Personal Blogs

I read with interest the following two sources this week about Open Education:

• Cormier (2013), What do you mean… open?
• Weller (2014), ‘What sort of open?’, Chapter 2 of The Battle for Open
  

Both described ideological underpinnings of the Open University. As someone who lectured at the OU for 6 years, has studied with them as an undergraduate (and is currently studying an MSc with them) and continues to tutor with them, I felt I had a good grasp of what made the OU open. To me it was open entry and accessible and certainly these are two features of the OU that were apparently at it's heart when it began, but there was more to it than this as shown in my simple presentation below:

I suppose in my mind when I talked about accessible I was really talking about equal opportunities and creating an education free from barriers, rather than supporting learning and interactive dialogue so I had the 2nd and 4th pillars in mind. Certainly, I had not given any thought to the third pillar in my image - I did not consider the OU to have transparency and sharing at its core.

Having reviewed these core values I started to think about whether the OU still holds this values and at what cost. I thought I would note down some of my views on this beginning with the ones that impact and inspire me the most:

Open Entry: For undergraduate programmes (other than those that are work-based where you must have a certain job), the OU is till completely open. It allows anyone and everyone to start studying and this creates a diverse and exciting student body. This is the defining feature of the OU to me - I can turn up to a tutorial and have all walks of life there and they all bring something to the table - they all inspire me to teach and learn. But this comes at a cost - at the moment a student with no background in an area can sign up and begin studying at final year level - the key is that the OU is open entry full stop not open entry and managed progression. This makes the lives of module teams developing programmes much harder as you cannot know when you write a final year module in molecular biology whether your students will have done a first or second year module in biology or even science in general. It also makes the lives of the tutors very hard - as is often the case with teaching 10% of students take 90% of your time and effort and at final year - this is a lot when a student has chosen to study neuroscience for the first time, despite only previously study music and literature, for example (it happens!). I think the difficulty in teaching in this context is a price worth paying - and certainly if you cannot teach - you cannot survive at the OU so a by product of this is that the teacher development is second to none.

Equal opportunities and free from barriers: When I started teaching at the OU, courses were pretty cheap and there were grants to help with things like computer costs and extra support for English and Maths skills. The climate of Higher Education has changed a lot in those 14 years and now there are definitely more financial and skills barriers as all OU study now requires a certain level of digital literacy. But those barriers are still far less than at most conventional universities and, the fact that over 25% of students at the OU have a declared disability - far higher than any other university - speaks volumes. I had the pleasure (I think) of teaching at the final few years of summer schools at the OU before the science faculty phased them out and I remember a student who arrived with a walking stick, but mid-week appearrf in the lab in a wheelchair. This presented no problem for the lab work as all this is carefully considered and planned but I remember saying to a colleague, its a good job he had the wheelchair with him and being astounded by the reply that he did not - we always brought a spare one to summer schools just in case. It is noteworthy that this summer school was held at a University around 100 miles from our base in Milton Keynes and we had transported delicate lab kit, computers, staff and a wheel chair - just in case. That example to me emphasizes the effort the university went to in order to remove barriers - and still does. I sometimes find myself so in awe of my students at the OU that I am reduced to tears thinking of their achievements (attending an OU graduation was worse than watching Marley and Me). Now, of course, they are the achievements of the students not the university, but without the unwavering support systems in place those achievements would be much harder to come by, even for the most brilliant of students.

Accessible and supported learning: I have perhaps veered into this in the discussion above so rather than focus on accessible I will comment on the support available to students at the OU. When I started as a tutor I was given a big yellow ring binder, which I still have (although the original contents is long gone). In big letters across the front it said 'Supported Open Learning'. I don't think I ever really comprehended what that meant but I did follow the guidance in it to support my students as best as I could. I knew the rules about extensions and where to point them to for general skills help and how to give extensive feedback. I also knew what staff development was available to me. In those days it was largely just the tutor and ~20 students - now we are part of a much bigger network with student registration and support teams. We have lost a little of the personal touch perhaps but I think the students still feel supported and I still feel like I develop a relationship with those I teach - I know because I still feel pride in them when they complete the courses!

Transparency, sharing and advising: Here I have saved the best and worst until last. In my mind the OU has been both far to modest but also shown too much of its hand. When the OU began, it was literally the only place in the world doing what it did and it was doing it brilliantly. So brilliantly that it was easier for the rest of the sector to see it as fundamentally different - so much so that other universities could get away with believing they could not learn from world-leading teachers and learning technologists delivering education to literally hundreds of thousands of students - a scale of education that could make the entire Russell Group  weep. The OU did not shout enough - it did not make itself known as experts and education leaders - it just kept going with its brand of open education, with subtle changes over the years and confronting sector issues like fee changes in its own individual way. And then came the change - at some point everyone wanted to have distance or online learning and who was there emerging from the background with all the expertise - willing to share and being transparent - the OU, of course. As online offerings now pop up daily from conventional universities, the future of the OU may be precarious - it is experiencing competition like never before. The skill set of staff is now valued more widely across the sector, meaning they have more options available to them, and the pull of other universities, using their traditional brand of excellence is drawing students away from the OU. All that said, I am not unduly worried for this ground-breaking institution just yet. Why you might ask? Well because as all the traditional universities develop the, the OU is not static - it too is developing and if that development is true to its roots there will always be a place for the OU in the UK (and global) HE sector. There is also an air of adolescence to the other universities. They develop some online learning or a blended programme and experience that over-confidence that comes with being a teenager, forgetting that sometimes there is still much to learn. I have a fridge magnet in my kitchen that says:

If at first you don't succeed, do it like your mother told you!

Those words ring true for the OU too, other universities are up-skilling in open and online learning but there is still the wisdom in the OU that comes with being the elders in this field and that wisdom, driving innovation can sustain the university with the right business model. The worst case scenario is that the OU does not develop and innovate at the right pace and there is no government bail out - what would that mean? It is almost unthinkable for someone like me who holds the OU so dear but if it is becomes a martyr to its own openness, there are worse ways to go and maybe, that is the circle of open education.

Three weeks ago I put my hand in my bag on the way to work - no phone. Mild panic set in but I managed to persuade myself I had just left it at home. I even created a picture in my mind of it on the dresser by the front door. For the entire day I felt like I was missing something. In the back of my mind I was thinking, what am I missing on my WhatsApp groups and what if I lose all my fitness logs (I have a goal to exercise every day for 2 years and I am dangerously close but I feel like if I do not have the log on my phone, it never happened). The only sense of relief came from my work because as I sat for much of the day at my desk I could see any emails or forum posts from students as normal so I knew I was not missing anything from them. When I got home that night my phone was nowhere to be seen so I got in the car and drove to the station - perhaps someone had handed it. They gave me a number to call - the irony was not lost on me. I have no phone, I pointed out, and so I cannot call. Anyway I drove home, becoming increasingly flustered and found an old phone and pay as you go SIM card. Eventually after various issues I had a functioning phone for calls and texts but no email or social media. I logged onto my tablet - just in case I was missing important work emails…in the two hours since I had left. By the time Monday morning had arrived I had an inbox rammed full  of messages and forum notifications that took me half the morning to clear - even though I had regularly logged on over the weekend. The amount appeared overwhelming. 

Eventually I decided to go and get a drink of water and I thought I would pass some marked exams to our programme admin team on the way. As I set the envelope down on the desk, I thought it looked a funny shape - I picked it up again and looked inside. It was like being reunited with a dear long lost relative - there was my phone with a pile of marked exams - the battery had died over the 72 hours we had been separated but it was still there - I was almost euphoric.

So you might be wondering what does this have to do with picket lines? Well one of my students asked me if I was intending to strike in the current round of action against the change to pensions and I said I did not have time to strike if I wanted to support my students. I also did not have time to work to contract because I simply have too much to do in any one day to get it all done unless I am working beyond my normal contracted hours. I am not alone in this both in terms of feeling conflict over striking and supporting student and feeling over-worked - it is the case for many academics and many in other sectors as well. One tool that allows me to keep on top of my workload is my mobile phone. I can reply to emails, forum posts, even edit the VLE using it whilst standing in the supermarket, which I regret to say I have done.

I think I should lay my cards on the table straight away; I think mobile learning is a brilliant thing. Whilst it was originally defined in terms of the mobility of the technology (Winters, 2006) it has now morphed into providing the opportunity to "overcome physical constraints by having access to people and digital learning resources, regardless of place and time" (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). Adams Becker and colleagues (2017) identified a number of technologies in a horizon scanning report and mobile learning was one which had less than one year to go until adoption. Mobile learning aligns well to many institutional level goals including personalisation of learning, building digital literacies and widening participation to name a few (JISC, 2011). It also fits with the increasing demand for learning to be flexible - with high tuition fees students are increasingly working alongside their studies and needing to juggle their commitments more than in other generations. There are various pedagogic frameworks that can be used to develop mobile learning by some of the greatest minds in learning including Diana Laurillard (2002). There are clear examples of how it can be used effectively in key areas such as assessment and feedback from a range of FE and HE institutions across the world. I myself use it to get students involved in lectures and workshops with technologies such as PollEV, Padlet and Twitter, so what is the problem?

"It’s worth thinking hard about the implications of what you’re going to do in the longer term, rather than the short term – because this is technology that’s very much here to stay."

Tim Fernando, University of Oxford

To me the problem is that mobile learning is almost, by definition, without boundaries and herein lies the issue. It is becoming so engrained in our culture that as teachers we should respond immediately and students can engage whenever and wherever they like, that is difficult to set boundaries or to ensure they are respected, in either direction. We expect students to be able to self-regulate but don't explain to them how or why and what this might look like given their individual circumstance, and we, in our keenness to support students often set up and sustain learning dialogue when it is not essential. There are various papers discussing the benefits of feeling connected with other learners (e.g. Peterson et al 2008) including on wellbeing, but to date there is little investigation as to whether it is possible to feel over-connected and how this impacts on both students and staff. Fernando's quote above was not made with reference to wellbeing but surely as learning without traditional boundaries becomes more common we need to give this some consideration.

References 

Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall Giesinger, C., and Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010) Mobile learning as a catalyst for change (Open Learning, Vol.25, No.3, November 2010, 181-185)

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Education: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. RoutledgeFalmer, London.

Winters, N. (2006). What is mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope network of excellence mobile learning initiative. University of Nottingham.

Petersen, S. A., Divitini, M., & Chabert, G. (2008). Identity, sense of community and connectedness in a community of mobile language learners. ReCALL : The Journal of EUROCALL, 20(3), 361-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000839 Retrieved from  https://search.proquest.com/docview/223262522?accountid=11862

 

 

 

 

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!