Skip to content

Toggle service links
Subscribe to Institute of Educational Technology aggregator - Recent blogs from IET staff

Recent blogs from IET staff

Dr Scheffel: examining Maren’s viva

Yesterday I was at the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL), in Heerlen, as one of the viva examiners for Maren Scheffel. Maren wrote an excellent thesis, The Evaluation Framework for Learning Analytics, gave a strong defence and was awarded her doctorate.

As may be obvious from the picture, vivas in the Netherlands aren’t exactly the same as vivas in the UK. For one thing, the team wear gowns, caps and a shirt front that makes them look as if they have strayed from a painting on the walls of the Rijksmuseum or maybe Hogwarts. Well, not the entire team. You have to have attained professorial status to wear the extremely warm clothing. The reason I look photoshopped in is that, as a lowly doctor, I had to wear normal clothing.

Another difference is the size of the Doctoral Board. In the picture, from left to right, are Professor Delgado Kloos, Professor Griffiths, Professor Drachsler (supervisor), Professor Kalz, (newly declared) Dr Scheffel, Professor Specht (supervisor), me, Professor Brand-Gruwel, and Professor Boshuizen (chair – indicated by the chain around her neck). That’s two internal examiners and three external examiners, two from the UK and one from Spain. For a more informal take on the Board, I have linked all their official titles to their Twitter handles.

The viva takes place in public, in front of family, friends and fellow academics. It is also live-streamed as it takes place, and a recording is presented to the candidate afterwards on a USB stick. As well as the defence, the viva begins with a short presentation by the candidate on her work.

The decision is made there and then. No stringing it out for months of corrections and bureaucracy as in the UK. There is a clear point for celebration. The announcement is made, the signed certificate is formally handed over, the candidate is formally addressed as doctor for the first time, and then it is time for happiness, congratulations and a reception.

This also means that the candidate can ceremonially be sworn in. The main supervisor says:

By virtue of the powers vested in us by Dutch law, in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board, I confer on you, Maren Scheffel, the title of doctor and all the rights and all duties to science and society associated by Dutch law or custom to a PhD degree at the Open University of the Netherlands. Do you promise to work in accordance with the principles of academic integrity at all times, to be careful and honest, critical and transparent, independent and impartial?

I like this formal indication that the award of doctor is not just an honour – it is associated with responsibilities and with standards of behaviour.

I also like the appearance of the thesis as a formal document. It doesn’t appear as a large, unwieldy hardback tome, bound at the student’s expense, as it does in the UK. Instead, it is an attractive paperback book, available in advance of the viva. A book you would want to read, rather than a decorative item to sit on a shelf.

Of course, to be available in print before the viva, the thesis must already be done and dusted. While I like all the differences between the UK and Dutch procedure that I have mentioned above, this one seems strange. I’m used to the examiners having some influence on the thesis. The Dutch system is more akin to our PhD by publication. Most elements of it have already appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and the thesis links and supplements these in a coherent manuscript, which is checked by the supervisors. So the work of assessment is done by the peer reviewers, without their awareness, and by the supervisors. The Doctoral Board and the viva serve to validate a decision that has already been made. The examiners’ first job is to decide whether the thesis, as presented, is ready for submission. There is no option to suggest corrections or amendments – it is either ready to go or it isn’t. If it is, then the viva is largely a formality. There is a formal meeting after the defence, but the situation would have to be very extreme for the doctorate not to be granted at that point.

Another aspect that seems strange from the point of view of a UK academic, is how the defence takes place. In the UK, this takes as long as it takes. An hour, two, maybe even three. Yesterday, the time was defined in advance. The defence was to begin at 1.45pm. At 2.30pm the beadle (also in a gown) comes to the front of the room, pounds the ceremonial mace on the floor and declares ‘hora est!’ The candidate can finish a sentence at that point, but otherwise that is it, the defence is over. With five examiners, that means nine minutes of questions each, asking one each in strict rotation. That meant some of us asked two questions, some only one. When you’ve travelled for eight hours to be there, that means thinking very carefully about which single question will make the journey worthwhile.

And did I mention that the event takes place in English (except for a brief foray into Latin by the beadle)? In day-to-day life, Maren speaks German or Dutch, so she was not only demonstrating her academic prowess and  her ability to think on her feet but also her language skills.

If I were coming up with a viva system, it’s not quite how I’d do it (I would prefer to see some amendment of the thesis in the light of the examiners’ feedback), but I do feel that many aspects of the Dutch system are an improvement on our current approach in the UK.

 


Educators’ perspectives on MOOCs

We have just published an internal report for The Open University. It covers ‘Staff Perspectives on the Value of Involvement with FutureLearn MOOCs’. The report – authored by Tom Coughlan, Thea Herodotou, Alice Peasgood and myself  – continues our series of reports on different aspects of engagement and research with MOOCs.

We carried out interviews with educators, production staff and facilitators who work on both MOOCs and Open University courses. Analysis of these data identified six forms of value that these MOOCs offer to the university.

  1. Innovating course production
  2. Staff development
  3. Visibility and engagement
  4. Improved learning journeys
  5. Research and evaluation
  6. Income generation

In each case, the report identifies both benefits and challenges.

Open University staff can access the full report.


What I learnt from being a student

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Fri, 22/09/2017 - 07:52

Yesterday I submitted the thesis for my MA in Art History at the Open University. I completed the MA in History a couple of years ago also, so I’ve had about four years of experience of being a part time student. At the risk of being like one of those ‘woke’ pieces where proper students will scream “yes, we’ve been saying that for years!’, here are some of the things I’ve (re)learnt, from the perspective of being an educator while also studying:

Everyone should do it – I don’t mean study a subject for career development (although that’s nice), the content isn’t the important part. Do it for the experience of being a student again. Particularly if you’re developing online or part-time study then definitely do it (and hey, we’ve got lots of nice courses at the OU in all disciplines).

Small stuff is big – for all the talk of revolutionary pedagogy, personalised learning, disrupted education, what really matters most of the time is the straightforward, everyday matters: do I know what I should be doing at any given time? Can I access the material? Is it clearly written? Can I get support within a reasonable timeframe? Is it set out so I can plan my time effectively?

Don’t design for the perfect student – I’ll be honest, I was not a model student. I was what is often termed a strategic learner. Partly (and a tad ironically), work pressure at the Open University meant my study on an Open University course was compromised. I needed to find the most effective path through a course (basically focussing on assessment). But that is not to say I didn’t get a lot from it, so ensuring there are paths through the course that don’t assume full capacity but are still rewarding is essential.

Engaging and challenging – apart from the small things mentioned above, what I also wanted from my course was for it to be challenging (in that it made you think about things differently, for instance the first block of the Art History course really dismisses the whole ‘lives of famous artists’ approach to art history, which is the naive view I had of it). And I want it to be engaging, in that there is enough there for me to dig into (without getting lost). I’ve mentioned before that I came to like assessment because this forced me to engage with the content and bring it together. So it’s not just about making sure as educators we cover topics A to E but also that the student wants to learn about them.

Give me a reason to interact – given my time constraints, I didn’t do much interaction in the forums. And this was fine with me, I was glad the course didn’t make lots of interaction compulsory just for the sake of it. But also without a major prompt to do so, it was easy to avoid interaction all together, and if this was my first time studying, that would be a shame.

It made me vulnerable – and not in a cute puppy way. I am from a science background and so don’t have any art history knowledge. I was therefore winging it a lot of the time, and didn’t have the vocabulary or the depth of knowledge most of my fellow students had. I would have been reluctant to have been forced to display this scarcity of knowledge in the open, so I was grateful for a closed environment, and careful feedback from tutors to scaffold my learning. Having said that, I think some of the stuff I’ve written is mildly interesting, so maybe we could have found ways of sharing it more openly. But the important aspect was to be reminded of how vulnerable the whole learning process is.

Looking over those, I have a renewed appreciation for why education is often perceived as being conservative. I wonder how many radical educational change gurus have actually been students (particularly in an unfamiliar subject) recently? Which is not to say students aren’t up for trying something new, but often in a limited, controlled manner. And my take away as an educator is that we should focus on improving these elements rather than demanding their wholesale replacement (but that’s always been my line I guess). Also, breaking news – education isn’t broken, kinda works ok, and is rewarding. I don’t expect that’ll be a headline anytime soon though. Seriously though – as an educator, the best thing you can do is go study again. Mind you, I’m looking forward to spending my Saturday mornings just listening to vinyl and looking wistfully out of the window again.

When this is all over, we still have to clear up

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Wed, 20/09/2017 - 18:48

Let’s be optimistic (remember optimism?) and assume that US and UK politics will return to some sense of normality within the next five years, and, you know, actual competent politicians will run the country. Only then will we really see the damage of the current period. For a start, I worry about the mental health of people having to endure this period. Waking up to a new piece of insanity and attack on humanity every morning is wearing. Being perpetually angry, frightened, vulnerable, confused is just exhausting. When we’re in it you keep going, but like looking after young children or going through a painful divorce, it’s only afterwards you look back and think “how did I do that?”. A lot of people will carry the toll of this period for a long time.

Then there is the social cohesion impact. Families and friends have been pushed irrevocably apart in a way that normal left/right divides never achieved. This is no ‘on both sides’, the rhetoric has been pushed by the right to a point of no return. The new right portray themselves as brave, free thinkers, but I’m guessing the old right just knew you couldn’t push it this far – they knew there was no coming back if you did and from there no-one wins. You don’t go on a Nazi rally at the weekend, and then come in to work on Monday like it was an outing to the mall. And you don’t say you support someone who backs that rally, then move onto talking about the football. There are no gentle comedies waiting to be made of this era which portray family members initially arguing bitterly but coming to understand that each side has a point. When one side wants to deny you or your friends’ right to existence, there is no common middle ground.

And then there is the damage to democracy, politics, the media and the role of the public figure. If lying is just ‘meh’ now, what does that mean for any of this?

But from our perspective, what is the role of education after all this? I’ve talked about combatting the unenlightenment, but the whole role of education will be shaped by how we look back on this period. These are some of the areas we will need to address:

  • Educating network savvy students – dealing with fake news, engaging in meaningful debates, understanding the role of tech companies, data, privacy and the social impact of all this will be cross cutting. Computer science degrees can’t operate now without understanding how algorithms shape power, and social scientists can’t work without appreciating how platforms shape identity. Pick a subject and the social element of the network needs to be part of the curriculum.
  • Digital scholarship – I’ve been updating my digital scholarship talk for someone recently, thinking about what has changed since I wrote the book in 2011. Then it was a case of ‘hey you should try using this stuff, it could be interesting for education’. Now it’s more a case of ‘we have a duty to use this stuff to help shape its future’. That’s a very different context for an academic.
  • Public engagement – how do academics and universities help shape the public discourse and politics so that facts, truth, knowledge, experts and research are no longer dismissed as irrelevant?
  • Building platforms and communities – interdisciplinary work involving tech experts, psychologists, designers, social scientists etc must help inform the next wave of platforms so that they facilitate the sort of discussion and community we once hoped for on the open web.
  • Policy – helping shape policy that makes democracy functional again.

This is quite a big shift in education, far beyond the ‘let’s get digital’ mantra. Maybe that’s too much to ask for education, but we need to start looking to a time when we’re not just firefighting but actively learning the lessons from this period and helping to shape a more functional, and hopefully positive, future. Assuming there is still a world with people in it by then, of course.

Rewilding EdTech

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Mon, 11/09/2017 - 12:10

At ALT-C I was having a conversation with Amber Thomas about our mutual friend Ross MacKenzie’s interest in rewilding in Scotland. There are many different approaches to rewilding it turns out, but the two main ones are top down – reintroducing the big fauna such as wolves into a habitat, or bottom up, where you start at the bottom of the food chain and reintroduce small scale flora (and remove invasive species). Anyway, that’s my very basic understanding of it, my apologies if I’ve got it completely wrong.

This got me thinking that rewilding might be an idea we could take to ed tech. Much of the early enthusiasm around ed tech was that it was, as Brian Lamb used to characterise it, fast, cheap and out of control. But as it gained significance and a more central role in the university system it became more robust, and controllable. This is a good thing – students don’t want the system they need to submit an assignment at midnight to be flaky. But inevitably there has been a loss of some of the innovation that was prevalent when there were greater freedoms, as university processes and regulations have solidified around enterprise systems.

Rewilding offers a metaphor here, so I went searching to see if others had written about it, and came across this piece by Aaron Davis where he talks about rewilding education. In ed tech terms we would want to introduce tools into the ecosystem that would encourage some of the innovation we saw previously. But as with introducing wolves, it has to be done carefully, you don’t want tourists attacked and you don’t want students caught in frustrations with unusable systems. The two approaches to rewilding offer pointers here. A bottom-up approach might be to introduce some small scale, low impact tools, such as SPLOTs which encourage some of the pedagogic innovation, without becoming a system wide tool (as Jim Groom says, “let’s get small“). The more top-down approach is not to introduce a big system, but rather to tackle the policy issues – incentivise the use of such tools, make the IT infrastructure capable of supporting them, allocate resources and remove barriers. I’m convinced there’s a more interesting ed tech ecosystem out there.

A mixed data tools diet

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Fri, 08/09/2017 - 14:35

I was at ALT-C this week, and enjoyed Sian Bayne‘s keynote on using Yik Yak to explore ideas around anonymity, data privacy and ephemera. Sian made the argument that while abuses certainly happened on Yik Yak, the experience of Edinburgh students was largely a positive one, and one of the key aspects of this was the anonymity of the user. And non-persistent id anonymity in particular, so you didn’t have the same identifier every time, which adds to the ephemeral, temporary nature of the discussion. For students, and young people, (but hey, maybe for all of us), I can see how anonymity allows you to explore different aspects of your personality, as this is still forming. But also it just made asking questions and being open easier for many students.

Sian made the point that for companies that ant to make money selling our data, anonymity is bad news. They need to know who you are, and for you to have a persistent identity. She had a very nice summary which was along the lines of ‘when we promote the moral panic around anonymity, we are doing the work of data capitalism’.

Some of the questions afterwards concentrated on the benefits of not being anonymous, and downsides of anonymity. But I think this is to view it as an either/or. In reality those students using Yik Yak would have had a reasonable collection of tools (I’m not calling it a PLE), including Facebook and others that rely heavily on not being anonymous. What we might like to promote then is encouraging students to avoid a monoculture in relation t how platforms use their data and id. Imagine it being like a healthy diet infographic. Platforms could be colour coded as to how well they handle things like transparency around data, dealing with anti-social behaviour, user ownership of data, persistence of data, anonymity, etc. If you’re just using the big bad ones, it’s like being on a burgers only diet. A burger may be fine for some occasions bit you want to make sure it isn’t all your having. This would include university systems also, such as the VLE.

In the Virtually Connecting session afterwards Anne Marie Scott joined us from Edinburgh, and she has been writing some interesting stuff about platforms and ephemera. We discussed whether ephemerality might make anti-social behaviour more or less likely. It might reduce it in that trolls seek the notoriety of having their name known, and want to persistently attack someone, so if it disappears and they can’t find the same person, then the attraction is decreased. But then again it may increase it because the impact and risk is removed, it could be a way of trialling being a troll. I don’t know, and expect it would be a mix of the two, but it’s an example of how we don’t consider some aspects of platforms, such as how persistence might influence behaviour, and take them as just how things are. So I was grateful for Sian’s talk to remind me of how we always need to be examining these aspects.

The Barnaby Principle

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Sun, 03/09/2017 - 10:55

There is often discussion about getting more working class (or at least not very middle class) pupils into university, including debates about lower entry level requirements for state school pupils, first in family scholarships, and the intention (whether you agree it worked or not) by TEF to consider POLAR and widening participation agendas. It’s not always easy being a first generation/working class student, particularly at elite universities, but there does seem to be some recognition that they represent a group who may need more support or encouragement (this is particularly problematic in areas such as medicine, which are pretty much a closed club for the privileged). The assumption seems to be though that once you’ve been through the university system, we’re all equal then (or all equally middle class).

I had a couple of experience in the past year which reminded me that this is not so. As I’ve mentioned before, I was first generation to uni, comprehensive school educated, via Hatfield and Teesside Polys. And even now, as a senior (hey, who are you calling senior?) academic, the imposter stuff still lingers. Even at a famously egalitarian institute such as the Open University, when I first joined I was aware I hadn’t been to grammar school, not attended a Russell Group university and had somewhat oikish tastes (sport, lager, horror movies, indie music), although I feel this has altered a lot over the intervening twenty odd years (and I’ve become more middle class, I drink wine now and like art now and everything). But this stuff hangs around, your frame of reference can still feel wrong. Take this recent scene – I am out at a meal with academics from other universities, and they are ALL discussing their favourite regattas. I mean, not only should I have been to a regatta (I mean WTF even is a regatta?), but I need to have been to enough of them that I have a favourite one?

I want to stress that I don’t think that class diversity is more important than other perspectives on diversity, and indeed diversity agendas are not in competition with each other. I think once you adopt a diversity attitude it benefits all. But with social mobility pretty much ground to a halt in the UK, and higher education often promoted as a solution (although the stats are questionable), then I would suggest that having more staff, particularly at a senior management level that demonstrate that principle and understand the needs of working class students is something universities should seek to promote.

I’m not convinced this needs a quota system, and I think other diversity agendas have priority, but it would be interesting to see what proportion of university senior management come from working class/first generation students/post 92 university backgrounds. Until we have such data I offer the following metric: I was in another inter-university meeting not long ago, and there were two men named Barnaby in attendance. I would suggest that if you have more than one Barnaby present then you probably want to look at the class representation.

A USB port for informal learning

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Tue, 15/08/2017 - 14:01

I’ve been part of a team working on an unusual (and dare I use the word, innovative) course at the OU. It’s called ‘Making your learning count‘, and the unusual thing about it is that it doesn’t really set out to teach a particular topic. Rather it seeks to recognise the learning that people bring with them from informal means, such as OER and MOOCs. There are several challenges in this. Firstly, we can’t just formally recognise all possible OER, so we have to get students to do something to demonstrate their learning. But then secondly, having gone for this broad approach, as opposed to just accrediting a specific MOOC say, you the have yo make any activity generic enough to cover people coming in from diverse domains.

The approach the team have taken then is to base it around 9 tasks. These focus on developing a learning plan, developing a means of communicating your learning to others, making interdisciplinary connections between subjects, and developing peer assessment and digital communication skills. They’ll be guided by their tutor in this, but I think it’s hopefully one of those courses where the diversity of knowledge people bring is a key benefit. You get to see connections between your subject and by explaining your own one to others, consolidate your own understanding. At the end of it students will then have converted their informal learning into 30 points of OU formal credit. Obviously we hope they go on to study with us further, but even if not, it helps legitimise that learning and hopefully make the prospect of formal study at some point less daunting.

At the moment it’s focused around OpenLearn as a pilot, but in its approach I see it as part of a thorny issue that has circled around OER, MOOCs and informal learning, which is how you help people make use of that knowledge acquired elsewhere. Approaches to this include challenge exams (as practised by Athabasca), and more flexible degree programmes (for example the OERu’s first year free study), or giving credit for specific MOOCs (eg the OU and Leeds with FutureLearn). We’ve always had recognition of prior learning (RPL), but to be honest, this has often been so complex and costly to realise that you were better off just studying the courses.

All of these are valid approaches and I think we’ll see more of them. I see our course as the first of this type for the OU, and as well as allowing OER based study to come into the university context, it can be adapted for specific needs and projects. For example a version might allow recognition of sector training, corporate learning, as well as different levels, specific disciplines or providers. So, I see it as a big old USB port sticking out of Walton Hall, saying insert learning here. It’ll be interesting to see if it gets many takers as it’s still quite a difficult concept to convey, but one that will be increasingly useful I think.

Sci-Hub and the Rebecca Riots

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Mon, 07/08/2017 - 14:38

Going on one of my extended, and tenuous analogy skits, you are warned.

In order to consider recent developments in open access publishing, particularly Sci-Hub, and #ICanHazPDF I’m going to go back to, where else, a set of rural riots in 19th Century Wales. The Rebecca Riots as they were known, were a series of protests and disturbances in South-West Wales concentrated in the period 1839-1844. The target of the protests were usually toll-gates, which were demolished by large crowds during night-time raids, although toll-gates were seen as symbolic of a wider series of grievances. The leader of the crowd would be dressed in women’s clothes and be referred to as Rebecca, although who fulfilled this role would vary depending on location. The origins of the name were biblical, from a passage in Genesis 24:60: ‘And they blessed Rebekah and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them’. Over 200 such incidences occurred during this period, causing the Government to mobilise the army and extra police. These were largely ineffectual in preventing the protests however, as the movement had popular local support, and retribution was threatened against informers. The increase in tolls constituted the main cause of vexation amongst the populace, it’s important for our analogy to see this as the final provocation in a long line of injustices. Other issues were also gathered under the Rebecca umbrella, including the imposition of workhouses, absent landlords, and suppression of the Welsh language. The outcome of the Riots was a commission that largely ceded much to the protestors, and sought to improve conditions. The riots are popularly interpreted as a statement of Welsh identity and of rural protest.

The authoritative account of the Rebecca Riots is that of Williams. Although the riots can be interpreted as a straightforward protest against an increase in the number of toll gates and their respective tolls, which had a particularly damaging effect on farmers who needed to transport lime to improve soil, Williams provides a comprehensive account of the multiple causes that led to the riots. These include a decaying gentry system that did not represent the people; a language barrier; poor treatment by the judiciary; a lack of agricultural innovation so the soil became depleted; the strong Methodist nonconformist influence; and perhaps most significantly, extreme poverty. This combination of factors created the environment wherein the increase in tolls proved to be a catalyst for protest.

The toll gates were owned by different groups of trustees, depending on their location. The first protest where Rebecca was seen occurred in 1839, when toll gate contractor Thomas Bullin erected four new gates, specifically to increase profits from lime traffic. The gate at Efail-wen was destroyed in May, a week after opening. Then on 6th June a mob of some 300-400 destroyed it again, and a week later the Maes-gwyn gate. The persistence and scale of these protests led to soldiers being drafted in to keep the peace. This was largely unsuccessful as a tactic as on the 17th July a crowd again assembled at Efail-wen, and here the leader was addressed as ‘Becca’. On the 23rd July the Whitland trustees, who owned the tolls held an emergency meeting and the four gates were revoked. This stopped the immediate violence but set a precedent, which would lead to the more widespread and persistent protests of 1842-1844.

The 1844 Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry for South Wales, established to examine the causes of the disturbances, identified five contributing factors: the turnpikes and their mismanagement in the affected areas; Tithes, in particular the Tithe Act of 1836 which made payment in money, rather than in kind, compulsory; the New Poor Law of 1834 which led to a loss of control; Magistrates Clerks Fees which varied widely and could be ‘unreasonably high’; the Country Rate which increased and was occasionally put to inappropriate usage, although abuses were deemed to be ‘greatly over-rated’. In general, although there was some criticism of the rioters, the commission interpreted their actions as arising from an intolerable set of conditions.

Which brings me onto Sci-Hub, and other acts of rebellion against proprietary access to academic publications. There are a number of parallels I find interesting. Firstly, although we can criticise a specific form the rebellion takes, as with Rebecca, a number of factors have accumulated over time to make some form of rebellion almost inevitable. Of course, an academic not being able to access a paper is very different from poverty stricken farmers, in the 19th century, but some of the grievances are similar.

Firstly, the riots occurred when the Toll owners became excessively greedy. Up until that point farmers had paid a reasonable toll, but these were increasingly interpreted as means of making more and more money. Some instances would lead to a farmer crossing three tolls within the space of 100 metres or so – if you have to do a return journey to fetch lime for your soil, that’s six tolls just to start your work. Similarly, the introduction of big deals, increased profit margins, and increased costs. Secondly, the toll owners were often absent, English and uncaring – any connection between the gentry and the local population had been lost. This reflects also the decaying relationship between academics and publishers, what was once seen as mutually beneficial and supportive is now viewed as remote, highly commercialised and predatory. Thirdly, there was sufficient local support from the community. It is undoubtedly true that there was intimidation involved to stop people informing, but generally the movement could be successful because the local population backed it. Fearing an uprising similar to that seen in Ireland, it was this popular support that most scared the Government. In academic terms also the practice of sharing articles is now seen not as something done by a rebellious, or technical clique, but widely supported by general practice. Lastly, the farmers in Wales were responding to changing economic climate around them. They were missing out on the benefits of the industrial revolution (transport links bypassed them for instance), working soil that was increasingly poor quality and facing the imposition of a draconian new Poor Law. While obviously very different in degree, academics on increasing precarious work contracts, operating in an austerity driven economy and threatened with excessive punishment are feeling similarly aggrieved and less likely to look generously upon the wealthy owners.

The message here is that when suppression failed, the authorities were ultimately forced to concede the grievances were valid, and a more equitable arrangement was ultimately established. Tolls are pinch points in historic change and we are witnessing this now in the digital era. It’s not always pretty, but as one commentator said of the Rebecca mob that descended on a toll, it is a ‘romantic and fearful sight’.

The Golden/Dark Age of what?

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Thu, 03/08/2017 - 13:09

One of the rewarding things about being in ed tech is that because it’s very fast moving you get to act all wise with very little experience. I mean, I started in this in 1995, I’ve been through interactive CD-ROM, electronic tutor groups, intelligent tutoring systems, elearning, VLEs, virtual worlds, elearning standards and metadata, learning objects, personalised learning, OER, blogging, web 2.0, PLEs, MOOCs, intelligent tutoring systems (again), open textbooks, personalised learning (again), learning analytics, and a whole bunch more. To do the same in another discipline I’d have to be approximately 250 years old.

When I reflect on this I’m struck by two sides of the same notion: we don’t realise often the implications of where we are currently (which is not to say people don’t like to try predictions, ed tech is full of futuroligists). An example is that, like many people, I passed my tenth anniversary on Twitter this year. Half jokingly, but also with a tone of regret we bemoan how friendly, open, exciting twitter was in those early days. Remember the first time you met someone face to face who you’d only known on twitter? Sava Singh rightly points out that being able to moan about how Twitter isn’t as good as it used to be is a form of privilege. But even accepting this, it is definitely a different type of place now. Similarly, people often talk about the ‘golden age of blogging’ as if was in the fifteenth century and not around 2006.

Which led me to think, what might we look back on in ten years time and consider 2017 the Golden Age of? Not much comes to mind, but perhaps it is the start of a social awareness around the power of online media, after the shitstorm of 2016, the acceptance that this is not peripheral anymore and thus a critical perspective that goes beyond “Use it/Don’t Use it”. Or maybe it’s just the Golden Age of Instagram, which I still kinda like as a social space.

The flip side of this is, what are the negative aspects that might spread out? There has always been unpleasant corners of the internet – some of these remain very unpleasant, but confined to those who seek them out. Others spread beyond their community of nastiness and infect society as a whole. The alt-right, gamergate, 4Chan pits are an example of this – people such as Audrey Watters warned us that this behaviour wasn’t confined to just a group of spiteful nerds, and she was right. Trump is the end game of all that behaviour and it doesn’t get much bigger at expanding beyond your chatroom than that. So if we are in an unrecognised Golden Age of something, we are also probably in the early phases of the next major social problem (although to be fair, most of them seem pretty much out in the open now). Islamic extremism, alt-right – these bubbled away in dark corners of the net for years and then spread into everyday life. What’s the next candidate?

Of course, I’m also wise enough now not to have any answers to these questions, but simply to pose them to you.

Learning analytics – how not to fail

At the LAK17 conference, a group of us held a Failathon workshop and brought its findings to the main conference as a poster. We asked conference-goers to help us to identify ways to avoid failure, and they responded enthusiastically with comments and conversation and sticky notes.

Back at The Open University, Doug Clow and I carried out a lightweight analysis of all the contributions, investigating how experts from around the world proposed to avoid failure.

We pulled the findings together into an article published in Educause Review on 31 July: Learning analytics – avoiding failure.

The article is full of suggestions, but the headline news is presented at the beginning: ‘In order not to fail, it is necessary to have a clear vision of what you want to achieve with learning analytics, a vision that closely aligns with institutional priorities. ‘


Bridges between formal and informal learning

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Thu, 27/07/2017 - 08:32

I’m considering doing an occasional series based on ed tech developments at the Open University. I’m interested in ones that roughly align with my take on ed tech, are offering practical, often small scale benefits and link to broader developments beyond the OU. So hopefully of interest outside the institution itself.

I was thinking of this when I came across the unofficial OU counselling and forensic psychology site, run by a few of my colleagues at the OU. It’s hosted on Reclaim Hosting (I think on my recommendation, Jim you owe me), so sits outside of the official OU structure. This was partly a practical decision I think (it’s just easier to set up externally) but it also has a symbolic significance – what is interesting about this project is that it sits on the border of the university and the external world, a sort of semi-formal approach.

The site performs a number of functions, but primarily it was set up because the team are developing a new course in this area. Graham Pike said that the ‘our original intention was to find a way of engaging students in the process of creating a course from the start’. So they use the forum to engage with potential and existing students and shape the course accordingly, and they are crowdsourcing images and art for the course, and providing a space for resources that sits outside the formal course. Psychology is a subject in particular that has many everyday resonances, and so providing an open space where even those mot studying the course can gain from it blurs the boundary between the university and ‘out there’ in a useful manner. Further on, the site provides a means of students trialling, and coming in to the course, and vice versa, for those who have completed it to stay connected and informed.

There’s nothing particularly new in any of this – no radical new technology, no (you guessed it) disruption, but it represents a nice example of how we can operate beyond dichotomies. The course will have an existing VLE presence, and much of the material will be traditional OU content. But it is not a choice between this or a wholly student generated curriculum. Similarly technology is not a choice between locked in the VLE or a totally distributed open tech approach. In ed tech there is often a tendency to become frustrated with current practice and advocate for its wholesale removal (and there is an obsession with change for its own sake also). What this project highlights I feel is that small, practical, implementable changes can offer useful routes through the noise. It is this bridging function between new approaches and traditional education in a manner that doesn’t demand the wholesale reformation of either and can be implemented right now, that appeals to me.

Vital learning analytics

On 17 July, I presented at ‘Analytics in learning and teaching: the role of big data, personalized learning and the future of the teacher’.

This event was held at the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) in Preson, and was organised by the VITAL project (Visualisation tools and analytics to monitor language learning and teaching).

My talk was on ‘Learning analytics: planning for the future’.

Abstract

What does the future hold for learning analytics? In terms of Europe’s current priorities for education and training, they will need to support relevant and high-quality knowledge, skills and competences developed throughout lifelong learning. More specifically, they should help improve the quality and efficiency of education and training, enhance creativity and innovation, and focus on learning outcomes in areas such as linguistic abilities, cultural awareness and active-citizenship. This is a challenging agenda that requires us to look beyond our immediate priorities and institutional goals. In order to address this agenda, we need to consider how our work fits into the larger picture. Drawing on the outcomes of two recent European studies, Rebecca will discuss how we can develop an action plan that will drive the development of analytics that enhance both learning and teaching.


CALRG conference 2017

Together with Liz FitzGerald and Eileen Scanlon, I chaired the 38th annual conference of the Computers and Learning research group (CALRG), which took place at The Open University 16-18 June 2017. We enjoyed keynote presentations from Siân Bayne, Jenny Preece and Ben Shneiderman.

Full details of the conference, together with links to all the abstracts and to many of the presentations, are available on Cloudworks.

The third day of the conference was FutureLearn Academic Network day. This annual conference event prioritises the work of doctoral students within the FLAN Network. This year, it brought together presenters from Bath, Lancaster, Purdue (USA), Sheffield, Southampton, The Open University, and Warwick.

Our discussant was Professor Rupert Wegerif, University of Cambridge.


What if the US had an OU

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Mon, 17/07/2017 - 15:29

On Facebook, George Veletsianos asked “What educational innovation do you see as “democratizing” and why?”. Needless to say, I championed open universities. Not just The (UK) Open University, but the model which it first developed and which then got replicated across the world. Africa, Asia and Europe in particular adopted the model of a national, high quality, part-time, distance education university with low or no, entry qualifications. Each of these will have educated thousands of people who were previously excluded from education. It is hard to think of a single innovation in modern higher education that has had such a democratising effect.

While Canada has Athabasca, and TRU, the US is a notable absence in the list however. So much so that OU even tried to launch a US OU in the 1999. It did not go well. Open SUNY is a more recent attempt to fulfill some of this function.

But in the US, distance ed was usually allied to private colleges, offering correspondence tuition. Its reputation is not one of high quality. Similarly, when elearning gained ground, it was the for-profit provider, University of Phoenix, which gained the central position of part-time, online provider, rather than a national university. Much of the function of an open university is fulfilled by community colleges in the US, but these tend to be local based. We can probably think of several reasons why an Open University of the US never arose – the size of the country, decentralised education to states making a national university problematic (Athabasca suffers from this with provincial politics in Canada), the bad reputation of correspondence teaching, and a large for-profit sector that would see a national open university as a threat (and some form of socialism no doubt). And yet other countries have had these limitations, and with its narrative of the american dream, one could argue that an open university that allows someone to work while gaining a degree to improve their career, would be a natural fit.

I wonder if there had been a well recognised and widely respected US Open University, what the impact might have been? As I mentioned previously, I was surprised at how little awareness there was of the OU, even amongst people in the open education field, in the US. Playing ‘what if?’ I think a US OU would have made silicon valley ed tech less given to a year zero mentality. They would firstly be aware that MOOCs were not the ‘first generation of online learning‘ and also aware that everyone else is aware of this too. Also, there is a very healthy community of open universities, and given the prominence of the approach in Asia and Africa, this community is not a western dominated one. Open University type conferences look much more diverse than many north american ed tech ones. Being aware of, and an active participant in this community might have helped ease some of the cultural imperialism accusations against MOOCs. And open universities, although they can be reluctant and slow to adopt technology sometimes, generally have an approach to ed tech which is based on pragmatism and student benefit for the distance learner. This attitude is also absent from much of the ed tech start up rhetoric.

I’m not naive, even in the UK where the OU is well known, we still fall for hype, tech buzz and are guilty of insufficient diversity in ed tech. But it is nonetheless an interesting question I think to consider what the impact of a successful US OU would have had on the evolution of ed tech, both in the US, and as their developments have such a global influence, for all of us. In a parallel university maybe…

An Approach for Ed Tech

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Thu, 13/07/2017 - 20:56

I’ve been involved in a few projects recently that have made me consider what my approach actually is to ed tech. One way of thinking about this is to try the thought experiment of imagining you are in charge of a fund procuring ed tech (or if you prefer, responsible for an ed tech budget at your institution). What would be your principles or criteria be for determining which ones to fund?

Given developments over the past ten years I’ve mixed in a fair bit of criticism into my initial ed tech solutionism, but I think the resulting mix might be getting towards a pragmatic approach to what usefully works. So here’s an attempt at defining my approach:

Treat them like research – have definite research questions or hypotheses. Then you will know whether it has achieved it.

Consider social impacts – where does this tech come from? What will be the impact on students and educators? Technology does not exist in a social vacuum.

Track the data implications – who owns the data, what data does it generate?

Avoid hype – as soon as anyone mentions disruption, revolution, transformation, etc walk out the door. These terms are usually a disguise for not having a clear, testable (and therefore falsifiable) benefit.

Focus on achievable goals within a year – related to the above, if the tech is capable of an improvement then it should be demonstrable within a year. It may be modest at this stage.

Avoid inverse investment scrutiny – ed tech often suffers from an inverse scrutiny problem. If you want to do something small scale and experimental with one class you have to justify every aspect. If you want to invest millions then vague goals and rhetoric are sufficient. Flip this round – small scale experiment should be lightweight and without some of the constraints I’m listing here. Just see what happens. Large scale investment needs to be clear what it is doing and why.

Have a clear audience who will benefit – not some vague utopian dream, or a one off TEDX type anecdote about a whiz kid in a village in a developing country, but a clear benefit for a particular group. And then test whether it is true.

Give educators agency – generally educators like, you know, educating, and tools that help them do that and help their students will receive more enthusiasm. Indeed making educators enthusiastic (again) is often one of the biggest benefits of ed tech. So tech that reduces their role or makes teaching less worthwhile is losing from the start. And on a related note…

Talk in educational terms – students are not customers or data points. Learning is not a transaction. We are not Uberfying education. Ed tech projects should communicate in a language that is meaningful to students and educators.

Address scalability and reproducibility – with lots of investment and attention we can all get an improvement, or a shiny product. Will that effect still be there five years from now and across different students? Caveat to this – if you are targeting a very specific group then it doesn’t need to be applicable to all learners, just not a one off.

Appreciate student diversity – not all learners are the same. What works for some will be despised by others, what is easy for this student will be a barrier to one with a different set of needs, and what is helpful in one place is interfering in another. Which brings me onto the next point –

Avoid technological panacea – a range of tools and approaches will be required for different students, disciplines, functions, etc.

Don’t buy black boxes or alchemy – any solution that basically has a “magic happens here” box in it, means that either they are conning you or that there is stuff happening in there that you need to understand.

There is some overlap in these, and even a bit of contradiction – scalability matters for some projects but less so for small scale investments. But this list would give you a more realistic, impactful focus on ed tech that has tangible benefits I feel.

The bespoke licence

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Mon, 10/07/2017 - 14:14

There was a bit if a hoo-ha the other day when the popular photography site Unsplash announced they were no longer using the CC0 licence but instead switching to their own one. Creative Commons’ Ryan Merkley wrote a blog post in which he claimed the new licence was revokable. This is a big no-no in open licences – imagine if you’ve used an openly licensed image in a book and then the licence changes – do you withdraw the book, pay a fee? For precisely this reason, CC licences are irrevokable – you can’t change it afterwards. After some twitter to and fro-ing Unsplash said their licence was always irrevokable (to be fair to Ryan their post originally said “we allow Unsplash contributors to stop further distribution of their photo” which sounds pretty much like revokability).

The reason Unsplash have moved away from CC0 is that other sites were effectively creating clones of theirs and then charging as stock images. Their licence now states: “This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service.”

So it was a bit of a storm in a teacup. It’s clear that (I think anyway) Unsplash weren’t doing this for nefarious reasons. It wasn’t a case of “now we’ve made our name being open, we’re gonna start charging for this stuff”. They just wanted to clamp down on this form of abuse which was clearly a problem for them. I expect for most people this is one of those debates that matters only to licence nerds. It did make me ponder several things though. Firstly, the confusion arose because this stuff is tricky. Unsplash said they didn’t want to get bogged down in legalese, but we quickly end up there. Rather like a good sports player, Creative Commons make the difficult stuff look simple. But it’s not, it took really smart people like Cathy Casserly and Larry Lessing to make this complicated, boring legal stuff accessible to this rest of us. We’ve been through several phases of interpretations and implications of the CC licences (remember the CC-NC wars?), and a new licence gets in the weeds quickly. For instance, who decides when the Unsplash licence has been breeched? Is that decision legally enforceable? What happens then? What if I disagree with your decision?

New licences cause confusion, remember the ASTM licences? No, no-one else does either. But on top of this, a proliferation of bespoke licences allows a drift away from openness. Using a CC licence is like outsourcing openness – they’re a trusted body who have it at their heart, so where you see it you don’t have to worry about openwashing or a con-trick (I mean people can do dodgy things no doubt, a CC licence doesn’t stop someone behaving immorally, or abusing rivals on Twitter, say). If you’ve got a myriad different licences we end up having to learn the fine print in each.

But to be fair to Unsplash, what do you do if you have a very specific problem which a broad brush CC0 licence does not address? You don’t want to confuse the CC brand by adding on too many variations. My guess is we’ll see more of these bespoke licences as various forms of openness creep their way into different types of practice. The only thing I would say is go bespoke carefully, there are perils there.

The Indisruptables

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Fri, 07/07/2017 - 09:04

I’ve often banged on about the way disruption is an obsession which has gone beyond silicon valley now, and Audrey Watters has written about its status as myth. But I wonder why it persists. This was prompted again today by this piece on MOOCs. The article says that, hey, it turns out MOOC learners are professionals and those at university. So much for the democratisation argument then. But this quote really caught my eye:

“MOOCs may not have disrupted the education market, but they are disrupting the labor market.”

You can almost see them running around the office in panic:
“We haven’t disrupted higher education!”
“Well we’ve got to disrupt something for chrissakes, look at the money we’ve spent.”
“The labour market?”
“Ok, yes, we’re disrupting the shit out of that right now!”

Why is disruption _so_ important to achieve (or because it hardly ever actually occurs, to be said to be achieved?). That quote is telling I feel. It comes down to identity and self validation. Like other persistent myths (learning styles, digital natives), people believe them because it helps their own sense of identity. Our identity is framed by a sense of belonging to certain communities, of ‘we-ness’. Those who cling to disruption despite all evidence to the contrary, do so because they have invested in it personally. It becomes a short hand for a bunch of character traits they want to portray: modern, dynamic, charismatic, revolutionary. If we view it like this then we can see why it is so persistent, since any attack on it is a fundamental attack on a self image they have developed. I guess the only way to combat this is to provide a new self image that is more positive, which people can migrate to. By way of this here are some terms you can try substituting for disruption/disrupting:

  • Undermining labour laws
  • Excusing redundancy
  • Wasting money
  • Reinventing an existing product
  • The learning styles of the tech industry
  • Lacking clear goals
  • Inventing a false history

You’ve probably got some of your own too. But viewing it as an identity issue is probably the way to overcome its rather pernicious influence.

Experiences in the Tube: #MRIscan

Dr Beck Pitt's blog - Thu, 29/06/2017 - 09:23

Earlier this week, I had a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) head scan (without contrast) at MK Hospital in Milton Keynes, UK. I was fairly apprehensive in the run up (cue thoughts of being “trapped” in a long tube and having to break out and wriggle to freedom…) but it was OK in the end. Partly I think this was because I needed to have the procedure done (and therefore if I didn’t do it, I’d have to go back again!) but also some of my concerns were addressed by reading around [active researcher mode] to find out more about what was going to happen.

Some of the tips out there are helpful (see below) but I am aware that some people are claustrophobic (and may need an open or seated MRI if the area you’re having scanned is appropriate and it’s feasible) whilst others don’t realise that they are going to feel this way (it’s not everyday that you have to lay very still in a noisy tube for a while) until the procedure is underway. I was advised by the MRI clinic that GPs can provide meds to help with this prior to a scan, if needed.

So what happened? 

I was asked to fill out a form (about previous operations and whether I have any metal in my body that might interfere with the machine) to bring along, and need to wear clothing without metal (e.g. leggings, non-underwired bra, t-shirt etc) if possible. No worries if you can’t though: you’ll change into a gown at the start of the process. I signed my form when I arrived and it was reviewed by myself and a technician before I got ready for the scan in the changing room. My bag went in a locker and the key was with me in the scanning room (on a hook in there).

The MRI technologist sits in a room with a viewing window into the room where the MRI machine is.  The type of MRI machine being used largely appear to depend on the hospital/clinic (reading round, some posts recommend – if the clinic offers this and you are very anxious – you visit the MRI clinic beforehand to see the machine and familiarise yourself with it).  You’ll go in with the technician and they’ll help you get onto the tray/bed that slides into the MRI machine. I’m mega short sighted (see below) and at this stage I had to remove my glasses. My knees were slightly raised (using a bolster cushion) and my head was in a head rest. The technician put in my ear plugs and then the headphones (for music, see below). As my head was being scanned I needed to wear a guard/attachment over my face (this felt less strange than I thought it would; it looks a bit restrictive on pictures but felt OK).

As I was being pushed in the machine I decided that I needed an eye mask (I had brought one with me but then left it in the changing room!) so the technician sorted me out and then I was slid into the machine (yes, it feels a bit weird but it’s over in a moment). My head was in the middle of the machine and I had to lay VERY still. Shortly after I went into the machine, and once the technician had left the room the scan began. The machine makes lots of different loud noises as it takes photos of whichever bit of you is being scanned.  I had a call button in my right hand so I could stop the scan at any point. My scan took around 15 minutes and the MRI technologist spoke to me at the end (you can still hear through the headphones and plugs) and let me know it was finished.

Alas I couldn’t take away a photo of my brain. Apparently I can have a copy once the images have been reviewed etc. but not before (I guess this is obvious really as they don’t want “Dr Google” doing an ‘analysis’ and then worrying!)

What helped? What did it feel like? 

So, a massive thumbs up to the following (NB. I cannot take credit for these ideas – eyemasks, oils, listening to MRI sounds – as they came from others and these are just my experiences of using them. Once I’ve found the sources for some ideas, I’ll update… sadly some of these are lost in the midst of late night searching in ‘private’ mode!):

  1. Along with others, if possible I’d recommend listening to what the MRI machine sounds like on You Tube (yes, it’s ca. 30 minutes long but worth listening all the way through to the end!)  It definitely helps to get used to the different sounds the machine will make. Yes, it will be loud. Yes, you will hear most of it over the music/radio + ear protection. But it will be familiar rather than scary.
  2. Ask for (or bring along) an eye mask (I was worried I might feel claustrophobic if I had the option to open my eyes whilst in the machine and I couldn’t trust myself to not peek!). Moreover, I’m very short sighted and, as you can’t wear glasses in the MRI machine, the head attachment mirror (which enables you to see outside the machine and is there to help with feelings of claustrophobia) is of pretty limited use to me as everything is blurry anyway. The mask helped a lot although I think I had my eyes semi-open for most of the procedure even with the mask (somehow this was more relaxing than completely closed for me). FYI, as above, I was allowed to keep my glasses on until I laid down on the machine.
  3. Bring a CD if you want to listen to something in particular (and they have this option rather than the radio or a music choice). I went with Motörhead and channelled the spirit of Lemmy ; )
  4. I find the smell of lavender relaxing so placed a tissue with lavender oil on my chest. Not very metal, I know. I may have not been channelling the spirit of Lemmy so much at this point.
  5. It does feel a bit weird (my eyeballs felt quite strange at one point!) and toward the end of the cycle the machine vibrated nosily at a couple of points.  This doesn’t last for long though (NB. the vibration bit was near the end of the session for me, so if you can get through that you don’t have long left in the machine to go…. hang in there). It’s also worth noting that you should check you’re relaxed when you’re first placed in the machine (not always easy, given what’s going on).  I realised I had my jaw partly clenched half way through the scan and then had to maintain this (not very easy to do) as I didn’t want to move (and possibly then have to do the whole thing again). Again, might be worth practicing being as loose and floppy as possible/relaxing beforehand, a some people suggest.
  6. Finally, if you do know anyone who has had an MRI scan, it’s useful to get their perspective too (thank you lovely peeps!). I also found it useful to speak to someone at the MRI Centre before my appointment. I’m pretty sure they’ve heard/seen it all before – as always, no question is a silly question.

Information and blog posts I found useful (NB this list is incomplete and I’ll add to it as I re-find information):

 

Photo credits: “prepping subject for MRI scan” is by Penn State and licensed CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 and “Motorhead” is by Jessica Branstetter and licensed CC BY 2.0 


For he’s a very principaled fellow

Professor Martin Weller's Blog - Tue, 20/06/2017 - 12:21

[Reblogging this from a post I was asked to contribute over on the HEA blog, just because I want to reach my blog total for the year]

“Oh yeah, I’d forgotten about that.” This was a thought that occurred to me several times while writing and revising my Principal Fellow application. It was something, if I’m honest, I’d put off doing for a while. But when I finally decided to set aside some time for it at the start of this year, it turned out to be a rewarding process.

As a Professor of Educational technology, I work in a field that has seen considerable change over the past 20 years. I sometimes reflect on this on my blog, but I find myself sounding like the old timer, bemoaning when it was all fields (or in my case, hand coded HTML) around here. So the Fellowship application gave me an opportunity to reflect on the changes in my own career, and as a consequence, that of educational technology as a whole.

In 1999 I chaired the Open University’s first major e-learning course. It may seem obvious now that the internet would have a big impact on education, and distance education in particular, but this was not universally recognised back then. “Nobody wants to learn like that” and “You’ll be lucky to get fifty students on that course” were comments I had while preparing it. Well, we ended up with nearly 15,000 students on it (an early example of the type of massive online course that would become popular with MOOCs in 2012). As a consequence the whole structure of the OU and its strategic direction shifted.

From here I became the OU’s first director of a VLE, and also got active in the area of blogging and digital scholarship. More recently my interest has been in the area of open educational resources, leading the OER Hub research team. What I was struck by in writing my proposal was that one can plot a straight line to fit the various points of your career, and it seems like a smooth, inevitable path. But each step is often a mix of chance, opportunity and local conditions.

It was also a good opportunity to reflect on the projects that hadn’t been the success you might have hoped for. These are part of any career I would guess, but particularly so in educational technology. For instance, I developed the first course for the ill-fated UK e-Universities project. While that project itself wasn’t successful, I learnt much from that which would be relevant later in terms of MOOCs, learning design and learning environments.

The constant nature of seeking new research grants, working on new projects, teaching new courses, supervising new PhD students is one of the aspects that makes working in higher education rewarding. But it also means you rarely get an opportunity to reflect on your own career, and how that reflects changes within your discipline. The HEA Fellowship scheme provides some of that space in a manner that is encouraged and recognised, and so I would recommend taking advantage of that opportunity.

1 of 2