Pass the SoLT

This week the New Zealand Ministry of Education released the latest report (well actually an annotated bibliography) identifying major themes and messages for the tertiary sector from an analysis of the e-learning literature. The key findings of the report entitled "Learners' Participation, Retention and Success in e-learning: An Annotated Bibliography" include few surprises and generally underscores the importance of institutional policy, teacher pedagogy and the way in which e-learning is part (or not) of the learning culture. Derek Wenmoth provides a useful summary of the major themes.

Instead of restating or repeating Derek's blog posting, and the report's Executive Summary, in the spirit of constructive critique there are a number of statements and conclusions that do not sit comfortably with me. For example, arguably one of the most serious flaws in the report is the claim associated with learning styles. The report concludes that “Learning styles are predictors and determinants of learner outcomes” (p.11). As far as I'm concerned the learning styles literature has been well and truly discredited by a number of leading scholars and there is very little evidence supporting this movement. Here is a link to just one report of many in recent years that challenges the validity of learning styles. Indeed some proponents go so far as to totally reject the claim that learning styles exist and in many respects the literature in this area is nothing more than pop psychology. I'm very surprised to see such high level endorsement of learning styles in a Ministry of Eduction report and it raises questions about whether the report was subject to sufficient peer review.

Another statement in the report that raised eyebrows to say the least is the claim that “females prefer a more collaborative, interactive approach whereas males tend to take a more functional approach” (p.14). Such sweeping generalisations are not helpful and this type of conclusion is not as well empirically grounded as common folk knowledge would suggest. Again I'm most surprised to read such a statement in a Ministry report which tends to discredit the validity of other more solidly grounded conclusions.

The other issue I have with this report is a common flaw throughout the e-learning literature in that the use of the term e-learning encompasses a range of practices. Arguably relatively little can be gleamed from studies that do not unpack the different assumptions, pedagogical orientations and tools of e-learning which range from reinforcing the practice of multi-choice tests to supporting media rich and highly complex online scenarios exploring wicked problems. Put another way e-learning is not a stable or fixed entity that can be studied as an independent variable.

At Massey University we intend to devote a forthcoming “Hot Topic” lunchbox session to discussing the major themes and messages in this report. I've already invited the author of the Ministry report to attend this session in order to engender some lively discussion.

Image Source:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghholmes2/5426242071/sizes/m/in/photostream

According to Rupert Murdoch, arguably one of the most powerful men in the world, Education is the next digital frontier. At a G8 Forum in Paris in March he claims that 'talented people in tandem with technology are making our lives richer and fuller'. He goes on to report how new technologies are liberating us from 'the old tyrannies of time and distance,' although Education is the standout exception that has yet to be transformed by the digital revolution.

Murdoch borrows Seymour Papert's greatly overused medical analogy to highlight how Education has been largely immune to the great changes of the last 50 years. In particular, he claims schools, and implicit in his thesis our higher education systems, remain the last hold-out to the transformations of the digital age. Of course, when you dig a little deeper gross generalizations that classrooms have not changed since the 19th century do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Indeed, he undoes his own argument by citing a number of innovative schools and learning experiences that are breaking the mould.

However, the assumption that Education is stuck in the past is common in the popular literature and Murdoch's address adds further fuel to the fire; and in front of a powerful audience. He also makes the case for greater private investment in Education and perhaps has his eyes on the rapid growth of Kaplan University, which is owned by The Washington Post Company. To the best of my knowledge, 'The Post' remains outside of the Murdoch empire.

It's hard to argue against the importance of Education and the value of personalizing learning through new digital technology. To his credit Murdoch gives some good examples of personalization but the deeper question is for what purpose? He fails to acknowledge that the new digital economy has yet to truly grapple with, let alone resolve, most of the great issues of our age: sustainability, climate change, population growth, increasing indebtedness of developing countries, and so on. Arguably, these are the real issues where Education, and particularly universities, play a crucial role in helping to harness the creative potential of talent and technology. It's difficult to talk about liberation and the digital revolution in the face of these challenges.

This is just a brief posting to alert people to this new open access book entitled, Technology in Higher Education: The State of the Art. The book has 17 chapters and is broken into four parts:

• Launching into e-Learning: Philosophy & Ethics

• The Old & The New: Engaging Students Using Various e-Learning Tools

• Collaborative Learning in New Media Environments

• Assessments in & Challenges of Teaching with ICT

Much of the content is drawn from the experience in Singapore. I can't say that I've read many of the chapters in any depth but those I have were not exactly gripping reading. Nevertheless, the book may be of interest to a wider audience of higher educators.