The document summarizes findings from 12 focus groups with 123 learners across various locations and providers in the UK. The focus groups aimed to understand what digital skills learners say are important. Key findings included:
- Learners said basic ICT skills like using search engines, email and office software were most important.
- Access to fast WiFi and personal devices were also highly valued.
- Learners wanted experience with workplace technologies to feel confident in future jobs.
- Safety and ethical use of the internet received mixed opinions on importance.
- Learners responded positively to having input into digital technology use in their education.
Alternative archetypes of formal education provisionPaul Bacsich
This is the revised version of the earlier paper, updated in the light of input at EIF2012 during and after the workshop on the topic. Now awaiting further refinement at ALT-C
Alternative archetypes of formal education provisionPaul Bacsich
This is the revised version of the earlier paper, updated in the light of input at EIF2012 during and after the workshop on the topic. Now awaiting further refinement at ALT-C
Quality in e-learning - a view for ENQAPaul Bacsich
A view from a benchmarking e-learning perspective of how to initiate a synthesis of approaches to quality in e-learning for use Europe-wide within the ENQA Standards and Guidelines
Ocwc2014 policies-bacsich final and refsPaul Bacsich
This presentation responds to the challenge of developing policies for OER uptake in the higher education sector of a given country, with particular reference to the smaller countries of the European Union (countries with no more than around 10 million people). It takes a case study approach, reviewing how the POERUP project (Policies for OER Uptake, part-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the EU) is developing policies for three smaller countries: Ireland (an EU member state) and Wales and Scotland (two semi-autonomous regions of the United Kingdom, fully autonomous in educational terms). The inclusion of Wales and Scotland also throws light on the challenge of developing policies for federal countries where higher education is developed to the province/state level.
Factors that seem to be of particular relevance to smaller states include:
1. less money for extensive research and policy analysis
2. more influence of regional and isolated areas
3. easier decision-making, at least in theory
4. issues of lack of economies of scale, in particular if the national language is state-specific
5. greater interest in collaboration with some nearby states on educational issues
6. a smaller set of institutions, causing issues with generating or maintaining institutional diversity of mission unless the process is managed
7. potentially greater danger of dominance by private sector interests
8. potentially large edge effects of student flows from nearby states, potentially made worse if funding and regulatory regimes are attractive to incomers.
The analysis includes studying the interplay between the recommendations produced by international policy work relating to OER and the national policy context (which in some cases makes no mention of OER, in others makes considerable mention but not always correlated with or aware of international issues).
The starting point within POERUP is the document "Policy advice for universities" of which release 1 is currently available, but which is being updated in the light of comments and incoming data. This reviews recent international policy (e.g. COL, UNESCO); EU policies (including Bologna, Europe 2020, Recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning, European higher education in the world, and most recently, Opening Up Education), relevant to OER and consolidated evidence from a variety of national contexts, to make a set of (currently) 18 recommendations designed not only to foster OER but also the changes in higher education that OER is foreseen as helping to foster - such as more flexible accreditation, encouragement of a wider community to take part in higher education, and a vision of higher education focussed more on competences and skills gained and less on duration of study. See Policies at EU-level for OER uptake in universities - http://www.scribd.com/doc/169430544/Policies-at-EU-level-for-OER-uptake-in-universities
The overall aim of POERUP is to carry out research to understand how governments can stimulate the uptake of OER by policy means, not excluding financial means but recognising that in the current economic situation in Europe the scope for government financial support for such activities is much less than it has been in some countries.
We do not want to formulate policies based on informal discussions. We want the policies to be evidence-based policies – and based on looking beyond – beyond one’s own country, region or continent, and beyond the educational sector that a ministry typically looks after.
One aspect of this is to foster the potential of new technologies for enhancing innovation and creativity, in particular by researching policies designed to foster a lifelong learner mindset in learners – leading to curiosity, creativity and a greater willingness to consume OER.
We also want to provide education authorities, the research community and OER initiative management with trustworthy and balanced research results, in which feedback from all stakeholder groups has been incorporated and which can be used as standard literature. A specific objective is to help readers in charge of OER initiatives to foresee hidden traps and to find ways of incorporating successful features of other initiatives. POERUP is about dispassionate analysis, not lobbying.
We aim to provide policymakers and education authorities above institutions, but also OER management and practitioners within institutions, with insight into what has been done in this area, plus a categorization of the different major initiatives and the diverse range of providers. Policy advice is needed explicitly to address Issues like critical thinking in the use of new technologies/media, risk awareness, and ethical/legal considerations. Our review will provide practical and concrete information in order to contribute towards a more informed approach in the future.
POERUP is doing this by:
• studying a range of countries in Europe and seen as relevant to Europe, in order to understand what OER is going on, and why it is going on (or might soon cease to be going on) – and taking account of reports from other agencies studying OER in other countries;
• researching case studies of various end-user–producer communities behind OER initiatives in order to refine and elaborate recommendations to formulate a set of action points that can be applied to ensuring the realisation of successful, lively and sustainable OER communities;
• developing informed ideas on policy formulation using evidence from our own and other studies, our own experience in related projects and ongoing advice from other experts in the field.
Finally, these results are being disseminated and maintained in a sustainable way.
The project has a web site http://www.poerup.info and a wiki http://poerup.referata.com for country reports and other outputs. This wiki will be sustained after the end of t
Using OER and MOOCs for education and training - leadersPaul Bacsich
This presentation provides a 12-slide snapshot in March 2016 of the D-TRANSFORM project funded under Erasmus+ to develop leadership training in e-learning (digital learning) for senior leaders (Rectors, Vice-Rectors, Board Directors) in universities and other higher education institutions across Europe. It was presented virtually to the workshop "Open Education - concepts, tools, resources, practices" in Timisoara, Romania, on 11 March 2016 - which was also streamed
OCWC POERUP external evaluation of FutureLearn communityPaul Bacsich
FutureLearn is a private company wholly owned by the UK Open University. It has partnered with over 20 leading UK universities to form the FutureLearn consortium. Since October 2013 this has offered a range of MOOCs focussed at informal learning on subjects typically taught at university level. FutureLearn has partnered also with three UK institutions with archives of cultural and educational material - the British Council, the British Library, and the British Museum - and with a few non-UK universities, so far the University of Auckland, Monash University and Trinity College Dublin.
This paper is a case study of FutureLearn. Unlike many case studies of such MOOC-based and OER initiatives, it is not from a member of the consortium. Indeed the case study will not use any privileged information. In evaluation terms it is carried out from an “external observer” standpoint, not from a “participant-observer” standpoint.
The key research question for this case study is to establish the strength and functions of the FutureLearn community - the community of staff at institutions who are engaged, increasingly collaboratively, in creating the FutureLearn courses, supporting the students, and co-developing the FutureLearn software systems and procedures.
The reason for this case study is to test one of the fundamental hypotheses of the POERUP project. POERUP, Policies for OER Uptake, is a study project funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, running from late 2011 until June 2014. Among the core tasks of POERUP are to produce seven in-depth case studies of OER and MOOC communities. In addition to FutureLearn these include OER university (global), Wikiwijs (Netherlands) and ALISON (Ireland).
The research methodology involves so far:
1. documentary analysis of the FutureLearn project, involving what it says about itself and what others say about it, and a preliminary set of informal discussions with stakeholders.
2. in-depth interviews, using an interview template, with key staff at FutureLearn partners.
There will be a final phase of documentary analysis in the May-June 2014, before the end of the POERUP project.
The communities in the POERUP case studies are being analysed using Social Network Analysis, to varying degrees of depth depending on the activity within the communities. Bieke Schreurs the co-author of the presentation is responsible for this aspect of the research (Schreurs et al 2013).
The evidence we have gathered in the POERUP project indicates that at least within the European Union the era of large state-funded OER content initiatives is almost over. Our hypothesis is that a development such as FutureLearn is much more the kind of partnership - public and private, ambitious but not unrealistically so, nationally based yet not nationally bounded - that will succeed - and we want to understand and document why this is so in order that others can learn from it.
Policies for uptake of OER in the UK home nationsPaul Bacsich
This paper from POERUP provides a set of 16 or so recommendations designed to foster the use of open educational resources and open educational practices in the UK higher education sector, in particular England, Scotland and Wales.
The study method was to review the full range of OER activity in the UK HE sector in the last few years (such as the JISC/HEA OER Programme), take into account the policy environment in the home nations for HE in general and online learning in particular, and correlate these both with developments in over 30 other countries deemed to be of relevance to Europe and the emerging policy environment at EU level (to which the POERUP project contributed, as the author was both a member of the EU’s Open Education Experts Group and a contributor (Bacsich 2013a) to the Open Education 2030 workshop on higher education).
This paper focuses only on higher education in the UK but companion papers focus on further education and on schools.
In addition the project is also preparing policy papers on Ireland (by the same author), Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland and Canada. This set of studies and papers provides massive capability for cross-correlation and triangulation.
Our first EU HE OER policy paper (Bacsich 2013b) was made available publicly in September 2013, in advance of the EU’s Opening Up Education report (European Commission 2013). Ours has now been updated to take account of that and refine the EU’s recommendations for the HE sector. The first summary version of a UK HE policy paper has been produced for internal discussion in the POERUP project and then in the Advisory Committee.
Our UK HE presentation aims to take into account the different home nations’ HE systems and the different state of policy development in England and Wales (BIS 2013; HEW 2013) and working groups such as Open Scotland.
The POERUP project takes care not to focus on OER as an end in itself, but on the agendas that OER is said to be able to foster and on the wider agenda (called by the EU “opening up education”, but equally well called by others “open and distance learning”, “open educational practices”, or “flexible learning”) within which OER is embedded. Paradoxically perhaps, this makes it much easier to make recommendations and to ensure stability in the recommendations and consistency with other existing policies.
In its current draft form, the recommendations are formulated as 16 in a “home nation neutral” fashion, but the number of recommendations will no doubt change as the document splits into three versions. It is still felt to be valuable to produce a UK-wide synthesis, not least because several key agencies such as HEA and QAA have a UK-wide remit.
The project is willing to work with other home nations/regions/mission groups, Crown Dependencies and other EU countries to co-create similar documents. It already has some experience of this developed in the last few months.
Institutional Open Education and OER Policies - a view from POERUPPaul Bacsich
This webinar will provide two perspectives on OER policies and seek to answer some of the key questions related to Open Education and OER policies. The questions below will drive the session delivered by the presenters and form the basis of the discussion which follows.
Why have a policy?
What are the problems in developing a policy?
How do you get your teaching staff on board?
Did it require extra staff (as with MOOCs in some cases)?
What are the main elements of your policy? For example, is there was a minimum/maximum amount of OER that could be used e.g. only 50% could be made up from OER.
Have you had feedback from students about the policy?
Has there been feedback (good/bad) from students as a result?
What have been the key benefits of developing and having a policy?
The first presenter is Paul Bacsich from POERUP.
This presentation describes the approach taken by an externally-funded series of analytic projects in OER, first POERUP and then the successor studies on SharedOER and Adult Education & OER, to “solve” the requirement, first posed by UNESCO in 2012 (D’Antoni, 2013), but later taken up by the Hewlett Foundation (2013), of geographic mapping of OER initiatives, policies and other related entities. There are of course several such “solutions”, all with their strengths and weaknesses, but the POERUP database is larger than most so far, more multi-sector (HE,VET and K-12) and more global in coverage – in part because it could leverage on a series of well-funded EU projects over several years, each unusually (for EU projects) taking a global viewpoint.
The presentation will consider the decisions taken by POERUP and its successor studies on technology, databases, mapping and user interface, looking both at the distribution and the collection aspects.
POERUP elevator pitch: 26 countries in 26 minuteswitthaus
Presentation by POERUP team at OER13 in Nottingham - an overview of open educational resources policies worldwide, based on the POERUP project research (http://www.poerup.info)
About the VISCED Poject:
The VISCED project carried out an inventory of innovative ICT-enhanced learning initiatives and major ‘e-mature’ secondary and post-secondary education providers for the 14-21 age group in Europe. This entailed a systematic review at international and national levels including a study into operational examples of fully virtual schools and colleges. The outputs of this work have been analysed and compared to identify relevant parameters and success factors for classifying and comparing these initiatives.
See http://www.virtualschoolsandcolleges.info/
EFQUEL Innovation Forum
26-28 September 2012,
Granada, Spain
The EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2012 provided an opportunity to discuss future and innovative practices, research and policy developments in the various sectors of education.
http://www.qualityfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=275&Itemid=110&lang=en
To be written and added to web site
Presentation given by Paul Bacsich from Sero entitled “Results as we near the end” and provided a summary of the main outcomes of the VISCED work up to September 2012 including the policy recommendations and success factors.
Moderator: Antonella Poce, Network of Academics and Professionals (NAP) Steering Committee member and Associate Professor in Experimental Pedagogy at the University Roma Tre – Department of Education
Date: 7 December 2016
Recording of the webinar: https://eden-online.adobeconnect.com/p4hcaplald5/
Quality in e-learning - a view for ENQAPaul Bacsich
A view from a benchmarking e-learning perspective of how to initiate a synthesis of approaches to quality in e-learning for use Europe-wide within the ENQA Standards and Guidelines
Ocwc2014 policies-bacsich final and refsPaul Bacsich
This presentation responds to the challenge of developing policies for OER uptake in the higher education sector of a given country, with particular reference to the smaller countries of the European Union (countries with no more than around 10 million people). It takes a case study approach, reviewing how the POERUP project (Policies for OER Uptake, part-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the EU) is developing policies for three smaller countries: Ireland (an EU member state) and Wales and Scotland (two semi-autonomous regions of the United Kingdom, fully autonomous in educational terms). The inclusion of Wales and Scotland also throws light on the challenge of developing policies for federal countries where higher education is developed to the province/state level.
Factors that seem to be of particular relevance to smaller states include:
1. less money for extensive research and policy analysis
2. more influence of regional and isolated areas
3. easier decision-making, at least in theory
4. issues of lack of economies of scale, in particular if the national language is state-specific
5. greater interest in collaboration with some nearby states on educational issues
6. a smaller set of institutions, causing issues with generating or maintaining institutional diversity of mission unless the process is managed
7. potentially greater danger of dominance by private sector interests
8. potentially large edge effects of student flows from nearby states, potentially made worse if funding and regulatory regimes are attractive to incomers.
The analysis includes studying the interplay between the recommendations produced by international policy work relating to OER and the national policy context (which in some cases makes no mention of OER, in others makes considerable mention but not always correlated with or aware of international issues).
The starting point within POERUP is the document "Policy advice for universities" of which release 1 is currently available, but which is being updated in the light of comments and incoming data. This reviews recent international policy (e.g. COL, UNESCO); EU policies (including Bologna, Europe 2020, Recognition and validation of non-formal and informal learning, European higher education in the world, and most recently, Opening Up Education), relevant to OER and consolidated evidence from a variety of national contexts, to make a set of (currently) 18 recommendations designed not only to foster OER but also the changes in higher education that OER is foreseen as helping to foster - such as more flexible accreditation, encouragement of a wider community to take part in higher education, and a vision of higher education focussed more on competences and skills gained and less on duration of study. See Policies at EU-level for OER uptake in universities - http://www.scribd.com/doc/169430544/Policies-at-EU-level-for-OER-uptake-in-universities
The overall aim of POERUP is to carry out research to understand how governments can stimulate the uptake of OER by policy means, not excluding financial means but recognising that in the current economic situation in Europe the scope for government financial support for such activities is much less than it has been in some countries.
We do not want to formulate policies based on informal discussions. We want the policies to be evidence-based policies – and based on looking beyond – beyond one’s own country, region or continent, and beyond the educational sector that a ministry typically looks after.
One aspect of this is to foster the potential of new technologies for enhancing innovation and creativity, in particular by researching policies designed to foster a lifelong learner mindset in learners – leading to curiosity, creativity and a greater willingness to consume OER.
We also want to provide education authorities, the research community and OER initiative management with trustworthy and balanced research results, in which feedback from all stakeholder groups has been incorporated and which can be used as standard literature. A specific objective is to help readers in charge of OER initiatives to foresee hidden traps and to find ways of incorporating successful features of other initiatives. POERUP is about dispassionate analysis, not lobbying.
We aim to provide policymakers and education authorities above institutions, but also OER management and practitioners within institutions, with insight into what has been done in this area, plus a categorization of the different major initiatives and the diverse range of providers. Policy advice is needed explicitly to address Issues like critical thinking in the use of new technologies/media, risk awareness, and ethical/legal considerations. Our review will provide practical and concrete information in order to contribute towards a more informed approach in the future.
POERUP is doing this by:
• studying a range of countries in Europe and seen as relevant to Europe, in order to understand what OER is going on, and why it is going on (or might soon cease to be going on) – and taking account of reports from other agencies studying OER in other countries;
• researching case studies of various end-user–producer communities behind OER initiatives in order to refine and elaborate recommendations to formulate a set of action points that can be applied to ensuring the realisation of successful, lively and sustainable OER communities;
• developing informed ideas on policy formulation using evidence from our own and other studies, our own experience in related projects and ongoing advice from other experts in the field.
Finally, these results are being disseminated and maintained in a sustainable way.
The project has a web site http://www.poerup.info and a wiki http://poerup.referata.com for country reports and other outputs. This wiki will be sustained after the end of t
Using OER and MOOCs for education and training - leadersPaul Bacsich
This presentation provides a 12-slide snapshot in March 2016 of the D-TRANSFORM project funded under Erasmus+ to develop leadership training in e-learning (digital learning) for senior leaders (Rectors, Vice-Rectors, Board Directors) in universities and other higher education institutions across Europe. It was presented virtually to the workshop "Open Education - concepts, tools, resources, practices" in Timisoara, Romania, on 11 March 2016 - which was also streamed
OCWC POERUP external evaluation of FutureLearn communityPaul Bacsich
FutureLearn is a private company wholly owned by the UK Open University. It has partnered with over 20 leading UK universities to form the FutureLearn consortium. Since October 2013 this has offered a range of MOOCs focussed at informal learning on subjects typically taught at university level. FutureLearn has partnered also with three UK institutions with archives of cultural and educational material - the British Council, the British Library, and the British Museum - and with a few non-UK universities, so far the University of Auckland, Monash University and Trinity College Dublin.
This paper is a case study of FutureLearn. Unlike many case studies of such MOOC-based and OER initiatives, it is not from a member of the consortium. Indeed the case study will not use any privileged information. In evaluation terms it is carried out from an “external observer” standpoint, not from a “participant-observer” standpoint.
The key research question for this case study is to establish the strength and functions of the FutureLearn community - the community of staff at institutions who are engaged, increasingly collaboratively, in creating the FutureLearn courses, supporting the students, and co-developing the FutureLearn software systems and procedures.
The reason for this case study is to test one of the fundamental hypotheses of the POERUP project. POERUP, Policies for OER Uptake, is a study project funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission, running from late 2011 until June 2014. Among the core tasks of POERUP are to produce seven in-depth case studies of OER and MOOC communities. In addition to FutureLearn these include OER university (global), Wikiwijs (Netherlands) and ALISON (Ireland).
The research methodology involves so far:
1. documentary analysis of the FutureLearn project, involving what it says about itself and what others say about it, and a preliminary set of informal discussions with stakeholders.
2. in-depth interviews, using an interview template, with key staff at FutureLearn partners.
There will be a final phase of documentary analysis in the May-June 2014, before the end of the POERUP project.
The communities in the POERUP case studies are being analysed using Social Network Analysis, to varying degrees of depth depending on the activity within the communities. Bieke Schreurs the co-author of the presentation is responsible for this aspect of the research (Schreurs et al 2013).
The evidence we have gathered in the POERUP project indicates that at least within the European Union the era of large state-funded OER content initiatives is almost over. Our hypothesis is that a development such as FutureLearn is much more the kind of partnership - public and private, ambitious but not unrealistically so, nationally based yet not nationally bounded - that will succeed - and we want to understand and document why this is so in order that others can learn from it.
Policies for uptake of OER in the UK home nationsPaul Bacsich
This paper from POERUP provides a set of 16 or so recommendations designed to foster the use of open educational resources and open educational practices in the UK higher education sector, in particular England, Scotland and Wales.
The study method was to review the full range of OER activity in the UK HE sector in the last few years (such as the JISC/HEA OER Programme), take into account the policy environment in the home nations for HE in general and online learning in particular, and correlate these both with developments in over 30 other countries deemed to be of relevance to Europe and the emerging policy environment at EU level (to which the POERUP project contributed, as the author was both a member of the EU’s Open Education Experts Group and a contributor (Bacsich 2013a) to the Open Education 2030 workshop on higher education).
This paper focuses only on higher education in the UK but companion papers focus on further education and on schools.
In addition the project is also preparing policy papers on Ireland (by the same author), Netherlands, France, Spain, Poland and Canada. This set of studies and papers provides massive capability for cross-correlation and triangulation.
Our first EU HE OER policy paper (Bacsich 2013b) was made available publicly in September 2013, in advance of the EU’s Opening Up Education report (European Commission 2013). Ours has now been updated to take account of that and refine the EU’s recommendations for the HE sector. The first summary version of a UK HE policy paper has been produced for internal discussion in the POERUP project and then in the Advisory Committee.
Our UK HE presentation aims to take into account the different home nations’ HE systems and the different state of policy development in England and Wales (BIS 2013; HEW 2013) and working groups such as Open Scotland.
The POERUP project takes care not to focus on OER as an end in itself, but on the agendas that OER is said to be able to foster and on the wider agenda (called by the EU “opening up education”, but equally well called by others “open and distance learning”, “open educational practices”, or “flexible learning”) within which OER is embedded. Paradoxically perhaps, this makes it much easier to make recommendations and to ensure stability in the recommendations and consistency with other existing policies.
In its current draft form, the recommendations are formulated as 16 in a “home nation neutral” fashion, but the number of recommendations will no doubt change as the document splits into three versions. It is still felt to be valuable to produce a UK-wide synthesis, not least because several key agencies such as HEA and QAA have a UK-wide remit.
The project is willing to work with other home nations/regions/mission groups, Crown Dependencies and other EU countries to co-create similar documents. It already has some experience of this developed in the last few months.
Institutional Open Education and OER Policies - a view from POERUPPaul Bacsich
This webinar will provide two perspectives on OER policies and seek to answer some of the key questions related to Open Education and OER policies. The questions below will drive the session delivered by the presenters and form the basis of the discussion which follows.
Why have a policy?
What are the problems in developing a policy?
How do you get your teaching staff on board?
Did it require extra staff (as with MOOCs in some cases)?
What are the main elements of your policy? For example, is there was a minimum/maximum amount of OER that could be used e.g. only 50% could be made up from OER.
Have you had feedback from students about the policy?
Has there been feedback (good/bad) from students as a result?
What have been the key benefits of developing and having a policy?
The first presenter is Paul Bacsich from POERUP.
This presentation describes the approach taken by an externally-funded series of analytic projects in OER, first POERUP and then the successor studies on SharedOER and Adult Education & OER, to “solve” the requirement, first posed by UNESCO in 2012 (D’Antoni, 2013), but later taken up by the Hewlett Foundation (2013), of geographic mapping of OER initiatives, policies and other related entities. There are of course several such “solutions”, all with their strengths and weaknesses, but the POERUP database is larger than most so far, more multi-sector (HE,VET and K-12) and more global in coverage – in part because it could leverage on a series of well-funded EU projects over several years, each unusually (for EU projects) taking a global viewpoint.
The presentation will consider the decisions taken by POERUP and its successor studies on technology, databases, mapping and user interface, looking both at the distribution and the collection aspects.
POERUP elevator pitch: 26 countries in 26 minuteswitthaus
Presentation by POERUP team at OER13 in Nottingham - an overview of open educational resources policies worldwide, based on the POERUP project research (http://www.poerup.info)
About the VISCED Poject:
The VISCED project carried out an inventory of innovative ICT-enhanced learning initiatives and major ‘e-mature’ secondary and post-secondary education providers for the 14-21 age group in Europe. This entailed a systematic review at international and national levels including a study into operational examples of fully virtual schools and colleges. The outputs of this work have been analysed and compared to identify relevant parameters and success factors for classifying and comparing these initiatives.
See http://www.virtualschoolsandcolleges.info/
EFQUEL Innovation Forum
26-28 September 2012,
Granada, Spain
The EFQUEL Innovation Forum 2012 provided an opportunity to discuss future and innovative practices, research and policy developments in the various sectors of education.
http://www.qualityfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=275&Itemid=110&lang=en
To be written and added to web site
Presentation given by Paul Bacsich from Sero entitled “Results as we near the end” and provided a summary of the main outcomes of the VISCED work up to September 2012 including the policy recommendations and success factors.
Moderator: Antonella Poce, Network of Academics and Professionals (NAP) Steering Committee member and Associate Professor in Experimental Pedagogy at the University Roma Tre – Department of Education
Date: 7 December 2016
Recording of the webinar: https://eden-online.adobeconnect.com/p4hcaplald5/
http://www.nclca.org/2011conference/pre-con-C.html
Lisa D'Adamo-Weinstein
Past President, NCLCA
Technology is present in our everyday lives from e-mail to e-Commerce from Internet to Instant Messaging from Youtube videos to video conferencing from social networking to Skyping from texting to online textbooks. Technologies bring together the seemingly disparate concepts of ease and complexity. Compared to just ten years ago, we have much more ease in accessing information, resources, and multimedia, but keeping up with emerging technologies can be complex and overwhelming. Knowing what technologies your students have and how they can be leveraged to increase students' success in college can be intimidating. Emerging technologies such as social networking, multi-media sharing, collaborative workspaces, and mobile technologies are significantly changing the nature of learning and learner expectations for interaction, access, and engagement. Learning center professionals need to leverage emerging technologies in ways that can enhance they ways in which we deliver services, create resources, market our centers, manage and train staff, and evaluate our centers. This pre-conference institute will address the following:
Provide a practical guide for how to best understand and evaluate the usefulness of emerging technologies;
Introduce participants to some free technology resources that can help learning center professionals maximize their resources and outreach to students;
Discuss best practices in implementing technology innovations in learning centers; and
Help participants devise a plan for how to choose the technology tools that will help them meet their goals in managing their learning center.
THE WEB-BASED EDUCATION JOURNEY: A CONSTANT LIFELINEcscpconf
E-learning has revolutionized our realm in more than just a listable number of ways. But it took
a paradigm shift when it entered the threshold of the varsity system. With the prevailing spoonfeeding
era, are the students really ¬industry ready? We answer that by confirming a fact: webbased
learning has become the oxygen of freshers in the IT Industry instead of the traditional
learning done through graduation. Furthermore, are university enforced e-learning assessment
systems a true representation of a student's proficiency? This paper is a peep into what webbased
e-learning systems are to a student of today's world, by giving an overview of universitylevel
e-learning in India deploying an example from SRM University's organizational
framework. It assesses a key e-learning trend, the implementation of which bridges the gap
between universities and the industry. It is proposed to provide constructive feedback to the elearning
community and shine some light on areas of scope for future developments.
What the learners say: FE learners' expectations and experiences of technolog...Jisc
Is your college meeting your learners’ needs and expectations in relation to technology? This workshop shares current practice from providers who are engaging learners as active participants in the development of digital practices and strategies and will help equip you to develop best practice in your own college.
1. What Skills learners say
Leicester
14/04/16
#digitalstudent http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org
2. 12 focus groups
14/04/2016
Location Provider Type of provider Learners’ courses No.
Sheffield InTouchCare Private training organisation Social care/ childcare, level 2 7
Stoke-on-trent Stoke ACL ACL Functional Maths, level 2 4
London LESOCO FE college Business management , levels two and three 13
Bristol Lifetime Training Private training organisation Hospitality , levels two and three 10
Lowestoft Realise Futures Private trainer (social enterprise) Land based, levels E and E1 3
Leicester Leicester ACL ACL IT/ basic skills, levels E, one and two 7
Derby Derby ACL ACL Languages, levels E, one and three 6
Carmarthen Carmarthenshire ACL ACL
IT/ art/ functional English and Maths ,
levels E to three
20
Taunton Somerset College FE Childcare; Motor Vehicle; Hairdressing – Level 2 33
Scotland
HMP Shotts (New College,
Lanarkshire)
Offenders Numeracy, Literacy, IT 8
Devon
HMP Channings Wood (Weston
College)
Offenders
Various from Levels 1 - 3, plus one English
Literature degree student
8
Rotherham WEA ACL Various – all Level 2 4
Totals
ACL 5; private trainers 3; FE colleges
2; Prisons 2
123
4. What learners use their devices for in
their personal and social lives
14/04/2016
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Online gaming
Use wikis/blogs/online networks
Upload photos
Use advanced phone functions
Use messaging apps
Use social networkng sites
% of learners
Over 40
Under 20
5. How learners use their devices in their studies
14/04/2016
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Use an electronic library
Use online learning materials they find themselves
Use a search engine
% of learners
Over 40
Under 20
6. Focus groups – the most important items
14/04/2016
Group Item % of lists
Skills Basic ICT skills e.g. use of internet search, email, word processing,
spreadsheets, etc
92
Access Fast wifi that is easy to connect to 84
Access A device like a laptop, tablet or fixed computer to use on your own
when needed
80
Experiences Experience with technologies used in the workplace 79
Making good
choices
Ability to enter a workplace and feel confident with the technology
used there
76
7. Focus groups
• “In 5 years’ time, basic IT skills will have changed, so you have to
keep learning it. I can learn a lot on my own, but you need to be
taught spreadsheets”
• “If the wifi signal is bad, it can disrupt the lesson and mess up your
learning”
• “It’s not always easy to bring your own laptop to the classroom –
and mobile phones aren’t allowed”
• “I’m looking for a job and I’m worried I won’t be able to understand
the software they use at work”
14/04/2016
8. Focus groups – an unimportant item: Access to
digital storage like Dropbox, Google Drive or
OneDrive
14/04/2016
Important
Fairly important
Somewhat important
Not important
9. Focus groups – an apprentice’s view
“It would be good
if we had a private
Facebook page
where you put all the
class notes, so we
could access them
when we’re at work.”
17/02/2016
10. Focus groups – fairly evenly valued: Experience
with presentation software like PowerPoint,
Prezi, SlideShare, etc
14/04/2016
Important
Fairly important
Somewhat important
Not important
11. Focus groups – divided opinion: Understanding
how to use the internet safely and ethically,
including cyber-bullying, cheating, e-safety,
protecting private information, sticking to a
clear moral code, etc
14/04/2016
Important
Fairly important
Somewhat important
Not important
12. Focus groups
• “It’s easy to come
across like you’re being
really abrupt (online) and
you don’t mean to, so
you’ve got to be really
careful… and I think
people really have to
learn that.”
• “They did internet
safety at school, but it
wasn’t done well”
14/04/2016
13. Emerging conclusions (1)
• Learners’ technology skills and use of technology are far from
homogeneous – even amongst the same age groups.
• Learners want access to a device they can use, preferably through
an open ‘bring your own’ (BYO) device policy
• Learners are highly responsive to being asked how they would like
to use digital technology.
• Learners are more concerned with good access and relevant
experiences rather than the latest gadgets.
14/04/2016
14. Emerging conclusions (2)
• The process gave providers a concrete model for eliciting learners’
views of their provision.
• The process of engaging learners in discussions around technology
can prompt positive changes in existing classroom practice.
• The cards are an effective way to raise awareness of wider
opportunities to use digital technology among both learners and
providers.
• Managers can use learner quotes from these discussions as
powerful ammunition to persuade their superiors to improve or
extend digital provision.
14/04/2016
Editor's Notes
The largest numbers in IT and digital literacy, Business Administration and English and Maths (including functional skills). Courses grouped under ‘Other’ include Construction, Hospitality, Retail and Sales, Art and Pottery.
Just under three quarters of the sample claim to use their PC or laptop every day, with females slightly more likely to do so and more likely to customise tool bars and colour schemes. They are also more likely to use social media and messaging (though not directly for learning) and to upload photos to a device. Over 80% of both sexes use Google.
The card sort results for each table in the focus groups were scored from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important), with items not ranked in the prioritising exercise scored as 0. Where fewer than 5 items were prioritised, all those not included were scored as 0.
Patterns are starting to emerge, with fast wifi with good connectivity and the availability of a PC, laptop or tablet at the course centre identified as the most important aspects of access to technology. “At my work there’s 2 buildings with wifi but I’m in a building that doesn’t have it, so whenever my trainer comes in or I’m trying to do an exam, it’s just a nightmare.” A multi-functional VLE also considered important by some groups, more so than simply access to digital storage. However learners were often not aware of the potential of online storage. While discussing Dropbox, Learner A commented: “I can’t see the point of that.”
Learner B responded: “Say you’re at work, you have a file, you put it in Dropbox, you can open it at home.”
Learner A: “Oh, wow, cool!”
Learner C: “It’s very handy for sharing videos. So if I wanted to send a video to you, they’re usually too big to send as an email attachment, so I stick it in Dropbox and send you the link.”
Learner A: “Oh wow, that’s useful then. I’ll get it!”
At the other end of the scale, access to social media has attracted little interest, reflecting the perceived lack of connection between social media and learning and access to a digital camera was not seen as relevant to the majority of courses. This is not to say that learners were not using social media – far from it. However they were not conscious of using it to support their learning and, as with online storage, the focus group process may have raised awareness of its potential benefits.
Experience with technologies used in the workplace was considered extremely important, both by those learners with employed status and those who were unemployed and using their learning programme as a springboard to potential employment. Learner conversations during the group sessions suggested that the use of presentation software was both useful on their course and in presenting a positive online identity – see Making Good Choices below. On working with others online, one learner commented: “It’s easy to come across like you’re being really abrupt and you don’t mean to, so you’ve got to be really careful.” Another learner added: “And I think people really have to learn that.”
In spite of slight confusion surrounding the phrase ‘basic ICT skills’, confidence in using technology scored most highly in the useful skills category. “In 5 years’ time, basic IT skills will have changed, so you have to keep learning it. I can learn a lot on my own, but you need to be taught spreadsheets.” Using technology to cope with learning difficulties or disabilities was seen as important both by those who identified themselves as having specific needs and by their peers. This highlighted an ambiguity in the card sort process: whether you’re supposed to be selfish with the cards, only prioritising the things that matter to you. But learners recognised that technology to cope with learning difficulties was extremely important for students who need it.
Since none of the sample was taking a programming course (the IT courses were all connected with basic ICT skills or digital literacy), it is unsurprising that there was little interest in writing computer code. Again, however, the card raised learners’ awareness of wider opportunities. On computer coding one learner said: “I don’t understand any of that, I’m not interested. But, if somebody had introduced me to it, it might have been an opportunity.”
The largest numbers in IT and digital literacy, Business Administration and English and Maths (including functional skills). Courses grouped under ‘Other’ include Construction, Hospitality, Retail and Sales, Art and Pottery.
The card sort results for each table in the focus groups were scored from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important), with items not ranked in the prioritising exercise scored as 0. Where fewer than 5 items were prioritised, all those not included were scored as 0.
Patterns are starting to emerge, with fast wifi with good connectivity and the availability of a PC, laptop or tablet at the course centre identified as the most important aspects of access to technology. “At my work there’s 2 buildings with wifi but I’m in a building that doesn’t have it, so whenever my trainer comes in or I’m trying to do an exam, it’s just a nightmare.” A multi-functional VLE also considered important by some groups, more so than simply access to digital storage. However learners were often not aware of the potential of online storage. While discussing Dropbox, Learner A commented: “I can’t see the point of that.”
Learner B responded: “Say you’re at work, you have a file, you put it in Dropbox, you can open it at home.”
Learner A: “Oh, wow, cool!”
Learner C: “It’s very handy for sharing videos. So if I wanted to send a video to you, they’re usually too big to send as an email attachment, so I stick it in Dropbox and send you the link.”
Learner A: “Oh wow, that’s useful then. I’ll get it!”
At the other end of the scale, access to social media has attracted little interest, reflecting the perceived lack of connection between social media and learning and access to a digital camera was not seen as relevant to the majority of courses. This is not to say that learners were not using social media – far from it. However they were not conscious of using it to support their learning and, as with online storage, the focus group process may have raised awareness of its potential benefits.
The largest numbers in IT and digital literacy, Business Administration and English and Maths (including functional skills). Courses grouped under ‘Other’ include Construction, Hospitality, Retail and Sales, Art and Pottery.
The largest numbers in IT and digital literacy, Business Administration and English and Maths (including functional skills). Courses grouped under ‘Other’ include Construction, Hospitality, Retail and Sales, Art and Pottery.
Experience with technologies used in the workplace was considered extremely important, both by those learners with employed status and those who were unemployed and using their learning programme as a springboard to potential employment. Learner conversations during the group sessions suggested that the use of presentation software was both useful on their course and in presenting a positive online identity – see Making Good Choices below. On working with others online, one learner commented: “It’s easy to come across like you’re being really abrupt and you don’t mean to, so you’ve got to be really careful.” Another learner added: “And I think people really have to learn that.”