OU blog

Personal Blogs

Eleanor Dommett

Looking back for the future of educational technologies

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eleanor Dommett, Tuesday, 30 Jan 2018, 07:47

As part of my studying H800 I recently had the opportunity to look for a paper on the future of educational technology. I selected this one:

Sanders, M. & George, A. Educ Inf Technol (2017). doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9604-3

This paper appealed to the scientist in me because it looked back very systematically to see why technology had not met the promise it was thought to show, a belief supported by reports such as ECAR (2015). In doing so they produced a technology innovation cycle.

Here I consider each stage of the cycle and relate it to my own experiences (all universities shall remain nameless!)

1. Installation of expensive new ICT system. The authors suggest that this stage is influenced by hype from biased promoters and decisions by top-down naïve visionaries. I do have experience of this; a new system comes in with little consultation of those on the front line, often accompanied by unsubstantiated claims of success (or anecdotal claims of a problem this technology will solve). These claims, interestingly, often come other contexts and are rarely backed up by substantive evidence. I compare this situation to research. I would never change the set up of my lab just because a sales person said their kit was better than my existing equipment. Instead, I am likely to wait until I see solid research papers from labs doing similar work to me using the newer kit, or in the very least talk to other researchers who have the new kit and see what it is helping them do. Even then I would need to see it was significantly better (in terms of saving time or improved accuracy) before I would upgrade. I wonder why we don't apply the same rationale to educational technologies.

2. Trialling by enthusiastic early adopters. I thought quite carefully about this one because I think (and worry) that I am one of these enthusiastic early adopters! They suggest that a factor influencing this is poor teacher training. I do partially agree with this because I have endured numerous training sessions on various educational technologies and, on reflection, I can see that the focus is on process not meaning i.e. this is how you upload a video or set up a poll as opposed to why you might want to do these things. That said, this has not been a consistent experience and some training is very good. I am also a big fan of the champion idea as well because I think it is a way to get to those who would otherwise not engage at all.

3. Low uptake by other educators. This is all too often the experience we have but I think it is influenced by many practical things as well as just negative beliefs and attitudes towards the technology. For example, if you do not have time to rethink your modules or teaching significantly then any add-on technology will be less effective and having time is often an issue. There is also an all or none sense to this. If you will polling in one lecture, should not try it in all. I think unless things are considered best practice or policy, uptake will always be lower than ideal

4. Failure of technology to improve learning. They cite a number of factors influencing this including ineffective usage and the inappropriate nature of the technology. Both of which are likely to be important. I think there is a third important factor which is unreliable or invalid analysis of the effects of the technology. In addition, I suspect that technologies that are introduced institutionally are doomed to fail overall because the technology must be selected for the teaching and learning outcome so where these necessarily vary, results will be give a mixed picture at best.

5. Deterioration of an ageing ICT system. The authors suggest that a main factor driving this is the lack of initial financial planning. I do not have any direct experience of this but I am sure it does happen in some cases. I also think that another factor influencing this is outside/external promise. I am aware of situations where universities have held on to older technology on the promise of a newer version or upgrade that never appears.

6. Fading out the technology. Given the stages above, this seems inevitable and certainly I have experienced technologies being faded out, although more often they seem to be abruptly replaced!

Permalink
Share post
Eleanor Dommett

The future of the PLE

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Eleanor Dommett, Tuesday, 30 Jan 2018, 07:48

A little bit of background

Recently on H800 we have been learning about the PLE. This in itself has been quite a eye-opener for me because I had never really thought of myself a having a PLE. I have worked with VLEs for years as a student and a teacher and I felt comfortable with the concept and tools found in VLEs. One of the early activities of the week was to map out a representation of our PLE and here is a copy of mine:

Ellie' PLESeeing this map made me realise that I use far more tools than those provided by the VLE. Even if I look only at those used for study of H800 a reasonable proportion would still be listed. So now that I have found my PLE, what do I really think it means.

The PLE and the VLE

As I said right at the start of this posting, I had long been familiar with the VLE but not the PLE. I have now had the chance to reflect on the positions outline by some researchers in the field and whilst I can see points in favour of focusing on a PLE, I still believe the VLE must remain the mainstay of formal learning. Weller convincingly points out that many tools out there are more sophisticated than the VLE and in some cases, students will perceive the VLE as antiquated and clunky. He also states how many are using these tools anyway. However, I think that to minimise any risk to the student and university, an institution must be able to provide appropriate support for all the technologies it employs and this is just not viable for the broad range that could be encompassed in the PLE. I also think that there is an issue of supporting the users who are least technically able - this group perhaps will not have such a broad understanding and use of technology when they enter education and therefore will benefit from a crude but well support VLE. 

That said, I also think there is a perfectly reasonable middle ground here and it is dynamic platform. My own experiences of school leavers entering education is that they are quite limited in their technology skills - yes they can use google and facebook but not necessarily in any systematic and optimal way. In the transition year to higher education a VLE provided by institutions (in our case a platform based on moodle) can provide them with a concrete and all-encompassing resource. With seamless links from the university website to our moodle (which also links to specific places in the library) and office 365 they have access to most of what they need. As the student progresses we ensure they have more skills to select their own technology. For example, explaining the principles of databases and then giving a few examples before suggesting they explore and choose one for an assignment. Alternatively, we can set up RSS feeds into our VLE and teach them how to do the same, something they can then apply to their own choice of sites.

So in summary I see the VLE and PLE as things that can evolve together. You begin with a solid core VLE, safe, supported and restricted. From here the tools provided to the student by explicit teaching, and the experience they have the VLE, allows them to begin to rely more and more on their own chosen technologies, developing a robust PLE. I still seem some fuhndamental things the preserve of the VLE. Here are three key examples:

1. File Storage - the university must offer some way of storing files, this may be through something like OneDrive (ie outsourced but with responsibility) or it could be their own servers. This protects the students from loss of material, if they choose to use it. For many they will store assignment drafts elsewhere but this gives them a belt and braces approach and away for restoring lost work.

2. Assignment submission - this must be via the VLE. Whether the student chooses to submit a word file or image created in other software submission must be via the VLE. Assignments are stressful and issues with submission are sources of great worry even when the stakes are low for an individual piece of work so a university must be able to control and be accountable for this process to minimise damage to itself and its students.

3. Communication between staff and students - at my university we are only allowed to email students to their university account and not personal email addresses, the same is true in reverse. This is about protecting both staff and students and having an audit trail. It takes students a while to get used to this (it seems normal for staff) but it is beneficial in the end. It also helps people 'switch off' from work by not checking that particular email account. 

This final point leads me to something I would like to finish with. Mental health problems are now a key concern for all universities with mental health problems rising in student populations. Many of my students admit to working/studying for ridiculous hours. I have also experienced this. With an all pervasive PLE there is a risk things will be harder to switch off from. Keeping the VLE at the centre (however wide the circle) can help with important boundaries.  




Permalink 3 comments (latest comment by Nicola McIntyre, Wednesday, 19 July 2017, 23:14)
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 11134