Mar 102015
 

Today I am live from Birmingham again for Jisc Digifest 2015. Again, do keep an eye on those tweets though – all sessions will be covered on the #digifest15 hashtag. There is also some live streaming here. For those attending the event you can find me presenting in the following slot today (Hall 3):

My first session of the day is in one in the pods…

Transnational education: conversations for success – Dr Esther Wilkinson, Jisc TNE

Transnational education (TNE) is the provision of education qualifications from institutions in one country to students in another, plays an essential role in the delivery of international strategy in UK educational institutions.

There is huge interest within the sector on transnational education, and the policy around that. And here’s why. According to 2011/12 data transnational education was one of the UK’s major exports. The UK TNE Census 2014 (for HE) found the value to the UK economy at around £496m per annum. Average annual remittance per student of around £1530. We see relative stability in TNE host countries – many are around asia and the middle east. Subjects vary greatly but a real increase in engineering and STEM subjects. And TNE is growing.

So, it is growing… but what are the benefits? Traditionally TNE has grown up around partnerships at universities and relationships between universities, but we see it becoming increasingly strategically planned. Different institutions have different motivations for engaging. There are financial benefits but that’s not the motivation for many institutions. The cost of living in the UK is increasing, and visa clampdowns mean that delivery overseas increasingly makes sense. And there is a Taylor effect – when a UK presence in another country, a significant draw back to that country after graduation – estimated to be around £40m per year. The student also benefits as well. And all of these drivers are part of why Jisc has kicked off this work stream.

When we look at the UK providers of TNE (2011-12) we have to note that Oxford Brookes is so active in this space that they wholly skew the picture. But missing from that list is Nottingham… So, on that note, it’s over to Lisa Burrow, Director of global IT service delivery, University of Nottingham.

Lisa: Nottingham have had two campuses overseas for 10 years now, in China and Malaysia. We’ve been developing our 2020 strategy. Our vision within IS is for the majority of IT services to be available globally and provided on a global basis by one central team – that’s actually quite a challenge  for China in particular. So I have a team in Nottingham, and smaller connected teams in China and Malaysia. I have a team manager based with me dedicated to those campuses – we also have a business manager who is also dedicated to those campuses so both of those people spend around 2/3rds of their time at those campuses.

So, where does Jisc come in? Our current infrastructure in China and Malaysia was installed 10 years ago, but it is starting to show it’s age, especially with students coming in with all of their devices. So Jisc are supporting us to continuously improve, particularly to address issues of traffic. How do we meet those needs on an ongoing basis. So one area is Network Links – we currently use very expensive commercial links, and we are trialling possibilities from Jisc that are looking really promising, also CERNET and VPN. The other area is licensing. There are lots of opportunities for improvement there. And lots of challenges too. For instance in Malaysia a 10% charge is imposed by the government on some purchases. Lots of import and export issues. Some things are wholly banned in China. And we struggle on an ongoing basis with Google/Google Apps and some other services because of the “Great Firewall”. And there are also challenges around reseller rights. So I have been trying to negotiate a Microsoft licence, we have a global contract but the Chinese end has to be invoiced and paid in China, in yen. That is not acceptable to me, I want one global invoice, sent to Nottingham and paid there. Also reseller rights are often sold to different people, we had one provider say that unless we had a minimum spend of £1 million they wouldn’t even talk to us.

So, in summary, we think there is huge potential for working with Jisc, and we are really looking forward to that.

Esther: This is where Jisc comes in. A recent quote from Martin Hall, Jisc Chair, highlights this focus on transnational education. This area of work is not without challenges, some of which Lisa has already spoken about. Hidden costs can be a real issue in TNE. And the focus has too often been on curriculum design, academic quality, but not how we actually deliver. So when we want to deliver online courses, deliver seminars, then we start to see issues. And when things go wrong students are starting to be disappointed. We sell ourselves, the UK education sector, heavily overseas and so that student dissatisfaction can have a really problematic effect.

We have set up our Jisc TNE support strategy, to explore different models of delivery overseas, to support you in the spectrum of those services. Ideally we want to deliver you whatever we do in the UK, for use overseas. We know that may be too ambitious, but we want to aim at that… We are focusing on delivering the JANET network and connectivity overseas, that’s fundamental to getting everything else right. And we are focusing on China and Malaysia – where there is a prevalence of TNE activity.

We commissioned OBHE to run a series of research for us with UK HE providers. They ran focus groups in Scotland, Manchester and London. We ran a survey in July 2014 (38% response rate -84 universities). We did something interesting in commissioning this research. We did focus on IT staff but we also asked the international offices at institutions as well. So, we asked both types of staff what they are currently doing at the moment. A large number provising online, blended or MOOCs, many working in partnership, around 10% had overseas branch campuses. Growth likely to be online, joint working etc, likely 10% growth around branch campuses. We asked IT directors who works on the IT for overseas branches, many did not.

So, there is planned expansion fo TNE activities in the next 5 years. Branch campuses remain a minority, online/blended growing and a desire to shift to real time teaching delivery. Locations include Australia, Botswana, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia… etc. Network use was around email, browsing, access to library, registration systems and online courses hosted in the UK. And network issues encountered including poor network performance, protection of copyright data and intellectual property, integration fo IT with partner institutions. A couple of key areas for attention: a real lack of communication between IT and international offices – and we are already helping bring these groups together; and understanding what actually is happening at the branch campuses.

A lot of IT staff don’t know who is responsible at the other end of TNE at their institution, they don’t know who to go to when things go wrong. So we have models in China and Malaysia and our preference is to work with local partners. So, in China we have a strategic alliance with CERET, the Chinese Higher Education network, utilising the high-speed London-Beijing ORIENTplus connection. That gives increased bandwidth to international traffic at no additional cost.

In Malaysia this isn’t the case. They don’t have a good network so we have had to procure a commercial solution, from Telecom Malaysia. And we had three institutions approach us for assistance here – Newcastle, Southampton and Reading. This is for a local MAN established in EduCity – which is a co-located campus. But that relationship with the commercial ISP has also enabled us to negotiate a large discount for the new Heriot-Watt campus in Malaysia.

And a third example here: to provide a multi site service for University of Nottingham – to link up campuses but also deliver Eduroa and services such as telephony and video conferences. And this is a collaborative project with CERNET.

So, we are gathering evidence from the sector on what they want us to do next. We are working with Queen Mary, University of London; Heriot-Watt, Aberdeen etc. already. So far the experience has been very positive. And there are new opportunities coming. We have looked at British Council, HMG Industrial Strategy, and BIS value of TNE reports to look for concentrated areas of interest and opportunities. And we also looked to the survey responses, many already covered in that list. And together that generated out policy list, whic is:

  • South Korea
  • Mauritius – over 10 UK campuses there
  • Malta – Malta very keen to work with us.
  • Sri Lanka – aggregate of demand, there is an NREN there but their policy is to not engage beyond Sri Lanka and their HE sector
  • Pakistan
  • United Arab Emirates adn Middle East – many in Dubai, but Oman also growing
  • India – universities poised here, but policy issues at the moment
  • Africa – definitely the next big area. Difficult to connect. But the nature of TNEs is that you are not targetting well developed/connected areas
  • Hong Kong – still much to do
  • Singapore – still much to do

We are focusing on network, eduroam, video conferencing, security, cloud and data stroage. But licensing is also moving up the priority list and we are working with others in Jisc on that. And we are also working with some schools and private education providers in some of these areas, so it’s beyond HE. And we really need to be understanding these new methods and models for delivery. We also are looking at how to support for evaluation and assessment – some still paper based for TNE. And student experience also needs some work, many opportunities there. So, there is lots to do.

As we do these projects and look at new opportunities we are beginning to understand the Jisc TNE Support Programme value proposition. That is about Cost, Risk, Quality, Time. And services such as Global TNE policy development, in-country knowledge, etc.

So, we are only just beginning to understand how TNE will develop… It is critical we understand what you are currently doing so we can understand issues, things we can assist with, opportunities for the future. We have a sense of what TNE looks like now, but it’s about where TNE goes in the future…

Within your institution you need to know your own institutional international/TNE strategy; ensure IT support for TNE is fully considered and costed into the plans at the earliest opportunity.

Find out more at: http://jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/transnational-education. And we are planning some workshops to help have those conversations across the sector.

Q: How does what you are doing compare to developed European countries?

A – Esther: On the whole there are good relationships with the rest of Europe. Some of our time is actually paid for by JALT. The TNE activities well developed in that space. But more competition coming up from the US and Australia, and that is why it matters that we do stuff well, to keep our competitive edge.

Keynote speech – Carole Goble

Before we begin our keynote session proper we are being treated to a video on the Janet network. And I’m now proud to introduce you to someone who has benefitted from and would not be able to do her work without the Janet network. Carol has been advocating releasing research as research objects, not just for scientists and researchers but for anyone inteterested in research and knowledge.

Carol: I was inspired by a colleague, Josh Summers, who has a nasty disease called Chordoma and he was motivated not to further to research, but to speed up research so that fewer people died. He said the research is too slow, the reuse of information was not easy enough to do. I think that it is useful to remember why we do science, why we do research.

So, how do we share knowledge at the moment? We share PDFs, and link to other PDFs. Other times we share data through tables and graphs that we have to pull out of a PDF… I have a colleague who built a tool to extract that – make data reusable again. But why do we do this? Well, it’s about virtual witnessing (Mesirov 2010), to announce results, and to be able to repeat the experiment… But in Bramhall et al (2015) you find only one of 58 papers looking at colitis research gave enough information for the research to be repeatable. Why? Well look at #overlyhonestmethods and you’ll see the sorts of issues that can arise…

I am a computational scientists and an article about computational science is a about datasets, collections, standard operating procedures, software, etc. That’s a lot of stuff if we truly wanting our research to be repeatable. Of 50 papers randomly chosen from 378 manuscripts in 2011 looking at the same process (Burrows Wheeler Aligner for mapping Illumina reads) – only 7 listed neccassary details; 26 no access to primary datasets but actually the methodology is the real issue. Even if you don’t share the data, sharing the method is essential. Bad software = bad results. Geoffrey Chang should be applauded for coming clean about an error in his homemade software – he retracted 3 papers, one of which had nearly 400 citations.

So, how are our software making practices… As a general rule researchers are not good at documenting what they do. Only 34% of scientists think that formal training in developing software is important. Something is a bit wrong here about how we are doing this. We have initiatives like Data Fairport, FAIR (Finadable Accessible Interoperable Reusable) publishing – which the EU is very keen on,. There are catalogues of code. There are manifestos on computational method. To summarise: record and automate everything!

All this activity has led to a soft of bottom up “republic of science” (Merton 1942), the regulation of science (OECD, EU, Research Councils, EPSRC data mandate etc) and in the middle all of this institution cores, libraries and public services. So, why do we end up with this situation on reusability in science? Well there is honest error. Because science is messy (like climate gate). Because of fraud – a real issue in biomedicine, a significant number of biomedical papers which are fraudulent. And there are inherant issues – there is one LHC, there is one super powerful computer and it would be excessive to replicate.

Research goes wrong because of scientific method – bad resources, black boxes, poor reporting, unavailable resources, bad training. With that some more #overlyhonestmethods quotes here, e.g. “I can’t reproduce my data as I can’t remember my exel filenames any more!”.

There is also an issue of reproducability debt. The time it takes to prepare something so that someone you don’t know can actually reproduce that research…. Maybe easy to prepare for others in your lab, but for a stranger that’s hard. And no one sees the value in taking the time to do that, the benefit of doing that. And there is a lot of work to make reproducable… but there is no motivation for replication studies, no one is excited about it in terms of funding or publications… And we have a complex, fragmented landscape of subject specific and general resources.

So I’m going to look at some specific things around reproducability…

The Journal of Biogeography and the migration patterns of crabs in the Baltic. To do this you need a workflow… need reference data, own data, need to clean and process the data… modelling, running again, tweaking, running again etc. and then data analysis. So here is the myexperiment data to support that – workflows and connected programmes to capture that data, that process, those tweaks. And that points to other third party systems, data in other repositories… a complicated environment…

So, to research objects… That is a research object.. compound investigations, research products.

These objects are units of exchange, commons, contextual metadata. They are multi various products, platforms/resources. So we see this all as a research object (see: http://www.researchobject.org).  And when you have the publications, data, results, workflows, slides, metadata, logs… then you have a first class citizen, an object including data, software, methods, id, manage, credit, track, profile, focus. So it’s a big box full os stuff, connected to stuff… Like a TARDIS… lets call it Time and Relative Dimensions in Scholarship. In honour of the tradis I’m going to use a tardis as my framework for enabling this stuff… [see the slides, I can’t do it justice!].

So we are working on an MRC funded multi site collaboration to support safe use of patient and research data for medical research. And looking at research object packages codes, study, and metadata to exchnage description of research data. And that is work with the Farr institute.

We also need to share code. There has been a big push around this from Mozilla Science Lab, F1000 Research – seeing research as versioned but living documents, so the figure changes as you access it. You can register with other labs to contribute, then re-calculate to get new versions of the paper, or the conclusions… That is a research paper as object. We should not be thinking of research as publications, but as something we release – just like software… With comparisons, versions, forks and merges, dependencies… ID and citations. And we can do that across research.

To go back again to research object work that I’m doing at Manchester… here’s a paper on parasites, and it’s associated model… And this is associated with a SEEK FAIRDOM site – asset registry, models and data can be loaded… So this one paper has 2 studies, 21 assays, 14 data files… and the DOI is to all of that, not just to the paper. So this brings together standards, personal data in local stores, models, external databases, articles. SEEK is a way to look across all of these. And this idea of FAIRDOM is an aggregated commons infrastrucutre provides enough to share experimental data across your colleagues. That is underpinned by the ISA model. This work is funded by the BBSRC… I have 7 FTEs on this project which I realise is better than many will have working in this space.

What is reproducabiity? What does it actually mean? The science changes…. If I run data through the same workflow again but the data has changed slightly, for instance, I won’t get the same results – and shouldn’t. And these instruments (whether equipment, machines, software) break, labs decay…. We see bit rot, black boxes, propietary licenses, “clown” services – a way to think with caution about “cloud”, partial replication, prepare to repair – we did some research with myexperiment and found labs are dependent on their instruments, their materials… So we have to think at the start of the experiment what the equipment and setup is.

So, we know in the research world we have a research environment and a publication environment… But we now know we have a range of options here… rerun – variations on experiment and set up; repeat – cam experiment, same set up, same lab; replicate – same experiment, same set up, independent lab ;reproduce – variations on experiment… ;reuse. No scientist wants to full reproduce after publication though, they just want to reuse. And that brings us to FAIR ideas, to the need to be transparant. And in software that means standards, packages, provenance, version control. And we can make use of an eLab, a virtual machine… A way to run/replicate what has happened but not to replicate it. With a complex workflow you are trying to put the internet in a box… ! So, we have a range from portability to transparency…

At Manchester we’ve been doing quite an academic thing… thinking about what the least possible we can do… Some of my own papers are not REF returnable are not “hard computer science” and because “you’ve written so that the people you have written it for can read and use it”! So, anyway, we are trying to use existing tools and standards. Can we use Zip as transport, Docker as packaging tool. That description and manifest has to be configured from the least you can describe…. it’s identity is the least you can describe – so how you cite it matters. We need objects to be born reproducable, and we need to have smart/pragmatic ideas of reproducability.

And with that, I’m afraid, I have to sneak off to prep my own 11am session. Watch the tweets for the rest of Carol’s excellent talk. And then I was in my session, then lunch… now back… 

Get involved in co-design

So I’m just goung to talk a bit about what co-design is… We have an innovation pipeline – it looks a bit like a caterpillar… But this is about co-design as part of the process of developing new projects and services. There are two underpinning process… the process by which we move things along (the product management process), and how ideas get into the pipeline – and those ideas may come in at any point in that pipeline. And that second process is via something we call co-design. We want people who will end up using what we develop is involved from idea through to delivery of service. We’ve now done that for two years, now working on ideas that came out of the 2014 co-design process.

There are some principles here. Our effort has to be focused – we have limitless areas that we might want to develop or work on but limited resources to do that. So we have to focus and prioritise. The next thing is partnership, and working in partnership with Jisc customers to ensure there is no deep divergence in what they need and what we deliver. That partnership can also be about relationships with other organisations, delivery partners etc. The next thing is absolutely being user-centred – we have to have end users in mind throughout… Can be tricky, e.g. for middleware… But it should be the number one priority for all of our processes. We still have to take risks and be experimental in one way or another… But we need a balance of risk in our portfolio – interesting things, innovation… but a balance that everyone benefits from. The desire to be agile, to be responsive and change as needs change, technologies change, opportunities change… things can change during that pipeline process…

The way we do co-design at the moment – and we do plan to make some changes based on the feedback from the Jisc community so from 2016 onwards will be different, particularly with the new account managers in place. But how it has worked at the moment is to start with a prioritisation meeting with high level representatives (UCISA, Colleges, NUS, etc.), that generates key areas – about 5 – and then we contact and engage with a much bigger group to look at possible ways to address those challenges. And then we prioritise again, deciding which ideas to pursue.

We then reach the stage of developing the ideas into new services through regular iterations with end users. So for the 2014 co-design process we’ll be in this phase until 2016 by which time all 5 areas should have delivered.

Thinking ahead to 2016 we do want to expand who we engage with, ensure it is wider without slowing down the process. We also haven’t had many radical innovations coming forward, and hope to support that to happen.

So there are five co-design challenges for (2014-16).

Research at risk – lead by Rachel Bruce

Essentially this is about research data management. This is turning research data management from a problem, into business as usual. This is really across two categories: shared services – since many universities addressing this issue so space to address with shared platforms and approaches for instance around storage, measuring usage of shared data, also research data discovery – how do you find research data? Papers are relatively easy, but how do you find data? Looking at share service for that; the other side of things is policy, compliance… and ways to ensure compliance or roadmaps to reach compliance. We also have a project called “Research Data Spring” – going direct to researchers for ideas. Started with 70 ideas, now refined down to 22… researchers are melding and merging their ideas as well.

How do you get involved? Mainly this will be later on. Early adopters of shared services, early users and provide ideas and steering of those. All of those are

Prospect to Alumnus – lead by Simon Whittemore

Andy McGregor: This is about a more joined up student experience from prospect through studies and into alumni. We will deliver short, medium and long term solutions here. So for instance thinking about data flow across institutional systems, pathways and use case of how students interact with the data stored around tham will happen shortly. We are also looking at student profiles, and the changing nature of students, so we’d like your help with that. Into the medium term we are looking to build an employer/student skills match system, looking at formal and informal skills, use of badges etc. And our longer term solution would be a digital data service, stuff that they own and can take with them from one institution to another.

So, in terms of getting involved, probably best to email Simon or myself.

Learning Analytics – lead by Paul Bailey

Paul: Looking at challenges of implementing learning analytics in higher and further education. We asked for ideas and prioritisation of ideas. The three areas desired was: some sort of basic learning analytics solution; policy and ethics – a code of practice – of learning analytics; a cookbook of case studies, what people are doing, the algorithms and approaches in use.

How can you get involved: currently in procurement process for learning analytics solution. Hope to have in place by May, ready for trialling in September.. And then we’ll be looking for pilot participants, and an idea of required strategy, policy, etc. to bring these tools into use. Also looking at an intervention tool for the outcome of the analytics. Also a student-facing app for presenting learning analytics. And we’ll be working with staff and students to work on that over the next year. The code of practice has been drafted, it’s out for comment… And the network – we have a growing active network of people involved and engaged with learning analytics (analytics@jiscmail.ac.uk). We have face to face meetings – community led, community based network meetings. We also have some small micro funded projects for exploring more advanced research around learning analytics – wider data sets than we may have in our basic solution.

Andy: For learning analytics the problem was well defined so we have been able to move more quickly.

Paul: See out blog on analytics.jiscinvolve.org. And reports there.

Digital Capabilities – lead by Sarah Davies

This is about staff skills and capabilities. This is essential to the student experience. But it is also, from an IT Director perspective, about getting best value from investment in technology. This builds upon previous work on digital literacy. We think we can move to a better set of resources, and set of approaches but there is lots of work to build upon. And we think we can build up a capabilities framework, to understand what is needed now, and what there may be. This framework will combine other frameworks already available and form a foundation for the tools we are developing. This work is well underway – see the Get Involved page on the Jisc R&D website. There are more opportunities coming up soon. We will have something by the end of 2015 – will be prototypes to see/engage with much sooner than this.

Implementing FELTAG – lead by Nigel Ecclesfield

Paul: This has come about in part in response to the FELTAG report about improving use of learning technology in FE and Skills. We’ve been through a consultation process with leaders in the sector, and we are helping to co-ordinate what goes on in the sector. So what’s coming out of that is an FE coalition with appropriate FE provider groups. They have put together a joint statement of their commitment to work on this agenda – a bit like a government steering group. It’s partly Jisc, partly that bigger coalition. The role of the FE Coalition is broader than England, and broader than FELTAG. We have the Scottish Funding Council involved and expect NI and Wales to be involved.

There are also activities around student engagement, change agency of students, and we we have four challenges coming up around change management. Two of those four are about FE and skills organisations and learner. One is for apprentices. The other things we are working on will looking at leadership and development, at curriculum design and development and content creation. Particularly discovery of that material. A lot looking at what is being called the FE discovery community – to pull together and share learning resources, and processes. A network to engage FE practitioners around what works in learning technologies. Currently discussing the specifications here.

A lot of this has been carried forward by collating activities across the sector, including other organisations already involved.

Andy: Of course this is still taking shape, so opportunities will be coming up as they progress. And do keep an eye on the Get Involved page of the Jisc R&D website.

So what we’d like to do now is to have a bit of discussion here around co-design… and any questions you may have…

Q1: Prospect to Alumnus work – has any account been taken of existing work around student identities etc.

Shri: Not a replacement. But we know many FE colleges looking at employability have their own systems in place…

Comment: There are lots of different things taking place, we are keen to understand that, develop an easily replicable approach and method to monitor that.

Shri: Things like how do we fit placements get represented, is that badged, etc.

Comment: This also responds to increasing localisation agenda…

Q1: At the moment you lose data from schools, again at the end when students moved to university… There is a lack of consistency in what is being recorded and how that has been recorded.

Shri: In co-design we are starting small and focused, but can then reflect and get feedback and expand into a more complex system…

Andy: We could start big and never quite get there, could work on edges… but we are trying to hit balance of what is needed right now, what’s practical, but also the imaginative work about where this could go – probably more to do in that second area, more thinking to do.

Paul: It’s a big one that. Had a go at it before.

Q1: I think it’s silly we apply the ULN, they haven’t had it applied before but should have done. It’s really fragmented.

Paul: In next few years use of ULN in universities should move from about 30% to about 70%. That may be a driver. For HE it’s about attainment, for FE & skills it’s much more about tracking that process, the learner pathway over time – that’s an interesting challenge. But that’s another stage of development. We are doing well with HE, fairly well with colleges, but more to do with skills providers.

Andy: Going back to learning analytics… An app for students to track process, is that a good idea?

Comment: Is there student demand?

Andy: We have some indications from the summer of student innovation that tracking own data is of interest…

Comment: But that may not be a representative group

Andy: Certainly the NUS are interested.

Paul: Those that have piloted student dashboards have found them useful. And the NUS are keen for greater transparancy. But cautiously in a productive way. Another issue is that students may be able to interact and respond to those analytics… maybe linking up their fitbit or something, linking to performance at university. At Research Data Spring there was a small project looking at that sort of activity, attainment and activity in the VLE – and if there is any correlation. But also to look at feedback and emotional response to that feedback.

Andy: And on that, we wrap up… Hopefully if another event next year, we can show off what we have achieved, as all of these areas will be delivering over the next year.

Find out more about this work here: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/how-we-innovate

Improving buy-in for e-learning through a frictionless framework – Judy Bloxham and Allen Crawford Thomas

Judy: This is going to be a reflection on working with the FE community in particular… And that’s where this frictionless framework comes from… And this is about coping with a different sort of landscape, because we can’t stand still in the education world – external forces require us to change. Only last week we had an announcement of the changes in adult education funding – an 11% cut. For colleges that money is about 36% of their budget, so that’s a 24% cut to their budget overall. That money is being refocused on apprenticeships, and that will force other changes, such as college mergers. There is no way to stay static in that environment.

We are starting with a wee quiz/poll of the room… using Kahoot.it so we get dramatic music to pressure us into answers! Questions include organisational attitude to IT, IT support view of what they do. And how we feel after staff development session. And what we think of OERs and free technology.

There has been more pedagogic change in the last 10 years than the last 1000 years. There is so much we can do… the lecture needs to change… there is so much we can do…

“if you think eduation is expensive try ignorance” – Derek Bok. This applies as much to staff as to learners. If staff are not allowed to experiment, to try things out… That’s why the elearning agenda can stall. In big institutional reviews staff complained about the lack of time to learn things properly, to understand them properly. [now watching segment of David Putnam talk]. People want to hang on to things that they recognise, and that’s a dangerous place to be. We have so much of a push side for education… We will give you this knowledge… But now it needs to be a pull, learners need to take knowledge on, students need to understand how to find information when they need it. We can’t remember facts, information in our head… So learners need to find how to find information rather than hold a load of facts…

Technology has to be useful to actually make use of it, to feel ok learning how to use it (e.g. recent City & Guilds report). Quite often technology is about acquisition without vision. Some tools are not usable enough to use. Sometimes you have to acknowledge that what you have purchased may not be fit for purpose.

Larry Cuban has been quite critical about the use of technology in education, that there is a lack of relationship between the tools and technologies and the education and pedagogies themselves. And our use of technology in institutions are often behind what we do in other areas of our life, with our devices etc. Lovely quote in a recent report: “the quality of education can never exceed the quality of the teachers”.

There needs to be a clear vision for the role of technology including joined up thinking and co-ordinated action. The whole organisation needs to be involved in procurement and deployment, good support during roll out. And of course there has to be real relevance to your learners. Tech should absolutely be there to support learning not be seen as a “nice to have”. The FELTAG report also highlighted the importance of relevance, and training to uptake and you need senior managers have to buy in for things to actually happen.

So, what we need, is fast, friendly, and focused technology to make it frictionless. Is this stuff is easy to use your staff and learners will be able to and motivated to use it… So we get to this diagram of how everything needs to work together… With the organisation, staff and learners all working together…

Senior management want low cost and high quality solutions, they want easy adoption, improved retention and achievement, improved learner success, sustainable solutions, good practice that is easy to replicate – don’t underestimate how difficult that is to do, replication knowledge and skills can be really hard to pull off. IT Infrastructure require compatibility, security, low maintenance, to be partners in the planning of how technology is applied to support learning. [Various discussion here about restrictions around installation, processes, attitude, about the degree to which this issue has been raised again and again every year for probably 15 to 20 years, of the need to reward good practice professionally for good sensible innovation and for sharing that]. Teachers want easy to understand and use of technology, pedagogical relevance – how do they relate to their practice, technology to increase learner engagement, contextualised staff development.

And with that I’m going to sneak out for a coffee, as this is not quite the session I was expecting in terms of focus, hopefully others here will be tweeting highlights for the last 10 mins though. 

How do we change the learning landscape? – Lawrie Phipps,Will Allen and Peter Chatterton

For the last two years Jisc have been working with organisations, in a multi agency partnership with ALT, NUS, HEA, etc. looking at technology enhanced learning change. Having the NUS involved has been an incredibly important part of that.  Seven key things came through: strategy and leadership was key; students – institutions really engaging students in the change made the most difference; programme design and delivery; professional support services; staff capabilities and development; change management approaches – some really interesting findings around that and preparing for change; technology – change that people wanted, making it appropriate and relevant, looking for problems and looking for solutions which are not always going to be technological solutions.

Will: leaders recognise the importance of TEL as part of achieveing organisational goals. But terms such as “excellent learning experience” didn’t neccassarily mean anything practical at the chalk face. There is recognition of rapidly changing environment, mobile, BYOD. There was also an awareness that technology isn’t part of NSS scores.

Peter: What came back from students is the lack of consistency – that is their word that they are using. Part of the benefit of an HE education is that it is not consistent, you are exposed to different views etc… But when one teacher has real enthusiasm for technology, engages students, that can reset expectations only to have those expectations dashed on later courses. But another thing we see in HE – we are great at innovation, at pilots… but not at rolling out across the institution. And support staff are also tending to want to work with the innovators… and so universities aren’t good at spreading the knowledge that they have… I started working in TEL 15 years ago and a lot of these issues haven’t changed, we are not moving that far forward and therefore need to take a different approach to ensure what students want which is more consistent practices. We need to embed innovative learning across universities…

Students really like mobile access – I know one institution looking at a student centric mobile approach instead of a VLE for instance. And students like to see the benefits of technology, but not just the use of it for the sake of it. And students really still want face to face contact. econtact, efeedback has to be sold much more to students…

There are still lots of barriers for staff not using TEL – workload, capabilities, confidence for instance. We have to encourage senior staff to embrace TEL to make that happen.

Lawrie: In terms of change management we found a lot of institutions were really agile, really flexible about changes… But strategy needs to be contextualised, turning strategy aims into meaningful terminology for staff to use in their practice mattered. Some organisations were bringing in external/independent change managers. To talk through the process. And part of that is always about ensuring that the people who need to be engaged understand why it is happening, why it matters, what the impact is. Especially when you are talking about bringing digital literacies into the curriculum.

Peter: At the moment support staff are often from different backgrounds, I think we need to equip them with coaching skills, in order to skill them to coach academic leaders, deans, etc.

Q1: Isn’t there an opportunity here to persuade the professional skills organisations to properly recognise that teaching and those skills and those pedagogies are rewarded.

A1 – Lawrie: Many different organisations here, and great to aim at getting this all linked up, but that’s a long term/huge challenge.

A1 – Peter: There is a Change Agent Network and that has just launched some initiatives. But I think we also need to see academic practice linking up research and teaching – not seeing them as different things, but as sharing many of the same needs/qualities.

Q2: I have difficulty convincing academics that they are educators – eduation is almost what you get demoted to in the HE organisation I work in. So I have really been working in the area you are talking about for many years. Drivers vary so much in HE than in FE, where I worked before.

A2 – Lawrie: We do have to recognise the importance of teaching, and the status of teaching.

A2 – Peter: That is starting to happen and be recognised. But with so many modules and programme teams, how do you that? Training? Support teams? Or as part of processes such as course review. And it’s different in a modern institution, versus a traditional institution, versus an FE college.

A2 – Lawrie: But there is cross learning to be had here.

Q3: Do we need to have outside help? In my college I’m very keen to develop digital learning for my students but it is so hard to access time and money to do so. Understanding needs of educational staff is so important here…

A3: You don’t have to, but you can use them and they can help…

A3 – Peter: I would reinforce all you’ve said about educators. Educators absolutely want to do the best for their students. But don’t knock the role of outsiders – they can add legitimacy for senior managers. It’s a fact of life in my experience that senior managers listen to outsiders more than their own staff… So you have to work with those outsiders to ensure that they reinforce your position.

Q4: I think we also have to sing the praises of the local hero at departmental level. Recognising the roles of academic and support staff, recognising good practice, rewarding with extra time to support that. We have done this very successfully by introducing our VLE with local heroes/champions. You can be as top down as you like but unless there is local engagement your technologies will not be used.

A4 – Lawrie: There’s a balance to be had there. We have to reward local heros. And we need to find a way to bring commonality to case studies in terms of deploying in our own institutions.

A4 – Peter: And of course we have to influence senior staff, loosen those barriers – reward, recognition, word load…. these are hugely important.

Q4: Part of our project was also about engaging students as well. With academic and support staff. But enabled by senior management.

Q5: To sort of agree with Peter here, the role of managers is important. But isn’t one of the biggest problems with our organisations is that the organisation isn’t willing to put in place policies and practices to enable innovations to be sustained?

A5 – Peter: And why is that?

Q5: I think because we don’t have the processes in place to support that. Deans can query the VPs/VCs but ordinary teaching staff are unlikely to do that. We need to support the ability to change.

A5 – Peter: You need people – not the innovators but other types of people – who are better equipped to make that change happen. The innovators like to innovate!

Lawrie: The report we have written, “How do you change the learning landscape?” is now available from the Digifest site and app (and here). It’s just a starting point in this process of supporting change… We are also working on digital capabilities on the whole, and digital capabilities frameworks. These compliment and recognise these skills…

Jisc has also restructured recently, so we just want to talk about some of those changes and why they support this.

Will: One of the big advantages of CLL was that partnership working model. And there is a lot of overlap with Jisc’s new approach to projects and services. I am part of the Jisc Advice&Engagement arm, I lead Jisc North, but this is part of four areas that are part of our regional engagement model. There are all of these points of contacts for you to engage with, to work in partnership with you and provide support in a new customer service model.

Each customer has a dedicated account manager – every university, college, training provider. There are now 44 account managers to work with you. The parallels to CLL are important – this model reflects the way consultants worked in CLL. We have 25 subject specialists who support account managers. We have 7 community engagement officers, we have a customer contact manager. So, please do contact your account manager. If you don’t know who the Jisc contact point within your organisation, contact us and we may be able to help. And we will be giving that contact information about their services, how they are used, etc. as well as targeted support and advice. This is about focused attention, more opportunities to influence our priorities, more tangible and meaningful results and user stories, more evidence and data and a stronger relationship with Jisc.

And with that the short but informative hub session is done! I will be perusing the exhibition and other pod sessions but the liveblog will resume at 4pm for the closing keynote for the conference.

Keynote “Digital vs. Human” from Richard Watson

Robert Haymon-Collins, Executive director customer experience: We’ve had over 1000 people here over the last two days either here in person or engaged online. We also trended on Twitter yesterday – thanks to great live tweeting but also loads of retweeting of content, of useful materials. This was our first year playing with our own app. We’ve had nearly 600 active app users over the last few days. The only thing we have left to do is our closing keynote.

Richard is the author of many books on the future, he’s an advisor and speaker on future trends to companies including IBM, and libraries such as New South Wales.

Richard: This will either work, or it will not. It will be binary. So I want to start by asking “why are you here”. That’s not a theoretical question, I’m genuinely curious since you could take part at home. I think that says something about people, humans matter, showing that digital and humans can coexist. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that companies and corporations don’t neccassarily feel that way. I don’t want you to smash your ipad or ditch Facebook, just to raise your gaze from your compote of apples and blackberries to think about what is happening. These technologies are changing human behaviour. This year, or next, there will be more phones than people. 10% of 5 year olds have their own phone. By age 10 it is more like 75%. By the way calling your kids without warning quite shocls them! But then phone is pretty misleading – voice traffic is falling through the floor, we engage through screens not directly. Does it matter? Sometimes. Text is difficult for conveying tone – there are things that help but you can’t use body language there. Skype and telepresence technologies help a lot, and we lose stuff in that interaction. Research finds that being mediated in that way can mean we miss some of those clues. So good stuff is happening, communication is happening… but how much is being understood?

We are deluged with information, with updates, with tweets… Recent research found that we check our mobile phones over 150 times a day. We rush responses, we don’t read things through properly… I am as guilty  at this as anyone. A Microsoft researcher Lynda Small(?) called this a “constant partial attention”. I’m not saying we switch everything off… but when things really matter face to face really help. Digital technologies need to enhance human communication, not replace them. Increasingly we are distracted by notifications, alerts, etc. and we work in open plan offices that include loads of distractions… Some research found that workers were typically interrupted every 20 minutes, and it can take 40 minutes to remember what you have done. Another study suggested you lose 10 IQ points if you have two or more screens open!

And even text is becoming redundant, perhaps. We are beginning to speak to our computers. Siri is part of this. We will all in ten years have AI avatars, smarter than us. As recently as 2000 only 25% of the world’s internet was online. Now it is 98%. And it’s going up with the Internet of Things. Many things we’ve never quantified before will be turned into data, into money – usually for something else.

So will smart machines take over our jobs? Well we are familiar with this stuff in industrial contexts. There was a study from Oxford University academics predicting a huge loss of US and UK jobs as things more online, similarly Gartner found a likely 30% reduction in jobs. So if you do clear rule based work then you are at risk. So what is it that humans do, that robots and technology are bad at. I’d suggest the answer is in this room… There are a number of things that mark humans from machines… Humans are curious, they like to interact physically, and we are highly creative and care about people. So low level legal assistants might be at risk, lawyers great with people, less so. Surgeons maybe at risk, those able to engage and connect emotionally and intuitively should be safe.

One worrying trend is the use of mobile devices to filter friendship… We already have robots in kindergartens and care homes in Japan, in education in the US. What is interesting is how humans are finding human interactions stressful – people are avoiding people all together and using technology to distance themselves – you see this in avoidance of others in Tesco. In Japan men in their 20s, 30s or 40s seem to prefer relationships with virtual girlfriends thanks to games like that. Also they are seeing 16-30 year olds not interested in sex at all – some demographic issues there, but also cultural issues and digital cultural issues. Perhaps that is the virtual world being more tempting than reality.

I have school aged kids using screens in school. I have no beef with this. But I question the “why?”. The “why?” here seems to be about attention span. So, for instance, if you look at an episode of “Law & Order” now versus 10 years ago the editing and speed is so different. How can a book compare? Exams are still on paper, and handwriting and spelling matter… how does that fit in. And with these screens – well they are fantastic for finding and filtering stuff fast. But blindly following that without focus may risk the loss of focused reflective thought. How many people looking at Google go past page 1? It’s 1%. For some things – like finding a good Indian restaurant in Birmingham – that’s fine. But if you are searching for wisdom… well we are all looking at the same narrow set of information. Information only acquires meaning in context.

Now, I’m hugely encouraged that you are all here, and see value in being here… I really think that it is not Digital vs Human but actually Digital and Human. With digital complementing the human.

To finish I want to encourage (1) switching off; (2) understanding different communication technologies; (3) sleep.

So Switching off: I think we need to ritualise switching off our devices one day a week, for rest and recharge. If you can divide work and home devices, and then switch off the work device after 7pm that would be great. And you also have to physically switch your mind off from time to time. I read a book called Future Minds and during that reading process I wanted to ask people where they did their best thinking. I got about 1000 people – huge mix around the world. Out of them only 1 person said they did their best thinking at work. Quite shocking. And they were lying as they said “very early, or very late when no-one is around’. No one mentioned digital technology – was 2010 but it might still apply. And that wasn’t age specific. And to have a good idea, the first thing to do is to have space to have a good idea – have a walk, get in the shower… you need silence, stillness and slowness. All hugely underrated in the digital era…

The second suggestion is that we have to match the technology to the task. Paper and pixels are quite different. Screens are incredibly useful for connecting people, exchanging information and facts, for collaboration especially on tightly defined problems. Paper is good for complex arguments, spotting mistakes – copy editing etc, and for reflection. Work out what you are trying to do, what you want to solve.. and work out the best technology for the task. A pencil is a piece of technology remember, and an extraordinary one.

Finally I want to encourage you to get enough sleep. We can’t do without sleep – however much alpha males may brag about not needing it. Sleep is our library, our space to generate ideas. When we sleep our brains process the day’s information. And the brain takes recent information and stabilise them as memories… we actively filter information, linking ideas together to create new ideas. We can do that when we are awake. And much better when we are asleep. If we sleep less than 6 hours a night that memory stablisation is damaged or fails. It used to be that when we go to bed we slept. But not so much the case now… The information on the internet goes on forever… pressures of capitalism encourage us to work forever… that’s not our fault but how we’ve responded that’s a problem. Our bedrooms are now media centres… Recent research on Kindles and iPad is that the light of these in a darkened room changes our sleep patterns. Go back 100 years, to 1900, people generally slept 9 hours. The safe number is around 8 hours per night. Currently the average is more like 7 hours per night… and we should all sleep on that tonight.

Robert: I was taken by several things in your talk. Recently the easiest way to find my daughter – in the house – was to call her mobile! We have time for questions and observations…

Q: If I stopped doing all that, I feel I’d be the first in the room to do that… people will have the edge on me…

A: That’s the ultra capitalism point. That’s why people fear taking holidays… You have to manage expectations. When you first get a mobile you can manage stuff from the off… but when you change your use, that’s different. One thing companies do is to give employees two phones – and you switch off that work phone after 7pm. You keep your own one on but they can only use that number for true real emergencies. I lived in Australia for a while, when I came back there was a week where I could’t get email.

Q: Attention span – is it genuinely a new thing… I remember watching a 1930s screwball comedy with a group of students, and they really didn’t understand the pacing or editorial style of that – that’s an attention span change that goes far back…

A: There is a reduction in attention span – the dwell time on the Mona Lisa is currently 11 seconds apparently so those are real reductions… but that is not fixed. I’ve tried arthouse films on my kids and that is too slow… Titanic is slow too.. and that is fine. Quality matters. So good content can be compelling, there is so much dross out there… but good quality content is enough for people to genuinely give you their time.

Q: there’s a point there about being digitally switched off… for younger people to do drawing, painting, music, etc. where you genuinely have to take time out to focus…

A: One of the key things in the natural world is the feedback loop… You are already seeing the emergence of slow pursuits coming back… And often it’s our fault not their fault… I get home tired from work.. the kids are on screens… but if I say lets kick a football or go for a walk they are out of the door in a flash. Last year we went to the Isle of Wight and there were debates about taking ipads. They didn’t bring one… They sort of grieved and thought about where to find one… And then they sort of relaxed… as if they were seeking permission. Kids have to contend with the real and virtual world. And manage that. And the virtual one never stops. And if you get bullied that carries on… And they look to us for permission/restriction here. Those offline days or holidays they will scream and shout but they will cope with that. And we are somewhat self-regulating, we haven’t moved to fully being involved in ebooks rather than physical books, we get savvy.

And now it’s over to our Jisc Chief Executive for our close…

Martyn Harrow: We are still early into this digital world, so we have to continue to reflect and understand that.

I  want to conclude with thanks to all of our colleagues at the ICC, our sponsors and partners, our speakers and contributors, our international partners, our participants both here at the ICC and online.

Just a quick reflection… On Monday we set out to connect more to take this crucial digital agenda forward. And that seems to have happened. So, lets finish by seeing what we have been doing together over the last few days. [cue a video of the last two days].

And with that Digifest is over…. Thanks to all who have been reading my liveblog, who made it along to my own or my colleagues sessions, and who engaged and chatted in person or on Twitter over the last few days!