Personal Blogs

On 12 September 2024 I attended a university wide Quality Enhancement Conversations seminar. The aim of this blog is to capture some of the points made during interesting and thought provoking professional development session. Since this blog was created from a set of contemporaneous notes, I must accept responsibility for mistakes and misrepresentations.

The event began with an introduction, which had the title Better support models for neurodiverse students which was given by Michelle Pryde. Her introduction shared some history, which included an introduction to the notion of a model of disability, the movement towards autism being understood as a spectrum, and the first use of the term neurodiversity 1998.  This was linked to the point that there is no one right way of thinking; behaviours and differences are not deficits. An interesting point is that not everyone likes the term. Neurodiversity isn’t, of course, a condition. It is instead a framework that can be used to understand difference.

Some other points I noted include a shift in societal views over time, and changes to the OU student charter, which includes a commitment to anti-discrimination and anti-racism. Student numbers suggest that evidence that we (the university and its staff) need to do more, and to further evolve and develop the university’s teaching practices. The university should support staff to help them not to make assumptions. It is important to practice active listening.

Neurodiversity: The Affirmation Model

Megan Lawton, Professor of Learning and Teaching (academic practice) and head of academic development from University of Wolverhampton gave an opening keynote.

Reflecting a point in the introduction, Megan continued the introduction of different models of disability. Three were picked (although many others exist): the medical model, the social model (focus on how society disables somebody, and provision of reasonable adjustments), and the affirmation model (considers abilities and strengths).

The affirmation model is new to me. It gets away from the notion of a ‘tragic view’ of disability and a view of people with disabilities being ‘brave’. Contrast this with the charity model, and depictions of athletes at the Paralympics. Athletes are just athletes. A reference for the affirmation model can be found in an article by Swain and French (2000) Towards and affirmation model of disability, Disability and Society.

An important point was that ‘language, terminology and attitudes matter’. People with disabilities can have positive (affirmed) traits can offer benefits to society, and to business. I noted an encouragement to set up a diversity and equality action plan and consider establishing assessment methodologies for students, to enable students to take advantage of their affirmed traits. Consider how to assess learning outcomes in a way that is separate from the medium of the demonstration. In other words, rather than essays or written exams, could there be another way to demonstrate a learning outcome?

Neurodivergent student numbers and completion rates

Next up was a brief dive into some stats. A question that was asked was: can we identify neurodivergent students? One challenge is the university gathers data using historically dated terms and language. There is no specific marker within student records for neurodiversity, but other flags can be combined together, i.e. ‘ASD’ and ‘dyslexia’, gives that a figure that suggests 7.1% (based on combined yearly data summarised from 2018) of students are neurodiverse.

A follow on question was: ss disclosure rate different between different demographic groups? Yes in some cases, but not in others. A further question was: are different success rates between neurodivergent students and neurotypical students present in university statistics? Yes.

Supporting neurodivergent postgraduate research (PGR) students

The subtitle for this next presentation, given by Lindsay O’Dell was ‘supporting students in accessing and participating in their studies’. Challenges for neurodivergent students may include navigating and working with university systems, accessing support, and navigating supervisory relationships. The supervisory relationship is really important for doctoral students. It is through this relationship can students express what students need.

This presentation emphasised the need to consider students at different levels. It is just as necessary to consider how to best support postgraduate research students as it is to support access students.

The Relaxed Tutorial Project: Designing for Neurodiversity (FASSTEST)

This presentation, about inclusive tutorial practice, was all about how to make safe spaces for students who may disclose autism. This said, it also has relevance for students who may typically avoid online tutorials due to of anxiety or have a variety of complex requirements.

A question is: what might a related tutorial look like? Some suggestions includes reduced sensory input, reduced social participation, casual attendance, a established safe and sympathetic environment. Paraphrasing an element of the presentation, a relaxed tutorial will also not be recorded, will not expect students to use the mic, here will be no web cams, students will not be put on the spot, not be put in a breakout rooms. The point of a relaxed tutorial to get students to attend who might not be willing to attend earlier. The packaging of the ‘relaxed’ tutorial is important.

Reflecting on the notion of the ‘relaxed’ tutorial there is an obvious tension. Some tutorials can be transformative in your understanding of module concepts since they can provoke provocative questions. Interactive tutorials can strengthen and develop understanding of key ideas. As sometime who often identifies as neurotypical, I don’t want to relax in a tutorial; I want my own tutorials to be challenging. This said, it would stretch me as a tutor if I were to run two different styles of tutorial. Arguably, running a ‘relaxed tutorial’ may lead to the development of trust (and student-tutor relationships) and lead to students attending other forms of tutorial.

Exploring the Transitions of Neurodivergent Access Students to Level One Study

The subtitle for this presentation was ‘Narratives of Study Skills and Support’. The aim of this PRAXIS project was to explore experience of neurodivergent students by making use of a qualitative photo-elicitation approach, to ultimately help to inform the enhancement of the student experience. The research was centred around a number of Access modules: Y031 Arts, Y032 Social sciences, Y033 STEM. The researchers interviewed five student participants. There were three sections to the research: photo elicitation, questions about study skills, and questions about the quality of support provided. A key ingredient was, of course, the tutor, who always plays a key role in Access modules.

Panel discussion

What follows is a summary of my own interpretation of the themes that emerged from the panel discussion.

An important theme was about listening, and communicating. Linked to this was the importance of flexibility. I noted the words “nothing about us without us”. Accompanying this was the point that we should always talk to our students, and emphasise that everyone can achieve. Connected to this, there should be a move away from disability to the notion of needs, and how the university, module teams and tutors can meet unmet needs. 

When it comes to talking with students, online interactions and tutorials can represent an enabler, as well as a barrier. Face-to-face teaching can be considered to be an enabler, and a barrier. With this in mind, I asked a question: is it right that the university policy is to currently have no official face-to-face events? Study mentoring could, for example, take place during face-to-face sessions. The response was that early face-to-face interaction, to help learners understand what is involved in study is helpful and enabling options (or choice) is crucial.

There was an interesting discussion about assessment methods, particularly the use of essays. A question is: can learning outcomes be assessed in different ways to accommodate student needs? Essays help develop writing skills and offer an opportunity to demonstrate both knowledge and skills.

Resources

The following resources were shared during this session:

Guidance (GOV.UK)

• The Buckland Review on Autism Employment
• Publishing accessible documents
• Accessible communication formats
• Dos and don'ts on designing for accessibility - Accessibility in government

The following resource was also shared:

• Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines

It is also worth mentioning that the university has its own inclusive curriculum tool, which helps module teams to consider diversity and inclusion beyond neurodiversity.

Reflections

The most useful point I took away from the seminar was the introduction of a new model: the affirmation model. I haven’t heard about this model before. It makes a lot of sense, and I relate to it on a personal level.

It was interesting to hear the notion of neurodiversity being discussed, and this makes me question where the boundaries of neurodiversity lie. 

Coming back to the personal, I will disclose that I have a speech difference, a stammer. Does this make me neurodivergent? Since neurodivergence appears to cover specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, and autistic spectrum ‘disorders’ (I’m unhappy with the notion of disorder, since it does suggest the medical model of disability), my own difference isn’t a part of this label. Whilst I'm not going to argue on being included into the club, a curiosity is that a stammer can be profoundly socially disabling in some circumstances.

The affirmation model is all about emphasising what everyone is good at. This makes me question: what am I particularly good at? Curiously, there is something that my stammer has given me that I quite like: it has given me a very good vocabulary, since I’m forever making decisions about whether I could choose an easier word to say. When speaking with me, you might never know this is going on. The effect of this might be functional fluency (to attempt to fit in with the normal of a ‘neurotypically-fluent’ world) but the impact can be mental exhaustion after a very busy day of talking and phone calls. Does this sound neurotypical? I have no idea, since it is my everyday life experience. Would a label be useful? Again, I’m not sure.

This leads back to some other points that was shared during the session: consideration of needs, the importance of communication and learning about those needs, and providing of alternatives and opportunities.

A useful event; thank you to all the organisers and presenters.

On 23 June 23, I attended an online seminar about impact and scholarship, which was facilitated by Shailey Minocha and Trevor Collins. Shailey is the School of Computing and Communications scholarship lead, and Trever used to be a director of the university’s STEM scholarship centre, eSTEeM.

The event is summarised as follows: “we will take you through the toolkit for impact of SoTL and introduce you to various resources of the impact evaluation initiative. By the end of the event, we hope that you will feel prepared to use the resources/toolkit to plan, evaluate, and report the impact of your (past, present and future) SoTL projects and interventions.” Early on in the seminar, there was a reference to a page about impact, which can be found on the eSTEeM website.

Stories of impact

One of the most notable parts of this seminar was the amount of articles and resources that were shared. One of the first articles mentioned was: Impact of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A compendium of case studies. In this publication, 16 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) projects were analysed by something called the Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF).

Two other articles were: 

• Impact of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: An Executive Summary
• Impact of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: A guide for educators

Defining impact

The UK Research Excellent Framework (REF) defines impact as “an effect on, change or benefit to the economy of society”. There is a connection here with the school research fiesta which took place earlier this year: REF impact case studies are important. In terms of SoTL, impact implies demonstrative benefits to learning and teaching that are directly attributable to a specific project.

I noted a question: what has changed (as a result of a project)? What new insights have gained (from the project)? Also, how can the institution put the outcomes into use? What are the current debates that this scholarship relates to?

Impact evaluation framework

The impact evaluation framework was mentioned, but what exactly is it? It is said to contain 12 facets (or aspects) of impact, which are spread over 4 categories. During the session, I attempted to briefly summarise what they are:

• Learning and teaching: impact on student experience; student retention; evidence of excellence?
• Transfer to others: an influence on discipline based teaching, research, or practice; dissemination of outcomes; extent of adoption by others?
• Stakeholder benefits: enhanced mutual understanding; facilitated personal or professional development; recognition of project team members and other stakeholders.
• Cultural and economic benefits: has it fostered scholarship culture; financial implications (saving of money); funding opportunities.

Relating to this framework, Shailey shared a link to her blog, Impact of scholarship of teaching and learning. 

This article provides links to related resources, such as an executive summary, case studies, guide for educators, and two workbooks: one about impact evaluation, and another about planning for impact

Six principles (or values) of SoTL

A particularly useful resource which relates to scholarship is a free badged open course from Open Learn: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in STEM.

This short course has 6 sections, which emphasises what contributes to an effective study:

1. Grounded in student learning and engagement
2. Grounded in one or more context
3. Rigorous and methodological sound research design
4. Conducted in partnership with students
5. Appropriately public for evaluation and uptake by peers
6. Reflection, critical reflection and reflexivity.

Strategies for planning and generating impact

This section of the seminar shared some useful practical tips for anyone who was considering setting up a scholarship project, or thinking about impact. These have been paraphrased as follows:

• Align scholarship with strategic priorities of institution, school and discipline.
• Use social media to create community and connection; make use of YouTube channels, and other social media platforms.
• Make sure you keep a clear record of evidence of impact.

Another thought I did have was: consider developing a scholarship team which has complementary skills.

Impact resources

Building on the section which introduced the impact evaluation framework, this section aimed to highlight resources and ideas that could be useful. A key element of this was the Theory of Change methodology (ToC). This was highlighted as a dominant image methodology which is used by the Office for Students https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/ . Apparently, the Theory of Change helps scholars plan a project for impact, helping them to consider pathways to impact from the start of project.

Some resources that were highlighted included a ToC visual tool, a SoTL impact evaluation workbook, and the Planning for SoTL impact evaluation workbook. There was also a question driven template, which was considered to be a project management tool.

A key point highlighted in this section: know who your stakeholders are. Without stakeholders, and without influence across stakeholder communities, there is no impact.

Reflections

A question that I always return to is: what is the difference between scholarship and research?

In some respects, the answer to this question is directly linked to the notion of impact. The way that I understand it is that scholarship relates to impact on teaching practice and activities. In turn, scholarship can have a direct impact on the student experience. Research, on the other hand, has impact on an academic discipline, or field of study. There is, of course, cross over between scholarship and research, especially within the domain of education and education studies. 

Another thought I always come back to is that both scholarship and research are important, and that academics should do both: research relates to what we teach, whereas scholarship relates to how we teach. I can’t get away from the perception that due to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) that research activity is valued higher than scholarship activity. This said, there are other metrics and league tables that relate to the student experience: the student satisfaction survey, and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).

This seminar was timely. I’ve just finished setting up what is called my annual Academic Workload Plan. In the forthcoming year, I’m hoping to set up a scholarship project (subject to approval, of course). An important point from this session was: build in dissemination and impact right from the start.

I thought that the tools shared during this session were potentially useful, especially the articles. The session clearly highlighted that there are challenges in planning for and generating impact: projects can often take longer than expected, and project members can become tired at the end of the project. An excellent point was made; sometimes impact could occur years after the completion of a project. This point emphasises the importance of importance of collating impact after a scholarship project has officially finished.

I once heard it said that it is very difficult to change the world by writing an academic article. I understand impact being all about what you do with either your practice or research findings. A lot of academic effort goes into finding things out and getting articles published in prestigious journals. Impact, in my eyes, is all about enabling findings to facilitate positive and constructive change.

On 28 January 21, I attended an online seminar, dismantling racial inequalities in higher education, which was organised by the OU Black and Minority Ethnic Research Group. The aim of this group is to “discuss research and scholarship around race, ethnicity, coloniality and decolonisation”.

What follows is my own brief summary of the event, which has been taken from a set of notes that I made during the session. I’m sharing just in case it may be of interest to colleagues.

The quotes that I’ve provided below are quotes from the notes that I made during the event, rather than word for word quotes from each of the speakers. 

Introductions and launch of seminar series

Delegates were welcomed by Dr Jenny Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Health Promotion and Chair of the BME Researchers Group, who also chaired the seminar.

The first speaker was Baroness Valerie Amos, who gave a short introductory presentation to launch the seminar series. Baroness Amos spoke of structural inequality in education and highlighted that the current “pandemic exacerbates disparities”.

It was highlighted that there are very few black people occupying leadership positions in HE. Academics are also faced with the pressure of working on short term contracts, and the student attainment gap is substantial. There are other issues, such as what is taught, and access to research funding and scholarships.

I also noted down some very direct points: gradual change isn’t good enough, there needs to be critical mass, and it is hard to build alliances with other staff who are themselves employed on insecure terms and conditions. An important point that I noted down, which later became one of the themes of the event was that change requires a whole institution approach. 

Interventions for closing degree award gaps

The second presenter was Professor Marcia Wilson, the OU’s new Dean of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, who spoke about “Interventions for closing degree award gaps”.

Marcia spoke about the degree award gap; there is a sector wide attainment gap between black and white students in terms of their final degree classifications. Marcia mentioned a recent Wonkhe blog Time's up for the Awarding Gap and emphasised the statistic that was contained within the following paragraph: “The white-BAME gap and the white-Black gap have each on average changed by 0.3 percentage points between 2003-04 and 2018-19. At this rate of change it will be in 2070-71 when the white-BAME awarding gap will close, and 2085-86 when the white-Black awarding gap closes.” 

The extent of the gap was also laid clear in another statistic from the same article: "The degree awarding gap was most pronounced between Black male qualifiers (of whom 54.5 per cent received a first/2:1) and white female qualifiers (82.9 per cent, a difference of 28.4 percentage points)".

An important question was asked: why the lack of progress? There was a reference to a deficit perspective; the blaming of students. Also, institutional discussions may only occur when universities are exploring how to apply to the race equality charter (Advance HE). 

Another thought was perhaps equality and attainment could be linked to other measures of institutional success, such as the Teaching Excellence Framework. A further question was asked: how come some institutions are awarded a Gold teaching excellence status, and yet no black students have gained first class degrees? A source of this data is the Wonkhe article Universities’ shame - unpicking the black attainment gap.

Another question is: what is the way forward? Some answers might be found in leadership, conversations, a diverse and inclusive environment, and trying to understand what works.

In a 2017 HEFCE report four areas of causes were highlighted: curricula and learning; relationships between staff and students; psychosocial and identity factors; social, cultural and economic capital.

There is also the importance of teacher expectations. This relates to the question of “what do we expect from our students?” The point being that we should have high expectations for all students.

An interesting reference Marcia gave was to a report by NUS, entitled “mark my words, not my name”

One of the final points I noted was leaders need to monitor the gaps; they must know their data. 

Who gets to do research?

The next talk was by Professor Ijeoma Uchegbu, University College London. Professor Uchegbu made the point that diversity is good for everyone, and that diverse decision making is good for an organisation. The point is simple: where there is inequity, everyone suffers. 

A reference was made to a McKinsey and Company report entitled why diversity matters. A related point was that when a diverse team works together, it is more likely to follow evidence, rather than follow dogma. I noted down the following important words: “it’s good to talk about social justice, but also about organisational resilience”.

A reflection was that problems start at secondary school. In years 10 and 11, students are achieving at the same level. By the time students are 18, 24% of Chinese students get 3 As, whereas only 5% of black pupils get 3 As. Furthermore, 0.2% of UK professors are female and black. This was accompanied by the observation that it should be ten times this figure to be in keeping with population statistics.

One thing that I did learn is that some of these statistics are highlighted on the OU OpenLearn Race and Ethnicity hub. A question I must ask myself is "why didn’t I know about this resource?"

There is also the question of what can be done. There were a number of perspectives that need to be considered: institutional responses, organisational interventions (I hope I’ve noted this down correctly) and personal responses. There needs to be support for peers and mentors. There is the also the need to gather data, articulate what the data says, act to respond to the data, monitor the impact of change, and repeat.

Towards the end of Ijeoma’s presentation, we were directed to UCL’s statement on Race, which emphasised the need for an institutional response.

In a question and answer session, I again noted the importance of holding the view that it is organisations that have deficits, not the individuals. In this vein, the onus of positive action lies on the institution. 

Lessons from my journey

The final presentation of the day was by Professor Dawn Edge, who was from Manchester University. Professor Edge's talk  had the title: Becoming a Black Woman Professor – lessons from my journey.

Some key points I noted were the importance of understanding the roles of engagement (or, how things work within an organisation), understanding what really counts and understanding the process for applying for things. I noted down points that will be familiar to many: the creation of a CV, and gathering of supporting statements. I noted down the words: package yourself and sell yourself and “gain support from peers and allies”.

Reflections

I was immediately struck by the striking (and uncomfortable) statistics that were shared by the speakers. A number of the speakers shared thoughts about suggestions about what could be done, and that different responses need to be considered, ranging from the institutional to the personal. Following their example, I asked myself: “what can I do?” 

I’ve taken away a number of points. I need to listen (and make the time to listen) and ask questions. I should look to creating diverse teams whenever I have the opportunity to do so. I took away the point that mentoring and peer relationships are important. I should also always look to data, to see what it’s saying. Echoing the words of Professor Uchegbu: gather data, act, monitor, and repeat.

Acknowledgements: many thanks to the OU Black and Minority Ethnic Research Group for running what was a really thought-provoking event. Thanks are extended to Marcia Wilson for sending me a link to the Wonkhe blog that she mentioned during her talk.

As a part of my job I regularly visit the Open University campus in Milton Keynes.  On the 5 June, I managed to find some time to attend a seminar by my colleague Clara Mancini.  Over the last couple of years, I had heard that Clara had been doing some research into the subject of Animal-Computer Interaction but we had never really had the opportunity to chat about her work.  Her seminar was the perfect opportunity to learn more about the various ideas and projects she was working on.

After a short introduction, Clara mentioned a number of topics from human-computer interaction (or 'interaction design').  These included topics such as the use of ambient technology.  This could include the use of smart sensors that can be embedded into the fabric of buildings, for example, so their environmental conditions and properties can dynamically change. Other topics include the use of augmented reality.  This is where additional information is presented on top of a 'real' scene.  You might say that Google Glass is one product that can make good use of augmented reality.

Clara also spoke of the interaction design process (or cycle), where there is a loop of requirements gathering, designing and prototyping, followed by evaluation.  A key part of the process is that users are always involved.  ACI is very similar to HCI.  The biggest difference is the users.

History and context

It goes without saying that technology is being used and continues to be used to understand our natural world.  One area which is particularly interesting is that of conservation research, i.e. understanding how animals behave in their natural environment.  One approach to develop an understanding is to 'tag' animals with tracking devices.  This, of course, raises some fundamental challenges.  If a device is too obtrusive, it might disrupt how an animal interacts within its natural environment.

Another example of the application of technology is the use of computer driven lexigraphic applications (or tools) with great apes.  The aim of such research is to understand the ways that primates may understand language.  In conducting such research, we might then be able to gain an insight into how our own language has evolved or developed.

Products and systems could be designed that could potentially increase the quality of life for an animal.  Clara mentioned the development of automated milking machines.  Rather than herding cows to a single milking facility at a particular time, cows might instead go to robotic milking machines at times when it suits them.  An interesting effect of this is that such developments have the potential to upset the complex social hierarchies of herds.  Technology has consequences.

One important aspect of HCI or interaction design is the notion of user experience.  Usability is whether a product allows users to achieve their fundamental goals.  User experience, on the other hand, is about how people feel about a product or a design.  A number of different usability experience goals have emerged from HCI, such as whether a design is considered to be emotionally fulfilling or satisfying.  Interaction designers are able to directly ask users their opinions about a particular design.  When it comes to designing systems and devices for animals, asking opinions isn't an option.  Clara also made the point that in some cases, it's difficult for us humans to give an opinion.  In some senses by considering ACI, we force ourselves to take a careful look at our own view of interaction design.

Aims of ACI

Clara presented three objectives of ACI.   Firstly, ACI is about understanding the interaction and the relationship between animals and technology.  The second is that ACI is about designing computer technology to give animals a better life, to support them in their tasks and to facilitate or foster intra and inter species relationships.  The third is to inform development of a user-centred approach that can be used to best design technology intended for animals. 

Clara made the very clear point that ACI is not about conducting experiments with animals.  One important aspect of HCI is that researchers need to clearly consider the issues of ethics.  Participants in HCI research are required to give informed consent.  When it comes to ACI, gaining consent is not possible.  Instead, there is an understanding that the interests of participants should take precedence over the interests of science and society.

Projects

Clara described a system called Retriva (company website), where dogs can be tagged with collars which have a GPS tracking device.  Essentially, such a product allows a solution to the simple question of: 'if only I could find where my dog was using my iPhone'.  Interestingly, such a device has the potential to change the relational dynamics between dog owner and dog.  Clara gave an example where an owner might continually call the name of the dog whilst out walking.  The dog would then use the voice to locate where the owner was.  If a tracker device is used on a dog, an owner might be tempted less to call out (since he or she can see where the dog is on their tracking app).  Instead of the owner looking for the dog, the dog looks for the owner (since the dog is less reliant on hearing the owner's voice).

Dogs are, of course, used in extreme situations, such as searching for survivors following a natural disaster.  Technology might be used to monitor vital signs of a dog that enters into potentially dangerous areas.  Different parameters might be able to give handlers an indication of how stressed it might be.

As well as humanitarian uses, dogs can be used in medicine as 'medical detection dogs'.  I understand that some dogs can be trained to detect the presence of certain types of cancers.  From Clara's presentation I understand that the fundamental challenges include training dogs and attempting to understand the responses of dogs after samples have been given to them (since there is a risk of humans not understanding what the dog is communicating when their behavioural response to a sample is not as expected).

One project that was interesting is the possible ways in which technology might be used to potentially improve welfare.  One project, funded by the Dogs Trust, will investigate the use of ambient computing and interactive design to improve the welfare of kennelled dogs.  Some ideas might include the ways in which the animals might be able to control aspects of their own environment.  A more contented dog may give way to a more positive rehoming outcome.

Final points

Clara presents a question, which is, 'why should we care about all this stuff?'  Studying ACI has the potential to act as a mirror to our own HCI challenges.  It allows us to think outside of the human box and potentially consider different ways of thinking about (and solving) problems. 

A second reason connects back to an earlier example and relates to questions of sustainability.  Food production has significant costs in terms of energy, pollution and welfare.  By considering and applying technology, there is an opportunity to potentially reconceptualise and rethink aspects of agricultural systems.  A further reason relates to understanding about to go about making environments more accessible for people who share their lives with companion animals, i.e. dogs who may offer help with some everyday activities.

What I liked about Clara's seminar was its breadth and pace.  She delved into some recent history, connected with contemporary interaction design practice and then broadened the subject outwards to areas such as increasing prominence (welfare) and importance (sustainability).  There was a good mix of the practical (the challenges of creating devices that will not substantially affect how an animal interacts within their environment) and the philosophical.  The most important 'take away' point for me was that there is a potential to learn more by looking at things in a slightly different way. 

It was also interesting to learn about collaborations with people working in different universities and disciplines.  This, to me, underlined that the boundaries of what is considered to be 'computing' is continually changing as we understand the different ways in which technology can be used.

Acknowledgements:  Many thanks to Clara for commenting on an earlier part of this blog.  More information about Clara's work on Animal -Computer Interaction can be seen by viewing an Open University video clip (YouTube).

One of my interests is the history of computing. This blog post aims to summarise a seminar that as given by Malcolm MacCallum, University of London, held at the Open University on 30 October 2012.  Malcolm used to be the director of the Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research, Bristol.  Malcolm began by saying something about the institute, its history and its research.

This blog complements an earlier blog that I wrote to summarise a lecture that was given at City University.  This earlier lecture was entitled Breaking Enigma and the legacy of Alan Turing in Code Breaking and took place back in April 2012, and was one of a series of events to celebrate the centenary of Alan Turing's birth.  Malcolm's talk was similar in some respects but had different focus: there was more of an emphasis on the story that led to the development of what could be arguably one of the world's first computers.

I'm not going to say much about the historical background that is obviously connected with this post, since a lot of this can be uncovered by visiting the various links that I've given (if you're interested).  Instead, I'm going to rush ahead and introduce a swathe of names, terms and concepts all of which connect with the aim of Malcolm's seminar.

Codes, Cyphers and People

In some respects the story of the Enigma code, which took place at the Government Code and Cypher School, Bletchley Park, is one that gains a lot of the historical limelight.  It is easy to conflate the breaking of the Enigma code (Wikipedia), the Tunny code (Wikipedia) and the work of Alan Turing (Wikipedia).  When it comes to the creating of 'the first computer' (quotes intentional), the story of the breaking of the Tunny code is arguably more important. 

The Tunny code is a code generated by a device called the Lorenz cypher machine.  The machine combined transmission, encryption and decryption.  The Enigma code was very different.  Messages encrypted using Enigma were transmitted by hand in morse code.

I'm not going to describe much of the machines since I've never seen a real one, and cryptography isn't my specialism.  Malcolm informed us that each machine had 12 wheels (or rotors).  Each wheel had a set of cams that were set to either 1 or 0.  These wheel settings were changed every week or month (just to make things difficult).  As each character is transmitted, the wheels rotate (as far as I know) and an electrical circuit is created through each rotor to create an encrypted character.  The opposite happens when you decrypt: you put in an encrypted character one side and a plain text (decrypted) character magically comes out the other side.

For everything to work, the rotors for both the encrypting and decrypting machines have to have the same starting point (as otherwise everything will be gibberish).  These starting points were transmitted in unencrypted plain text at the start of a transmission

Through wireless intercept stations it was possible to capture the signals that the Lorenz cypher machines were transmitting.  The codebreakers at Bletchley Park were then faced with the challenge of figuring out the structure and design of a machine that they had never seen.  It sounds like an impossible challenge to figure out how many rotors and wheels it used, how many states the rotors had, and what these states were.

I'll be the first to admit that the fine detail of how this was done pretty much escapes me (and, besides, I understand that some of the activities performed at Bletchley Park remains classified).  What I'm really interested in is the people who played an important role in designing the physical hardware that helped with the decryption of the Tunny codes.

Depths and machines

Malcolm hinted at how the codebreakers managed to begin to gain an insight into how the Lorenz machine (and code) worked.  He mentioned (and I noted) the use of depths (Wikipedia), which is where two or more messages were sent using the same key (or machine setting).  Another note that I made was something called a Saltman break, which is mentioned in a book I'll reference below (which is one of those books which is certainly on my 'to read' list).

Malcolm mentioned two different sections of Bletchley Park: the Testery (named after Ralph Tester), and the Newmanry (named after Max Newman).  Another character that was mentioned was Bill Tutte who applied statistical methods (again, the detail of which is totally beyond me and this presentation) to the problem of wheel setting discovery.

It was realised that key aspects of code breaking could be mechanised.  Whilst Turing helped to devise the Bombe (Wikipedia) equipment that was used with the decryption of the Enigma code, another machine called the Heath Robinson (Wikipedia) was built.

One of the difficulties with the Heath Robinson was its speed. It made use of electromechanical relays which were slow, restricting the code breaking effort. A new approach was considered: the creation of a calculating machine that made use of thermionic valves (a precursor to the transistor).  Valves were perceived to be unreliable but it was realised that if they were continually powered up they were not stressed.

Colossus

Tommy Flowers (Wikipedia) engineered and designed a computer called Colossus (Wikipedia), drawing experience gained working at the Dollis Hill Post Office research station in North London.  

Although Colossus has elements of a modern computer it could be perhaps best described as a 'special purpose cryptographic device'.  It was not programmable in the same way that a modern computer has become (this is a development that comes later), but its programs could be altered; perhaps by changing its circuitry (I don't yet know how this would work).  It did, however, made use of familiar concepts such as interrupts, it synchronised its operation by a clock-pulse, stored data in memory, used shift registers and did some parallel processing.  Flowers also apparently introduced the term 'arithmetic and logic unit'.

Colossus was first used to break a message on 5 February 1944.  A rather different valve based calculator, the ENIAC (Wikipedia), built by the Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, was used two years later.

Final points

Malcolm told us that ten Collosi were built (I might have spelt that wrong, but what I do know is that Collosus-es certainly isn't the right spelling!), with the last one being dismantled in 1960.  A total of twenty seven thousand messages were collected, of which thirteen thousand messages were decrypted.  Malcolm also said that Flowers was 'grossly under rewarded' for his imaginative and innovative work on Colossus.  I totally agree.

Research into the Colossus was carried out by Brian Randell from the Univerisity of Newcastle in the 1970s.  A general report on the Tunny code was only recently released in 2000.  Other sources of information that Malcolm mentioned was a book about the Colossus by Jack Copeland (Wikipedia)  (which is certainly on my 'to read' list), and a biography of Alan Turing by Andew Hodges (Wikipedia).

Malcom's talk reminded me of how much computing history is, quite literally, on our doorstep.  I regularly pass Bletchley on the way to the Open University campus at Milton Keynes.  There are, of course, so many other places that are close by that have played an important role in the history of computing.  Although I've already been twice to Bletchley Park, I'm definitely going to go again and take a longer look at the various exhibits.

(Picture: Wikipedia)