A doorway to something new.

These 2 posts (Part 1 and Part 2) by Tony Bates, consider the need for change in Higher Education and the role that technology has in supporting that change.

In reading Part 1, the current 19th Century industrial model of education that universities still cling on to is all too familiar.  While many will see what Bates is proposing as being too radical and unlikely to be achieved, it is exactly what many of us are working to achieve in our roles as teachers and educators within the HE system. The idea that a model designed for an era of elite education, when around 8% of 18 year olds entered university, can still be effective in an age of mass education, when around 40% now take up university places, is one that is difficult to fathom. Over the past 20 years or so,  universities have spent increasing amounts of their budgets kitting out their teaching and learning spaces with technology. However, this has brought about little or no change in the way we educate. The technology has been used to do what we always have done, rather than to bring about change ( see an earlier posting on this subject). What has been missing is the vision and leadership needed to bring about transformative change.

In Part 2, Bates goes on to describe the “visions” that are required from the various stakeholders in HE., e.g. government, academics, students, administrators, IT managers, in order to bring about change. While technology can support this change, it requires structural and cultural changes before the current model can be dismantled and a new one put in place. In describing the implications of such change for institutions, Bates outlines 10 things that will change as a result of his own vision. I think that the most significant one relates to the changes that would take place in the way we assess learning. At present, we insist on a one-size-fits-all model, usually in the form of an end-of-course exam or a set essay. For me, I don’t believe we can realistically expect any change until this model is replaced by one that involves student choice and negotiation in how they demonstrate to us, not only what they have learnt, but also to what level of understanding they have learned it.

While I agree pretty much with everything Bates puts forward, I think that he misses the point that, within his vision of universities of the future there will still be a place for the niche institution – one that continues to offer a traditional, 19th Century industrial educational experience.

Richard Felder’s web site is aimed at providing help to HE lecturers who find themselves in a teaching role, but without any training. Although aimed specifically at Science and Engineering lecturers, many of the resources are applicable to a wider audience.

In his “Random Thoughts,” column on educational methods and issues for the quarterly journal Chemical Engineering Education he writes on a whole range of issues facing today’s HE lectures and provides valuable guidance on how to deal with them.

His two papers on the Top 10 worst teaching mistakes is a good starting point. This is a useful list as it not only identifies bad practice in HE teaching but also puts forward some helpful suggestions for avoiding these.

At the heart of this change is the fragmentation of information. No longer does information only exist in a pre-packaged format, such as books, CDs, newspapers or even as a course. Information is now available in a whole range of formats, and this information can be “personalised” by editing, adding, re-designing so the user ends up with information in a format that makes sense to him.This creation of  “personal frameworks of coherence” by users is one of the most important drivers for transformative change within the HE sector. No longer is the creation, delivery, validation and dissemination of information under the control of the lecturer, expert or university. The growth of user-generated content, Google, Wikipedia,  Open Educational Resources, Web 2.0 technologies, social software and mobile technologies means that the individual is now in control.

Information Fragmentation and Coherence

The Handbook gives a good overview of the pressures bringing about change and how these impact on the learning process. The discussion on the role of technology in teaching and learning goes a long way to summarising where we are at at the moment and provides some useful guidelines on its effective use. The use of technology by lecturers and departments can help bridge the gap between the traditional and the, as yet undefined, role of education in the future.

The final paragraph really brings home what we in HE are all trying to grapple with:

“Through a process of active experimentation, the academy’s role in society will emerge as a prominent sensemaking and knowledge expansion institution, reflecting of the needs of learners and society while maintaining its role as a transformative agent in pursuit of humanity’s highest ideals.”

Transformative innovation is radical and challenging. It is the kind of innovation that challenges our assumptions about how we do things and causes us to question our accepted notions about education. Although radical and challenging, transformative innovation is informed by knowledge and awareness of the issues facing education, and aims to bring about improvements to the education system.

One of the main drivers for transformative innovation is the need for our education system to respond to the social and technological changes that are happening around us. Creating a culture of transformative innovation within the institution is essential, where the innovations are aligned with cultural values and beliefs of the organisation, and are not seen as being externally imposed.

This model differs from the commonly used “best practice” model which generally promotes a set of ideas originating from outside the organisation itself, rather than ideas that are central to the core goals and values of the organisation and the people within it. The culture of innovation that leads to transformation is built on a cyclical, iterative and reflective process involving:

Insight - identifying a problem, exploring solutions and finding tools to deliver

Invention - thinking out the box, thinking creatively, challenging existing practices

Application – developing strategies and organisational structures to implement new approaches and practices.

Reflection and communication – regularly reviewing and refining strategies to ensure that they are effective. Ensuring that communication networks are in place to ensure that innovation is embedded throughout the system and can be sustained.

Much of what is written in this paper is applicable to HE and could provide a useful model for managing transformative innovation within our institutions.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

“Education, education, education” – 11 years of Labour and 11 years of Tory policy to show for it!

What a con!

This report was published on the BBC News website tonight.

The results for tests for 14 year olds showed a mixed picture

This year’s school “league tables” in England are likely to be postponed because of the test marking problems.

Schools Minister Jim Knight said he expected the delays in marking and and appeals to push back publication.

Provisional figures for national tests suggest 14-year-olds did better in writing and maths this year but less well in reading and science.

A breakdown by local authorities has not been released as up to half the results were missing in some areas.

The schools minister said he expected the problems with the delivery of the tests to mean that the timetable for publication of school results would have to be pushed back.

Test problems

“I think it’s likely that they won’t be published at the same time as last year – because we’ve got a review process that’s open for people to submit for reviews until September,” said Mr Knight.

USUAL ANNUAL SCHEDULE May – Key Stage 2 and 3 tests taken by children aged 10/11 and 13/14 July – results returned to schools August – provisional national and local authority results published December – Key Stage 2 tables published showing results for each primary school January – Key Stage 3 tables published showing results of each secondary school January (not affected by the problems this year) – main secondary school and college tables based on results of public exams including GCSEs and A/AS-levels

“That inevitably has consequences for the timetable and being able to publish school results.”

The league tables for primary schools, based on the Key Stage 2 results, are usually published each December with the Key Stage 3 tables in January.

The deadline for returning all the marked papers has been missed by more than a month already – there will be appeals over marking to be resolved in the autumn term before the results process will be complete.

Mr Knight said that this year’s results for the tests taken by 14 year olds were “mixed” – with marginal rises and falls across subjects – but he rejected the suggestion that the figures had reached a plateau.

However he highlighted how much more difficult it became to push this figure higher – when more than two-thirds of those who had missed the Level 5 target either had special needs or spoke English as a second language.

“Each extra gain becomes harder to achieve for schools,” said Mr Knight.

There had been a slight fall in English – from 74% to 73% – but within this there had been a fall to 69% in reading.

‘Boys and books’

Mr Knight said that he wanted families to help encourage a love of reading, particularly among boys.

“It’s the classic problem of boys and books,” said Mr Knight. A more personalised approach to learning in school, more books aimed at keeping boys’ attention and more support from families would help to improve boys’ reading skills, he said.

2008 KEY STAGE 3 RESULTS LEVEL 5 English: 73% (74% last year) Maths: 77% (76%) Science: 71% (73%) LEVEL 6 English: 33% (32%) Maths: 57% (56%) Science: 41% (41%) Source: DCSF

Head teachers’ leader John Dunford said that it was a “shame that this year’s marking controversy has overshadowed all the hard work that pupils and teachers have put in”.

He also cautioned that “far too much is made each year of a percentage point or two up or down in the Key Stage 3 results in English, mathematics and science. What is important is that the trend is upwards, reflecting the rising standards in schools across the country”.

The National Union of Teachers said the decision not to release the local figures was understandable – but none of the results should have been published in view of the delays and questions over the marking organised this year by private contractor ETS.

But Chris Keates, leader of the NASUWT teachers’ union said the results were evidence of hard work and progress – and attacked those who queried the results.

“Sadly, but predictably, the critics have stepped forward to once again cast a shadow over the achievements of the pupils and their teachers

The general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), Dr Mary Bousted, said: the tests were an irrelevance.

“In a year when Sats have collapsed under their own weight, cutting the Key Stage 3 tests would be an excellent way to reduce the excessive amount of testing our students face.”

Liberal Democrat children spokeswoman Annette Brooke agreed and said the money saved could be used to improve learning.

She said: “Ministers have once again failed to meet their own targets. After three years of secondary education, thousands of pupils are not reaching the expected level in key subjects.

“It’s a disgrace that on the day the results have been published, many schools will still not yet have received their marked papers.”

Shadow schools minister Nick Gibb said: “The government continues to miss its modest targets and we are left with the unacceptable position that two out of five 14-year-olds are failing to achieve the necessary grades in reading, writing and maths that they will need to be able to achieve at GCSE.”

Statistical change

Statisticians at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which issued the results, say comparisons with previous years are skewed by a change in the marking process.

This involved removing the practice known as “borderlining”, which involved double checking all the test scripts with marks just below the benchmark level (but not above it), to see if they warranted any extra marks.

The effect is particularly significant in English, in which the marking is more subjective.

The statisticians say removing borderlining is estimated to reduce the percentage achieving Level 5 (the expected minimum level) by 0.9 percentage points in English, 0.2 points in maths and 0.6 points in science.

At Level 6 the effect is even more pronounced: about 1.6 percentage points in English, 0.3 in maths and 0.9 in science.

The figures show that the proportion of children attaining Level 5 in reading, writing, maths and science was 56% – down two percentage points on last year or roughly the amount predicted by the removal of borderlining.

The DCSF says the results were based on the data available at 25 July.

These included 84% of English results and 94% of the maths and science results, deemed to be a robust enough sample to produce reliable national figures.

Updated figures from the Qualifications and Curriuclum Authority show that the proportion of pupils’ test results for 14 year olds now available to schools is 92.8% in English, 96.6% Maths and 96.0% science.

The tests – popularly known by the misnomer “Sats” – are a measure of children’s achievement against targets in Key Stage 3 of the national curriculum, the first three years of secondary schooling in England.

There is no equivalent publication of test results for other parts of the UK.