Interview: Dr Vaughan Bell (Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London)

Hot on the heels of Sunday’s School of Life sermon by Baroness Susan Greenfield (the media’s go-to scientist for scaremongering soundbites about the affects of technologies on our neurologies, our cognitions and our attentions), I spoke with Dr Vaughan Bell, the neuropsychologist who testified the opposing view to Greenfield in the 2010 House of Lords debate.

I asked him a few clarifying questions to see how things have moved on.

Read More

Interview: Hamish MacLeod (University of Edinburgh)

Dr Hamish MacLeod is senior lecturer in the School of Education at University of Edinburgh. He teaches on their MSc course in eLearning, which practices what it preaches: the course is taught via the Web. His particular interests are in the potential of various computer / network mediated channels of communication in teaching and learning, and the use of games in teaching and learning.

I spoke with Hamish about the theory and processes taught on the course, and what eLearning looks like in practice. He did not disappoint. Keep reading for some great in-depth knowledge about what works and what doesn’t, the evolution of the student-teacher relationship, and how the web is shaping education.

What do you need to consider when developing an online course?
There are lots of different ways in which learning can come online.  Ours is quite an intensively tutored programme.  We can support our students in the online, distance mode as well - if differently - as we could support students on a campus-based programme.  Clearly taking communications online changes group, and interpersonal, dynamics in interesting ways.  But it should certainly not be see as (inevitably) a deficit change.  In many ways, these changes are the subject matter of our programme.  

How has the teacher’s role changed?
We sometimes come on prospective students, or colleagues, or funding bodies, who assume that bringing education online is simply a matter of content dissemination.  That it is a matter of independent engagement with a “knowledge source”.  That the teacher’s job is done when the “content” is put online.  Which inevitably leads them to assume that the online course is a less fulfilling and adequate experience than the campus course.  

I would see our job as developing good and meaningful tasks for the students to engage with, through which they can call upon this material, and anything else that seems relevant.  We also want to see students working collaboratively on many of these task.  My position (and I know that some of my immediate colleagues would disagree with my emphasis) would be to see little change in the teachers’ role when learning and study are brought online.  But the online mode compels one to *think* more carefully about what one is doing, and trying to achieve.  I like the expression “the orchestration of experience” as a description of what teachers do; and I think that this applies equally online and offline.  One just does it in different ways.

Do technologies in general change what education needs to be and do?
I think it must. The development of a tool to help us achieve something changes the nature of the task in hand, and so the cycle goes on. Things may be different; not necessarily better or worse.  There is the recent study on how the access to computer-based databases might change the way in which we choose to remember things.  Some can see that as a decrement in our cognitive capacity.  But it might just be a matter of how we choose to deploy scarce resource.  And of course what we know about expertise is that it is not a matter of how much raw information we can call upon from memory - senior students probably know more “stuff” than their teachers - but on the (often discipline-specific) way that experts detect patterns and construct understanding, and action.  

What is the experience like for online learners?
You would have to ask the students. I have heard it observed that anyone more than three rows back in a large lecture theatre is a “distance learner”.  And my experience as a teacher on campus-based programmes in the recent past is that our students are increasingly “distanced” from us, by pressures of (earning) work, and other social and cultural stresses.  I think that we have good relationships with our students.  We have a relatively high retention rate for a distance programme - depending on how you count it, of course, but around 90% - which might be seen as a useful metric of student experience.  And we certainly see students making good working relationships, which look like turning into friendship that would persist beyond there engagement on the programme.

Have online learning environment changed the accepted theories of teaching and learning?
It is bound to be the case that the development of new approaches in teaching and learning is going to make us reflect on our traditional approaches.  Many HE academics are good, intuitive communicators, but may not have reflected deeply upon their approaches to pedagogy, but rather teach as they were taught - drawing intelligently on their experiences of what worked, or did not work, for them as students.  Going into new areas of teaching - like trying to take one’s teaching online - forces one to think anew, as one cannot just import what one has always done, or what one remembers seeing modelled successfully.  So I would see explorations in online learning, or the introduction of various technologically supported approaches to teaching, as likely to make us think more about what we do in all areas of our practice.  But I wouldn’t say that there are any profound changes in the way that we should be thinking about theories of learning.  

Are there any new theories?
There are new theories, or new perspectives on theories, that are emerging.  The “connectivism” notion, for example.  

There is no doubt that electronically mediated forms of communication, and computer-supported collaborative work (or learning), will give more prominence to ideas of “distributed cognition” being important in education.  But for me, this is much more a matter of ideas that have been around for a long time - like Papert’s ideas of “constructionism”, or Vygotsky’s social emphasis in learning - coming of age in the connected context.

What opportunities do new technologies afford teachers?
[New technologies] can enable us finally to adopt approaches that we may always have aspired to, but which physical circumstances, and the nature of spaces, have hitherto prevented.  For example, I recently heard a colleague in Law talking about how he was using a new “lecture capture” facility that he has access to.  The traditional pattern of his teaching was one lecture, followed by a two hour seminar, every week for ten or twelve weeks.  This was not the *best* way to use the time.  It was just the traditional pattern, constrained by the demands of the timetable.  That was just have time was parcelled out.  But now, he had recorded all of his lectures, and encouraged the students to view all the lectures (which were intended to provide general scene-setting) in the first two weeks of the semester.  Then they could devote the weekly timetabled time over the rest of the semester to deeper, and more discursive exploration of the area.  All sorts of “resource-based learning” and “problem-based learning” may offer great potential when linked with networked access to resources, and other people.

Another example - in the past we might not have thought it appropriate to send early years students to the original journal articles, but rather we adopted a first year introductory textbook which gave them the background that they needed.  But perhaps it was really not a matter of what was, or was not appropriate, but rather what it was practically possible to do.  We just could not send all 300 students in a first year class to read the *one* paper copy of the article in the library.  Now, if there happens to be an accessible and stimulating article in Nature that we would want everyone to be aware of, they can *all* have a copy on their laptops, or iPads, by the end of the afternoon.

How do you assess the effectiveness of online learning experiences?
Online access to tools and resources, directed towards meaningful tasks, engaged in collaboratively, should lead to productive outcomes, in terms of the students’ abilities to address their own continuing learning and development.  

When we are asked about the effectiveness of technologically supported approaches, we are often implicitly being asked to compare their effectiveness with the “gold standard” of the didactic classroom approach.  We really have limited evidence about just how effective these traditional approaches are.  And perhaps we are not even looking at the right thing.  Perhaps “good lecture” contributes more to the students motivation and engagement than it contributes to their knowledge base.  It was a good lecture because it makes you want to know more.  I am not wishing to be sceptical about the value of the good lecture; but rather to flag up the need to think carefully about what it is that we are replacing - and what might be lost - when we try to replace the lecture with some other mediated means.  

One cannot just change the *teaching* unless one is prepared to examine the means of assessment.  If we seek to improve the teaching and learning, but still use the same old assessment methods, we may miss the impact of the innovation.  Or the students may benefit less from the innovation than they otherwise might.  Clearly, students look to the regime of assessment to judge what we value.  So if we teach for comprehension and creativity, but continue to assess for information retrieval, we will very much be missing an opportunity.  Biggs talks about “constructive alignment” in the overall design of learning opportunities and assessment criteria.  And I think it was David Boud who observed that students can rise above the impact of bad teaching, but that they cannot escape the consequences of bad assessment.

But generally we have (hard) fun in coming up with creative and valid ways to assess the work of our students that call on all sorts of new media, and forms of expression.  It can be challenging, and difficult to convince ones colleagues sometimes, but if one looks to design, and fine art, and architecture, and medicine, there are all sorts of good ideas out there.

What are the shortcomings - for both the learner and the teacher - of online learning models?
There is no doubt that certain sorts of online learning can lead to isolation.  So that is something that one works hard to avoid.  If one is successful, then the pattern of co-dependence within a student group can be very supportive and encouraging.  One of our students, Tony McNeil,  coined the lovely term “ambient collegiality” in relation to his use of Twitter.

I think another shortcoming - perhaps more for the teachers than for the students - is that the potential for communication is unending. One has to set limits on the amount of time that one spends reading blogs and discussion posts.  And this has to do too with the cultivation of appropriate expectations in the students.  But it is all very seductive.  Speaking for ourselves, we have some excellent students, whose work makes a very real contribution to our own scholarship.  So there are very real gains to be had in the reading of the blogs and the discussion posts.

Interview: Karina Brisby (Head of Interactive Campaigns, Oxfam)

Karina Brisby (@karinab) is the the Head of Interactive Campaigns at Oxfam, the UK’s poverty-fighting charity. The organisation has been a digital leader in its awareness- and fundraising projects, from on the ground reportage in disaster zones and mobile phone campaigns to its network of charity concerts and thriving online community.

Integral to its beating heart, Karina has been working with digital tech and community organisations since 1996, and with Oxfam since 2004. She recently published Oxfam’s Digital Strategy, which outlines how the charity will use interactive tools in the future, and devised the G20 VOICE campaign, a network of bloggers organised by a coalition of non-profit organisisations to connect world leaders, and to keep them accountable.

Here she describes how charities can harness the power of the Web, and what the next interactive evolution will be.

What is different about the web for charity? What do you use it for that you couldn’t before? How is the web more than just an awareness-raising/fund-raising technology for charities?

The digital landscape has really changed for charities and not for profits over the past few years.  Gone are the days of the web team sat in the basement and loading content on the website.  For charities digital tools and platforms are becoming (and for many already are) the key channel to the public to encourage fundraising, action taking or general awareness, as well as providing opportunities to facilitate deeper interaction, collaboration and support between supporters, staff and beneficiaries.

Digital is also becoming more important with regards to improving how efficient we are by enabling better internal communications, planning, making, monitoring and evaluating our programs. Mobile and mobile internet in particular are offering new ways to for us to work and communicate.

How is the charity landscape different now? For example, has there been an increase in competition?

Money is a key thing. The majority of charities simply don’t have the same amount to spend on development, production and promotion of digital that a commercial organisation might. Whilst this is a restriction, it does mean there is a lot of creativity and innovation within the sector.

From a supporter angle, I think our supporters rightly expect us to be able to show the impact of our work that we ask them to fundraise for and take action on and this is an area within the charity sector that is really improving at the moment.

It is natural to have some level of competition with colleagues from other organisations, especially in the same sector. I think this is healthy as it encourages all of us to do better. Within the digital campaigning sector - which I primarily focus on -  we are all pretty focused on achieving our own project goals, but there is a really supportive collegiate network who meet regularly  and actively use online forums to share problems, lessons, and opportunities. I think this really helps improve our skills as a sector and makes us more effective with our limited resources.

What is unique about Oxfam’s digital strategy from its pre-digital strategy? What is its objective?

Oxfam has had a Digital Strategy for a while, but the big change is really the ambition we have for digital tools to help us achieve our goals of ending poverty and suffering and how integrated digital is through all of our department and activities. This includes enhancing our fundraising opportunities and campaigning, to being more responsive and conversational with our communities - particularly via social media.

Our strategy also has to be flexible enough to be able to cope with the fast changing pace of how people use digital tools as well as where digital tools are now reaching.

Over the past two years Oxfam has really changed how it integrates digital into not only it’s marketing and communications, but also our program work. Mobile is a key area for us over the next few years.

Which projects do you feel Oxfam has best used the web for the technology’s unique features (and what do you think these features are)? Which other charities are exemplary in their web use?

I think our work with social media has been really interesting in both communicating about what we do and what you can do to make a difference. We have also moved away from the broadcast style communications to more conversational as we encourage people to talk about the issues behind poverty within their own networks, through our network blogging projects like VOICE or playing a facilitation role by bringing UK supporters into contact with campaigners in different countries to work together.   Also,our marketing, SEO, front and back-end developments to our shop and donation process  have really had an impact.

In terms of my field, of digital campaigning I am really impressed with  how Greenpeace is  using digital. Their recent VWdarkside.com is a really great example of how to use popular culture connect with people and communicate a subject like the EU Climate Emission legislation process in a way that is accessible and interesting to a wider public.

charity: water is another organisation that really represents how charities and organisations set up over the last few years have social media in their DNA and are run more like tech start-ups rather than more traditional NGOs. These type of organisations  value the connection they have with their supporters as much as the cash they receive from them, and prioritise getting their participation in future decisions and sharing the social proof of their combined efforts back to them and others.

Which projects do you think used it wrong? Why?

I think one of the main mistakes organisations make with  digital communication projects in particular is to let go of control of their message.

The only way to control a message online is to be very bland and therefore not get anyone’s attention or really limit your ambition in terms of social media tools.

Some of that comes from the fear of  having a conversation with their supporters rather than just posting a statement online. Beth Kanter’s The Networked Non-Profit is probably one of the best things to read to learn how NGOs need to integrate social media into their external communications strategy but also take the principle of social networking to re-focus how they work and organise themselves.

If you are a senior manager at NGO who is currently  blocking their staff from accessing Facebook  and Twitter at work, I would change that straight away.  Let your staff be advocates and promote your organisation by being active and vibrant participants within their own networks.

How have people’s relationships with Oxfam and its campaigns changed because of the web? And conversely, how have they not changed?

People expected us now to provide much more evidence and impact of what we talk about  and how their efforts with us have made a difference. Which is a great thing in my book. Social media and blogging help with this, which I think we utilise the best when we are big global events like the UN Climate Change Summit or the G20.  We try to give our supporters a insiders look  of how our team uses their campaign efforts to get the attention of decision makers.

I think despite the ability to receive information from friends and family, people still want organisations they trust like Oxfam and others to provide insight and evidence of what is going on in the world and I don’t think that will change.

What are the new techniques you use to convince people to support Oxfam? What is different about what they demand?

We still use email  as a key way to inform people about opportunities to support Oxfam’s work, how to help in a crisis or to help change underlying issues  that prevent ending poverty and suffering.

Mobile and social media are providing new ways for people to interact with us from QR codes on clothing in our shops so you can find out more about the people who support us, to google maps video and blog updates about our work in Haiti to quick ways to donate with us via your mobile, to twitter and hashtag actions, or organising meetups of global supporters via phone and online,  we are using lots of different ways engage people with Oxfam.

What do you think will be the next digital opportunity for charities using the web? Will it be a new kind of technology, a new kind of interface, a new browsing experience?

MOBILE.  Mobile  and mobile internet is key for many charities for many different reasons. Those of who work with technology across many countries, using mobile in a way that works across different levels of access and levels of sophistication will continue to be an interesting challenge.

The Youth of the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

People under 25 form the majority of the population in many middle East and African Countries. It is they who are doing the most innovative work in adapting technologies, communication styles and channels so they work for them, whether it is looking at how to build ultra cheap touch screens, how to organise within a culture of repression or kludging a solar powered system together for their village. I think all NGOs should be looking to the youth in these countries to inspire us and lead the way to new ways of thinking about technology for social good.