Every Friday night for the past two decades I have gone out with the same group of mates who have often delighted at pouring scorn on e-learning and e-portfolios. This week was different one of them has just joined Doosan, a South Korean company and he confessed to be enjoying his e-learning course that was inducting him into the history of the company and also showing him how to interact Koreans. Quite important given they are now his boss. He was not just enjoying it he could see its validity.
Early on in the week I was with the Group Director for E- learning for a large college and he was describing how e-learning was having a transformational effect in his organisation. As a result he was being enabled to harness expertise from a number of sources, including the private sector to create a full range of learning opportunities. Incrementally his team have been able to encourage each Department, to see the benefits of e-learning and they are now transforming the way that learning is delivered and tracked.
What had been clearly critical to this success was that e-learning was not seen as a separate activity from the development of the technical capacity and resources of the College, all this activity is being co-ordinated from one place, by someone who had the vision to see the links and with support from the executive to bring all the links together.
In one sense that is an obvious development but if you were to go around any learning institution in this country and track e-learning projects you are likely to find lots of ‘pet projects’ happening; a number of different e-learning products procured to do the same thing and little evidence of a positive benefit on the whole institution. You might also find that these initiatives were taking place with at best minimal support and at worst outright opposition, from those responsible for technology in the institution.
As someone going in from the outside into these institutions, the one person I am least happy to see at any demonstration is the representative from the IT department. As one of ‘their number’ was clearly pleased to remark recently ‘these e-portfolios were meant to be the big new thing 10 years ago and they have not gone anywhere’ It them became clear that any notion of the transformational effect of technology on learning was clearly not on his agenda.
Just over a decade ago I was manager of the East Leeds Family Learning Centre which was the venue for one of the first job guarantee programmes with Tesco. This was where unemployed people were offered a job, on the basis of their potential to be a good employee and provided they completed a training programme. The success of the programme was lauded because it got lots of unemployed people back into work. That was the end objective and it was spectacularly delivered.
However it was the easy and natural access into other services that ‘seamlessly’ delivered the result. What made the difference, was that a number of the successfully applicants, motivated by the guarantee of getting a job were able to quietly access the centre’s literacy and numeracy programmes, so that they were able to address the key issue that had stopped them making progress before. The ability to read and write. What mattered was that when the store opening was delayed, so that it opened after the summer holidays, we were able to harness the work of the Council’s Early Years’ service to create over 60 child care places. A process helped by the fact they were already in the building. It was the full integration of service delivery that made the difference.
E-learning and e-assessment will only be successfully delivered when it becomes a fully integrated part of curriculum delivery not something that is an occasionally added on and made available. The full extent of what it can offer will only be realised, when it is seen as more than just making learning environments electronic but where there is a recognition that it can transform the way that those learning environments are structured and delivered.
One would have hoped that the organisation like JISC that have asked to make this transformation would have done so by now, but for all the reasons described in this blog this is never likely to be the case. Like most things it is probably down to individual centres to pick up the e-learning ball and run with it in the hope that organisation like JISC might eventually catch up and others might look outside their silos.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Friday, 8 February 2013
It is OK to make a mistake!
The proposal from the Francis Report to introduce a duty of candour into the NHS is a challenging one. My only experience of working in the NHS was one summer placement. It was generally a happy experience but I remember one morning when cold tea was served to the residents on the ward. One of them let us know what he thought and I pacified him with an apology. I was then asked to come into the charge nurse’s (as they were called then) office and I was told that we should never admit to a resident that we had made a mistake.
This is a flippant example in comparison to the serious issues faced by the Stafford enquiry. However I use it a symptomatic of a culture where a lack of openness and honesty was encouraged and expected. Something that appears to have continued.
When I am talking about e-portfolios one of the benefits that I often highlight is how transparent they are. Not because they are ‘open’ documents, because ours are certainly not that, but because those with permission to do so are able to review the whole process. It is not easy to ‘hide’ what you don’t want those involved in the assessment to see.
For some this can become a significant barrier to an adopting an electronic system. They fear that somehow their ‘mistakes’ will be published over the web and even if this is not the case the fact is that there is now evidence that I have not got it always right. For professionals the can fear revealing their mistakes.
However when I am internal verifying vocational qualifications, evidence of students getting ‘it wrong’ and assessors highlighting this, is exactly what I want to see because each occasion provides an opportunity for deeper learning. In the same way the most powerful CPD records are often those where someone has reflected on their existing practice, perhaps as a result of a learning intervention or sometimes not, recognised a ‘mistake’ or improvement and implemented it.
Even when this happens there is a reluctance to share that learning experience as if in some senses it erodes your reputation as a practitioner, whereas in many cases, it is the person who has made a mistake and has reflected and learnt from it, is the one that you most want to see.
It is time we started seeing transparency/candour as an asset not as a threat.
This is a flippant example in comparison to the serious issues faced by the Stafford enquiry. However I use it a symptomatic of a culture where a lack of openness and honesty was encouraged and expected. Something that appears to have continued.
When I am talking about e-portfolios one of the benefits that I often highlight is how transparent they are. Not because they are ‘open’ documents, because ours are certainly not that, but because those with permission to do so are able to review the whole process. It is not easy to ‘hide’ what you don’t want those involved in the assessment to see.
For some this can become a significant barrier to an adopting an electronic system. They fear that somehow their ‘mistakes’ will be published over the web and even if this is not the case the fact is that there is now evidence that I have not got it always right. For professionals the can fear revealing their mistakes.
However when I am internal verifying vocational qualifications, evidence of students getting ‘it wrong’ and assessors highlighting this, is exactly what I want to see because each occasion provides an opportunity for deeper learning. In the same way the most powerful CPD records are often those where someone has reflected on their existing practice, perhaps as a result of a learning intervention or sometimes not, recognised a ‘mistake’ or improvement and implemented it.
Even when this happens there is a reluctance to share that learning experience as if in some senses it erodes your reputation as a practitioner, whereas in many cases, it is the person who has made a mistake and has reflected and learnt from it, is the one that you most want to see.
It is time we started seeing transparency/candour as an asset not as a threat.
Friday, 1 February 2013
Dear Serge are you finally losing the plot?
I received the annual e-mail(s) from the European Institute for e-Learning to announce their 11th conference in the UK and the fact they had secured some European funding to bring together e-portfolio expertise however I felt that I needed to write the following back to them.
Dear Serge,
I have a lot of time for the team at Eifel and particularly you, because you have been at the forefront of pioneering e-portfolios for over a decade and it is therefore with some regret that I write the following.
I have just received your invitation to submit contributions to the 11th ePortfolio and Identity Conference, Open Me! with the following topic areas.
• open ePortfolio and open badges
• open identity and open data
• open learning and open educational resources
• open assessment and open accreditation
• open employment and open business
• open architecture and open infrastructure
In fairness to you all this is totally consistent with the direction of travel for your understanding of e-portfolios over the past decade. The giveaway is in the title of the conference ePortfolio and Identity.
Somehow you have allowed these two concepts to become intertwined even though you have previously recognised, that there are other tools that are arguably more ubiquitous and appropriate to capture identity than any e-portfolio. On many occasions I have wanted to congratulate you and say well done you have achieved the goal that you set yourself and that everyone does have the same sort of e-portfolio you have wanted them to have, it is called facebook or i-google or linked in
However you can’t but help yourself and move into other areas like assessment still desperately trying to cling onto those first principles, that the portfolio is owned by the individual and that it is open and available to be shared. Can you therefore just try and explain what open assessment and open accreditation looks like. Is this where I award myself a certificate or perhaps my learning group award me a certificate based on assessment criteria we have developed together.
So what I would really like to say to you is, acknowledge what you have achieved and that the e-portfolio world has moved on. However what we are likely to have instead is a conference attended only by the presenters, in the main presenting projects that have not and will never go anywhere.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Lots of buzz but tell me what is actually happening
I called in at the Learning Technologies conference and for those of us in the e-learning/e-assessment industry it was an encouraging experience. There appeared to lots of companies many of which had bigger stands. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the EPIC and KINEO were positioned directly opposite each other, which was ironic since many of the original KINEO team were formerly employed by EPIC. If you are interested my impression was that both stands were the same size and were attracting a similar number of people.
If I were a buyer and apparently there were plenty I wonder what you would make of it all. It was hard to distinguish between the different offers because there was much of a muchness.
I have just read Steve Rayson’s from Kineo’s entry in the e-Professionals linked in discussion forum after I have written the above and he makes exactly the same point.
‘A few years ago suppliers might position themselves as mobile experts or rapid development experts. Now everyone appears to offer everything. Need a tool, we have got one. Need content, we have some nice shiny content. Need a learning platform, we have an award winning platform. Suppliers that previously only did content now offer platforms and vice versa. Increasingly many suppliers are aiming to be one stop learning technology companies. This makes it very difficult for visitors to differentiate and to know where to start when faced with literally hundreds of company stands.’
I too noticed that of direct interest to us, many of these companies also claimed to supply an e-portfolio as part of their offer but not one as we would know it. I stopped and picked up the leaflet that described one and it is at best a crude tracking system that has limited interactivity.
There were also lots of sales representatives making bold speeches about the future of e-learning. They were often full of brash claims about the way social media will transform the way people engage in learning. I am not sold on this not least because there is little evidence. Does the statement made by one presenter that more people use social media then e-mail, imply that we should radically transform the way we should think about how learning is delivered. I have had the discussion with a number of young people about Facebook and learning and it is the last place they would think about using to develop their learning, primarily because it is too open.
I heard another statement that Learners want control of their learning journey. In one sense it would be difficult to argue with that one but do learners really want to be totally self-directing and moreover do those that employ/regulate them really want them to do what they want. It reminds me of the ‘old days’ of CPD where all learning activities could be counted. I can see where social media would bring real benefits for example alerting people to relevant courses and linking them to peers interested in their subject. However does it provide a total solution? I think not.
I therefore remain really pleased that we are now developing e-portfolios that really meet a clearly defined purpose rather than ones that are like the learning platforms at the event, try to be all things to all people.
If I were a buyer and apparently there were plenty I wonder what you would make of it all. It was hard to distinguish between the different offers because there was much of a muchness.
I have just read Steve Rayson’s from Kineo’s entry in the e-Professionals linked in discussion forum after I have written the above and he makes exactly the same point.
‘A few years ago suppliers might position themselves as mobile experts or rapid development experts. Now everyone appears to offer everything. Need a tool, we have got one. Need content, we have some nice shiny content. Need a learning platform, we have an award winning platform. Suppliers that previously only did content now offer platforms and vice versa. Increasingly many suppliers are aiming to be one stop learning technology companies. This makes it very difficult for visitors to differentiate and to know where to start when faced with literally hundreds of company stands.’
I too noticed that of direct interest to us, many of these companies also claimed to supply an e-portfolio as part of their offer but not one as we would know it. I stopped and picked up the leaflet that described one and it is at best a crude tracking system that has limited interactivity.
There were also lots of sales representatives making bold speeches about the future of e-learning. They were often full of brash claims about the way social media will transform the way people engage in learning. I am not sold on this not least because there is little evidence. Does the statement made by one presenter that more people use social media then e-mail, imply that we should radically transform the way we should think about how learning is delivered. I have had the discussion with a number of young people about Facebook and learning and it is the last place they would think about using to develop their learning, primarily because it is too open.
I heard another statement that Learners want control of their learning journey. In one sense it would be difficult to argue with that one but do learners really want to be totally self-directing and moreover do those that employ/regulate them really want them to do what they want. It reminds me of the ‘old days’ of CPD where all learning activities could be counted. I can see where social media would bring real benefits for example alerting people to relevant courses and linking them to peers interested in their subject. However does it provide a total solution? I think not.
I therefore remain really pleased that we are now developing e-portfolios that really meet a clearly defined purpose rather than ones that are like the learning platforms at the event, try to be all things to all people.
Monday, 21 January 2013
It's time e-assessment grew up
When I had the opportunity to speak to another group of University senior staff last week, I heard another set of stories about how they had been let down by technology that claimed to be able to support rigorous assessment, yet when it was used it either proved to be too inflexible or provided the student with too much control.
It is not a surprise that this was their experience given that an organisation like JISC on the one hand acknowledge that for ‘for technology-enhanced assessment to be effective, pedagogically sound developments need to be supported by robust and appropriate technology’ ‘(Effective assessment in a digital age; JISC) yet at the same time they ‘showcase’ an e-portfolio that proudly claims that it provides ‘a Personal Learning Space owned and controlled by the user.’
How can these two statements co-exist together? If learners own and control their learning space this surely means they can chose what external feedback can be included in their portfolio and what can be discarded. It might also mean they can make their own assessments? Of course it is good practice that they self-assess their work but an external person must have the final say.
A strong pedagogy is clearly based on the notion that through it learners will gain skills and knowledge, however for quality assurance of that process to be credible it is important that all comments are captured good and bad. Indeed when I act as an Internal Verifier I state my expectation that I will see assessors deferring evidence because that is one indicator of effective assessment taking place. Furthermore electronic assessment makes it very easy to see that this behaviour is in place.
It is important that a student feels strong ownership of their portfolio but that ownership needs to extend to including comments on their work from external people whether they be good and bad and furthermore the learning institution has to be totally assured these comments are captured. E-assessment systems need to be sophisticated enough to provide this quality assurance.
It is not a surprise that this was their experience given that an organisation like JISC on the one hand acknowledge that for ‘for technology-enhanced assessment to be effective, pedagogically sound developments need to be supported by robust and appropriate technology’ ‘(Effective assessment in a digital age; JISC) yet at the same time they ‘showcase’ an e-portfolio that proudly claims that it provides ‘a Personal Learning Space owned and controlled by the user.’
How can these two statements co-exist together? If learners own and control their learning space this surely means they can chose what external feedback can be included in their portfolio and what can be discarded. It might also mean they can make their own assessments? Of course it is good practice that they self-assess their work but an external person must have the final say.
A strong pedagogy is clearly based on the notion that through it learners will gain skills and knowledge, however for quality assurance of that process to be credible it is important that all comments are captured good and bad. Indeed when I act as an Internal Verifier I state my expectation that I will see assessors deferring evidence because that is one indicator of effective assessment taking place. Furthermore electronic assessment makes it very easy to see that this behaviour is in place.
It is important that a student feels strong ownership of their portfolio but that ownership needs to extend to including comments on their work from external people whether they be good and bad and furthermore the learning institution has to be totally assured these comments are captured. E-assessment systems need to be sophisticated enough to provide this quality assurance.
Monday, 17 December 2012
More than just a tick box?
There seems to be suddenly a great amount of discussion amongst doctors about e-portfolios and how they can be used in training and in capturing the impact of professional development. This is in part because all GPs are now required to create an electronic record of their competence, indeed I understand that regrettably this requirement is being viewed as so onerous that a number of GP’s have brought forward their retirement plans!
The debate raises some interesting questions about the educational value of what is characterised as the e-portfolio approach. It is of course the case that the judgements being made are in relation to the two e-portfolios that are predominantly being used. One is the e-portfolio developed by NHS Scotland, which is being used by a number of other health professions and the other is one was specifically developed for GPs.
The questions being asked are relevant not only to e-portfolio systems themselves also to the competency assessment systems in which they operate.
• Is this just a tick box exercise in which no qualitative judgements are made?
• How is high quality feedback encouraged and enabled?
• To what extent does the portfolio encourage real development and progression?
• Is it good enough just to be competent?
• Can a holistic approach to professional development and practice be encouraged by easily linking together related learning and practice?
• Does it pass the ‘three click’ rule and is it accessible from mobile devices?
All these are issues that have been raised by users of the existing systems and I do not know the e-portfolios well enough, to make a judgement on the validity of the comments that have been made. What I do know is that we have addressed some of these questions in solutions we have developed.
Our sites positively encourage progression for example radiographers can become recognised as consultant and advanced practitioners based on the quality of evidence they supply; there are effective ways for feedback to be requested and then seamlessly attached to the relevant evidence that is created; all sites pass the three click rule and are accessible from all mobile devices and related evidence can easily be linked together.
What I also know is that effective competency assessment cannot be delivered solely by an e-portfolio. It has to be part of a culture of effective and meaningful professional development. One of the big advantages of an e-portfolio is that it makes it easier to make judgements about the quality of the assessments that are taking place because there is greater transparency. In other words it is possible, for those with permissions to do so, to check that it is more than a tick box exercise.
The debate raises some interesting questions about the educational value of what is characterised as the e-portfolio approach. It is of course the case that the judgements being made are in relation to the two e-portfolios that are predominantly being used. One is the e-portfolio developed by NHS Scotland, which is being used by a number of other health professions and the other is one was specifically developed for GPs.
The questions being asked are relevant not only to e-portfolio systems themselves also to the competency assessment systems in which they operate.
• Is this just a tick box exercise in which no qualitative judgements are made?
• How is high quality feedback encouraged and enabled?
• To what extent does the portfolio encourage real development and progression?
• Is it good enough just to be competent?
• Can a holistic approach to professional development and practice be encouraged by easily linking together related learning and practice?
• Does it pass the ‘three click’ rule and is it accessible from mobile devices?
All these are issues that have been raised by users of the existing systems and I do not know the e-portfolios well enough, to make a judgement on the validity of the comments that have been made. What I do know is that we have addressed some of these questions in solutions we have developed.
Our sites positively encourage progression for example radiographers can become recognised as consultant and advanced practitioners based on the quality of evidence they supply; there are effective ways for feedback to be requested and then seamlessly attached to the relevant evidence that is created; all sites pass the three click rule and are accessible from all mobile devices and related evidence can easily be linked together.
What I also know is that effective competency assessment cannot be delivered solely by an e-portfolio. It has to be part of a culture of effective and meaningful professional development. One of the big advantages of an e-portfolio is that it makes it easier to make judgements about the quality of the assessments that are taking place because there is greater transparency. In other words it is possible, for those with permissions to do so, to check that it is more than a tick box exercise.
Saturday, 10 November 2012
Learning is the Best Insurance Policy
I recently spoke at the Irish Institute of Radiography and Radiation Therapy’s annual conference when their new online CPD and membership system was launched. Before demonstrating the site I shared a few observations with the conference about CPD.
I first congratulated the IIRRT on embracing an output based approach to CPD. This was wholly in line with the trend amongst professional bodies. Whilst this is most pronounced amongst other health professional bodies other professions are following suit. Simply put what matters more than the time you spend on CPD is its impact, for example, on patient care. At this conference whilst the certificate of attendance is important, what arguably matters more is what delegates discovered at the conference that they could put into practice.
There is a clear change in the role of professional bodies. It is not only about protecting members when problems occur, although that remains important, it is also about proactively encouraging members, to commit to continuous development so they have the skills required to maintain high quality professional practice.
In other words ongoing learning is the best insurance policy.
In this context CPD should be seen as less an encumbrance and more as an opportunity to demonstrate commitment to development. In making that statement at the conference there was already evidence that I was ‘preaching to the converted’. A visit I made on the previous day to the ‘Breast check’ study day in Dublin confirmed that Radiographers and Radiation Therapists were indeed fully engaged in CPD.
I listened to a number of examples of high quality CPD practice. One radiographer/radiation therapist talked about attending a course; bringing the learning back to the workplace and discussing with the peers which led to a positive change in practice, that was evidenced by the research presented at the study day. There were clearly lots of other examples of this process also being presented at the annual conference.
It is perhaps time that we recognise how much quality CPD is taking place rather than listen too much to those that choose to discourage it, often hiding behind the excuse that their employers have not provided them with the time to ‘do CPD’, as if CPD were somehow divorced from practice.
What is critical is that the best practice is captured, valued, acknowledged and shared. Electronic portfolios provide a great way for doing this.
I first congratulated the IIRRT on embracing an output based approach to CPD. This was wholly in line with the trend amongst professional bodies. Whilst this is most pronounced amongst other health professional bodies other professions are following suit. Simply put what matters more than the time you spend on CPD is its impact, for example, on patient care. At this conference whilst the certificate of attendance is important, what arguably matters more is what delegates discovered at the conference that they could put into practice.
There is a clear change in the role of professional bodies. It is not only about protecting members when problems occur, although that remains important, it is also about proactively encouraging members, to commit to continuous development so they have the skills required to maintain high quality professional practice.
In other words ongoing learning is the best insurance policy.
In this context CPD should be seen as less an encumbrance and more as an opportunity to demonstrate commitment to development. In making that statement at the conference there was already evidence that I was ‘preaching to the converted’. A visit I made on the previous day to the ‘Breast check’ study day in Dublin confirmed that Radiographers and Radiation Therapists were indeed fully engaged in CPD.
I listened to a number of examples of high quality CPD practice. One radiographer/radiation therapist talked about attending a course; bringing the learning back to the workplace and discussing with the peers which led to a positive change in practice, that was evidenced by the research presented at the study day. There were clearly lots of other examples of this process also being presented at the annual conference.
It is perhaps time that we recognise how much quality CPD is taking place rather than listen too much to those that choose to discourage it, often hiding behind the excuse that their employers have not provided them with the time to ‘do CPD’, as if CPD were somehow divorced from practice.
What is critical is that the best practice is captured, valued, acknowledged and shared. Electronic portfolios provide a great way for doing this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
