JISC

There was a short discussion on the main predisposition to the current VLEs within FE/ HE. This was encouraging as the focus on process and outcomes are issues to be considered. Not the one line learning outcomes required within module documents and descriptors but learning outcomes initiated by a process which enables the learner to be in control, engaged, but ‘facilitated’. Web 2.0 clearly offers a new paradigm, but the institutional and cultural barriers are still prevalent. The paranoia of the information systems department needs to be realigned, if this does not happen then the students will use the vast array of devices and access mediums to bypass the rigid structures imposed on them. This is already happening in some areas eg. gmail, Google docs and skydrive technology. We need to provide significant support and scaffolding for our staff. It isn’t about training, it is to do with the policy of the institution and how staff engage with their students, as facilitators rather than teachers. We need to recognise that the notion of scholarship, information and infrastructure are entrenched in technology, policy and social engagement.

Two delegates talked of support for tools over which we have no control and which are freely available to students and staff and how they might be used, and in which contexts. The 'holistic wraparound' was mentioned and there was little dissension from this as a goal. However, it is a descriptive term which is limited often by institutional intransigence. The concept of support assumed that staff and students have free use of the network infrastructures. One delegate expressed concern that the ‘centre’ used a lock down mentality for IT. This is due to the role in which they see themselves, i.e. keeping the network secure, rather than enabling learning and teaching. This potentially depressing thread was lightened by many who were advocating real progress in many areas. There were some notes of caution though, lest we be thrown into technology for technology’s sake.

In a thread started by the presenters, Vic Lally summarised some of the levels at which these issues might play out:

• The macro level of education as an element of the economy and public policy.
• The meso level of the management of courses within an educational institution.
• The micro level of learning design within a course or programme.

Clearly they interact. The nature of the interactions is certainly complex and unclear and has many players within our learning organisations who all have a vested interest, some of which are not all necessarily about the learner or learning. The authenticity of learning, played out in the learning design, is of prime importance. Otherwise the whole thing is damaged, and the learning of young people is affected.

Richard Noss commented from the discussion about a Web 2.0 example from the PBS Blog in the US "Learning Now". He suggested that this kind of knowledge creation (notes, making new knowledge out of the accumulation of 'old' knowledge) is becoming a little more mature. For an example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetLogo for a way of studying all kinds of phenomena employing this powerful idea - namely, that complexity emerges out of the interaction of many simple processes.

One thread looked at whether Web 2.0 can supporting interactive collaborative communities. Is this an achievable goal both culturally and institutionally? Some of the many tools were considered as social connectivity environments and it was suggested that we might consider tools that better support whatever underpinning pedagogy is driving their use. Richard Noss looked at the area of cloud working and asked if we are in a sufficiently networked world yet? Always-on is just rhetoric: it won't work on a 3-hour train journey, but environments like Google Gears allows you to use cloud based applications when offline. http://gears.google.com/

Another participant looked at Web 2.0 and e-learning policy and presented some elements of this which were put into practice at Becta, especially in a project working on FE College e-maturity. They developed an EMF-FE by outlining a developmental e-maturity model for FE, then worked with an Advisory Group of 15 colleges and evolved the wording and elements using a wiki. Funding was provided to test the model elements and incorporate the learning into the final model.

The participants then considered the Internet as an environment which offered possibilities/tools for creativity and community which were not previously available on such a scale. We now move forward to Web 2.0 and the community is potentially extended in access, collaboration, engagement etc., which was previously difficult or not possible. However, bandwidth (still an issue with many) and institutional filtering software can still be a barrier for many.

One delegate found a useful comment on what the learning issues might be and how Web 2.0 might address these

"Pedagogy 2.0 integrates Web 2.0 tools that support knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer networking, and access to a global audience with socioconstructivist learning approaches to facilitate greater learner autonomy, agency, and personalization."

Taken from McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(5). http://innovateonline.info/print.php?view=pdf&id=539