There is further evidence today that the notion that the internet is a young person’s game is a myth. Alex Burmaster speaking on behalf of UK On-line measurement company (UKOM) states in a story on the BBC news website that “There is a still a perception that the net is youth-centric but this is clearly not the reality," He then backs up the claim with a number of statistics ‘Over-50s account for 31% of the UK net audience. Men over 50 accounted for 38% of the 1.9 million new surfers. Women over 50 accounted for 15%, women aged 21-34 for 14%, while girls aged 12-20 made up 12% of the total.’
The interesting question is who is it who wants to keep this myth going. Is the world full of ‘Sepp Blatter’s’ who do not want their own ignorance of the potential of technology exposed? A little like External Verifiers who insist that the centres continue to use outdated spreadsheets of Internal Verifier activity, despite the fact that this information is automatically created by centres using electronic portfolios.
It is time people stop using age as an excuse for their own unwillingness to grasp the potential that technology offers to all people to streamline paper based processes whatever their age.
Tuesday 29 June 2010
Monday 28 June 2010
Technology bah humbug
The morning after the day before despite fully accepting the drubbing of England by Germany I remain amazed by the refusual of FIFA to allow goal line technology to be introduced. The main argument for it apart from fairness, is that this technology has been successfully introduced in other sports. It is proving quite a feature at Wimbledon although at the cost of removing McInroesque rants, it works well in Rugby. The only sport where it is a small problem is in cricket but that is often due to the ineptness of the fourth umpire rather than the technology, in taking far too much time in reaching the correct decision that everyone realised much earlier.
The reason the FIFA have said that for not introducing it is that they cannot guarantee to make it available at all levels of football and all situations. This reminds me of the perverse equal opportunities argument that I have often heard in relation to technology although less so now, which is that if there is one person who does not have access to technology then no one should be able to access it, on the basis that one person is disadvantaged.
Technology can and does improve lots of different situations not least the simple ability to determine whether a ball crosses a line. The challenge lies not in preventing it's use but in continuing to make every effort to making it widely available.
The reason the FIFA have said that for not introducing it is that they cannot guarantee to make it available at all levels of football and all situations. This reminds me of the perverse equal opportunities argument that I have often heard in relation to technology although less so now, which is that if there is one person who does not have access to technology then no one should be able to access it, on the basis that one person is disadvantaged.
Technology can and does improve lots of different situations not least the simple ability to determine whether a ball crosses a line. The challenge lies not in preventing it's use but in continuing to make every effort to making it widely available.
Friday 25 June 2010
Lots of inventiveness and endeavour but is it just re-inventing the wheel?
In the past fortnight I have attended a couple of JISC events. I would imagine although I do not know that this organisation is another candidate to be thrown onto the bonfire of quangoes although in my view it would be a great shame if this was the case. Certainly the event in the North West was a good testimony to their ability to put a large number of IT suppliers for educational purposes and interested delegates in one place and create an interesting dialogue.
I had a very interesting conversation with David Hopps from Hargreaves Training at the event in Leeds. David is someone who is a real enthusiast for technology but in a very pragmatic way. We discussed the notion of having an e-portfolio with the ability to register candidates at the beginning, manage the learning journey and then spit out the paperwork at the end. As David succinctly put it one input, multiple interventions and one output all managed in the same system. It maybe closer than we both think.
At the event in the North West what was noticeable was the number of learning institutions who were devoting lots of resources to create technology based solutions themselves.
This is entirely laudable, indeed all systems need to be routed back to the learning experience, however you have to question whether such an investment is justified when they already lots of organisations who have invested millions of pounds of research and investment to create solutions that already work well.
I recall a conversation with another training provider who when discussing e-portfolios said we had a go at building one but after they had invested £70k gave up. At least he knew the figure, I wonder how many of the educational institutions at the JISC event who had developed or were developing their own software know how much it has cost them and their funders so far.
I had a very interesting conversation with David Hopps from Hargreaves Training at the event in Leeds. David is someone who is a real enthusiast for technology but in a very pragmatic way. We discussed the notion of having an e-portfolio with the ability to register candidates at the beginning, manage the learning journey and then spit out the paperwork at the end. As David succinctly put it one input, multiple interventions and one output all managed in the same system. It maybe closer than we both think.
At the event in the North West what was noticeable was the number of learning institutions who were devoting lots of resources to create technology based solutions themselves.
This is entirely laudable, indeed all systems need to be routed back to the learning experience, however you have to question whether such an investment is justified when they already lots of organisations who have invested millions of pounds of research and investment to create solutions that already work well.
I recall a conversation with another training provider who when discussing e-portfolios said we had a go at building one but after they had invested £70k gave up. At least he knew the figure, I wonder how many of the educational institutions at the JISC event who had developed or were developing their own software know how much it has cost them and their funders so far.
E-portfolios; a way of helping reduce government spending?
My natural instincts are to be reticent about providing any government with information about how they can reduce public spending. I spent 25 years working in the public sector and admire much of the work that takes place. Indeed I once cheekily said that when I moved to working for a private company, that I was coming to bring the rigours of the public sector to the private sector. Nevertheless I do accept that some publicly funded programmes could be delivered more cost effectively.
The delivery of NVQs in whatever guise, be it through the Train to Gain programme or as part of an apprenticeship programme, is undoubtedly one example of where if electronic methods were properly adopted substantial savings to the public purse could be made or to put in a better way the same amount of money could deliver more qualifications.
We have recently reviewed how much it costs to deliver an NVQ and it is easy to see how significant savings can be made primarily in reducing the bureaucracy and reporting that is required to support the process of assessment and verification. Indeed we have estimated that the savings could be as much as £300 a learner. If that is multiplied by the 1.2 million candidates who are registered for NVQs each year then you are looking at a substantial saving.
I have therefore broken the habit of a lifetime and have found a way to send this information into government
The delivery of NVQs in whatever guise, be it through the Train to Gain programme or as part of an apprenticeship programme, is undoubtedly one example of where if electronic methods were properly adopted substantial savings to the public purse could be made or to put in a better way the same amount of money could deliver more qualifications.
We have recently reviewed how much it costs to deliver an NVQ and it is easy to see how significant savings can be made primarily in reducing the bureaucracy and reporting that is required to support the process of assessment and verification. Indeed we have estimated that the savings could be as much as £300 a learner. If that is multiplied by the 1.2 million candidates who are registered for NVQs each year then you are looking at a substantial saving.
I have therefore broken the habit of a lifetime and have found a way to send this information into government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
