Regular readers of this blog will know I have been much concerned lately with how we organise research in technology enhanced learning, and particularly with the organisation of the various seminars, conferences and publications associated with academic research. One issue that has bothered me is the gap between the radical pedagogies we often propose and the actual practice of the ways we organise our own learning. A second is the difficulties frequently encountered by post graduate researchers, because of the interdisciplinary of Technology Enhanced Learning research, problems in defining and developing methodologies and the too frequent problem of finding adequate supervision and support for their work.

Last weeks IATEL conference in Darmstadt was a breath of fresh air in this respect. The conference on ‘Interdisciplinary approaches to Technology Enhanced Learning’ was organised by the DFG Research Training Group E-Learning. As the introductory handout said: “As a direct consequence of such an interdisciplinary approach, the conference format will not be defined by a preponderance of presentations and papers. In separately moderated and creative discussion forums one is able to examine and work towards a common understanding of the issues at stake. such an approach should also enable an assessment of how and to what extent the idea of interdisciplinary research is sustainable: whether it simply brings forth an only loosely fitting framework, or whether it evolves into a truly encompassing project that leads to results, insights and solutions which go beyond the simple sum of the individual trajectories.”

I was in the group looking at learning in networks and it truly was a fascinating discussion (many thanks to the moderators).

I came away thinking about three issues. The first is the tension between how people are using technologies for living, working and learning outside institutions and institutional practice in TEL (I was dubbed a ‘real world devil’ !!). The second was the need to bring together ‘design’ and TEL. Why the scare quotes? In this context ‘design’ is an English translation of the German word ‘Gestaltung’ which I would tend to translate as ‘shaping’ – the idea that technology – and in this context Technology Enhanced Learning – needs to be shaped by users. In other words we need to move beyond adaptive systems to systems and technologies that learners can themselves adapt to their own purposes and learning. The third issue was the relationship between Technology Enhanced Learning and its impact on education with the concept of ‘Beruf’. ‘Beruf” is very difficult to translate – there is no equivalent English language world. I would suggest the easiest way to understand it is in relation to the debates over the meaning of competency which in the UK and Anglo Saxon countries such as the Netherlands tends to be seen as the ability to perform to a set of externally defined standards, but in Germany is taken to mean the internalised ability of an individual to act. But please, German speakers, feel free to elaborate in the comments. Thus education is seen not just as aiming towards higher skills and knowledge for employment but as having more holistic aims in terms of value in itself.

I am still thinking about the ideas from the conference. And the work will continue – one outcome for the project should be a book and I am happy to have been invited to participate in writing this.

One of the problems of applications like Survey Monkey is thatit has made it just too easy to construct a survey. The result is that we are suffering from ‘surveyitis’. Furthermore, because it is so easy now to publish and publicise surveys, far too little care goes into the development and pretesting of surveys. Recently I talked about pretests at a project meeting to be met by blank faces. Why, they asked? We do not have time for that sort of thing.

Anyway I am now wary of surveys. But I am prepared to promote this survey on careers and skills, not just because it is being undertaken by my friends from Warwick University, but also because I think this is a very worthwhile piece of research. In my experience, careers are often no where near as clear cut as they seem. Often people do not progress smoothly from one job to another. And many of the skills we use are, I would guess, learnt whilst working, rather than through formal courses. But of course this is me guessing. The research should help provide some more solid data around these issues. So please do help by filling in the survey which is available in a number of different languages.

“Have you an interesting ‘story’ to tell about your career and the skills you have you developed since starting work? We are particularly interested in people who have:

• had stable careers within a single sector (such as engineering or health);
• have developed skills (such as Information Technology or communication skills) which could be applied in a number of sectors;
• had a varied work history (working in different types of jobs; different sectors; countries; not always been in full-time employment etc.);
• have worked at one time in a job that required few formal qualifications;
• have taken a job primarily to give you time or space to follow other interests;
• an interesting ‘story’ to tell that may not fit any of the above!

We were wondering if you would be prepared to help with a project we are currently undertaking?  As a team of researchers from eleven European countries, we are researching how people’s careers are changing across Europe and the different paths people take to develop the knowledge and skills they use at work.  We would be very grateful if you had the time to complete an online survey http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/eaceasurvey (available in 11 languages).  The survey may take up to 20 minutes to complete depending on the amount of detail you wish to provide. Your identity will be treated in the strictest confidence by the research team and the information you provide will be anonymised.  The results of the study will feed into a European review of how best to support work-related learning in the light of individuals’ changing patterns of career development.  If you would like to know more please do not hesitate to contact us.  We would also be grateful if you could forward this email to contacts and colleagues who you think may also be able to help.

With many thanks in advance for your help.

European Careers Research Team (see: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/research/current/copen/ for core team and for details of full team http://www.warwick.ac.uk/go/eaceasurvey).”

As always it is the extra curricula activities which are the highpoint of conferences. And i don’t just mean in the bar. I had an interesting lunchtime conversation with Martin Owen where we were talking about the problems with the classificatory systems being put forward for analysing a database of practice examples developed for the IPTS study on the impact of Web 2.) innovations on education and training in Europe.

One issue we discussed is the continued use of systems approaches for defining research design and analysis. All too often findings which do not fit into a pre-defined system are just viewed as ‘noise’ and therefore ignored. But it may be in that noise that cannot be analysed in a systems driven approach that the real issues lie. It is how learners are using social software that is critical to me and not how the system adapts or more often rejects the use of such software.

Last week i took an all to short four day holiday in Romania. But this week sadly it is back to business. And tomorrow I am off to Jyväskylä for the EARLI conference. Wednesday evening I travel to Kuressaari in Estonia for a meeting of the b-learning project. And Friday it is back to Bremen. Phew! In fact I did not plan such a schedule –  I managed to double book myself.

Anyway in Jyväskylä I am presenting a paper from the TT-Plus project on the training of trainers. The paper is officially co-authored between myself and Pekka Kamarainen – although I have to say he has done most of the work. Given my limited input, I feel able to say that I think this is a very good paper. The abstract is below and if you are interested you can download the full paper. I will also post my presentation slides for both meetings as soon as I have finished them.

In search for common ground: Starting points for analysing the professional situation of trainers in six European countries

“This paper gives an account on the working hypotheses of the European cooperation project TTplus (“A framework for continuing professional development of trainers”) concerning the diversity of training cultures and on the distribution of training functions. Then, the paper examines some methodological starting points for analysing the European training cultures with the help of sociological concepts like  ‘contextual images’ (Ritsert, Bracher) or e-portfolio -related concepts like ‘use cases’ (Rees-Jones). Based on these grounded reflections the paper provides justification for the ‘controlled but explorative’ research strategy (Bracher) that was applied in the empirical studies. In this context the paper discusses the role of concepts like ‘instances of good practice’, ‘instances of change’ and ‘instances of innovation’ for the research approach of the project. In the concluding reflections the paper discusses the relevance of such a research approach for European knowledge development into the professional development of trainers.”

Download the full paper here

A busy news day. This press release from Jisc dropped into my in-box.

” New research commissioned by JISC and carried out by Ipsos MORI suggests that students are starting to mix their social networking sites with their academic studies and inviting tutors and lecturers into their virtual space.
The research builds upon on an initial study – Student Expectations – carried out last year when 500 students were asked to indicate their expectations of technology provision when entering into higher education.
This new data is based on students now that they are studying as first years at higher education institutions, compared to the previous study when they were still at school.
Key findings show that:

• General use of social networking sites is still high (91% use them regularly or sometimes). Frequency of use has increased now that they are at university with a higher proportion claiming to be regular users (80%) – up from 65% when they were at school/college
• 73% use social networking sites to discuss coursework with others; with 27% on at least a weekly basis
• Of these, 75% think such sites as useful in enhancing their learning
• Attitudes towards whether lecturers or tutors should use social networking sites for teaching purposes are mixed, with 38% thinking it a good idea and 28% not. Evidence shows that using these sites in education are more effective when the students set them up themselves; lecturer-led ones can feel overly formal
• Despite students being able to recognise the value of using these sites in learning, only 25% feel they are encouraged to use Web 2.0 features by tutors or lecturers
• 87% feel university life in general is as, or better than, expected especially in terms of their use of technology, with 34% coming from the Russell Group of universities saying their expectations were exceeded
• 75% are able to use their own computer on all of their university’s systems with 64% of students from lower income households assuming that they are able to take their own equipment, perhaps due to lack of affordability and ownership.

Sadly the press release gave no link to the full report and I could not find it on a quick search. I will come back with some comments on the press release when I have ten minutes to spare.

In my previous posting I promised that I would continue my reflections on the big picture of European research on vocational education and training (VET) with questions instead of presenting lengthy monologues. This is also easier to me: I do not need to have the answers – we have to find them together. This, of course raises the question: Who is interested in finding out what is happening to the European VET research?

Some colleagues may find it strange that I keep looking back at the earlier periods of European cooperation in VET research and the cultural changes that have happened in the recent times. Some colleagues may also find the the expression “change of cooperation climate” is rather strong. Why should I/we worry about the big picture? Or – to put it more stronger: why couldn’t we just keep on going with the day-to-day practice and move on to new challenges if something doesn’t work?

Somehow I cannot leave it at that. If we are going through a change in the European cooperation climate, this is not merely a matter of policy frameworks and programme structures to which we contribute. This is also a matter of our own practice – what kind of knowledge we are producing, with wshom and for what purpose. And, thinking about the role of European research communities and networks – what is their role in VET-related knowledge development?

Let us consider for the moment some recent developments in the European VET research. I take the liberty of using some of the catchwords of the “i-Europe” agenda but in a somewhat modified way. For the moment I am not proposing a common agenda based on allegedly shared research interests. Instead, I want to invite my colleagues to consider, what has happened with the interests of knowledge and related goal-settings in European VET research.

For this examination I propose the following key themes and related critical questions:

1. European integration: Has the interest to participate in European cooperation maintained its popularity among European VET researchers? Or are there new dividing lines that lead to a segmentation between different forms of European participation and between related knowledge processes?

2. Interdisciplinarity: Has the readiness to cross disciplinary boundaries and to work with interdisciplinary concepts and methodologies maintained its popularity across different project generations? Or do we experience new tendencies that strengthen academic core disciplines and push interdisciplinary wort in VET-related research to the margins?

3. Innovations: To what extent is VET research addressing the need for new innovations and studying emerging initiatives in the field of VET? Or has the interest to study new innovations led to shift of emphasis from the field of VET to slightly different areas of innovative practice (e.g. the strudies on personal learning environments or e-portfolios)?

4. Contextuality and intercultural exchanges: Is the cooperation of European VET researchers characterised by awareness of one’s own VET culture and readiness to learn from other cultures? Or are there new dividing lines that reduce the willingness to reflect upon one’s own VET culture and to familiarise with other VET cultures? Or are there new patterns of internationalisation that blur the culturally specific concepts in the field of VET in such a way that ‘learning from each other’ appears as anachronism?

5. Communities and networking: Are the experiences of VET researchers on European cooperation leading to stronger European research communities? Has the EU-funding for networks helped the VET researchers to overcome periods of discuontinuity and to promote the renewal of knowledge production? Or are there new dividing lines that reduce the interest in European community development and in VET-related European networking?

6. Interactivity and knowledge sharing via e-resources: Have the earlier pilot activities to promote interactive use of web and development of joint web-based knowledge resources led to sustainable practice? Has the familiarisation of VET researchers with Open Educational Resources (OER) and with Open Educational Contents (OEC) led to new forms cooperation between VET researchers and practitioners in the field of VET? Or are there cultural dividing lines that have not yet been overcome and therefore slow down the progress with interactivity and new media in the field of VET?

I think that I have posed enough questions for the moment. I am aware that the themes and the questions are rather abstract. Therefore, when examining the key themes in the light of questions I have give some examples that cast some light on my initial question: What has happened earlier and what is happening now? I wonder, when I will find the time to proceed. Maybe someone else has views on these issues …

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

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.