Simon Walker from Greenwich University mentioned this interesting report in the OLDS Google Hangout today. Entitled ‘An avalanche is coming’ the report critiques the current and future impact of more open practices and in particular MOOCs on traditional educational offerings. These are a few of the highlights from the exec summary. Just as we’ve seen the forces of technology and globalisation transform sectors such as media and communications or banking and finance over the last two decades, these forces may now transform higher education. The fundamental question in An Avalanche is Coming is whether a university education is a good preparation for working life and citizenship in the 21st century or, more precisely, whether it will continue to be seen as good value, given the remorseless rise in the cost of a university education over recent decades. Certainly there are challenges ahead, but surely also opportunities for those bold enough to seize them. The potential unbundling is a certainly a threat, but those who rebundle well will find they have reinvented higher education for the 21st century. This is an important and timely report, tackling one of the key challenges facing education today. I think that the future landscape of education is going to look fundamentally different, as alternative business model challenge traditional approaches.   

The second call for papers for the ECEL 2013 conference to be held on  30-31 October in Sophia Antipolis, France is now out. In addition to the main conference topics, the advisory group invite submissions to the following mini tracks: Life Long Learning Institutional change and e-learning innovation Tools for eLearning design and evaluation E-learning and knowledge production: a futurist perspective Social Media Integration to Improve Educational Outcomes for Diverse Learners Video conferencing in teaching and learning

Some days you are on a roll, others you can’t concentrate. Today I have definitely been ‘in the flow’. So far I have added comments to a paper on our X-Delia project, corrected proofs for a paper and a chapter, addressed reviewers’ comment on a chapter in a forthcoming National Teaching Fellowship book and blogged about the forthcoming ECEL conference. Csíkszentmihályi defined the concept. In essence it can be defined as follows:  Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does. It can occur across a range of activities: swimming, playing video games, walking, etc. I think it is particular relevant to describing the way in which academics work and more particularly how we write. My writing style is pretty much a stream of consciousness; I am lucky enough to be able to write a lot quickly. The downside of this is that the writing usually then needs a lot of editing. For example, I found with my last book, Designing for Learning in an Open World, that it took me 3 or 4 times as long to edit the book, as it did to write it! I don’t know how others go about writing, but this pretty much sums up my approach:   I will mull ideas around in my head (for example I have been thinking on and off about writing this blog post for a while). I might do this whilst driving to work, cooking or when I am wandering around the house. Sometimes ideas come to me in the middle of the night, I try and get up and write down the main points, so that I don’t forget them in the morning Then there is the process of the first draft. I find it essential to be alone when doing this, somewhere quiet. My favourite place to write is in the kitchen, which is nice and sunny. I don’t write a structure for the piece, I just let the ideas emerge. This is the stage where flow really comes in, total concentration and immersion in what I am doing, to the extent that I don’t even have a sense of the time involved. Once I have something down it is then a process of re-gigging, moving things around, supporting arguments with references (I find Endnote invaluable for doing this). I am very much a visual person, so I like to support my ideas with illustrations where possible. Often my writing emerges from initial ideas developed for keynotes or talks I have given. Once I have a reasonable draft I tend to put the article aside for a little, so that I can then come back to it afresh. I find I need to print out and read the near final version, to iron out any last minute problems or mistakes.  There are six main components of flow:   Intense and focused concentration on the present moment - i.e. for me being totally focused on what I am writing. Merging of action and awareness - putting my ideas down on ‘paper’ thinking of both the text I am writing at that moment and the overall focus of the piece. A loss of reflective self-consciousness - being totally unaware of my surroundings. A sense of personal control or agency over the situation or activity - I love seeing the ideas develop and crystalise into something meaningful. After a particular fruitful brainstormings session with my team around the concept of our 7Cs of Learning Design framework, I found I had to write a summary of what we had discussed to enable me to capture the key points and I posted this as a blog post. A visual representation of the framework was a key aspect of this. A distortion of temporal experience, one’s subjective experience of time is altered - time definitely takes on a new meaning when you are ‘in the flow’ hours can feel like minutes. Experience of the activity as intrinsically rewarding, also referred to as autotelic experience - translating ideas into writings is one of the highlights of being an academic for me. I was amazed to see my recent book come out in print. To see my ideas in black and white, to flick through the colour illustrations. So those are my thoughts on how I see flow and its role in my writings as an academic. I would be interested to hear other peoples’ ideas, whether they have similar experiences or whether they write in a different way.    

Creativity is a key facet of being an academic. Research is about investigating a problem or a real-life phenomenon; interpreting the data to make new meaning. Sometimes it involves relating this to a theoretical framework, like Activity Theory, other times it is simply about making sense of what the data is telling you. Jenkin’s (2009) lists 11 digital literacy skills that he argues are needed to be part of today’s participatory culture; I would add creativity to this list. But what is creativity? It is derived from the Latin ‘creo’, meaning to create/make. It is about creating something new (physical artefact or concept) that is novel and valuable. It is the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, partners, relationships and create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations. For me it is an essential skill to deal with today’s complex, fast and changing society. Furthermore, discourse and collaboration are mediated through a range of social and participatory media. There are four main aspects of creativity: Process: mechanisms needed for creative thinking Product: measuring creativity in people Person: general intellectual habits (openness, ideas of ideation, autonomy, expertise, exploratory and behavioural) Place: best circumstances to enable creativity to flourish And five main stages:  Preparation: identifying the problem Incubation: internalisation of the problem Intimation: getting a feeling for a solution        Illumination: creativity bursts forth Verification: idea is consciously verified, elaborated and applied The illumination stage is key for me. I often find when I am trying to interpret data or trying to develop a new framework that I need to leave the idea mulling around in my head for a while and then a breakthrough suddenly occurs, often in the middle of the night. I don’t know the Physiological basis for this, I guess it is just that you have to let the idea fallow for a while and sub-consciously your brain slowly starts to piece things together. Alan Cann has provided a nice link to an article on the creative brain. Verification is also really important, new ideas or concepts only have validity if others buy into them and can see their value. Take Communities of Practice (Wenger 1998), for example, the concept took off like wildfire in the education community, precisely because it represented a good way of describing communities, and, in particular, online communities. Technologies can promote creativity in new and innovative ways. For example, by enabling new forms of discourse, collaboration and co-operation, and providing ways in which individuals can access and repurpose knowledge in different forms of representation. Social media provide a rich plethora of ways in which individuals can communicate and collaborate, and the sheer scale of our social networks allows for unprecedented aggregation and scale - knowledge is both distributed and collective. I recently experienced this when I was co-writing the conclusion chapter for the second edition of Helen Beetham and Rhona Shapre’s ‘Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age’ book (Beetham and Sharpe 2007). Helen and Rhona brought a small group of us together for a face-to-face workshop. They had already put a draft of the chapter online and had invited the community to add their thoughts. In the workshop we brainstormed ideas for the chapter and then worked in pairs for 40 minutes solid to work up a number of themes. I worked with Chris Pegler on the notion of openness. It was amazing what we produced and felt like a really creative process. I think collectively we wrote about 8000 words! Helen and Rhona then took this text and the online version and created a coherent narrative. Although a little far fetched, I think there is an analogy with the theme of the film, limitless. The central character is a writer with writer’s block. He takes this pill which means he is able to unlock everything he has ever thought or encountered. So if he has watched a Spanish film he is fluent in Spanish; picking up new skills is a breeze. In many ways I think the vast wealth of knowledge we have access to via the Internet and the distributed connected community of peers we are part of, means that we truly now have what Salomon called ‘distributed cognition’ (Salomon 1993). We are our networks. We are what Perkin’s describes as ‘person plus’.  References Beetham, H. and R. Sharpe (2007). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital age: Designing and Delivering E-Learning, Routledge %@ 0415408741 %7 New edition.            Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century, Mit Pr. Salomon, G., Ed. (1993). Distributed cognitions - psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.            Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.                

http://www.flickr.com/photos/remediatethis/2677276377/ As a follow up to my post on creativity I’ve had a couple of other thoughts. Firstly, that the research assessment exercise in the UK is killing creativity. It is driven by outdated notions of what constitutes ‘good’ research. It is dominated by an over emphasis on high impact journals and takes little or no account of alternative forms of publishing, such as blogs. As part of the last RAE I agreed to read all the papers submitted by the CREET research group at the OU, to assess whether each paperwas a 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4. It was an incredibly difficult exercise for a number of reasons. How can you compare a ‘solid’ empirically based paper with one, which is about developing new ideas and concepts? If I didn’t like the research topic (and I am not going to say which ones I don’t like) then I was biased against the paper. Similarly, if I knew the area really well I might be more prone to favour it, or, ironically, not favour it if the views were different from my own. Secondly, a game I often play with Mark Brown (from Massey University) is "Who do we rate (and not rate) in our field’? Tee hee. What is interesting is that although I admire the work of a lot of people there are very, very few people that are up there with the likes of Vygotsky, whose work was truly inspirational. What constitutes greatness is someone who fundamentally changes things, contributes something genuinely new. Not many of us can say that I fear.

I have just collated a list of my recent activities for my line manager and thought it might be interesting to share. It’s a real eclectic mix of activities - on the research side: from writing, to bids, to presentations, in terms of teaching working on our new MSc and doing PhD supervisions! March Final proofs for a chapter on learning design tools in Sharpe and Beetham’s second edition of ‘Rethinking pedagogy; Addressed reviewers’ comments on a chapter on learning design in a forthcoming NTF book  Confirmation that a workshop submitted to the EDEN conference in Oslo in June (with Mike Keppell) on learning design and learning spaces accepted  Online METIS project meeting  Final proofs for a chapter on ‘Social exclusion or inclusion—the implications of social and participatory media on education’ as a follow up to a keynote given in Australia February 2011  Final proofs for a chapter with Sandra Will (Wollongong University, Australia) on Cloudworks for the journal Educational Multimedia International as a follow up to a paper given at the ICEM conference in Cyprus in September 2012  Contributed to a joint paper with folk from the OU on our EU-funded XDelia project. Target is to submit to Computers and Education  4-5th March attended an invite only EU meeting in Brussels ‘Grand coalition for digital jobs’   Chaired a TEL SIG on MOOCs  Interviewed for the EU-funded HOTEL project on emergent technologies for learning  Webinar on OER as part of Open Education week FP7 bid on social badges FP7 bid TemLA on Learning Analytics February  Slides for the VC on innovations in learning and teaching at Leicester   Online METIS meeting    7 bids submitted to the lifelong learning EU call    2-day PhD research workshop    Online POERUP meeting   Film for Denise Sweeny on ‘Getting published’ and ‘Open access’   PhD viva Lancaster   OER Webinar for Alistair Creelman in Sweden   PhD viva Manchester January Article for the VC’s column in the Mercury on learning design Conole, G. (2013), Harnessing new media, pedagogical innovation and new approaches to design, 25th January 2013, E-Learning Symposium, University of Southampton. Conole, G. (2013), What is innovative teaching?, 23rd January 2013, Royal Holloway Conole, G. (2013), New ecologies and trajectories of learning, 15th January 2013, E-learning: teaching reconsidered conference, Athens. 4 bids submitted to the EU Erasmus call EU-funded METIS learning design meeting in Valladolid, Spain PhD viva Porto, Portugal E-learning papers journal online meeting (on editorial board) EDEN exec meeting (on the board) in Brussels Launch of INNOQUAL new journal (one of three editors in chief) EFQUEL editorial board online Online METIS meeting Other   PhD supervision sessions Bernard, Dina, Natalia, Marion Design and delivery of Week 3 and 8 of the OULDS MOOC on learning design (over 1,700 people registered) Discussions re 8 potential workshop to be delivered in Singapore (learning design, OER, social media, mobile learning, virtual worlds, augmented reality, gamification and e-pedagogies) Discussions  about some workshops we might run for a client Discussions about some learning design workshops and support to convert materials to an online format 22 blog posts (January - March) http://e4innovation.com  Addressing panel’s comments on the MSc documentation Working with Terese Bird on launch of presence on iTunesU

Finally, finally…. It has taken a long time but we are now live on iTunesU, all thanks to Terese Bird - the phrase dog with a bone comes to mind Terese did some research to find out what other institutions’ experiences were of going on iTunesU. The OU, not surprisingly, adopted a very centrally controlled approach, with strict quality assurance processes. They found that the benefits of going on iTunesU were twofold. Firstly, it got them recognition in North America. Secondly, it resulted in learners signing up to do OU courses, having sampled the tasters on iTunesU. Nottingham and Oxford adopted more of a peer-reviewed approach. The powers that be at Leicester required some persuading…. They wanted assurances that the quality of the materials would be good and that the materials would need to be Leicester branded. We having been working with academics and marketing for some time to review potential content. The launch is timely given the recent discovery of Richard III and there are some nice videos on the site on this. So have a look, feedback welcome!

The annual Horizon reports list the key technologies that are likely to have a significant impact in Education in one, three and five years’ time.  The MATEL (Mapping and Analysing Perspective Technologies for Learning) study provides a good evidence-based survey of key technologies. The study undertook a survey across schools, tertiary education, the adult learning community and the VET sector and validated the findings with an expert consultation group in the Autumn.  The study aimed to: get a better understanding of how technologies that are expected to play a decisive role in shaping future learning strategies will evolve in the short -medium term (5-10 years from now); understand how the market of such technologies is expected to develop and identify a set of strategies and actions to promote promising technologies, encourage implementation and ensure effective and inclusive deployment in formal, non-formal and informal learning environments. Not surprisingly perhaps, social media, mobile technologies and Open Educational Resources featured highly in the results. What was interesting was the lack of much mention of the role of Virtual Worlds, despite the original hype on the role these might play in Education; interest appears to have dropped off significantly. 

The METIS project has three main objectives: To develop an Integrated Learning Design Environment (ILDE). The ILDE will integrate existing free and open source solutions that include: co-design support for communities of practitioners; learning design authoring tools following different pedagogical approaches and authoring experiences; interface for deployment of learning designs on mainstream Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs). To run a series of workshops for teachers at partner institutions using ILDE. The workshops will be aimed at fostering the adoption of learning design methods among teachers and advancing their skills in the orchestration of ICT-based learning environments according to innovative pedagogical approaches. The ILDE will play a central role in the workshops, because one of workshop goals will be to support teachers’ familiarization with the ILDE and to promote the usage of the authoring tools integrated in it. To disseminate the project’s outcomes and maintain a community of teachers engaged with learning design and its tools. Work Package 5 of the METIS project is concerned with evaluation. This work package is led by Istitulo Tecnologie Didattiche (ITD), in collaboration with other partners. METIS is adopting a user-centred design approach: the development of both the ILDE and the workshops will be cyclic, with two evaluation phases informed by practice. These two evaluation phases, nested within the four cycles of the METIS project development, will incrementally incorporate the needs expressed by end users for both the ILDE and the workshops. The workshops are the basis for the formative evaluation of the different versions of the ILDE and of the workshop packs themselves. Thus evaluation will play a crucial role in the project, will occur in an iterative way and will be formative, i.e. aimed at informing the following stages of re-design and development. Section 1 provides an overview of the role of the evaluation. Section 2 provides a clear definition of what is meant by evaluation, with arguments being made backed up by relevant research literature. The approach adopted draws on Guskey (2002) definition; i.e. that ‘evaluation is "the systematic investigation of merit or worth" (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994, p. 3). It goes on to state that: … evaluation in METIS will be mainly oriented to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of both the ILDE and the workshop package and to find useful indications to further tune and improve them, so we can state that our evaluation will primarily have formative aims.  Section 3 concentrates on the ILDE. Theoretically the focus is on user’s acceptance of technology, based around the follow factors: Attitude Toward Behavior Subjective Norm Perceived Usefulness Perceived Ease of Use Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic Motivation Job-fit Long-term Consequences Social Factors Relative Advantage Voluntariness of Use Image Visibility Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy Social Influence The section then outlines six theoretical models in relation to technology acceptance: Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Motivational Model (MM) Model of PC Utilization (MPCU) Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Having reviewed these the Technology Acceptance Model was chosen; Section 3.2 provides a clear rationale for the choice.  Section 4 describes the approach adopted to the evaluation of the workshops. It states that there are two approaches to this: objective/goal-based models and systems-based models, and lists the follow models: Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels Hamblin’s 5 levels Guskey’s 5 levels Tyler’s model Hammond’s model CIPP (Context, Input, Process, Product) IPO (Input, Process, Output) TVS (Training Valuation System) Having examined the models, the team selected the Guskey’s model as the main source of inspiration for the evaluation of the METIS workshop packages, as this model seems to offer the closest fit with the project requirements. Using this the following aspects are listed: participants’ reactions, participants’ learning, organization support and change, participants’ use of new knowledge and skills, and student learning outcomes. Section 5 states that: In METIS the evaluation of both the ILDE and the workshops will be conceived and designed by a team of researchers of ITD-CNR, and then carried out with the support of all the METIS partners and particularly those partners who will design and run the workshops (UKOU, KEK and Agorà + ULeicester as WP4 responsible), as well as the partner who is developing the ILDE (UBa and all WP2 partners). ITD-CNR is not involved in the development of the system and the workshops, except for what attained to its role of formative evaluator. Section 6 provides a discussion of the critical issues associated with the evaluation and in particular the fact that the evaluation will occur in real contexts. Section 7 provides a conclusion for the report and next steps. The document provides a clear and methodologically robust outline of the evaluation plan. It makes a clear rationale for the approach adopted for the evaluation of both the ILDE and the workshops. The report draws on a range of theoretical models associated with users’ acceptance of technology and uses this to develop a robust and thorough evaluation plan. Clear timescales and milestones are indicated, along with a critical discussion of any anticipated issues associated with the evaluation. References Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3), 381-391. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science (45:2), pp. 186-204. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly (27:3), pp. 425-478. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Xin, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly (36:1), pp. 157-178.      

An interesting new e-book has just been announced, providing a summary of the JISC/HEA funded Open Educational Resources (OER) programme. It provides an overview of the three phases of the programme and discusses the key issues and lessons learnt, which were: open content and open practices, OER re-use and repurposing, open is multidimensional, is use good enough?, what we do and don’t know about use, learners and OER, and libre vs. gratis OER. There are chapters devoted to resource management, resource description, and licensing and attribution.