Mapping problems to the ROMA cycle: Activity 19 Block 4 Ferguson et. al. (2015).
Wednesday, 15 Jun 2016, 17:22
Visible to anyone in the world
I’m not, at this stage,
ready to do a presentation on this. A presentation done by a group representing
key stakeholders would hold more sway.
ROMA Stage
Problems
Map political context
·International and national
concern about data privacy
·Ideology and politics of retrenchment
regarding human and other resources
·Switch from government to
sustainable self-gathered funding and revenue resources
Identify key stakeholders
·Personal identity of key
stakeholders can feel to be (to themselves and others) locked into the
practices seen as appropriate in only one of the sub-communities.
·Relative power of
professional and non-professional human resources, including the role if
trades unions, of communities involved
·Resistance to changes in
relative status & control between communities
Identify key desired behaviour changes
·Standardised procedures
for data collection and interpretation
·Commonality between
academic departments on a range of pedagogic matters.
·More interaction between
communities to achieve common goal
·Move away from a culture that
separates knowledge, values and skills in technology from pedagogical
knowledge, values & skills
Develop engagement strategy
·Communities do not mix –
elements of material, intellectual & emotional culture are separate
(separated venues for community identification, sub-cultural markers are
powerful and have attributed status)
·Policy statements are not
known across different communities.
·Communities do not meet.
Analyse internal Capacity to change
·Fear of intrusion or overt
differences in power between groups (students& teachers. Teachers &
admin, Teachers & managers)
·Public compliance with
policy and private resistance within communities and individuals
·Lack of common mission
Establish Monitoring & learning framework
·Ethical concerns
·Fear of losing political
advantage
Some Reflections
iThe key issue is
that the ROMA cycle is precisely that – an iterative process. Hence
dependencies between problems at different stages (of which they are many) get
incrementally and serially addressed across each cycle. This probably helps to
speed up change process if a virtuous cycle can be achieved.
iiThe issue of
building trust between individuals and communities lies at the root of this
problem. The link of personal identity to the values of a community can help
maintain its desire for separateness.
iiiIntrusion can be
resisted by lying and unconscious neglect as well as straightforward overt
resistance.
All I can do for now.
All the best
Steve
Ferguson, R., Macfadyen,
L.P., Clow, D., Tynan, B., Alexander, S. and Dawson, S. (2015) ‘Setting
learning analytics in context: overcoming the barriers to large-scale
adoption’, Journal of Learning Analytics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
120–44; also available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/ 42115/[Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in
a new tab. (Hide tip)] (accessed 15 June 2016).
Scanlon, E., Sharples, M.,
Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Fleck, J., Cooban, C., Ferguson, R., Cross, S. and
Waterhouse, P. (2013) ‘Beyond
Prototypes: Enabling Innovation in Technology-Enhanced Learning’ Technology-Enhanced
Learning Research Programme; also available at http://beyondprototypes.com/ (accessed 15 June 2016).
Mapping problems to the ROMA cycle: Activity 19 Block 4 Ferguson et. al. (2015).
I’m not, at this stage, ready to do a presentation on this. A presentation done by a group representing key stakeholders would hold more sway.
ROMA Stage
Problems
Map political context
· International and national concern about data privacy
· Ideology and politics of retrenchment regarding human and other resources
· Switch from government to sustainable self-gathered funding and revenue resources
Identify key stakeholders
· Personal identity of key stakeholders can feel to be (to themselves and others) locked into the practices seen as appropriate in only one of the sub-communities.
· Relative power of professional and non-professional human resources, including the role if trades unions, of communities involved
· Resistance to changes in relative status & control between communities
Identify key desired behaviour changes
· Standardised procedures for data collection and interpretation
· Commonality between academic departments on a range of pedagogic matters.
· More interaction between communities to achieve common goal
· Move away from a culture that separates knowledge, values and skills in technology from pedagogical knowledge, values & skills
Develop engagement strategy
· Communities do not mix – elements of material, intellectual & emotional culture are separate (separated venues for community identification, sub-cultural markers are powerful and have attributed status)
· Policy statements are not known across different communities.
· Communities do not meet.
Analyse internal Capacity to change
· Fear of intrusion or overt differences in power between groups (students& teachers. Teachers & admin, Teachers & managers)
· Public compliance with policy and private resistance within communities and individuals
· Lack of common mission
Establish Monitoring & learning framework
· Ethical concerns
· Fear of losing political advantage
Some Reflections
All I can do for now.
All the best
Steve
Ferguson, R., Macfadyen, L.P., Clow, D., Tynan, B., Alexander, S. and Dawson, S. (2015) ‘Setting learning analytics in context: overcoming the barriers to large-scale adoption’, Journal of Learning Analytics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 120–44; also available online at http://oro.open.ac.uk/ 42115/[Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] (accessed 15 June 2016).
Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Fleck, J., Cooban, C., Ferguson, R., Cross, S. and Waterhouse, P. (2013) ‘Beyond Prototypes: Enabling Innovation in Technology-Enhanced Learning’ Technology-Enhanced Learning Research Programme; also available at http://beyondprototypes.com/ (accessed 15 June 2016).