keith richard's unit comments
Response to Unit 1 | Keith Richards | October 28th, 2002
Hi everyone
I've just discovered a great way to ease myself into work every other Monday morning: I settle down in my armchair (I work at home on Mondays) with a steaming mug of good black coffee, a print-out of the group DL exchanges of the previous week, and a pen and highlighter; then, with music in the background, I spend an hour or so reading, highlighting and scribbling notes before heading off to the desk to type this. There's so much to say that that it could end up being pretty long, which means that it had better be organized, so here goes with my first stab at a system:
1. Each main topic will be numbered and put in square brackets in bold (I've added the square brackets because not all email systems pick up bold).
2. Everything under that heading will relate to it and each sub-topic will be discussed in a single numbered paragraph (however long that may be).
3. This will allow cross-referencing to other points, which will be indicated by reference to the relevant paragraph in square brackets.
4. Where anyone is referred to by name, I'll put this in CAPS with the date of the relevant email bracketed.
I reckon that should make it easy to refer to particular points if the discussion develops. Anyway, see what you think.
So much for that! Nearly an hour later and I've just come to the end of a stage I hadn't anticipated: going through all my notes and highlighting in order to organize everything into categories so that my response will be coherent. Oh well, you have to do it to find out what it really involves.
And now it's finished. I've decided to make this a covering email offering some insight into the process as it worked out in practice. I'm attaching the comments as a separate document (or documents if I end up exceeding the maximum length allowed), properly titled, with running heads and page numbers for ease of filing. My new machine is a wonderful beast, but it appears that lots of people can't read the attachments using the latest version of Word on the Mac OS, so I'm saving it in a very old version in the hope that everyone will be able to access it. Please let me know if there are problems.
I'm not sure where we go from here, but my thoughts are in the response itself. I'm happy to kick this one around and change my approach if you think there's a better way of handling it - it amounts to 3,500 words (that's old style assignment length) so I appreciate that it takes a bit of reading. I'm up for criticisms and suggestions.
Looking forward to the Unit 2 exchanges.
All the best
Keith
KR Response to Unit 1 DE Exchanges
October 14th - 25th, 2002
[1. DL and the person]
1.1 I know that opening of my email was a bit whimsical, but one thing that struck me about the emails was the way in which many of them were embedded within a real life context. For example, JANINE (20/10/02) mentions having a class in 20 minutes, DAVID (19/10/02) says it's way past his bedtime and BARRY (24/10/02) tells us about his collision with a glass wall. I don't think this is a trivial point because the human dimension cropped up in all sorts of ways in the emails and this seems to me to be a good example of how our exchanges are more than merely "academic". I think that a sense of human presence is very important in DL and it's something that hasn't always been given enough emphasis.
1.2 A number of people commented positively on my account of the Aston programme. Thanks very much for that (I'll enjoy the praise while it comes there'll be plenty to comment less positively on later). I'd like to draw attention to two aspect that were mentioned: (1) that it was "extremely honest" (JANINE 18/10/02), a "warts and all account" (SARAH 24/10/02) with "stuff-ups" (BARRY 24/10/02), and (2) that it was "personal" (KATHI 19/10/02). I think these pick up important points about the nature of DL materials. The first is the emphasis that's always placed on "personal engagement" in all the advice on writing DL materials. This is normally interpreted as adopting a position as a speaker to someone else (as opposed to being a "writer"), but I think it needs to go further. In F2F lectures we respond in part to the person, with all the little verbal and non-verbal traits that go into making up the individual, and I think we need to get a sense of that across in DL materials. How far you take it is, of course, another issue. The second has to do with this idea of honesty. I was very conscious of the 2distance" in the other positions taken up in the unit and I wanted something closer to home, to set up a contrast between what can be said in the abstract and what tends to happen when you get down to doing the business. As a teacher, and also as a writer, I become more and more convinced of the power of the personal account if it' properly contextualized, so this was an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. It's good to know that it was well received.
1.3 Just taking this a bit further, and linking with some of the issues discussed in 4 below, I was interested to see Barry's comment (24/10/02): "I explore associations between the theoretical issues and my own experiences." I think this is something that should be a feature of all education, but it seems particularly pertinent in a DL context where the experiences may be (especially on a professionally-based programme like this) more immediate. It also, I think, raises issues of how or whether we share these connections, which takes me to the next topic.
[2. Engagement and isolation]
2.1 JERRY (19/10/02) brought out a very important contrast between the on-campus undergraduate course as "a total life education experience" and the DL experience, which is "directly applicable to my day to day life", and JANINE (19/10/02) added an extra dimension to this when she characterized the former as preparation for a "distant" future. I think it' worth bearing in mind the fundamental differences between the broader contexts here when we're discussing DE. I want my two teenage daughters to have this "total life education experience" when they leave home for university, and I hope that the distant future doesn't impinge too much. Because of the many things it can offer, I wouldn't welcome a DL alternative (and they certainly wouldn't), but from the perspective of the engaged professional at a later life stage these considerations are less important. True, some mature students do feel the need (for all sorts of reasons) to immerse themselves in the on-campus experience, but most people feel that their development, personal and professional, is tied to a different locality. That's where DE comes in, and I think its perfectly legitimate for us to conduct our debate in the context of that, leaving aside issues that might relate to a different stage of development. That's also where Situated Learning (SL) comes in [6.5]
2.2 I found it interesting that isolation, something that is usually presented as wholly negative, emerged positively in at least two postings. DAVID (23/10/02) said that "relative isolation forced me to think more deeply and learn to trust my own ideas" and JANINE (23/10/02) talked said that sometimes "I feel tremendously satisfied with myself" when things are going well, something that she linked with independence. I think these points link well with Steve's appeal (17/10/02) to look more closely at the advantages of distance. [However, see 4.3]
2.3 On the other hand, this places a greater onus on the individual, who can't easily seek reassurance from those around them and whose contribution to the work of the group is public and, in a sense, "exposed". Perhaps this explains the guilt to which some participants refer (e.g. JERRY 18/10/02; KATHI 19/10/02). It's an issue that might be worth bearing in mind.
2.4 One of the most serious aspects of isolation, though, was raised by DAVID (23/10/02), who commented on how he "got the hump" when his comments were ignored. This prompted a number of responses (e.g. JANINE 23/10/02; BARRY 24/10/02; STEVE 24/10/02) and is an important issue. I think Barry's distinction is worth reflecting on: "Communicating directly is instinctive; doing so remotely is deliberative." If we have invested deliberate effort in producing something, it's bound to be painful if we feel it's ignored. Steve's suggestion of acknowledgement gets over the problem of not knowing whether the problem is technical, but we're still left with the difference between acknowledgement of receipt and response to content Ñ and it's the latter we're all looking for. I'm the same as anyone else, and all my efforts to cope with this on an intellectual level have no bearing on my emotional response. Here goes with just a few of the things I "know": some of the most profound things people have said to me have received only my acknowledgement because they've taken time to sink in and I knew as I heard them that I didn't want to demean them with a trite response; my experience of an online course led me to wonder why some of the most obvious and superficial comments prompted the biggest responses; sometimes points just say all that needs to be said and anything more would be hot air. However, why do I still want to generate a positive response in situations where I know it to be unimportant? Because it's a basic human need. I guess that if I'm working to any conclusion here, it's this: we should accept that our contributions will work on others in ways we cannot know and that a lack of response does not mean that they were not appreciated or valuable, but because we're human we should also accept the inevitable hurt that being "ignored" brings with it. Phew! (And, by the way, if I don't refer to you in this response it's because somehow I've lost your printed out email [4.1], so it's all my fault Ñ all the emails I've read have had plenty in them to chew over and are covered in highlights and notes.)
[3. Tutor and participant]
3.1 As a DL writer, the issue of how my responses to tasks are received is a very important one. First of all, it's good to know that people responded well to the inclusion of my own comments on the tasks. STEVE (17/10/02) first raised this and it was picked up by a number of people. In terms of the personal element I mentioned above [1.2], this is very encouraging, but I'm aware that, as the writer of the module, my views inevitably must seem to carry particular weight, so it's not surprising to find that where there was "a gap" (JERRY 18/10/02) between my views and theirs, some participants saw themselves as "way off" (SARAH 24/10/02; BARRY 24/10/02). It's easy for me to say I never intended mine to be the "right" response (I certainly didn't), but this ignores the reality of the relationship established through writing. Apart from the assumption that I know what I'm talking about, there is also the power of the written word. There's nothing to be done about this, but your responses to it have helped raise my awareness as a writer. I guess this could also apply to you as readers, and sometimes it might be worth standing back and asking whether your response is in part conditioned by the context (i.e. whether I've missed something or there really are two legitimate positions here).
3.2 This relationship touches on Steve's point (17/10/02) about an "Aristotelian" approach. I hadn't thought along these lines before, but I suppose you could contrast an Aristotelian approach (based on categorizing, organizing knowledge and passing on the "truth" to learners) to a Socratic approach (a process of drawing out knowledge from the learner, exploring and challenging this in an attempt to get closer to the "truth"). It might be worth thinking of the approaches to the units in terms of this contrast and seeing where that leads.
[4 DL Approaches]
4.1 I was interested to see that BARRY (24/10/02) and SARAH (24/10/02) mentioned printing out their emails because that's exactly the approach I've adopted. I decided at the outset that I'd print out all the emails on the subject of Unit 1 and keep them, unseen, until today, then I would sit down with them and dedicate as much of the day as necessary to producing this response. I didn't read them beforehand because I wanted to encounter all the issues as "fresh" and I also didn't want to be tempted to take part in the discussion. Steve has done that and we've agreed that I should try out this different role. This is an important issue for me because I treat the two forms of text very differently: a response to an email is immediate, not unreflective but determined in part by the email itself Ñ business on the hoof, if you like. A written text, on the other hand, is something to reflect on and my notes are designed with this in mind (the equivalent in an email are the responses). That's why I print out some emails and respond to others immediately. This difference in approach might be worth considering, especially in the context of VLEs. I went to a paper some years back on reading different forms of texts and the research suggested overwhelmingly that the screen was fine for short texts but that it was ill suited to longer ones. That accounts for Steve's point (17/10/02) about wanting "paper in folders", though the response to that isn't always straightforward (see, for example, Barry's point (24/10/02) about plowing through the folders). I'd like to flag this as an issue to which we might return (sometimes I'm like Sarah's grandmother (24/10/02) and say "It is I" or "to which" just because it sounds good). To some extent, this might be a matter of acculturation, and in this respect Lori's point LORI (25/10/02) is perceptive: "Perhaps Taiwan is a very internet-oriented culture."
4.2 Another tiny point, linking back to the F2F/DE issue [2.1], STEVE (17/10/02) mentioned bringing a "bag full of data" to the on-campus programme. This is, of course, available in an SL environment, so how to does that influence our approach to materials? Another point to ponder, perhaps.
[5. Our Approach]
5.1 DAVID (19/10/02) raises the issue of Steve's role in our discussion and mentions an interesting article. There is a book on the subject of the tutor's role in this environment, but the reference is at work, so I'll chase it up and post it either tomorrow or Wednesday. David also makes the interesting point that "when a teacher says "get into groups and talk about something" Ñ it suddenly becomes hard to talk." I find that very useful because it's a reminder that we shouldn't expect to be able to suspend our ordinary responses in an online situation. The degree of advice/direction/prompting etc. is always a hard one to call, as STEVE recognizes when he talks about the balance between "encouragement and nagging" (24/10/02). I think it's very important to bear in mind Barry's observation (24/10/02) that "there's always the risk that specific questions will narrow the focus too much, where perhaps a broader range of responses is needed." This is something we're going to have to explore together, helping one another to get the balance right and reflecting on our experiences.
5.2 This links to Sarah's point (24/10/02) about there being "too many topics dumped into each e-mail message." While eschewing Steve's alimentary metaphor (24/10/02), I nevertheless agree that there are two ways of approaching this, both legitimate. The first is to develop an ongoing discussion, and the second is to wait until a topic is exhausted and then comment. The second is what I'm doing here, and the first is what happens during the fortnight's discussion. The issue with the latter is whether each email should confine itself to a single topic or whether we should lump everything together. The single topic approach is something I experienced when I did the London University online Diploma course on online teaching, which relied heavily on CMC, and to tell the truth I didn't much like it. True, you could follow a string, but the contributions were often insubstantial (if not in length, then certainly in content). However, where there's more freedom I think you get a better sense of the person. That's only my view, and we really need to check this one out. Here's what I propose: keep to the "respond to anything" approach as we work through these units, then change at the beginning of 2003. In between now and then, I think we could use these summaries of mine as a basis for identifying which topics we'd like to discuss when we've read the whole module. Having identified half a dozen or so, we could run them as single topics and check out the other approach.
5.3 It's also true, I think, that this mode of interaction can bring out aspects of our personality that may not emerge in a F2F situation. STEVE (24/10/02) talks about not always finding an opening in F2F because of his interactional style, whereas I talk loudly and very quickly so it's not usually a problem for me (some people probably wish it was). However, in an online situation these differences are irrelevant and we can contribute equally.
5.4 The main thing to bear in mind is Jerry's point (20/10/02) that we're in this together and building something new. We can try anything and see where it leads. One of the things we'll discover along the way is how different people respond and where the important differences lie. If we treat this as an experiment and build up trust through understanding, I think we can take it a long way. That, I think, is the basis on which we should respond to Janine's suggestion (18/10/02) that "we should be sharing our responses and ideas more." Let's let that grow naturally.
5.5 The diary, oh dear, the diary. JERRY (18/10/02) says "I will force myself to keep one" and SARAH admits (24/10/02) "I hate writing a diary." I feel the same way myself and I also know that asking people to keep a diary is an easy thing to do because it involves no work on the part of the person making the request Ñ after all, I'm never going to see what you write. However, there is a point to the request, and if I tell you what the point is it will lose its validity. All I really want is for everyone involved to think about their reactions to the different units in the module: the approaches they adopt, the content, organization, etc. So the diary can be no more than a set of jottings used to inform your comments in these exchanges. The sorts of comments already made indicate that this is happening, so that's fine. Please don't think you have to write reams or commit yourself to writing something every day. It's more a question of capturing feelings and thoughts. More of this at the appropriate time.
[6. Issues from the Unit]
6.1 JANINE (18/10/02) asks what Kaye means when he says that DE courses are capital intensive. I take this to be a reference to the fact that they are very expensive to set up relative to on-campus programmes (ignoring fixed costs such as accommodation), especially because the cost of producing materials is so high. However, the general view is that once they're set up you get economies of scale Ñ something that is far from proven as far as I'm concerned [6.3]
6.2 JERRY (20/10/02) is put off by the "academic lingo" in the LSU vision. This is an interesting observation in the light of its original purpose. Julian wrote it and we all agreed with it because it represents our position in a way that doesn't invite easy dismissal Ñ an all too common response to the sort of work we do in a world where "applied" is a dirty word. It actually attracted approving comments from academics outside our field, so in that respect it did its business. I included it because it is our "official" line and because I think it does stimulate a response. Maybe we need two versions of the vision.
6.3 DAVID (23/10/02) responds negatively to the definition of DL that sees it as "mass education" and I agree with him. I think this is part of the technological vision that certainly accompanied early developments in the field, but the importance of the individual is now more clearly recognized and at least one person in the past has suggested that this particular course is based on the Oxbridge model of individual tutorials. There's something in that, but the truth is probably more complicated. It depends in part on the level: you can imagine a "mass" programme at a very basic level, but at Masters level, especially on a course like this one where all participants are expected to research their practice, there's no escaping the need to engage with each participant. This touches on other issues, such as those raised by JANINE (23/10/02), where she talks of "losing independence" and goes back to the tutor role [5.1]. Knotty issues.
6.4 JANINE (23/10/02) also found the unit "a bit heavy on categories, characterizations, divisions, systems, etc." and I wouldn't disagree with her, but that's an outcome of people's attempts to get to grips with the nature of DE. If we can agree on a representation, we can perhaps develop our understanding of the way it works. I think the "upshot" is that how we see DL (and I see it in interactional terms) can influence how we go about it [3.2].
6.5 I agree with BARRY (24/10/02) that there is a relationship between too much openness and anarchy. I wonder whether it's worth thinking in terms of a flexible structure: not entirely open, with recognizable shape, but not rigid in its demands? His response to SL is interesting in this respect and it's something I return to in the final unit. This is definitely a topic I'd like to continue to explore in the context of this module. Perhaps we can work towards developing this model further, or use it as a point of departure for an alternative characterization. To some extent this links to his point about the convergence of CE and DE, something that is already happening. Do we need different models for different sorts of programmes, life stages, etc.?
6.6 BARRY (24/10/02) also asks what efforts have been made to contact participants and with what degree of success. For about a year I've been running the following system with IIC: when Sue sends the module out she emails me and about 10-14 days later (to allow time for it to arrive) I email the participant with a welcoming letter that includes contact details of all those who have joined the module over the last six months. At the same time, I email them with the updated contact details and a reminder that I'm happy to hear from them. If someone doesn't get in touch I send an individual email after about six months, but that's all. This is my personal balance between encouragement and nagging, by no means ideal but about the best I can come up with.
Response to Unit 2 | Keith Richards | November 11th, 2002
Another beautiful morning this morning and now it's dark. I've had a good day reading all the comments received since my last summary and putting together the attached response (oh, and polishing off mugs of coffee, hot toast and marmite, cold bread and butter pudding and cream, apples, etc. as well - but a chap's got to eat). Thanks again for all the interesting comments.
This time I've included a response to some follow-up comments from Unit 1 and a review of the DE BLOG debate as well as Unit 2 comments. It seemed appropriate.
The attachment is saved in a more updated form of Word because some people had trouble opening the last one. If you have problems with this, let me know and I'll send it in 5.1 or RTF. I've attached it as a document so that you can print it off in that form, but I'll also try to add it to the DE BLOG site.
Happy reading.
All the best
Keith
KR Response to Unit 2 Exchanges
October 28th to November 8th
[1. From Unit 1 Comments]
1.1 JERRY (30/10/02) pointed out that 2.2 ended with 'however, see 4.3', but this didn't connect with the point itself. It should have read 2.3 (and, in fact, also 2.4, which eventually ended up as a separate point).
1.2 In response to Jerry's (30/10/02) question, (4.1) 'VLE' stands for 'Virtual Learning Environment'. It covers a range of things, but 'Blackboard' 'Web CT' and the like are regarded as typical examples.
1.3 JERRY (30/10/02) also mentioned that 6 months seemed a long time before getting back to participants who hadn't contacted me (6.6), but I failed to make clear that during this time they will have received at least four or five (sometimes) more updates, urging them to get in touch. The six-month reminder is a bit more pressing and is only sent to those who haven't been in touch. It usually prompts a reply or explanation. Even so, decisions about timing are never easy.
1.4 I liked Jerry's (30/10/02) analogy between this group experience and 'the sort of camaraderie you create on a long train ride when you're sharing a car with a bunch of strangers'. I find it helpful to have things with which to compare the experience, and this is a good one. I'll keep it as a point of reference when I'm trying to understand some aspects of what's happening.
1.5 DAVID (1/11/02) raised an interesting point about when information should be provided and asked whether the decision to hold back on raising awareness of communication issues in lists was deliberate. STEVE (9/11/02) responded to this, but I think it's worth highlighting because this group is in many ways unusual and as a general rule 'the more information at the outset, the better' is the best recommendation.
1.6 I think Jerry's (30/10/02) comment on the style of interaction makes an excellent starting point for the things I'd like to say about the DE BLOG debate: 'People are writing in their true voice which makes me feel welcomed.'
1.7 Colin sent some extra comments on Unit 1 to Steve and me rather than to the list because he didn't want to interrupt the flow of the module, and said I could pick up and make public any that seemed relevant, so I'll take him up on that, if only to flag them as interesting issues for discussion later on. The first of these was an argument that it's reasonable to use 'DE' but not 'DL' because 'education is a process and learning is a product... Learning is never distant because it happens in the learner.' Why use 'DL', he asks, when 'you've already coined SL as focusing on what the learner does?' I think that's an interesting point and one that I hope will re-emerge when we get to Unit 5.
1.8 Colin also points out that the 'Aston course delivers the entire module in one (massive) bleeding chunk. Conventional education drip feeds content (usually) and maybe seems more manageable because of the smaller size.' This, I think, will be worth picking up when we get to Unit 4.
1.9 Colin also pointed to the important impact that administration can have on a DE operation, something that one participant is investigating as part of this module. It's an aspect that didn't emerge in the Unit 2 discussion, so I mention it here as a dimension that we might explore later.
[2. The DE BLOG issue]
2.1 This generated some very productive exchanges, which I won't summarize, but I would like to consider the issues raised, in so far as they bear on DE perspectives. Just by way of context, I'll summarize the three reasons (excluding the personal project one) that LORI gave (2/11/02) for setting up DE BLOG: 1. Introduce those who are unfamiliar with discussion forums.
2. Provide the opportunity to consider whether discussion strings might be more efficient than the email list.
3. Provide an archive of the DE discussions.
2.2 STEVE (5/11/02) sums up the most important cluster of issues that emerged: 'control, consent, communication and democracy'. I think there was a very powerful lesson here: because it is very difficult to assess the impact of significant changes to agreed procedures, these should be introduced only after consultation and after having obtained any necessary consent from participants. It's easy to say that, of course, and we all make mistakes however earnest our efforts, but I think it helps to have an experience like this in mind. There is no doubt that the change was introduced with the best will in the world, but sometimes this isn't enough. Whether the issue is a matter of morals (COLIN 7/11/02 points out that 'my email address was entered onto a site which I was made a member of without my permission or choice') or manners (DANYAL 5/11/02 says that he felt 'it would have been more courteous if the group had been consulted first'), it's something that demands our attention: 'disempowerment' (DANYAL 5/11/02) is a vitally important issue to those who find themselves disadvantaged (in DE, usually the participants) but less keenly felt by unaffected parties (typically tutors and administrators in a DE situation). It's something we try very hard to keep our eye on in the Unit (I've been pulled up a few times by colleagues when I've proposed some change to our DE system that could have this effect), and I find it interesting that the unusualness of this situation, with its 'experimental' orientation, may have caused us to take our eye off the ball. That's another thing to bear in mind: new approaches bring new challenges and demand particularly sensitive handling. You can't simply rely on the assumptions that have guided you in 'normal' DE operations.
2.3 Learning IT was another important theme, and the universal reaction suggests that we underestimated the impact of this. COLIN (7/11/02) characterized it as 'an unnecessary burden' and charged STEVE (1/11/02) with failing to 'take into account the very steep learning curve many people face with IT.' It's no surprise, then that JANINE (7/11/02) 'spent 45mins trying to figure out all this Blog stuff' and KATHI (7/11/02) said she needed to 'play around more to get a feel of the site'. From a different perspective, those who were able to assess the IT issues quickly soon identified inconveniences. DANYAL (5/11/02), for example, found that he couldn't save posts by author and topic. The DE message is clear: sorting out IT issues at the delivery end is only the first step: consultation and trialling are also essential. Interestingly, STEVE (5/11/02) made a comment on IT and personality that links neatly with my next topic: 'It is clear that the technological can be very personal.'
2.4 One of the most interesting things that emerged from this discussion was the element of personality. COLIN (7/11/02) even provided an amusing characterization of the group: 'newly converted acolyte... Luddite... saboteur... a sprinkling of dorks'. I think I can see elements of all of those in myself, now I come to think of it. But what I really find interesting is the extent to which we get to know one another via our email exchanges -- something that is characteristic of DE. This has all sorts of implications for human relationships because it's fairly generally accepted that email tends to show people in a pretty stark light (a bit like the difference between natural daylight and an arc light, I suppose). We judge, of course, because that's what human beings do, but I think we then have to make ourselves stand back and reflect on the medium we're dealing with. I remember an exchange with a participant a couple of years back who said that email exchanges with a colleague had led him to the conclusion that the colleague was a pretty blunt and unpleasant character, but when they'd met at a study weekend it turned out that the colleague concerned was really nice and very warm. Email exchanges after that were seen in a different light. It's worth bearing in mind. In fact, the exchanges here (in my view) weren't problematic in that way, but the topic was sensitive enough to have produced a much less happy outcome and this led me to reflect on why this should be. I think it has to do with the expectation of honesty and the recognition that this is important if we are to make genuine progress. As COLIN (7/11/02) says, once the issues have been raised, we can get down to rational discussion about change, and DANYAL (5/11/02) underlines the importance of putting forward one's views as 'a way of managing that change more harmoniously' and Lori (2/11/02) responded very positively to his 'honest and thoughtful remarks.' So long as problems are recognized and addressed publicly in the right spirit, JERRY (5/11/02) is right: we can 'evolve -- just like an action research cycle.' In DE a lot depends on how things are set up and the conditions this creates.
[3. Unit 2]
3.1 General responses. How interesting. I have to admit that if the unit has produced two such very different and distinct responses then it's served at least one of its purposes (we can take this up in more detail at a later stage in the module). STEVE (1/11/02) was unequivocal: 'I found it a little hard... I felt detached, disinterested and bored.' JERRY (2/11/02) 'felt the same way' and found that 'in the end, it just didn't connect with me', though thanks to Feenburg [see 3.6] it 'wasn't a total loss.' However, DAVID (4/11/02) and COLIN (6/11/02) both liked it. We could write this off as a matter of learner style, but this wouldn't do justice to the responses and I'd like to draw attention to a difference that emerged very strongly for me. Both Steve and Jerry drew attention to the difference between this and engagement with context, Steve via reference to our approach on the programme as a whole and both by contrasting it with my comments on the Unit 1 postings. The idea of 'connection' that Jerry mentions is very interesting when you consider David's expressed interest in 'how education will develop in the future' and the unit's relevance to this. I think it's also clear from Colin's response that he's engaged very closely with the issues in this unit and has some interesting positions relating to them. This doesn't mean that the unit might not have been approached in a different way (let's put that one on hold as well, at least until we have a few units under our belt), but it does suggest that where there is an interest in the topics to begin with a discursive approach might work, in a way that it won't where the interest isn't there at the outset. I think we can take for granted the importance of aspects like engagement and stimulating interest in materials preparation, but connection emerges as an important additional factor at that level. Taking the Socratic/Aristotelian distinction (STEVE 1/11//02) further, you could say that connection is built into the former (an educative process that's based on drawing ideas out of people) but has to be worked on with the latter (which can otherwise seem very abstract).
3.2 Diagrams. Here I think there is another personal dimension. COLIN (6/11/02) likes 'a well-presented diagram' but at least one colleague at the Unit (not Steve) absolutely hates them, and I guess in cases like this there's nothing to be done. They have a number of functions, and DAVID (1/11/02) pointed to something potentially valuable when he underlined the need to engage actively with them. He said that if the diagram had merely been presented, he would merely have looked at it and forgotten it, but the presence of a task meant that he 'went back and read carefully and looked at the diagram and thought about it. Properly.' COLIN (6/11/02) obviously also did the same and picked out the lack of recognition of the importance of learner-learner interactions.
3.3 Peters. His connection between DE and mass production generated an interesting brief exchange between DAVID (1/11/02 and 4/11/02) and STEVE (1/11/02), which centered on how far Peters limited his vision to a mass production model. In fact, it would probably be fair to say that Peters has now softened his line, but what I found particularly interesting is David's reference to globalization and the dangers of using this mode of education to 'spread propaganda, control agendas, etc.' In view of the development of 'mega-universities', I don't think we ought to ignore this. If you're interested in my own views of this in the broader context of education, let me know and I'll send you a copy of a keynote address I gave in an education conference in Malaysia last year ('Person, place and practice: teacher education and situated development').
3.4 Fordism. Still on that topic, JERRY (2/11/02) asked what 'Fordist' and 'post-Fordist' mean. As he guessed, they do relate to Ford's production line model for building cars, and more broadly have to do with a debate about whether industry in general has moved away from mass production, with its attendant mechanistic and producer-oriented ('any color so long as it's black) orientation, towards a more individualized, customer-sensitive approach. One of the debates in DE in the nineties focused on this difference, but this issue is still with us because of the role of technology and (in the UK at least) a creeping division of labor. As DAVID (1/11/02) pointedly asks, 'Hasn't there been a recent large increase in class assistants in schools in the UK?' In addition, the issue of outside expertise, raised by Wedemeyer and picked up by COLIN (6/11/02), is a delicate one. As Colin points out, Peter and Tom are both active (as is David), although for the record Tom's contributions are entirely voluntary and appreciated all the more for that. However, there are other DE programmes that use a large number of outside markers and we in the LSU criticize these for 'farming out'. But where does farming out begin, when is it legitimate and when is it clearly unacceptable? The issues that Evans and Nations [3.8] discuss aren't going to go away.
3.5 Time. Steve's point (1/11/02) about making the programme more learner-centered is interesting in this respect because it raises the issue of time and Steve's, 'Would it be possible?' is an important question. I'm very conscious that colleagues in the Unit sometimes suggest to me that we ought just to leave things as they are for a while so that we can all catch our breath, but then they are as enthusiastic as anyone else when we identify some improvement that can be made. As professionals we want to continue to improve, but as human beings we also recognize that there are limits on what we can do. I suppose post-Fordist approaches have to strike a balance here and it's not always a comfortable one. [See also 3.11]
3.6 Weaving. This bears directly on Jerry's underlining of Feenberg's point (3/11/02) that '[m]any conferences lack weaving because no one has the time or the talent to perform the function for the group' (p.35). LORI (3/11/02) points out that it's not always necessary on forums, and I think this is true, but in pedagogic situations it has an important contribution to make. It's certainly raised an issue for us in the Unit [back to 3.5 again!] because, while I don't think it takes much talent, it certainly swallows up the time: the reading, highlighting, noting and writing up of this summary takes between 6 and 7 full working hours (i.e. not including coffee breaks, lunch, etc.). In the context of this experiment, and with Steve taking on the other role during the preceding fortnight, it seems reasonable to me, but if I had to do it all myself for this and IIC, it would put other aspects of my work under intolerable strain. No easy solution there, then.
3.7 Feenberg. On the subject of weaving, it was good to see such a positive response to this paper. JANINE (28/10/02) highlighted its 'accessibility and relevance', LORI (3/11/02) 'raved about it to Danyal and JERRY (3/11/02) thought it was the 'best part of the unit'. A couple of the issues covered here have already featured in this summary and others will follow, so I won't respond to individual points, but I think it's very interesting to note, especially in the light of 3.1, that this paper relates directly to what we're involved in at the moment. That's not taking anything away from it (a poor paper on the subject would have been doubly disappointing), but it does underline the importance of relevance and connection that I mentioned earlier.
3.8 Evans and Nation. This was less positively received. DAVID (4/11/02) read it 'carefully' but concluded that 'on reflection it has given me little', while JANINE (28/10/02) felt that it 'nearly chewed up my brain.' BARRY (8/11/02) found it 'hard' but got quite a lot from its citations. I can't do justice to all his points here but would like to draw attention to a few of them. The first was an interesting suggestion that E&N were equating 'instructional industrialism with an educational technologist's' perspective and were therefore falling into 'an either-or fallacy'. I think he has a point here and even if we interpret E&N's position differently, this does nothing to reduce the force of his observation -- it's an easy trap to fall into. I also thought that it was worth drawing attention to 'Larsen's comments on the distinction between information and knowledge' and to the seductive appeal of media (e.g. PowerPoint). We all know that in preparing teaching materials we must pay proper regard to promoting the sort of active learning that leads to understanding and knowledge [see David's comment on the effect of the task in 3.2], but the accessibility of information makes it easy to forget this, so that we end up with those cobbled-together bits, 'not transformed into anything deeper'. Did I take the easy route in that relatively brief section on technology in Unit 2, substituting a list of websites for a proper guided tour? I think probably I did. Finally, I was intrigued by Barry's claim that 'we need to engage with the arguments to deal with the theoretical assumptions underpinning the literature.' I think we do and I think it takes much more of an effort to do this. Perhaps the best way is to mix the theoretical and the practical, as in the Feenberg paper (JERRY 3/11/02), but I'm not sure this is always possible. In any case, the contrast between the papers raises some interesting issues.
3.9 Communication. This is a very broad topic and I could easily have broken it down, but I think the issues deserve to be considered together. For the sake of clarity, I'll use subdivisions, though:
3.9.1 Speech vs. writing. COLIN (6/11/02) disagrees with my terminology in referring to DE communication as asynchronous, but the terminology is in fact standard. I think the problem with arguing that F2F interaction is asynchronous is that there is evidence that it's not (Kendon, for example, has done a lot of work on interactional synchrony) and it's not entirely serial. Having said that, I agree that the time lag is a very important issue, not least because it deprives us of important cues. This is also Janine's (28/10/02) point: 'In the absence of tacit clues the social aspect of our communication suffers fear of causing offence and misunderstanding.'
3.9.2 Authorship and personality. JERRY (93/11/02) picked up the Feenberg point about a compensatory 'literary' capability to project personality. LORI (3/11/02) thinks that 'people learn to do this the more they communicate online' and there's surely an element of truth in this. I found her comment that when I'm 'not being academic' I seem to be 'full of lighthearted humor and understanding' very interesting (okay, I only put that in because it makes me feel good). When I read my writing, I can see three separate writers there: 'the writer' (a very rare beast who produces the odd writerly passage that he'll purr over when he reads through the text), 'the speaker' (who sits down and tells a story to an imagined listener) and 'the teacher' (who wants to do his best to explain something as clearly as he can). These three produce different texts and I think that's what Lori has picked up (the writer bit only comes through in published texts and is probably open to question anyway, so I'll forgive her that one), and I think I see the same blend in other postings on the list. I think personality is as much a blend of these as a matter of style, but a very important factor is...
3.9.3 ...Audience. LORI (3/11/02) makes the interesting point that if you 'know' your audience you write to them as individuals, but if your don't you tend to address an 'audience'. With individuals, I agree, but whenever there are more than one, the audience is always an abstract representative sitting at the other side of my desk. JANINE (28/10/02) asked whether we're a 'community' or a 'temporary gathering' and perhaps as the community develops we'll also develop a more sensitive awareness of whom we are writing to. I don't know how significant this, but it might be something to look back on later. LORI (3/11/02) mentions the use of text features to create a 'prosodic' effect. This might be one thing to look for.
3.10 Virtual classroom. I was interested to see Colin's (6/11/02) mention of NOVA and the virtual classroom. The interaction issues here are very interesting, but I guess we'll have to await some research into them before we're in a position to comment.
3.11 Assessment. Colin's (6/11/02) observation that I didn't comment on assessment in the context of the Peters/Holmberg positions is a fair one -- it never occurred to me. There is an important issue here, though, and one that goes back to Steve's [3.5] comments on learner-centeredness. I think it is possible to have valid assessment of negotiated tasks, and I think our criteria represent an advance on anything else I know of in our area. However, what we also need to do is tie in stated learning outcomes much more tightly with assessed work, so that, to take my own IIC module, it's clear that what is being assessed is a range of relevant skills (including accessing, evaluating and representing other research) rather than breadth of knowledge. By the end of this academic year we should have such a specification in place.
Response to Unit 3 comments | Keith Richards | December 19th, 2002
Hi
I've decided to handle this one a bit differently from the responses up to now because there have been much fewer than usual, though with no diminution in quality. Having thought about the comments I've received, I decided it would probably be best to summarize what I've learnt from them here in the email itself. I'll put headings up for ease of access and will begin by flinging out a few thoughts on the subject of progress.
Progress
My suggestion that we should extend the Unit 4 time by a week (which I've unilaterally extended further just in case any further emails came in) met with a mixed response, but it does seem clear to me that, for whatever reason, we've lost much of our initial momentum. Because this might have important implications for approaches to the structure of DE courses and teaching, I think we should adopt it as a topic for discussion in the New Year. Here are some initial thoughts on possible factors:
1. Tiredness. This is a long term and at the end of it nobody has as much energy as they started with.
2. Familiarity. What was exciting at the start soon loses its novelty, and we've adopted a standard approach that, leaving aside the DeBlog experience, hasn't changed (DAVID, for example, mentions how much he's looking forward to Blackboard).
3. Commitment required. Unit 3 asked for a lot in terms of participant activity (see Jerry's comment below) and it may be that everyone was pretty tired by the time they got to Unit 4.
4. Other concerns. Many of you have got stuck into your projects, in terms of either working up ideas, plans, etc. or gathering data (see Janine's posting, for example). This is where your interest lies now and the approach to the units has less relevance than it originally did.
5. Personal. Inevitably, personal circumstances change, and this can have an effect on the level of participation. STEVE (29/11/02) refers to this as '"life" difficulties' in his email
General
It was very heartening to see that everyone mentioned the practical nature of the unit, and both DAVID (12/12/97) and JERRY (11/12/02) related this to their interest in materials writing. Thanks very much for that.
Personal connection
JERRY (10/12/020 said that he preferred the 'tutorial-in-print' method (which is the approach that the OU has found so successful) and made the very perceptive point that imaginative connection with the writer as someone sitting there talking to you is very powerful. STEVE (29/11/02) underlines this point when he emphasizes the importance of dialogue. What I learn from this is the importance of approaching materials writing not as a writing task as such but as a way of speaking to someone and connecting with them. This underlines the importance of knowing your target audience, as Jerry, points out.
Workload
JERRY went on to talk about the demands that the interview task in Unit 3 made on him, affecting his progress. I think this is worth reflecting on because, however good the task, if the time it takes has a negative psychological and perhaps physical (in terms of tiredness) impact, this might be too high a price to pay. There are two obvious responses to this: go for small but interesting tasks or make the tasks optional. Unfortunately, the first response might involve omitting some excellent material and the second works better in theory than in practice. I speak from experience here because at the start of the IIC module I stress that nobody can work through it all and that selection is important, but this doesn't stop most participants feeling when they see the massive file that this module is going to demand a great deal of work. As STEVE (29/11/02) points out, the psychological dimension is very important.
Being clever
DAVID (12/12/02) made a very subtle and insightful comment about the study guide section: 'The study guide on study guides was clever, though had it been less useful/informative than it actually was, I would have seen it as too clever.' I admit that this was a 'clever' idea and it's good to know that it worked, though perhaps by the skin of its teeth. I think this has important lessons for the materials writer because it's very hard to let go of a clever idea when you've come up with one, but it would be a pity if a potentially useful line of development was lost because users felt that it was 'just' there because it's clever. None of us likes a smartarse, and the character of the writer can suffer, especially in the sort of engagement that Jerry discussed, if this is part of the image we're projecting. Putting together Jerry's and David's comments has helped me to get a firmer grip on something important: always think first of the person you're talking to and not yourself; clever ideas may make you feel good, but that's not the point.
Metaphors
Both STEVE and JERRY mentioned these and the important part they can play in understanding, and I'd just like to draw attention to this issue, perhaps with a view to discussion topics next year.
New Media and old men
STEVE talks about his work on new media and the speed with which things change on this front. I've only seen the fringes of what he's tackling at the moment, but I know that, in the absence of any central support or coherent IT policy at Aston, it's involved a lot of hard work and sheer grit on all sorts fronts. I admit to riding on his back on this one and understanding very little of what he's getting to grips with. There's a serious point here because it's all too easy to take the old man's position (things were better in my day, I'm too old to learn, all these newfangled ideas are no substitute for good old-fashioned teaching, etc. etc.) and withdraw from engagement. This is a personal battle that I constantly have to fight and it raises important issues of time, conflicting demands, personal strengths and weaknesses, and so on - all of which bear directly on materials production. Anyway, David, I hope to be gawping out of one of Steve's clips come 2003.
Getting it in perspective
Congratulations to JANINE (7/12/02), who is expecting a baby in January, for getting the whole materials business in perspective: 'I don't think Keegan's Foundations of Distance Education would be capable of taking my mind off the contractions.' You can bet your booties on that!I think that's about all for this unit and this year. I'll be back with a final response to Unit 5 in January.
In the meantime...Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Keith
with 
and 
