It is a busy week here at Pontydysgu. Today Graham Attwell is speaking at a European Framework meeting at the British Library in London. And on Thursday and Friday Graham, together with Dirk Stieglitz will be attending the first meeting of the Leonardo da Vinci funded Eurotrainer 2 programme. Pontydysgu is developing a network platform for the project and will be organising a series of on-line events. More on this soon.

The Guardian covers an interesting report: “MySpace 08: People. Content. Culture”.

Future Laboratory, who produced the report identified six types of MySpace user, say the Guardian, classifying 38% as “essentialists”, who primarily use social networking sites to stay in touch with friends.

“Just under a third, 28%, are “transumers” – those who follow new trends rather than make them.

Around 10% are “connectors”, who specialise in identifying and linking to cool content; and 5% are “collaborators”, who create events and projects online by teaming up with other users.

One in 20 MySpace users get their thrills from “scene breaking” – hunting down new bands and talent online and sharing that through the site; and 4% classify themselves as “netrepreneurs”, who use social networking sites to make money.”

I thought this was pretty cool stuff so tried to get hold of the report. No link to the original in the Guardian (they are very bad at that). Surprisingly few references on Google. Finally found a reference to the project on MySpace. Very strange – a sort of mash up between MySpace and a research site – I think they are trying to look trendy. But nowhere can I find the original report. The Guardian covers it in a blog article. But – unless I missed something – I suspect they have just rewritten a press release. No is it research, is it marketing or is it just hype.

Anyway this is what the “Future Laboratory” say about their rsearch on MySpace. Now at least they have put up something about what they are doing. And I suppose I am naive in wanting to see such work in the public domain. But it saddens me that important work on culture is now the preserve of the marketing people – not research.

“1) The research for PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB is due for completion by November 30th 2007
2) Any submissions can be made through the PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB MySpace page in the comments section or by mail
3) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB is searching for 10 case studies only, and will make a shortlist of possible candidates before deciding on the final 10
4) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB’s team of researchers will be responsible for choosing the final 10 case studies and hold the right to change or remove case studies from its report at any time
5) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB holds the right to approach and choose case studies even if they have not submitted themselves or been submitted by others
6) Chosen case studies will be asked to:
a) Answer a series of questions via email;
b) Take part in a short telephone interview with a PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB researcher;
c) Submit photographs, imagery, video files, MP3 files and examples of work to support the case study,
and d) Provide further contact details for possible future research
7) All successful candidates will have to sign a media release form to confirm permission that their name, work and imagery can be used in future media and press coverage for/by MySpace UK and Lexis PR
8) Candidates will receive £200 for their participation. This will be given to the case study upon the final delivery of the report and dependent on candidates complying with all terms & conditions
9) PROJECT:CREATIVE LAB is part of trend research, insight and brand strategy consultancy The Future Laboratory, who have been tasked to create a bespoke report called ‘The voice of a generation’ on behalf of MySpace UK
10) MySpace will own the rights to the final report delivered by The Future Laboratory
11) MySpace and Lexis PR will use the report for internal and external use within their marketing, strategy and press departments.”

Sorry if you couldn’t get the Wales Wide Web on Monday. It seems someone attacked our servers. Grr – I hate those people. Thanks to Ray and anyone else who sorted it out.

I’m doing a presentation on Tuesday on Learning and Knowledge Maturing. It is a bit of a mash up – some older slides from me plus some slides from Steven Downes. And it comes with full audio – I used slidecast for the first time. So trun up your speakers and press the green button (warning – about 20 minutes long). A longer post about making this will follow.

plugin by rob

Before Christmas, I commented at some length on the problems over Eduspace and about how communities can and should be organised. There is much to learn from the Eduspaces issue and I have spent much of the last couple of days pondering on it. The reason – a new project with very small funding from the Jisc Emerge programme.

The following abridged version of the funding application explains the aims of the project:

“1. develop an international Community of Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning Research);

2. promote a two way discourse between member of the Emerge community (and in particular Emerge projects) with members of the wider international research community;

3. provide a forum for dissemination of Users and Innovation programme funded projects;

4. develop international research teams in conjunction with User and Innovation funded projects;

5. establish a discourse between researchers and developers in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL);

6. a mutual commitment to warranting causality and exploration of international notions concepts of impact and effect of technologies on learning.

What we will do

4.1 Stage 1
Stage 1 of the project will involve a deep analysis of user needs. Given the dispersed nature of the community this will be undertaken through:

a) A web based survey of potential users.

b) Follow up in depth interviews using Skype.

The data will be subject to a user analysis focusing on gathering information in the following areas:

• what kind of people the users represent;
• the tasks and activities of users;
• understanding and insights into the user context.

This data will in turn be used to generate a scenario based User Needs Analysis. The scenario will take into account both infrastructure requirements in terms of community platforms and tools and requirements for activities.

4.2 Stage 2
Stage 2 of the project will involve the rapid prototyping of a community platform. This will be based on the existing beta Freefolio collaboration software which is already at an advance stage of maturity and being tested with three user groups.

4.3 Stage 3
Stage 3 is based on facilitating the emergence of the community.

This will include:

1. testing and evaluation of the Community platform and tools;

2. facilitation of community events. Whilst the form of the events depends to a considerable extent on the results of the User Needs Analysis it may include: on-line seminars and presentations, on-line poster sessions, on-line conferencing, research fora and the formation of virtual international work teams. .

Stage 4
Stage four will comprise the ongoing evaluation of the project activities. This will be carried out using a creative slant by adopting the collaborative community based tools as the vehicles for building the evaluation which itself will become a reflective exercise engaging both project members and the community itself.”

I will write another post over the weekend about some of the issues in implementing the project.  In the meantime if you are intersted in taking part in the project just get in touch.

We are working on the research section of the web site (don’t bother clicking on it – it doesn’t go anywhere at the moment). We are hoping over the weekend to provide access to at least the last years Pontydysgu publications. After much discussion we have decided to use the bibtex plugin to WordPress and link to the CiteUlike database. But if anyone has better ideas just drop me a line – or better still contact Dirk – he is doing the hard work.

I have used many different systems in the various projects I am involved in. I have used Plone, Jumbla, Elgg, Post Nuke and now am working with WordPress. But it is still difficult to sustain communities and even more so to get members of projects to communicate effectively through different platforms.

Too often we are using the wrong tool. Why insist that people log in to a platform when all tehyw ant to do is exchange occasional emails to a list of 5 or 6 people.  On the other hand email list servers are not particualry effective in developing a pool of shared knowledge. One project I work with commissioned me to develop a ‘communication platform’. We have built a relatively lightweight platofrm for teh project using WordPress. Yet they do not use it. One of the problems is they do not know how, I suspect. WordPress is very easy IF you are used to using social sofwtare or blogging applications. If email and word are your main experince of using computers for communciation itis a whole new world.

And then again, I sat down this afternoon to write some ‘easy to use’ instruction on how to use teh site and for what. The how to use is difficult enough – it might be easy to shwo someone but it is quite hard to write. But the for what question was much harder. When should project partners write a blog – and why? What should they – or might they want to share? What is the forum for – and how is it difficult from the blog?

Of course the one thing they probably want most – to share files – is not particularly well supported in wordpress.  Yes, they can make a new page or blog post and add them to this. But what if they want to link to a file in the forum? Of course they can upload a file in the new post section – not publish a post and then link. But that is not so easy to explain. Ah well -will keep thinking. I am well puzzled at the moment about teh best way to support projects – anyone any ideas?

Little did I know – when starting my personal blog – that I would get caught in a slow motion picture. I thought it would be a relatively simple thing to cast a quick look back at the issues of 2003 and then zoom back to the present date. As it often happens, these things need more reflection – and time … and energy.

Anyway, here I am, back with the re-examination of some critical issues for the European research in vocational education and training (here referred to as “European VET research”). And, since some time has passed sinsce my previous postings, I need to explain why I am still struggling with the “I-Europe” approach that I was drafting for the common discussions of European VET researchers some time ago.

European VET researchers and open futures

To me the main point of interest in the European cooperation of VET researchers in the years 1995-2000 was the readiness to face new challenges and open futures. In this respect the European projects of that period were looking beyond the boundaries that wasknown on the basis od simple country-specific information. Some projects were looking for new ways to link general qualifications and vocational learning arrangements – without knowing who would prove to be champions and who would need to learn more from others. In a similar way some projects were looking into new ways of developing education and training for VET professionals (in the interface areas of school-based learning and workplace learning). All this required readiness for new solutions and readiness to admit that all the building blocks were not there at the beginning of the projects. Moreover, the common awareness that the starting points were incomplete, gave a push for joint European knowledge development. The participants understood that they were contributing to knowledge enrichment and creative search processes at the level of trans-cultural dialogue. Furtthermore, the participants were eager to leartn from each other within the projects and on common European arenas that brought several projects in dialogue with each other. This, latterly, gave rise to European umbrella-networks (like the “Forum” network) or knowledge sharing infrastructures (like the “REM” and “CEDRA” infrastructures) to support joint knowledge development across European VET research.

From this point of view the current picture of European cooperation has become far more monotonous. Somehow, during the recent years there has been less expectation to find something strikingly new and (as a consequence) less interest to learn from each other.

European framework processes and the loss of open futures

At the same time the perspective towards “the European dimension” or towards “the European added value” has been narrowed down to the policy priorities of the European framework processes. Therefore, there doesn’t seem to be any room for discussion on different cultural perceptions on vocational qualifications – the perspective of “European Qualification Frameworks (EQF)” is already there. In a similar way there is less grounded discussion on pedagogic innovations in VET – the related policy priorities have been shifted to ‘e-learning’ or ‘accreditation of prior and experiential learning’ some time ago. Yet, there is – as there has always been – some interest in research on social inclusion and/or on socio-cultular integration of young people with migrant backgrounds. However, these issues tend to become pocketed to their own special interest areas.

Regarding these developments the “I-Europe” document tried to raise critical awareness of European VET researchers on the fact that

a) the European cooperation in VET could be richer than implementation of intergovernmental agreements on European Qualification Frameworks,

b) that pedagogic cooperation at the European level could be wider than the pedagogic annexes of intergovernmental priority lists,

c) that research and development on the issues ‘intercultural understanding’ and ‘social inclusion’ could go beyond language learning and special schemes for ‘target groups’.

VET research and rediscovering open futures

To me, the present phase of the European integration should require a new conceptual for open futures regarding the development of education, training and the labour markets:

a) The developments in the European labour markets are much more closely linked to global developments and to developments between Europe and border regions. Therefore, there are different movements of capital and labour force that are note easily catered for by European macro-policies on qualification frameworks.

b) The developments in the newer learning environments provide new opportunities for linked and networked learning arrangements. These can influence technical, vocational and work-related learning environments across institutional and organisational boundaries and create new hubs for ‘learning regions’. On the other hand, if previously innovative learning environments become self-satisfied, they may lose their attractivity and become repitive with their alleged ‘innovativeness’.

c) The newer European mobility has brought into picture different contextual images and different challenges for socio-cultural integration. Often the education and training policies tend to tackle these issues with a remedial treatment that is addressed to isolated ‘target groups’ or ‘target organisations’ or ‘target regions’. However, as we look at the newer developments, the consequences of the new European mobility have much wider community-related consequences and a deeper impact on the community-related identities. Therefore, issues like ‘qualifications’, ‘education’ or ‘training’ cannot be brought into picture as stand-alone measures without looking at the social reality in which they are expected to function. And if we are talking of the new movement migrant labour force to the old EU countries or of the new movement of job opportunities to new EU countries (or to the border regions), there are plenty of old and new issues related to the socio-cultural development of old and new migrant communities.

d) Finally, the idea of European cooperation between VET researchers has so far been based on the assumption that they would serve as analysts and interpreters of their own (national) VET systems or VET cultures. At the same time there has been a corollary assumption that European researchers would have a common interest in making a European group picture and in identifying their respective cultures as parts of the ‘whole European house’. However, as things stand now, it appears that the the education and training cultures are becoming more influenced by internationalisation and by trans-national cooperation. Therefore, the role of VET researchers at the national and European level has become somewhat blurred. Thus, the prospects for joint knowledge development are overshadowed by new questions.

European VET research and rethinking “I-Europe”

In the light of the abovethe “I-Europe” document tried to raise some points for an alternative European VET research agenda that would be characterised by a strong “grassroot relevance”. However, as has been indicated, it has been difficult to launch a lively discussion on such a research agenda. In the beginning it seemed to be easy to draft a tentative list of the critical issues (‘integrative’, ‘innovative’, ‘intercultural’ and ‘inclusive’ developments in European VET). However, when going beyond the headings, it appeared that it was no longer that easy to bring common research interests, related research methodologies and potential funding opportunities under a common umbrella. Even if this would have been feasible for some researchers and some countries, there was no real possibility for a wider cooperation arrangement.

Thus, it appeared that the European VET researchers were challenged to find new ways to cooperate with each other while looking for their individual or institute-specific survival strategies. In this respect the draft manifesto of joint research interests was of little help. Yet, in the light of newer (and emerging) European VET-related issues it is worthwile to have a second look how the critical issues of the “I-Europe” approach could be addressed in the present phase of European integration and trans-national cooperation.

I think this is enough for the moment. In the next posting I will discuss the conceptual starting points of European VET research (and the implications for European VET research).

Pekka Kämäräinen

Don’t know how I missed this one. This is a great diagramme by Scott Wilson. It overcomes a whole series of issues in the relations between the Personal Learning Environment and institutional provision and systems. By proposing a lightweight coordination space, separated from the ‘regulatory space’ Scott allows institutions to manage their course enrollments and provisions whilst till allowing learners to use their own tools in their own environment. More fundamentally students do not have to have their own PLE – a worry that I have bothered about for some time.

Now we just need to try the system out!!

The first post of the year. And practice seems as good as any a subject for short entry. For the last couple of hours I have been searching the internet for examples of appropriate and effective (or good, but I never liked that term) practice in blended learning. It is for a European funded project producing a guide for teachers on blended learning. And although the subject may seem a little old fashioned for UK based e-learning researchers, in many European countries this is a new concept. I also like the project because of its focus on pedagogy and pedagogic practice rather than on technology and platforms as is all too common.

It should be easy, I thought. Most e-learning in the UK is, in reality, a mix of different modes and forms of learning. But it was to prove not so – or perhaps my search strategies were uninspired. Whilst it is relatively easy to find research articles about blended learning – and tehir are a number of handbooks etc. these tend to focus on rubriucs of curriculum and technology design. It is much haredr to find anything which really dives into the practice of deisgn and delivery of blended learning.

I started wondering why. Perhaps it is because we still seem to have problems in evaluating effective and approariate learning using technologies. Is it because we do not know what we are really looking for? Is it because we have inadequate understanding of what makes for effective learning? Or is it because we do not understand the processes of inetraction in teaching and learning.

I was talking about this with my friend and colleague Jenny Hughes. Jenny has worked for many years in training teachers and trainers. We were discussing the difficulty in recognising and researching effective teaching practices. In truth we know little about what actually happens behind the closed classroom door. Of course teachers and trainers exchange experiences – mostly, I suspect, through telling stories. Some teachers and trainers exchange materaisl they have found to be useful. We have some pretty good programmes for school managers. Yet we still have great difficulty in explaining what makes for effective teaching – even more so in passing that on to others. Indeed it sometimes seems that teacher training colleges teach everything else except how to teach. Jen and I went on to talk about how we might design a research project to identify effective teaching practice based on observation and developing shared metadata for describing practice.

More on this next week. And I will give you my list of examples of effective and appropriate practice when I finish it. In the meantime, if you have any examples, I would be very happy to hear from you.

Happy new year.