doing this? - 2 Policy affects both how we conceptualise our work and operate as researchers and practitioners Our perceptions of policy colour our practice and how we visualise possibilities for technology in learning and teaching, limiting the use we can make of existing affordances of technology and policy Many policies are immanent in our work, despite our articulated resistances, through practices and procedures operating at an institutional level
Connected! Survey Structure Policy; how policy is developed System; how “Ed” policy is delivered Institution; how formal institutes are constituted Architecture; how technology connects t'system Software; how learning software is provided Teachers; how the teaching role is defined Process; What learning model is supported Outcomes; how completed learning is identified Space; how the learning space is constructed Learners; what the role of the learner is Context; How you would define the purpose
Previous Results Most preferred options Learning a mixture of formal, non-formal & informal processes 34 Teachers as multi-skilled learning co-ordinators 29 Adaptive Institutions respond collaboratively to learner needs 27 Collaborative Learning Validated by peers, mentors and advocates 23 Multiple real & virtual locations integrated 23 Least preferred Formal national assessments
Aggregated Results Most preferred options Learning a mixture of formal, non-formal & informal processes – 75 Teachers as multi-skilled learning co-ordinators – 66 Adaptive Institutions respond collaboratively to learner needs 53 Collaborative Learning Validated by peers, mentors and advocates 52 Multiple real & virtual locations integrated 52 Least preferred Formal national assessments Learners are the subjects of education Formal learning requirements driven by employers
Closing thoughts (WIP) Previously LGC approaches preferred 7/3/1 and 6/4/1(slightly different structures) LWF approach to be completed Educationalists identify policy that is good for learning supported by technology We believe that conferences should take clear positions, publish them and review them next year; and tell government This could be one way of doing that