A most fundamental human right

In 2005 I accompanied a group of students and staff from the University of Plymouth on a two week study tour of South Africa. We spent most of our time in and around Cape Town, visiting schools in the city and in the townships. We also took the motorboat out to Robben Island - the notorious former penal colony throughout South Africa's apartheid regime. It is infamous because it was the 'home' for many years of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and many other prominent political prisoners. One of the first things that strikes you about Robben Island as soon as you arrive on the quayside is that it is incredibly exposed to the elements. In the summer it is an oven, with the sun reflecting intensely off the stones and sand, while in the winter it is icy cold as the southern Antarctic winds whip across it mercilessly.

We were escorted around by one of the official guides on the island - a contemporary of Nelson Mandela, and fellow former prisoner - Lionel Davis (pictured with me above). Lionel talked to us about the harsh conditions in the prison, and the fact that all the prisoners had to work in the quarry breaking stones for hours each day with no shelter, and without sunglasses to shield their eyes from the glare of the sun. Some went on to develop cataracts. The prison is a museum now, and also stands as a poignant tribute to the suffering many of the prisoners endured at the hands of brutal guards. Lionel told us of the beatings and other, worse punishments, and showed us the cramped conditions of the cells. I stood outside Nelson Mandela's cell and was appalled at how small it was (pictured below). I asked him why he was still on the island after his own suffering there - why had he not left and never come back? He said to me 'Steve - every time I do this tour - it gets easier for me.' It was cathartic for him - a way of banishing the demons.

The remarkable things about the political prisoners on Robben Island were their resilience, and their positive attitudes to their situation. They really believed in what they were standing up for. During the dying years of Apartheid, when conditions began to improve, many applied for, and were successful in securing time and resources for study. Several enrolled at the University of South Africa (UNISA) and studied at a distance, from their prison cells. Lionel himself was awarded a School Leaver's Certificate through his study in prison, and eventually went on to achieve a Bachelor of Arts degree in Fine Art from the University of Cape Town. I feel very humble when I think of these men and what they achieved. It wasn't just the monumental victory they achieved over oppression. It was their personal triumph too. It truly was learning against all odds - lifelong learning in the truest sense, and in the harshest of environments. We often complain about our education systems and how they should be improved, and that is our right. But we must never forget that in many countries, there are still harsh political regimes that deny many their rights to freedom of speech and that most fundamental human right - a good education.


A most fundamental human right by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

eXtending the Web

eXtending the Web - New and Emerging Learning Technologies

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler.

I was up at stupid o'clock yesterday to present a webinar for the ASCILITE organisation - the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. The time zone differences meant that my audience, distributed across Australasia, was listening to me in the evening, while I was sat in my office in jeans and a T-shirt at 7 in the morning, armed with copious quantities of caffeine and a box of matchsticks. While I talked, as if by magic, the sun removed itself from Australia and New Zealand and reappeared outside my window. I was actually up an hour earlier at 6 am finalising and uploading my slides onto ASCILITE's Wimba platform, and then making sure the technical details were all in order. But I enjoyed it. The audience were very knowledgeable, and asked some pertinent questions.

My subject was "The eXtended Web - New and Emerging Learning Technologies" - it was essentially a gaze into the future of e-learning where smart mobile technologies create a ubiquitous learning context, and where semantic software predicts your needs even before you ask the computer. It's not too hard to envisage this, including 3D manipulation of virtual objects and natural gesture driven learning, and of course the use of augmented reality for learning and context awareness while on the move. The technology is already here, in both handheld and wearable versions - as I try to depict in my slides above - but it may take some time before everyone who wants access to them can have it. We shall see - it's hazardous predicting the future, especially where technology is concerned, but we can watch the trends and see where the road is leading. We live in exciting and challenging times, and we can expect to see a lot of changes taking place in the next few years in the world of education.


eXtending the Web by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Deeply personal

When you're on holiday, I guess you must have come across people selling 'personalised' souvenirs. Name plates for doors, T-shirts, mugs, keyrings, even baseball caps - with every name under the sun on them (well almost - the only names I haven't seen on any personalised merchandising are 'Adolf' and 'Jezebel'. I'm not sure why...) Such merchandising is 'personalised' because one of those mugs - the one the shopkeeper hopes you're going to buy - has your name on it. But wait. It's not really personalised is it? You didn't make the mug. Someone made it for you - and then put your name on it. And then you buy it and use it. It becomes yours. But is it really that deeply personal?

I was reading Jim Campbell's article on personalisation of learning again today. I referred to it in my last post and promised I would revisit it. He explores Leadbeater's taxonomy of personalisation as it relates to public health care. Leadbeater's 5 levels of personalisation were: 1) providing more customer friendly services 2) giving people more say in how they use the services 3) giving users more say in how money is spent on the services 4) users become co-designers and co-producers of the services, and 5) self organisation of services by individuals, with support provided by professionals.

Ring any bells yet? For me this resonates clearly with the tension between the provision of Content Management Systems (what we commonly call institutional VLEs) and personal learning environments (PLEs). Campbell argues that the first 3 of Leadbeater's levels are shallow forms of personalisation, while the last two are deeper forms of personalisation. So let's apply this to personal learning environments by translating the 5 levels into an education context.

1) Providing learners with more student centred opportunities 2) giving learners more choice in what they learn, how and when and where they learn it 3) giving learners more say on how resources are used 4) learners design and produce their own content 5) learners self organise their own learning with the support of professionals.

It is clear to see that in an educational context, the same kind of personalisation of services could be applied as in public health care. Can we shift from the edubusiness making a product for the institution, and then branding it on their behalf, to the point where the learner can choose and construct the learning environment they want to use, and the personalise it for themselves? The problem is, learners are a little like patients in many ways - they are the consumers of the product, and transforming them into the co-producers of the service they will also consume requires that a) they view themselves as being capable of doing so b) the professionals who have so far provided the service actually trust them and c) there is an infrastructure in place to support the process. The third component is already in place - Web 2.0 tools are available for all learners to choose and use to support their own self organised learning. It's the first two that are the problem if we are ever to get to the point where learning becomes deeply personal for all.

Image source


Deeply personal by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Personalised learning

I have been thinking a lot about personalised learning lately. Last night, during a panel discussion for the Plymouth Education Society, I made a statement that the current UK National Curriculum doesn't make a lot of room for personalised learning. I quoted Ken Robinson who has claimed that the current model of school is based on an industrialised or 'factory' model, where children are 'processed in batches' according to their year groups. This model patently doesn't work, because it fails to take into account the variations in performance and ability within year groups. What happens next is that schools try to redress this imbalance by streaming kids - placing them into sets so that the 'brighter ones' get the chance to shine, while the 'less bright ones' are not left behind. That's all very well for the school management, but it can also be very devisive, and stigmatises some children. It may also be premised on faulty assessment methods.

Standardised assessment militates against personalised learning too. Many schools practice assessment of learning using a criterion referenced assessment. While this is an improvement over norm referenced assessment, it still fails students. What schools should be doing is assessing for learning - providing students with personalised feedback on their performance referenced against their own previous personal attainment - what we refer to as ipsative assessment. Thankfully some schools are now adopting this approach through for example, APP - Assessing Pupil Progress, or PLP - Personal Learning Plans. But it's not happening quickly or widely enough.

Today I sat in a seminar led by Professor Jim Campbell, of the University of Warwick. Jim had given us a paper he had published in 2007 to read and critique. It was entitled: Personalised Learning: Ambiguities in Theory and Practice. Reading the paper made me think hard about what we actually mean by personalised learning. In the paper Campbell et al draw upon Leadbeater's model of surface and deep personalisation, where the student steadily progresses from consumer to producer behaviour. There is a great deal of cross over here with personal learning environments (PLEs) of course, particularly in relation to user generated content and sharing within a community of practice. This is an area I intend to explore in more detail in future blog posts.

Reference

Campbell, R. J. et al (2007) Personalised Learning: Ambiguities in Theory and Practice. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (2), 135-154.

Image source

Personalised learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Is the conference dead?

Last week we held the first Plymouth eLearning Conference committee meeting to plan the 2011 event. During the meeting some committee members expressed their anxiety about whether conferences were still viable in the current economic climate. There ensued a heated exchange about whether something like the Plymouth eLearning Conference actually had a future. My view is that it does, and in whatever form it takes, I'm determined to carry on promoting PeLC and other face to face events. Here's why I'm willing to take the risk:

Firstly, people need to meet socially. Although live streaming of events and other participatory media are being used increasingly to draw those into conferences who cannot attend physically, what they offer is still a pale imitation of the real thing, and sometimes the technology fails. Content and dialogue can be supported, but can we fully replicate the atmosphere and ambience of a live conference through a computer screen?

Secondly, although attendance at conferences is slacking off noticably (PeLC10 was down a third on the numbers for PeLC09), many conferences are still economically viable. Those present at PeLC10 were generally very positive about the event. I have seen similar events in the last year, including ALT-C, EDEN and Ulearn (pictured above: my keynote to 1800 people during the event) continue to draw numbers in and maintain their impetus. OK, you may say, what about a small conference such as PeLC? Well, another way to look at it must be the Unique Selling Point each conference offers. I can't speak for other small conferences, but I know that PeLC is popular because of at least 8 USPs: 1) it is friendly and open; 2) it is based in an idyllic location; 3) there is plenty of time for social events and networking; 4) the conference dinner is always spectacular; 5) the demonstrations (for example the Immersion Vision Cinema) are impressive and unique; 6) the Devon Cream Tea is not to be missed; 7) our keynote speakers nail it every year; and 8) PeLC is one of the best value for money eLearning events in Europe. (Want another incentive? Keep it quiet, but day 1 is free this year)....I could go on, but I think you catch the drift.

Finally, here's a question: What alternatives are there to the face to face event? OK, there are things against it - travel and accommodation costs will prevent lots of people from attending as many conferences as they would wish in the next year or two. And yes, institutions are cutting back on their conference budgets because of the economic problems. But we should not ignore the pay off in terms of the conference attendance. What would happen if there were no professional conferences? Donald Clark said recently during his ALT-C keynote that he avoided conferences because they were a waste of time. But we would be intellectually and socially poorer without them? Would we still keep up to date? To paraphrase Derek Bok: If you think conference attendance is expensive, try ignorance. What about the valuable contacts and collaborative possibilities that come from events when you least expect them, and which you might not find anywhere else? Should we ditch the conference and all meet through online media? I don't think so. I know some conferences have gone over to this format and have been reasonably successful, but personally I don't subscribe to them.

We aim to make PeLC11 one of the best events of the year. We have several great features next year, including a Teachmeet, free practical workshops and 3 excellent keynote speakers. I'm really hoping you will join us to prove that the conference is still alive and kicking.

Is the conference dead? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

A shift in time

History suggests that Lord Kelvin, the famous physicist, once boldly proclaimed there was nothing left that was to be discovered in physics. The only thing we could do he stated, was to measure more effectively. Famous last words. Just five years later, Albert Einstein published his theory of special relativity, which challenged the 'rules' of force and motion that had been used for over 200 years. It was time for a change, and time for a paradigm shift - something which would make the entire scientific community sit up, take notice, and then reluctantly change their collective mind on what the universe was really all about.



If you look up the word paradigm you will probably discover a definition that is something like: mould, standard, idea, model. In other words, a paradigm is something we use as a set of rules. The world of education is full of rules. And it's been a long time since anyone broke the mould. Schools are very conservative organisations, where those in charge have been around for a while, and 'know what works'. They don't tend to change very much. Some schools are changing, but many will stay just the way they are. According to Sir Ken Robinson, we need a paradigm shift (I would even say we need a paradigm break) to change the way education is conducted across the entire sector. We need a shift he says, because education is broken. It doesn't work the way it is, because it is based on an old model which is no longer relevant to the needs of today's society. Education is failing society, and failing children, by preparing them for the past instead of for the future. In a very powerful animated video to accompany his 'breaking paradigms' speech, we are taken on a grand tour of his ideas about why the education system needs to change. I shared a link to the video on Twitter and Facebook and had a huge positive response. The video speaks to everyone. So, if you have any interest at all in education, watch the video, and see why the current education paradigm needs to be broken.


A shift in time by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Open educational practices

I made a video recording for Core Ed while I was at the Ulearn conference in New Zealand last month. They sat me in front of two cameras, and asked me to talk off the cuff, no script, about something that I was passionate about. It didn't take me long to think up what I wanted to say and I'm pleased that I did it in one take (Core Ed were pleased too, because minimal studio time and editing were needed!). I spoke about Open Educational Practices, (including Open Educational Resources and Open Scholarship) a subject which I am learning more about all the time as the movement grows and gains traction. You see, the idea behind open practices is that anyone can gain access for free, at any time and in any place - courses, software, ideas, knowledge, people... OEP requires everything to be open - for access, scrutiny and repurposing. So whether it's licensing agreements such as Copyleft or Creative Commons, or open access journals, or even massively online open courses, the open educational practices are gaining ground and influence in the academic world.



It's not going to be easy to change a model where knowledge has become a commodity though. Too many powerful people and organisations stand to lose a lot if everything becomes 'free' and open. But things are changing slowly. The publishing houses who once had a strangle hold on academic journals are beginning to lose their grip. Some are having to change their business models. Google Reader and Google Books for example, are giving us all more than a glimpse of the pages of just about every book that has ever been published. And open access journals are opening up knowledge for all without payment. So when a student comes up against a paywall - what will they do? They will go elsewhere of course - to the free versions that are out there on the web. I know many colleagues who now refuse to publish their research in traditional journals - only open access will do for them. Traditional journals can be slow to publish, there is often a backlog of journals articles and too few issues to put them in, and citation frequency from open access journals can be more rewarding. These refusnik colleagues are growing in numbers too, and so are the open access journals to accommodate them. Is this the start of the end for traditional academic publishing? Watch the video and then tell me whether you think I'm on the right track about OEP, or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree. After all, that's exactly what open scholarship is all about....


Open educational practices by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.