Are We There Yet?: Thoughts on the JISC-CETIS PLE Event

catherine — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:46:45 -0500

So, the PLE bit of the JISC's e-learning programme has nearly finished its reference model work.

I hope this doesn't mean that it's already too late to respond to some of the issues raised, and hopefully, to contribute to the direction it takes. Regular readers of my blog will know I'm not entirely happy with the PLE concept as it seems to be developing -- all the more reason for me to engage.

The Discussion notes from the JISC/CETIS PLE Event raise four key issues.

To try and focus my discussion, I'll restrict comments to the first three of these.

...There were opposing views on current institutional systems

Ie., we can't agree on whether existing systems enhance or detract from learning. Good. This debate is important, because it focuses on pedagogy and how best to support learner engagement - ground-up, first-principles stuff. May it flourish. But we've been sidetracked! Instead of discussing the benefits and constraints of existing support systems, there appears to be an emerging consensus that VLEs are Just Not Good, Mmmmkaaaaay. Instead, there's a battle going on between those for whom the PLE is really a VLE in sheep's clothing, versus those who believe the PLE is its antithesis.

Wait, wait! We're not there yet! Have we rigorously evaluated institutional VLE use? Is there a robust, evidence-based picture of VLE affordances and constraints? Where is the data? If data exists, does it go beyond the most basic, attitudinal stuff? What about cultural differences within the student body, what about learning styles -- how do these impact on VLE use over (say) a 5 year period? Does the size and funding status of an institution impact on VLE usage? We need to come back to the educational questions... isn't that what's driving this?

...There was some concern that the introduction of PLEs would be highly disruptive...

Hang on, surely we can't already be at the implementation stage? PLEs are very far from being just a management / process issue. At a deeper level, the nature of the relationship between IT and organisational change is itself disputed.

...There was an acknowledgement that the Web 2.0 tools and services ... would be an inevitable component of education in the future ... [Students] will arrive at college or university with considerable experience of these tools .... Failure to utilise [them] would alienate students and institutions would risk becoming technology ghettoes...
So now we're supposed to do PLEs "because they're inevitable" and because, without them, we can't "engage" students.

I particularly mistrust the discourse of inevitability, in relation to technology adoption, because it is so easily manipulated to a particular agenda. Talking about inevitability creates a sense of urgency. It generates social pressure. It becomes self-fulfilling. If we can get everybody to agree that PLEs are inevitable, they will become so. The interesting and generally neglected aspect of technology adoption, though, is complexity. Technologies generate unanticipated affordances and behaviours. We can't at this stage predict what effects adoption of a PLE might have on education, social context, or institutional processes. Or the way an institution sits in relation to other institutions, or the way that it affects (and is affected by) the broader socio-cultural context. At ALT-C, I heard way too many tired generalisations about the current generation of students, and their supposed level of familiarity with this or that device (Which students? In what institution? In what region?). Please, let's not reinforce this empty kind of talk.

The issues I've raised here are not cool, they're not fashionable, and they don't require new buzzwords... This is an a priori problem, because the role of organisations like the JISC and CETIS is precisely to facilitate "the new". Promoting innovation as a key organisational value - and method - has strong implications for sustainability. Technological development appears to generate its own dynamic of production and obsolescence, and this is as true for JISC as it is for any development-focused company or organisation. The downside of the drive to innovate is that quality measures can become subject to the constraints imposed by overarching funding systems and project processes.

Anne Galloway said it better: It is "socially difficult" to raise these questions when one's own career (and the continued existence of whole organisations) depends on maintaining a discourse of inevitability around technology.

"Effective Use of Virtual Learning Environments" from InfoNet

StuartYeates — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:50:49 -0500

The good people at JISC InfoNet have a new (at least, new at least to me) introduction to the effective use of VLEs. With sections ranging from "Models of Learning & Teaching" and "Accessibility Features Within a VLE" to "Evaluating Your Practice" and "Designing for Sustainability" it all looks like cracking stuff.

EDUCAUSE | pedagogy and VLE

Are We There Yet?: Thoughts on the JISC-CETIS PLE Event

"Effective Use of Virtual Learning Environments" from InfoNet