The key to building a new culture of learning is to use the communication opportunities afforded by technology to foster and support innovation, says Sheila MacNeill.

What is an innovation support centre? And what does someone who works there actually do to support innovation? Well, as Facebook would say “it’s complicated”.

A central tenant of the Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards has been to support and develop the effective use of educational technology standards.

So we have been involved in helping the uptake and adoption of such things as metadata (data about data) in learning resources, formats such as content packaging for sharing and exchanging resources.

We’ve also encouraged extending the use of virtual learning environments, through integration of widgets and the use of the learning technology interoperability specification (integrating different technologies), and most recently learning analytics.

But how do we do that? Well, there is direct contact with standards bodies that involves lots of pretty techie meetings and sharing back and forth actual practice via engagement with our community.

Regular face-to-face meetings have evolved and are increasingly supplemented by online communication and sharing, most notably through our use of blogs and other social media channels, particularly Twitter.

Sometimes I jokingly say what I actually do is type and go to meetings, as most of my life seems to be spent in front of my laptop answering emails, writing blog posts or on a train going to a meeting somewhere, where I usually sit in front of my laptop, tweeting.

However, there is more to it than that. One of the key elements of supporting innovation is fostering open cultures to share ideas and practice.

The growth of social media has been quite transformational in this respect as it makes sharing new ideas almost instantaneous as there’s no need to wait for a face-to-face meeting or to clog up people’s email boxes with updates on mailing lists.

I have found my own practice transformed through being able to keep in touch with people in between meetings through lightweight and informal services like Twitter.

At the same time, I’ve also had some really meaningful interactions with colleagues via Twitter, and have been able to nurture and extend my own professional network.

My blog has also become an increasingly important way for me to share my reflections on, for example, some of the truly inspiring and excellent work carried out by institutions funded through various Jisc (formerly Joint Information Systems Committee) programmes. It also provides a way to easily let people know of other developments such as new standards, and some slightly leftfield ideas I may have.

In many ways, blogs can become a place to store professional memory, and a key way to engage with colleagues in the sector. It is also a reflection of all the good practice I am able to “soak up” from the sector and then share back out, like a kind of innovation sponge.

I am in an incredibly privileged position in that I am paid to engage with many people in the sector, and share that experience without the added complications of teaching commitments.

Providing space (and funding) for this sort of work is essential for innovation to thrive.

But, as we are all too aware, our funding climate is changing and support for innovation is dwindling.

Our job now is to find a way to adapt and thrive in our changing climate to ensure innovation continues to be supported and shared.

Technology can change overnight, ren­dering college practices and programs obsolete. The answer is a more “agile and responsive education system,” according to Bruce Chaloux and Larry Ragan.

E-learning is proving to be a major disruptive force on education across the globe — from primary to advanced study.

This force is causing significant upheaval as it challenges long-standing norms of practice in the field.

This impact is being realized at all levels, including students, instructors, program, institutional, national and global.

Many of these forces are causing reflection and questioning of long-held beliefs of what constitutes a “traditional” educational experience.

One of the greatest impacts of e-learning on “traditional” educational models has been a reconsideration of the dynamics of the teaching and learning process.

Most directly, this has impacted the role of the instructor. There are two primary themes of change occurring that often get conflated in this re-envisioning dialog — that of pedagogy and technology.

New understandings of how we learn combined with the affordances of emerging technologies create new and exciting opportunities for learning on both the part of the teacher and student.

Leaders of educational systems must assimilate and accommodate these converging forces in order manage and direct the impact on their instructional resources.

For the learner in this rapidly emerging learning system, the world suddenly becomes accessible, open and increasingly less structured.

The opportunities presented by today’s complex learning systems require a higher degree of awareness of academic integrity, time management and collaboration — all skills which apply in today’s workplace as well. The systems and services institutional leaders provide to enable student’s success will determine the overall institutional health for the future.

Without a proper setting of the institutional context, students may seek alternative options for fulfilling their learning needs.

Many institutions are embracing the e-learning platform as a way to address the needs of today’s learners by offering new and flexible learning programs targeted towards specific learning outcomes.

Program directors will need to employ a flexible and creative mindset to frame their course of study as relevant, fresh and high quality.

The number of colleges and universities developing or expanding e-learning programming continues to grow at a dramatic rate.

Once the domain of ‘non-traditional’ institutions or units within institutions, some of the world’s leading academic institutions are developing e-learning programs to maintain competitiveness and to reach new markets.

Similarly, smaller institutions seeking to address declining enrolments in traditional campus programmes are turning to e-learning.

Through these changes institutions are seeking to address new challenges including faculty development and preparation, student learning environments, curricular change, student services, and a broad array of policy changes.

Those that effectively address these challenges will be able to effectively manoeuvre in the global market, while those that can’t will not succeed.

The traditional campus and time-based model, still predominant, is being altered, not only by how higher education is delivered, but also by what is offered, when it is available and how learning is recognized.

Programs are being designed to be more responsive to student demands and needs, with a clear emphasis on application. Global ‘executive’ programs at the graduate level are popular and expensive as ‘market pricing’ replaces more traditional tuition and fee structures.

Today’s rapidly changing global culture of learning presents a new set of leadership challenges.

In essence, the “rules of engagement” have changed and call for a more agile and responsive educational system.

What was once valued by the consumer will no longer be adequate to meet the needs of tomorrow’s learners. Today’s leaders of educational systems have a new selection of options to drawn upon in order to fashion a learning environment that is globally connected, nationally aware and learner-centered.

The days of computers as an alien sight in the classroom or workshop are long gone. But while technological ad­vances have moved those computers on, has the thinking behind having them at all also developed, asks Geoff Rebbeck.

 

We have seen e-learning strategies since the early 1990s.

The first ones were an inventory — colleges were asked to do a ‘kit count’ of how many PCs and printers they had and the ratio of technology to staff and students.

Since nobody really knew what good use of technology would look like, the colleges with the most equipment were assumed to be the best.

That evolved into seeing information learning technology (ILT) as a series of processes and procedures that could be universally adopted leading to guaranteed benefit.

Today, we know the benefits lie in the learner and learning experience, so e-learning has replaced ILT and the emphasis has moved from the technology to the experiences it supports.

So e-learning deals with the intervention of technology in affecting behaviour in education, the personal and unique journeys, and our strategies need to focus on the behaviours and experiences of teaching and learning and how technology can be crafted to make them better.

Its two branches are teaching and learning (increasingly in the cloud) and managing pace and progression through central database management.

It is the ubiquitous nature of personal technology in these two areas that can be used, adapted, bent even, to create purposeful pedagogy such that the ‘learner and staff day’ is efficient, enjoyable and engaging for staff and learners alike.

Colleges don’t control the development of new technology. It emerges in society and is then repurposed for our world yet remaining a reflection of society generally.

We have to find and test the benefits technology brings to the educational table. What works is assimilated into college policies (IT, teaching and learning, quality improvement), and what doesn’t work is rejected.

The ‘shock of the new’ is dealt with in e-learning strategies. Fortunately, teachers apply the enduring values of what constitutes good teaching and learning and that is what gives e-learning coherence.

Specifically, e-learning delivers collaborative learning, divergent thinking, the capture of ideas, personalised learning and its presentation.

It will be written around the interaction of three things: the VLE, the Learning Plan and the e-Portfolio and, where the boundaries lie between them. The strategy will have a two-year shelf life due to the rate of ‘invention’ and pace of progression.

Evaluating the impact of our strategy to the benefit of the learner and learning experience is critical. Our learners must formally report back favourably on their experiences.

Listing action only, on the assumption that something good will happen but we don’t know what is harking back to the days of ‘kit count’ and process and procedure.

To start a strategy, we need to think about what we want learners to experience in studying with us.

They need the ability to access learning and teaching from outside college at times to suit them, and during periods of agreed absence, as well as being able to submit work remotely.

Staff and learners should be able to bring their own hardware and social media sites to their teaching and learning, so learners can access teaching, and demonstrate learning.

Learners should also have access to a range of specific and wider resources in support of their learning, and an online personal learning space and online community.

Through technology, learners should have a sense of learning tailored to meet their personal needs and preferences in collaboration with course tutors.

For the strategy to be successful, it needs to define the mechanism to ask students if this was the experience they had, and a place to capture examples.

While FE is at the forefront of innova­tive learning collaborations, it sadly trails behind in research on such ef­forts, says Nigel Ecclesfield.

It has been my privilege to manage the Jisc (formerly Joint Information Systems Committee) FES-DRP (FE and skills — development and resources programme) over the last year.

And as the final group of projects finishes off its work, now is a good time to look at some of the lessons coming out of the programme and how this might link up with the Association for Learning Technology’s research agenda and engage more FE staff in research.

The FES-DRP involved 33 projects with 120 partners in each region of the UK in projects designed to innovate.

The projects used new technologies and recycled public resources to make them more accessible to learners and staff through networks and mobile technologies using them to reach wherever learner technology might be used e.g. at work and on public transport.

Products already available to the sector include new apps for disengaged learners of maths and English, personal timetabling in colleges, augmented reality (AR) materials in plumbing, a complete video glossary of British Sign Language on video for the level one and two awards and materials using Near Field Communication Codes to create flexible learning environments.

There was also a suite of access tools on the web, which includes Access YouTube, and teaching and learning materials for dementia care with an app to ensure the latest developments in dementia care can be offered in FE providers alongside work in the NHS and with charities.

What stands out is the number of collaborations in this programme joining up national bodies such as the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, the NHS with providers from across the sector be they independent specialist colleges, FE colleges, independent work-based learning providers, adult and community learning providers, FE colleges and partners from business, or other public bodies such as the BBC, and universities.

However, what concerns me is that research into the impact of these projects is more likely to be carried out and written for publication by staff in higher education as practitioner research in FE is not often seen in academic journals, as recent research to be reported at ALT-C will show.

The Journal of Further and Higher Education and Research in Post- Compulsory Education, while publishing more than 50 per cent of their papers with a focus on UK FE, rarely have more than 6 per cent of their authors who work in the sector — a proportion that is gradually decreasing.

With the growth of higher education in FE in the decade from 2000, it might be expected that the amount of research originating and written in the sector would increase, but the reverse seems to be the case.

There are many reasons why research within the sector has a low priority. These include the nature of the sector with its focus on teaching and training and the small size of many providers.

But it is also the case that the sector has been the subject of more research rather than doing the research. With more than 90 per cent of research carried out by higher education or with consultants, the large amount of project work carried out in the sector is rarely reported systematically in the academic press.

Going forward, it seems essential to encourage and promote practitioner research both into the sector to support exploration and to change and find new ways of helping practitioners to turn their experiences into learning for themselves, their learners and their sector colleagues.

Encouraging journals to take an interest in practitioner research would be a good start, but promoting research as a professional development activity in workplaces would do more to encourage systematic exploration of sector activity. How do you think we can move forward?

With one-in-five people aged 16 to 24 out of work, traineeships are the government’s new hope for improving young people’s skills and knowledge to thrive in the employment marketplace. Rob Wye looks at the English programme and compares it with the one on offer in Wales.

Traineeships are the latest in a series of government initiatives aimed at improving the skills and employability of young people in England.

They have existed across Europe for some time under various names, with differing economic and social factors inevitably affecting their success in tackling youth unemployment.

A little closer to home, traineeships have existed in Wales since 2011, and a comparison of the two systems offers an insight into whether the policymakers in England have got it right.

Simplicity is a yardstick by which education and training providers measure the effectiveness of a programme, and the design of traineeships in England is considerably simpler than some of its European counterparts.

While funding rates and eligibility differ depending on age, the make-up of an English traineeship is the same across the board — a quality work placement, English and maths, and work preparation, undertaken for between six weeks and half a year.

However, as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ chief executive, Stewart Segal, recently expressed, the restriction of traineeship provision to providers rated outstanding or good by Ofsted diminishes the potential for the programme to reach as many young people as it could.

This is especially pertinent in more deprived areas, where Ofsted grades may not necessarily take into account the learners’ distance travelled.

Welsh traineeships are funded by the Welsh government and the European Social Fund and, unlike England, trainees are paid a wage.

The impact of payment cannot be underestimated, incentivising and motivating young people to invest their energy in a programme, which in turn will undoubtedly impact on outcomes.

Another difference is that those not ready for work can take part in community projects to build their confidence and competence in working with others, while learners with more experience can study up to level three through the Steps to Employment programme. This flexible approach ensures learners have the best chance of finding employment.

A recent review of the Welsh traineeships and Steps to Employment programmes highlighted that, as always, improvements can be made.

The lack of improvement in Welsh learners’ English and maths skills is less likely to be replicated in English traineeships, where numeracy and literacy are central to the programme.

Traineeships in Wales can be confusing for both providers and learners as they are available at different levels with different names and age restrictions, flexibility around work experience and qualification levels, and no minimum or maximum durations.

Traineeships in Wales are only available in eight sectors and through 16 providers, whereas in England, traineeships are available in any area where an employer can provide a high quality work placement.

An informal survey of Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education (Cache) providers indicated a lack of desire to jump straight into traineeship provision, instead waiting to see if the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Considering the plethora of policy and funding reforms over the last 12 months, the reticence is understandable.

However, traineeships have the potential to be of enormous benefit to sectors such as childcare, where employers are predominantly micro or small and medium enterprises.

The mooted changes to the apprenticeship funding system could see these organisations unable to afford the cost of delivering apprenticeships, whereas traineeships may provide a more cost effective way of future-proofing the workforce.

Each system has its benefits and drawbacks, but undoubtedly traineeships are a positive step towards reducing youth unemployment.

By incorporating the rigour and flexibility of both programmes, the solution both governments are seeking may be found, giving young people the skills, confidence and motivation to take their first steps into sustained employment. That can only be of benefit to all involved.

 

Government legislation is doing away with the requirement that FE lecturers need centrally-defined teaching qualifications. Dr Matt O’Leary makes the case against the move.

Ian Pryce, principal of Bedford College, has argued that the de-regulation of teacher qualifications should be seen as a positive step in the development of teacher professionalism and a ‘golden opportunity for FE teaching staff to demonstrate their true worth’. I would like to respond to some of his claims and in so doing offer an alternative perspective.

Mr Pryce’s position is largely based on a laissez-faire philosophy, which believes that by opening teacher professionalism — and qualifications — up to the free market, things will take care of themselves and the ‘market’ will naturally ensure high levels of professionalism.

The fact that he thinks the removal of statutory qualifications is likely to have a positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning suggests a lack of understanding of the symbiotic relationship between teacher education and classroom practice.

He talks about wanting ‘professional teachers because they need less supervision’, but fails to recognise that a key platform to the creation of ‘professional teachers’ comes from them having undertaken a teacher education programme in the first place.

Every FE teacher would no doubt welcome the freedom to determine what it means to be a professional”

In a 2012 survey by the Institute for Learning of more than 5,000 members, 90 per cent of respondents emphasised the need to retain a minimum qualification requirement, arguing that it added to the status and standing of the profession, and to the status and standing of vocational, adult and further education overall.

It is quite ironic then that at a time when vocational pedagogy is at the forefront of the FE agenda nationally, and with it the importance of teacher education in shaping excellent vocational tutors, there are voices such as those of Mr Pryce calling into question this agenda and with it the progress made over the last decade in raising the professional profile and status of the profession.

One of the most perplexing statements he makes is: ‘I find it hard to see how a teaching profession owned by teachers wouldn’t be able to persuade employers of their value’.

It’s difficult to decide what is most perplexing about this statement. Is it the assertion that de-regulation is somehow tantamount to giving teachers more ownership of their profession, or the assumption that teachers actually operate in a bubble of professional autonomy?

Whichever of the two, this comment is either incredibly naïve or so far removed from reality that it suggests a lack of awareness of what it means to be a teacher in FE in 2013.

Mr Pryce goes on to say that ‘freedom to determine what professionalism means … is what an independent, mature FE sector should want’.

Every FE teacher would no doubt welcome the freedom to determine what it means to be a professional, but surely this is dependent on a reduction of some of the systemic constraints that currently limit their ability to express such ‘freedom’.

Contrary to what he would have us believe, it is not teacher qualifications that should be seen as a constraint, but performance management systems that require FE teachers to spend so much of their time manipulating and managing data than the very job they entered the profession to do.

Mr Pryce’s free-market vision will do little to help a sector that craves greater stability to continue to attract the very best teachers.

The move to de-regulation and leaving FE teacher qualifications to the whim of market forces is only likely to result in an increase in the transitory nature and casualization of the workforce, ultimately resulting in the continuation of this perpetual cycle of uncertainty and instability, which, let’s face it, is no good for teachers, learners or employers.

 

Young teenagers face an extended period in education with the raising of the participation age. It’s a grand idea, but it might not be the wisest, says Anthony Benton.

August saw a big change in the statutory education system, the “participation age” rose from 16 to 17.

Young people must now remain in full-time education or approved training and continue to study English and maths (GCSEs if in school or GCSEs/Functional Skills if in training).

In essence, you could think this is a good idea, but is it? Some nations keep young people in education and training longer and some of these have better outcomes, but is it really tackling the real challenges we face as a nation?

As with many government initiatives raising the participation age (RPA) is a blunt instrument — it has side effects and unwanted consequences.

One justification for RPA is that too many young people leave education without the level of basic skills that employers say they want.

We have created a cultural situation where many learners are uninterested in these basic skills”

Cynically, a more basic underlying reason could be to slow the increase of so-called NEETs (young people not in education, employment or training) currently running at around a million.

When the government talks about adequate English and maths, of course they mean a grade C or above in GCSE, a so-called gold standard. Successive governments have fed confusion in this area by periodically introducing new qualifications and messing around with exams year-on-year for generations.

I would argue that many people in education, politics and the media are obsessed by GCSEs.

After all, these things that we don’t really understand are what schools are judged on more than anything else. And that obsession and the coarse use of GCSE exam results as the success measure of a school means that many other facets are pushed into the margins.

So, one of the stated objectives of the increase in participation age is to improve the levels of English and maths before young people move into employment.

A laudable ambition, but what about the question of why so many get to the end of years of intensive full-time education without being able to get above a grade D in their GCSE exams?

Hoping to make up for that failure through RPA is too little too late.

It is the wrong answer to the wrong question and to make matters worse by the time most young people get to this “failed stage” they probably hate maths and loath English, probably having sat their GCSE exams several times and being convinced by the establishment that they are thick.

Tragically, we are seeing also that some secondary schools are refusing to take back pupils who have done badly in GCSE results, reducing participation opportunity and reinforcing that sense of failure in the classic establishment academic route.

We need a nationally-recognised qualification system, but it needs to be two things to be successful. It must run seamlessly across all levels without ambiguity and be constant over time.

And although these qualifications can then be a marker for schools, pupils and teachers, they must not be allowed to exclude or dominate other markers, for example employment success rates and broader school culture-driven outcomes such as behaviour, values and attitude.

It is clear the biggest issue is the failure in learning of English and maths during school years. We have created a cultural situation where many learners are uninterested in these basic skills. This is what we have to address rather than just add on another year.

You can lead a horse to water, but if it isn’t thirsty, it won’t participate.

 

Government proposals on apprenticeships include one in which funding goes through employers. It’s a principle John Allan agrees with, but he thinks the options on the table still aren’t right.

The Federation of Small Businesses believes the best approach for apprenticeships would be a more demand-led system that ensures training is tailored to suit the needs of businesses.

The FSB has long said that the best way to make the system more effective is for government funding to be routed through employers rather than being paid directly to training providers.

The current apprenticeships system has been subjected to constant change which has undermined its brand and led to confusion.

While the current system is not ideal, it is vital not to rush into an imperfect solution. Indeed, detailed thought must be given to ways in which apprenticeship candidates, employers and training providers will be affected by any changes.

The FSB has said government must take its time with any reforms. It must think through the implementation in order to get it right first time and create a system that will last for decades to come.

Unfortunately, proposals laid out by government in the current consultation take a simplified view of apprenticeships. Furthermore, in their current form they appear to breach some of the key points we consider imperative to make this system work for small and micro businesses.

Proposals may potentially lead to a sudden and significant increase in costs which small and micro businesses cannot absorb”

Current proposals seem to suggest government aims for the employer to pay the full costs in advance of government payback.

The reality is many small businesses cannot afford to pay the full cost of the training upfront, even though some of it will be recovered. This would damage cash-flow and put small firms off engaging in the system.

We are also concerned that current proposals may potentially lead to a sudden and significant increase in costs which small and micro businesses cannot absorb.

Moreover, we are concerned about the proposals for payment on results. Small businesses are already left out of pocket if an apprenticeship ends prematurely, and payment on results could compound the financial pain felt by businesses in these circumstances.

Routing funding through employers should offer many long term benefits. It would make employers more involved in vocational education, and lead to providers being more businesslike and cost conscious.

We believe government must continue to be as generous as it currently is in its contribution towards apprenticeships, while also fully-funding the training element of apprenticeships for 16 to 19-year-olds. This group in particular can be seen as far riskier to take on for a small firm as they lack experience and skills of older apprentices.

Establishing government funding through the business puts the employer in charge and we believe that over time this will make them more engaged. The FSB believes they will have much more success at getting the training they want, rather than what a training provider can deliver cheaply.

To sum up, the FSB is a keen supporter of the principle of routing apprenticeship funding via employers. However, combining this change with a requirement to prefund providers and potentially increasing costs will reduce employer’s engagement in the apprenticeship programme.

We urge government to take its time with this proposal and ensure the best possible outcome, not just for the apprentice but for the small business too.