1. Do the reports of projects using ICT at the universities of Warwick, Leeds, Brighton, Edinburgh and Klagenfurt provide evidence in support of Martin Weller’s view that universities are creating a centralised and top-down version of technology in current applications to teaching and learning?
Yes, I believe so, with the exception of Leeds all the universities have a centralised system with access provided via the university.
Two of the universities have strategies which are either expressly about Web 2.0 (Edinburgh) or include an ICT strand (Leeds). These strategies are expressed in terms of institutional priorities and actions and do not appear to have had student input (although we do not have the information to be conclusive about this).
That said the reasons for a top down approach seem entirely sensible. This is a little off topic but they seemed to me to be the following:
(a) Moderation: The first issue here is whether to actively moderate at all. If you do not do so and there is widespread unacceptable content or behaviour then the university may suffer reputational damage or even legal action. However if you do actively moderate then the university is essentially confirming and supporting the content that remains, which is also a risky position.
Where we have information about the moderation approaches of the projects they seem to have taken a half way approach whereby there is a reporting system for unacceptable content which can then be removed. Otherwise the system is self moderating with users correcting milder unacceptable behavour. This approach however requires that users are given the skills to do this – otherwise you just get a flame war and users who are not actively involved in the conflict leave.
(b) Intellectual property – the university may be able to use the ‘common carrier’ defence for defamation but this is less likely to work for infringements of copyright etc (see ‘PirateBay’ where the approach of the Swedish authorities may well be followed in other jurisdictions). If the university has control of the tools and data then the infringing material can be easily removed. To depend on a third party to do this would seem very risky.
(c) Personal security – the university is under a duty to take reasonable steps to provide a safe environment for learning. This would seem to imply some responsibility for content and for moderation.
(d) Preservation and authentication of data – without central control this cannot be effectively implemented with any certainty (systems change and the priorities of commercial providers may not match those of the universities or the students)
(e) Technical issues – we know that frustrations with technical issues are a major issue for students. If a known and relatively narrow range of tools are in use then the university can provide support for students and advice about system requirements. If there is a ‘pick and mix’ approach this becomes much more difficult. Such an approach also makes the provision of training to students and staff very problematic.
2. Which of the projects described seem to you the most promising in terms of reconfiguring teachers’ roles, the curriculum, assessment or institutions?
There seems very little information here on which to base a comment. The take up of blogging for example is very limited where the data is provided. At Warwick 15% of the student body have accounts (we are not told whether these are active or not). At Leeds 6.25% of the student body use the blogging tool and a Brighton the figure is only 4.5%.
Against this background the reluctance of staff to incorporate blogging into their teaching seems a rational decision. It is one thing to use a tool that your students like and are familiar with to enhance your teaching, it is quite another to have to teach the vast majority of your students how to use a blog when you may not have been trained to do this yourself (and may not have time).
Leeds seems to have the greatest opportunity to actually reconfigure roles etc as it is in the process of commissioning a new VLE. Therefore there is the chance to seek the views of students and staff, explore new tools and reconsider pedagogy rather than simply treating this as a purchasing decision for the IT budget holder.