The session was designed to support the embedding of a specified change. This embedding can be identified when the new practices that you are seeking to introduce are accepted and demonstrated by a majority of those who need to do so.

In order to embed a new practice in your organisation you need to enable a change in the components of the culture that impact upon the new behaviour(s) required of individuals.

My slides are below, and at the bottom are some of the tweets from during the presentation drawing out some key points. I would also like to thank the Jisc e-learning Team, especially Sarah Davies, Dave White and all of the people in the CLL programme, all of whom provided the knowledge and content for the presentation.

Susannah Quinsee @squinsee
Engaging senior staff in digital literacies = vital for making change happen

Neil Ford @neiljohnford

jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/1245842… JISC Design Studio#cll1213

Rachel Temple @RJ_Temple

#cll1213 drivers for institutional change. Senior management buy in is key

Rich Goodman @Bulgenen

RT @Lizzipops: Every subject has digital element- how support and embed in curriculum is key #cll1213

Mick Norman @mickelous

“Tools are just tools” @Lawrie #cll1213

Rachel Temple @RJ_Temple

Focus on the learning rather than e- learning or m- learning. But the technology must work as well #cll1213

Ella Mitchell @meatyloafy

technology is a tool….. true, let’s not.forget the people, practises and why we need the technology #cll1213

Eleni Zazani @EleniZazani

#cll1213 #Librarians are very good at it. I’m not biased I’m just quoting @Lawrie

Ella Mitchell @meatyloafy

does social backgrounds of students and their demographics…… have more of an impact on students experience of technology!? #cll1213

Elizabeth Cleaver @ECleaver

#cll1213 do we need to move on from digital natives discourse to thinking about digital wisdom?marcprensky.com/writing/Prensk…

sue thompson @susiestraw

Resources on DL The Design Studio / digital literacy bit.ly/190R69Y @Lawrie#CLL1213

Access to a ready means of publishing, social media is being used by a cohort of academics and academic related staff that can be identified and recognised through the  online promotion and increased visibility of their work; and importantly interaction and collaboration with others. This kind of activity has lead to success, with individuals receiving funding, gaining book contracts and, through being recognised as an expert, being cited in breaking news articles, which leads to greater exposure and impact of their work.

Practice in educational institutions has long been influenced by many external factors, policy and political change, technology and economics.  Recently the in-vogue phrase, ‘digital’ as been used to differentiate the impact of computers (including mobile phones and tablets etc) and the connectedness afforded by wide-scale wifi and internet access from non-technology based practice.  However, many individuals have already gone beyond that tech-focused distinction. To them digital is already invisible, new media are conceived of not in terms of the ‘digital’, but in terms of affordance. They see these tools as an artist would see the brush and canvas, they are there to be used to create and articulate an image held by the user.

Individual as Institution

This post-digital paradigm recognises that ‘digital’ sits beneath practice, and for all intents and purposes is transparent, it is the affordances of digital in this environment rise to the surface and is exploited by individuals. Social media is littered with academic shrapnel, blogs and tweets from individuals that show how they are thinking and developing their research, this gets distilled down into other pieces, linked across platforms creating new networks and sometimes new knowledge. As the individual’s portfolio grows, so does their network of collaborators and their audience. In the past, the individual may have had strong associations with an organisation, institution or even research group. Now, as a direct result of the opportunities brought about through the web and social media, the post-digital nature of these relationships may change, becoming more fluid, agile and allowing for ad hoc relationships to develop and fade as required for the task at hand.

What this means for Institutions?

Image courtesy of http://www.hetemeel.com/einsteinform.php

As more academic and academic related staff adopt the ‘individual as institution’ approach, institutions must reflect on their response.  Readers familiar with Twitter may be familiar with the phrase “The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the views of my employer”.  This is an often cited phrase designed as a response to risk averse “social media policies”, which have the effect of further distancing the individual and individual thought from host institutions.

Image courtesy of http://www.hetemeel.com/einsteinform.php

Post-digital institutions may be characterised by their recognition that technology can be a vehicle to express motivation and practice. Understanding that individuals are chaotic, responding to small changes that may drive them in different directions and lead to new knowledge, learning and outcomes. Rather than setting strategic directions and objectives for technology practice (in either research or teaching) it is important to recognise that the practice is linked to behaviour, and that practices become the foci for investment of resource and energy.

Where academic practice is now played out on an increasingly digital canvas, organisations need to recognise when individuals are becoming institutions and work to support them, providing an environment that allows them to thrive. Strategic plans, objectives and directions will only succeed if they are flexible enough to accommodate the emerging technology and practices that are being exploited by these individuals.

Working through the post-its

We structured the day into the following sections:

• Introductions and purpose
• The World in 5 years from now
• What a student experience would look like in that world
• Developing a vision that supports the student
• Reflections

We started, as all workshops do, by introducing ourselves, but we also introduced a common understanding of what we mean by vision. In this case the common vision being created will be used as a tool to enable staff to envisage what the student experience will be like when technology is applied appropriately. It will also allow the change pioneers to develop a programme from now, the baseline, to the realisation of the vision, identifying goals and milestones between then and now.

We then looked at the future, not just in terms of education but the wider environment, a PESTLE analysis (Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Legal, Environmental). Working in two groups and looking at a minimum 5 year horizon delegates tried to look at what the future might bring.

Some of the key discussions were obviously around technology, such as:

• Greater use of Tablets and smart phones
• Whether Augmented Reality will realise its potential
• At what point will e-books reach the tipping point
• The impact of “Bring Your Own Device”

However, there was a full discussion about student expectations of technology and the way that rather than specific technology, the nature of students’ use of technology may be more important.

This lead us on to the next part of the workshop, trying to identify what a student experience would look like in the future. There were some key things that emerged around the characteristics of a student:

• They would probably be working, at least part time
• They may have a greater focus on their employability
• They would most likely want flexible access, both to resources and to staff
• They may be employed and taking a vocational course as part of a career path
• As fees increase so would their expectations

There many other elements that came out and the project team will be looking more fully at them as they consult with their existing students. It may even be appropriate for them to contact schools and ask for their opinions.

After lunch we “warmed up” by doing a short exercise around our own roles, trying to look at what our day would be like to support the students or staff of the future.

This was followed by the hard bit, the actual writing of a vision that serviced the future and would enable the university to put a roadmap in place to achieve its potential in this area. Whilst I can’t rewrite the strategy and outcomes here, I can note that emphasis was placed not just on learning and teaching. It was recognised that disparate systems and processes would be joined up to enable not just quality learning and teaching but also as means of fulfilling the “hygiene” factors that are needed to make a course run, such as assessment submissions, feedback and timetabling. There was also a strong emphasis on enabling student and staff creativity with regards to technology use and also on the support of staff to realise potential.

At the end of the day the Pro Vice Chancellor joined us, he took part fully in our reflections, asking questions that enabled us to greater develop some of the higher level statements and to adapt and adjust where needed. The next step is developing a road map, and I look forward to working with them in its development.

Today was a repeat of a module we ran before Christmas with PVCs L&T and in two weeks we will be bringing the two cohorts together and supporting them in the next steps of them getting a change project off the ground.

In the mean time if you want more info drop a comment on the blog, and the resources I mentioned are listed below:

Scenario Planning

Building Capacity Case Studies

and the slides from my presetation:

Is the way we use language in technology having a negative or positive effect? It’s a debate that’s been going on a while, but a discussion over the weekend with a new student prompted me to put something down about the authority that jargon seems to carry.

It’s been interesting discussing some of the issues that have been cropping up in some of the JISC Transformations Programme with projects over the last couple of weeks. One issue that as stood out to my mind is the problem of communicating with teaching and research practitioners about the projects and changes that may come about as a result. This was further illustrated by a conversation I had with a friend I do volunteer work with, who will become a mature student this September.

As staff involved in working with technology we are used to prefixes suffixes and all the loaded techno-terminology in between. I think that sometimes we use it just because it sounds great but we don’t think about the grammatical consequences, and we don’t think about the bigger issues – such as will the term lead to a techno determinist approach?

An illustration of this is Mobile Learning – m-learning in some cases. The image conjured in most people’s minds is of students using mobile devices (phones and tablets), or perhaps learning on a small screen with a slow connection, and certainly in the minds of mature student I was talking to. He was asking me if his older model android was suitable for m-learning. A phrase he’d picked up on a piece of course information. After a brief look at the course it was apparent that any browser (mobile or otherwise) could access the information they had referred to. But the ‘m’ prefix, or even spelling out mobile learning, is loaded with technology based imagery – right or wrong mobile is short for mobile phone, and that becomes the fixation, a techno determinist approach.

But what was it that they meant? In the case of the mature student, the course was referring to that in some cases, or aspects of learning, the student didn’t have to access the information/course materials on campus. For example they could have accessed them on a laptop at home. Unpicking this with a colleague, we wondered if this is an aspect of Open? It probably is, or at least will be at some point.

Looking back at the JISC Location Independent Working Project at Coventry Universitythe focus was on systems and processes that allow staff to work anywhere, anytime. This strikes me as being relevant to student activity, is the terminology a better description of the approach we are taking with students? Location Independent Learning, or even Location Independent Engagement? We need to be thinking about the activity and the user, such as learning, and not allowing the technology based terms to add an unnecessary barrier. Hopefully some of these points will be coming out in the Mobile Landscape report that is being managed by Ben Showers

The embedded Slideshare below was not actually used, but was built as a means for me to construct the discussion. I hope that delegates will reflect on the discussion and post comments here to continue it.

“In an open education marketplace, it still makes sense for individuals to group together to reduce duplication and costs, and to add value by capitalising on their strengths. … As such groups become more successful, they exert market power, such as promoting the market value of their offerings through things like tokens of status for achievement, backed by the reputation of the provider.” (my emphasis)

He goes on to make the point that as they become widely used you end up where we are now, with a standardised, formal system.

There are other issues with badges; one of the compelling things for me about Open Education is the potential for random occurrences, serendipity and diversity. Badges may enforce structure, channelling learning opportunities and development routes. In addition someone needs to ‘award’ a badge, this implies a hierarchy, someone is in charge of defining how to get a badge, and the more badges you get the higher (implied) up the hierarchy you are.

There has been a lot of work done around encouraging deep learning, shying away from strategic or surface learning, where the approach is just enough. Many universities recognise that students do need to be able to articulate their skill sets, not just through the award of a degree certificate. To this end we have seen the growth in portfolios and e-portfolios , giving students the ability to demonstrate and articulate their skills, not just with tick box approach, but by clearly and carefully evidencing their work.

A badge system may lead to a ‘learning light’ approach where the gamification aspects loses the focus of learning. Rather than deep, we are offering yet another way of ‘students’ making strategic learning decisions, i.e. I only need to do this in order to get the badge.

For a more thorough discussion about badges I really recommend the Henry Jenkins piece: How to earn your skeptic “badge”

Oh and thanks for reading this, you now qualify for the following badge!

In the ‘open’ model below, an ecosystem exists where learning providers, accreditation bodies and, for example, professional associations exist within an ecosystem with the learners and people who can support learners and appropriate tools, such as open resources and the ability to make payments (either real, or in kind)  if appropriate.

The ecosystem, under the right conditions, enables learning opportunities to flourish using all or some of the constituent parts, where learning can be accredited or non accredited, formal or informal, free or paid, and a variety of other options. The important part is that the ecosystem is open and transparent. The openness allows broad and diverse access, which leads to greater resource. The transparency is important so that the connections and diversity of leaning opportunity can be seen by all and either replicated or modified.

Click to enlarge

Acknowledgements to:

• Amber Thomas
  
• Dave Cormier (this does after all have rhizomatic characteristics)
• David Kernohan
  
• Dave White.