Yesterday saw a trip to York for the start up project meeting for our Cotil ( Web 2 - Connecting Transitions and Independent Learning) project - we are one of seven funded in the current round by HEA e-Learning Research Observatory. We’ve actually started well into the Cotill project with what appear to be two good case studies in the Faculty of Humanities.. one in Education Studies with student mentors (along with the DMU Transitions team) and another with Chris Goldsmith’s Politics students .
The startup was all about consolidating plans, sharing ‘issues’ and identifying commonalities with representatives from the other projects - ( Sheffield Hallam, Exeter, Anglia Ruskin, Leicester, UCLAN and Writtle College), as well as tips and updates on completed projects. We had much in common with UCLAN and Writtle on transitions-related research, but other themes were of interest to work going on across the faculties, such as on feedback, feed foreward and colleagues at Leicester are building on previous Impala4T project on podcasts, which will have synergies with an upcoming project here at DMU. Exchanges were lively and informative and in general quite a laid-back day (except for Richard, whose train journey was a little too laid-back for his liking).
Showing posts with label HEA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HEA. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Friday, 27 June 2008
So here we are. Again. End of Pathfinder "celebration"
Back in November 2005, Heads of e-Learning attended a Town Meeting at the Higher Education Academy in York. at this meeting, we were informed that there would be a benchmarking and Pathfinder programme initiated from the debris of the UK eUniversity farrago. I was one of a limited number of people who expressed, either at the meeting or via e-mail, concerns that benchmarking meant metrics, which in turn meant measurement and effectively a new column in a league table. A central concern for me was that any focus upon metrics should be subservient to, rather than lead, our enhancement/improvement agenda. Moreover, where metrics were deployed they should be used in context by HEIs to plan and deliver enhancement.
During the implementation of Benchmarking and Pathfinder at DMU the threat of the deployment of metrics and measurements receded. I felt that we embarked upon a process of understanding our own narratives, and helping both staff and students to come to terms with 21st century technologies to enhance their learning. We formed part of a collective, participant-led agenda for change, which for me was about:
In the morning we heard from John Selby from HEFCE, who highlighted how institutions need to think about value the money, efficiency and latterly enhancement. Now maybe he didn't mean it in that order, but that's the order in which he spoke about these issues: money and metrics first, enhancement second. Dr Selby also highlighted that the Educating Rita model of curriculum delivery was outmoded and inefficient. Sadly he did not note that the politics of Educating Rita, and the empowerment of Educating Rita and the emancipation of that student in that story show its true value, more than the resource implications of one-to-one teaching.
Dr Selby did also highlight how the sociological power of technology-enhanced learning needs, more emphasis. He hinted at a pedagogic shift; one that takes notice of complex behaviours, and thereby empowers people to make their own decisions. This, I believe, is the next step for us. How do we engage with progressive pedagogies? How do we rethink higher education that has relatively static models curriculum delivery and design, in a world that is ever more networked? Do we have a 19th-century model of education in a 21st-century world?
The afternoon was powerful and important - we talked with and learned from other projects - theworld becomes a better place at the chalkface - we need leaders who can empower us there. The afternoon was also depressing. I had a crushing sense that we were back to where we had begun in November 2005, ostensibly due to a single unchallenged comment by John McLaughlin, from DIUS. He was asked, in effect, how we could engage with senior managers within universities to embed change and move the lessons that we have learned forward. His answer was that we have to talk about students as consumers. We have to talk about students in terms of value-for-money. We have to talk about our students in terms of metrics that would deliver efficiency.
Now at the PRHE conference last week, I heard an empowering 10 minute talk from the Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool Hope University, Professor Gerald Pillay. In it, he argued for a higher education that focused upon the mind, body and spirit of our students. My thinking about what Professor Pillay had argued relegated metrics, in the form of retention and progression, and value-for-money, to a secondary means of ensuring enhancement where measures supported our staff in improving learning. When we highlight our students as consumers, we raise up the power of metrics, and relegate the mind, body and spirit of our students. We all lose something in this argument; notably, we lose the opportunity to set progressive agendas about opportunity and meaning.
Sarah Porter, from the JISC, argued clearly that we need to know our strategic plan in order to engage with our strategic managers in an effective way. However, it was left to the QAA to offer a sensible and meaningful way forward. It is totally remiss of me not to remember the name of their assistant director who was speaking, but Icannot. However, his argument was that we had "a problem with the rhetoric". He argued that we have to focus upon giving our students "something of lifelong value". A constant, persistent focus upon metrics and outcomes, where those issues define and shape the landscape of higher education, demeans the work that we do every day with our students and staff. It reduces us all to units of measurement, or to actors in a process of measurement.
So, I feel like I let myself down by not challenging Mr McLaughlin. I feel like saying to him that all of the work we have done as practitioners since 2005 has been focused upon enhancing the life chances of our students, through a process of learning from each other. It has only been about costing models, or value-for-money, or efficiency gains, where each of these has been driven by something more humane, "something of lifelong value".
During the implementation of Benchmarking and Pathfinder at DMU the threat of the deployment of metrics and measurements receded. I felt that we embarked upon a process of understanding our own narratives, and helping both staff and students to come to terms with 21st century technologies to enhance their learning. We formed part of a collective, participant-led agenda for change, which for me was about:
- empowering staff and students to make good choices about the technologies they deploy;
- learning from others; and
- developing e-pedgogies that demonstrate fitness-of-purpose and fitness-for-purpose in the 21st century.
In the morning we heard from John Selby from HEFCE, who highlighted how institutions need to think about value the money, efficiency and latterly enhancement. Now maybe he didn't mean it in that order, but that's the order in which he spoke about these issues: money and metrics first, enhancement second. Dr Selby also highlighted that the Educating Rita model of curriculum delivery was outmoded and inefficient. Sadly he did not note that the politics of Educating Rita, and the empowerment of Educating Rita and the emancipation of that student in that story show its true value, more than the resource implications of one-to-one teaching.
Dr Selby did also highlight how the sociological power of technology-enhanced learning needs, more emphasis. He hinted at a pedagogic shift; one that takes notice of complex behaviours, and thereby empowers people to make their own decisions. This, I believe, is the next step for us. How do we engage with progressive pedagogies? How do we rethink higher education that has relatively static models curriculum delivery and design, in a world that is ever more networked? Do we have a 19th-century model of education in a 21st-century world?
The afternoon was powerful and important - we talked with and learned from other projects - theworld becomes a better place at the chalkface - we need leaders who can empower us there. The afternoon was also depressing. I had a crushing sense that we were back to where we had begun in November 2005, ostensibly due to a single unchallenged comment by John McLaughlin, from DIUS. He was asked, in effect, how we could engage with senior managers within universities to embed change and move the lessons that we have learned forward. His answer was that we have to talk about students as consumers. We have to talk about students in terms of value-for-money. We have to talk about our students in terms of metrics that would deliver efficiency.
Now at the PRHE conference last week, I heard an empowering 10 minute talk from the Vice-Chancellor of Liverpool Hope University, Professor Gerald Pillay. In it, he argued for a higher education that focused upon the mind, body and spirit of our students. My thinking about what Professor Pillay had argued relegated metrics, in the form of retention and progression, and value-for-money, to a secondary means of ensuring enhancement where measures supported our staff in improving learning. When we highlight our students as consumers, we raise up the power of metrics, and relegate the mind, body and spirit of our students. We all lose something in this argument; notably, we lose the opportunity to set progressive agendas about opportunity and meaning.
Sarah Porter, from the JISC, argued clearly that we need to know our strategic plan in order to engage with our strategic managers in an effective way. However, it was left to the QAA to offer a sensible and meaningful way forward. It is totally remiss of me not to remember the name of their assistant director who was speaking, but Icannot. However, his argument was that we had "a problem with the rhetoric". He argued that we have to focus upon giving our students "something of lifelong value". A constant, persistent focus upon metrics and outcomes, where those issues define and shape the landscape of higher education, demeans the work that we do every day with our students and staff. It reduces us all to units of measurement, or to actors in a process of measurement.
So, I feel like I let myself down by not challenging Mr McLaughlin. I feel like saying to him that all of the work we have done as practitioners since 2005 has been focused upon enhancing the life chances of our students, through a process of learning from each other. It has only been about costing models, or value-for-money, or efficiency gains, where each of these has been driven by something more humane, "something of lifelong value".
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
We're up
Okay folks, here we go. There will be cricket-based nonsense again in this blog, especially in-light of the Vaughan-Flintoff-fredalo incident and its implications for team-play/-work/-liness.
Anyway, our Pathfinder has no name. I think we need one. Email rhall1@dmu.ac.uk with suggestions based upon our 5 aims:
1. To build enhanced institutional knowledge of both Web 2.0 technologies and developmental strategies that support pedagogic and epistemological participation. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1, 3, 4 and 8; Strands 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.4]
2. To implement professional development strategies for staff in Human Resources, Information Systems and Services (ISAS), and Library Services, for the integration of institutional and non-institutional virtual spaces. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1, 6 and 8; Strands 1.1, 1.5, 3.1, 4.3 and 4.4.]
3. To deliver differentiated strategies for extending virtual spaces through social networks and user-generated content that are aligned with our e-learning networks, in order to deliver improved retention and progression. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1 and 3; Strands 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1.]
4. To scope professional development methodologies that utilise Web2.0 technologies. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measure of Success 8; Strands 1.1, 1.4 and 2.3.]
5. To create social networking links with other project teams and experts, in order to build capacity for innovative e-learning within the sector. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measure of Success 5; Strands 2.3, 4.1, 6.1 and 6.2.]
We have a Project Plan, emailed off to the HEA/Glenaffric, and our first team meeting has lead to the formation of 7 work-packages with teams assigned to th production of each: deadline 22 June @ high noon. Management-by-exception and clear reporting are key for us. Essentially this means that once we agree the criteria for the work to be done, then teams take responsibility for production of relevant work-packages. Unless there are problems with scope, quality, time-scales or resources, teams have the ability to make decisions without referring to theProject Manager [me]. We will require monthly highlight reports about progress, which should be uploaded onto the project Wiki, alongside final reports etc.. If there are problems with scope, quality, time-scales or resources, which affect the workpackage then an exception report will be needed so that we can agree a contingency with the HEA.
Our Project Board will be a sub-committee of the University Learning and Teaching Committee, who will be responsible for endorsing the project, and advising on and approving progress. This group will receive termly highlight reports from the Project Manager, and will be a key vehicle for monitoring and disseminating project outputs within and without of the institution. It will meet for the first time in the next few weeks.
Don't forget that name!
Anyway, our Pathfinder has no name. I think we need one. Email rhall1@dmu.ac.uk with suggestions based upon our 5 aims:
1. To build enhanced institutional knowledge of both Web 2.0 technologies and developmental strategies that support pedagogic and epistemological participation. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1, 3, 4 and 8; Strands 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 3.1 and 4.4]
2. To implement professional development strategies for staff in Human Resources, Information Systems and Services (ISAS), and Library Services, for the integration of institutional and non-institutional virtual spaces. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1, 6 and 8; Strands 1.1, 1.5, 3.1, 4.3 and 4.4.]
3. To deliver differentiated strategies for extending virtual spaces through social networks and user-generated content that are aligned with our e-learning networks, in order to deliver improved retention and progression. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measures of Success 1 and 3; Strands 1.2, 2.1 and 3.1.]
4. To scope professional development methodologies that utilise Web2.0 technologies. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measure of Success 8; Strands 1.1, 1.4 and 2.3.]
5. To create social networking links with other project teams and experts, in order to build capacity for innovative e-learning within the sector. [c.f. HEFCE e-Learning Strategy Measure of Success 5; Strands 2.3, 4.1, 6.1 and 6.2.]
We have a Project Plan, emailed off to the HEA/Glenaffric, and our first team meeting has lead to the formation of 7 work-packages with teams assigned to th production of each: deadline 22 June @ high noon. Management-by-exception and clear reporting are key for us. Essentially this means that once we agree the criteria for the work to be done, then teams take responsibility for production of relevant work-packages. Unless there are problems with scope, quality, time-scales or resources, teams have the ability to make decisions without referring to theProject Manager [me]. We will require monthly highlight reports about progress, which should be uploaded onto the project Wiki, alongside final reports etc.. If there are problems with scope, quality, time-scales or resources, which affect the workpackage then an exception report will be needed so that we can agree a contingency with the HEA.
Our Project Board will be a sub-committee of the University Learning and Teaching Committee, who will be responsible for endorsing the project, and advising on and approving progress. This group will receive termly highlight reports from the Project Manager, and will be a key vehicle for monitoring and disseminating project outputs within and without of the institution. It will meet for the first time in the next few weeks.
Don't forget that name!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)