A short question from John Pallister on the ePortfolios and PLTs list server.

“It’s good to see the ‘establishment’ using the Web 2 tools that many of us think that our learners should be using to support their learning. I am worried that people have stopped talking about ePortfolios. Are they going to be too expensive to implement? Will they take up too much teacher time as the learner looks for an audience to share their reflections with? Higher Education and employers are not giving out a clear message to schools about ePortfolios. What is in it for the learner? Why should they bother with ePortfolios?

In the absence of a clear steer, are the ePortfolio enthusiasts turning their attention to the ‘nice’ bits, exploring the potential of the Web 2 tools, fiddling with the technology etc. Is the ePortfolio process, the thing that I can see could transform learning, going to be neglected and ignored because it will be quite a challenge to implement on a large scale?

Will the ePortfolio Process ever realise its potential?”

And here is my answer (although in my heart I am not sure if I am as confident as I sound).

“Will e-portfolios happen? Well – yes and no I think. We are probably not going to see a massive take off in the immediate future. It is not cost but pedagogy and understandings that are the barriers. e-Portfolios require changes to the practice of teaching and learning – and such profound change is slow.

But in the longer term – almost certainly yes. Why? Because of the changing role technology plays in our society, because of the use of computers for informal learning, because digital identities are becoming ever more important – and so on. We may not call them e-Portfolios – but the idea that we will use computers to record and reflect on our learning is going to happen. And if schools try to ignore it then they will take another step towards irrelevance in young people’s lives.”

Anyone else any opinions on this?

I’ve been giving a bit of thought lately to digital identities and how those digital identities are shaped. And I stumbled on this paper written by Jenny Hughes and I (in trith more by Jenny than by me) and published in a book called ‘Vocational Education and training; culture, Values and Meanings’ edited by Eduardo Figueira. The book is probably long out of print – but I think soem of the ideas in the paper which basically explored borrowing tools from cultural science, to analyse education and training, warrant further exploration.. If you want to read more I have attached a word version of the full paper at the bottom of this post. Or if you just want an idea of what we are going on about here is an extract from the paper entitled ‘A possible cultural analysis of the functions of vocational education and training’.

1. To ARTICULATE the main lines of the established cultural consensus about the nature of the occupational sector(s) and the established sub-cultural consensus of the occupational sector about itself and its relation to the dominant culture.
For example, there will be a cultural consensus about “carpenters” based not necessarily on an external reality, but an intersubjective response based on the ‘myth’ of the carpenter. The myth will define such things as ‘who are carpenters’ (men, lower class), what carpenters do (work with wood), where they work (in the building industry) and a whole jumble of their values and beliefs and perceptions which could include ‘artisan’, ‘skilled’, ‘traditional’, ‘rustic’ and so on. Student carpenters as members of the culture will share these meanings.
Similarly, that subculture called ‘carpenters’ will also have a set of shared beliefs and meanings about itself which may be the same as, or different from, those of the dominant culture.
Carpenters will generate consensual understandings about defining themselves, for example, in terms of what they are not (not joiners, not cabinet makers). They will also share beliefs about what they need to know, do and understand to be a carpenter which is, to an extent, verifiable. On the other hand these shared beliefs may also extend to intangibles such as language codes, dress codes, defining relationships with other occupations.
So students of carpentry have to learn on the one hand the skills and knowledge needed to be a carpenter but they also have to learn what it means to be a carpenter.
VET, populated as it is by students and professionals who are simultaneously members of the dominant culture, members of a VET subculture and (usually) members of the ‘carpenters’ subculture is therefore a point of articulation in the sense of a joint and also a point of articulation in the sense of expressing or putting into words.

2. To IMPLICATE the individual members of the VET culture (whether teacher or student) into its dominant value system by exchanging status enhancing messages for the endorsement of that message’s ideology (as articulated in its mythology).
Participation in the VET process, for both teacher and learner, assumes a ‘joining –up’ or subscription process. This may be both conscious and unconscious. It may involve explicit initiation activities – for a student it may be filling out an enrolment form, for an apprentice it may be buying or being given a set of tools. The latter may become an almost ritualistic process with connotations which exceed the acquisition of the physical tools. Typically, new apprentices in the work place are often subjected to rituals which may be traditional and specific to that trade or workplace or more general, for example, being the butt of practical jokes. These rituals serve the same function as other rites of passage in that they convey a change of status and confer membership of the new culture.
By accepting membership, the apprentice or student ‘signs up’ to a new value system.
This concept of implication works in at least 2 ways:
The VET system, particularly at the stage of initial training, also serves the same function as an extended rite of passage. It changes the status of an individual from unskilled to skilled, untrained to trained, from not-a-carpenter to carpenter, from unqualified to qualified, from undergraduate to graduate and so on. Throughout the VET process cultural messages which reinforce the desirability of the changed (enhanced) status are constantly exchanged between those involved. The very act of participating in the VET process implicates those involved i.e. there is an outward sign that they subscribe to the validity of these messages (e.g. ‘Work hard’, ‘Do well’, ‘Pass exams’, ‘Get an A’).
ii) The VET system, as it relates to specific occupational areas, also transmits messages about the dominant value system in that occupational area. Using the same example, through the VET system, trainee carpenters will learn about the dominant value systems of the carpentry sub-culture (as explained above). However, it is not simply enough for them to learn this at an intellectual level but they need to learn at the level of lived experience. Occupational identity formation depends in large measure on the successful ‘implication’ function of VET.

3. To CELEBRATE, explain and interpret and justify the doings of the occupational cultures individual representatives in the world out there, using the mythology of individuality ‘to claw back’ individuals and the whole occupational subculture from eccentricity to a position of socio-centrality.
VET institutions and VET professionals often assume what is essentially a ‘public relations’ function on behalf of their particular sector. VET professionals involvement in conferences, seminars, open days, exhibitions and other similar events in which information about the social status, expertise and knowledge base of their sector is conveyed, performs this function at a surface level.
At a deeper level, the internal organisation of VET institutions into sectorally specific departments – or even monotechs – generates an organisational culture which reinforces sectoral identity and combats marginality. This has parallels in work-based VET as well as school based VET.
Take again the example of the ‘carpenter’ who, as an individual may also be brother, father, husband, citizen, sportsman and so on – identities which he shares with large numbers of others. The expectations, values and attitudes of the dominant culture with respect to these other roles are explicit and enjoy a high degree of intersubjectivity. In this context, to define oneself primarily as a ‘carpenter’ and see the world in general as a `carpenter` is eccentric. However, it is precisely this eccentric perspective which is legitimated, encouraged and reinforced within VET institutions.
Similarly , the VET professional who teaches ‘carpentry’ outside of his department, in the general VET culture or in the outside world is ‘a teacher’ or a ‘lecturer’. Within the building department or mono-tech institution, he reverts to being ‘a carpenter’.
It is also the function of VET to interpret and justify traditional practices and ‘ways of doing’ of the occupational sectors. Many of these practices may have (or have originally had) a logical basis but many are rooted in tradition and have become ritualised, contributing to the collective occupational identity of a particular sector.
That is students are not taught simply to be carpenters but are taught what it means to be a carpenter – how carpenters behave, how they think, how they see the world.
4. To ASSURE the occupational (and VET) subculture of its practical adequacy in the world by affirming and confirming its ideologies and mythologies in active engagement with the practical (and potentially unpredictable) dominant culture.
By this we mean the same ‘public relations’ function but within and between members of an occupational sub-culture rather than between that sub-culture and the ‘world-out- there’. This is the process of mutual reinforcement, of group identity, of self-congratulatory or self-justifying practices, codes of behaviour and shared meanings which are generated by the occupational sub culture about itself and which legitimate that sub-culture to itself.
VET is a key agent in reinforcing and sustaining this process.
5. To EXPOSE, conversely any practical inadequacies in the occupational and (VET) cultures sense of itself which might result from changed conditions in the world-out–there or pressure within the occupational (and VET) culture for a re-orientation in favour of a new ideological stance.
Most VET professionals would argue that a key task for VET practitioners is ensuring that their practices and curricula reflect the changing sectoral demands. However, the function of VET is not simply to respond in terms of content or methodology but, implicitly, it must reflect any change in the relationship between the occupational subculture and the dominant culture and represent any changes in the collective consciousness of the subculture.
Thus, VET can also be a key agent in changing the way an occupational sub-culture sees itself.
6. To CONVINCE the members of the occupational (and VET) culture that their status and identity as individuals is guaranteed by the culture as a whole.
Historically, this is probably the oldest and most important of VET functions and was central to the rationale of the Guilds and Craft Worker Federations. It was a key message transmitted through the traditional apprenticeship model and remains an issue for VET practice although arguably peripheral compared with those already discussed. Substitution of collectivism and the collective identity for individualism and a individual identity i.e. the Community of Practice becomes the source of meaning and occupational identity.
7. To TRANSMIT by these means a sense of cultural membership – membership of the dominant culture, the ‘world-out-there’ culture and their place within it the occupational culture or subcultures the VET culture itself.
This is a summative statement about the overall function of VET, synthesising the other six. A distinction is made between issues related to (e.g.) being a ‘carpenter’ (the occupational sub-culture) and issues related to being a member of the VET community of practice (trainee / student / learner / apprentice / teacher / lecturer). That is ‘learning what it means to be a trainee / student / learner / apprentice / teacher / lecturer is as important as learning what it means to be a carpenter.

You can download the full paper here: Culture paper

In the past I have expressed concerns about the processes of developing policy on Open Content and the need for transparency and inclusivenss in that process. The new UNESCO publication: ‘Open Educational Resource: The Way Forward‘ is an example of how to do it the right way – by building and encouraging interchange between an international community of interested through the inetrnet. As Susan D’Antoni says in her intorduction “Over the period that the OER community has been in existence, we have been able to link many more people andinstitutions than would have been feasible through other means. Experts and neophytes alike have come together to learn from one another, share information and deliberate on related issues. Finally, after two years of intensive interaction, members expressed their opinion on the priority issues and the stakeholders that should take action to advance and support the growing movement.

This document is a testament to the power of group deliberation in a vibrant virtual community. It presents the way forward for OER based upon the informed opinion of an international community, and sets out priorities for future action. It will be of interest to many readers – from decision and policy makers at the national level to teachers and academics at the local level. ”

The report identifies six priorities for the Open Educational Resources community:

• Awareness raising
• Communities and networking
• Developing capacity
• Quality assurance
• Sustainability
• Copyright and licensing

The OECD supported community is currently developing resources for awareness raising through story telling on a wiki.

One last thing – this publication is a testament to the dedicated and inspired work by Susan D’Antoni – I have had the pleasure of meeting her on a number of occasions. Building a community like this is no small undertaking and its success is largely down to her.

Ok – it is proobaly a bit late to be commenting on this. But Marc Prensky’s Digital Natives thesis is so widely cited it does warrant a quick re-examination.

Prensky says:

“Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach. Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a ‘singularity’ – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called ‘singularity’ is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.”

Why do I think he is wrong? I do not think learners have changed. They still have experiences, opportunities, expectations, hopes, fears, ways of socialising .

Of course many learners do have access to powerful new technologies which help shape their experiences and expectation but was it not always so.. The technology which changed my life as a young person was central heating. Whilst previously the whole family would live in one or two rooms in winter because of the cold, now we were able to have our own spaces. Is that so different to what is happening now?

What is changing very fast is the environment and society in which young people learn and exchange ideas and knowledge. I am not sure if I would call that a ‘singularity’ – I think more it is a feature of the deep and prolonged industrial revolution we are living through.. Our education systems reflect different forms of social organisation of capital. The ‘industrial’ schooling system evolved to meet the needs of societies after the first industrial revolution which developed around the factory system. It is not that “Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” but more that the education system no longer reflects the forms of society and the environment in which we live.

An email from popular Pontydysgu guest blogger, Martin Owen.

‘In relation to our discussion about what e-portfolios are, I came across this in a recently published report on how UK Further Education students use ICT.
“Even fewer were required to use e-portfolios (20%). However, those using them overwhelmingly found them helpful: 9 out of ten of users (89%) agreed it helped them see if they were meeting their course objectives and 86% agreed it helped improve the quality of their work.” (Executive Summary: Use of e-learning)

Data was collected for this survey during a 20 minute scripted conversation with 4000 students. The interviewers defined e-portfolios as: On some courses, learners are required to maintain a computer-based portfolio of evidence, showing how they’ve achieved their course objectives. These are known as “e-portfolios”. (Appendix B Section E)

The full report is online on the Becta web site ‘

Thanks Martin for this. I haven’t had time to read the report myself but will look at it over the weekend and post something more on Monday.

To be honest, when the term ‘Blended Learning’ first appeared I was somewhat underwhelmed. It seemed to me rather silly. After all most learning is blended. We use different media and mix together learning from different sources. And equally what teaching does not mix together different activities and media. I used to train trainers in the pre-computer age. I remember much of our time was spent on widening the repertoire of what we called – I think – teaching methods. These included such things as brainstorming, card sorts, fish bowl sessions, action learnings sets fifty ideas for ice breakers – and so on. We also spent a lot of time looking at why you would use a particular approach for a particular group at a particular time. So what was new about Blended Learning?

In some ways I haven’t changed my views. But it does seem that the use of the term Blended Learning has changed. Today it is being used as a catch phrase for focusing on the pedagogy of e-learning, rather than the technology. And it is being used to break the stranglehold of the instructional design approach to learning. That can only be for the good. Yesterday I received an invitation to join the Ning group on Blended Learning. I haven’t had much time to explore the group so far, but it does seem a lively and stimulating discussion area, focusing on the learning rather than the gadgets. If that is all that Blended Learning has brought us, it is a big step forward.

The first of the new series of Sounds of the Bazaar. In this new series we will be experimenting with our programme formats. We will be publishing a series of short podcasts around particular issues in learning and technology. And we will be podcasting as series of podcasts focused on practice. What makes some programmes so compelling and some so dull. Is it down to the technology? Is it a matter of following an instructional design manual? Is it the skills and personality of the teacher? How can social software and web 2.0 be used for learning.The first of the series features a dialogue with Helen Keegan (you can see her official profile here). Helen is a researcher and lecturer at Salford University in Manchester, UK. She has just designed and delivered a new module in advanced multimedia for audio and video students in their final year course at the University. And it certainly seems to have got that wow factor. What is Helen’s secret:

• contextualisation
• authenticity
• situatedness
• motivation
• identification

We are going to produce a series of case study support materials around this podcast. Watch this blog for more details. As ever thanks to Dirk Stieglitz for his sterling work on the audio. The interview with Helen was recorded in a hotel in Halle and was not the easiest file to work with. Again we found the music for this volume on the great site Jamendo. This time we featuring the artist Antony Raijekov with his album Jazz U. Thanks to all those musicians who release their music under a Creative Commons license.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

I hoped I would never have to write the word ‘Blackboard’ on this blog again. But the news that Blackboard have won their US court case claiming patent infringement against the Canadian D2L platform cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. For readers new to the blogoshere, Blackboard, the once market leading e-learning vendor, some one and a half years ago obtained a patent claiming they had invented the use of computers for learning (and just about everything else). That the patent is patently 🙂 absurd is of no matter, nether that it is being challenged. As Stephen Downes reports: “The East Texas jury managed to wrap up deliberations in an afternoon and get away for the weekend with a judgement of $3.1 million in favour of Blackboard. The reaction across the web was generally one of dismay, though there were some mitigating factors: first, the settlement was much less than Blackboard as wasking, second, the verdict did not include an injunction against sales of Desire2Learn software, and third, the patent is still under review by the U.S. ”

The issue of patents is not going to go away, even if the review subsequently revokes the Blackboard patent. Ofc ourse as Stephen says the USA uses patent laws to “supplement tariffs and trade restrictions” whilst preaching open trade when it suits them. And it is not just Blackabord that is doing this – in fact it is perhaps surprising no major e-learningc ompany has tried it on before. Only this week Apple applied for a patent for automatically creating customized podcast mashups from various podcasts. The patent filed talks of: “Improved techniques to facilitate generation, management and delivery of personalized media items for users are disclosed. Users are able to influence or control content within a media item being personalized. In one embodiment, personalized media items are podcasts. Users are able to influence or control the content in or with a podcast. In other words, a podcast can be created in accordance with a user’s needs or specifications so that the content within a podcast is customized or personalized for the user.” How the hell can Apple claim a patent for audio mash ups.

And on Friday the Guardian newspaper reported the UK government “is to consult on legislation to punish internet service providers if they fail to take action against the illegal downloading of music, films and TV programmes.

The culture secretary, Andy Burnham, made the proposal to crack down on illegal downloading today as part of a wide-ranging strategy paper designed to support the UK’s creative industries.”

Writing in the same newspaper a day earlier Cory Doctorow explains ” the phrase “intellectual property” is, at root, a dangerous euphemism that leads us to all sorts of faulty reasoning about knowledge. Faulty ideas about knowledge are troublesome at the best of times, but they’re deadly to any country trying to make a transition to a “knowledge economy”.Fundamentally, the stuff we call “intellectual property” is just knowledge – ideas, words, tunes, blueprints, identifiers, secrets, databases. ”

Doctorow goes on to say: “Copyright – with all its quirks, exceptions and carve outs – was, for centuries, a legal regime that attempted to address the unique characteristics of knowledge, rather than pretending to be just another set of rules for the governance of property. The legacy of 40 years of “property talk” is an endless war between intractable positions of ownership, theft and fair dealing.

If we’re going to achieve a lasting peace in the knowledge wars, it’s time to set property aside, time to start recognising that knowledge – valuable, precious, expensive knowledge – isn’t owned. Can’t be owned. The state should regulate our relative interests in the ephemeral realm of thought, but that regulation must be about knowledge, not a clumsy remake of the property system.”

I am not so sure how the state is able to do this. One thing is for sure. All the legislation in the world is not going to pursude young people that music is just a commodity to be bought and sold according tot he rules of copyright. And the ISPs know it. My take – which I have probably written on this blog before – is that capitalism is trying to extend the notion of provate goods into the sphere of ideas. Just as technology makes it easier for us to express ourselves and to make things for oursleves, capitalism tries ot take that right away – and if they can’t stop it happening – they are dammed sure they want a curt of the action.

The Blackboard affair is just another round in this fight. It ultimately represents an attempt to privatise our rights to education and our rights to learning, to turn the means an tools for developing knowledge into a private commodity.

Those of you looking at our project page might have noticed a project called Taccle. Taccle stands for Teachers’ Aids on creating Content for Learning Environments. We would like to ask you to help with the project by filling in a short web based questionnaire. There are links to different language versions of the questionnaire at the bottom of this post. But, first you may want to know a bit more about Taccle (or if you wish – just scroll to the links at the bottom).

What is TACCLE?

The Taccle project helps teachers to develop their own e-learning materials.

It provides :

• step by step guidance in teacher friendly ‘how-to-do-it’ handbook
• practical training to develop skills you can use in your own classrooms
• a web site packed with information

Who is it for?

The Taccle project is designed by teachers for teachers and caters for those with only basic computer skills and limited technical support.

The handbook and the training are geared to the needs of the classroom teacher but teacher trainers, ICT support staff and resource centre staff my find them useful too!

It provides both practical support for teachers who want a ‘hands on experience’ and also help and information for teachers who just want to find out about e-learning.

Why TACCLE ?

Information and Communication Technologies are being increasingly used to create richer learning environments.

In all sectors of education from primary schools to adult education, in schools for pupils with special education needs and in colleges and universities, technologies are being used across the curriculum to enhance students’ experiences.

However, technology is not enough. The creation of high quality content is essential if the potential of ‘e-learning’ is to be realised in a way that stimulates and fosters Life Long Learning. It is important to train teachers how to design and develop their own content and generate learning materials that can help their own students and can also be freely exchanged with others. This is the aim of the TACCLE project.

What exactly will TACCLE do?

• Train teachers to create content for electronic learning environments in the context of an e-learning course
• Enable teachers to identify and decide which ICT tools and content are most useful for particular purposes.
• Teach teachers how to create learning objects taking into account information design, web standards, usability criteria and reusability (text, images, animations, audio, video) and which enable active, interactive and cooperative learning processes.
• Enhance the quality of e-learning environments in education by training teachers how to use them effectively and by creating resources to help them do so.
• Stimulate new approaches in teacher training related to the concept of lifelong learning, knowledge sharing and peer learning.
• Encourage teachers to share the developed content with their using existing repositories.

The first step in our work is undertaking a survey of teacher training needs for creating e-learning materials. We would be very grateful if you could assist in our work by filling in the survey. It will take about five minutes to complete.

1. English Language Version

2. Dutch Langauge Version

3. Spanish Language Version

4. German Language Version

5. Italian Language Version

Please visit the Taccle website. the handbook is being created on a wiki. If you are inetrested in contributingplease email me.

There seems to be quite a bit of interest in Freefolio, the WordPress based Social e-portfolio we have been developing together with our partners Raycom.

We have put together a roadmap for further development over the next six or so months. If you have ideas for what else should be on the roadmapo please do get in touch. And if you would like to join the development effort that would be most welcome. We are aware that we have slipped in our target of releasing an installable but we have not forgotten.

1. Developing a repository

Integrate a proper (standards based) lightweight document repository for uploading, storing and accessing different digital artefacts (e.g. documents, etc.).

The repository will allow users to store different objects, including text, audio, photographs and video, to access and annotate those objects and to report on their wok in different presentation formats.

Users will be able to share access to their work with those they choose.

The repository will conform to technical standards and will allow users to copy their work to portable media, if they wish. This will facilitate interoperability with other portfolios and learning applications.

For instance if a leaner progresses to university they will be able to transfer their work including multimedia objects.

2. Reporting views, building blocks

Develop a system module for allowing users to present achievements – should be flexible and allow multiple ‘views’. The module will provide templates to allow users to easily present different views of their work for different purposes, for instance for supporting job applications, for applications for further courses or as part of their curriculum activities. The templates will provide structures to assist learners in developing their presentations. Users will be able to choose different objects form the portfolio to form part of the presentations.

Different presentations can be stored within the portfolio or exported to portable media.

Once more users will be able to control with whom they share their presentations.

3. Improvements to profile

Develop system to allow administrator control of profile template.

Also examine feasibility of making links between different people with same interests/goals in the user profile.

The development of the profile template will make it easy for administrators to customise the template for different installations of the portfolio. The ab9lity to automatically link people with similar interests of similar learning goals will facilitate peer group learning and the development of groupwork. The system will allow learners to find materials and posts relevant to their personal and learning interests of their learning.

4. Improvements to the Personal Development Profile (PDP)

Develop reusable template for PDP process. Allow reviewing and reporting on progress towards goals. Allow view of goals and progress over time.

The further development of the Personal Development Profile will allow users to easily view their progress over time, to reflect on that progress and to develop a record. This will assist in developing learners’ abilities for planning and evaluation.

5. Improve groups functionality

Make it easier to form on the fly groups for sharing and collective activities. his will make it possible to develop working areas for different groups of learners, for instance for undertaking shared projects. Work undertaken in groups may be used as part of the presentations as in 2 above.

5. Styling, choice of styles

Allow users choice of style/design.

Research has shown the importance to learners of being able to give their portfolios their own look and feel. We will develop a number of different styles for users to choose from and will facilitate those who are able in developing their own styles.

6. Scaling

Further develop administrative systems to allow easier install and scaling for multiple group use.
Develop an installable version of Freefolio which may in future be installed on clients systems if they wish.