Posts Tagged ‘Development Frameworks’

Digital Hubs supporting Participation

This book chapter, written by Fred Garnett & Nigel Ecclesfield, discusses the question of what needs to be addressed in “the major infrastructural, cultural and organisational issues if integrated formal and informal eLearning environments are going to affect any change in the institutional regime,” which came from the chapter brief.
It argues that two conceptual models that we developed can help address these issues;

Firstly a social media participation model, Aggregate then Curate, that was developed on a JISC-funded project, MOSI-ALONG, which itself was designed using an integrated model of formal and informal learning called the Emergent Learning Model.

Secondly a “development framework” for institutional flexibility called an ‘organisational Architecture of Participation’, which was co-created with 15 UK Further Education colleges to better enable e-learning within educational institutions.

Recommendations are made concerning how to address the various infrastructural, cultural and organisational issues that emerged during MOSI-ALONG, as we worked with local partners to better enable adult eLearning. These also includes looking at broader proposals concerning the need for individual adult learning institutions to have ongoing support from collaborative hubs if they are to evolve a community-responsive institutional life-cycle appropriate for adult learning.

The full book chapter is available as a PDF by clicking on this link http://www.slideshare.net/fredgarnett/towards-an-adult-learning-architecture-of-participation


Read Full Post »

Policy 2.0 An Overview

Nigel and I started developing some digital approaches to policy development whilst working in the UK Government for Becta, then the  government’s e-learning agency. This is a short overview of those developments with links to related online resources

lastfridaymob; In 2001 & 2002 a large Advisory Group of 168 Civil Society organisations were involved in a UK govt project to “solve the digital divide” called “Cybrarian.” We came up with a prototype “social network,” but the term didn’t exist then. We were aware of the need for a high-concept description of what we had come up with, however we called it an “Amazon for e-gov” when our client (the UK govt) understood neither Amazon nor e-gov. When our proto-Facebook was rejected (they decided on commissioning a search engine instead – yeah I know) a bunch of us from the technical committee formed lastfridaymob as a silent protest. We were smart enough to realise that the problem was that government didnt understand how to evaluate new Web2.0 technology projects, so we thought we would help by coming up with the criteria for them.  We came up with 7 key points, but simplified it to 1; “Encourage innovative, creative and participative uses of ICT within government initiatives.”

An Information Architecture for Civil Society; One of the more laughable (OK, hilarious) aspects of the “Cybrarian” project was when we handed the project management over to a highly-paid management consultancy. It was quite clear they had no idea of nascent Web2.0 tech projects, so I wrote a piece called An Information Architecture for Civil Society in 2003 to explain how a national civil society tech project needed to be designed. I was concerned that business corporations design social infrastructure using what they understand about business systems architecture. Civil Society, the social DNS of cultures, operates differently, and we need to understand the social information architecture that enables social discourse. (We are currently a facing the same real problem with smart cities).

Learner-generated Contexts Research Group; however our plan to explain to government how to deal with the post-Web 2.0 technology back in 2004/05 foundered so we decided to re-configure as a research group interested in post-Web2.0 models of learning. We accepted that social media, Web2.0 and user-generated content was a given (as would an interactive, creative and participative education system) so we thought of developing criteria, descriptors and pedagogies that allowed for all that. We decided that the way to describe post-Web 2.0 learning was that it would entail Learner-generated contexts (shaped with learner-generated content) where “coincidences of motivations” led to “agile configurations” of learning systems. We held some public events, developing the Open Context Model of Learning. At our event on learning spaces Nigel & I were asked to develop an interactive policy forest so we could identify the policy elements that would enable the social construction of learner-generated contexts.

Policy2.0; Nigel Ecclesfield and Fred Garnett also spent 18 months working with (more…)

Read Full Post »

How we might develop Education Institution 2.0

Before and After Institutions is a Slideshare which summarises, in general terms, what we have learnt about developing organisational Architectures of Participation; how institutions might become more adaptive to facilitate digitally-driven behaviours. Slides tend to be pointed rather than discursive so this blog post will elaborate on some of the key issues that slides don’t make particularly clear.

Background Nigel Ecclesfield and Fred Garnett started looking at the issue of e-maturity at Becta in 2005 when a key issue of national UK policy concerning e-learning was noticed. It was thought that existing institutions were not e-learning ready and we were tasked to find a solution concerning their overall e-maturity, or e-readiness for e-learning. On a personal note it was working together on this project for over a year that cemented our enduring friendship.

Assumptions Nigel and I each have over 15 years of experience working with e-learning and embedding it within organisations (more…)

Read Full Post »