OU blog

Personal Blogs

Christopher Douce

Affirming Neurodiversity in teaching and learning seminar

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Tuesday, 1 Oct 2024, 09:39

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 following resource was also shared:

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.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Christopher Douce

Inclusive Student Engagement in Level 1 modules

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Monday, 31 July 2023, 15:31

On 20 July 23 I attended a short one hour seminar that was all about inclusive student engagement in level 1 modules. The seminar had the subtitle: “a supportive framework designed by current/recent students”. The session was prepared and presented by Catriona Bergman, Olivia Brennan, Norain Imtiaz and Owen Lucas, who were also OU student virtual interns.

The seminar had a bit which shared their framework, followed by a discussion activity. I’ll begin by sharing an abridged version of the framework, and then I’ll go on to sharing a couple of points from the discussion, then concluding with a set of reflections.

Engagement framework

If I understood this correctly, their framework shared a number of themes that relate to the student/tutor relationship. There are six key points, each of which was complemented by a suggestion, or a prompt. For brevity, I’ve edited these into a form that works with my own practice.

  1. Addressing the power dynamic: address the difference in status between tutors and students. What do you do to encourage students to reach out to gain support?
  2. Consistency of communication: regular support and timely responses. How often do you communicate with your students?
  3. Proactive communication: tutors taking the initiative to interact with students. Do you contact students before their assignments are submitted?
  4. Humanising tutors: providing an opportunity to build a relationship. Do you feel comfortable in sharing your own personal experiences?
  5. Assessing communication and support needs: in the opening letter encourage disclosure. What opportunities are there for you to discuss individualised study needs with students?

Tutor and students are unknown to each other: a two-way relationship is important. What opportunities are there for icebreaking activities for students and tutors to get to know one another?

The Hidden Curriculum

There was another useful slide during the first section which was all about the notion of the hidden curriculum. I have come across the idea through the notion of academic literacies. Put another way, this is all about knowing the hidden conventions that relate to study, a discipline, and academic communication.

  • Students might not have necessary skills from their earlier education experience. Tutors can direct students to resources that can be used to develop skills (e.g. numeracy, academic writing skills, critical thinking, IT literacy, etc.).
  • Encourage students to reflect on the skills they may need to develop, and provide (or signpost students to) appropriate resources.
  • Encourage development of TMA writing skills and inform students about the importance of good academic conduct.
  • Encourage students to develop their own study habits to support their learning, and embed this within tutorial and one-to-one sessions. Consider the environment in which study takes place.
  • For the module that you are tutoring, highlight, discuss and critique ideas and practices that can contribute to the hidden curriculum.
  • Ensure students are aware of the different avenues that could be followed to gain support (from the tutor, from the module forums, or from the student support team).

Breakout rooms: what do you share, what don’t you tell them?

It was onto a breakout room discussion, where we were asked what we share with our students, and whether we share any of our own vulnerabilities. The intent behind this was to think about the extent to we may disclose something about ourselves, to engender trust and to demonstrate empathy.

Rather than focussing on sharing of vulnerabilities, the group I was assigned to primarily discussed what information we might disclose to students when we contact them for the very first time. Some key points to share include: our qualifications, whether we have been a tutor on the module before, and something about where we are based in the country. There was also some discussion about the importance of tone, and the phrase ‘professional informality’ was shared.

Reflections

I felt this session offered me some reassurance that I have been doing (roughly) the right thing. One way to formalise some of the points mentioned in the framework would be to devise some form of communication plan. This might mean a summary of what is sent to students and when. It is, of course, important to be aware of what module teams are doing, since they may well have their own communication plan, and sets of reminders and messages scheduled.

I was drawn to the session due to the mention of inclusive engagement, since I didn’t really know what this was, or how to describe it. I found it interesting that the focus lies on facilitating inclusive engagement through sharing, and putting oneself, and sharing aspects of one’s identity to others. The aim of doing this is, of course, to attempt to remove potentially perceived barriers, such as power differences between tutors and students.

Reflecting on this further, I have certainly disclosed more personal information. When tutoring on a module about accessible online learning, I have, for example, disclosed a hidden disability. My view is that context is always really important, whether context relates to the subject, or the tutor-student relationship.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the AP student virtual interns who facilitated the session and shared their framework. I hope that the version that appears in this blog matches with its original aims and intentions.

Permalink 1 comment (latest comment by Paul Leo Antoine Piwek, Monday, 31 July 2023, 15:36)
Share post
Christopher Douce

Planning and evaluating impact of a scholarship project

Visible to anyone in the world

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: 

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.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Christopher Douce

ChatGPT school seminar

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Sunday, 21 May 2023, 09:49

On 19 April 2023, I arrived slightly late for an online seminar about ChatGPT and generative AI. This blog post share some of the notes that I made during the session. It might be useful to read this post in conjunction with an earlier blog that was written on the same topic that summarises a workshop organised by the OU Knowledge Media Institute (KMI). These notes are pretty rough-and-ready, since they were edited together a month after the event took place.

Seeking opinions

Mike Richards, from the School of Computing and Communications, began by summarising some research that he had carried out with a number of colleagues. Five tutors were interviewed. When it comes to reviewing and marking assignments, it was noted that tutors are sensitive to changes in formatting style, voice and vocabulary.

Tutors rely on module teams and central systems for plagiarism detection, but they can and do pick up on things themselves. ALs don’t like referring students to disciplinary processes. They are cautious; they usually have a very high level of suspicion before they contact staff tutors and invoke the academic conduct processes. In the cases where the identify issues, they take opportunities to make a teaching point to students.

Tutors wish to maintain positive relationships with students, but they are worried about the implications of raising academic conduct referrals and potential professional consequences if they raised unwarranted academic conduct concerns. Of course, there are no consequences for tutors. It is, of course, the academic conduct officers who make the decisions.

Key points

During the session, I captured the following important points. The first point was that assessment is vulnerable to ChatGPT. Specifically, highly structured essays are vulnerable, but these type of essays are used to develop student skills.

ChatGPT perform less well with anything to do with reflections about learning, since anything that is produced will not sound genuine.

There is a role for ChatGPT (or generative AI) detection software, but there are issues with detection tools, since they present a high rate of false positives. Detectors only gives you a probability that something is synthetic, but doesn’t provide evidence like TurnItIn.

Tutors are very important. They are able to spot synthetic solutions; they can identify bland, superficial, repetitive and irrelevant materials in a way that automated tools cannot. To assist with this, and to help our tutors, the university needs to provide better plagiarism training.

A recognised issue is that ChatGPT will generate superficially compelling references that are completely fake. Asking ALs to scrutinise the referencing would go some way to determine whether a chunk of text has been automatically generated. ChatGPT doesn’t currently do referencing at the moment, but there is a possibility this might change if it is connected with public databases.

The next step of this project is to write up findings and to have conversations with other faculties. There is also a university working group which aims to generate an assessment authoring guide to mitigate against generative AI. There is, of course, the need to do more studies. There might also be the need to adopt subject or discipline specific approaches. 

The closing thoughts shared during the seminar are important: we need to teach all students about the consequences of AI. Perhaps there needs to be some Open Educational Resources on the topic, perhaps something on OpenLearn that offers a sketch of what it can and cannot do. A closing point was that there are no ‘no-cost’ options. The university needs to carefully consider the role and purpose of assessments. Doing nothing is not an option.

During the discussion session, I noted down a couple of interesting questions: what question types would cause large language modules to perform sufficiently bad from caring to not caring? Also, what limits its abilities? ChatGPT writes in generalities. Its responses comes from how questions are worded. There is also the issue of concreteness. Assessment tasks are often related to specifics, in terms of activities texts, module materials, and forum posts. If generative AI cannot access the texts that students need to access and critically evaluate to develop their skills, its uses are, of course, limited.

Reflections

One of the key points that was emphasised was the importance of the tutor. They have such an important role to play in not only identifying instances of potential academic misconduct, but also in educating students about generative AI, and the risks these tools present.

It is also useful to reflect on the point that tutors can spot changes in writing style. There is the possibility that the stylistic quality of generated text is a characteristic that could be used to respond to not only ChatGPT, but also contract cheating. At the time of writing, anti-plagiarism detection tools such as TurnItIn only evaluate individual assignments. In the arms race to ensure academic integrity, the next generation of tools might analyse text across a number of submissions whilst taking into account the characteristics or structure of individual assessments.

I expect there will be a multi-faceted institutional response to generative AI. There will be education: of students, tutors, and module teams. Students will be informed about the ethical risks of using generative AI, and the practical consequences of academic misconduct. Tutors will be provided with more information about what generative AI is, and offered more development to facilitate sessions to help students. Module teams will have an increasing responsibility to develop assessment approaches that proactively mitigate against the development of generative AI. Also, technology will play a role in detecting academic misconduct, and new procedures will be developed to assist academic conduct officers.

Acknowledgements

An acknowledgement is due to Mike Richards and everyone who took part in aspects of research which is summarised here. A thank you goes to Daniel Gooch, who facilitated the event.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Christopher Douce

Dismantling Racial Inequalities in Higher Education

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Saturday, 20 Feb 2021, 11:52

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 Amoswho 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.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Christopher Douce

Decolonising the curriculum in our distance learning environment

Visible to anyone in the world

On 21 March 2019 I attended a seminar that was co-organised by UCU, the University and College Union, and the university BME (black and minority ethnicity) staff network. 

I attended for a couple of reasons: firstly, I'm broadly interested in diversity having carried out research into technology and accessibility and have a hidden disability, and secondly, one of my colleagues, Mustafa Ali, was going to be giving a talk. It turns out that Mustafa couldn’t make it to the talk, but what follows is a summary of some of the key things that I took away from the event

HE sector perspectives on decolonising the curriculum

Aravinda Guntpalli, Senior Lecturer in public health defined the term decolonisation as “freeing a country from being dependent on another country”. This could be understood in terms of political, social and economic dependence. Another comment I noted was that terminology and language has a legacy which imposes a particular view about how the world works.

Aravinda’s talk also included some statistics: in the OU, only 10% of students are BME.  It’s important to note that there is a significant attainment gap between white students and BME students.

Towards the end of her presentation, we were introduced to the history of the decolonising the curriculum movement, which has its root in the Rhodes must fall campaign (Wordpress) in 2015.  There was also a reference to a UCL campaign called: why is my curriculum white? (NUS website)

I made a few notes during the Q&A session. A question that I noted down was: ‘how can we decolonise?’ A response that I recorded was that it’s necessary to consider the process of teaching, the materials that we use to teach, and the learning environment that we establish. The voices that are exposed and valued can and will differ between subjects. It is important to consider which voices are exposed.

Reflections

The most striking point that I took away from the session was the extent of the attainment gap between white students and BME students. (I’ve asked Aravinda for an official reference; I’ll update this blog when I’ve done a bit more reading and research).

I found the history of the Rhodes must fall campaign interesting. As I was listening I remembered attending a widening participation conference some year back, which I wrote a couple of blogs about: Widening Participation through Curriculum Conference blog of day 1, blog of day 2.

I remembered something about the co-creation of curriculum, a collaboration between students and a lecturer at Kingston University. This was something that I summarised briefly in the penultimate paragraph of the blog about the first day of the conference. I then had a thought: this whole subject, of relevance and potential bias within materials has a history that obviously goes back a lot further than the events of 2014.

I attended this UCU seminar after attending another seminar in the school of computing and communications. My colleague, Michel Wermelinger had been giving a talk about one of the fundamentals of computer science: algorithms. During a part of the talk, he shared a case of where a Google algorithm was misclassifying images and producing results that were considered to be deeply offensive. A popular article, entitled: Rise of the racist robots – how AI is learning all our worst impulses (The Guardian, 2017), presents a number of case studies.

I once had a call with a student who said something that was both a comment and a challenge. He said: “all the module materials are written by white people”. I started to mentally work through all the names of the academics that I knew who had worked on the module that we were discussing. I had to agree with him. He did have a point. I also understood that although computers are mathematical machines, algorithms are created by people and are fed with data, which are also chosen and created by people. Bias has the potential to affect all disciplines.

When we were into the Q&A session and delegates were discussing what we might be able to do, my mind wandered to the module that I’m currently studying (or, should I say, trying to study!): EE812 Educational leadership: exploring strategy. A question that came to mind was: was that module doing anything to consider different context? I then remembered that it had a whole series of case studies from different contexts: from England, from Singapore, from South Africa and from India. Differences in practices and perspectives were being exposed to learners so they could think about how they related to (and differed from) their own contexts. One view of difference and diversity is that is can be a constructive and a critical tool, from where we can understand and appreciate different perspectives.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Christopher Douce

Animal Computer Interaction : Seminar

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Sunday, 4 Nov 2018, 11:09

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).

Permalink 2 comments (latest comment by Jackie Doorne, Friday, 19 July 2013, 14:13)
Share post
Christopher Douce

ESRC seminar: inclusion, usability and difference

Visible to anyone in the world

On 22 April 2013 I managed to find a bit of time to attend a seminar that touched upon some of the themes that I recently blogged about, namely, the way in which technology can be made available (and can be used to help) different groups of users. 

During the day there were a total of five presentations, each of which touched upon many of the different themes that continue to be a strong interest: accessibility, usability, and the way in which technology can potentially help people.  Like so many of these blogs, I'm going to do a bit of a write-up of each presentation, and then conclude with a set of thoughts and points which emerged from the closing discussion.

Older people and on-line social interactions

The first talk of the day was by Shailey Minocha who talked about a project called OCQL (project website) that has been exploring how technology may be able to be used to help and support older people.  If you're interested, I've written a brief blog summary of an earlier workshop that Shailey and her colleagues ran.

Some of the issues that the project aims to explore are the different motivations for being on-line, understanding various advantages and disadvantages and corresponding potential risks and obstacles. Another aspect of the project was to explore whether we might be able to offer advice to designers to allow them to create more usable systems.

Shailey touched upon challenges and dilemmas that users may face.  One challenge is how we might help to create formal and informal support networks to enable users to not only get online in the first place, but also help users to develop their technology skills.  One comment that I noted was that 'buying a [internet] connected computer is easy, it's continuing to use it that is difficult'.

Shailey gave us a flavour of some preliminary findings.  A simple motivation for getting connected is a desire to keep in touch with people, which is connected with the advantage that certain aspects of technology has a potential to reduce social isolation.  Some of the obstacles included the need to gain technical support and the challenges that lie with understanding certain concepts and metaphors that are a necessary part of being on-line.  The perceived risks include fears about a loss of privacy, concerns about knowing who or which organisations or products to trust.  The perceived disadvantages include the fear that technology might take over the lives of the user and this might take the user away from other events and activities that were important.

I remember a really interesting anecdote of a user who started to use an iPad.  The device was used so much (to keep in contact with distant friends and family), that this took away from time socialising with other people who lived nearby.

Shailey also left us some recommendations.  Training, it was suggested, should be personalised to the needs of individuals.  One-off training sessions are not sufficient.  Instead, training should take place over a longer period of time. 

For those who are interested, here are two links to some related resources.  The first is a link to a paper entitled, Conducting empirical research with older people (ORO repository), to be presented at a human-computer interaction (HCI) conference.  The second is a set of web resources (Delicious) that have been acquired during the project.

Towards the end of the presentation I noted two really interesting questions.  The first was, 'to what extent is the familiarity of technology a temporary problem?', and the second question (which is related to the first) is: 'putting age as an issue to one side, how can we all prepare ourselves to become familiar with and work with the next big technological innovation that may be on the horizon?'

The haptic bracelets

Simon Holland, from the department of Computing and Communication introduced us to devices known as the Haptic Bracelet (Music Computer Laboratory).  In essence, a haptic bracelet is a wearable device that you can put on your wrist or ankle.  The word haptic, of course, relates to your sense of touch.  The devices can be controlled so that they can vibrate at different frequencies or produce rhythms.  They also contain accelerometers which can be used to detect movement and gestures. 

My first question was, 'okay, so all this stuff is pretty cool but what on earth can it be used for?'  Simon clearly had anticipated this thought and provided some very compelling answers.  Fundamentally, it can be used with the teaching of music, specifically with the teaching of rhythm, or drumming.  Drum kits have pedals; drummers use both their hands and their feet.  Simon told us that he imagined a device that was akin to an iPod: a form of music player that could help musicians to more directly (and immediately) learn and feel rhythms.  When I started to think about this, I really wanted one - I could imagine that a haptic iPod could add a whole new dimension to the music which I listen to as a travel across London on the tube.

Its one thing listening to a piece of music through headphones, it's something totally different if you're feeling beats and vibrations through the same limbs that could be creating exactly the same rhythm if you were sitting at a drum kit.  I've noted the following quote that pretty much sums it up:  'at best, it goes through your two ears... [but] how do you know what limb is doing what?!'  All this can be linked to a music education approach called Dalcroze Eurhythmics (wikipedia), which was something totally new to me.  Something else that I hadn't heard of before is sensorimotor contingency theory (which I don't know anything about, but whatever it is, it sounds very cool!)

Early on in his talk, Simon suggested that these devices have the potential to be an assistive technology.  One area in which these devices might be useful is with gait rehabilitation, i.e. by providing additional feedback to people who are trying to re-learn how to walk following a brain injury or stroke.  Apparently a metronome is used to help people to move in time with a rhythm, which is a useful technique to regain (and guide) rhythmic motor control.  One of the advantages of using haptic bracelets is that the responses or feedback they could provide could be more dynamic.  Plus, due to the presence of an accelerometer, different feedback might be presented in real-time - but this is mostly conjecture on my part; this is something that is a part of on-going research.

During the final part of Simon's slot, we were given an opportunity to play with some of the bracelets.  Pairs were configured in such a way that we were able to 'send' real-time rhythms wirelessly to another user.  When we 'tapped' on a table, the same 'tap' was picked up by someone else who was wearing another bracelet.

We were introduced to other (potential) uses.  These included sport, gaming, and helping with group synchronisation (or learning) in dance.  Fascinating stuff!

Digital inclusion in the era of the smartphone

Becky Faith is a doctoral student at the Open University who spoke about some of her research interests, and it was all pretty interesting stuff.  One of her areas of interest is how technology (particularly the smartphone) can be used as a means of support for vulnerable people (and how it might be used to gain support from others). 

During Becky's talk I was introduced to a range of new terms, phrases and frameworks that I hadn't heard of before, such as capability theory (which might relate to what rights people may have but are not aware of) and technofeminist theory.   I also noted questions that related to the roles of the private sector versus the state in facilitating access to technology.  This reminded me of one of the drivers for good interaction design and usability: that it can lead to higher levels of productivity, more effective sales and lower costs.  Since goods and services are now on-line, facilitating digital inclusion also, fundamentally, means good business sense.

Becky's session was also very interactive.  We were given a challenge: we had to find out a very specific piece of information using our smartphone (if we had one).  This was to find the name of our MEP.  We were also asked how we might feel if this was our only device.  I, for one, wouldn't be very happy.  I (personally) feel more comfortable with a keyboard that moves than one that is only visible on a screen.

The activity gave way to a debate.  Some users will be faced with fundamental access challenges.  These could be thought of in in terms of the availability of devices or availability of signal coverage.  Ultimately, there is the necessity of understanding the needs of the users, their situations and the kinds of devices and equipment they may have access to.  A thought provoking session.

Careware

Andrew Stuart from Careware (company website) started his presentation by describing a question that he had asked himself, or he had been asked by someone else (I didn't note down the exact wording!).  The question was, 'why can't I find my dog using my iPhone?'.  Dogs go missing all the time.  The company that Andrew established created a GPS dog collar, which allowed dogs to be found using iPhones.  A great idea!

Andrew's company later expanded to create devices, such as a tracking belt, which could be used with vulnerable people.  Tracking dogs is one thing, but tracking people is a whole other issue.  The idea of people wearing tracking devices obviously raises serious ethical issues, but the necessity for privacy needs to be balanced against the desire to ensure that vulnerable people (who are sometimes family members) are cared for and looked after.  It is argued that personal tracking devices can help some people to maintain their independence whilst allowing family members not only peace of mind but also open up new ways to offer personal support.  Users of a personal tracker can, for instance, press a button to alert other people of difficulties or problems.  A GPS belt (instead of a collar) is a device that is very different from a mobile phone (which, arguably, with its in built GPS facilities, can almost do a very similar task).

Andrew's presentation touched on a number of different issues, i.e. centralised telemedicine through call centres versus the use of individual devices for families, and the roles that local authorities may be able to play.  There were also hints of future developments, such as the use of accelerometers to potentially detect falls.

Open University modules such as Fundamentals of Interaction Design touch upon subjects such as wearable computing or wearable interfaces.  It was interesting to see that two presentations demonstrated two very different types of wearable devices - and both presentations were about how they can be used to help people, but in very different ways.

Exploring new technologies through playful peer-to-peer engagement in informal learning

The final presentation of the day was by Josie Tetley, from the Health and Social Care faculty.  Josie spoke of an EU funded project called Opt-In which 'aims to explore if and how new technologies can improve the quality of life of older people' and investigates 'whether existing pedagogic approaches are the best way of enabling older people to learn new technologies'.

Getting people to play with technology was one of the topics that were mentioned, both in a research lab, but also as a part of informal social settings.  Josie also spoke about the different research methods that were used, such as questionnaires, diaries and semi-structured interviews.  One point that I've noted include that some technologies can lead to obvious instances of deskilling, such as overreliance and use of satellite navigation systems.   

Some preliminary findings include that some users are interested in certain applications, notably video telephony applications such as Skype or FaceTime (wikipedia).  Technology, it was also said, can be readily accepted.  I also noted a really good phrase, which is that good technology transcends all age groups.

Summary

All in all, a very interesting event.  I have to say that I wasn't quite sure what I was letting myself in for.  I didn't really know too much about what was on the agenda before the morning of the seminar.  I was more guided by the words of the title that sparked an interest.

The most significant point that I took away from the day was that my conception of what an assistive technology was had been fundamentally broadened.  Another take away point related to the importance of considering the types of learning that are appropriate to different user groups. 

It was also great fun to hear about different research projects and gain an awareness of new ideas and frameworks.  Learning about subjects that are slightly outside our own discipline has the potential to be both rewarding and refreshing.

Permalink 1 comment (latest comment by Sharif Al-Rousi, Friday, 10 May 2013, 10:58)
Share post
Christopher Douce

Mathematics, Breaking Tunny and the First Computers

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Christopher Douce, Monday, 15 May 2017, 12:11

Pciture of the Colossus computer

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)

Permalink 1 comment (latest comment by Robert McCune, Monday, 12 Nov 2012, 12:23)
Share post
Christopher Douce

Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time

Visible to anyone in the world

On a recent trip to Milton Keynes on 29 May 2012 I had the opportunity to attend a Society and Information Research Group (SIRG) seminar by Judy Wacjman (LSE).  Judy is a Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics.   Judy's presentation, very broadly speaking, was about technology and time and whether one affects the other.  Her seminar was related to research that may feed into a book that she is currently working on.  This post is a personal reflection of some of the themes that struck me as being significant and important in my own work.  Others who attended the seminar are very likely to have picked up on other issues (and I encourage them to add comments below).

Timing

For me, the timing of her seminar couldn't have been better.  My last blog was about an event that shared practice about how lecturers and institutions could most effectively help students to develop software for mobile devices.  During this event mobility was portrayed as an opportunity, but there is also was an implicit assertion that mobile technology will change how we work.  In doing so, mobile technology can affect how we spend our time.

Productive work may not cease the moment that we now leave the office, but instead can now continue for the duration of our commute home.  Work may invade on our personal time too, since we can easily take our devices away on holiday with us.  Important messages that are concluded with a succinct, 'sent from my iPhone', clearly suggests that we are working whilst we are on the move.

Judy mentioned that perhaps some of these concerns mainly relate to 'management or professional types', and this might be the case.  But one way to really understand the issue (of time, and how it is affected by technology) is to carry out studies, particularly ethnographic studies to conduct observations about how people really use technology.

Research methods

Such methods are briefly discussed within a module, such as M364 Fundamentals of Interaction Design, which is concerned with how to make devices and systems that are usable to people.  Two approaches used for the evaluation of the success of products includes ethnographic studies (observing users), and asking them to complete diary studies.  Judy's presentation emphasised the point that interdisciplinary research is a necessity if we are to understand the way in which technology impacts our lives.

Judy managed to connect my immediate concerns about mobile technology and its impact on our time with earlier debates.  Introductions of devices, such as washing machines and other labour saving devices were touted to 'save time'.  This raised the questions of 'what happens when we get that time back?  How might we spend it?'  Unpicking these questions leads us into further interesting debates, which relate to the different ways in which men and women use the time that they have available, and towards the broader concerns of capitalism.

One point that Judy mentioned in passing (which I've remembered reading or hearing before) is that perhaps we have been 'cheated by capitalism'.  Perhaps the extra time we have gained hasn't been spent on leisure, but instead has been spent on doing even more work, which allows us to buy more stuff (since, perhaps, everyone else is doing the same).  A personal reflection is that mobile devices also act as devices of consumption.  Not only do they facilitate the extension of work into our 'dead time', but also permit us to browse eBay and on-line stores whilst travelling on a train, for instance.

Technology and speed

Returning to the main debate, does technology cause us to work 'faster' or more?  Is the pace of our lives accelerating because we can access so much more information than ever before? Judy urges caution and asks us to consider causality.  On one hand there is technological determinism (wikipedia), but on the other there is social determinism (wikipedia).  Mobility can facilitate new ways of interacting with people, which may then, in turn, give rise to new technologies.  It could be argued that one helps to shape the other mutually.

Judy cautions against having the individual as the focus of our attention.  People live and work with each other.  Perhaps the household should be the focus of our attention when it comes to understanding the influence of technology on our lives.

What was clear from Judy's seminar was that there were many different areas of literature that could be brought to bear on understanding technology, time and how we spend it.  During her talk I made a note of a number of references that might be interesting to some.  The first was an edited book entitled High-speed society: social acceleration, power, and modernity, edited by Hartmut Rosa and William E Scheuerman.  The second was entitled, Shock of the old: technology and global history since 1900, by David Edgerton.  The final book that I have extracted from my notes is that of, Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other, by Sherry Turkle (MIT, homepage).

Reflections

An enjoyable and thought provoking seminar which highlighted an important point that when you begin to scratch the surface of a question you then open up a broader set of connected and related issues.  Important subjects include the importance of the wider context in which technology is used and what tools and approaches we might use to understand our environment.  I was reminded of the obvious truth that, given technology firmly exists within the human context, learning from disciplines such as history and sociology is as important as drawing upon lessons from science and engineering.

 

Permalink Add your comment
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: 2361116